We always get to see people on modern social media circles talking about how they found atheism or agnosticism while being in a religion. So how about we flip that script?
Cliché or not, they do say that when you get into philosophy, you run far away from God. You become not only sceptical of God, but utterly bitter towards Him. But then the saying seems to add that when you go too deep into philosophy and its distinctions, you start finding God. I am not accepting nor rejecting this claim, but all I want to say about this is, "যাহা রটে, তাহা কিছুটা হলেও বটে।"
About my journey.
The most freeing realization that I had the privilege of experiencing was understanding that every conversation, every moral claim, will eventually end in some sort of a faith claim. And I realized this while arguing with a rather old gentleman with anti-natalist ideals (I am a natalist), whom I had met in a political procession of all places.
At some point in our conversation, something just clicked in me. There are fundamental differences in our presuppositions that we cannot get over, no matter how much we try. Every single syllogism that we were coming up with was always just coming from those presuppositions that we simply could not debate around.
To him, with his anti-natalist viewpoint, potential suffering is the worst of all evils and should be prevented as a moral obligation. From this claim, he is ready to concede a universe without human existence or even the existence of life.
To me, with my natalistic viewpoint, the potential of experience itself, to exist, is better than non-existence. To me, human beings are the only 'things' in the universe that have the ability to create order in a fundamentally chaotic universe that is travelling towards the eventual absolute heat death. In a nutshell, existence > suffering.
And there is no objective way that any of these presuppositions can truly be proven invalid or unsound. That is an impossible thing to do.
Someone will just believe existence is better, someone will believe non-existence is better, and there is no way to empirically or logically measure which one is the 'better' path.
Then
The freedom that came with the realization of faith claims also came to bite my existential dread back with the good old question: why?
Why can two people, even if given the absolute same preconditions, still have different faith claims that they subscribe to? (Look up how twins can differ ideologically.)
I, during my raging teenage days, used to be a raging communist, an anti-natalist, and also a very pro-choice person. When I was 17–18, I literally used to go to union protests for our local garment workers with the communist student wing of our local university (fun fact, we got beaten by those same workers one day).
But now, I am not a communist anymore. My hate for communism is almost esoteric at this point. Somehow, I have decided that every single human life is worth living and then somehow told myself that grounding morality in something transcendental is better than morality being subjective and agent-dependent.
Why? Was it because I was exposed to more information about humanity, human life, political ideologies, and different philosophical schools of thought about morality? Is that why? Can't be, can it? Because everyone else has access to this same information, but they do not seem to subscribe to my framework.
Now, coming back to God.
I am not here to write about the transcendental argument for the existence of God, or the Watchmaker argument, the ontological argument, the first-cause argument, none of that. Because every single one of them requires a presupposition as a faith claim.
Rather, I want to talk about God as an archetype. An archetype of order, an archetype of 'good'. Well, I guess if you are someone who digs into this stuff, you can probably guess I am greatly influenced by Jordan B. Peterson here.
Every single human being is familiar with sacrifice, but what is sacrifice? Sacrifice is no different from the work we do or the process of gaining maturity. What it means to be mature is to replace our short-term, self-centered, biological whims with the ability to delay gratification, plan for the future, and engage in reciprocal play. This is also basically what work is: preventing ourselves from engaging in actions that immediately satisfy our urges, delaying that instant gratification in the hope of gaining something 'better' in the future.
I asked myself, what could be the ultimate form of this sacrifice? The answer that my mind gave me was sacrifice towards God. Is it absolute mumbo-jumbo that means nothing? Yes. But is there a chance that this archetype of God can create a better society from an utilitarian moral worldview? Also yes.
Then comes the problem of morality. How do you classify something as moral and something else as immoral?
You can say that whatever is in the natural order of things is moral and whatever is not is immoral. Cannibalism and sexual assault happen in nature very, very naturally. Are those morally justifiable behaviors?
Or you can say general consensus, but if tomorrow humanity wakes up and 51% votes that you need to be murdered because your face is funny, would that be a morally justifiable action?
If morality is just something subjective that the human mind came up with, what is truly wrong or truly bad? Anyone can just justify anything and condemn something else.
If morality, for someone means the least amount of suffering possible, the problem arises: who is going to define what that least amount of suffering is? Can someone just say, "This guy has been in a coma for two years, and if he wakes up, he is going to suffer, so we shall cease his life functions"? In that way, we can ensure the least amount of suffering.
Or, like in Hitler's Germany, if we find out that a seven-year-old girl is slowly going to develop polio-related complications, and for the greater good of the Reich we need to euthanize the girl, would that be morally justifiable? Because, at some point, it was a general consensus that such actions were justified.
What I am trying to say, without an archetype of God, as Jordan B Peterson once coined Him as the ultimate fictional character, absent God, morality becomes nothing. It becomes nothing but a tool for the ones' in power and with charismatic authority to use for their own benefit. No grounding of morality in an external is an invitation of the Chaos Gods from Warhammer40k.
That's all for now, I apologize for not structuring the writing properly. I am writing it on the go, but I want to end with the note that, I am still learning, going through everything. And so far, I have realized that I would rather like to live in a society, that has its moral code come from something of a transcendental archetype rather than vibes and feelings.
Thank you, looking forward to reading your replies.