In the last consequence, perhaps all human thought is faith in the last consequence. Every thought is only a model of reality; Einstein once said "We will never know the true ground of existence. Never." Even mathematics isn't 100% proofable. There is still a grain of faith in it: You'll have to believe in logic and in the axioms of mathematics.
When I'm asked how to "proof" the non-existence of God, the only rather consistent thing I can think of is an indirect proof:
Centuries ago, God was everywhere. The earth was the center of the (rather small) universe. God was in the heavens, looking from above. He created Man and all Life on Earth. Without him, the Universe would collapse instantaneously. Angels and Demons were a reality. Morals and Ethics weren't thinkable without God.
As now human knowledge proceeded, God was pushed into withdrawal.
Existence of Life? We don't need God anymore to explain it.
The Universe? We have cosmological theories which don't need any creator anymore.
Morals and Ethics? Result of neuropsychological and evolutionary phenomena. No God necessary. Religion proofed in some instances to be even malicious.
The Soul? Still a tricky question, but we must live with the strong possibility that it's only a neurophysiological phenomenon, and that death is similiar to a 'power-down', with eternal nothingness afterwards.
So God became smaller and smaller, converging towards zero.
The only God I can think of is of a smiling being which set this whole thing into existence, created it with his/her overwhelming intelligence so that all this keeps together with amazing self-organizing ability.
On the other hand, you can also say that the Universe is simply self-organizing, and simply there.
Whether one or the another is true? I don't know. This is left to choice. I can only say that the second alternative seems much more attractive to me. Yes, I argue with belief. So my "religious dogma" would be summarized: "God exists, but he is nothing more than a cultural-psychological phenomenon" |
