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.â€
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.
Atheist, firstly thank you for answering my questions.
A. What would count as proof of a deity?
I find the “god of the gaps” argument a little fast sometimes. I quite accept that if we still don’t know for certain, say, whether there is life on Mars, it is a scientific question, and not one that can be decided by scrutiny, say, of the Bible. Still, science also has its own limitations – it is not knowledge about everything. There is still room hopefully for logic (philosophical) or the arts, or sport etc… and why not room for religion? It is rather dogmatic to say that everything a believer believes will one day be explained by science, especially in areas that are specifically religious. If, to use the deliberatly disrespectful example, a statue of Mary were to wave her hands at the crowds on, say, Christmas Day each year, I do indeed think that you should find out if the statue is in some way a fraud. But if it turns out that the statue has been there for centuries, then it’s simply more commonsensical to assume that Mary has some more personal reason for communicating in this way via her likeness, than that it is a really extraordinarily amazing random occurrence.
2. I agree that a holy book in isolation from from its intended readers and interpreters will be misread. I also agree, that it should not be the sole reason for belief. If someone just dropped a bible from the sky and I read it, I probably would not become a believer. Although, having said that, I think the Gospels and the person of Jesus would still attract me greatly, and that is a much better starting point.
3. “The reason I trust science is that there is no trust required.” Exactly. I do too. But let us distinguish between the images, say of the Hubble telescope, and science. The scientific method is about repeated experiementation that confirm hypotheses about the world. What we all see when we look at the stunning pictures in Scientific American is just simply a photo of what’s actually there. When it comes to interpreting it and explaining things (the possibility of life on other planets, the age of the universe, the way that creatures evolve etc…) you find that scientists in different fields will often disagree wildly, because in fact the critical details are still theories. So you do, in point of fact, trust (greatly) the work of scientists, especially in fields that you yourself have no experience. In the areas of evolution, for example, there are few people in the world who have the equipment and expertise to do the experiments required, and the knowledge of how to interpret it, so we “laity” have to take it pretty much on good faith. And of course, scientists are always totally impartial and never let their own preconceptions and theories get in the way of their research!
But there is another sense in which science is based on trust, in that it is founded upon philosophcial princples. Ones it is true, that seem sound, but which are its foundation and therefore need to be defended outside science if disputed.
Some examples (taken from an atheistic philosopher’s comment on Dawkin’s website):
-“What is the epistemic status of science, i.e. how sure can we be about our theories and conclusions?”
-“What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?”
-“How can we best describe “knowledge” and the criteria for it?”
-“What is the relation between the body and the mind?”
-“What is the nature of mathematical entities (numbers, theorems)?”
-“What is a cogent argument?”
-“What are the limitations of science?”
-“What is a just political system?”
-“How can we unify science and defend its epistemic status?”
All these questions are outside science (especially the ones that have science itself as the topic of enquiry) and require philosophical input to resolve.
4. I think your argument about scientific proof vs religion is misleading. I agree that science works in a different way from religion. Fine, so then why do you expect a scientific method from religion? Why can’t we (and many do) accept both science and its methodology and faith and its?
5. Miracles. I think this illustrates very clearly the different attitudes between us. You automatically disbelieve in the possibility, because God does not exist (prior belief) and therefore they are impossible. It is I who can look at the evidence, and say: hmmm this healing took place suddenly and immediately during the context of prayer. Maybe it happened. Maybe… I’m open to that, and sometimes I think it quite likely. Indeed I would hope to see a corresponding spiritual maturity in the person which would confirm it for me. As I have said before, faith is mostly about relationship, and only secondarily about content. Science is exclusively about content, which is fine. I just hope that you don’t treat your relationships as scientific phenomena as well.
6. So the biggie: “What Would Make me Believe?
The answer to this question is “nothingâ€. Yes, that’s perfectly honest. But it is a dogmatic position not a reasoned one. You can find no possible test for the belief that there may be a God, and so you conclude that there can’t be one. Of course you are generous enough to accept that (just like science) one day there might be inescapable proof that is so tight that you just can’t deny it, and then you will accept it. Unfortunately nothing is like that, not even the existence of the computer monitor you are reading this on. The film, “Matrix” was an interesting Cartesian experiement illustrating this.
There will, of course, be a time when we all find out whether we were right or wrong: the day we die… at least if I’m right! Faith is no longer a possibility in heaven (or hell) – what is certain no longer requires belief. Until then, it seems to me that we get to choose whether to accept the possibility of a God, or to dogmatically accept/reject that there can never be enough sensual evidence of a non-sensual being and be fideists (whether of the theist or atheist variety).
—–
B. Do I Want God to be Real?
I think once more you are jumping from a simple question to the problematic of Chapter X of Book Y in the Bible. I saw a debate with Hitchens the other day, and he said that he wished he was wrong, but that he was convinced he wasn’t. Fair enough. I suspect some atheists (and I think you might be one) don’t really want there to be a God, and this colours your thinking.
Example: “I don’t care whether my origins are primates or a creator.” They are not mutually exclusive. Hopefully, however, you had parents who loved you and cared for you and provided everything you needed, so the question of personal origin is not unimportant to you. Most of us are grateful to those who brought us up, especially if (as we ought) we had happy childhoods. I don’t think, in other words, that your disinterestedness is is as deep as you think.
“I have no need for there to be a God” sounds to me very similar to “I have no need for there to be parents” and the analogy is rather interesting. Once parents have conceived and given birth, they can be ‘replaced’ by foster parents, the state, whatever. But still, I think there is something not whole about saying “I have no need for my parents.” We have a beautiful world and the amazing capacity to understand it and come to know appreciate it and love it, and I think there is something not whole about saying: “I have no need for there to be a God.” I think it is a cop-out.
Wait, so according to the end of your comment, you want to die?
You can’t wait until the day you die so you can be liberated of these earthly chains and restraints just to be in a better place?
