I’m glad my God blog got so many responses. The conversation continues, which can only be a good thing, though I do rather sympathise with those who say: “What? Are we still talking about this issue?”
I didn’t mean to reopen the debate about whether there is a God or not, or at least not as such; I wanted to look at the issue of “certainty”, as misrepresented by the emeritus professor of fertility. This seemed to me a way towards constructive debate in that, when it comes to matters of faith, and as several of the responses to the blog show, we are often comparing apples and pears, so to speak. We need the same yardstick if we are to make a fair comparison, and “provability” is one of those yardsticks.
We need equivalent measures if we are to evaluate God and science, as explanatory mechanisms, against each other. But we need to be careful about then positing an equivalence between God and science themselves. On one level, they are competing “certainties”, “uncertainties”, “ideologies”, whatever, but there are more important ways in which they are not equivalent. Some people posit such an equivalence when they argue that science is simply replacing religion as the new form of “certainty” to which we all have to submit.
I don’t think that’s true. First, science doesn’t burn people at the stake for having different ideas of God, or anything else. It doesn’t claim to be inerrant or unquestionable. It acknowledges the holds in its knowledge and seeks to fill them. Second, science makes different kinds of truth claims to religion. Perry Curling-Hope put this rather well, if perhaps simplistically, in a response: “Science is a method, not a position. Religion is a position without a method.”
Science posits a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon (called a hypothesis, from Greek for “foundation”), then refines it in the light of what can be discovered, and it becomes a theory (Greek: “speculation”). Depending on how much evidence supports that theory, and whether it can be proved or disproved, it becomes a “fact” — that is, a theory with a very high degree of provability. It’s an explanation that works. Evolution would be an example. Contrary to what I said in the last blog, and as corrected by at least one response, God is really just a hypothesis, and there is very little to support that hypothesis.
Then again, we may not be talking about the same thing when we talk about God. Are we talking about the figure I have described as the most successful fictional character ever? The figure that, as Slavoj Zizek notes, is the first fully anthropomorphized deity? (Hence the revolution produced by Jewish monotheism.) If we’re talking about a personal god, one who watches over humanity, answers your prayers, and so on, I find the arguments (not proofs) for his existence unconvincing. If we’re talking about some sense of the numinous, our sense of wonder, even a sense of divinity, that’s another story.
Mike Cope makes an excellent point in his response: “So much about religion, but nothing about religious or spiritual experience, which is fairly common among humans. Is, say, Buddhism, which does not postulate a god but urges meditation to come under the same criticism? Where does African trance experience fit?”
I think this is a question well worth pursuing. It is not one that, in all their arguments for atheism, the likes of Dawkins and Dennett really come to grips with. Dennett suggests that scientists need to find ways to explain the emergence of religion in human history, and to do so in evolutionary terms. (Myself, I don’t think the “memes” argument quite does the job.) Dennett quotes people like Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained), but doesn’t go very far in coming to terms with the fact that, God or no God, we humans seem to have a sense of the numinous, of something bigger than and beyond us — what Wordsworth called “a sense sublime / Of something far more deeply interfused”.
It is this sense that helps pulls us into religious belief. Social pressure, group allegiances and childhood brainwashing are doubtless key foundations of religious belief, but it’s that sense of “something far more deeply interfused” that provides the impulse from within to engage with the sacred in some way. Recent neuroscience posits a part of the brain that could be called a “God spot” — if stimulated, this part of the brain gives rise to the feelings of holiness, connectedness, even ecstasy, that some people identify with religious or spiritual practice.
Now there’s an interesting discussion.
Sorry, the above post is mine. Family PC, multiple users.
Maybe there is no God, but would it not be safer to hedge your bets? By the time you find out you are wrong it will be a bit late won’t it?
There are a few problems with the quality of intellectual analysis in the comments writing off God and the Bible:
The sad fact is that most of the descriptions of God is this discussion bear little or no relation to what the Bible actually says.
