The question was posed to me in the comments of a recent post asking:
Could I ask: what would it take for you to accept that there is a God? I hope I am not maligning Richard Dawkins, but I think somewhere he says that even if a statue of Mary waved to him he would attribute it to a freak coincidence that the random motion of molecules happened to occur in the same direction for some short space of time. If anyone has a “faith” in atheism that would surely be it. That is to say, it is hard to see what could count as proof. As Jesus points out: “Not even if a man should rise from the dead would they believe.”
It’s an interesting question, and one that I have pondered in the past but never articulated. I thought it best to begin by stating what will not lead me to believe in a deity.
Something Science Cannot Explain
There is a school of thought that believes atheists can be converted if they can be shown something which cannot be reasonably explained by science. This falls into the realm of the “God of the gaps” argument. For me, personally, seeing something which cannot be reasonably explained by science simply means that it cannot currently be explained by science. Science is a constantly evolving beast by its very nature, and problems which seemed insurmountable only a couple of decades ago are now taught to school children.
Any Holy Book in Isolation
Note the clause at the end of that statement. I don’t believe any book can change my world view enough so as to make me believe in a deity. The reason I trust science is that there is no trust required. If I read a book that proposes a theory, I can exercise my right to validate the theory. If I choose not to do this, I can look upon the works of others and examine their methods in order to determine whether they meet my standards of proof. And even if they do, I can repeat the experiement in order to be sure that I am happy with the method and the results. Of course, I rarely exercise this right, so there is an element of trust, but there are two key differences between trusting a holy book and trusting a scientific theory.
- Even if I put my trust in the results of a scientist, I can still go out and prove it myself. This is not possible with holy books.
- Trusting a holy book is putting your trust in a single source. Scientific theories are, in the vast majority of cases, confirmed or rejected by many other scientists who approach the experiment with an open yet critical mind. It’s very rare that science has to rely on a single source, and such theories are always treated with the requisite scepticism. This is not a quality generally shared by the religious community.
The “in isolation” clause should be fairly self-explanatory. While I cannot accept any holy book as it stands (plus, which one would I chose, there’s so many!), there may, in the future, be evidence that comes to light that substantiates all of the claims made in such a book. And let’s be clear, evidence would have to exist for all the claims made.
A Miracle, a Message from God, a “Spiritual Experience”
The example of Richard Dawkins, who would dismiss an image of the statue of mary waving at him is an interesting one. I am sure that I would also dismiss such a thing, and I’m sure many others would to. If I was already a believer, I would be even more ready to question anything that confirmed by belief, anything that I wanted to be true. Taking the specific example of a statue appearing to wave, there are many reasons this might appear to happen. As we know, light can bend altering the appearence of objects, statues can actually move as their structual integrity decays. There’s a myriad of ways to explain such an event.
Similarly, many spiritual experiences can be easily explained through known phenomena. I would also be careful to consider all aspects of such an event, such as similar experiences that didn’t make sense or fall into some sort of plan.
What Would Make me Believe?
The answer to this question is “nothing”. There is nothing that would make me believe in any deity. However, I do not, and cannot, rule out the possibility of my accepting a deity exists. Note the subtle but important difference in wording I’ve used. I will never believe in a deity, but if the presence of a deity can be proved to the point where belief is not necessary, I will accept their existence. And at that point, I would no longer be an atheist. I have so far yet to witness any evidence whatsoever for the existence of any deity and therefore find it hard to believe such a day will come. It would be very un-atheistic of me, however, to not examine any evidence should it ever be produced.
Do I Want God to be Real?
Jonathan posted a second question, which I feel obliged to answer.
Finally, how about a second question: would you like there to be a God? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say that that would prove anything. It would just give some idea of your perception of God.
Again, an interesting question, but the answer really depends on what your definition of a God is. For example, I would not want the Christian God to be real having read the Bible. It is a vengeful, spiteful, angry, jealous, arrogant God who seems more interested in being worshipped, like some celebrity, than guiding people down the right path. I feel similarly about any deity that builds into their religious teachings (used under advisement! I do not believe any deities exist and therefore do not believe there are any teachings from these non existent beings) any intolerance of any other belief (or absence of belief) system or that requires any form of worship. I cannot concede that any being powerful enough to create the universe, and wise enough to impart such knowledge and wisdom, would be as egotistical to demand that the creatures he has created constantly worship him.
On a personal level, I don’t actually care whether a deity exists or not. While, if they were proven to be real, there would clearly be an impact on all of our lives, at this moment in time I don’t really mind. I don’t care whether my origins are primates or a creator. I would say that in my experience those who believe, and especially those who come to religion later in life, do so because they need to believe, and I do not have that need myself. I can accept that my life is unplanned, and not part of some great scheme of a creator, that doesn’t worry me or make me feel inadequate in anyway. In fact, I feel quite comfortable with it. So my response to the question “would you like there to be a God” would be “I have no need for there to be a God”. A slight cop-out, perhaps, but an honest answer.
Related posts:
As for scientist who support something from nothing, that is Stephen Hawking ideas on the big bang and matter being crushed out of existence in a black hole. (information paradox)
The big bang was proposed by Georges Lemaître a Roman Catholic Priest and Scientist and I see it as play on the “Let there be Light” creationist theory. I lean toward continuous creation through quantum fluctuation which is a variation of Fred Hoyle’s Steady State theory.
Psy, welcome back. I stand by my comment on culture. Atheism is fundamentally a negation of culture or an anti-culture. You see if you don’t believe in anything at all, you can not build a culture. But everyone believes in something.
