G-d ... Unwanted, Dead or Alive

When it comes to justifying the necessity of G-d and religion in human society, a basic ancient argument is often used. People tend to believe that only religion can justify morality and ethics, and that therefore we need religion to create social harmony in which people would care for each other because of their religious belief.

Some other thinkers go further, and believe that the only way to control the greedy nature of human beings is through religion. Still others believe that not only do we need religion for this life, but also for our salvation and eternal life after death.

I can't argue about life after death, because I can't prove that it exists. However, I can argue that as far as this life is concerned, we don't need G-d and religion in any aspect of life on Earth. Also, we shouldn't be worried about a next life now, as we never have been before we came into this life.

Here is the argument: Let's say G-d is dead, meaning there is no G-d as supreme being who is omnipotent and omniscient. Or there is no G-d who created the universe and no G-d in charge of everything in the universe. Therefore, there won't be a heaven and hell in which people will be rewarded or punished after death for whatever they have done.

Right or wrong, let's assume that this life is everything and that there is nothing more. Now we can conclude that since there is no punishment, we can do whatever we like. We can commit any kind of crime without being worried about life after death. Also, nobody will do anything good because, after all, there is no reward for doing good deeds. Consequently, crime will be the only human action.

But is this really a sound argument? Why should we kill each other when, with the help of technology, we can produce enough food for all? Why should we pursue wars and fight each other over land and space when we are able to control the population growth?

However, having the ability to do something [controlling our environment and behavior] does not mean that we necessarily do it … but why not? This argument could be sound if we did not have the evolutionary advantages, such as our brain and intelligence. This argument could be accepted if we were limited in our ability to control things like pregnancy, food production, medicine, communication, etc. As you know, [we are not limited], we are capable of controlling our environment and behavior. Despite having all these human capabilities, we still kill each other and crime is an everyday phenomenon in human society. As a result, the above argument [that crime would be rampant without G-d] is obsolete.

The other argument regarding the death of G-d is that if there is no G-d and no rewards or punishment after death, then one has to believe that this life is everything and one cannot expect to be rewarded for killing those who simply don't believe in one's religion. In this case, there won't be any crusades, jihads, or fetvahs in which human bloodshed is necessary. Also, there won't be any suicide bomber who kills innocent people because he believes that by so doing he will, by that afternoon, be in the hands of G-d in Heaven with virgins and angels around him promising eternal life.

Moreover, there won't be any excuse for evil-minded Nazis to set up ovens for humans. If it is the case that G-d is dead, then Abraham wouldn't be asked to shed blood for his sacrifice, Isaac, Ishmael, or a ram; it doesn't matter who. If this is the only life that we can have, then we shouldn't take it for granted.

We are obliged to love, and condemned to be loved. If this life is our only chance to experience the universe, then we shouldn't waste it by making bombs and weapons to destroy it. The only rational logic left is that we should see humanity as one body in which we are all related to each other beyond our skin color, nationality, language and physical differences. This is a sound argument which makes sense to me.

G-d may be dead or alive; it doesn't matter, as far as it concerns human life on Earth.