My question is, why is it these idiots refuse to believe in a creator, choose to believe that when they die that's IT, and work so diligently to try to destroy anyone elses beliefs? It had to start somewhere, and even if you believe in evolution, where'd it all come from to start with? To evolve FROM? Where does the energy that makes you run, your spirit, what makes you you, go when the body ceases function? Even if you want to think of it as a cosmic energy pool, your individual enrgy and consciousness goes to it.
I didn't read all of Dalrymple's article. I made it half-way through his critique of Dennett, then stopped. I found him boring. But just for the record...
Russell (Bertrand) was not an atheist, he was an agnostic, a position from which he never deviated.
For myself, I discharged the whole problem of God's existence quite awhile ago. Simply put, I do not think it's possible to reconcile to alleged omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the unvarnished facts of human existence. I could go on longer than Dalrymple on how I got to this stage, but I'd have to tie up this blog until doomsday.
You may say this is a somewhat bleak outlook, and I do not mandate others adopt it. But I am gratified that I've put an end to the whole issue.
You are a tiny, infinitesimal being whose existence on a biological speck of dust in an infinite cosmos will span about a microsecond in the cosmic calendar -- and yet you confidently state that you've personally "put an end to the whole issue" of God's existence? Do you realize how absurd this is?
It's not unreasonable to struggle with logical objections to the existence of God, but I'll never understand the kind of psyche that actually finds comfort in the certainty of doom.
"For myself, I discharged the whole problem of God's existence quite awhile ago. Simply put, I do not think it's possible to reconcile to alleged omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the unvarnished facts of human existence."
Those three terms of theology have done more to confuse the mind of both the believer, and the unbeliever, than any other words I can imagine.
None of them are found in scripture, yet they're treated as if they were. And the erstwhile theologies which surround those words are most often either wrong, or incomplete, or both.
Sadly, as long as the dialog regarding the nature of God continues to trip over man-made characterizations generated by those three words, the quest for understanding won't even be on the right road.
Hiding behind those misused and misconceived words as a dodge to excuse one's rejection of God is as incorrect as the meanings ascribed to those words.
And no, I'm not going nail my epistle on those words to this particular door.
Suffice to say, one particular preacher got it pretty right when he said something along the lines of "The Bible is so simple, you'd need help to misunderstand it. Problem is, we've already had about 2,000 years of help!"
I find it very comforting that guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and innumerable others like them will actually be punished for their crimes. Don't you?
On the other hand, the fact that I also deserve such punishment makes me very uncomfortable. But that's just the bad news side of the equation.
The good news side is that Jesus already took the punishment that I deserved. Furthermore, the evil side of my nature will be destroyed and I will be perfected and get to live in a perfect world. Why shouldn't that aspect be comforting?
BTW, I have a lot more stuff to respond to, but I've been so buried by work, repairs to my house and now a freakin' cold that I haven't had time to respond properly to comments which desperately need a response.
Now here's an interesting confluence of events. I was just listening to a podcast which has an interview with Dinesh D'Souza about his new book, "What's So Great About Christianity". The podcast was recorded this past Sunday, and the book—a direct response to the new atheists—was just released in October. Even more interesting, while I was inhaling my lunch, I checked out the link to your previous post, only to discover that you quoted from Mr. D'Souza. Have you heard of his new book yet?
"My question is, why is it these idiots refuse to believe in a creator, ...."
And people wonder why some atheists get a bit belligerent. For the record, it seldom helps your argument to begin by insulting the people on the other side.
Nor is ad hominem argumentation the only logical fallacy popular in arguments about religion. See also strawman argument, question begging, argument from ignorance, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ... and let's not forget tu quoque.
(A hint for militant atheists: Talking about your debating opponent's "invisible friend" is pretty much precisely as convincing as calling your opponent an "idiot". And "he did it first" didn't even work when you were 5.)
If you think I'm bashing your enemies in the argument for those logical failings, you're probably right. But I'm also bashing the enemies of your enemies.
Frankly, there's a great deal both comforting and chilling about both faith and the lack thereof. Being intellectually and morally consistent with either means swallowing a lot that is uncomfortable. It's the price of integrity.
I believe in a Supreme Being, though my conception of that Being is no doubt different than most people's.