Hitler is a really good example. You are right that he is not an atheist at all. His core conviction? “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” Racial purity was literally his god. He made use of whatever philosophy or religion confirmed this. Philosophically he was strongly influenced by the atheisms of Schopenhauer (will to power), Nietzsche (the superman), and social Darwinism (struggle of the fittest). (I don’t believe Darwin himself would have accepted this translation of his theory to the cultural arena, but I’m not sure). Religiously he pitted the “Aryan” Christ against the Jews anti-Christ, forgetting that Christ was actually a Jew. He also interpreted Jesus as a military man (despite his meek acceptance of the Cross).
All war is religious, but not at all in the sense you think. This can also be seen in your example of the Crusades. It is not simply Christian vs Muslim (Muslims had already ruled the Holy Land for quite some time when the destructive Turks threatened the whole of Byzantine culture). Northern Ireland is another classic case. This is not really Catholic doctrine vs. Protestant doctrine (as if they are fighting over the Mass or Mary or some other point of doctrine). It is a cultural struggle, and a legitimate one (though of course I advocate peaceful means) and is really as a Catholic vs Protestant cultural battle.
So it is not so much faith as virtue vs doubt as virtue that is in competition, so much as the cultures that arise from each. There is such a thing as a Protestant culture (even if noone believes in it anymore) and a Catholic one, and a Muslim one, and a Hindu one etc… But there can never be a purely atheistic culture. This is because it proposes nothing. Put more clearly: it does not recognise that things “ought” to be a certain way: they just are. There is no worldview, no cohesion of ideas. It is necessarily atomistic and relativistic: you think what you like, and I’ll think what I like and we’re just going to have to accept that.
Thus Stalin explicitly denied the existence of any god, but he too was profoundly religious. He had a clear idea (thanks to Marx) on how things “ought” to be and the culture needed to get them there.
Dawkins too, is highly religious: he is a crusader for social Darwinism (which Darwin himself would not recognise as I said above). He thinks that religions (ie other relgions should be stamped out) and replaced by science. (In fact he explicitly says this). This is called scientism. He wants all of us to believe in science, and worship at its shrine. Baptising a child is abuse for him. He fails to see that he is wanting to force people to see the world the way he does. He is an inquisitor of the worst kind. He can not accept any role for the supernatural and therefore nor must you. He even talks of bringing about a “paradise on earth”.
Now here is the critical point. His, like Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Nietzche’s, Marx’s, Schopenhaur’s … is an anti-culture. Science in its place is all very wonderful. But it can not be god and that’s what he wants it to be. But science is not everything. For example, if someone can make a bomb that could blow up the world, should they? Ought not science be limited by some kind of ethics? Or are Hitler’s experiments on lower forms of evolution (like us poor sad demented theists) OK because they advance scientific knowledge? And who gets to decide? Is there a role for politics?
Ideas become ideologies whenever they turn something into a god that is not. Science itself can be deformed this way. Dawkins is not merely religious but a zealot, actively campaigning and fighting for his god.
Religiosity will always cause tension because it takes a stand on how things should be, and not everyone will be happy about this. It really is culture vs. culture. Or better, culture vs anti-culture. You fail to realise just how much you owe to Christendom. Christianity has constructed culture and actually allowed science to develop (look at the other cultures). You were good enough to mention Lemaître. You might have mentioned Mendel (another Catholic priest) or Louis Pasteur or countless other theists who have contributed to our knowledge and wellbeing. Science when not an ideology is not the enemy of religion, but its friend.
And now you, Psy. “Personally I have no need to invent an imaginary master to babysit me…” But you do. It’s just a much smaller babysitter, but quite imaginary. Science is your benevolent god who gives you all that you need, and ever need to need. It promises freedom, health, wealth, peace …. But you seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that science has its own agenda, because it is driven by scientists that do. Put more clearly: scientists do more than merely come to know reality more (which is a given and something they have no control over). They also seek to use it, to construct, to build… what they construct and build depends not on science but on their own convictions. But who will form these convictions when there is no culture/religion left to do it? Bioethical concerns will only increase with time. I hope that one day the new supermen don’t decide that your genes are not good enough for the man of the future and send you off to your awaiting black hole sooner than you had originally intended! The gods in white lab coats are not always benevolent. It is our task not only to admire them but to keep them under control…. the wars of science are already upon us (abortion, cloning, euthanasia….) Which side are you on? Or shall we just stick your pacifier back in?
Psy: You accuse me of believing in nonsense and then speak of “A fluctuating density of dimensional nothingness”.
You are right, however in saying “Any difference in space is a property and having properties is enough to consider it something.” Thus the void between galaxies is not ‘nothing’ even if there were absolutely nothing in them (which there is). Time and space exist because there is a difference – there is change.
You have still not understood the problem of something coming from nothing. Whether you accept the Big Bang theory (can science be wrong sometimes?) or not, the problem occurs before there are any galaxies at all. There is no void. You seem to take for granted that there was always an “out there” which stuff appeared “into”. That is an assumption that needs a defence, however. There is no space where there is nothing… to put it more clearly: there is no such thing as “outside” the universe. If there was, it would really be “inside” it (if the universe is taken to mean the sum total of every thing that exists).
Space and time only make sense when there are already things in existence, and as someone mentioned above somewhere, this is why they are relative concepts. Whether or not (my money is on “not” – I have a weak faith) hydrogen atoms create themselves periodically now</idue to gravity, they are relying on other existents to do so (ie the galaxies which cause the gravitation fields).
So the question still remains: how did anything come to be in the first place… before galaxies, gravity, time and space ever were?