Then ask yourself this, if god is so kind and powerful why would he create a place like earth full of evil and atheist human beings when there is a perfect heaven which he could just send everyone to wothout letting them suffer, unless he wants christians to suffer in which case he would be an evil god.Huh?
And if he did this just to weed out the nonbelievers from the believers, wouldn’t that mean that he created the evil people? Did god create evil people? That doesn’t sound like an all-kind and all-loving go to me, but does it to you?
May I just say that Mary was a human being, just like everyone else. She was a sinner, just like everyone else. Jesus was the only person who never sinned in His life.
Any statue of Mary, or anything else of that which is in Heaven is hypocritical.
The thing that scares me the most is the Fatima feast. When “Mary” appeared to the kids and told them that they had to inflict pain on themselves because they had to much sin and this was the only way to get rid of the sin. Have Catholics forgotten Jesus? What about what He did on the cross? He died for ALL THE SINS OF THE WORLD!! EVERYTHING IS PAID!! To honestly sum the Fatima feast up is that the DEVIL is using Mary as a way to lead people away from God…
OPEN YOUR EYES!! JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY!! MARY IS JUST A PERSON WHO GOD USED TO BRING JESUS INTO THE WORLD!! THAT IS IT!!
What Would Make Me Believe in a God?
Capture one and bring it to a lab so we could study it and see how it works. Even then what you call a god I would probably see simply as a really cool anomaly.
I would posit that there is plenty of evidence that the human organism is insuffient to experience all of existance (ie X-rays, their effects can be observed but they can not be sensed by faculties of the Human); thus, why should the theory of theopsis (something or some being god-like)not be given similar appreciation.
I direct you to investigate the cases of spontaneous healing such as Delores Winder who was healed of sever spinal damage which was done by doctors in order relieve severe pain due to a degenerative muscle disorder.
Welcome back, Psy. I wondered where my favourite misanthrope had got to. I suppose I should be grateful that you have deigned to come out of your SCIENCE LAB to teach us poor theists who have not yet evolved into the great ape that you are! I put SCIENCE LAB in capitals, since I am sure that it is only right to designate that great shrine in such a way. Likewise you great high priests, the PSY-ENTISTS are also worthy of such distinction in your neat white lab-coated vestments.
GLORY TO YOU, O SCIENCE, and to your holy EQUATIONS that teach us everythng about everything! Thanks to you there are now no wars, no hatred, no suffering, no diseases, and above all, no superstition! O MIGHTY SCIENCE! How the gods must tremble at your mighty name!
Jonathan, you forgot to threaten me with hell.
m
That’s because it’s entirely your choice and got nothing to do with me. Hell is simply life without God: this little panacea is available to you for all eternity if you so desire… All the same, if it was up to me, I would be threatening you with heaven: life forever with God. But then you might not like that so very much either… or you could just go back to your SCIENCE LAB and shut the whole question out with activity and loud music and hope that death is just a complete self-anihilation. But as I say, all that’s got nothing to do with me…
Do you have some dislike for science? In your previous post you seem to equate it with politics or religion. Do you see it as a threat to your beLIEfs? How do you feel about history? Things like Noah’s ark being an altered version of The Epic of Gilgamesh or that Christianity taught reincarnation until around 300 A.D. Doesn’t it make you long for the days when you could burn people like me at the stake? Wouldn’t it be great if they taught creationism in public schools along with flat Earth geography and astrology?
Hi, sorry for baiting you – too irresistable. I’m delighted you can distinguish politics, religion, history, textual crticism and superstition. In that we are agreed. I’m all for science as long as it sticks to its own domain and doesn’t pretend (a la Dawkins) to pronounce on other things as well.
I love history and read avidly. Hence I know very well that Christianity never approved reincarnation. That would make a nonsense of the resurrection. You are welcome to provide me with sources I can check. I am familiar with the Fathers of the Church who all teach the orthodox doctrine of personal judgement after death. Indeed Christianity has always been sceptical about any kind of dualism that makes body and soul two separate substances (and this is required for reincarnation). I know that a lot of fundamentalists are like that, but not historical Christianity.
Regarding Noah, I am aware of tablet XI of Gilgamesh as well as other near eastern references to the flood. They are good as myths go, but not nearly as rich as the Genesis account.
I don’t think creationism should be taught in science class either. But then the nuances of evolution should also be carefully distinguished also to avoid scientism. To my knowledge noone takes seriously that the earth is flat (or the silly bigotry that claims the medievals really thought it was so), and I agree that the increasing proliferation of astrology and the New Age is a disturbing trend.
It’s good to see how much we agree on!
“You are welcome to provide me with sources I can check.”
Reincarnation: The missing link in Christianity Mar/Apr 2001 by Hoogenstyn, Leona
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_/ai_n8934091
Feel free to comment on the link, Its a short article and didn’t cover a lot.
Yes I knew it was bait so I didn’t mind jumping to a few conclusions to see how you would respond.
I’ve been reading through different “first cause” arguments for the beginning of the universe today and haven’t found any of them satisfactory. But the day isn’t over yet.
Psy, thanks for the link re: incarnation. Where do I start with this? It’s full of completely unsubstantiated claims. Like the claims that prophets and Jesus believed in reincarnation… in what way does: “I and my father are one” imply reincarnation (especially if the father is emphatically not carnate)? None of the quotes have even the slighest suggestion of reincarnation, in fact, except perhaps “If a man dies, shall he live again?” But then everyone knows surely that Christians believe in resurrection and Jesus’s response to the above question supports that belief.
Leona’s real agenda is given at the top of page 2: “To deprive man of knowledge about reincarnation is a disservice to people of all faiths.” She is trying to coopt Christianity into her belief system, which goes against everything in the Fathers. I note that not a single quotation is given in any century to show that it was widespread until the evil emperor Justinian. In fact I have an armful of early church documents clearly proving belief in the resurrection of the dead. Before you go round telling people that Christianity has changed on this point, I think you should look up more substantiated sources than a blog.
Some other warped “facts”.
