Throughout many religions there exists a concept of some form of anti-god. Whether you name it Angra Mainyu, Satan, Asmodeus or something else, the underlying principal remains fairly consistent. This entity is there to test mankind, a personification (or at least objectification) of evil. In many cases, there is this perceived battle between good and evil, acted out between the God and the Devil (I’m using those names as generic place holders, attach whichever name badge you feel necessary). The prize being our souls.
Clearly I don’t actually believe either entity exists, and looking at the documented definitions of God and the Devil, there are inconsistencies (for example, the Old Testament Devil is vastly different from the New Testament Devil) which make them difficult to buy in to (but what’s new there?). So for the purpose of this post, let’s humor the concepts so we can explore this eternal struggle.
The weapons of choice in this battle are deceit, trickery and miscommunication. A rather paltry arsenal for two such creatures one might suggest. However, the intent of the people who created the idea of these entities is clear. By saying that the devil uses misinformation to trick people, the creator is laying the foundation of mistrust – mistrust of ideas that conflict with your own. The difference between this mistrust and the scepticism that atheists are so proud of, is that the mistrust will remain regardless of the evidence available. Followers are taught to blindly obey their leaders whilst turning a blind eye to any evidence that supports any opposing views. The reason is that the devil is seen as having the ability to alter reality, or rather alter man’s perception of reality, to aid his own purpose. The God character has similar abilities.
Returning to the title of this article, “What if I am God?”, I’d like to ask how those who believe in such beings know which one they are under the influence of. For example, it is generally accepted by Christians that the Bible is the word of God. But what if it were actually the word of the devil, created to throw believers off the scent as it were. Similarly, what if the reverends, pastors, fathers, saints and other senior members of religious organizations are feeling the influence of the devil and acting upon it? I’m not suggesting that this is a conscience attempt to deceive by the people involved, as it would unlikely they would be aware that they are, in fact, carrying out the devil’s wishes. Yet these people claim to be acting on the word of God, feeling the influence of God and acting in God’s name, yet they have no way of knowing.
If we accept, or even entertain, this notion, then the question has to be asked “who’s acting on behalf of the real God?”. What if it’s me? What if the atheists, and those who rally against established religion, are actually carrying out God’s will (yes, the God we don’t believe exists)? What if God is displeased with organized religion, and is acting through the hearts and minds of people like me in an effort to break the spell the devil has over the majority of people in this world? So rather, the question should be “what if I am acting on behalf of God?“, but that’s less sensational.
I, of course, don’t believe any of this to be true, but I do think it raises an interesting point for theists to consider. If you accept that the devil exists, and exerts influence over your life (in an attempt to tempt you down the wrong path), how do you know religion is not one of his tricks? Furthermore, if you accept that the devil has the ability to alter your perceptions (I’ve heard the argument that the devil alters people’s perceptions of science such that theories that contradict holy teachings are proven because of his influence – what if it was God using these experiments in an attempt to discredit the devil?) then surely you can’t trust any relationship you believe you have with your God, because it may just be the devil tricking you.
The answer to these questions, predictably, will call on one’s faith, and strength of faith. A knowledge of God, and similar meaningless sound bytes. My response is, what do you have faith in? Is it the religious leaders around you? Is it your holy book? Is it an experience, or set of experiences, you’ve had? Are these not things that can be influenced by the devil? Is your faith based on a lie? If you do not believe so, why not?
Atheist, this is not one of your more intelligent posts. Everyone knows the fundamental difference between good and evil even if they pretend not to.
Jonathan,
I don’t think The Atheist was implying that he doesn’t know where good and evil come from. I think what he is implying, though, is that many theists (perhaps not yourself) claim that the “fundamental difference between good and evil” comes from the religious texts. I would say they’re wrong, and I suspect you might also question this response too, but the fact is many theists claim the texts are the source. So, the questions remains (and this is a question I myself have asked theists, who have been much more intrigued with it than you, it would seem): how can we rely on the texts to know right from wrong. To me, it’s a loaded question; to you it’s a silly question; but to many others I think it’s a question they’ve never pondered before.
Responses from either of you?
Jonathan – I didn’t mention good or evil in the post, you are assigning those attributes to the God and Devil entities I spoke of. As EB points out, your understanding of God, The Devil, Good ad Evil seemingly comes from your religious upbringing. I do not think that someone who is performing an “evil” act is doing so because they are under the influence of The Devil.
In many ways, religion places certain restrictions on our moral choices and tries to draw a very clearly defined line between good and evil. For example, the “You shall not kill” answers the much discussed moral and philosophical question of killing the baby Hitler for you.