I hope you can see that these are questions I am posing. Feel free to point out any philosophical ideology behind them. I do take a position on the matter, if that’s what you mean. But then so do you.
Jonathan,
Your second-to-last comment delves into areas that I am not used to (namely societal behaviour, etc). But I’ll give it my best on a few items:
1) The advantages/disadvantages of one societal model (be they atheist-based, theist-based, or otherwise) over another have nothing to do with the question on the existence of god(s). However, I do agree that they are important issues.
2) You and Psy seem to be in an argument about recognizing the benefits that christians and christian institutions have brought us. My position is that I celebrate all good things brought to this earth, and admonish all bad things. In other words, I celebrate Charlemagne for creating the university system, as I admonish Stalin’s tactics. This is independent of my or Charlemagne’s or Stalin’s religious positions. I think you’re simply advocating good behavior over bad, not theist over atheist.
3) My trouble, though, is with your position that you place faith higher than doubt as a virtue, or rather that you are concerned with the cultures that arise from doubt more than the cultures that arise from faith. Why does a doubt-based culture trouble you? Are there cultures that were based on doubt that have met with negative fates? But more importantly, have *all* doubt-based cultures ended badly, whereas *all* faith-based cultures ended positively? I doubt it. (ha ha). Furthermore, science is fundamentally based on doubt, so are you advocating a culture which includes a mixture of doubt and faith, and if so how would we decide on the proportions?
4) As for an atheist-based culture, I agree that this doesn’t really mean anything. Nor should it, because I strongly believe in maintaining the meanings of words, and atheism is simply the lack of the belief in god(s). Having said this, I have observed only in the last few years a culture developing which, shall we say, caters to atheists. It resonates with atheists. This culture, not surprisingly, coincides very much with liberal culture (although not in 100% of cases). Are liberals the way they are because they embrace doubt, regardless of their theistic position? Maybe. Personally, I’m quite happy with my (relatively) liberal life and the culture that surrounds it. But not only am I happy, I also do not see how it is harmful to me, my family, my friends or my community members. Is this impossible on a large scale? I don’t see why it would be.
EB
EB, Some great comments as usual.
I suppose the point I am making is that doubt is always reactionary. You always have to doubt something. Affirmation always come before doubt. I disagree strongly that science is based on doubt. On the contrary, it accepts our sense data (within reason) as being fundamentally trustworthy; that our intelligence is truly capable of drawing correct conclusions; that the world around us is real and not just a figment of our imagination; that certain laws are universally applicable, such as the principle of non-contradiction, the principle that all effects have causes etc… etc… etc…
The best aspect of science is that it accepts (on faith) that the universe is rational and won’t suddenly do something totally random, so that if you repeat an experiement sufficiently, you can safely draw conclusions. No scientist in their actual day-to-day work begins with doubt, but with possibility – the conviction that the work done today is not just a total waste of time.
Culture and social behaviour are not the same thing even if they are related: the former is more profound. Our culture is still being propped up by Christian values even if its basis is slowly eroding – that’s a problem, for it is not being replaced with anything. In other words you are enjoying the lifestyle you have (of relative peace and freedom and so on) thanks to the culture that gave it to you. These things are not automatic.
Therefore to answer your points:
1) I was arguing that the consequences of atheism are actually destructive to society, not the belief (ahem) in itself. Atheistic ideologies (I suggested a few in my previous post) are really pseudo-religious: they mimic aspects of religion but are actually a kind of anti-religion. Atheism which attempts to avoid ideology ends up necessarily being sterile: there is no reason why things are the way they are. Culture is just an accident.
2) Great! I agree. Pope Alexander VI was a nasty piece of work and I’m sure you and Psy are really good people. It’s not the institutions either that make a culture, but what flows from the fundamental underlying premises of its religious practise. For example, the understanding of who man is and what he is for make a big difference in ethics and therefore in law and political practise. Atheism is not merely a neutral position.
3) Doubt is not a virtue at all, and faith can either be a vice or a virtue. Doubt as a constant attitude is destructive and not even able to be applied consistently. Noone wakes up every morning and seriously doubts that their senses could be deceiving them, and so on… Doubt can be pernicious when it is unreasonable, because it is so destructive. It can not build anything. Doubt can also be a normal reasonable reaction, but I don’t see it as particularly virtuous.
Which leads me to your next part of this point. No culture can ever be based on doubt. I challenge you to think of any. In fact cultures have collapsed precisely at the point when doubt and scepticism (and paranoia) became the dominant characteristic. Rome, Greece, Sumeria …
Faith-based cultures are generally quite positive. Again I mean culture. If you go to what you would describe as a “good” Muslim home, or a “good” Hindu home etc… their lives are quite healthy, and the families are strong. They will survive and benefit humanity as long as they remain culturally strong. Doubt creates division and disruption.
4) Yes a climate of atheim is growing and yes, it is related strongly to liberalism. (I’m glad you recognise it – so many atheists seem to think that the world is completely dictated to by theists) It is seemingly innocuous because the law and order so gradually and carefully developed and maintained is still artificially in place. But that may not be true for long. One sign of it is the incedible place that law has in our lives. People are clamoring for all kinds of rights and see law as the way to get them. There is precious little debate about what really constitutes a “right” and how these are determined. So the legal world is becoming yet another pseudo-religion.
=Psy: You accuse me of believing in nonsense and then speak of “A fluctuating density of dimensional nothingness”.
