The representation of God comes from a pre-scientific era
This argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
This argument is a justification of The concept of God is a human invention.
Summary
Men have interpreted natural forces as supernatural (lightning, storms etc. as the effect of entities) (Spinoza ? Auguste Comte). The more science advances, the more we discover that what seemed inexplicable or mystical can be explained by material processes.
Religions began by imagining God as a King administering his subjects. Indeed, the words used to designate God have the same roots as those used to designate the emperor. This representation is no longer credible in the age of science, where it is ridiculous to imagine a God who rules the universe like a king who commands his subjects.
Quotes
“Alan Watts - The Westerner's general attitude to the universe is modeled on a political structure. God is the master, just as in monarchical societies the king is the great tyrant before whom all bow. Even the hierarchy of the Church resembles a royal court: the officiant turns his back to the wall for fear of being attacked, he is surrounded by guards, and those present have their backs bent, are on their knees, because this is a position in which one cannot attack. God, therefore, is afraid. And this political image of God is one of the diseases from which Western culture suffers. [...]
P. - Only, for us Westerners, the most vivid awareness is the awareness of the death of God.
A.W. - I think it's above all the death of a certain idea of God, of this Christian God who is a political God in the image of the ancient legislators. It's the discovery of the Eastern idea of God that seems to me to be the only valid one. I'm amazed by life, I'd like to penetrate the mystery of my own existence, to know the roots of my consciousness. The more convinced I am that I too am God - but certainly not the God-Master - the more this discovery seems to me to depend entirely on abandoning traditional images of God. Faith, true faith, is an openness to the truth, whatever it may be. To cling to an image of a God who protects and cares for the universe seems to me precisely a total lack of faith. You can't hold on to the water to swim: you have to trust it. In the same way, mental images of God are even more deviously dangerous than idols of wood or stone. What's dead are our old images, our old symbols, our old concepts of God. As soon as we are rid of them, as soon as our inner windows have been washed, we will finally be able to see the true sky and the true sun. As soon as we accept the idea that there's nothing to take shelter behind - no security, no certainty, no bank account, no life insurance to fool our fears - all the energy mobilized to protect ourselves immediately becomes available again for constructive things. After all, you can't lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoelaces.”
References
Justifications
-
The most radical contemporary religionists are anti-science
