The Great Debate Stalemate

For centuries, “The God Debate” has been dominated by two positions: devout believers fervently committed to their faith in a living God; and adamant atheists vehemently driven to repudiate the Divine.

But I submit that they all miss the point.  Instead of “The Great God Debate,” I prefer to call it The Great Debate Stalemate.  

The time has come to admit that the debate about the existence of God can be argued ad infinitum and never be resolved to either side’s satisfaction.  

But the discussion need not end there.  We are still left with the important issue of the cultural value of religion.  And this is a debate that religion can win.  As such, my book An Atheist Defends Religion redefines the terms of the debate, offering a new direction and perspective. 

I approach religion much like an economist. I believe religion persists in our market-based culture, despite the prevalence of secularism, because it provides net value over and above its required investment, and because it beats competing belief systems in the same value proposition. I evaluate religion in terms of its pragmatic usefulness to humankind and seek to answer the question posed by William James: “Grant an idea or belief to be true, what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone’s actual life?”

Thus, An Atheism Defends Religion is not mainly a critical examination of atheism.  Rather, I am making a broad statement about the affirmative role of religion in the contemporary world and what is lost in a purely secular conception of the world. 

I must disclose that I am not a person of faith: I do not feel the majesty or mystery of God. But neither do I stridently repudiate God. Indeed, there is a part of me that wants to believe in God. And I want to believe in the Divine because, on balance, religion provides a combination of benefits -- moral, emotional, aesthetic, existential, communal, and even physical-health -- that no other institution can replicate. 

The question I present is not whether God exists, but whether the world is a better place because people believe God exists.  This book, as a consequence, is not a defense of God; rather, it is a defense of the belief in God and of religious belief in general. 

A mature view holds that religion is more about meaning and purpose than facts and events. Religion teaches us that our lives have inherent worth and that the world is shot-through with value. Paul Tillich said, “He who enters the sphere of faith enters the sanctuary of life.” And that is because the core preoccupation of religion is the preservation and perpetuation of human existence. Indeed, there is no more eminent ideal than religion’s clear declaration of human specialness and the absolute sanctity of life.

Faith is one of the most powerful forces in human development and a strong impetus to personal transformation and collective progress. There are countless examples of individuals lifting themselves out of personal misery through faith. In the lives of these people, God is not a delusion, God is not a spell that must be broken – God is indeed great.

The debate about the existence of God is never-ending. What is not in dispute is that God exists in people’s hearts, minds and spirits. What is not in dispute is that religion is adaptive, constructive and healthful – and thereby makes a positive difference in people’s lives. Reflecting James’ pragmatic conception of belief: When we act as if religion is true, we act with greater optimism, hope and benevolence.

In the end, An Atheist Defends Religion cogently explains that the most rational and definitive argument for dismissing atheism is not found in the interminable debate over the existence of God, but in elucidating the enduring value of religion itself.

Please refer to my blog Atheism 3.0 for a treatment of current religion issues from the perspective of a moderate atheist as opposed to the militant variety (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Myers) that has dominated the discussion for the past five years. These blog postings are lengthy; they are meant to be the Internet equivalent of an op-ed commentary, each offering in-depth analysis about crucial theistic issues from the point of view of an atheist who is sympathetic to religious aspirations.