The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues
Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues

Believing in God can be a reasonable choice

By Deen Chatterjee

It is usually claimed that though one cannot prove that God exists, one cannot disprove God’s existence either. Showing that something cannot be proved to exist is not the same as proving that it doesn’t exist. To establish that God doesn’t exist, we need a different set of arguments, which many people believe is impossible to come up with.

So, if God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved, then faith is claimed to have a legitimate place in one’s belief in God. On the other hand, if God’s existence could be categorically disproved, then, it is believed, it would be silly to have faith in such a nonexistent God.

I would like to show that one can prove that God doesn’t exist. But I will also show that this doesn’t mean that belief in a nonexistent God is silly. In fact, belief in such a God can be quite reasonable.

It is easy to show that all proofs for God’s existence are faulty, so one cannot prove that God exists. But how can one prove that God doesn’t exist? Let’s find out.

We cannot disprove that dragons and unicorns exist, though routinely we say that they don’t. To be logically precise, we should leave open the possibility of their existence because there’s nothing illogical in the claim that they exist-though in the real world, it is highly unlikely that we’ll find them.

God is not to be found in our natural world because God is claimed to be a supernatural being. And no arguments can prove that God exists. So, like dragons and unicorns, why shouldn’t we say that God doesn’t exist? Why should we make an exception in the case of God?

The answer is obvious. We are so desperate to believe in God that we bypass our everyday epistemic standards. Because we believe that God’s existence is left open, we harbor the wishful idea that God exists, simply as a matter of faith. But then we go against our own logic by falsely proclaiming that God exists as a matter of fact.

Speaking of logic, let’s be logical all the way. Dragons and unicorns have more logical claim for existence than God because the notions of a dragon or a unicorn are not logically problematic, but the concept of God, as traditionally defined and understood, is.

The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and all-good God is hard to put together logically. Each of these three attributes is conceptually questionable, and taken together, they are mutually inconsistent. All this conceptual mess makes the notion of God very implausible, logically speaking.

If the notion of an entity is logically questionable, then the entity is empirically improbable if not nonexistent. For instance, we can say that a square-circle doesn’t exist because the very concept doesn’t make logical sense. For something to exist, it has to be probable. But for it to be probable it has to be possible, and for it to be possible, it has to be logically feasible.

Given all this, it can be said with confidence that the probability of God’s existence is practically nil. I use the phrase “practically nil” instead of “absolutely nil” because it is always prudent to be charitable.

If God’s existence cannot be proved and in addition be disproved, does this make our faith in God silly? Not necessarily. Our faith in the existence of God is a dogma-perhaps the greatest dogma of all. A dogma is by definition not rational. So belief in God is not rational. But can it be reasonable? Yes, it can be, under certain conditions. Something that is not rational can still be reasonable if it is less dogmatic and if it serves some useful purpose. Let me explain.

There is a difference between fantasy and illusion. A fantasy is a make-believe reality that we find useful, though we know that it is not true. There’s nothing wrong with fantasy, within limit. In fact, it can add spice to our life. An illusion, on the other hand, is a falsehood that we mistakenly believe to be true. Unlike a fantasy, an illusion is almost always harmful.

Our belief that God exists is an illusion. And it has hurt humankind all through the ages. Look at all the warfare, genocide, conflict, intolerance and hatred based on the belief that God exists. However, if our belief in God is taken as a fantasy, that is, as a wishful and make believe therapeutic device to improve our life and the human condition (say, by injecting love and acceptance in the name of God), then that’s another story.

But being a fantasy, it requires that we are fully aware that God doesn’t exist, so there’s no point in going to war in the name of God or preying on the unsuspecting mind or on the developing world, as missionaries and evangelists routinely do.

This is how faith in God can be reasonable, though it can never be rational. This is what I call a reasonable faith as opposed to a dogmatic faith when it comes to God. Of course, many people don’t have a need to rely on a faith in God, however reasonable it may be, to bring love and meaning in their life. They can do it without God.

One may question whether one can have an effective fantasy that can be inspiring and motivating if one knows that it is not true. But why should this be a problem? We all know that Jesus was not born in late December but probably in April, but that doesn’t take away the joy and significance of Christmas, though the crass commercialization of Christmas is truly unfortunate. While kids know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, still the fantasy means a lot to them.

If kids can have their Santa Claus, why can’t adults have their God?

[email protected]

Leave a Comment

Comments (0)

The Daily Utah Chronicle welcomes comments from our community. However, the Daily Utah Chronicle reserves the right to accept or deny user comments. A comment may be denied or removed if any of its content meets one or more of the following criteria: obscenity, profanity, racism, sexism, or hateful content; threats or encouragement of violent or illegal behavior; excessively long, off-topic or repetitive content; the use of threatening language or personal attacks against Chronicle members; posts violating copyright or trademark law; and advertisement or promotion of products, services, entities or individuals. Users who habitually post comments that must be removed may be blocked from commenting. In the case of duplicate or near-identical comments by the same user, only the first submission will be accepted. This includes comments posted across multiple articles. You can read more about our comment policy at https://dailyutahchronicle.com/comment-faqs/.
All The Daily Utah Chronicle Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *