One of the reasons I was led to write The Unrelative Truth is to bring lucidity to the point still being wavered on—the topic of God’s existence. God existing, or God not existing, brings to mind what an oxymoron is and does. It provides me with a comparable sensation similar to when encountering the words “square circle,” as in the term “squaring a circle.” I know there are square things, and circles are round, but how those words are seen fit for each other creates a quandary. On what ground can I justify the idea of a “square circle” except when explaining an oxymoron?

A book which addresses the “existence of God”—The God Delusion^[1]—is a good example of how confused contexts can get in the way of a rational mind, giving rise to justifications for atheism. In essence, while chasing after an invalid premise, the book itself becomes an oxymoron—there is defect and flaw in thought that pushes aside the context of actuality, causing a delusional understanding of God Reality. Huston Smith[2] comments on the “literal” reading of scriptures and how such a practice could be deemed delusional—as would be a lie if taken at face value.

Taking the holy writings at face value, without going deeper and further metaphysically, is a universal problem for religious understanding. The notion of existence mistakenly applied to God is such a derivative of the prevalent literality problem.

To begin with, my humble position on the main “Does God exist?” investigation is that we are asking an invalid question. Therefore, a yes or a no answer is not warranted. At a minimum, even the fact that the question can be posed as if it has religious relevance or scientific significance demonstrates perplexity. It is a reflection of confusion, as Francis Bacon (1561–1626) identified[3], on how we have managed to mix up our contexts of discourse belonging to different worlds of experience.

[1] (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion 2008)

[2] (Huston Smith, The Soul of Christianity 2005), 25

[3] (Edward O. Wilson, Consilience  1998), 9