– Quoting Epictetus proves nothing, as he was not Christian, and in any case, the excerpt only proves that he believed in pantheism, not reincarnation. For all I know he may well have, but so what?
– Constantine legalised Christianity. He did not establish it. On the contrary, there was a big controversy on the nature of Jesus in the Christian world, and he gathered together bishops from all around the world to sort it out, indicating that 1) Christianity already had lots of bishops all over the place and 2) the Emperor accepted that they were the authorities in matter of Christian doctrine. Justinian would also have known this. While Emperors have attempted to enforce doctrines on the church over the centuries, all have nonetheless submitted to the papal pronouncements (of which we have some from the first century) and those of the Church Councils (of which the Council of Nicea called by Constantine was the first).
– If Christians believed in reincarnation “up until the 6th century” why not even one single quotation to support it. The fact is, it is not there.
As I said before, reincarnation implies body/soul dualism, and even if there have been platonising tendencies among early christian thinkers, this particular belief is absent from them all as inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.
you people are pathetic. “if”there is no god them tell me how the hell do you think the universe was the made.Huh explain that smart ass.
Psy, regarding the “first cause” arguments, it all boils down to is this. Let’s say the big bang theory is fundamentally true since most of the facts seem to fit it. The next question is logically, why? For anything to happen (and indeed science is founded on this very principle) there needs to be a sufficient cause. The candidates are (unless you can think of more):
1. nothing. No cause. It just spontaneously happened.
2. it came out of preexisting energy/matter.
3. an eternal, necessary being created it.
Let’s have a look at them:
1. surely we can write this off right away. ‘Nothing’ has no power to do anything let alone create a universe.
2. ok, but then the question then becomes what caused this? and you are back to the same 3 options again.
3. this appears to be the only other candidate. Feel free to suggest some others.
Jonathan – Returning to your initial comment, I find the areas of art and philosophy interesting from a scientific standpoint. Both ostensibly float into the area of psychology (why do I feel the need to philosophise?) and certain aspects of art, and in particular attributes of a work of art, can be mathematically determined. The golden ratio, for example, is proven to provide a pleasing experience when incorporated into a work of art. And furthermore, we can, through the field of psychology, investigate why certain people find certain works of art pleasing.
I absolutely disagree with your assertion that it is more commonsensical to assume that the spirit of “Mary” wanted to communicate with the world rather than taking it as a random, extraordinarily occurrence. To me, that seems like an absolutely absurd statement for any sensible person to make.
Your response regarding the reading of holy books in isolation is interesting. It’s clear that there has been some sort of external influence on you which lead you to believe that the fables in that particular holy book are true. I’d speculate that the influences were very much personal, as opposed to spiritual. There’s a reason you chose to believe that particular holy book over the others, and the most common reason for one being chosen over the others is that the society you grew up in favoured it. If you grew up, say, in an Islamic country, you’re propensity to believe in holy books would no doubt have lead you to become a Muslim.
It’s my understanding that there is a general consensus in the scientific community regarding the age of the earth, and it’s certainly older than 6000 years. There’s a difference between disagreeing on the principals and disagreeing on precise estimates originating from those principals.
The questions taken from the Richard Dawkins website are the questions philosophers use to justify their own existence, and should be read as such. Some are questions of morals, some society, and some simple word games.
I’d love to completely separate religion and science, but unfortunately certain members of our society have shoe-horned the two together. As long as creationism, and other groundless fables are taught in science class, religion must be held to the same standards as science, which it obviously can’t. And even then, if my personal criteria for accepting something as a truth is that it can be scientifically proven, then I will apply that to everything in my life that I deem appropriate. Whilst getting into a Cartesian themed debate would be interesting (and fun), you would have to accept that not only does it negate science, but also any belief system to which one might subscribe. After all, you could no longer trust the senses you rely on, and dare I say “there is no Bible“. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to require proof of something. In fact, it should be mandated.
As for whether I want there to be a deity, it’s important for believers to remember that I only have the holy books to go on. They are the definitive source on the subject and as such should be examined closely. Even if someone else claims to offer a better description of the deity, you always have to go back to the source for verification.
Your leap of logic from “I have no need for there to be a God” to “I have no need for there to be parents” is also based on a falsehood. I had a very real, physical, scientifically demonstrable need for parents. Not only to procreate to the point that I was created, but also to feed and shelter me in my early years. My emotional dependance on my parents is another matter, and we see many people living perfectly happy lives not having known their parents at all, so there clearly isn’t an emotional dependance there either. I have no physical reliance on a God, and I have no emotional reliance on a God. And while I’m grateful for the emotional and physical support given to me by my parents, I only required physical support to survive.
Psy – It’s an interesting question to ponder, as there’s a significant difference between a deity, a God-like creature and one of the deities as defined in the popular holy books. We would have to, at the very least question the creature so we can at least determine which God it is.
Jonathan, sorry about not responding sooner, I’ve been working to much. Anyway back to the topic of first cause you suggest the necessity an inherent mechanism which has been proposed by many. Personally I see the Idea of “an eternal, necessary being” as overkill, like using a nuclear bomb to start a forest fire when a match will do.
I tend to lean towards the something from nothing since the first time I heard the rule stating that matter can not be created or destroyed, it just struck me as wrong.
Its been a long day so I’ll just throw out a few of my thoughts to give you an idea of my current reasoning or lack there of.
Does the existence of an empty void/space/perfect vacuum need to be justified? At the moment I will assume that we don’t have to justify the existence of nothing or nothingness (It may need to be justified just for the sake of infinite regression). At the same time nothing/empty space has the properties of x y z dimensions forward back left right ect] within it.
Can a perfect vacuum exist indifferently? I have my doubts as we seem to exist.
In a perfect vacuum with no matter, waves, magnetic field or whatever present, will the x y z dimensions be ordered or distorted? In any case I suspect that matter/energy is simply a collection of minute distortions of dimensional space. This may be just an over simplification of the quantum foam idea or Fred Hoyle’s suggestion that hydrogen atoms just pop into existence in the voids between galaxies as the galaxies suck in the hydrogen atoms from the void.