Its a simple hypothesis not a belief or fact, some would call it a theory while I wouldn’t give it that credibility. Its a simple thought oversize where if it runs into unsolvable complications I will have no problem discarding it. For example string theory requires 11 dimensions and as it runs into difficulties they add to it with M theory and now F theory complicating it even more. However at the same time it does deal with other issues of quantum theory. Still I see string theory as good thought exercise but not necessarily a viable theory.
=There is no void. You seem to take for granted that there was always an “out there” which stuff appeared “into”. That is an assumption that needs a defence,
Initially I agree with you but why should I assume (not doubt) this is true with out exploring the possibilities. For the moment I will continue my current train of thought and revisit this at a later time. Why would you assume that I am not competent enough to have considered it in the first place?
=can science be wrong sometimes?
As the old cliche say, Science progresses with funerals. As scientist who religiously adhere to particular models, ideas or theories die off those with new ideas that have been suppressed by traditional hierarchy are then free to share their ideas without rhetoric ridicule.
As for theories I favor some over others as being more probable but as for having faith or a beLIEf in any particular theory, lets say I’m waiting for a breakthrough which may or may not come in my lifetime.
=how did anything come to be in the first place… before galaxies, gravity, time and space ever were?
I still haven’t concluded that space/time needed a beginning, what brought you to this conclusion? You mentioned that it may need something to be relative too but sometimes people put a conclusion where they got tired of thinking.
=Its a simple thought “oversize”
Firefox spel chek sux.
Jonathan,
OK, I probably acted too quickly when I was questioning your criticism of doubt. I think I was equating it to a criticism of skepticism.
In any case, I agree that scientists do act with some faith, namely the faith that (as you mentioned) the physical laws hitherto discovered remain in place. So, you’re advocating a culture that is based on faith. Would a culture that stems from science fit this requirement? (Of course I am talking about a hypothetical scientific culture where there is no worship, or dogma, etc, many of the things you’ve objected to, and used Dawkins as an example. I think this was the impetus for South Park to poke fun at Dawkins, which I enjoyed quite a bit.)
The problem though is a semantic one. I strongly believe that the faith scientists put into the laws of nature being consistent from day to day is not the same kind of faith a deist has when he/she expects prayers to work (I’m not talking about you in particular). The former is built on years and years of experience built up from multiple objective studies from people in multiple fields. The latter is in every case subjective, and therefore less reliable (I’m not saying the former is perfectly reliable… just more reliable.) Isn’t this a worthy distinction? (BTW, I think it’s equally bad when many lay-people start believing scientists just because they are so. Sincere confidence that someone has in a scientific claim is contingent on that person’s knowledge of that scientific area.)
So, yes, we can use the word faith to describe a certain type of human behavior. And sometimes faith is necessary. Sometimes it’s not necessary. I happen to think it’s *not* necessary for me to take religious claims on faith… obviously. But I think we should recognize there are different levels of the word faith. (I’ve heard some try to use the word “trust” to make this distinction, and I think I might agree, e.g. “I trust the sun will come up tomorrow”, whereas “I have faith I will go to heaven”. Totally different.)
You also make the point that the comforts I enjoy are based on history and the works of many before me. No argument there. And I also agree that many of those people were deists. As you point out time and time again, one can find good people from the deist and atheist camps, and bad people from the deist and atheist camps. Therefore, I don’t see what being a deist/atheist has to do with a successful culture moving into the future. In other words, this discussion should be on a political site, rather than an atheist site. Perhaps the point you’re trying to make is that there needs to be *some* culture, and since atheism doesn’t offer this, that’s a problem. Perhaps, but I’m an atheist and I don’t intend to live in a culture-less world. I can’t. Nobody can. So, what’s the problem? If your beef is with politics and ethics, I would caution you to tie-ing this in with atheism. I’m sure I could find many theists with nearly identical views on politics and ethics as me.
EB
=Doubt creates division and disruption.
Doubt as a virtue is scrutiny not insecurity.
=People are clamoring for all kinds of rights and see law as the way to get them. There is precious little debate about what really constitutes a “right” and how these are determined.
Actually religion has a habit of trying to limit the rights of others and impose their silly religious doctrines which is the cause of the current “new atheist” movement. In fact there is much debate as to what constitutes a right at the current time and I think much of it may be better defined in the courts over the next few year. Hopefully California will deal with oppression of the minority by the majority.
EB – Thanks for your comments. I have absolutely no problem with you “clogging” this forum, and have been enjoying the discussions you’ve been having (as have many other people) and slightly frustrated that I’ve not had the time to contribute as much as I would like. If you want to, and if Jonathan gives his permission, I’ll exchange contact details on your behalf, but for the sake of my enjoyment I’d rather you continue your discussion here.
I also think you raise an interesting point on semantics. We are, as a species, unfortunately reliant on an ambiguous method of communication. Tied to this reliance is a certain amount of “baggage”. Jonathan dislikes the concept of Atheists as a reaction to theists, and I am in complete agreement with him. Many atheists, myself included, dislike the badge of atheism (despite the title of this site) because we feel that in our ideal society, the label would be unnecessary. Similarly, there shouldn’t be a need for an “a-murderer” label, it’s just the default position. I dislike being tagged with the term “faith”. Not because of the literal meaning, but more because of the baggage that tends to go with it. If you told someone that you had faith, it would conjure an image of a person who believed in a deity (e.g. a man of faith), not someone who trusts their senses. I prefer to say that for me there are different burdens of proof, and for everything that I have faith in, there is a substantial amount of proof, whereas I find it difficult to believe in things for which there is none.
EB, Psy, Jonathan – Regarding the question of creation, and maybe this warrants a separate post to fully pad out my personal take on it, I’d just like to respond to a couple of the points raised.
