The Necessity of Atheism

Like all great poets, Percy Bysshe Shelley had a knack for expressing a lot of information in a few words:

"If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest?"

-From The Necessity of Atheism by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I think, if I may presume to give an answer, that the reason religion is filled with all these contradictions between the doctrine of a deity's omnipotence and omnipresence with its actual practices is that we humans have a irrepressible need to anthropomorphize. Witness our tendency to portray animals as human-like characters in stories and our eagerness to assign human traits to our favorite pets. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes complete sense that the humans that are most likely to survive are the ones who can identify other humans as rational beings like themselves and act accordingly. This "social consciousness," which includes actions like praising, bargaining with, and asking favors or forgiveness from others is a vital part of human interaction. Since we don't have any other template to use, we just adapt our existing models. Therefore, God is our "father" or our "king," and we are supposed to act accordingly, even though most of what we do really doesn't make sense if we are working under the assumption that this is deity who is all-knowing and all-powerful. Once again, I think this is an example of where an empirical explanation of religion ("it makes sense when you consider the evolution of human intelligence") is much more compelling than that offered by a theologian (eg "God is real and wants to have a 'relationship' with us so he acts like he is not omnipotent even though he is" or "the mysteries of God are beyond human comprehension" etc)