Is it Wrong to Question God?

By Ronald Michael Quijano, LPT

    Blasphemous; as what they call it really give a ring to all religious people - especially religious Filipino people - to be offended when someone is questioning the existence of their God. Whether it is Islam God, Judeo-Christian God, or Greek Gods does not greatly matter, the idea of a god is an early attempt of man to fulfill its primal desires and wishes. It is also an attempt to unravel the basic mystery of nature that isn’t mysterious at all, given that knowledge and the scientific method are not yet available at that time. From fetishism to animism, to polytheism, reduced to monotheism, man has furnished and perfected the nature of the divine to match all his wishes. Carl Von Doren stated in his article “Why Am I An Unbeliever (1926)” that a wish - whether it has been desired by an intellectual man or an ignorant man -  is still a wish, it does not change. Another primal desire of man is to live after death. Life is too short for a man to fulfill all his plans, and creating such a concept of an afterlife is proof of man worshipping himself, to the point of creating a non-evident idea that will comfort them from the unpleasant truth.

    The moral values and societal approach that emerged from this belief has a direct effect on society from its earliest time to the modern world. Wars, hatred, and discrimination are the result of promoting ideologies without evaluating it from the first place, whether it is beneficial or harmful. From the killing of all Amalekites led by Moses to crusades. From Christian persecution to Islamic discrimination. From Iraq and Syria war to September 11 World Trade Center attack, all these acts are driven by their concept of God. Goodness will be vacuous if all of God’s commandments are unquestionable. Plato gave believers a dilemma with regard to morality when he wrote about “Euthyphro”. His real-life teacher Socrates asked “Are commandments given by God are good because it came from him? Or was it commanded by God because it is good?” Either, the two have their own problem. If you believe the former, therefore the concept of good is no longer significant, because instead of saying that God commands what is good, we can easily derive that God commands what he commands, any action whether it is harmful will be good as long as God commanded it. And if you chose the latter part, clearly, God’s omnipotence would not be present, and there’s a standard of goodness that came before God. It’s crystal clear that the core values and morality differ from one religion to the other, and the way they instill these absolute rules in the minds of their followers is hortative enough to make it a spiel to the other, whether they are driven by fear or they are just extremely fanatic to their beliefs.

    An unexamined belief can be very dangerous, whether it happens to be a belief in politics, economics, morality, nature of reality, aesthetics, and even religion. We as social animals need to examine a view that will be part of society’s long run since it will be having a direct and significant effect on us. There are many ways for us to talk about a certain topic. It can be discussed in the form of a symposium, dialogue, or even debate. But is it really wrong to debate about God’s existence? Would it be wrong if a society’s action is based upon a deity with no evidence of absolute existence? Now that’s nonsense, obeying the rule provided by a non-existent being and taking it as absolute. If all the views that have a direct effect on society can be a topic of debate, why is God exempted? The formal debate is a dialogue between two opposing sides arguing about the motion. The purpose of a debate is for the interlocutors to use their critical thinking skills, the art of reasoning, and fight for what they stand for. But as interlocutors argue about the motion, they must keep an open mind for the topic not to be inconsequential. A debate can also give information, learning, and trigger curiosity for more learning. And as an interlocutor, only true information must be bestowed, do not lie for the sake of winning the argument, because, in a debate, both are a winner as long as they can lead the motion closer to the truth. Do not debate because you want to win or you want fame, debate because you want the most practical truth.  Is it really nonsense to debate about the existence of God? Some might say that this is an endless debate because a God that hasn’t been proven can’t be disproved. At the end of the debate, we can’t have an absolute answer relevant to the motion. Of course, we can’t, we can never have an absolute conclusion to any motion. The goal of a debate is not to give a certain and absolute answer to anything, but rather talk about it. Even if we can’t have an objective conclusion, it doesn’t mean we can’t somehow talk about it, because again, it matters. If it is nonsense because it can’t lead to an absolute answer, then all the motion must also be trivial and nonsense. We must not discuss anything, anytime, and anywhere at all.

    Respect and courtesy are the primary guidelines of a debate. An intellectual debate knows no ad hominem. Debating isn’t about hatred, discrimination, and disagreement. If you are debating, you should always be open to the idea that your beliefs might be false, because that’s one way that holding onto them can really mean anything. If a favorite idea fails, learn to reject it, move on. The problem with debating the existence of God is that most religious people - again, especially religious Filipino people - are offended in this kind of topic, they are very sensitive. You’ll often see yourself surrounded by a statement such as; “Why can’t we just respect each other’s belief?” If that so, we should also surrender reasoning and don’t argue anything at all, hatred towards LGBTQ must be given equal respect if it’s their belief. Extra-judicial killing should not be discussed because it is their belief and they deserve respect. September 11, 2001, the World Trade Centre attack should not be questioned because it is an Islamic-Political belief and should not be discussed because we should respect it. Given all circumstances lead by beliefs that have a direct effect on our society must not be questioned at all. If their God commanded them to kill people with different religions should not be questioned and discussion must be dismissed because of respect. Let’s respect everything and surrender our reason. Let’s stop the inquiry and promote stupidity. That’s one beautiful, organized, and civilized society. Again, in unexamined belief can be very dangerous. If there’s God, and assuming that he created human beings and designed us to question the nature and the cosmos, and assuming that God gave us a brain, I believe God would be happy if we use it.

    A negative view towards debate has been instilled in the minds of most Filipino since low-class, unintelligent, unaware, and ignorant interlocutors tend to be the spokesperson of what he stands for. You can clearly see it on the internet, especially on social media. Those who are creating memes toward religious colloquy are giving a negative perspective on the concept of debate, which is obviously farfetched to an intellectual debate. If you are going to argue with social media users, you will never win, unless you invite them personally to discuss their view and intellectually argue with you, they will suddenly become saints. If you want someone to listen to you, give them courtesy. Make sure they feel that you understand why they firmly hold such beliefs, make sure the colloquy is healthy, and use language carefully. The formal debate is an intellectual discourse, while rants and ridicule in social media are not an intellectual discourse, that’s the difference. Three conclusions can be drawn from this essay; (1) A reasonable motion under the context of the formal debate is never a waste of time. (2) God or religion is not an exemption for being the motion of a debate. (3) Even if the motion won’t lead to an absolute answer doesn’t mean we can't somehow talk about it. You can never know harm unless you talk about it. While sheep in credulity, are wolves for conformity.