EB – I certainly wasn’t questioning the source of good and evil, I was simply countering an argument I hear from theists on a regular basis. The argument they make is that any scientific fact that contradicts their beliefs is simply the work of the devil. I had a friend argue that radiometric dating couldn’t be trusted because The Devil was manipulating the results with the aim of discrediting the Bible.
What I don’t understand is that if theists actually believe The Devil has this ability alter people’s perceptions of the world around them, why do they trust the experiences they claim to have with God?
Jonathan’s mistake was associating The Devil and God with Good and Evil. I did not make the association in the post. This association is, probably, born out of his religious upbringing (which entrenches these beliefs) and a belief that if The Devil really was influencing someone, they would be perceived as doing something “Evil”. Not to flog a dead horse, but returning to the baby Hitler philosophical question, surely someone who tried to kill a baby would be doing it because they were evil and under the influence of The Devil. A possible counter point to this assumption would be to question whether they were actually under the influence of God who was trying to prevent a disaster on the scale of World War 2.
But as Jonathan so elegantly demonstrated, the theistic view of good and evil is far simpler and clear cut. God would never command (or influence) someone to kill a baby, even if that baby went on to murder millions of people.
OK, I buy that. If people are silly enough to think that a well-tested scientific theory is wrong simply because it goes against their beliefs they deserve what’s coming to them. Our knowledge constantly grows, and it is true that some non-essential religious beliefs will need to be reconsidered as it does, but then that is true for everyone. New knowledge is simply that: something that noone knew before. Because God does not deceive (I can trust my senses, and therefore rigorous scientific results) I think that there can never be a contradiction between science and religion. Where there is an apparent conflict, one needs to give way to the other. I particularly like Cardinal Baronio’s comment in the (much-misunderstood) Galileo affair, that the Bible teaches us how to get our head into heaven, not how to get the heavens into our head.
I don’t think that someone who does evil is necessarily under the influence of the devil either. The devil can tempt us but can’t actually cause us to do evil. We must choose.
Ethics is another area that I don’t think needs to be in necessary conflict with religion. Once again, I think that philosophy and religion ought to harmonise, because there ought not be a contradiction between what God reveals to us and what we can figure out for ourselves. Thus, “Thou shalt not kill” is a principle that we are capable of recognising once we accept the inherent dignity of every person.
Jonathan – You say that the Devil can tempt you, yet you say that you can trust your senses. how do you know that the devil isn’t tempting you through your senses and, furthermore, how do you know that you aren’t giving in to that temptation.
Just, for the purpose of debate, imagine the following scenario. After you die you stand in front of your God to be judged. You claim that you followed his teachings and were a good person. Yet God is unimpressed, by believing the teachings of your holy books without questioning them, and following your religious leaders, and perpetuating the religious upbringing you had, you had succumbed to the devil’s temptations. After all, for many, believing is the easy way out. It’s more difficult, unfortunately, to *not* be a Christian in our society. What if the Bible is the Devil’s work, his great temptation?
I’m also intrigued as to which parts of religion you deem to be unnecessary? Presumably these are the bits that will be disproved by science. What if, somehow, science proves the non-existence of God (OK, this is a stretch as proving the non-existence of something is near impossible, but then again, many of the feats we have achieved were believed to be impossible before we did them – but humour me)? Would God become an unnecessary part of religion? More realistically, what if we proved that Jesus did not exist, or that his many miracles never happened? What then?
And by the way, this isn’t a challenge to you, I’m genuinely intrigued by your response. So many religious people are so sure of their beliefs, yet you seem almost doubtful.
I think your fondness for the Cardinal Baronio’s comment explains some of your other comments on this blog, specifically regarding your partial non-literal interpretation of the Bible. I wonder how you resolve that view (based on my assumption, please correct me if I’m wrong) with the very fundamentals of your organised religion (God, Creation, Virgin Birth, Jesus, Miracles, Crucifixion, Rebirth etc.)? I’ve no doubt that picking and choosing parts of the teachings to believe in makes it easier for even the most casual of critical thinkers, but surely it fills your mind with doubt?
1. Atheist, you ask how I can trust my senses and also believe in temptation from the Devil. Are you referring to Descarte’s malignant genie hypothesis? ie that all reality could really be the machinations of an evil power and not actually true? If you mean that, then it seems to me that the Devil is not so very malignant. In general our senses are quite reliable – we can act on them with confidence. We also know that they can ‘deceive’ us sometimes (eg the way light bends in water and so a stick can appear bent etc…) are actually only apparent problems that help us understand reality (the diffraction of light) – the point is, we generally know when they ‘deceive’ us precisely because we trust in them so much!