Well time for my after work nap, I will check back when I can.
Atheist, my oh my what a jumble.
I think you need to be able to distinguish art, philosophy, theology and the physical sciences. Thus, while proportions are of interest to both mathematics and art, they are so in different ways. Likewise art is not the same as the psychology of art.
You really do have a belief in atheism after all. It is obvious that you simply rule out a priori any possibility of a miracle before even investigating the case. This is not a truly scientific mentality.
I do wish you could see the distinction between a religion from its holy books, even if the latter are fundamental to the former. If I had been brought up in a Muslim community, it may well be true that I would now be a Muslim, but not because I have a propensity for holy books. Culture is much deeper than mere textual analysis. I know it is hard for a positivist to appreciate this. Thus, you are right that my upbringing was religious but it was certainly not my parents who have convinced me of the truth of Christianity. There are many good and holy people who have been a vital part of my life who have convinced me by their own lives that it is true. One does not have to be able to read to accept a religion, and indeed prior to printing very few people had that luxury.
I would certainly take the ‘fables’ in the Bible any day over the fables of Dawkins and co. There are equally influences in you which lead you to believe in them and in atheism. We are never so in a vacuum. Can I remind you that atheism can only exist where there is theism. (ie there is no such thing as afairyism or atoothfairyism simply because noone believes in them – the a-xyz always implies an xyz and is a reaction to it).
I thought we’d got past the whole age of the earth thing. I for one am happy to accept (with a grain of salt, for it really doesn’t matter to me much) whatever the latest scientist says it is – I have little likelihood of being able to repeat his/her experiments etc… on the matter so just have to accept it in good faith.
It seems that you don’t accept philosophy as being of any value. In any case, morals, society (politics, culture) and even word games are surely distinguishable from the phsyical sciences?
I agree that creationism should be completely outside the science class, and likewise only the few facts that point to some kind of evolution and not the militant evolutionism that is really atheism in disguise – it cuts both ways.
The whole point of what I am trying to say is that you can’t hold religion (or art or philosophy or sport) to the same standards as science. They are different things and have their own methods. Why arbitrarily take science to be everything? If everything must be scientifically proven then there is no such thing as love, justice … why not even ideas… only the shadows of such things as measurable by pathetic little electrodes in the brain. Should one really be mandated to “prove” one’s love before marrying… the idea that proof is the most important thing in life leads us to our friend Descartes again…
Contrary to your assumption, Descartes was highly scientific – one of the founders of modern science in fact. He was one of those who turned reality into sets of pulleys and levers like you do so that people in white lab coats are the only ones who can determine truth. Likewise we owe the notion of Cartesian coordinates to him. Curiously it was to Descartes’ rationalism that we owe the (unintentioned) antagonism between philosophy and science that you have inherited. I happen to disagree with Descartes, however. I trust my senses. It is of course totally impossible to “prove” scientifically that my senses are trustworthy (at least sometimes), because science uses them. It assumes a great deal of other things too, which is fine, as long as it doesn’t pretend to then stand in judgment on the very precepts that prop it up.
Now you say: “As for whether I want there to be a deity, it’s important for believers to remember that I only have the holy books to go on.” That is nonsense, and an escapism. Desiring the existence of God is quite independent of whether any such books existed. I attempted an analogy with parents. Analogies, of course, always fail when pushed too far. I was referring always to “desire” in each case. I guess I am trying to see that you like your independence too much to grant that anyone else had anything to do with your welfare. Perhaps what I am trying to say is that the only escape from the cruel dogma of scientism (where everything has to be proved) is to find a friend.
Psy, I am glad you picked one of the options. It gives us something to work with. I’d love to see Atheist do that instead of constantly harking back to comparitive religion via reading assignments.
I agree that a match should be fine when needed (though I hope you have no intention of starting any forest fires). But that is precisely my point. A match would work great to start a fire, but ‘nothing’ would not. If God seems like overkill, nothing is certainly underkill.
Sometimes I am struck by the assumptions that people make who insist that everything ought to be provable. “It just struck me as wrong” doesn’t an argument make. But I thought that Einstein proved it with E=mc2. You can have your universe as energy or matter, but it can’t just appear and it can’t just disappear. Where could it come from or go to?
A perfect vacuum is not quite the same thing as nothing, since it has a context: a container of some sort etc… There is still an x y z as you put it. But if there were absolutely nothing then it is not right to say that we have a vacuum. We have nothing at all. No dimensions, no space, no time, no nothing. ZIP! zero! nada! It is much more extreme than you think it is. You can’t simply point and say: “Well there’s nothing there either…” There is not even a “there”. Dimensions and time only exist where matter does, and arise because of it.
Thus the appearance of a universe from nothing is not just REALLY unlikely but impossible. It is tempting to thing of the word ‘nothing’ here like a kind of ‘negative something’. But it isn’t that at all. It is complete absence of anything – even of possibility.
But then of course it is difficult to imagine total nothingness, since evidently there is something. That being the case, we are forced to assume, I think, that there exists at least one necessary being. All others, I grant, are contingent and could possibly not have been, and they owe their existence in some way to the necessary being(s). Thus opens the real possibility (Atheist!) of accepting God’s existence without the need for assuming that he likes writing books.
Obviously we are not even in the same universe.
I’ve read bits and pieces of the exchanges taking place so far. I would like to make two points, both regarding the origins of the universe:
1) from Jonathan: “But I thought that Einstein proved it with E=mc2. You can have your universe as energy or matter, but it can’t just appear and it can’t just disappear.” But let’s not forget that Einstein was correcting what others previously thought, namely that matter was always conserved, and that energy was always conserved. He showed this to be incorrect. My point is that he too could be subject to later correction as well. In other words, imagine someone with a device that could only measure matter. This person has no knowledge of energy. This person uses his/her device on everyday phenomena, and concludes (reasonably) that matter is never created nor destroyed. Along comes Einstein and reveals that, indeed, matter can be “created/destroyed” — at least to this person who is ignorant of energy. Einstein even suggests special cases (maybe requiring a particle accelerator or super nova) where this person could direct his/her instrument in order to witness matter being “created/destroyed”. What I’m suggesting is that the same could happen again: maybe we’ll learn that during the big bang the “stuff” we know of today (matter & energy) were transformed from some other stuff that had never been conceived hitherto.
