Is God inevitable in the post-truth world?

The first thing you should be tempted to ask is if anything I write is actually true if we are in the post-truth world. But, you won't because I can always ask what it means for anything to be true in a world after truth.

There is no point in answering the question if we are really in the post-truth world because the truth of the answer depends on the very thing we seek to place under suspicion.

Descartes mainstreamed skepticism and skepticism has gone to the point of questioning truth itself. For a brief period, it looked like science was the future but then we realized from scientific methods that we are just one species of life that has effectively (it would seem) adapted to its environment.

The first result was atheism that removed the privilege of humans over other species. But, its eventual consequence was the rejection of even the privilege of knowing the world as it is, the privilege to truth. We evolved not to understand the truth but to be able to reckon the world sufficiently enough to survive and reproduce. Science is valuable only because it is useful.

How did this happen?

The core intuition in the story of the Tower of Babel (that governed much of Western thought) was that we needed to agree in our external expression to make sense to one another. The world outside is an arena where we all have to work out a harmony to be successful and functional. That cannot happen if we cannot understand each other's actions and behavior. Lack of understanding can create conflict and we would end up getting in each other's way instead of progressing together.

Enter monotheism.

One God who expects, nay, demands exactly one kind of conduct.

The idea of monotheism is closely tied with the notion of the nation-state. When people have the same beliefs and act in ways that everybody can understand, when there is one people under God, conflicts reduce and the people can move together as if they were one organism. Divine revelation became the basis of these "objective" truths that no human can question. The history of monotheism is one of gradually stripping God of qualifiers like name, form, etc. (which can lead to differences) to become more and more abstract and unreal.

[Side note: Having passed comment on the West, it is interesting to observe how countries in the Eastern hemisphere that largely did not have the concept of strong monotheism drifted that way in the secular sphere. China, Myanmar and Vietnam are countries ruled by a totalitarian leadership; countries like Cambodia and Thailand are monarchies. The dominant religion in these countries lacks a strong concept of God. In India, the political choices today are a charismatic and towering leader trying to unite the country on the grounds of nationalism or a chosen dynast who advocates some "idea of India". Many African countries have a strongman at the helm. But, we digress.]

Then, monotheism took different forms, different revelations, different masters, different interpretations. The chaos led to violence and set things back. People couldn't trust revelation any more. There was a need for a stronger basis of objective truth.

First, there was reason but reason could do only so much.

Then, there was science.

Science provided a means to "objectively" agree regardless of whether that agreement constituted truth. We could only draw conclusions on the basis of available data. New data could change our understanding completely. That is why science is a continuous process. But, it works and we are content. People of different countries and cultures would unite on science, technology, engineering and medicine. They would speak the same language, collaborate, advance together. STEM went beyond the monotheistic nation-state. It globalized us.

But, something remarkable also happened here.

Science also weakened the notion of truth through its own evidence. We could treat something as if it was true, not because we know for certain it is true but because it works. This had tremendous consequences because it changed the notion of truth from we know for certain it is true to we treat it as true because it serves the project of scientific inquiry and it has not been falsified so far. At least, humans can agree in civilized ways through observation and experiment instead of fallacious arguments, violence or worse.

This always was and had to be a social contract. We should all agree to govern our public spheres with science. To gain that position, science had to fight its opposition, monotheistic religion for a place. It is not mere accident that scientists became the torch-bearers of atheism and took such religion on aggressively. Monotheistic religion was mocked, laughed at in an almost karmic turn of events.

Monotheism had done the same thing to "pagan" polytheism when it united villages of tribes into homogenous nations united in one belief. It discredited the different Gods and differences in religious outlook. Now, it faced a more powerful adversary, one that would unite countries of tribes in a connected globe.

But, there was a catch. (There always is.)

The reduction of truth to the question of what works meant that people would sign on the contract only if they found it useful. Is it not conceivable that we can lead our lives believing something to be true as long as it is useful? For example, we lead a more functional life believing that our life matters and that it has meaning though there is no strong evidence for that belief.

And if technology leads to automation and loss of jobs, if medicine becomes business, if globalization is severely disruptive to culture and lifestyles, Ii economy lifts people out of poverty but only just so much that they are able to work and consume, should people still trust science? Should they sign on the contract even when they perceive it to be not working for them?

Even if we admit that we have let science govern the public sphere to a significant extent, there is an inner world beyond it which is subjective and emotional. In this world, we can hold any kind of belief. We can imagine that our lives are an elaborate video game, the creation of God, a challenge to be overcome, a stroll in the theme park … for only one reason: it works for me.

We can wish to succeed at career, find a "wonderful" partner, cultivate a sound personality, live in dedication to God, raise great kids … Depending on what we think or don't think the meaning and purpose of our lives are, we can prioritize different values and different ways of getting to those values.

So, the content of our interpersonal space ends up becoming subject to the question of who gets to define it. Yes, we can use science and reason, but to what end? (Using the latest technology, what message are we going to communicate through that next movie? Who makes that decision?) What are the big problems? Who gets to decide them? Those in power? Then, are we going to engage in power play to figure out who wins? We can't predicate it on what works because not everything subjective is common. What do we do when there are differences? Majoritarianism? Mob rule?

The only way to avoid power-play where we await our chance to assert our will upon the world, taking turns to play oppressor and victim is to safeguard personal liberty.

But, is liberty the final solution?

Or, is it a way to rampant individualism? Do differences in upbringing, in education, in skills, in cognitive abilities, in economy, in political power, in resources, in numbers, in attractiveness or charisma impede the expression of liberty? What is the use of protecting liberty in principle when other constraints prevent the exercise of it in reality?

If we think the individual should subordinate one's preferences for a greater good, what stops another human from taking advantage of that situation? Aren't we the species that has murdered its own kind in the name of the greater good?

Yet, isn't there need for cohesion, togetherness, collaboration, society? Isn't there need to care for one another, address the welfare of those who genuinely cannot meet the constraints and demands of the world? What do we do when people do not agree to cooperate? How do we comply to something without the fear of being taken advantage of?

Don't we need a notion of the Transcendent (or God) that stands above all pettiness of humanity, that is pure in every way, untainted by blemish, the only entity to which we can agree to comply without fear, whose priest is not an agent but only a servitor, and in whose personality we can found a new global morality that balances individual and community to overcome the current dysfunction, dissatisfaction and emptiness prevalent in societies, families and nations?

In short, isn't God inevitable in our times?

Or will some traditions of the East that honor diversity, who sustain a belief in many Gods, or don't take God too seriously offer a different solution, at least within their own nations?