One point which I heard a few weeks ago and cemented my belief (not that such cementing was needed, but anyhoo…) was a discussion of the Big Bang.
We know that a black hole is so termed because it would take an infinite amount of energy to retrieve a single particle of mass from beyond the event horizon.
We also know that there is no time in a black hole, because of the infinite distortion of space-time.
Finally, we know that at the beginning of the Universe, all matter was concentrated in a single point—forming the mother of all black holes.
So how do we go from there to a universe of dispersed matter? An infinite amount of energy would not be enough to do the job! Plus, if there is no time, then there is no change either. The universe should have been stuck in an eternal stasis, whatever other forces are at work.
This suggests that whatever changed the situation, that Cause transcends the limitations of mass/energy and is outside of time.
Unknown physics. It's not as though we are anywhere remotely close to understanding all of natural law, just a small fraction of it.
Besides which, even if that Cause is a creator God outside and transcending the laws of nature, it does not automatically follow that that entity cares about what we do or is even aware of our existence- and it still leaves an ultimate explanation of "it just is" in response to the question "All right then, what caused God?" I find that no more satisfying than "the laws of nature just are". You have to come to "just is" someday- it's not an argument for faith, though it can be a reason.
Wow. Good stuff all around here. And, as usual, serendipitous. I had a long discussion over lunch with an evangelical friend of mine about some of these very topics.
One of the things I have always struggled is man's interpretation of God. My lunch friend today insists that there is only one interpretation-his-and everyone else is wrong or faux Christians. I say everyone is right and everyone is wrong and no one should judge anyone else or act as the official mouthpiece of God. I have noticed that people like my lunch friend create the God they need to have in their lives--for whatever reason.
God has a different meaning for each person and I think God likes it that way. Otherwise, why would there be so many books in the Bible? Or four Gospels? Or the multitude of faiths? I think God thrives on alternate perceptions, diversity, and, believe it or not, questioning everything, especially yourself. God didn't create us to be slaves. He created us to be his children, to grow , and evolve...perhaps someday attaining "god like" wisdom.
"My question is, why is it these idiots refuse to believe in a creator..."
The why was rather succinctly put by Stephen F. Roberts:
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
It's not as though we are anywhere remotely close to understanding all of natural law, just a small fraction of it.
Now there's an understatement.
A favorite quote of mine on the subject, that reveals just how puny we humans are:
It is revealing that no man, not even the greatest philosopher, has ever had a single thought other than in terms of matter. This is particularly evident from the most astounding ... fact that all languages everywhere have the same classes of words -- nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs.
Language can be made to express thought quite closely. But nobody, however intelligent or skillful, has ever used new, different word classes, other than those used by all men, primitive or advance. This proves that men can think only in terms of matter in space and time.
...
This virtually miraculous law of uniform classes of words is not particularly noted, because it is so universal or commonplace and simple.
...
Our spiritual world is therefore the least true when compared to what the universal, divine reality might be. ...man's mental, spiritual creations become so involved and valuable precisely because of the difficulties our inherently feeble mind has in coping with the humanly senseless, mindless world.
The philosophical focusing on "spiritual" truths is contradictory and distortingly narrow. Speculations about spiritual or transcendental reality are inherent contradictions: they are expressed in human thought, reflected in language, which never extends beyond the terms of matter.
In short, we're all kinda lame. When we're not busy being evil, God must have some good laughs watching us do our thing. I know how that feels, having two small children at home.
I find the prospect Hell a lot more comforting than the prospect of annihilation, because the corollary is that Heaven must exist. I'm no judge, so for all I know I'm bad enough to deserve an eternity in Hell. But if that means that something good -- any of the people I love -- will end up in Heaven rather than be annihilated, then it will be worth it to me. But, as Ed stated, we're already saved, so it's kind of academic.
LabRat,
Unknown physics. It's not as though we are anywhere remotely close to understanding all of natural law, just a small fraction of it.
Quite right, we understand very little of nature. But we're still stuck with the problem that the laws of physics only describe the natural, not the supernatural.
Besides which, even if that Cause is a creator God outside and transcending the laws of nature...
Just for clarification, this Cause, whatever it is, necessarily transcends nature. So, as you say, the question is really whether...
that entity cares about what we do or is even aware of our existence-
The Bible is fairly convincing evidence that He does and He is. Even in the absence of convincing evidence either way, why not choose to hope for the best?
