One object of the human psychology that appears to be ubiquitous is an individual’s existential imperative to affirm a purpose to his existence through an appeal to the concept of an omnipotent and omniscient deity. Atheists take hold of this notion in argumentative supplantations of deity believer’s views by pronouncing that believers believe on a basis predicated by their unaddressed fear of meaninglessness stemming from the lack of a universal creator. The acknowledgement of this meaninglessness would precipitate cataclysmic shifts in their world perspectives.
With this assertion of atheistic ideology I have no contention, for it is evident what importance purpose conferring beliefs are to any individual. My contention is with the atheist declaration that God does not exist, which belies the rationale inherent in their crusades against anthropomorphic divinities described and defined by religious doctrines. Indeed, that falsehood and contradiction saturates these books can be demonstrably ascertained to the inquiring intellect, but from the refutation of the validity of these holy texts, must it follow that one should throw out all mentions and sentiment of God altogether? What I mean to allude to is that the general concept of God – what we perceive God to be – need not be abrogated, but only redefined in accordance with our expanding knowledge of the Universe.
A common premise as an adjunct to the atheistic refutation is that God is anthropomorphic; a definition inferred from some holy texts which depict the divine architect as jealous, malevolent, vengeful, and at the same time all-loving. These attributes seem to be projections of human qualities and as such one can reason that God is all in the head. But I wonder, what would be spoken by an atheist to the innovation of the God concept that God is not some anthropomorphic power removed or outside of its own creation, but rather enfolded into the entirety of the Universe? What would be said to the expression that everything, from light to darkness, the macrocosmic to microcosmic, inclusively, every single particle, is god?
The reconciliation with aberrations in the ethics of god that beset mankind with disease and genocide would be inevitable, for all shades of good and evil would be derived from the One. Even the physical laws so dogmatically declared as the principles that would lead us out of the caves of a numinously orchestrated world could not escape that they too, along with hatred, the irritation of cutting oneself while shaving, and the existential crisis in man, are all the expressed content of the one.
To be straightforward, such a view gives great latitude to the advances of an ideology that posits a “divine architecture”. Under such, we would no longer be denizens of a world separated from the hand of light and love, but the subjective experiencers of God defining itself in finite dimensions as opposed to the infinite depths of its formlessness. We might realize that from this placid formlessness and unquantifiable essence, arise all forms of the Universe.
Other ramifications include the recognition of two diametrically opposed aspects of any duality are as a whole unto itself. No longer would the perception of good and evil give rise to the systems which seek to stomp out the negative for the positive of a immutable morality, for the God concept precludes substantiation of absolutes in moral code. What would better suit the resolution of morally impelled disputes among peoples but a relativistic morality where the right choice circumscribes the situation at hand? Such a morality would reflect the nature of the Universe in its ability to change and accommodate circumstance rather than hold to rigidly immutable principles.