Does God exist? For an atheist the obvious answer is no
while for a believer the equally obvious answer is yes. Arguments are pointless as
there is no common ground on which one might be based, but an intractable problem
for atheists is the transcendent nature of God.
For atheists God is an ideal they cannot borrow; a transcendent
moral schema through which their secular world cannot be interpreted. Fair
enough one might say. One might also say there are more gains than losses and
perhaps there are but the losses are important.
The essential point seems to be the moral nature of what is lost
as religious belief declines. God as an ideal is an open door to moral and
social ideals. Corrupted at they are by human nature, they are nevertheless
ideals which atheists are unable to replicate.
One reason for the
epidemic of self-destructiveness that has struck British, if not the whole of
Western, society, is the avoidance of boredom. For people who have no
transcendent purpose to their lives and cannot invent one through contributing
to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who have no religious
belief and no intellectual interests to stimulate them, self-destruction and
the creation of crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness.
I have noticed, for example, that women who frequent bad men - that is to say
men who are obviously unreliable, drunken, drug-addicted, criminal, or violent,
or all of them together, have often had experience of decent men who treat them
well, with respect, and so forth: they are the ones with whom their
relationships lasted the shortest time, because they were bored by decency.
Without religion or culture (and here I mean high, or high-ish, culture) evil
is very attractive. It is not boring
Atheists commonly have no
transcendent purpose to their lives because there is nothing transcendent
about atheism. Humanism is a pale imitation, a pallid reflection of the moral
imperatives laid down by an omniscient and omnipotent creator.
Here again we can be distracted by the endless fallibility
of human nature. The trouble is we atheists are still left with our lack of durable
ideals, our inability to appeal to a transcendent authority vastly more
permanent than ourselves. Equally important and damaging is that we have no ideals safely located beyond our reductionist methods of analysis. If it can be screwed we tend
to screw it.
This has the unfortunate effect of leaving the gate open for
fabricated social controls in the guise of political and ethical ideals. We
don’t like uncertainty do we? We are prepared to make significant sacrifices if
offered a more certain world and a more certain future. It doesn’t matter if
the certainty on offer is a grossly obvious lie, it still tempts the unwary.
Neuroscientist Karl Friston thinks our brains are wired to
minimise surprises. We want certainty
– preferably now. This need for certainty creates a political market, a forum wherein
purveyors of secular certainty tout their flaky wares to a populace hardwired
to be gullible.
There seem to be two factors working together here. Firstly
we have a problem in that a secular culture does not provide a transcendent moral
schema, it provides laws and social prohibitions.
Secondly, a secular culture seems to offer a degree of
spurious certainty. It claims to know more about the world than it actually does;
claims to be more connected to the world than it actually is.
These two aspects of modern life are tending to promote a
kind of rudderless moral drift which cannot be corrected and which Dalrymple so
tellingly deplores. Unfortunately there seems to be no secular answer. Many
atheists would argue that religious answers are no better or perhaps worse than
having no transcendent answers at all and perhaps they often are. Yet a vital point
is thereby missed in that secular societies seem to have only two long-term courses
Totalitarian domination of the weak by the strong.
Psychological conditioning of the weak by the strong.
Religious belief does not prevent either but neither does