2) All of this talk of the big bang… I really hope one you three is a physicist because I would really like this properly explained to me: from my (limited) understanding, the big bang model is based on evidence which point to all matter being in a very tiny spot way back in the past. However, if we go back too far, the laws that we know of don’t work anymore. I think this is called the Planck time. For example, after the Planck time, the gravity force is negligible, whereas the nuclear and electromagnetic forces are not. But at the Planck time, gravity cannot be ignored. This is bad news, because we don’t know how to not ignore it (is that English?) when those other pesky forces are also important. So, I just want to be clear (and please correct me if I’m wrong): no scientist claims that this stuff of the universe came from nothing, simply because we don’t know what happened before the Planck time. Maybe it was a God, maybe it was yet-to-be-discovered laws that did it, …maybe it was some particle firing off in a random direction during a quantum fluctuation. But speculating that the answer is God doesn’t help us get closer to the answer (I believe). (By the way, I like bringing up the last possibility of a quantum fluctuation because it’s a way — casually, I admit — of explaining the universe without a conscious mind. I suppose the Buddhists may more readily go for it.)
Psy – not an argument.
EB – Thanks for your contribution.
1) I suppose it is possible to posit some as yet unknown thing, call it splunk, which is neither matter nor energy but the three are interconversible. We still face the same dilemma: where did any of them come from. It matters little if we added glunk, prunk, munk and stunk to the potion, they all need some kind of explanation for their very existence. How anyone can deny the obvious: that nothing can come from nothing, is amazing.
2) I am not a scientist, but the basic philosophical points remain whatever the science of it. Psy seems to like the idea that everything came from nothing. I think that’s self-evidently false. If “no scientist claims that this stuff of the universe came from nothing” that’s excellent news. I suggest that God becomes a very reasonable hypothesis. Let’s have a look at your alternatives:
The seemingly helpful “yet-to-be-discovered laws” is entirely insufficient, for where did they come from. Scientists of necessity take for granted that reality is the way it is which is fine within that framework. It is therefore outside the scientific ambit to wonder why they are so.
Your random particle may possibly be the cause of the present universe, but then it also requires explanation itself. Where did it come from?
Something I didn’t mention before, which is very interesting, is that one thing that Descartes definitively proved is that there is such a thing as mind (“I think therefore I am”) even if matter is a pure illusion. Worth reflecting on. (Please don’t take that to mean that I don’t accept the existence of matter, but just that it is unprovable – all you can do is point and say: “behold”).
Thanks. I always enjoy discussing with theists who are very well spoken.
You are indeed encouraged to ask where the splunk etc came from, and to ask where the laws of nature came from, and to ask where the random particle came from. Fair enough. But how do you respond to the equally fair question: where did your God come from?
I think it’s interesting that you find it good news that (at least as I suggest) scientists don’t believe stuff came from nothing. To me, this simply means that we have yet another question to answer. On the other hand, I get the feeling that you find this evidence (not proof) of God. I cry “god of the gaps”.
Woops. You know what: I just realized that the first line of my last comment could be taken as a tad insulting. I did not mean to suggest that most deists are not well spoken. What I should have said was I enjoy discussing with *anyone* who is well spoken.
I apologize to any who were offended.
EB, thanks for both comments.
“Then where did God come from?” is a really good question. I simply call the very beginning of the chain, “God.” You could call it “munk” if you like. However the following characteristics must be true of the first being:
– it is a necessary being (ie must exist; not dependent on anything else to exist).
– it is the cause of all other (contingent) being and therefore
– contains the necessary power to bring about the existence of all other being from nothing.
As Atheist will be quick to point out, this is a small shadow of the God of the Bible, Qu’ran or Talmud. Very little can be known of God by reason alone, but certainly some can. For the rest we rely on him to explain himself to us, and it is only at this stage that we turn to the claims of the various scriptural texts.
Science can never discover God because it has not the competence to do so. It is just a small part of human knowledge as I constantly try to show, and is dependent on higher knowledge (especially philosophy – the philosophy of science to be precise). Science deals with things that can be measured and compared. God is clearly outside the scope of that. And I mean not just because I say so, but because it is obviously so: for God to really be God, he can’t be something for you to “stick under your microscope.”
I look forward to your response.
Thanks Jonathan. Your answer seems reasonable, but even so I would fall into the group of atheists what you’ve recognized who consider what you describe to be a very “small shadow” of the god(s) of the various texts. The creation question is, I’ll admit, the most tenuous part of my atheism. But even if I accept your list of requirements for munk (maybe I do; maybe I don’t), I think it’s important to add one caveat, namely that munk need not be conscious. Munk need not have an intention to create anything, or knowledge of what it has created. And, by extension, munk definitely need not have love for its creation. (This, in essence, was the reason for me suggesting the possibility of a random quantum fluctuation in my first post. Not so much to suggest a definitive 1st cause, but rather to suggest the possibility that the universe was created by a non-thinking being/entity.)
This being a possibility leaves me seriously to doubt the connection between munk and Jehovah, Allah, Thor or whatever. In fact, it’s entirely possible that these God(s) exist now, but were not the creators of everything. But whereas my questions about creation remain relatively open (because it’s very difficult to understand, both scientifically and philosophically), this has no bearing on the status of my questions on religious claims made by men since recorded history. I won’t go through my reasons for non-belief since you’ve probably heard them all before. But I am wondering the following: are you making some sort of conclusion about the creation question, and then using that to support your beliefs of other religious claims, or are your creation beliefs more of a by-product of other more well-founded (at least in your opinion) beliefs? In other words, do you take creation to be your starting point or not? (The reason I ask is because this all comes back to the original post by The Atheist: what would make me believe. Having only thought about it for a few minutes, I think in my case it would be contingent on answering the question of creation. Other beliefs may follow from there.)
