THESIS: Belief in God or atheism, on its own, doesn’t determine whether someone will “play God”—that is, assume ultimate authority, control, or moral superiority over others. A religious person may believe in a higher power yet still act as if their own judgment is absolute, justifying decisions that override or falsely resemble humility or compassion. The top catalyst is feeling God prompts and guides you or at least wants you to take your inner sense as something to obey.
Faith in a mild but real way is playing God. That is how it starts.
Under the right conditions the meek person of faith will change. You start with
a belief that you have to trust your instinct - that your instinct to believe is
from God. The main assumption is that it is a divine prompt - partly it is that
as fallible and dangerous as your inner sense may be at times there is nothing
else to go with.
ANALYSIS: The human impulse to assume ultimate authority over others is often
described as playing God. It is not confined to either religious belief or
atheism. It is a deeper psychological and moral tendency rooted in certainty,
power, and the desire for control. Belief systems shape how this impulse is
expressed - and some nourish it.
The claim that any belief system does not determine whether it arises makes
no sense for the impulse has many causes and belief has to make an input.
Theologian C.S. Lewis warned, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised
for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” His insight captures a
key paradox: the belief that one is acting rightly—or even divinely—can justify
actions that override humility and compassion. A religious individual may claim
to follow God’s will, yet subtly replace divine authority with their own
interpretation of it. In doing so, they risk confusing obedience to God with
obedience to themselves.
This problem is not limited to religion. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a
critic of traditional faith, observed that “He who fights with monsters should
look to it that he himself does not become a monster.” As clever as his point
was, if you keep checking to see if you are planting the seeds to become a
monster you are telling yourself to expect to become one. It becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Remember while Christians say sin is a terrible
evil in the sight of God and does untold harm to us and warps us, sin is thought
to make you a potential monster. Hell means you can throw God away and
love away for all eternity. Thus one surpasses any classic villain or
monster in the movies.
Those who reject divine authority can fall into the pattern of elevating
their own reasoning or moral framework to an absolute standard. In such cases,
the absence of God does not eliminate the temptation to “play God”—it merely
relocates authority within the self.
At the core of this issue lies the treatment of inner conviction. When
individuals believe that their inner voice is inherently trustworthy they may
stop questioning it. It may be seen as a divine prompting or rational
certainty. It may be, "What else can I trust but this instinct?"
In other words, it is just a pragmatic thing - what is left after some kind of
process of elimination.
Psychologist William James, who studied religious experience, noted that
personal revelations can feel undeniably authoritative to the individual
experiencing them, even if they lack external grounding. This sense of certainty
can be powerful, but also dangerous when it bypasses reflection, doubt, or
accountability.
Unexamined certainty is stupid and sounds ridiculous - that is why we need God
belief and the notion of divine inspiration to obscure that foolishness.
It sounds wise and possibly well-meaning when we read God into it. We know
others will think, "If it is not God we have no way to show them that."
The illusion is protected.
It is said, "When a person assumes that their judgments are beyond error—especially when framed as morally or spiritually justified—they begin to occupy a position that leaves little room for humility. True humility, in contrast, requires recognizing the limits of one’s understanding. As philosopher Hannah Arendt argued in her analysis of power and responsibility, the greatest moral failures often arise not from evil intent but from a lack of critical thinking and self-questioning."
But not thinking is a form of evil intent for you know your life is not just
about you. Malice can hide itself in you by looking subtle and weak - it may
even wear a smile. Her argument is based on denial and takes the heat of
the issue of malice and thus is itself harmful.
To resist the temptation to “play God,” individuals must cultivate habits of
reflection, openness, and restraint. This applies equally to believers and
non-believers. For the religious, it may mean distinguishing between genuine
faith and the projection of personal desires onto the divine. For atheists, it
may involve recognizing that reason itself can be misused when treated as
infallible. In both cases, the antidote is the same: a willingness to question
oneself and to remain accountable to others.
Belief in God and that he has a relationship with you inevitably means sensing his supposed prompts. You decide that and when he speaks so it falls back on your authority over yourself - and by extension those who are connected with you. There is no way you can blame your self-authority and keep God belief out of it.
Other ideas are that no evil or harmful person really thwarts God - they are only permitted to harm within boundaries by God who has it set up for the evil to backfire or lead to good.
Those notions are reinforced with hagiographic or scriptural tales of prophets and others who acted on feelings that were planted by God and were in the right or who tried to defeat God and ended up defeated.
No firm argument for epistemic humility is possible with such ideas.