...and it still leaves an ultimate explanation of "it just is" in response to the question "All right then, what caused God?"
Cause and effect only apply to temporal events, not to that which is eternal. God doesn't require a cause.
But we're still stuck with the problem that the laws of physics only describe the natural, not the supernatural.
Yes, but I don't believe in the supernatural. I wouldn't go as far as the arrogant folks Dalrymple is describing and flatly deny it and go around hassling others to, but I've never been convinced.
Note that the supernatural is NOT the same thing as the metaphysical. Some things transparently exist regardless of their lack of physical nature- love, justice, mercy, freedom, compassion, etc. etc.
Just for clarification, this Cause, whatever it is, necessarily transcends nature.
Does it? As I see it, the alternative is that, pre-universe, conditions were so different from what we understand now that natural law itself may have been different. Whatever posited Event happened set the current ones in place- but if it's necessary that before the universe, there was something else, it does not necessarily follow that there wasn't a different condition of "natural" rather than "God".
The Bible is fairly convincing evidence that He does and He is.
To you. My problem is not that I haven't read the Bible or that I haven't understood it. I spend a fair amount of time reading theology because I feel I'd be illiterate for these kinds of debates if I didn't (that and I'm honestly curious, these are some very formidable intellects thinking things I never would on my own), but it's never resonated with deep truth for me the way it does for some. (The religion that resonates most strongly for me would probably actually be conservative Judaism, minus most of the rituals that seem to be hollow, but it's not enough to sway me all the way.)
We've had a lot of discussions on how well Judeo-Christian systems work in the world. To me this points to the conclusion that it's entirely possible it's so widespread because it works, not because all of it is true. The "if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him" explanation.
Even in the absence of convincing evidence either way, why not choose to hope for the best?
The best by whose definition? To quote, of all things, a TV character, "I find it more comforting to believe this is not a test". Not because I'm afraid I'd fail- because looking at things like people born with horrible and painful deformities, or stricken over and over again with tragedies they had no power to prevent, and thinking that it's all because someone who is not going to explain themself until after death is doing it for some abstract "test" is chilling. It's one of the things I was thinking about when I said belief and nonbelief both have their cold and hard aspects as well as their comforting. They have to, because LIFE is sometimes cold and hard. Sure, it would be nice to think I'm going to be rewarded for trying to be a good person, and see all the dead that I miss again... but I won't know the difference after I've died, will I? Besides- I was raised to believe that virtue IS its own reward, and if this is really all the shot at life we get, and all we have is each other, then I had better do the best I can because I won't get another shot.
Anyway, "choosing to believe" is not so easy as all that. I could profess belief tomorrow and in some ways my life would become easier except for losing some free time- but faith is something you feel, and I don't feel it- and it's not because I'm not open to the idea. To claim otherwise would be a lie, something that both Biblical values and mine agree would be wrong.
When I talk to the faithful, most of them say it's an experience as real as another person in a room. That's never happened to me. Any time I have a conversation with my conscience, it's always me wearing a mask- it doesn't feel alien, doesn't know anything I don't know already. It's just my mind adopting a tactic so I can tell myself what I might not want to hear. That experience is what it would take for me to believe. If I sensed the divine, and it was clear enough to me to take it for what it was- I don't require absolute proof, just a strong visceral sense, because that seems to be how it works- then you'd better believe I'd devote a lot of emotional and intellectual time and energy to it.
Cause and effect only apply to temporal events, not to that which is eternal. God doesn't require a cause.
True, but that isn't so much convincing as logically convenient. There is no logical reason temporal events can't have an ultimate beginning just because we haven't figured it out yet.
Ditto to LabRat's last comment, but I wish to add:
Even in the absence of convincing evidence either way, why not choose to hope for the best?
That's Pascal's Wager, I believe.
The problem is, according to every interpretation of Christian scripture I know of, acting like you believe is not enough. (We've been over this a time or two previously, I think.) Salvation requires actual belief - and I, like LabRat, ain't got it in me, and I've said so on more than one occasion.
Salvation does not require actual belief, Kevin. I used to think that too. Actual belief is reserved for the Bananas in the fruit bowl. However, when you get to the Matrix-esq point that I have, where you question the existence of the bananas in the fruit bowl, then you're ready.
