Which is Worse….?

I’m lying awake last night in bed, doing my regular insomnia routine. I should mention that these days I waver between agnostocism and theism. And lying in bed, sometimes the mind wanders to horrible things that normally get pushed so far aside I almost never think of them. So the question:

Which is worse – that there is no God or that we aren’t really conscious, thinking beings?

I should elaborate – in the former option we are full sentient beings, imbued with consciousness above and beyond animals. But when we die – thats it. We cease to exist. Even worse, in ceasing to exist, our recollection of what we are, that essence which makes us what we are is utterly destroyed, so from our perspective, we never existed. We are wiped clean.

And then there’s the other option. That we are simply chemicals and electricity, dominated by instinct, deluded by what appears to be consciousness, but is in fact just a chemical response. We are, in essence, very smart and socially sophisticated animals – no better or worse than dogs. When we die, we are nothing, but in this case, we aren’t losing anything because there was nothing there to begin with. Even this post about whether we are conscious creatures is part of the delusion.

Which is worse? Its a matter of semantics, in part. Compared to what the average religion offers – eternal life and/or reincarnation (depending on your faith), both of these are horrible alternatives. A faith-based answer would argue that this is the point of faith – to show that there’s more beyond just the physical realm and to explain what appears inexplicable – our apparant consciousness. But knowledge breaks down these obvious differences. We find chimps have the range of emotions we do, and other primates to have the same set of social complexity as tribal humans. Do they then have a soul? Or is the converse true – are we all bereft?

There is no data, and without data there’s no theorey. And that can make for some very scary late night thoughts. Does this mean I’m going to to running to church? Hardly. In this aspect, the religious right and I share a common thread, resistance to change for change’s sake. The singular difference is that I would be willing to change if the evidence were there to support such a change. Because the religious rely solely on immutable and dated texts and preachings, it is impossible for them to change and remain faithful to their doctrine. This, in my opinion is a failing of their philosphy.