And one more point before I go: you said “God is clearly outside the scope of … things that can be measured and compared.” So, one possibility is that He is always outside of the scope of these things, in which case you’re a pantheist or deist, but either way the questions on God are purely academic. Another possibility is that He, from time to time, enters into the scope of things that can be measured or compared. Perhaps not directly: maybe we can’t take a picture of God’s hand, but we could certainly take a picture of what God’s hand has interacted with. So I contend that God can be measured when religious claims are made which have him interacting with nature. The efficacy of prayer is one example.
I was very pleased with your response, EB. It’s nice to see atheists prepared to think about these things. Normally there comes a point (eg Psy’s last entry) where the atheist will make an intentional decision not to go any further … to avoid losing faith in atheism perhaps? Yes, I think existence is the fundamental issue.
You ask what are my own motivations for belief. I think that Atheist is fundamentally correct that our personal history plays the most important role in religion, because religion and culture are practically synonymous – they deal with the big questions of existence, the after-life, justice etc… Thus, I can not help but be influenced by my Christian upbringing. Of course it is now much more mature and freely chosen (I could reject it if I thought it wrong). I think it wrong to think that this is suspect, however. We are all born into a culture that nurtures us. I am one of those who think an atheistic culture is harmful because it refuses the existential questions which are nevertheless fundamental to our being, and is individualistic by nature (because it is based on scepticism as Atheist regularly points out). Religion is as much about relationship as anything else. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is the fundamental aspect of Judaism even over belief.
Creation is a fundamental belief of the Judeo-Islamic-Christian God: the idea that God is responsible for and in control of everything that is. These are the great monotheistic faiths. I don’t think it possible for there to be more than one God, not only because there can only be one first cause, but because there can only be one infinite being. (That’s another feature that the first cause must have – feel free to question any of these characteristics I put forward). Hence the Judeo-Islamic-Christian God (“God” in capitals for short from now on) appeals to me as the only revealed possibility.
I do think that God must be conscious, because things are not chaotic. A random fluctuation does not seem sufficiently ordered to ensure that the so-called laws of nature (speed of light etc…) are created (and maintained!) adequately. You see, we happily discover that light travels at a certain speed without realising that it is only because the universe has been created this way that it is so. It is by no means automatic that all the chemicals that exist for life exist, and that life in fact does exist, and that in fact some of it is intelligent. The fact that the universe is knowable by an intelligence means that it is intelligible. There is intellect build into everything that is, in other words. The first being must have intellect.
God (capital G) could not exist and not be the creator of everything for that is the very heart of whta it means to be God. Without it the whole of revelation is meaningless. If God is not creator, he does not exist. i think creation is the obvious starting point in accepting that there is a God.
You go on to talk about the difficulties of history, and I can understand this, especially given the creative readings of history that are emerging to pummel Christianity into the ground. In fact, I think a fair reader (and ironically, most actual historians) are beginning to realise that Christianity is responsible for so much that is good in our Western culture and is inconceivable without it: hospitals, universities, schools, even the concept of charity to others as a good thing, science (yes science) are all either invented or developed within a Christian culture.
I am rambling a bit, trying to take your points as they come. You are right to say that god (the “shadow” version) is pretty academic – certainly nothing to worship. In fact if you look at Aristotle, for example, he thought that God could take no interest in his creation because that would imply change. Deism is certainly a possibility. Pantheism, though, even in the way Spinoza or even Hegel thought, I don’t think possible. God can not create himself… your thoughts on this would be interesting, though.
I absolutely agree with you, as you put so eloquently, that “maybe we can’t take a picture of God’s hand, but we could certainly take a picture of what God’s hand has interacted with.” Absolutely. That’s what we are really doing when we accept that the universe has been created, and indeed it can tell us a few things about him. The efficacy of prayer is only one of them in a broad sense, eg a healing miracle considered impossible by medical experts occurs spontaneously during prayer. But even here, it is right to be sceptical until it really appears the most logical possibility (even if this can never constitute absolute proof). So-called “unanswered” prayers are also not definitive: I don’t know if you are a parent, but if you are you will know that children don’t always ask for what they need. The practise of prayer is ultimately to learn more and more to think God’s way and not v-v.
Hello The Atheist,
As you can see I’ve been having an ongoing discussion with Jonathan about various things. We’ve drifted off-topic from your original post, so I feel a little out of place. Pending his approval, is it possible for you to mediate an email exchange, from which we can continue without clogging up your comment section?
But until then, here is my final “clog-up”:
Hello Jonathan,
Thanks again for your post. This particular message gave me pause. I had to spend a little time thinking about the specific point where you say “I do think that God must be conscious, because things are not chaotic”, and the remaining section. It is indeed an intriguing question to ask ‘knowing the universe to be intelligible, does it need intelligence to create it’ (a re-phrasing of a later comment you make)?
This seems to me to be the fine-tuning argument, re-cast in a form I’m not used to. You contend that an intelligence was required to make the physical laws the way they are (you mention speed of light in particular), which led to our particular chemicals, which led to our particular life, which led to us and our intelligence. Let me address this by imagining the following three scenarios, all of which involve a universe being created by a *non-intelligent* being. This being does two things: 1) spits out energy/matter and 2) creates laws (which can include totally chaotic laws). I’m not saying that this list is exhaustive, but I will restrict myself to it for now. The difference in the scenarios is #2, i.e. the laws (thus, the matter/energy stuff is the same for each scenario).
Scenario A): The laws are the same as what we have in this universe
Scenario B): The laws are the same as what we have in this universe, but the speed of light is slightly different.
Scenario C): The laws are totally chaotic
I’m assuming that in scenario C life would be totally impossible. I’m also assuming the same for B, since there is good reason to believe that life is only possible if the physical constants are a certain set of precise values.
