The Science of Discworld IV

imagine it’s a miracle cure. The discovery probably saved the church a great deal of potential trouble, even if it debunked the miracle.
    So what was the response?
    The church itself did nothing. But according to Edamaruku, people from two lay Catholic associations filed charges against him under section 295A of India’s penal code, which dates to 1860 and forbids ‘deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community’. Edamaruku has said that he is willing to appear in court, where he is convinced the case will be thrown out – but unfortunately the law has a nasty sting in its tail. Anyone accused can be jailed, perhaps for many months, before the case comes to trial. So, as we write, Edamaruku has fled to Finland, and the Rationalist Association has set up an online petition calling for the complaints to be dropped.
    Christian theologians have long worried about the paradox of
silentio dei
, the silence of God: if God exists, why does He not speak? An omnipotent, omnipresent being should have no difficulty in making His existence evident, in undeniable ways. Lined up alongside this strange absence are other problems of human existence: why a caring God permits diseases and natural disasters, for example. Theology being what it is, innumerable answers have been proposed.
    There’s a Jewish joke about this. (There’s a Jewish joke about everything.) Three rabbis are arguing a point in theology. Two claim it was first made by Rabbi ben Avraham; the third claims it was Rabbi ben Yitzchak. ‘Look, I know it was him! I studied this for my thesis!’ But the others still disagree. Eventually, in desperation, the third rabbi says, ‘I know, let’s ask God!’ So the three of them pray, and suddenly the sky splits open and God leans out, looks down, and says, ‘He is right. It was Rabbi ben Yitzchak.’
    After a stunned pause, the first rabbi says: ‘Well, now it’s two against two.’
    Upon reflection, the joke works because we know it wouldn’t be like that. God could solve the problem of disbelief by writing his name across the sky in letters of fire a kilometre high. But for obscure theological reasons, an omnipotent being apparently declines to exercise that particular power. The only possibility that theologians have not contemplated is that God is silent because He doesn’t exist. On that particular issue all religious factions agree – and they don’t accept
that
explanation.
    So, if you were to take a vote, there would be a clear majority verdict: God does exist. Atheists are a definite minority. However, even if you think that questions about the universe can be decided democratically, you have to ask the question sensibly. Religious people are happy to align themselves with all of the other religions in the world when it comes to those dreadful atheists – infidels, literally people without faith. But as soon as you start to examine what different religions, or different sects within a given religion, or even different believers within the
same
sect, actually believe, common cause gives way to bedlam. The Church of England, for example, is currently split into factions over the issue of women bishops, and is perilously close to splitting into two different sects. And the Church of England itself originated in a split from the Church of Rome. There are thousands of different Christian denominations, let alone other faiths.
    In this debate, we have no desire to argue for either position. We’d rather there were no bishops at all – men or women – though being realists we don’t expect that to happen. What intrigues us is that good – indeed, devout and committed – Christians, people on both sides of the argument, have examined their innermost hearts, prayed to their God and been answered with a clear vision of God’s wishes. There can be no doubt that that is what they sincerely believe. But, curiously, God’s wishes turn out to be that (a) Women bishops should be allowed, and (b) They shouldn’t. Indeed, God’s wishes are remarkably similar to what those of the individuals concerned have been all along, before they consulted their deity on the matter.
    From within that debate, if it can be dignified with the word, it is clear to all that one side is right and the other is wrong; one has correctly divined God’s wishes, the other is deluded. Problem: which is which? From outside, we are