On Religious Thought, Part 2

The second reason for concluding that all religion is the product of man’s thinking is the incompatibility of the characteristics ascribed to the deity. Specifically the incompatibility in question is that between the deity being “all powerful” and the deity being “good and just.” Consider the situation. The deity has created in according to Christianity, the scheme of things in which man finds himself. This the deity can do because he is by definition all-powerful. But in doing so the deity has also:

1) Placed man willy-nilly in a situation not of his choice or doing. The consequences of man’s being in this situation are entirely within the control of the deity, the deity being all-powerful. Man’s position is that of a monumental charade, in which everything that transpires is at the whim of the deity. The deity thus is in the position of being not good since the deity condones not only man’s being placed in an untenable position but also the arbitrary results of man’s being place in that position. This all when, being all-powerful, the deity could at any time rectify the situation.

2) Instituted a system of consequences for any actions that man might take relative to the deity, even though these actions result only from the specific actions of the deity. Thus the deity is unjust totally and completely. The injustice is further deepened in extent: 1) Men differ in understanding, capability, and circumstance — thus their reactions to the deity will differ and to impose a common simple dictum of acceptance or denial of the deity as being the condition for reward of punishment means that men are not treated alike, and therefore unequally and unjustly. 2) The reward and punishment being eternal in nature are not commensurate with the actions of men which are comparatively trivial and temporal — this highly disparate system can only be regarded as being unjust in a most extreme degree. 3) The assigning of eternal life as an undefined condition of bliss as a reward for a certain attitude toward the deity is in and of itself an act of injustice. From what man knows, this eternal reward could well be as onerous as eternal damnation — to require a choice with no knowledge of the results or potentialities of the choice is extreme injustice.

For the deity to have ascribed to it such discordant characteristics as indicated means that the concept could only have been developed by the thinking of uninformed and biased men. No deity of ultimate wisdom, goodness and justice would ever have developed the religious theology and practices that have evolved in man’s history.