Is God?

One of Andrew Sullivan's ongoing themes is the continual debate between theists and atheists over the existence of the Divine. It's a debate that I don't see much sense to, and Sullivan brings forth the following quote from E.D. Kain that illustrates my position:

It’s just that all of this talk on whether or not God exists is simply pointless. It means nothing, signifies nothing. It has no bearing on the world itself. We all believe what we believe, and no 300-page diatribe will change that, be it religious or atheistic or agnostic. What matters is how humans interact. What matters are those fault lines where religion, atheism, politics, culture, language, economics, and history intersect and the inevitable human consequences that manifest within those intersections. I imagine a best-seller could be found among some of these themes, though it might not be so easy to pitch. Taking pot shots at those who have different views is easy money, and the choir loves it. Really trying to understand this crazy, screwed-up world of ours takes time and empathy and humanity….

Sullivan's rejoinder, alas, misses the key question and really provides no cover for the debate whatsoever:

But if the Divine exists, how do we regard it as pointless to understand it more deeply? And what else could be more important? I guess this betrays some core beliefs of mine. I do not mean to disparage an alternative understanding of the world. Nor do I disagree with Kain's disparagement of pot-shots on either side. But the religious question will never be banished from the human mind, even it is resolved only in mystery and epistemological modesty.

First off, for most people there's a lot that's more important than the question of whether god(s) exist. Like putting food on the table. Kain is absolutely correct: people believe what they believe, and that's that.

The question that Sullivan's missing, and that Kain has posed, is "Why all the energy invested in proving to everyone else that god does (does not) exist?" Who cares what they think? I really do not care that Andrew Sullivan believes in God, nor do I care that Richard Dawkins doesn't. Doesn't affect my life one bit. Where I object, of course, is when theistic whores such as James Dobson and his ilk demand that my life be structured according to their beliefs. (And, based on the evidence of their behavior, you would have to crucify me before I'd subscribe to those beliefs. They are completely immoral people.)

What's more germane to Sullivan's post is simply that understanding the Divine is not arguing for its existence. As Kain points out, you either believe in it or you don't. If you do, you try to understand it, but that doesn't necessitate arguing for its existence. The two questions have little to do with each other that I can see.

Perhaps I just have a weird worldview: Witches don't proselytize. It's not that we don't care, but we're not here to offer you salvation (because we don't think you're damned ab initio), we don't have the answers to your questions (we're trying to figure it out ourselves), and we think it's up to you to live your life, not us. (Even Christians have a saying the reflects this philosophy: "God helps those who help themselves." Think about what that actually means.)

So why should I spend a lot of time and effort trying to convince everyone else that I have The Truth, when I don't think there's a single Truth to be had? (Although there may very well be, but by the same token, there are many ways to get there.) I suspect that the root of the issue is a certain arrogance that seems to be part and parcel of the monotheisms, the assumption that one has The Truth and that no other truth has any validity. Like Joseph W. Campbell, I consider that the "desert religions" made a serious misstep when they left spirituality for dogma. (I mean, this sort of arrogance is not something you're going to find in Paganism, or Hinduism, or Shinto, or Buddhism -- you get my drift.) However, if that's what you want to believe, fine, but please stay out of my sacred grove with your hatchets.

As for the other side in this debate, I have no trouble at all reconciling my own theism with a rational mode of thought. In fact, most of what I see in the universe only reinforces my religious beliefs -- evolution, for example, as evidence that all creatures are, indeed, part of the same continuum and that all contain a certain spark of the divine: since we share so much of our physical selves, it would be silly to think I alone have a spiritual nature. And for those who might think this harkens back to animism and other "primitive" forms of religion, explain to me how it is more "primitive" to see the gods as metaphors than to see them as literal, physical realities? Because that's what happens: ask the next fundamentalist you meet about the literal existence of his God, and the angels -- and don't forget the Devil and his minions, as well. (If you want to be a real bitch, then ask him where their physical selves are located.) Ask me about the literal existence of my gods, and I'll tell you point-blank, they are metaphors and have never been anything but. (I mean, I talk to trees because they are good listeners and if you're patient you can learn a lot from them, but it's the kind of knowledge that you can't really verbalize very well.) So to the Richard Dawkinses and Christopher Hitchenses I say, "Spare me. I don't really care. I know what I believe and I know why I believe it." Which, I think, is more than most people can say. (Oh, and it wasn't the result of a rational, materialistic process either. I'm human -- I'm not bound by that.)

And this has been another installment in "Ask the Next Question." Because there's always a next question.