Anyway, getting off of what I wanted to write, which is that it requires belief as in faith, not belief as in the bananas. So Linus had it all wrong. He really only needed faith, more like hope, than belief. Rock-solid belief in something you can't see or touch is impossible, in my opinion, no matter what anyone says.
Then all that is needed for salvation is to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ. It's pretty simple.
For most of my life, I have been a pretty adamant atheist. I had read the Bible, and while I had respect for the lessons that it taught, I rejected the core message. My steadfast atheism really took a hit the day I held my son in the delivery room for the very first time, as corny as that sounds. I wanted so desperately for there to be more than just this life on earth in store for my kids. Wanting it, however, doesn't necessarily make it true. Confused yet?
Where am I now? I'm really not sure; somewhere in the murk of agnosticism, I suppose. My wife's enduring faith has made an impression on me, and I have a lot of respect for the western Judeo-Christian tradition as a whole. I guess the bottom line for me is that while I am by no means certain as to the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus (there is no doubt in my mind that he was a historical figure at the vey least), the example he set as a way to live life and treat your fellows is a fine one to aspire to, at least for me, and my children. Faith may yet follow - I haven't felt any spark thus far, but my wife is eternally hopeful:)
Gaah, part of the reason why this debate is so acrimonious is because everyone is locked into the Christian paradigm of theology.
The problem is, according to every interpretation of Christian scripture I know of, acting like you believe is not enough.
Not for Christians, true. But "acting like you believe" is perfectly acceptable in traditional Judaism, if not preferred. It is, rather, a waypoint in your spiritual development until such time as the Divine law has refined your sensitivity enough to permit belief.
(Not "faith," by the way. Judaism doesn't go in for "faith." I'm not even sure the word has an exact analogue in Hebrew. The closest parallels are bitachon, "security," and emunah, which is often translated as "faith" but really means "to establish something as true." In mystical sources it is used to mean something more like an existential connection.)
Returning full circle, it is this refining of spiritual sensitivity that Dalrymple is speaking of. To believe in God means that there is something out there, some Principle or Standard or Ideal, that is superior to your own needs and expresses the "ideal blueprint" of how we as creatures of the universe should live our lives.
Athiesm, on the other hand, must rely on human reason or emotion to guide behavior, which leads you into problems of self-reference. Remember Kevin's uberpost in which he establishes the impossibility of working out a foundation for society on reason alone.
I didn't quite understand your comments about transcending nature, but if you believe the Big Bang is the correct model, then you must accept the supernatural. Physics accepts that nature came into being with the Big Bang. Something caused nature to exist, and that something must necessarily transcend nature because nothing is its own cause. This is why some physicists have a problem with the Big Bang: they understand the theological implications. The great astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge is one such person, and famously made a remark about physicists rushing to join the "first church of Christ of the Big Bang." So startling were the implications of the Big Bang that many atheistic physicists rushed to come up with alternatives to God as the Cause. This is why we get speculative stuff like infinite parallel universes, baby universes, etc.
With respect to evidence for God via the Bible, I was referring to Genesis. I find it remarkable that the author not only alluded to a Big Bang-like creation, but was able to correctly list milestones in the evolution of the universe and the earth, which no one could have possibly guessed, and list them in correct order. If I were to go back 3,500 years from now and hand someone a list of the 14 events in Genesis 1 and tell him to put them in correct order, the odds of him doing so are 1 in 87 billion. In other words, the author of Genesis could not have made it all up. This to me is compelling evidence that the Bible is the revealed word of God.
Accepting God on an intellectual level wasn't that difficult for me once I thought about Genesis and science. But actual deep-down belief in God, and especially in Christ, was very difficult. I didn't choose Christ because I felt it. On my day of baptism I felt like a fraud, because the only thing in my heart at that time was doubt. I took the leap of faith and gave myself to Christ, because it's the best I could hope for. Contrary to what nonreligious people think, feeling actually negates faith. If you truly believe something -- if you feel it -- you're not engaging in faith. I truly believe deep down inside that my husband loves me, because he acts in a way that's consistent with that belief. However, when we hit some rocky times in our marriage I had to take it on faith that he still loved me, because I sure as hell didn't feel it at the time. Do you see the difference? Like Ben said, without solid proof it's impossible to truly believe. All that's required is a willingness to accept, even on the basis of a sliver of hope, that God is. But people throw up these philosophical roadblocks for themselves, and I don't know if it's out of apprehension, cynicism, pride, or what. But it's not necessary.
