Within the discipline of the Philosophy of Science there is a thought experiment known as Einstein's Clock. The Universe, or any aspect of the Universe that might be under investigation, is likened to a complex clock. The clock is sealed. It is impossible to open it and investigate its mechanisms. The job of the scientist is to observe the workings of the clock from the outside and then to invent an explanation (create a theory) as to what might be going on inside the clock.
Now, the question as to whether the proposed explanation, the theory, is correct or incorrect is meaningless. It is impossible to compare the model invented by the scientist with the actual mechanism. The clock is permanently sealed. Theories are neither true nor false in absolute terms but more or less useful in relative terms.
In the Middle Ages people believed that the planets moved because they were pushed around by angels. This was the prevalent theory that explained this phenomenon. And this theory sat well with other generally held beliefs of that era.
Some time later Isaac Newton proposed his Theory of Gravitation. This was a better theory in that it explained a much larger range of phenomena. The theory was so useful that, in time, it generally came to be believed that Newton had discovered how the "clock" actually did work, rather than inventing a very good approximation as to how it might work.
Around the beginning of the 20th century the limitations of Newton's theory became apparent and Einstein's theory created a framework which accommodated these limitations and incongruities.
Einstein's theory did not, of course, finally explain what was going on inside the "clock". It explained, in a rigorous manner, much more of the behaviour of the "clock" than previous theories had. NASA sent men to the moon using only Newton's theoretical model. Most of our present day technology needs only Newton's Laws in its creation. But those trained in science know that these laws are only rules of thumb that, while having wide application, become significantly inaccurate under certain circumstances.
In the 19th century the philosopher Nietzsche made his famous "God is dead" statement. By this he asserted that God, as a useful concept, had become archaic. "God" was no longer a useful tool in helping us to understand the behaviour of the "clock".
Objectively this statement was nonsense. The vast majority of people in western society at the time did use the "God" concept as a matter of course. However, there may have been some method to his madness. If he had been commenting on the actual state of affairs that existed at the time and not engaging in atheistic propaganda the statement "God is quite ill and is not expected to live" might have seemed to carry a lot more weight.
For example, at the time many scientists were atheists and many were religious believers. But given the state of scientific knowledge available at the time an atheistic understanding of reality would have seemed less incongruous than a theistic understanding. While no world view, or no theory, is without inconsistencies atheism, as a theory, would have been considered more elegant and closer to a complete theory than theism. The idea that angels moved the planets did not disappear overnight but was gradually displaced by Newton's more useful explanation. The intelligentsia of Nietzsche's time had good reason to believe that a world view that did not require the concept of "God" would soon become prevalent.
There may be much of value in Marxist and Neo-Marxist analysis of society. But what of the insistence of a dogmatic Marxist of the absolute accuracy of this form of analysis? World communist revolution did not happen and shows no sign of ever happening.
The use of the concept of "God" is used and found useful by the majority today. Many believers base their beliefs on naive foundations perhaps, but atheists can be just as lacking in rigour in the formation of their opinions.
Let us again take the scientific community as an example of the leading edge of human thought. There are still many atheistic scientists and many theistic scientists. However to be a scientist with religious beliefs today involves considerably fewer contradictions than it did in the 19th century. 19th century science made religious belief seem implausible. But the present day store of scientific knowledge supplies much that might augment belief in a God of some sort. The perception that science is a fund of evidence for atheism is largely redundant. Atheists who regard science as supporting their view are usually looking to Newton's materialism, his theory of the nature of matter, for this evidence - a theory that is now considered simplistic. Many who quote Nietzsche's mantra today remind me of Marxists who are in denial that the shortcomings of their pet theory have become evident.
Is the assertion that "God is dead" a dogmatic insistence that God should be dead even though he isn't?
The state of affairs today might be described as follows: "God was quite ill but seems to making a good recovery".
Brendan Burke, M.A. (Phil.) August 2005. Cork.