Jonathan’s characteristics of the “first being” do not hold true. The characteristics theorized are: -
The first point, I can accept (although I do not accept the overarching principal of a “first being”, I will entertain the idea for the purpose of this discussion). However, there is no reason to believe that this is a being singular. While that fits the concept of God, it is merely a desire for this theory to match the Judeo-Christian theory of creationism that drives this assumption. There is no reason to assume it is a “first being” as opposed to “first beings”. Considering the above, the other characteristics must also be questioned.
To return to an old adage, correlation does not equal causation. So even if there was a “first being”, its existence is no reason to believe that it is the catalyst of everything that follows. This is especially true if you question whether there is a single first being or multiple first beings (which one is the catalyst, or is it some form of aggregation?). In the theoretical sequence of events, the first being can exist and then at some point later everything else can come into existence. Hence the existence of a deity does not prove that said deity created everything, and equally discovering a method by which everything came into existence does not disprove the existence of a deity (but would call into serious question the acts performed by deities).
Now, if we do accept (or at least discuss) that the first being is the catalyst, we also have to question whether everything that follows was intentional (conscience) or accidental. For example, if the current CERN experiments prove the existence of the Higgs-Boson particle, we can then theorize that the creator established a universe of rules and then populated said universe with a particle (or multiple particles) with the foreknowledge that such a simple beginning would evolve into the world we currently inhabit. That, clearly falls into the comfort zone for creationists, but not for me.
As for the difficulty in accepting the randomness of our current situation, I’d like to ask what you think the odds are? If we were the only planet, then I would concede that it is highly unlikely, However, there may be billions of other planets beyond our reach that have experienced similar histories to our own. The history of the world, let alone the universe, stretches into millions of years, which leaves an awful lot of time for these various scenarios to play out across an awful lot of worlds. And yes, I am aware that this is touching on the thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters idea, but I have no need to attach a higher “purpose” to my life so this doesn’t bother me.
Ultimately, this comes down to this idea that the accepted religious teachings are but a shadow of the creator God. So as someone who is not attached to any deity, belief system or religion, I am required to believe in not just the teachings of the holy books, but also all these unprovable assumptions that have been loosely extracted and expanded upon from such a modest (in terms of creationism) base. It therefore seems a touch hypocritical to criticize atheists for having any level of faith (faith in the literal, trusting one’s senses context) when your own beliefs require so much. It feels as if faith that supports science is a bad thing, there faith that supports deism is a good and just thing to be applauded.
The REALLY interesting aspect of this debate is the definition of “time” and by association the definition of the beginning of existence (we’re verging on semantics again…). To define time by way of its impact on matter would allow for the theory of matter being spawned from energy, therefore giving us a beginning. Before time, there was only energy, and as such, there was no time. That fits rather nicely into certain atheistic and scientific ideologies. Those who are religious would no doubt define the beginning of existence as the point at which God comes into existence. Therefore, there was nothing before God, God is the first and the origin of everything that follows.
Jonathan – My assertion that I only have the holy books to go in is entirely true. They are the source. And while I accept that many religions have moved on somewhat from the original teachings (or should I say the literal teachings of the holy books no longer mesh with today’s society, to people change their interpretations), I would be reliant on the interpretations of others, and that is no a position I want to be in. I am forever told that faith is a very personal thing, a personal relationship with God. If that is the case, then putting my understanding of God, and the basis of my relationship with Him, in the trust of someone else in unacceptable to me. And given the sheer number of different views on seemingly identical (or at least very similar) works, it would be a dangerous game to play.
I’m genuinely interested in how you resolve your personal understanding of God. You’ve (partially) accepted that the environment in which you were raised caused you to become a Christian, so do you not doubt that you have chosen the wrong God? Or are following the wrong path? Do you not question that on the day of judgement you will be confronted by different God who will admonish you for believing in the God you believe in for environmental reasons and not more spiritual reasons?
Hi! We seem to have strayed far from the original topic…
I wrote about this question on my blog:
http://sarahtrachtenberg.com/?p=31
I admit it would be a very difficult thing to prove to me. I suspect it’s less difficult to convince a believing person that there is no god.
I would not want god, at least not the god of Western religion. No doubt, theists will jump on this and tell me that I’m not “really” an atheist, it’s just wishful thinking. Either way, your god is a real son of a bitch (or bitch, bitches, whatever).
Jonathan
I’m curious: You’re a catholic, and you’re also very eloquent. I came across this book on Amazon by a Jonathan Baker. Did you write it? “Consecrated Women?: Women Bishops – A Catholic and Evangelical Response”
I’ve been away a while, and I see there’s a lot to catch up on! I hope Atheist don’t mind if I make a few separate responses.
Psy
1. I didn’t mean to mock you, but “A fluctuating density of dimensional nothingness” just makes no sense. Nothingness has no density (a measure of how much stuff there is).
2. The key point of everything I have been saying about nothingness is that it is radical. It is impossible for it to generate something, because “it” doesn’t exist. Therefore there needs to be some “outside” influence… but then that means that there is something. The consequence? Because there definitively exists something now, there must be some being that has always existed with the ability to bring everything else into existence.
3. Time and space are both relative terms. They can only exist, therefore, where something exists. Indeed where something material exists. So, for example, if the big bang theory were true, and if it were also true that this was the beginning of the universe (two totally different questions) there would be no such thing as time or space “before” it.
