Humanity Struggles to Conceive a World Without a Beginning

Humanity Accepts the Idea of Infinity but Struggles to Conceive of a World Without a Beginning

It is commonly asserted that an atheist is someone who has rejected belief in the existence of a divine entity. The prefix “a-” denotes negation or removal—thus, an atheist is one who has severed their personal connection to theos (god). It is therefore evident that one can only reject what is perceived as existing. The atheist does not subscribe to the notion that God created the world, but rather maintains that it is humanity that created the concept of God.

It would be futile to deny that, throughout history, humankind has needed a deity—once out of fear of death and the unknown, today due to the anxiety provoked by chaos, the absence of reassuring natural laws, and the desire for a metaphysical register that is at once mystical, miraculous, and rational. Even the rational scholar, guided by empirical principles, is troubled by the question of the universe’s origins: they may accept the notion of infinity, yet struggle to conceive of a reality with no beginning. Could this difficulty be the very source of the Big Bang theory?

A cultic event that occurred between the 14th and 8th millennia BCE illustrates the fundamental human need for ritual and belief. This is the archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe, located in southern Turkey near the Syrian border. This sanctuary is currently the oldest known temple in human history. It comprises approximately 300 stelae, ranging from three to five meters high, arranged in around twenty circular enclosures. The site was erected millennia before the Egyptian pyramids or Stonehenge in England, during a time when humans still lived by hunting and gathering. This suggests that cultic practice preceded agriculture and sedentism. Before the domestication of plants and animals, and even before the invention of writing, a religious revolution had taken place—perhaps even before the mastery of fire. Did this cult involve a deity? It is highly probable.

Starting in the 6th century BCE, a revolution of consciousness emerged under the impetus of the Presocratic philosophers. While Sumerian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and other cultures were preoccupied with mythical figures of gods and supernatural heroes, Hellenistic thinkers initiated a radical break: they rejected mythological heritage, replaced divine narratives with empirical observation of the physical world, and focused on nature, its elements, and the structure of reality—matter, sensation, being, and void. God was sidelined in favor of rational thought and scientific inquiry.

In antiquity, the term “religion” did not exist in its modern sense. Worship was not a private act but primarily a political practice aimed at forging a collective identity around a shared pantheon. In the Greco-Roman world, cultic practice was predominantly public and civic, serving to unify the subjects of the empire around a common symbolic system that ensured imperial stability. Cultic revolution, then, preceded agriculture, writing, and perhaps even the domestication of fire. Was it also linked to belief in a deity? All evidence suggests so.

Xenophanes of Colophon, a Greek poet and philosopher (570–475 BCE), is often considered a precursor of monotheism. He mocked the idea that man was created in the image of God, as stated in the Genesis narrative, and criticized the anthropomorphism of the gods in Homer and Hesiod. According to him, attributing human traits to deities served to legitimize those traits within society. He famously wrote: “If horses or oxen had hands and could draw, they would depict the gods as horses or oxen.”

The modern world approaches monotheism apologetically, while polytheism is often derided and dismissed as pagan. Yet monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—gave rise to institutional structures with sacred texts and dogmas. Polytheism, by contrast, did not organize itself into institutionalized religions with dogmas and canonical texts. In reality, polytheism does not constitute a religion in the sense we understand the term today.

From the perspective of monotheistic religions, the polytheistic era is viewed as primitive and obscure—a stage prior to reason in the trajectory of cultural evolution. The apologetics of the One God served as a founding ideology for the European colonial conquests in the Americas, Africa, and East Asia. One might even wonder whether it would not be preferable for each people to have its own god, rather than seeing each religion claim exclusive ownership of a single deity. Is Yahweh alone worth more than Yahweh and his consort Ashera?

Monotheistic religions have often asserted themselves through violence—not only toward other peoples but also toward their own followers whenever they deviated, even slightly, from orthodox doctrine. These religions rest not so much on moral principles or inner faith, but on strict obedience to sacred dogma. In rabbinic Judaism, observance of commandments ultimately took precedence over faith, to the point where faith itself was excluded from the very definition of religion.

The destruction wrought by divinity is none other than that carried out by its official representatives. These individuals shaped the image of God in their own likeness, complete with their flaws, making him a tool for their own purposes. They formulated the notion of Providence, whereby God governs each individual and punishes any transgression—transgression of laws written by men in the name of an imaginary divine being. The issue, therefore, is not the existence of God, but the attributes projected onto him by his creators—especially the desire to impose his worship on others. There is nothing wrong with an individual turning to a virtual figure in times of distress.

Some even suggest that religious observance is not the result of faith or divine supervision, but of a personal decision. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, for instance, advocated for absolute obedience to commandments—even when they contradicted one’s moral principles or reason. Yet this, in the author’s view, constitutes a logical and intellectual fallacy. In rabbinic Judaism, a hierarchical structure even emerged in which the Righteous surpass God. It is written: “The Righteous decrees and the Holy One, blessed be He, executes.” In other words, God is viewed as a tool in the hands of the sage. It is also said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, decrees, but the Righteous annuls.” The story of the Oven of Akhnai concludes with a divine declaration: “My children have defeated Me.” Does God govern humanity, or do his representatives mobilize his image to solidify their authority?

Atheism and secularism are concepts that belong to the religious semantic field. Statements such as “I do not believe in God” or “God does not exist” still fall within the register of religion. The question of God’s existence is a dead end: God exists as a cultural concept, as an element of consciousness that has preoccupied humanity since its beginnings. He exists in the same way that notions such as soul, consciousness, spirit, love, jealousy, or hatred exist—abstractions impossible to prove empirically, but equally impossible to refute. It is therefore futile to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God.

The secular individual is compelled to accommodate the believer’s sensibilities, while the believer is under no obligation to reciprocate. Halakha itself exempts believers from acknowledging secular positions. Many secular Jews experience an inferiority complex in the face of the “Jewish bookshelf,” yet one must remember that science, philosophy, and critical inquiry only flourished once freed from the constraints of religion. Religion exerts a negative influence on progress, on the emancipation from magical thinking, and on the ability to break free from prejudice. The damage wrought by religions on society and morality calls for a firm and critical response. It is necessary to undertake a critique of religion as such. Monotheistic religions, their histories, and their canonical texts demand critical examination. If religions placed God at the center, and fascist nationalist movements elevated the state above all, then contemporary humanism now places the human being at the center. There is no need to combat divinity itself—but it is essential to resist those who misuse it.