A Brief Search for the Origins of God and Religion

Where does god and religion come from exactly? Pope Benedict XVI speaking at World Youth Day in Sydney 2008 reiterated the official Vatican version of Christianity’s origins. He stated, “Almost two thousand years ago, the Apostles, gathered in the upper room together with Mary and some faithful women, were tilted with the Holy Spirit… at that extraordinary moment, which gave birth to the Church” (SMH:17.708). In contrast Hitchens dryly states, the whole concept was “produced by the close cousins of chimpanzees” (153). According to Onfray we invent gods that are the exact opposite of our mortal powerless and perpetually suffering selves, “haunted by our desire for completeness” (98). Dawkins says the need for religion (and therefore a god) is fundamentally irrational and this could very well be “a by-product of a particular built-in irrationality in the brain” (184). Or it could be mimetic? Some ideas, like god and religion, survive over time because they are “compatible with other memes that are already numerous in the meme pool” which are simply part of an elaborate “memeplex” (199). The contemporary atheist takes a more considered approach to the question of god and seeks to find other possibilities for the persistence of god or the need for god in contemporary culture.

On the origins of the three great monotheist texts, Onfray says, “Their pages no more descend from heaven than those of Persian fables or Icelandic sagas (77). Rewritten many times over two millennia by many anonymous authors who omitted information, included new information and reinterpreted old information to the point now where there is much confusion over what the texts mean and what purpose they profess to serve. Hitchens bluntly states “monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion, of an illusion extending all the way back to a few non-events” (280). The fact is, according to Dawkins, “we have almost all moved on and in a big way, since biblical times” (265) in the sciences, art, history, philosophy and our general knowledge has far surpassed anything that could be imagined in over two thousand years ago. “What does it mean to contextualize a verse that calls for a massacre of Jews?” for example, asks Onfray rhetorically (173). Is it a simple historical convenience, Hitchens suggests, that Christianity was made the official religion of Rome for purely political reasons and so “of the thousands of possible desert religions there were” at the time, “one branch happened to take root and grow” (185). Undoubtedly monotheism still has a significant influence on political power structures in the contemporary world. Stripped down to its fundamentals, Hitchens believes “the argument with faith begins and ends with Socrates” (258) as there is no proof either way. Indicative of how the tables have turned Dawkins proposes, “The burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non-believers” (53).

It is futile to even suggest Schiller should or could have created Karl and Franz as well-rounded characters in a contemporary atheist mould and I don’t intend to propose that. Nevertheless these characters do present a dynamic and potent argument against both religion and god that, in many respects, aligns itself with contemporary atheist discourse. It is perhaps for this very reason The Robbers not only shocked the plays original audience but also why it continues to resonate into the twenty-first century. So exactly where are we in terms of religion versus atheism debate? Onfray believes “we are now living in a new transition phase, heading toward a third era, the post-Christian era” (38) where he hopes, Philosophy will take a leading role in shaping its future direction. Dawkins asserts that at present, “Humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding” (374). Onfray concludes, “At this hour when the final battle—already lost—looms for the defense of the Enlightenment’s values against magical propositions, we must fight for a post-Christian secularism…” (219)

But according to Pope Benedict XVI this “secularist vision… presents itself as neutral, impartial and inclusive of everyone… in reality, like every ideology, secularism imposes a world-view” where “good begins to wane” (SMH: 17.7.08). This does not seem to align with Onfray’s vision. He suggests we need to “construct a moral system” without the restrictions of theology and science using “philosophy, reason, utility, pragmatism, individual and social hedonism” (58).