God as the Gardener in an Untended Garden: Faith and Wishful Thinking

John Wisdom's approach towards religions is best summed in the statement: "With this difference in what they say about the gardener (God) goes a difference in how they feel about the garden (the world), in spite of the fact that neither expects anything of it which the other does not expect" (pg. 291). Both people see the same world and expect the same reality. However, the gardener exists for the person who wants it to exist, based only upon the desire for the gardener to exist. Anthony Flew continues and expands upon Wisdom's story. The gardener, and God, exists to the person who believes. However, the believer's belief is not logical. The believer will never accept anything as proof against the existence of God. And this refusal to consider their hypothesis logically against these counter-proofs makes their belief illogical. Hare compares religion to the delusion of a paranoid man. The paranoid will never waver from his belief, no matter how much evidence is produced to the contrary. This also holds true to many religious individuals. However, the paranoid's delusion is not normal, so he is not considered sane. But, to quote Larry Niven, the majority is always sane. Therefore, since the majority holds a religious belief, it must be reasonable and sane to believe. It just requires ignoring the fact that it is as impossible to prove or disprove as the paranoid's beliefs as it is to prove or disprove God's existence.

Basil Mitchell uses a parable of a resistance fighter and a Stranger. The Stranger sometimes gives help and sometimes denies it. The Stranger is seen helping both sides. The partisan "... will not consent to put the Stranger to the test." The partisan's faith in the Stranger is based entirely upon one encounter, an encounter which to others may seem inconsequential or insufficient on which to base such faith. Now the partisan has to justify the Stranger's ambiguous actions that are contrary to the idea that the stranger is on his side. The partisan is insane if he ignores the ambivalent behavior and seems a religious fanatic if he simply dismisses the Stranger's actions. The partisan, like a believer, recognizes the contrary evidence; however, it is his faith that holds him to the belief that the Stranger is on his side.

John Wisdom's view is the closest to reality. Over the millennia, billions of people have seen a god, gods, spirits, and demons as the Gardener. If there was a God, why would he allow so many belief systems which are incorrect? If God was all-powerful, why not take some insignificant action in the scheme of the universe to correct their beliefs? Furthermore, they can not be all right any more than they can all be wrong. Then what is the answer? The answer is that peoples have always searched for an answer for why the world the way it was; to say "Such and such god(s) made it so" is a very easy answer. And so it was said. Each culture projected their own cultural attributes onto their respective deities. And as some societies grew more complex and changed, their deities also changed. Some modifications were made by priestly classes. Animals which had once been completely destroyed by a sacrifice were instead butchered, leaving the inedible parts for the sacrificial alter and the edible parts to the priests. Other modifications were made by the ruling class to suit their needs; the caste system in India was created - or at least more strictly enforced - by the paler Aryan invaders who used it to enforce their power. Belief systems which aided a ruler were often forced onto the citizens, as when European princes chose the religion for themselves and their kingdoms which gave them the greatest political edge. Those who want to have a Gardener do, but no one sees the exactly the same one, and many choose which Gardener they'd rather see and obey.