50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (38 page)

Those who think belief unites more than divides only have to do
the math. The Mormon religion, for example, is less than two hundred
years old and has already divided into different sects, mostly over disagreements about polygamy. One wonders how long it will be before
the young religion of Scientology suffers its own great schism.

One might have thought that Buddhism would avoid breaking up
like other religions since its founder was supposed to have been just a
man who was only interested in suggesting ways that people might
better cope with suffering and desire. But it has. Not only has Buddhism split into many versions, it has also collected many gods along
the way. This is despite its origin as an atheistic religion/philosophy
with no god. The three primary versions of Buddhism are Theravada,
Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Many more sects have branched off from
them.

Judaism is a relatively small religion with only about fourteen million members. Nonetheless, it comes in many versions. A few of them
are: Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Hasidic, Traditional, Kabbalah,
and Reconstruction. From an outsider's perspective, it appears that the
only thing a religion requires to spawn new versions of itself is time.
Bickering over invisible gods has led to the deaths of millions of
people throughout history and people continue to suffer and die today.
Some believers tell me this turmoil is because it is in our nature to
rebel against a god or gods, or it is an inevitable by-product of free
will. I disagree. I suspect that a more likely reason for so much arguing
and fighting within religions is because there is no evidence for their
most important claims. The absence of credible evidence means
nobody ever really has to win or lose an argument. Disagreements
between two parties are far more difficult to settle to everyone's satisfaction when neither side has a logical leg to stand on. For example,
how can anyone ever objectively decide that a Lutheran is more cor rect in matters of faith than a Rastafarian? It can't be done. Who does
Allah favor, Sunni or Shia? Who knows? Such a question can never be
decided based on reason and evidence because the very existence of
Allah has never even been established based on reason and evidence.
All the monumental religious controversies that end up killing people
exist solely in the minds of believers in the first place so rational, satisfying, and logical resolutions are virtually impossible.

A religion can bring some people together, but with a tragically
high price. Each religion builds its base by pulling people away from
the rest of humankind. Striving to create airtight subsets of our species
is not productive or safe in the long run. Coming together as a species
and recognizing our common future is probably the most important
step we will-or will not-make this century. We have very serious
challenges confronting us. Environmental problems are intensifying.
Severe water shortages are projected for the Middle East. The ability
of nations and small groups of people to make or obtain weapons of
mass destruction is going to keep rising. The crisis of extreme poverty
in the developing world still has not been solved. We need real unity,
not the kind of shortsighted, limited, and corrosive unity that religions
generate. We need a unity that is based on the reality of who we really
are: one people sharing one planet. In the light of that truth, religions
seem no better than false walls standing before progress, prosperity,
and peace.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
New York: Twelve Books, 2007. Hitchens pulls no punches in letting
readers know what he thinks about belief in gods.

elievers often point to religion's ability to inspire wonderful
things as evidence for the existence of their god or gods. They
cite great art, music, and literature that may have a direct link to belief
in a god. Of course an atheist might point out that dragons and ghosts
have inspired art, music, and literature too but that doesn't prove those
things are real. Still, there are some creations that seem almost too special to have come from the hands of mere mortals alone. When I saw
the Pieta in the Vatican, for example, I was amazed by the detail. It is
more than a statue of Jesus's limp body in Mary's lap. There is an
undeniable warm glow that comes out of that cold marble. I can only
wonder how an artist in his early twenties was able to discover that
stirring image somewhere inside of lifeless rock. Some believers see a
work of art like this and come to the conclusion that it could only have
been inspired by their god. Only a real god could have guided the
sculptor's hands, they say. But if Michelangelo's Pieta is evidence for
the existence of Jesus, then what about all those glorious Roman gods
who also stand frozen in stone around Rome? Some of their statues are
extraordinary too. Do they prove the existence of Jupiter and Neptune? Cairo's Muhammad Ali Mosque is beautiful inside and out.
Does its pleasing symmetry and imposing visual power prove the
accuracy of the Koran? I saw fascinating spirit masks in Papua New
Guinea made from wood, shells, and feathers. Some of them were entrancing, absolutely unforgettable works of art inspired by belief.
But I didn't think they were proof of spirits.

Believers also frequently cite the accomplishments of religious
people who impacted history in positive ways. This justification for
belief has always been of interest to me because Mohandas Gandhi
and Martin Luther King Jr. are high atop my personal list of heroes.
Both men believed in a god or gods. And they almost certainly drew
upon their beliefs for inspiration, courage, and strength when they
faced powerful foes. Of course, given the private nature of one's
thoughts, we can never be sure whether or not belief in a god really
was their primary source of inspiration. However, I believe it is reasonable to accept that these two men were sincere about their religious
beliefs and did indeed draw upon them during their battles for justice.
I think it is fair for believers to connect the courage and achievements
of Gandhi and King to their religions. And I don't believe it is justifiable for an atheist to belittle achievements that may have been inspired
by belief in a god. However, the important question is how courageous
behavior or noteworthy artistic creations can be directly connected to
a god's existence. This is important because believers so often cite the
accomplishments of religious people to suggest that their god helped
significantly or actually did it. They see art and great achievements as
proof that they believe in a god who really does exist. But is it really
a god providing all this inspiration and assistance or could it be
nothing more than belief in a god that does it? After all, sincerely
believing that one is working toward a goal that will please a god can
be a powerful motivation-whether or not the god is real.

