A Reflection on Religion and Morality | Part 1
In which God is questioned and shown to be irrational
Most of my experience & knowledge of religion is Abrahamic, so most of my arguments will come from there. I will attempt to address East Asian & Indian religions as well, though there’ll undoubtedly be gaps. Please let me know if you spot any inaccuracies or errors.
1
I don’t claim to have any deep religious connections that I’m subverting in an epic change of tune, though I’ve been a reform and conservative Jew—attended services, had a Bar Mitzvah ceremony—and even had Hebrew school from Chabad for a bit. I’ve formulated these beliefs in response to a growing feeling that what I believe should be rational and justified.
The first thing to recognize is that ‘religion’ is a pretty ill-defined term. It doesn’t have one, exact, agreed-upon scientific definition, and it’s come under some scrutiny recently (like since the 60s) as a Western construct based primarily on Judeo-Christian tradition. Many Eastern belief systems combine philosophy, tradition, and legal & moral codes, with more strictly religious aspects like creation myths or a personal God.
With this in mind, in Part 1 of this series, I’ll discuss the inconsistencies and paradoxes of the various versions of God we see around the world. This is the basis for my rational rejection of God and religion as a whole.
2
In exploring the arguments supporting the existence of God, it is essential to consider Occam's Razor, which advises us to favor explanations with fewer assumptions when confronted with conflicting arguments. When it comes to creation, the Abrahamic God is an unnecessary assumption. It’s worth noting that William of Ockham, from whom the razor derives its name, made an exception for the Bible, stating, "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident, known by experience, or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”1
Of course, this is nonsense. Religion should not be excepted from the scrutiny we apply to any other explanation of reality's origin. In this section, I’ll analyze, critique, and refute some of the most common and compelling arguments in favor of an ultimately great God's existence.
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument is an attempt to rationalize the existence of God given the definition of God and the fact that the universe exists. This argument is popular, and convincing, and has been around for a long time: its origins can be traced back to writings by ancient Greek philosophers Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Plato.2 The Islamic philosopher, Avicenna (Ibn Sena) has also been credited with creating an early version of the Ontological Argument, though this claim is disputed.3
The conventional view, however, is that the first example of the Ontological Argument came from St. Anselm of Canterbury’s Prologion, published in 1078. In Chapter 2, he sets forth the following argument:
God is defined as “something than which no greater can be conceived”4
One can hold a conception of God in their mind
Anything that exists in reality and in the mind is greater (all other things being equal) than anything that exists only in the mind.
So, if God exists only in our mind, we can think of something greater (a God that exists in reality too)
But that’s a contradiction of point 1, we shouldn’t be able to conceive of anything greater than God
So God must exist in reality as well as in conception
A compelling argument that seems difficult to entirely refute. In fact, A contemporary of Anselm’s, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers avoided the problem entirely, instead attacking the implications of this reasoning. He posited that if one thought of a really great island, the greatest island, by Anselm’s logic, that island must exist (see: reductio ad absurdum). Anselm responded with the claim that his logic only applied to objects which necessarily exist, so an island can’t be put through his argument.
A more powerful parody comes from the no-devil and extreme no-devil corollaries. These assert that Anselm’s logic can be applied in reverse to a maximally bad being, implying that this being (the devil) cannot exist in reality, or cannot even exist in conception, respectively.
Scottish philosopher David Hume attacked the argument head-on. A defining fact of the Ontological Argument is that it uses entirely a priori reasoning, that is it is entirely derived by reasoning independent from our experience, instead of from observed or empirical truths. Hume claims that there is an “evident absurdity” in this approach.5 Namely, that all we can know is empirical or observed fact, and that any purely logical endeavor to prove the existence of a being can only prove existence within our minds, not reality.
Ontological arguments have been developed and refuted in a ton of different ways since the 1000s, and I strongly recommend you look further into them. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Wikipedia)
Aquinas’ Five Ways
St. Thomas Aquinas rejected St. Anselm’s ontological argument, arguing that it only holds if one has a perfect conception of God’s essence, something he thought impossible. Instead, he argued in favor of his Five Ways.6 The first three are all very similar, so are grouped into ‘cosmological arguments’. The last two are distinct enough to look at separately: the fourth is the argument from perfection, and the fifth is a teleological argument from final causes.
Cosmological Arguments
Aquinas begins with the facts that everything in the universe is in motion, has a cause, and either possibly or necessarily exists. He traces these back to (an understanding of) God like so:
Everything is in motion and all that motion is caused by other things. Eventually, we work our way back to the First Mover—the thing that moved all the other things and wasn’t moved by something else—that’s God.
Everything has a cause and that cause is the effect of another thing. Since we can’t have an infinite chain of causality, at some point there was something that caused all the other things—that something is God.
Things that possibly exist are things that have the capability to or to not exist, while things that necessarily exist can’t not exist. If a thing can not exist, then at some point it did (or will) not exist. Since something had to exist at some point for anything to exist now, there must be something that necessarily exists—that thing is God.