4. I agree that science progresses by falsification. That is, older theories constantly need to be modified by newer discoveries that point out some flaw in the prevous model. Science is always necessarily a model in cases based on induction. I don’t think the right attitude is to be constantly waiting for a total answer about everything (a la Hawking if I understand him correctly) before we can say anything about anything. In fact, philosophy does not function inductively but deductively and is able to provide more certain results, but of a totally different nature than science. They ought to be friends, and in fact need to be for science to have any real basis, as I have previously argued.
5. “Doubt as a virtue is scrutiny not insecurity.” Nicely put. But I think scrutiny is different from doubt. Doubt means starting already with an a priori suspicion, or assumption that “most likely not, but lets see…”. Scrutiny simply means “lets be open and check it out and not make any prior judgment.” I am more than happy to subscribe to the latter, not the former, if that’s all you’ve been meaning.
6. I think that “rights” talk cuts both ways. Why can’t religious people argue for their “silly religious doctrines”? Why ought we just accept your silly ones? “Silly” here just means something I disagree with. Law ought to be about defending the common good. Sometimes “rights” talk blurs this.
EB
Thanks for your compliments. I have not authored any book (as yet). I will be sure to obtain some free advertising here when I do.
1. “So, you’re advocating a culture that is based on faith. Would a culture that stems from science fit this requirement?”
I don’t think culture can stem from science. When it comes down to it, science is about brute facts. Whether there is life on Mars. How many rings Saturn has and how they got there. etc… etc… But life is not just a sequence of brute facts. Personal history is vital to culture, and therefore the family is its principle vehicle. I dare say that myth is its expression, but fear that that may be understood. Perhaps thinking about “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy may help. Tolkein brilliantly depicts several cultures (orcs, elves, men, dwarves and hobbits). It is necessary for the author to frequently refer to past events. Without history and life experience (and language above all) there is no culture. It is possible to reject one’s culture, but not possible to artificially substitute another. I think that is what often happens with the “new science”.
2. Thanks for pointing out that “faith” is used in different senses when referring to the laws of nature and to faith in God. (I hope I did not give the impression that I denied the efficacy of prayer – on the contrary I think it is fundamental). I suppose both senses contain the idea of “putting confidence in…” (which is the opposite of doubt, you will note). But the latter also expresses a relationship. The confidence is placed in a person(al God) rather than in (his – oooops) laws. But when a scientist comes up with a new theory, you are additionally in the position of having to decide if you trust them unless you have the expertise in that area yourself. That is faith in its most profound moment. Faith in its fullest sense implies personal trust, and we humans need it.
3. I think that “trust” is a good distinction, but you put it backwards. You do not “trust” that the sun will come up tomorrow (unless you attribute some intelligence to it). You just think it highly likely given that there are no obvious signs to the contrary. But I “trust” that God will judge me mercifully when I die, and hope to go to heaven (unlike many forms of Protestantism I do not assume that I will go there just because I believe in God, and don’t assume that you won’t just because you don’t).
4. So in the light of 2 & 3, I agree that it is not “necessary” to take religious claims on faith . . . in that it is quite up to you to decide, for example, whether you find Jesus (or Mohammed or whatever) trustworthy. But see my next response to Atheist for more on this….
5. NB Deist and theist are different. The former believe that God exists but is not knowable personally. He simply makes the laws of the universe and takes no more interest in them. A theist usually means someone who has a relationship of some kind with a deity.
6. Yes, “there needs to be *some* culture” and “atheism doesn’t offer this” ergo…? Politics (except in the more broad Aristotelian sense) and ethics (ditto) are not the same thing as culture, but are derived from it. In fact the reason most people reject their culture is because they reject one of these. Thus moral failure is often a cause of atheism. A great pity! This is a highly complex issue, however, which deserves much more attention.
Thanks for all your points.
Sarah
I’m sorry I have not the time to check out your website. You should thank Atheist for the free advertising. Please do summarise your position here for us… without the abuse preferably.
Atheist
Firstly, thank you for your generosity in allowing free discussion even if the topic wanders a little. I am happy to dialogue separately with anyone who wishes, but would probably be a poorer correspondent due to time restrictions.
1. I find it interesting that you see semantics (language) as a weakness. This is part of the ‘hard’ edge of science, which always seeks precision above all. I am glad that there are other spheres of life, like literature and art which takes advantage of ambiguity in wonderful ways. But even ordinary dealings, even with strangers, illustrate the greatness of this. To say “good morning” to someone is not meant to be a fact but a wish, and is deliberately open to possibility. It is a consequence of freedom that language is necessarily not univocal (where every word has a strictly confined meaning). Once again (thank God – ooops) science is not the totality of reality.
2. Sorry if I did not explain myself well. I think atheism is a reaction of its very nature. The police are “a-murderers”, because they think murder exists, not that it doesn’t. Your “ideal” society where not believing in a deity is the “default” position, is a derived one. We are not the grounds of our own existence and effectively receive all that we are and ever have as a kind of gratuitous gift. You have to be grateful to someone (or something)… or else resentful.
3. Thanks for your points about the “first being hypothesis” – great to see you taking it seriously as a hypothesis. You are right that the first being(s) could be multiple if we just went on causality alone. (I did mention this in a post somewhere else on your site). But the characteristics would still be the same:
a) These beings would all have to be necessary… or else the question restarts: on what does their existence depend?
b) together, or just a few or just one of them must cause all other (contingent) being and therefore
c) contain the necessary power to bring about the existence of all other being from nothing.
Thus it is not “merely a desire for this theory to match the Judeo-Christian theory of creationism that drives this assumption.” On the contrary, it is found in Aristotle who had no connection with this.