Let's not forget that there are many nonmagical things that are
capable of inspiring supreme efforts from people. Sports is an obvious
example. World-class competition routinely inspires athletes to pull
incredible performances from their bodies. Family love and romantic
love inspire people to remarkable accomplishments all the time. For
example, I'm confident that I could find the strength in me to lift a
fairly heavy boulder if my daughter's leg was pinned under it. Nothing
more than human ambition and ego can motivate and energize people, enabling them to achieve difficult feats from earning a college degree
to climbing Mount Everest. Most troubling for those who see special
accomplishments as evidence for their god, however, is the fact that
many different gods are credited with inspiring people. According to
the believers' descriptions of these gods, they cannot all be real. Somebody is wrong. Throughout history many people have been inspired by
their gods, real or not, to achieve great deeds, evil deeds, and seemingly impossible deeds. But note that, except for the rarest of conversion stories, it is always their god, the one they believed in who
helped. We don't see Christians claiming to have been inspired by
Vishnu to paint a masterpiece. We don't find many Muslims crediting
Jesus for inspiring them to write beautiful poetry. This common practice of crediting gods for special accomplishments within many very
different religions derails the idea that divine inspiration proves any
particular god is real because all cases can't be authentic. For example,
the god who inspired Joseph Smith to start the Mormon Church does
not sound like the same god who inspired Muhammad to start Islam,
although technically they would have to be because Allah and the god
of the Bible are the same god. However, Islam and Mormonism disagree on so many basic claims that it is difficult to imagine how both
founders were truly inspired and guided by a real god. So what is
going on here? Both Muhammad and Smith did nothing less than
launch new religions that have not only survived but flourished. Islam
has more than a billion followers today. Mormonism is less than two
hundred years old and already has more than ten million followers. It
is likely, of course, that these men really were deeply inspired to have
put in the effort necessary to create new belief systems. But inspired
by what? It would seem that at least one of these men did what they
did on their own, inspired by nothing more than belief, perhaps,
because the god who spoke to Muhammad and the god who spoke to
Joseph Smith are too big to live in the same universe. They can't both
be real, thus proving that impressive feats can be accomplished
without a god.

Any believer who maintains that real gods are necessary to explain the inspired works of art that are connected to their religion must
explain how it is that so many other religions, now and in the past,
managed to produce impressive works of art too. No one religion can
justifiably claim artistic superiority. A couple of hours spent strolling
through the Metropolitan Museum of Art easily confirms that. The fact
that great art has come out of so many diverse belief systems, as well
as from artists who did not believe at all, shows that gods are not
required for human creativity to produce spectacular results.

I spent a full day in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and left feeling
that I could spend a week more. While browsing through the incredible abundance of archaeological riches there, I thought to myself that
the artists who created the alabaster statues, the spectacular golden
mask of Tutankhamen, and case after case of elaborate jewelry must
have been extremely talented and also deeply inspired. I could not
imagine anyone producing such beauty in a casual or disconnected
manner. They must have held many of those objects with love and reverence, I imagined. Many of the artists must have cared deeply about
what they were creating. However, the fact that ancient Egyptian culture produced stunning works of art-much of it inspired by religious
belief undoubtedly-is not a good enough reason to conclude that
pharaohs were gods, as believers once claimed.

When I saw the Emerald Buddha and the giant Reclining Buddha
in Thailand, I admit I was overwhelmed by their irresistible beauty.
But it was not enough to convince me that Buddhism's claims of
supernatural reincarnation are valid. I was a willing prisoner in
Egypt's Karnak Temple for an entire day. The place was so fascinating
to me that I couldn't have left before sundown if I tried. It's the
world's largest religious structure and, despite its immense age, still
manages to stun visitors with its art and architectural force. But I certainly did not walk away from Karnak believing that gods must have
guided the builders' hands. I have visited beautiful Hindu temples in
India, Nepal, and Fiji and was very impressed. The Great Pyramids of
Giza are spectacular, too. But none of these are proof of gods in my
opinion. Not even the Bodnath Stupa in Kathmandu or the temples of ancient Athens revealed to me the slightest hint that anything other
than human creativity, passion, and sweat had built them. Perhaps I
have too little faith in gods and too much faith in humans. I do admit,
however, that many such sights are examples of religion's ability to
stir emotions and inspire unique achievements. But there simply is no
reason to jump to the extraordinary conclusion that gods were
involved, not when we humans are capable of so much on our own.
We can build pyramids. We can paint images that stir a million hearts.
We can chisel smooth beauty from jagged rock. We really are that
good. Those who are so eager to believe in gods might consider
believing in the limitless creativity of women and men.

In the end, we are left with a choice. We can credit a broad spectrum of unproven gods for all great religious art and achievement,
from the wooden spirit mask carved by a Sepik River tribesman to the
Parthenon designed and built by the Greeks, or we can credit the
people who we know actually did the work with mortal hands.