The following link is a pretty strong argument that “Google” is in fact the closest thing to God we will ever know, displaying many traditional qualities of deity including omnipresence and omniscience.
It’s pretty well done, humorous, and possible true.
However, it starts from the statement, “We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable,” showing the ugly and limiting desperation of modern Atheism. Not only is Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion picking up speed around the world (I know, because it’s becoming ubiquitous even here in Taiwan) but there are several other books tag-teaming against the Eternal Father. God Isn’t Great by Christopher Hitchens and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris are just two best-selling, internationally marketed books which seek to tear down the heavens in favor of rational secularism.
Part of me feels like I should have have written the books myself – I have generally the same arguments and hostility towards organized religion. However, to make the logical leap:
a) Religion is not always beneficial to mankind and
b) It is impossible to prove that God exists therefore
c) God must not exist
is complete nonsense. Claiming the inverse is just about as logical:
a) Religion is not always harmful to mankind
b) It is impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist
c) God must exist
I feel like I’m surrounded by absolutist-fundamentalists, either God IS or God IS NOT – neither proposition is very comforting.
If God IS it gives justification and power the growing number of Baptists, Mormons and Evangelicals who are literally taking over the world. I’m of the opinion that religion itself is not bad – most human beings need something like faith to give their life meaning. However, there cannot be peace between passionately held differences of religious belief. If religions are getting in the way of peace, they must be discontinued.
On the flip side, stark rational thought and science is about as gloomy a candidate for global order as I can think of. Dawkins book is good – there’s not much I don’t agree with – but I’m not an Atheist. I’ve have spiritual experiences which have lead me to a deep appreciation for life but I’m not religious.
Do I believe in God? Yes. But I refused to be pinned down into making any definite statements or qualifications of that belief. I’m hovering in the sane, compassionate middle ground between overpassionate zealots screaming out for love and attention, foaming at the mouth as they gather all the world into their fold. It is my (perhaps deluded) hope that I can offer something new: a rational spiritualism, based on the humanist principles of expansion and freedom. Maybe I just have to yell louder.