Atheism, & ‘Becoming God’: The Least Scientific Sorts of Religiosity

Image for post
Image for post

In Aristotle’s view, Government or Governance is a natural outcome of definition of happiness as the best way to order one’s life, and the best way to relate with others. In his view, it was impossible that regardless of right treatment of one another, that there would not be demand for mediation of conflicting paths by some neutral entity, hence natural emergence of ‘government of the people, for the people, by the people’.

Naturally, Aristotle’s philosophy was rooted in the belief that God exists, a belief that is rooted in human experience, a belief that is scientific. For though we were not present, not a single human being believes that the Pyramids of Egypt emerged out the Egyptian desert by chance all by themselves.

The belief that God exists is scientific because it is rooted in that most celebrated of scientific tools, which is, rigorous observation and repeated experiments.

An experiment, which replicated a million times produces exactly the same result is deemed to embed a scientific principle.

In the infinite replication of absence of order and beauty (absence of Michelangelo’s Frescoes, absence of the Pyramids of Egypt, absence of the Eiffel Tower, absence of children etc.) in absence of a creation agenda (in absence of deployment of man’s creative energies) there is evidence that the terms, Creation and Creator eminently are scientific principles.

We arrive then at a conundrum, for if man without God’s participation becomes like God, then man is God. But if man did not recognize that he is God prior to embarking on his search for God, we arrive at a dilemma, which is, “can an entity not recognizing himself or herself to be God become God merely by embarking on a search for God?”

The only consistency that is possible?

If man is able to become like God, it only can be because God reveals Himself, that God empowers man to become like Himself.

Thomas Aquinas recognized this beautiful implication of Aristotle’s philosophy, as such emphasized importance of God’s revelations of Himself, and incapacity of arrival at discovery of God with the unaided human mind.

If man needs God’s help to become like God, man only can become like God in personage or essence, cannot become God.

Even when children grow out of a ‘petri’ dish, there exists a sperm donor, an egg donor, and a scientist who acts as facilitator of a new child. Even here, creation of a new child is accompanied by a creator, or creators.

Unlike Aristotle, atheists confuse ‘feasibility of existence of God’, with ‘feasibility of discovery and experience of God with the unaided human mind’. In the realization that the unaided human mind cannot in of itself search God out lies an important corollary, which is, ‘the conclusion that God does not exist never can be scientific’.

If it is impossible for God to be searched out with the unaided human mind, it simultaneously must be impossible to arrive at the conclusion that He does not exist.

We find then that the conclusion that God does not exist only can reside in realm of beliefs, in realm of religion. With this in view, clearly the Atheist is no less religious than either of the Theist, or Deist. The caveat? While the belief that God exists is rooted in extrapolation of good science — the observation that absent ordered creation, there does not exist order and beauty in context of man’s physical environment— Atheism in entirety is rooted in a system of beliefs.

Atheism in entirety is rooted in a belief, is not supported by human experience.

We find then that Atheism is impossible to maintain, that all Atheists of necessity must transmute into Agnostics. But then again, Agnosticism still ignores the scientific evidence, starts off with a non-scientific premise, which is, uncertainty as to existence of God. In light of human experience, uncertainty as to existence of God is non-scientific, for human experience declares existence of God. So then, Agnostics of necessity can be scientific in their beliefs only if they declare that while it would seem God must exist, they have yet to consider Him as having revealed Himself.

Consider then the hubris of the demand that God reveal Himself to every single human being.

How exactly can God function as God if He has to pander to every single person’s demand for evidence as to His existence?

Rationality demands that God reveals Himself to some people, then expects that others will search out the evidence, evaluate for themselves, arrive at their own interpretation of the evidence proffered for personage of God.

With this conclusion in full view, it is the responsibility of every adult either to search out the evidence for God’s revelation of Himself, or to declare that he or she does not care a hoot about arrival at inferences as to personage of God.

On basis of the scientific evidence, the alternative proffered by Agnostics, which is, “while it would seem God must exist, they have yet to consider Him as having revealed Himself” clearly fails the scientific test, for it is evident that there exist people or cadres of spirituality who claim access to God’s self revelations of His personage.

The only rationality that can subsist in context of relationship between God and man is either of the declaration,

“I am open to searching out the evidence furnished by God as to His Personage”,

or the declaration,

“I care nothing about arrival at inferences about the Personage of God.”

But if those who believe themselves to have been opportuned to receive God’s self revelations of Himself do not make any attempt to disseminate their new knowledge, how exactly are others to evaluate the evidence for themselves?

The person who declares that “I care nothing about arrival at inferences about the Personage of God” ignores all of the evidence, lives as if God does not exist. Note, however, that he or she is cognitive of feasibility of existence of God, merely chooses to live as if God does not exist. While the decision to live as if God does not exist is scientific and rational, if we consider it normative that we seek to know all that we reasonably could conceivably come to know, clearly, it leaves much to be desired, implies a choice to not live life to it’s very fullest.

Regardless, per Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and per rational scientific application, the person who chooses to live as if God does not exist still must consider how best to order his or her life, how best to relate with others.

For a mind that does not order itself will allow itself to be ordered by others’ whims and caprices.

Consider then the two subjective, non-scientific beliefs, which are: “the belief that the unaided human mind can in of itself find out God,” and “the belief that God does not exist.” If you seek to be fully rational in the affairs of this life, clearly you seek to avoid any religious system that in whatever form attempts to foister these two sets of ‘non-scientifically rational’ beliefs on it’s adherents. Modern scientific thought and living demands no less of your cognition.

Written by

Educator and Researcher, Believer in Spirituality, Life is serious business, but we all are pilgrims so I write about important stuff with empathy and ethos

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store