I sympathize with what you said about people born into very unfortunate situations, and wonder how this fits into God's plan. I don't know how. And I don't know that existence is a test, either. But this is certainly where faith comes in, believing that in the end the suffering amounts to something good. When I was a child and bad things happened to me, I didn't believe my parents when they said that it's all OK and that in the end I would be a better person for it. I had an undeveloped intellect and an extremely limited worldview that prevented me from putting this stuff into perspective. It wasn't until I was older and more experienced that I understood, and even appreciated, those bad things. Maybe this is analogous to our relationship with God. All kinds of horrible things happen, but we don't have the capacity to understand why, and why it won't even matter in the next life.
You are right that virtue is a reward in itself. But most of our ideas about virtue are programmed into us as children and cultivated by our environment -- none of us would be the same people if we had been born in, say, China or 3,000 years ago. But as an adult you have some capacity to define virtue for youself. Why do you stick with it, especially when it's not always in your immediate interest to do so? For me, it's because I love God. I want to serve the cause of good. This reward we're supposed to get in Heaven for behaving virtuously just isn't tangible enough to motivate me, but my love of God is.
To believe in God means that there is something out there, some Principle or Standard or Ideal, that is superior to your own needs and expresses the "ideal blueprint" of how we as creatures of the universe should live our lives.
I've been gnawing on the idea ever since, and where I currently am in my thinking looks something like this (borrowing a bit from where I coincidentally went into the same subject elsewhere yesterday):
The word “metaphysics” was coined (sort of, the later translations were based on a misunderstanding, but a useful one) to mean “beyond physics”. Originally they just referred to the traditional ordering of the books of Aristotle, in which the chapters on virtue and philosophy came after those on natural science, but it later came to mean all that is outside the bounds of natural science- as abstracts usually are. Because something only exists in the abstract- whether you regard them (as I do) as things that have their own existence and were more discovered than invented by man because they were a natural end product of a reasoning, social mind, or as “man-made inventions”- does not mean it does not exist. The interesting thing about the Greeks, whose system of virtue was almost entirely enfolded into Christian theology (see Aquinas), is that they had a complex and solid system of virtues that had nothing to do with their gods, which tended to behave badly even by Greek standards. To them, virtue was just a thing that was, like math*, already extant and needing to be discovered through a process of reason and observing what works well for societies and individuals. From my point of view, Christian theology didn’t enfold the Greek virtues because it was stealing from them, and the Greeks didn’t happen to catch on to an idea the Jews had had first, they are mostly the same because they are mostly right.
There is an abstract- but real- ideal set of rules out there for social creatures that have learned to think. The Bible identifies sin as having begun in thought and knowledge, and it is correct: you can't do wrong unless you can conceptualize it. The purpose of religion- and of philosophy- is to give us ways to survive and thrive as thinking, feeling, conscious beings. We need meaning the same way we need love- and we DO need love, and not in any squishy "we'd be unhappy" way either. If you do not hold and touch and talk to an infant enough, IT DIES. Not for want of food or any other material thing. This doesn't happen to animals in the same way- though the more advanced and social the young mammal, the more it does need touch and interaction to survive and thrive. (Dogs are a good example- a dog mother that doesn't spend enough time with its puppies, not just feeding them, may have few survivors in the litter.) Likewise, humans need meaning, or they go mad- depressed or psychotic. It's the price we pay for our minds, whether you call that original sin or something else. And it ultimately must involve faith, if only in the idea that those virtues and standards have a reality beyond opinion. The Christian I was arguing with called that "a reach", but I find his God "a reach", so.
*I hate to use the comparison, because math is about the most universal truth out there and its beauty is that you CAN prove it because it works, but I was reaching for another idea that's a series of abstract representations with profound corresponding reality in the material. It's still a bad comparison, but it was the best one my tired brain can currently come up with.
The reason these arguments tend to center on Christian theology is that commenters here tend either to be Christian or exposed mostly to Christianity in their lives. It's always good to hear the Judaic perspective, though.
I'm not an atheist and I haven't been to church in over a decade. I do have some observations and questions for the atheists on here as I'm genuinely interested in hearing their opinions. Notice I'm not saying anyone has to believe in God...I could truly care less.