My point is that the required precision of these constants for them to lead to our chemicals, our planet, our brains, and our intelligence is not important. What I mean is that if the non-intelligent being had instead created scenario B or C, yes, the universe would not have life. But in that case, we wouldn’t be here discussing it. The probability of blindly (i.e. without intelligence) choosing the particular conditions for life may be astronomically minuscule… but that doesn’t matter because this is what we have. It’s analogous to dealing a set of cards, previously shuffled. Each person gets a totally random hand. Now, if we were to look at the hands and ask how probable would these hands be, the answer would likely be 1 over 1 with many zeros after it. But the hands were dealt, nonetheless.
Can energy come from non-energy, or matter from non-matter? I don’t know. Can intelligence come from non-intelligence? I say yes.
Hopefully we continue this via email if you like.
EB
“I am one of those who think an atheistic culture is harmful because it refuses the existential questions which are nevertheless fundamental to our being, and is individualistic by nature (because it is based on skepticism as Atheist regularly points out)”. ~Jonathan
Is it that simple? Faith as a virtue vs doubt as a virtue, collectivism vs individualism? Those who prefer subjugation over the rights of the individual? The need for belonging to something greater than ourselves to give our lives meaning is an open invitation for the greater good fallacy as demonstrated in the Crusades and more recently by Stalin and Hitler.
Personally I have no need to invent an imaginary master to babysit me, I am content with being an insignificant organism on an insignificant planet spiraling into a black hole in one of the untold number of galaxies. You are free to indulge yourself in allegiance to these primitive tribal institutions, religion, nationalism, ect. if you choose but the fruit they bare come down to us vs them, inevitable tyranny and war.
EB, no I am not a physicist as much as I’d like to continue my education my current job would interfere. I also regret not staying in contact with a high school friend who is now teaching physics at Yale as I have a thousand questions for him.
As you mentioned quantum fluctuation theory is the probability of producing particles, As I mentioned before I think its spacial/dimensional distortions on a plank scale that are the building blocks of matter and energy. After all what else is there to work with in empty space. I haven’t speculated whether these distortion would be space turning in on itself or simple standing waves and/or a difference in density of dimension. Any difference in space is a property and having properties is enough to consider it something.
A fluctuating density of dimensional nothingness would account for gravity as it would affect the noninflected dimensional space around it. Fluctuating or vibrations would distort the surrounding spacial dimensions much like a brick would sink in a vibrating bucket of sand.
I don’t know if this provided any insight to you question of ignoring gravity or not. This might imply the Higgs boson but at the moment I doubt it exist as the quantum fluctuation of space on a plank length/time scale might be enough to account for limitations on the speed of light.
I see the universe as simple mechanics and don’t see any need to inject philosophical ideologies into it.
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 nothingnessâ€.
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 “intoâ€. 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. 🙂
Let’s get this right: Dawkins thinks that democracy means that all people have the right to have a say on how our nation should be run except people who have religious convictions?
Perhaps we should make it illegal to have religious beliefs, Richard? Perhaps you could head up a new inquisition to stamp them out totally and thus bring about real democracy…?!
Hmmmmm.
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.
Your last statement is quite right. I have tried to argue dispationately, but in the end, this will never convince.
Yes, if (as I do) I really believe that God is love and a personal relationship with him is vital for a full life, I should at least muster some enthusiasm!
Yes I can understand how threatening torture is preferable to luke warm platitudes, even if I deny that I have simply served up old fodder, but tried to be original.
In the end, only love is credible, but I am a poor lover…
Pointless debate, although interesting.
I do not believe in any god and I am certain that none of the earth centric, self loving gods that exist in the majority of religions are false and nothing could prove to me that they are real. If religious people can deny vast evidence against god, I think I can allow myself one irrationality and say that I will never believe in an earth centric or jealous god.
Despite that I do not deny the possibility of some vast intelligence that got the universe started and has fingers in all parts of the universe. such a god would merely be a observer and slight guider. It seems rational to me that such a benevolent god would want to create something as beautiful as the universe we live in. However, this gives absolutely no importance to earth or humans and even makes the chances of an afterlife slim to none.
On the topic of what could convince me that a god exists I think the book Contact by Carl Sagan hit on it perfectly. The god I could believe in could choose to stay hidden forever, but if it did make its presence known it would not be in some one-off and explainable event like a burning bush on some backwater planet like Earth. Instead it would be a grand announcement that every civilization would eventually find and statistically would approach impossibility. In Contact the main character found a sequence of numbers in pie in base 11 that drew a perfect circle in 1’s and 0’s when arranged in equal lines. This combination of statistical improbability and symbolic message combined in a form that any sufficiently advanced civilization could see would convince me beyond a doubt that there is either a god or a civilization so advanced it is indistinguishable from a god.
Johnathan Baker you are one smart cookie!
Seriously though, you are an incredibly reasonable man
Well, this was a nice discussion. It is a shame it has concluded. Yet the conclusion was inevitable due to the topic discussed. What have we achieved? Experience to use in future discussion when attempting to make our beliefs more plausible and accepted? Either way, my position is that of an agnostic, with an emphasis that our existence, and the existence of everything around us is meaningless. You do not need deep knowledge or previous philosophical/scientific/ whatever experience to deduct this. It is the most obvious and easiest conclusion to reach…just keep asking the question why, and unless you desire to cease to ask the question you will continue forever, or at least to the point where you say: ” I don’t know.” and therefore find your either atheistic or theistic stance futile. The reason for people ignoring this idea is that they believe it is beyond their reasoning capabilities. Those who argue (theists,atheists) are in a worst spot due to their already plagued mind, so obsessed with proving to the other their idea that they completely disregard the fundamental approach to these questions. Ultimately your own weakness in reasoning, whether you are an atheist or a theist, is your classification as one. Identifying/classifying yourself only limits your reasoning. IT is difficult to be completely unidentified since we are all used to finding out who we are, what personality we have, etc; yet the key to our “better” life (as futile as it is) is the removal of identity. Our primitiveness is evident in our posts themselves. We write on an internet website which not many know about, hidden in between a list of replies with an even lesser chance of being read. Ultimately when the site goes down so do our ideas, only present in the minds of those few who stumbled upon this, yet after considering ti for a few days took it as just another post whose significance was slowly dissolved in the events of an everyday life. Waking up, going to work/school/living, sleeping etc. Then we die, and for some “we” just disappear, with bodies decomposing and our beings only alive through someone elses memories, which too fade as they too die. For some, we go to heaven, where we continue living in futility, whose presence is masked by our belief that we have a purpose, whether it be just standing next to God for eternity or for whatever reason someone deems heaven meaningful. Well this can go on forever, so to spare you some time of your life, farewell.
