The religious-minded, for time immemorial, have been faced with - and arguably failed in - the responsibility of proving God’s existence. This is a fair enough charge for those theo-enthusiasts who say that there is in fact a super-being out there called God who created the Heavens and the Earth, but what about those theo-enthusiasts who think this question is moot? In other words, I’m not disputing the need for those who say God exists to give reasons for their belief/knowledge, but rather I’m disputing the need, in general, to ascribe existence to God as if existence was somehow necessary to make God - or religion - worthwhile…
To get straight to the point, why is existence the most necessary and/or important qualifier of God? Why is it that existence must be shown before religious texts can be taken (by the secular-minded) with any degree of seriousness? Why is the Bible - a non historico-scientific text - always judged as if it was first and foremost a document of history/science? Why are the events depicted in religious stories credited or discredited by the archeological evidence available, as if they need to be shown to have happened somewhere along the historical timeline in order to be of value to us now?
In the morning news (thestar.com/news/world/article/557645) there was an article about a German Muslim scholar who said that he believes Mohammed and Jesus and other religious figures are mythical and not historical in nature. In this article - the main point of interest for me at least - was a passage from a Muslim council representative who said that if this was true, if these figures are indeed mythical and not historical, then “this would mean we would have to abolish the religion altogether”.
How is this the case? Why does it matter if Adam and Eve truly walked in some garden called Eden for their story to have meaning for us? Why is history/ontology at all relevant to religion, as if the first thing theo-enthusiasts must do to be considered rational is demonstrate God’s existence? Why must we show there was indeed a flood and an ark and a man called Noah in order for this event - indeed a mythical event - to have meaning?
This question applies equally to the theists (those who say God exists) as it does to the atheists (those who charge all religious-minded folks with the need of proving God’s existence).
I want to disentangle God from Existence while upholding the value of religious texts as if I was the most ardent believer. And so I ask all of you why this can’t be done. Why - if God does not exist or the religious events depicted in Scripture are not historical - must we “abolish religion altogether”?