40%.  Why 40% of the public have made a mistake. Part 1

(In 4 parts)

40%.  Why 40% of the public have made a mistake

Part 1: I agree: there’s no point believing in a God who is not worthy of the definition

A recent census survey showed that 40% of British people are not religious. This is an answer that reveals a self-confident rejection of belief in God and a commitment to a secular worldview.

It would be good to understand the full range of thoughts that lie behind these 40% ticking the “no religion” box, but I expect that a large proportion are thinking that being asked to believe in God is like trying to force yourself to believe in someone you know isn’t there. In this respect, their choice is a noble one: they are refusing to hang onto the shreds of a faithful worldview for which there is not sufficient evidence. They are showing independence and a mature self-reliance, putting humanity first, and refusing to waste time in worshipping God when we should be focussing on our own needs – which are many! It is a bold decision that sweeps away for them the debris of a discredited point of view to open up the way for better things. Some may have tried to believe in God, but find they just can’t do it, and others may think that it would be lovely if God did exist, but our understanding of reality does not allow us to do so. Others will joyfully reject God and religion, regarding faith as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I am going to argue that this 40% of people have made a mistake.

If you conceive of God as “a thing” – like a cat, or a tree, or a pencil or a human person – and you think that being faithful requires you to believe that there is a cat or a tree or a pencil or a human person in the room when it is clear to your senses that there is not, and when the objection is raised, “No, it’s an invisible cat” you find this an absurd idea and then, trying hard to imagine an invisible cat, you further declare that there is no evidence of even an invisible cat in the room – then it is entirely justifiable to conclude that there is no God, so why one earth would anyone believe in him?

However, if we take a more thoughtful look at the faithful point of view, we can declare that this is not a good way to understand God. As a faithful person myself, I agree with the secular point of view because I don’t think that that sort of a God can be found in the room either. However, I don’t want to consign the concept of God to “just a psychological issue” either – though we might be able to agree that it is a psychological issue – but only after we have demonstrated that the statement, “God is just a psychological effect in the human mind” is not the same as declaring, “God does not exist”.

Let’s begin with the “thinginess” in the conception of God “as a thing”. No-one has ever thought that God is an object with a substance like things have substance. And we can all agree that there can be a “spirit” in the room without having to see or touch it – perhaps there is a spirit of sadness in the room, or of anticipation – depending on the mood of the people in the room, or perhaps just our perception of how the inanimate objects in an empty room make us feel when we see a picture of it. Of course, this sort of spirit is entirely dependent on us – the humans who are experiencing it. And in this respect, I think that “God” – whatever God means – will have to be “a psychological issue” in that we have nowhere to experience things except in our minds. However, I believe that a proper understanding of God will reveal that we are talking about “something” much more substantial than “the spirit in the room” even though there is no object in a “thinginess” sort of way in the room.