Science cannot give answers to moral questions any more than you can measure the Ph balance of the water in your pool with a ruler. Science can only answer how, never why. I do see atheists like ballistic saying they know despite the fact that what he "knows" is as unprovable as what the religious person believes. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable. So I don’t really buy the "no evidence" for God...IMO Athiests did not decide to be atheist because of "no evidence."
Atheists have a burden of proof. ~All~ world-views have a burden of proof.
What is so important about us that the women on this blog should not be raped or the men on here killed? What does it matter if we or humanity or this planet live or die? If the universe itself is an accident devoid of meaning and purpose, then so are we. Why is rape or murder or the sexual torture of infants or genocide – or any other crime that the average atheist as well as religious folk would agree is heinous – wrong? If all we humans are just amoral atoms and dust, then all of these "crimes" are just atoms and dust rearranging other atoms and dust. Where is the crime? For that matter what IS a crime - and who decides? To what authority do these atoms and subatomic particles appeal to determine which random movements of other atoms and subatomic particles are criminal? I could be wrong but the average atheist cannot believe in a universal, transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent. In other words, if the atheist is to be consistent, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.
If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code. You can either make up a moral code that everyone knows is a fairy tale or you can descend into a hellish swirl of nihilism and moral relativism. But you cannot both say there is no God and then declare any acts - including the past acts of Christian fanatics and current acts of Islamo-terrorists - wrong because you are left with only opinion and taste, which, without a God to create a transcendent moral code, are by definition arbitrary.
And then finally, the atheist has to account for why anything even matters at all. What difference does it make if a child lives a full life and dies in bed at 100 or if the same child is thrown in a dumpster in a Boston alley moments after birth to slowly freeze to death? You might answer because the child might grow up to make a difference in someone else’s life, find a cure for a disease. Then the question is why should a difference in this other person's life be made? Why should this or any disease be cured? To save humanity? To relieve suffering? Why should humanity be saved? Why should suffering be relieved? Why should there be any ‘should’ at all? Why does it even matter whether the universe exists or not? These are the questions that the atheist could give a compelling answer for or admit that if there is no God, acts of good and evil ultimately have no meaning at all because life itself is ultimately meaningless and devoid of a higher purpose.
"Salvation requires actual belief - and I, like LabRat, ain't got it in me, and I've said so on more than one occasion."
Pardon me, but I think that you do.
Do you believe in Justice?
Do you believe in Mercy?
Of course you do.
But are not Justice and Mercy merely shadows of an Ideal?
What is that Ideal?
And what is the Light that casts the shadows we perceive?
If you don't believe in Justice and Mercy, then what is the point of waking up in the morning?
You might as well put the muzzle of a handgun in your mouth and pull the trigger, you'll save yourself a world of meaningless pain and suffering.
Because without Justice and Mercy, whatever you may have to endure has NO meaning whatsoever.
You'll go through your day, and you'll wake up tomorrow and carry on, knowing that in the long run, you'll probably get not much more than a kick to the balls, just like the rest of us.
I could be wrong but the average atheist cannot believe in a universal, transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent. In other words, if the atheist is to be consistent, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.
As to your question "who decides?" - check your history. Human beings do.
Bilgeman:
I live in a society that believes in Justice and Mercy. I also recognize that other societies have existed that have not - at least not for people outside their societies. I would not, for example, want to have lived in one of the societies overrun by, say, the Mongols. Where was Justice and Mercy then?
The movement that most embraced atheism (Communism) was responsible for tens of millions of deaths in its 74 years of existence. Therefore, I do not see (yet) how an atheist society would better serve its population.
Going back a generation or two, support for Josef Stalin, perhaps the greatest mass murderer in history, was almost entirely confined in the West to intellectuals. German Ph.D.s were also among Hitler’s greatest supporters. The moral record of secular intellectuals - Lenin’s "useful idiots" - is one of the worst of any single group in free societies in the last hundred years. I am therefore not quite bowled anymore by people attacking religion as the source of all the ills of the world.
To be fair, Stalin attended a Christian seminary as a youth but while in power Stalin was a passionate atheist who murdered untold numbers of Christian clergy, destroyed virtually every church in Russia, and forced Soviet students to study "scientific atheism".