Immanuel Kant and David Hume (and later Bertrand Russell) replied like so:
Kant said we can divide the world into what our minds can see and understand (the phenomenal) and the world as it is in itself (the noumenal). Since the cosmological arguments come from what we see (things move), we can’t use them to infer anything about what we can’t see (the original cause of motion)
Hume said that since we can conceive of causes and effects separately, we have no logical ability to go from an observed effect (the universe’s existence) to an inferred cause (God’s existence)
Finally, Bertrand Russell argued that the universe simply doesn’t need justification—it’s not possible for us mere mortals to ask about the cause of something we can’t experience—the creation of the universe. It’s “just there, that’s all”7
You may not be totally convinced that there’s no God. That’s fine. The point of the above is to show there’s no reason for God, that Aquinas’ cosmological arguments don’t show that God must exist.
Degrees of perfection
Since all things exhibit some degree of perfection, there must be something that exhibits the most perfection. Not only that, but the ultimate perfect thing in a ‘genus’ is the cause of the traits of all the other things in the ‘genus’. The perfect, ultimate thing of goodness is God.
This is, again, very compelling at face value. If, however, it’s taken alongside the common, Judeo-Christian, understandings of God as omnipotent and omniscient, it soon falls apart thanks to the question of evil:
If God is so good and powerful and knowledgable how come there are bad things in the world happening to good people?
Often, replies will reference free will or ‘soul-making’ (bad things are necessary for us to develop into better people…) to which I ask: why, then, should a child die from cancer? A child who’s done nothing wrong has a natural, evil done to them so, what, the parents’ souls can develop? Would God, the being of maximal goodness, value this over an innocent child’s life?
Teleological argument
Finally, Aquinas points out that even unintelligent beings act according to some order. Clearly, this isn’t thanks to chance, and clearly, the beings can’t be deciding themselves (they’re unintelligent). Thus, there must be some greater intelligence at play, telling them what to do. That intelligence is God.
Hume provides some convincing counter-arguments:
First, how do we know, from the little bit of the universe that we’ve seen (spatially and temporally) that the behavior of unintelligent beings is irrational? Couldn’t our observations simply be noise that happens to look like order?
Second, maybe there is an order inherent to nature that leads to this perceived intelligence in ends without a designer (this correlates pretty closely with the theory of evolution, though it was written 80 years prior to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species).
3
My discussion of God so far has been in reference to the Abrahamic conception. This focus comes in part because the philosophers I’ve discussed were mostly talking about this God, and because it’s more in my comfort zone. In this section, I’ll attempt to broaden this essay's scope and address some commonalities that exist in Eastern belief systems.
It’s important to note that especially going outside of Abrahamic religions, the lines between religion and philosophy and even governance can get really blurry. With that said, and in no particular order, a few of the most common Eastern religions in not nearly the detail they deserve:
East Asian Religions
Taoism
Taoism is a set of rituals, beliefs, philosophies, and moral principles all gathered under an umbrella term. The general approach can be thought of as a strong naturalism encouraging a reversion to basic truths.
The Tao (literally, “the way”) is an abstract concept that refers to the natural order and balance of the universe. It is often depicted as a path or a flow, with the goal of Taoism being to align oneself with this flow. This involves embracing the idea of wu-wei, or "non-action" and allowing things to unfold naturally.
Taoist thought avoids most God paradoxes via the fluidity and flexibility of the Tao. It’s defined as the “source of all existence”, an “unnamable mystery”, and an “all-pervading sacred presence,”8 avoiding the contradictions presented by a namable singular being as the source of all existence.
Confucianism
While Taoism emphasizes naturalism and harmony with the universe, Confucianism focuses on social order, ethics, and moral character. At its core is the belief in the importance of family, community, and, importantly, social hierarchy.
Confucianism stresses traditional customs and proper behavior in society, occasionally at the expense of individualism and creativity. Its adherence to tradition often means adherence to traditional gender roles, casting women as subservient to men in family and society.
Furthermore, its emphasis on social hierarchy leads to, believe it or not, a social hierarchy, which, though based on merit, can certainly be harmful to the individuals living in it.
Confucianism is much more focused on practical ethics and governance than God or creation, though it incorporates some more minor spiritual and mystical beliefs without justification.9
Shinto
Shinto is an indigenous religion of Japan with roots in animism and ancestor worship. It emphasizes respect for nature and a belief in the kami, or spirits, that inhabit everything. However, Shinto is also tied to the imperial history of Japan and its political power structures.
One of its central ideas is the concept of purity, with many rituals and practices aimed at maintaining purity and avoiding impurity. This includes the practice of misogi, ritual purification through water, and the use of amulets and charms to ward off impurity and evil spirits.
Shinto is closely tied to the Japanese imperial family, with the emperor traditionally seen as a direct descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu. This has led to the intertwining of religion and politics in Japan, with the emperor and the government often seen as having a divine mandate. This has led to a lack of separation between church and state and suppression of other religious and political beliefs,
Shinto can also be criticized for its lack of a moral code or ethical system. While there is a strong emphasis on purity and respect for nature and ancestors, there is no clear guidance on how to live a good life or treat others.10
Indian Religions
Hinduism
Hinduism is a complex religion (or category thereof) and is often poorly understood in the West (including by myself). While the historical factors behind these misunderstandings are a strong topic for a future essay, there’s general agreement on the six main systems of Hindu philosophy. Between these, there exists quite a bit of variance in belief in a creator deity.
