A Sociological Argument for the Existence of God
A warning in advance, that this argument will far from satisfy a religious believer because it does not in any way seek to affirm any traditional image of God. Furthermore, I do not consider it the burden of Theology to prove the existence of God, but rather the burden of Philosophy, hence this post’s categorisation.
This argument relies, or at least touches, on the following beliefs:
- Our reality is defined by our perception, beyond that which we experience and participate in nothing (specifically to us, as individuals) exists.
- In light of this, to claim objectivity is futile, we must view everything in light of a certain degree of subjectivity.
- The traditional ways of thinking about God are too objective, we can only hope to understand him in the context of our own experience.
You can of course argue against these points, and I welcome such discussions as long as responses are reasonable.
The actual argument from sociology is simply this: that the very belief in God confirms his existence, to the individual, and, regardless of the reality of a physical/metaphysical being called ‘God’, the weight with which we may discuss him comes exclusively from the amount of belief in him that exists.
It is this latter point that allows us to give authority to God. As an example take the idea of democracy, it exists as a concept at the very least and as a reality at the very most. The weight with which it exists as a reality is determined by the following that it has. Although I do not wish to reduce God to a simple ideology, by any means, I wish to point out that he exists in this way at the very least.
Similarly to the seeming insurmountable popularity of the ideology of democracy, the Catholic Church of the Middle-Ages held legitimacy through God by the sheer weight of belief in him.
Thus, it is perhaps becoming clear that I am not making an argument here for a specific ‘brand’ of God, or even a physical or spiritual being, but a lowest form which has authority. Thus to neglect to consider the possibility of God is ultimately foolish.
My greatest concern at this stage is to stress that a sociological God is not limiting, it is not a constraint on the possibilities of what God may ultimately be. It is simply a means of justifying, or legitimising consideration of God in extra-theological discussion.
The greatest criticism I can level against this argument, in my own consideration of its implications, are that it reduces God to a creature, but further than that a creation of humanity, rather than something more. I will be dealing with this criticism at some stage.
