Twilight of the gods

The existence of multiple god-based religions is a good argument against any of those gods being real.

Let’s start with the hypothesis that one of these religions, with its god and/or gods, is correct while the others are wrong.

This would mean that god had chosen to reveal itself to a limited group of people, while allowing others to labour under religious mis-belief.

Believing wrongly at the very least means you miss out on benefits, and at worst means you receive some kind of punishment.

Why not start everyone from the same point? We should all know the measures by which we are being judged, even if we go on to reject them.

In pharmaceutical research (and SM) we call this informed consent. People who operate (in either field) without obtaining informed consent generally end up in prison.

If god denies consent by allowing people to believe in a religion that is false, it sets those people up to lose without having the good grace to let them know they are playing a game. No fair.

The second hypothesis is that there is one god (or perhaps a small homogenous group, or an amorphous god-jelly) that manifests to different people in different ways, perhaps according to psychological need?

This is possible, but it doesn’t explain variance between religions. Are geographically, racially proximate people in northern India and Pakistan so different that some relate to monotheism and others polytheism? The military history of the region suggests not.

Do pockets of Christians differ so much that they don’t all require celibate priests or tee-totalism? Many of these disparate Christians share ancestry, even extant family, so I find it difficult to see how they benefit from conflicting religious rules.

Instead it seems pan-god is either setting arbitrary regulations, or is so removed from our toils that we’ve been left to make up our own rules and (shush!) it wouldn’t matter if we followed them or not.

There is a third hypothesis – none of the gods is real, all religions are human invention – further discussion of that possibility is beyond this post. Check out these guys for some science-flavoured atheism: Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers.

The final hypothesis is that all the religions and gods are real.

Picture the scene: a crazy cloud-house full of doddering beardy guys (I suspect the Christian god looks like Sigmund Freud, what does that say about me?), lithe toga’ed beauties, wondrous painted and gilded beasts!

They cast lots for their share of humanity then live out infinity bickering in an eccentric but jovial fashion about the competing flea circuses below.

If multiple real religions aren’t explained by folly and madness, we are left with a stack-of-turtles problem – why do so many competing gods exist, and how did their different schema arise?

I realise as I reach my conclusion that I haven’t made any sort of argument in support of my original claim: the existence of many god-based religions means none of those gods is real.

Instead I seem to have argued that if any gods exist, they are batshit crazy or unutterable cunts.

Find me a religious doctrine which supports that claim and I shall consider converting.

Until then, I remain, faithfully, godless


No comments yet»

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: