Thoughts on the existence of God
The universe seems to me to be both an objective and a subjective place, containing both external and internal realities. There are objective truths that can be proved by science and reason. There are also subjective truths – concepts or ideas that cannot be proved by science or reason, but which are nevertheless entirely real to the people who believe in them. God seems to be a subjective truth.
Two kinds of truth
Both kinds of truth are of equal importance, and neither should be considered superior or inferior to the other. Objective truths have practical usefulness. We need the truths discovered by science and reason in order to enjoy long, healthy and stimulating lives. Subjective truths are just as important. We love our partners, our parents, siblings and children. We hate certain foods or kinds of music. We put people on pedestals or we despair of them. Paintings, conversations and sunlit valleys fill our internal, subjective landscapes. The thoughts and beliefs these stimuli provoke are just as valid to us as the facts we obtain through rational thought and scientific discovery.
Either something exists or it does not
For most people, the statement: ‘either something exists or it does not’ would seem to be a pretty fair one. A horse exists. A square circle doesn’t. However, in the case of subjective phenomena, such as God, I would argue that this statement is not valid. I believe that God, as a subjective entity, can simultaneously exist and not exist. He can exist as a subjective reality for believers, and at the same time not exist as a subjective reality for non-believers.
Why try to prove God’s existence?
There have been many attempts to prove the existence of God – to bring what is subjective into the world of the objective. Among philosophers, there is the ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the design argument. But these seem to me to be a case of applying the wrong set of tools to a problem. It is like trying to understand love or jealousy by studying the chemical processes in the brain. For me, it is enough to say that, for some people God exists, and for others he does not. This is where the matter should end. We should accept that God is part of some people’s internal, subjective landscapes, and for others, he is not.
Confusing subjective and objective realities
For some religious people, the statement ‘God exists’ may feel like an objective, provable fact – equivalent to the statement ‘bees make honey’. This is because they aren’t making a distinction between objective and subjective realities. It’s like a football fan believing that his team is brilliant with the same conviction that he believes one plus one make two.
For me, this confusion of the subjective and objective worlds is the cause of much of today’s strife. It is the reason for religious warfare, terrorism, hatred and persecution. For a more harmonious life, we need to try and separate out objective and subjective truths, both in ourselves and in other people. People of faith should recognise that their belief in God is a subjective truth, and that not everyone shares this subjective truth. This is not to diminish God or their faith – for subjective truth, as I have already stated, is as important as objective truth. In other words, God still exists – but only for them and their fellow believers.
Atheists should also recognise and honour the existence of God as a subjective truth for other people. They should not look down on believers or despise them for their ignorance. They should remember that we all have subjective truths, it’s just that an atheist’s does not include a belief in God.
What about the afterlife?
The afterlife is an example of a place where subjective and objective realities would seem to collide. Many religious people believe in the concept of an afterlife, whereas non-religious people do not. The statement ‘either something exists or it does not’ would seem to apply here. There’s no wriggle room. This is because we are no longer talking about belief, but experience. We might be able to claim that belief in God or the immortal soul is an example of a subjective truth, but experience, such as life after death, seems to be a ‘something’ that either exists or does not.
To this powerful argument, I would reply that when someone dies, the subjective experience of an individual either continues or it does not. If it continues, then that person experiences an afterlife. If it doesn’t, then he or she experiences nothing – the subjective dies along with the subject, so maybe the whole question becomes irrelevant.
Or maybe not: if life does continue after death, doesn’t this mean that subjective truth becomes objective truth? Doesn’t it mean that God is real in the objective as well as the subjective sense? I would say no, for if there is an afterlife, it is likely to be a completely subjective one, since there is no objective evidence that it exists. Therefore one still cannot say that God exists in an objective sense.
Similarly, if life doesn’t continue after death, does it somehow prove that there is no such thing as subjective truth, that there is only truth and untruth, and God has been proved as an untruth. I would answer no to this as well, because the lack of an afterlife does not invalidate the subjective truth of an afterlife for those who believe in it. Subjective truth does not, after all, have to be provable or true in the objective sense. Its lack of provability, even its lack of objective reality, does not diminish the truth of its subjective reality in the mind of the believer.