And, by the way, the Bible takes some serious swipes at the practice of religion that is based mainly on man’s traditions or reasoning.
Can anyone make a logical case for the validity of spiritual experiences where the “content” is either an illusion, or is rationally unknowable, or where the source and substance of the transcendance are irrelevant – providing that it feels good?
The Bible describes something utterly unique – an explanation of the fact and nature of our existence (the naturalist has no lesser problem explaining the origin of matter than the Christian has in explaining the origin of God). In particular, the Bible provides by far the most nuanced understanding of the problem of evil and pain in the world.
But beyond the system of thought and belief (if you see the Bible as a mere book of rules, then you have missed the point entirely), the Bible points a way for us to “experience” reality that transcends the limitations of this world. We live IN the world, with all of its restrictions, pain and contradictions. But we can also see beyond. The hope of that “beyond” does not remove us from reality – it allows us to engage reality with a broader perspective.
Nowhere else are the rational and the spiritual in harmony. Many have tried, and failed, to carve out this harmony from the rock of human reason alone, but it cannot be done.
The Bible is either true, or it is not. Why not consider its claims on their merits?
@ Lyndall so what? Does god then kill all Islamists, Jews etc? Like wise do all those who do not support Islam become extinct. Come on you can’t be serious? Its drivel and all the heads of the various religions are aware that it is drivel. But hey I’m not saying anything just in case it’s true. *God did you hear that*
@Mike A, I presume you are not expecting the bloggers to quote to you that Josua had to stop the Sun so that the chosen people i.e. the Israelites could complete their victory, are you? You want the people to believe in that historical astronomic miracle, which some people now attribute to a leap year.
I recommend to you an introduction to sattelite studies to learn a bit about concepts like a leap year.
Intellectual honesty requires every person to examine the claims of creation (and by implication, the Creator God of the bible) and the claims of evolution side by side – you will find that the former has stood the test of time and scrutiny, and the latter is poor substitute for faith and science (these 2 are completely compatible).
@Geejay
Eish, sorry man….What can I say, I try to give a neutral perspective.
While this discussion was ongoing – I read Kitty Ferguson’s book “Fire in the equations”. This is an absolute must-read for atheists (like myself) and theists, and everyone in-between. It gives a very balanced perspective on the “creation” of the universe, from both a scientific (and inherently atheistic point-of-view) as well as a religious one.
I would like to know, would the constitution of this country allow for an atheistic organization?…gathering once a week in venues…? Why is it that there is always a negative undertone to atheistic “belief” but none to theistic (religious) belief…I could not find any evidence that atheists ever committed crimes against humanity, which is more than can be said for religion (at large). In fact, every war in history, was primarily religion-based. I think atheists are where gay people were 50 years ago….having to fight for who and what they are (which was ‘out-of-the-box’, excuse the pun…) While religious belief will justify killing people “in the name of”, atheist belief imposes no threat (whatsoever) to the dominion of man…..think about that. To me, the fact of the matter is this: Being religious won’t make you any better a person than any other…in fact, it corrupts your mind. Myself, as an atheist, probably lives a much more honest and respectable life than most “believers” who fake it 100% of the time, which is why something like the church was invented so they could have a place to go and feel better about themselves and the doubts of what they “believe” in…
Japie
Just to correct you there, The Communists were militantly anti-religion. Athesim was a vritue to them. Yet they killed many in the gulags and in Cambodia, so I would not say that religious people have a monoploy on killing.
I did enjpy the rest of your post even though I am religious and not an atheist I do respect your point of view and would like to see dialogue not rhetoric between people of faith and people without faith
@Simone –
You are correct indeed, my mistake. It goes without a doubt that the communistic USSR led to the demise of thousands, specifically referring to the “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” by Stephene Courtois et al.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that communism is rather a political regime, with a specific anti-religion stance, rather than an anti-religious ‘repressor’ with a specific political point-of-view. I personally think that communism wanted to extinguish any organization, other than state. I must also point out, that China is an example of a communistic system which benefits the people, and I can’t see democracy working in a nation of well over 2 billion people. It all comes down to control – something than can go even horribly wrong in so-called “democratic” countries. As Marx defined (and philosophized) about communism, it was intended for the GREATER GOOD of the PEOPLE, and that for the most of history, communism has been wrongly implemented.