2. Your imaginary scenario does not make sense. My senses are basically trustworthy, and the world makes sense. When it doesn’t I am convinced that there is a rational explanation, precisely because this has convinced me that the universe is rational at base. (That’s the genius of Descartes – that he conclusively proved that thought exists, even if nothing else does). So now when I come face to face with the Creator of this rational world (the reason behind it), I can be confident that when I stand before him, he can judge me on my sinfulness quite fairly, since I have a basic knowledge of my sinfulness, and have tried to be faithful to him in so far as my human weakness will allow. If God is “unimpressed” by this, then he is expecting differently from what he teaches us in creation. That’s not only not fair, it’s not reasonable. But creation shows that God is reasonable, so I need not fear that scenario.
Now, contrary to what you suppose, God is not all that impressed by unquestioned submission to a holy book or religious leaders etc… He wants a relationship with me, not a zombie. I find that the teachings of the Bible are consistent with what I can know by reason and therefore I am not faced with the dichotomy of having to choose between unthinking faith and scientific (or any other) knowledge. They are quite in harmony – if they weren’t I think I would have to be schitzophrenic: hopefully I’m not!
Nor do I agree that “believing is the easy way out.” Nor that “It’s more difficult, unfortunately, to *not* be a Christian in our society.” Believing, and a relationship with God, entails consequences. You realise in a stark way that your life is often far from loving and that your call is to work at these areas persistently and patiently. Of course, you also have God’s help to rely on, so it’s not just hard slog. On the other hand, an atheist is free to determine his/her own moral system as far from reality as they please. The world is not rational (because that presupposes a mind) it is made so by our advanced evolutionary (but irrationally composed) intellect. So surely we have the power and ability to decide what is right and wrong for ourselves, if it is not already ‘written into nature’? In this situation, people’s moral codes tend to follow their way of life, not guide it. It’s much easier.
3. “I’m also intrigued as to which parts of religion you deem to be unnecessary? Presumably these are the bits that will be disproved by science.” I don’t think any parts of religion are unnecessary. If science proved the non-existence of God (or Jesus or his miracles), I would stop believing in him. Still, I think that this would introduce so many rational difficulties for me (like rationality itself) that I would most likely go mad.
4. The Bible traditionally has four senses: the literal (which actually means the intention of the Bible writer which is often not the strictly literal meaning of the words) – this is the most confused especially by fundamentalists who think that God actually has a “right hand”. But there are also the moral (here a wider term than merely ethical, but including it), the allegorical (how it points towards Christ) and anagogical (upwardly leading) meanings. The whole thrust is quite different from science, as I think Baronio’s comment aptly illustrates, which is why I like it so much.
5. Thus, I do believe in a “literal” interpretation, when that is understood correctly. Thus I believe that the Bible’s teachings on “God, Creation, Virgin Birth, Jesus, Miracles, Crucifixion, Rebirth”. Once again I have the advantage of a Church who has consistently explained these things and shown how their inner fabric fits together (take one away and the rest fall – quite amazing really!). It’s not really “picking and choosing” – there are some bits I’d quite like done away with at times, but I recognise that that would be like trying to get rid of a hole in a shirt by ripping it out. There are also bits which are difficult to understand or harmonise – thus the weird and wonderful world of theology. Thus, I admit difficulties, but in the words of another great Cardinal, John Henry Newman: “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” By the way, this is also analogicaly true in science which is constantly faced with anomalies and difficulties. I don’t see scientists abandoning science just because of that, and don’t expect to – it’s all part of the fun!
Oops, sorry, sometimes I’m not good with my html. I meant to close the italics after only one word! Also, Inow regularly get a 403 error when I try to access this site (access forbidden). I hope it’s not the Devil’s work, hahahahaha…
Off topic, no response expected.
=I don’t see scientists abandoning science just because of that, and don’t expect to
I agree but point to bureaucracy in the field of science and not science, or did you intentionally miss the problem? Cosmologist who have ideas outside the big bang theory being denied telescope time despite red shift and quasar controversies for example. I wish there was more on the internet about the plasma cosmology theory as it is scoffed at but they don’t explain why they deny it.
Jonathan – Apologies for any trouble you’ve had accessing the site this weekend and last. This was caused by technical problems with our host which should now be resolved. The same problem took down a number of Church and pro-religion sites as well, so perhaps God was throwing the baby out with the bath water(!)
Atheist: I had a good chuckle with your notion of the “devil” stealthily acting like god…very clever indeed. As a former atheist, I’m happy to find out that the real god is actually me! So be careful what you’re thinking, everybody!
You can’t be god! I’m god! And even though I don’t have any scientific evidence to back this claim up, I still believe it blindly because I know if I have enough faith I’m right!