1st Objection: On Sociopolitical devices and Metaphysics

"Psychogenesis of Religion

I would like you to set up the following scenario: Imagine a man. Alone, in the dusk, hiking through a vast field. Suddenly, a lightning bolt crosses the sky, hitting a nearby tree. The tree is instantly set aflame. The sudden bolt. The fearful roaring. The tree, set aflame.

Witnessing this immense power, he falls on his knees, obviously terrorized. This man, living in the Holocene/Paleolithic, has not the knowledge, nor the abstract thinking to harness the required knowledge, in order to understand the natural world that surrounds him.

He reaches the conclusion that some powerful, higher being, must be behind those displays of unspeakable power. Those beliefs rang equally true when humans started organizing themselves into more complex social structures, and adopted an agrary way of life, forcing them to settle. That's when natural disasters became a major - vital - worry in human life. Coincidentally, religion started developing prominently from this period on: human beings sought the protection of those supposed higher entities. They also sought their favor.
Hence, we can infer that religion is a projection of our fears, anxieties. We seek a way to cope with our insecurities: we fear death. Some fear the pain that death can bring about, and some fear the lack of meaning provenient from an eternal death. Let us analyze this question fairly and broadly:

- Human beings naturally fear death. They fear death on the grounds of losing the significance of life.
- Afterlife is common to every major religion (if not common to every religion). The doctrine of the soul that is also common to, at least, the three Abrahamic religions state that the seat of counsciousness is the soul. Therefore, there is no loss of identity, which allows the individual to retain his/her identity after his/her death, which allows for the continuity of significance.
- Religion offers eternal life, taking the fear of death from us.

This drawing to religion is not a conscious action. It is clearly an
inconscious action, encouraged by our deepest fears and anxieties."

Flávio Santos, A Counterargument to 'My Belief in God' by Arif, 6/17/06

The explanation of God that Feynmen offered in the previous post is quite clear, and rings true when we consider and analyze the human nature. Ever since the Paleolithic, human beings started developing and providing them with the powers and explanations of the natural world around them. How could they understand the complex world surrounding them, resorting to the little knowledge they held? It seemed natural to explain certain events as "the work of God(s)", a (minimally) antropomorphic being that held the power to make it rain, to raise the sun from its slumber, to allow the growth of crops, to make life of (apparently) nothing.

Several points must be conceded to Feynmen. Divinities are indeed a simple explanation for everything that remains unexplained. Supposedly, God created the world, so, like a watchman knows every intricacy inherent to the fine art of creating a clock, so does God possess analogous skills regarding the Universe.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -- Richard Dawkins

And indeed, believers do not cease to believe in God as soon as they discover that, after all, the Sun is not lifted by the hand of God. They progress to a even broader set of explanations, that ultimately seem logical: Certainly, God lifting the Sun, or making Earth spin like a spin top sounds and strikes us as totally illogical. We now possess a fair grasp of the basic laws that direct the Universe, at least at a local level.
Yuri Gagarin is attributed with the following quote, while he orbited Earth:

"I don't see any God up here."

And we didn't spot a God, in the sky, where most religions placed their Gods. Certainly, the soviet spacecraft Vostok 1 didn't spot a God up there, while orbiting the blue orb, being witnessed by the first time by a human being.

God has indeed served the purpose of filling holes in science. Consciousness? Believers would tell you that your brain is unable to give rise to conscious processes by itself. René Descartes, a 17th century philosopher, proposed a dualism: the body would interact with the distinctly mental (the soul) through the pineal gland, which is a small endocrine gland in the brain. The Universe? The Roman Catholic Church accepted the Big Bang theory. It came as a surprise, since the Church is known to resist to scientific breakthroughs. But this one had something special to it; something that entranced the Pope Pius XII. The Universe had a beginning. And, to possess a beginning, it needs a first cause. The theory seemed to confirm the first verses written in the Book of Genesis.

Certainly, God is not present in microscopic cells. At least, we didn't notice him. Yuri Gagarin, aboard his Vostok, didn't see any God. And it looks like God doesn't dwell in the Moon, or in any spot of our Visible Universe. The Hubble Space Telescope would have shown us the Paradise long ago, if such thing existed in our Universe, and I'm sure such would have a huge impact in our cosmology (not for the existence of God, mind you, but due to a paradise out of nowhere. The Muslim paradise is specially unsettling, presenting men with 70 virgins.).

Certainly, God is much more than a possible metaphysical entity. It is also a symbol. As a symbol, it is subject to manipulation by the human reason. And, independently of its metaphysical proprieties, it has certainly been manipulated before, as it is now. Seneca the Younger, a Roman philosopher, said:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD)

Whatever is the use we may attribute to God, it doesn't prove it; as it also does not disprove it. So, we remain in a metaphysical ignorance about the proprieties of God. Such ignorance can be brought to the spotlight, if we allow ourselves a moment to quickly analyze the argument for the belief in God, brought forth by the french philosopher Blaise Pascal. This argument, known as Pascal's Wager, presents in the following form:

1. It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
2. If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
3. If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
4. It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
   Therefore:
5. It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is to disbelieve in the Christian God.
6. If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
   Therefore:
7. It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational to disbelieve in the Christian God.

A powerful argument, in the eyes of the believer. But, if you allow some thought about it, you'll ultimately find a logical fallacy. The fallacy, known as false dichotomy, is present in the argumentation, since Pascal relies on the assumption that either God exists as described by Christian Theology, or God doesn't exist. But are those the only possibilities?

Why would God behave as stated in Christian theology? God could even favor atheists instead of believers, for some reason that is unknown to us. And why a Christian God? Certainly, there could be more than one god. The Wager fails in the way it incurs in a false dichotomy. It relies on the assumptions that only God does exist as described by Christian Theology or God does not exist.

So, we conclude that only because people attribute mysteries to God, that does not mean that such is the nature of God, if he does exist. Certainly, one may look at a watch and discover the way it works, even being able to reconstruct a similar watch, with more or less precision. But he doesn't see the creator of the watch there. He may describe the creator as skillful, resourceful, etc. But, ultimately, he cannot discover the fundamental proprieties of the creator. Just as God may exist ex-nihilo, and assuming such possibility, all we can do is speculate about is existence or non-existence. Let me remind the reader that being unable to prove X does not prove that X does not exist.

My point is not to prove God. Alas, I'm an atheist. But one cannot discard the possibility on purely psychological and social grounds.