Your point has been taken – many thanks for the criticism.
I would just like to add to my previous comment:
Was it not at the hands of the Bible and NG Kerk, that the non-whites of South-Africa suffered such a great deal? This same Christian Political Regime, damned homosexuality based on biblical scripture and ruined the lives of many human beings. Fathers in the Roman Catholic Church sodomise under-aged boys, the same organization that withheld scientific progression in the middle-ages and to this day remain the one most wealthiest institutions in the world….well, apart from some oil companies maybe…Makes u think how much the religious is willing to pay for salvation…?? Churches and congregations are wealthier than most people would like to admit…
I would like to conclude that atheism has no (as far as my knowledge goes) means whatsoever, to justify a crime against humanity, whereas theism does so firmly based on scriptures from god….
Yes
Japie
But what is not through the Bible and spirituality that Liberation Theology arose, that Beyers Naude rejected apartheid, teh Desmind Tutu and Oscar Romeros did what they did. The Church is a church of sinners. That is why it keeps stuffing up. If we were not sinners we would not need the church. Now I challenge any atheist to say that he/she is not a frail and weak individual who has never done anything wrong. To try and wriggle out of teh isseu of atheistic communism is a bit disingenious. Atheism and materilaism meant that teh communists did not value the sould of individual human beings. You were simply a represenative of a class and therefore of no inherent value. The Churches are made up of human beings who are sinners but they accept their weakness atheists as far as I can see don’t seem to think that they are sinners or weak and that is a problem
Geejay
I think you missed the point.
Japie: I am an atheist and I can admit I’ve done plenty of things wrong, and that I’m weak. (I don’t call myself a sinner, because that’s a religious concept.) The point is that my human rationality makes these judgments; if I say I am weak, or that I’ve done something wrong, it is my own inner judgement that is making these evaluations. I don’t need God or religion or the Bible to tell me that, or when I’ve done something good. Why can’t we, as people, rely on that inner sense of right and wrong, rather than referring it all to God or the Bible or elsewhere?
@John –
Thank you for responding to my comment. Yes, there might be good motives behind the church and its “sinners” and “weak”, unfortunately they have some what of “weird” way of showing it. It’s very easy though, because the religious will ALWAYS use the so-called ‘good’ they brought to society as a selling-point for their doctrine. You see, in religion in works like this: Today you can justify a wrong, and in future the same wrong will be condemned, by the same institution using the same scripture…!!! Now that is truly ‘unbelievable’ (excuse the pun), in fact – it amazes me. Without getting personal, it will be quite ‘ingenious’ to justify any ‘good’ that religion has brought to society – since all the wrong that religion has done will always be overshadowed by something like, lets say, communism…I wonder how many thousands was killed in Turkey, Yugoslavia, Bosnia (Catholics vs. Protestants> and during the middle ages…) ex. and the others involved in the daily killings of the middle east.
Indeed, I certainly am not weak or pathetic, or anything like that (which religion will have you believe), although I am prone to mistakes, I am not a ‘sinner’…..The church and religion at large, base its foundation in convincing people how weak and stupid they are, and that they must repent…I think the word ‘repent’ is the best way of describing the hold that the church has on people. Religion convinced people that they are sinners, and provided the avenue for forgiveness, while incarcerating the individual and using the “eternal life with God” to justify robbing a person of the only life he/she can be sure of – the present one. When I’ve done wrong unto someone I do not have one “almighty” to forgive me, no, I must go and make right by that person. If I am a criminal, rational, logic society has a system that will bring me to “repent”…I am proudly atheistic, intelligent and ready to take responsibility for my actions, how can that be wrong? In order for the church to exist, SIN is of the utmost importance – somewhat of a contradiction. Once again I must emphasize that communism can’t be used to bash atheism, all the atheists together with all the ‘believers’ suffered to the same degree in the USSR. I will conclude by saying this: “Atheism adds THE MOST value to a human being, and any other living creature, even to the planet as a whole, because it takes responsibility for its actions against anything on this earth!”