Peter gore seer I believe in GOD because a curs was put on me It went in me thru and round me.And a angel came to rescue me told me to tell a preist that I have been touch by an angel I am that I am.
“What Would Make Me Believe in a God?” I suspect nothing would ever be good enough.
Take God up on His challenge. God proclaims that He will fortell the end so that you can’t credit your idols (false gods).
How? A simple prophecy, God says that Israel will never cease to be a nation, He will protect Israel from sure anihialation. His name is tied to a people He has chosen. Keep an eye out nations will rise against Israel and against all odds they will prevail.
Jeremiah 31:35-36
I was a atheist but a event change my life forever opened a door because of money £3600 my mother had save it.She got friendly with a nabor and she was heaving it even if it meant conjuring up a demon and killing me or anyone else.My mother and granddaughter were victims both were killed the witch use a nasty entity know as master another entity stepped in said she was an angel saved my life no arm would come to me and look after me.And i will help people from time to time but i person must have there own beliefs and be free to choose as i am i can walk away i forgive the witch her sole is lost my sole is saved i have greater power you all have let religion start with you.As it started with me love amen.
Have you considered solarism? There is still the possibility that the Sun is a deity, one which doesn’t care whether you “believe” in it or not.
Haha, but how do you know it doesn’t care?
I ham fighting dark forces.I have come up against the master,Jinn, and my last evil was skull of dark matter.My chariot,shield,sword,The power is the holy light,Quark’s fusion.Now I wait till evil attacks me again.All this is with gods help,but I first beleive in my self,so others beleive in me.
The skull sneaked in my flat,I showed him love and light.I noticed a light in his eyes, He ask if he could smoke.I told him smoking kills,I knew I got threw to him he was starting to glow.I took a lovely photo ,he was glowing.I asked him to smile for is followers,he said no, he felt hot under collar.As he was leaving,I ask him would he like to say something to his followers.As he was disappearing he shrieked Geronimo, and disappeared into my living room wall.I have a lovely photo of him,He is smoking, personaly I dont think he will light up again.
Messenger
thank you for using scripture! Everyone on here is making THERE own points on what they believe, yet none have used scripture as far as I can see.
I’m just here to say I love Jesus & He loves all of you! In fact NO ONE will ever love you as much as He does! God bless, I will pray for you all!
What’s the point of being an atheist?If you believe there is no God then so be it.But why gather in groups and make internet post about something you don’t believe in?Because deep down inside you know there is a God.I mean if you really know that there is no God then why do you feel the need to be associated with a group.This stupid group gets you no where.That’s like if a group of people believe in aliens, and say I don’t believe in aliens.The group who does believe is called star children so I make an opposing group who has opposite beliefs called the nobodies.Well I ask what would be the point?Why do I feel the need to make an opposing group.The star children are not hurting anyone.I don’t believe in aliens and they do and so I decide to waste my time doing what exactly?Telling them I don’t believe in what they believe for what?Where does that get me?no where.I’m just wasting my time because I have no life.
you can’t live forever so I should use my time better spent then wasting it, by joining a group who really have no point to exist at all because atheism doesn’t make you feel good or do good.You all waste precious time by attacking one group whose beliefs make total sense.Why?Who knows but it’s obvious you all are going through something terrible so it makes you feel good that you attack Christians for what they believe.Why?They pray and try to live a good life so that they may have paradise for eternity.What’s wrong with that.You don’t believe in God?Why?What exactly do you have to lose believing in God the creator as someone who promises paradise for eternity?This whole post just proves you really have no reason for existing other than to bring others down to your level just because your terrible on the inside and out.
What would make me believe.What wouldn’t make me believe.God created us and wired us inside.Our hearts beat and have been beating everyday since before we were born.He gave us air to breathe and water to drink.If you believe us being here is coincidence and that we’re just retarded fish monkeys well then you really are retarded.Atheist are the biggest internet trolls.Don’t bring us down to your level.I mean really what’s the point of this site.It’s not gonna make God disappear.He knows the person who made this post and he knows all who comment.Keep making all your silly post.If this is really what you need to do to make yourselves feel then go ahead but again I say don’t bring others down just because you have no reason for existing other than to bash people who believe and pray for great.But I don’t believe there is a God.I KNOW THERE IS A GOD and it’s too bad none of you will ever get to meet him and ask hm the questions you have about the universe.
The Lord doesn’t demand worship. Why would there be such thing as free will if that was the case? He is worthy of worship. He is the way the truth and the life. Because man sinned we all deserve hell, Jesus doesn’t want us to go there sooo…bam, he’s like “Yo, just come on ova to my side and you’re cool.” Religion is a waste of time. Just love Jesus and your in.
Jesus is the truth. So anything that is not of Him is a lie. God can’t be anything He’s not. So when we choose anything that’s not of Him it’s sinful.
“Hey, I don’t choose the Lord perfectly so I’m going to hell, right?”
Not if you are saved. You know, telling Jesus you think He is real and saying “Hey, I’m not gonna be good at this and I need Your help.” Jesus is like “Wonderful! The reason I gave you free will is so you would choose me on your own. Who wants to force someone to love them? AmIRight? So now that you think I’m real finally, all you got to do is ask for forgiveness so I know you are still in this. Then I’ll forgive you and we won’t talk about it anymore because it’s forgotten.”