The Sāṅkhya school is very rationalism-based, and mostly rejects the idea of a creator god under any ontological, cosmological, or teleological arguments
The Yog̣a school is theistic, and has been described as the “Sāṅkhya school with God”
The Nyāya school more or less accepts the God-ish Īśvara as having God-like powers and qualities
The Vaiśeshika school put together an atomic theory, but, adhering strictly to the Vedās, accept Īśvara as a creating deity
The Mīmāṃsā school totally rejects the existence of deities. They believe their existence is confined to the text of the Vedas, and so are their powers
The Vedānta school has a bunch of sub-schools with slightly varying beliefs, but a powerful Īśvara is common among them11
Of the 4 schools with belief in a creator deity, each suffers from similar fallacies and shortcomings to those which plague the Abrahamic God. Beyond this, the harm caused to societies and individuals by blind (or even thoughtful) adherence to ancient texts such as the Vedās (or the Torah, Bible, Qur’an) will be discussed in Part 2.
Buddhism
Buddhists don’t believe in a monotheistic creator deity (usually). Some sects have deities: notably, Mahāyāna Buddhism may be considered theistic because of how it represents the Buddha as a supreme being.
While the doctrine of Buddhism is non-violent and focused on self-improvement, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who admired the belief system in general, calling it “the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history,” criticized its life-negating tendencies regarding Nirvana, referring to it “as a … philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering”.
Sikhism
Sikhism is a (primarily) monotheistic religion with a genderless creator deity, signified by the term “Ik Onkar” (literally, “one Om”).12 Of course, this God falls prey to the same limitations as others: there’s simply no legitimate rationalization for Their existence or worship.
Sikhs also believe in the concept of karma and reincarnation, with the ultimate goal of achieving liberation from the cycle of birth and death and merging with God. Importantly, they reject the caste system, one of the most widespread and efficient tools of social inequity.
Jainism
Jainism is considered transtheistic, as it includes deities in its teachings but believes them to be superseded by the idea of Moksha, loosely referring to the salvation of the soul from the cycle of reincarnation. In fact, Jain philosophy teaches that the universe was not created and will not be destroyed, avoiding the uncertainties which plague any creator story.
Non-violence is a key aspect of Jainism, adherents are required to abandon any and all violent action, no matter the possible justification. This non-violence is by definition non-harmful, and is a guiding Jain ideal.
The integrated practice of asceticism, however, is rather worrying. Jain philosophy emphasizes non-attachment to worldly possessions when it sets the goal of Moksha. The strong Jain tradition of asceticism provides some evidence for the harm religious indoctrination of any kind, with or without God, can cause to individuals.
4
So, having shown belief in God (in whichever creation-y form) to be irrational, what justification can be given that flat-out rejection is, in fact, the most rational alternative?
First of all, proving a negative is pretty difficult, particularly when the other side can simply say, “Mm, no. God is just concealing His true ways from you.” There are some contradictions that almost make a proof—the question of evil I referenced in Section 2 is one, there also is the question of who or what created God, if we think of him as the ultimate creator, and Bertrand Russell’s explanation of the universe as “just there” shouldn’t be disregarded.
One of the most influential points that atheism is irrational, however, is Pascal’s wager. It goes something like this:
Either God is or is not. There’s no way to reason which is more likely.
If you say that God exists and you’re right, you win an infinite amount (eternity in Heaven). If you’re wrong, you have to give up a little bit of pleasure right now with no payoff
Obviously, whatever finite pleasure you have to give up now is worth even a tiny chance at infinite winnings, so, rationally, you should bet on God
Finally, even if you struggle to believe in God, you should try, because the even lower chance that God believes your belief or takes mercy on you for trying makes it worthwhile
The Atheist’s wager is philosopher Michael Martin’s rebuke, extending the possibilities considered. It goes a little something like this:
Either there’s a benevolent God or there isn’t
If there is a benevolent God, they will let anyone who does good deeds (regardless of belief) into heaven
If there isn’t, then nobody gets into heaven, and anyone who did good deeds will have a good legacy
In this case, there’s no additional benefit to believing in God, and one should go where reason otherwise takes them
There’s a lot more to be said about Pascal’s wager (including the assumption that the God one believes in is the right God), and Michael Martin’s response. Further reading is suggested.
Dismissing this Bayesian argument against atheism via Martin’s and other reasoning, we find ourselves back at Occam’s razor. If it cannot be shown that God must exist, or that belief in him is clearly beneficial, then we should prefer the explanation of our universe without Him added as an assumption.
William of Ockham – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ontological argument - Wikipedia
Ibid.
Proslogion - Manchester University
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion – Wikisource
I should note that the Five Ways as written in the Summa Theologiae aren’t supposed to be comprehensive, conclusive proofs, but refreshers for people studying to be clergymen. They’re still interesting and useful to analyze, though, particularly because many who defend God’s existence today use almost exactly these points
Cosmological Argument – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Confucianism – Wikipedia
Hindu philosophy – Wikipedia