@Shaun –
I agree 100%! I can’t give u the ultimate answer to your question, but I know this: People have a ‘need’ to link all of everything to god, for that reassurance that there will be another life….and to get there, I must ask god to forgive me all the mistakes of the current. People have a need for salvation and a shoulder to cry on that will help them forget the wrongs they have committed. I ‘believe’ people would actually work harder at rehabilitating their lives if they did not have the option of just bearing everything in front of god, and then it will go away…!! It’s a pretty good system of enslaving minds, and making people willing to pay (actual money they worked for) so god will accept their lame excuse for whatever it was they did. Let me conclude: God (god) is a figment of the imagination, it’s a fairy tale…some people can’t grow out of it.
You are focusing on the behaviour of imperfect people and using that to say that you don’t believe in God. What you don’t want to admit – unless you do after this
– is that we all have a hole within us – we feel it at every disappointment in our lives, and we know we are powerless, in and of ourselves, to do anything about it.
That is why the best of human effort falls far short in addressing the needs of the world. Is it any surprise that we cannot feed, clothe and shelter the poor, and deal with all the other big issues of our world? This does not detract from the good that is being done by Christians and non-Christians, but these are nothing compared to the true healing that is available to every individual (regardless of physical circumstances).
Atheism (which is a belief-system, since it proposes belief in a certain idea, and therefore is a god) does nothing to address our fundamental need as human beings: ultimate reconciliation with the Creator we rebelled against. Who better than the builder of the machine to guide us in how the machine works and it’s true function?
So I will plead with you: at the risk of sounding like a stuck CD, be honest with yourself and investigate what these Christians are losing their lives to defend all over the world – how can you afford not to do so?
@John
I will definitely not admit to anything you suggest. I extend my help to as much people as I possibly can – without having to confess to any creator god. If atheism is a belief in a ‘god’ as suggested, well then logic and reason is my ‘god’. A religious person’s death is no worse than any other human death – for whatever good dead it was that cost the person his/her life. The so called ‘healing’ that you are referring to, is created and sustained in your mind, BY YOURSELF!
I would argue that atheists dedicate their lives to better what they can – without looking forward to some sort of ‘payment’, like salvation…whereas religious people are motivated by that grand prize, so it is all ego-driven. And I certainly don’t take commands from the ‘machine builder’, because such an entity does not exist. What proof do u have of the ‘creator’, where is he, what does he look like…where is heaven? It’s all in the mind…just as the contrary is in mine.
Alas – honesty is a virtue and religion (ignorance) is bliss! Atheism will become the new world, where rational will advance us on our evolutionary development, and religion will be recognized as the need humanity once had to travel to distant worlds…which would have become another reality through scientific discovery.
Japie
We will have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe atheists are immoral or incapable of good. I generally respect their point of view without accepting it. I think that blaming all the horror in history on religion is a bit of a misinterpretation of things. just like you think it is disingenious to blame atheism for commuinsm I feel you cannot blame evil in the world on teh Church. I mean the slave trade, colonialism, WWI WII ect were not instituted by teh Church. You may have a point with teh Crusades or teh Wars of Religion, but these were complex events in which politics and economics played major roles. Often teh church sought to mediate and restrain secular authorities. As has been said before one cannot really settle the argument so the best solution is to agree with waht is held in common and allow teh disputed areas to remain dipsuted without overt conflict
@John –
You said it. Agreed.
Let’s try and respect NOT only theism, but also atheism, for the good that it can do, and not frown upon ‘non-believers’ as some sort of viral plaque.
“Holier are thow hands that work, than thigh lips that pray.” I’ll leave you with that.