4. Nor am I confusing correlation and causation. The question here is about contingency. Either a being is necessary (must exist) or contingent (relies on some other agency to exist). We are only aware of contingent being and need to use our reason to recognise the existence of a necessary being. ALL contingent being (by definition) requires the existence of something else to bring it into existence.
5. In fact various philosopher/theologians (Judaic and Muslim such as Maimonides and Averroes) have attempted to provide (despite their religious background) alternative ways that god (the necessary being) generated the universe. So you are right again, that creation might have been a huge ‘mistake’ in that sense. The first being is not necessarily intelligent (at least from the point of view of contingency) – though he/they did have the power to create intelligent beings. I’m afraid I am ignorant of the Higgs-Boson particle, so can’t comment on that. Still, your comment is revealing: “That, clearly falls into the comfort zone for creationists, but not for me.” Once again it is clear that prejudgment takes place. It is difficult to stand back from all this totally impartially as a scientist qua scientist ‘ought’.
6. I think the odds are zero of planet earth appearing randomly, not just miniscule. Does not science say that a system left on its own tend towards chaos? Forgive my ignorance if that has changed. Monkeys with typewriters… good image, but even there we assume some kind of intentionality. If monkeys end up with an obsession with the letter “j” we are stuffed!
7. “I have no need to attach a higher “purpose” to my life so this doesn’t bother me.” But you at least have a lower purpose, I hope. Purpose is a fascinating concept. It is a recognition that we all work towards some goal in every single action that we do. Indeed at base we all strive to be happy. There can be no deny this, and in fact is the real starting point of ethics.
8. I don’t think that in any of the above I have obliged you to do anything but think. I have opened no holy book and don’t intend to until you admit that belief in God is not purely and self-evidently irrational. You (personally) do have a clear faith in atheism. It is you who talk of “comfort zones”, your ‘feelings’ in this matter, and what you ‘need’ or better ‘don’t need’ from god. And I think you have demonstrated that no proof would be sufficient for you to believe. In all this I do not critisize you for having this ‘faith’ – I am just pointing it out. Nor do I think that faith in deism/theism a good thing without qualifying that considerably. Quite the contrary!
9. I have no problem with matter being spawned from energy. But this energy must exist in some form. It still requires explanation for its existence, and in any case it exists in time. I don’t define time by its impact on matter. Time is an abstraction – it is simply a measure of change. God exists entirely outside time. He is a necessary being without any change. (Change is a sign of contingency).
10. “I am forever told that faith is a very personal thing, a personal relationship with God. If that is the case, then putting my understanding of God, and the basis of my relationship with Him, in the trust of someone else [ie a biblical writer] in (sic) unacceptable to me.” Yes, I can see that you do not trust others much and urge you to open yourself to the possibility of love even though it will make you vulnerable. Don’t let science be a distraction to you or a kind of security blanket.
11. “I’m genuinely interested in how you resolve your personal understanding of God.” To briefly answer your sub questions – please fire away if you want more details.
- do you not doubt that you have chosen the wrong God? No, “God is love” – I can not believe anything else. Only the Christian God affirms this.
- or are following the wrong path?
I know I am following the wrong path: I sin regularly. But I trust in God’s help and mercy.
- Do you not question that on the day of judgement you will be confronted by different God who will admonish you ….
No.
“… for believing in the God you believe in…”
I think we are judged on deeper things than that. I disagree with most of my Protestant and Evangelical friends on this one.
“… for environmental reasons and not more spiritual reasons?
I don’t understand this… please explain.
I believe I am very lucky to have been brought up Christian. I have made some superficial enquiry into other religions and find them lacking key elements I find in my own. However, I do respect sincere believers of other faiths, who have some important elements of the truth, and am certain that they will find salvation. I hope that you do too… it is not up to me to decide who gets to live with God forever or not. If it was, I would subject everyone to it. God, no doubt, is wiser.
I hope I have not offended you in anything I have said and look forward to your (and Psy’s and EB’s) responses. I hope you are all well.
Welcome back Jonathan. Lots of great points.
1) I think the comment “I think the odds are zero of planet earth appearing randomly, not just miniscule” was directed at me, rather than The Atheist. But I could be wrong.
In any case, I disagree: the odds of a planet appearing randomly are not zero, provided there is sufficient mass in the vicinity. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which you allude to) deals with what is likely/unlikely, not what is allowed/forbidden.
You then mention the monkey-typewriter image, and point out that monkeys who get stuck on “j” can never produce anything of interest, even by chance. Allow me to use these j-typing monkeys to reiterate the point I was trying to make earlier. If we take a non-intelligent creator of the universe, and this thing (for whatever reason) used only the gravity force when creating the universe (i.e. he left out electromagnetism and nuclear forces, i.e. he’s typing only j’s), then this would be pretty bad, wouldn’t it? But, as I was pointing out in an earlier post, if this were case we wouldn’t be able to evolve/survive/converse online in a gravity-only universe. So, I still contend that you could have a totally unintelligent being with the right ingredients, and toss them out there. If he tosses all j’s, well… we would never have known. If he tosses the whole alphabet, we have a chance of showing up. If that chance is minuscule (perhaps because there’s an overabundance of x’s, and not enough m’s — by analogy, the cosmological constants need to be just right), it doesn’t matter, since here we are.
2) You claim that deism and theism are mutually exclusive. According to my Random House dictionary, theism = “the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism)”, which is the definition you gave. However, definition #2: theism = “belief in the existence of a god or gods”. The same dictionary has for deist = “belief in the existence of a God…” I truncated the rest since it’s irrelevant. Depending on the defintions you use, a deist is a theist.