Paul -
Two comments.
You say “atheism … is a belief-system, since it proposes belief in a certain idea” … I’d disagree. it’s a negative belief, in that it’s very clear about what it does NOT believe. The moment you believe, positively, in something else, you become a pantheist, a deist, etc.
You also say atheism “does nothing to address our fundamental need as human beings: ultimate reconciliation with the Creator we rebelled against.” Well, that’s a very religious way of describing our “fundamental need”. If we don’t believe in God, or have any way of experiencing the presence of such a divinity, what is our “fundamental need”?
I’d say our fundamental needs as humans are to feel safe, to be loved, to feel we have purpose, and God is an imaginary way of seeing to those needs (that is, a fantasy). I’d prefer to find human, ordinary, rational ways to address those needs; at least that’s real. But then God has never addressed any of my needs, even when I thought I believed in him, and asked him to, so I would say that. Until he gets in touch, I will rely on my human capacities rather than fantasy.
Looks like this could be interesting – but too much to read. There are practical problems to be attended to. I really don’t think God is interested in dogma or theory – but in action.
Shaun / JApie
Sorry for the delayed response. thanks for your candour – Lyndall, you make a good point – but theory drives the action.
If you want to carry on the discussion, I would be honoured. But I think the arguments have been made – ultimately, God has spoken through the bible and his son, Jesus.
I hope that you will keep your minds open to the possibility that this world is not all there is.
Cheers
P
Great discussion, Shaun. I had pretty much already concluded that you were a former believer in the God of the Bible, and that you had given this up. Having experienced many disappointments, let-downs and even betrayal at the hands of other Christians, I’m in no position to criticize you on this (I’ve also dished out quite a bit of letting down…).
But, I want to believe in and live according to something that I can trust. I don’t mind some unanswered questions, but I don’t want to feel that I have to avoid issues for fear that my whole belief system will come crashing down. And much as I love “winning”, I don’t want to bolster or justify my lifestyle with cheap shots that don’t really convince me.
And so I would like to pose a couple of honest observations and question to you:
- why do we all seem to have this “inner judgment” of right and wrong (even if we often differ on the details)?
- and if we do differ on an important issue, is there ANY (rationally satisfying) way to resolve which of us is right?
- it is quite hard to exist for long without a belief system. If one chooses to define atheism as a non-belief-system, then I would argue that it pretty soon requires a belief system to lean on (like the evolutionary belief that all life developed as a consequence of entirely random processes).
- our perception of our “fundamental need” is not necessarily completely congruent with our actual need (although, intellectually, it is wise to be slow to accept or dish out definitions). The point is that our “need” is not necessarily totally related to our belief system.
- you know that addressing your needs yourself is real. You imply that falling back on God is not real. Fair enough, but is this definitely a valid assumption? It is a little trite to observe that the fact that many millions have not experienced any reality of God is not logically a proof for His non-existence. But, if one has tried Christianity’s recipe to experience the reality of God, and it has not worked, then it is understandable that one rejects that recipe.
But, logically speaking, what becomes of the assumption of God’s non-existence if others have experienced it? On the other hand, how are we to objectively verify assertions to that effect?
I agree that you should never lean on something that you hold to be a fantasy – you should never take a “leap of faith” just for its’ own sake, or for what is essentially a narcotic effect.
But, what if it were possible to have another shot at asking God to show that he is real? What if there was something that you weren’t told before? What if God IS real, and what if He has been waiting for you? Maybe I am pushing it too much, but read the parable of the prodigal son again, and ask yourself whether it is merely wishful thinking.
@ dave
The tooth fairy, by definition, exists within “creation” (sorry, cant think of a better word for everything), on Earth even, and is, therefore, potentially falsifiable while god is either outside of “creation” – in which case we have no way of getting to him/her/it – or in some beliefs, IS creation – same problem. So really the tooth fairy (or any other fairy) is better suited to comparisons with the flying Spagetti Monster or Nessie.