3) You said: “I think that “trust” is a good distinction, but you put it backwards. You do not “trust” that the sun will come up tomorrow (unless you attribute some intelligence to it). You just think it highly likely given that there are no obvious signs to the contrary. But I “trust” that God will judge me mercifully when I die, and hope to go to heaven.”
Trust has too many definitions, so I’ll play along and accept that “trust” has to do with a personal connection. This means I shouldn’t use it in the context of the sun coming up. Maybe I should say I “expect” the sun to come up. You say you “trust” that God will judge you mercifully, and that you “hope” to go to heaven. So, two questions:
i) How can you trust God to judge you mercifully, if you’ve still yet to be judged? In other words, you haven’t been reincarnated multiple times which could have allowed you to gauge how God behaves during his judging sessions (he could be merciful, or maybe he isn’t). You may have built up some trust via how He has answered your prayers and maybe this has been frequent and consistent, but the fact remains that we only die once. What if he treats the judgement-after-death part totally different than prayer, or whatever else you base your trust on?
ii) You use the words “trust” and “hope” in the same sentence. Why didn’t you say “hope” twice? (i.e. hope that God will judge you mercifully)
Thanks, EB. Taking your points:
1) By “I think the odds are zero of planet earth appearing randomly… ” I meant our planet as it exists today, in particular with intelligent life on it.
The point about the monkeys, as you say, is that the whole alphabet is needed. But more than that, grammar is needed, vocabulary is needed, the meaning behind it is needed, and structure is needed. All of these necessarily imply intelligence. In other words, if I found even a line of Shakespeare on a typewriter in the middle of the African jungle, I would rule out monkeys as the explanation (unless of course, someone trained them to do it).
2) A deist does not believe that God has any influence on the world. It became popular around the time of Newton, as the laws of nature were becoming better understood. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists. I don’t know of any famous deists at the moment. I’m sure there are some, but I suspect this site wishes to address the wider group of those who believe in a God or gods.
3) I think “trust” is personal (in its primary meaning) while hope is an interior emotion (whose object is a difficult good). Thus:
i) I trust God will act mercifully in the same way that I trust my wife is not cheating on me. In either case I may be deceived. I make my judgment from what I already know about them.
ii) I “trust” in God and “hope” to go to heaven. Also I trust my wife is being faithful, and hope I always will be too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth
I note some compelling reasoning for atheism, or
non believe in Christianity is that there is little evidence for a historical Jesus
Gecko, sorry that is simply not true. The internal hermeneutical evidence of the Gospels is compelling and there are some extra-biblical mentions. On what basis do you make your claim?
Why would any person choose to believe? Looove, baby. Alla ’bout love. And when you go up, Jesus fills you with more love than you could ever dream of (LOVE and OF rhyme. Just thot you’d wanna be reminded of that). Call me crazy, but I know where I’m going when I croak: Up, up, and away… to be filled with more guh-roovy love than you could imagine. God bless.
what would make you believe? cry out to God right now and u will experience something you’ve never experienced before. you will never be the same after you encounter it. i want everyone who reads this to know that God is real and he has a plan for everybody. his plan is not for you to fall into eternal darkness and damnation in hell, he has given us a choice, and that choice is life or death. life is God (Jesus). Jesus is the Way the Truth and the LIFE. plz dont ignore what im saying to you. if you want something more in your life just call out to God and just ask, and He will give it to you.
I think one of the key claims Dawkins makes is that religious belief should not in any way influence policies that affect our communities as a whole. Democracy is obviously a vital part of this belief – I’m not sure a government like Iran cares if its Islamic law impinges on the rights of its non-Muslim citizens (although I would love to be proven). For the most part, this claim supersedes the debate about God’s existence; it merely addresses the right of an individual to disobey religious law that he does not believe in.
Which is a valid and necessary point for a country like America.
I’m not sure where this fits in with everything that has been said, but I thought it important to indicate out a more concrete talking point. I enjoyed reading the debate.
Don’t you just love it when theists say ‘It’s full of unsubstantiated claims’? Oh the irony…
This is a very interesting debate to watch, the reason being that all parties agree on the point being debated: whether or not “a god” exists is unimportant. The_Atheist and a few others merely leave it at that. Jonathan Baker and crew, however, believe it’s unimportant for entirely different reasons: “a god” is of no import if it isn’t Yahweh. This is ostensibly a debate on whether or not there is a god. What this ought to be, given the theological makeup of those involved, is whether or not the Christian god exists, and perhaps even more importantly, whether Christianity is right. JB’s cute attempts to prove atheism as empty/shallow/immoral/full of ironic failure/insert derisive adjective here prove that the existence of some deity-ish being is not what’s important in this discussion; at least, not to him.
So as to avoid too much postmodern fingerpointing-related hackery, I’ll point out that I have to agree with The_Atheist on the ostensible subject of the debate. JB is bringing up the same old chestnuts of apologetics that are always used, that always convince the convinced and fail to convince the unconvinced. To be sure, he has given them a fresh coat of paint so that they apply to any god and not just his own personal Yahweh, but his handling of the monkeys-on-typewriters analogy reeks of “this universe looks designed; therefore it is” line of reasoning. His attempts to make science just as faith-based as religion are nothing new, and fail to convince any atheist (or scientist, for that matter) worthy of the name by virtue of both being flawed logic and missing the point. Those arguments tend to work great on people who are already Christians. As an atheist myself, I’m unimpressed. But then, I always am, and will be until Christianity comes up with a new argument to examine. A little originality is all I ask. I mean, at least TRY to save my immortal soul from eternal immersion in boiling excrement, or whatever vision of hell you subscribe to.
Pointless debate, although interesting.