Whether or not society would be better off without God is certainly an interesting question for discussion but I can provide an example of a society that didn't believe in God. Statistics show that godless Communism resulted in the death of over 100 million people. The Communists, as followers of Darwin, were consistent in their materialist faith. There are no rules except those which the State determines to be rules. Karl Marx believed in "the primacy of the individual". Communism's followers do not believe in a "a higher authority" greater than the State.
As always happens when individuals are made into Gods, they begin competing against one another for top-God. In order to quell the move toward moral anarchy, some new God must be raised up – in terms of Communism, that new God was the Government.
Many atheists seem so distracted by a desire to deconstruct organized religion that they haven’t thought their own positions all the way through to the inevitable logical conclusion of those positions. That’s not saying Atheists have made NO attempt at serious thought on the subject. In my view, many just haven’t finished the job.
MORALLY, just arbitrarily creating your own meaning is the essence of anarchy. If you answer only to yourself, then given the human vulnerability not only to honest error but to bias, selfishness, greed, lust, etc., etc., you are an inherently unstable being who is a danger to both himself and his fellow man. Remember that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden, Castro and all the dictators and tyrants throughout history "created their own meaning" too, as has every mobster or small time crook or rapist. There is not a single one among them that are not or were not creating their own meaning and being "true to themselves" 24/7. Only if there is a transcendent moral code, something like the Ten Commandments for example, complete with a real Commander to keep you in line – is there any hope of us humans being anything more than a collection of impulses and appetites.
LOGICALLY, if the universe itself has no meaning and you are part of the universe, then it is logically impossible to create your own meaning because meaning does not exist. To claim otherwise is like claiming someone can get fresh fruit from a dead tree.
Indeed there were rules in place by human beings before the time of Christ. I'm quite certain that Democracy was a gift from the pagan ancient Greeks and our current Republican form of government came from the Romans (before Caesar). I also think the ideas of linear history and science predate the influence of Judeo-Christian values as well. There were people like Eudoxus, Archimedes, Hippocrates (I believe modern doctors still take a variation of his oath), and Diaophantus, just to name a few, who were among the west's first great scientists, and none were influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. I also remember reading something of Greek mythology and finding it remarkable how their version of the afterlife included a post-death judgement in which people were either sent to the eternal Bliss of Elysium or the eternal damnation of Hades on the basis of their moral behavior during their mortal existence. So pre-Christian European civilization certainly had an affect on the Judeo-Christian traditions that so many follow today. Human beings indeed.
Then all that is needed for salvation is to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ.
repent: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
What if I don't really think I'm doing all that much sinning, and I'm pretty happy with the way I live my life?
baptism: a Christian sacrament marked by ritual use of water and admitting the recipient to the Christian community
So, if somebody splashes water on my head (or submerges me in it) and says a few words over me, my soul gets a free pass to heaven? (Full disclosure: I was raised as a Methodist and baptized as a child, or so I am told. I have no memory of the event.)
Sorry, Ben, but just acting like I believe and going through the motions on the off chance that God will spare me seems hypocritical. Strike that - it seems wrong.
You've missed a LOT of comment threads here. Most all of your points have been covered in here before at much older posts. I'd like to respond, but I now have to do something resembling work so I can collect a paycheck. Perhaps more anon.
Kevin, of course going through the motions is worthless. You have to actually repent. You've never done anything, not once in your life, that you'd consider sinful? It's great that you're living well now, though. I feel the same way.
And the baptism doesn't require anyone to say anything. And it doesn't help to be baptized as a child, unless you believe in "original sin" which isn't biblical btw.
Hopefully I've got enough caffeine on board for this...
Something caused nature to exist, and that something must necessarily transcend nature because nothing is its own cause.
That would be news to quantum mechanics. Some subatomic particles occasionally pop into existence in a perfect vacuum- a quick Google makes it clear vacuum fluctuation has been known and accepted for quite awhile. This premise is false.
The great astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge is one such person, and famously made a remark about physicists rushing to join the "first church of Christ of the Big Bang."
I know, I looked it up. It would seem that he had an issue with it not because he was threatened by the inevitability of God, but because he regarded "therefore there must be a God" argument as unnecessary- and looking for the quote netted me a lot of fairly sound arguments why. I'm not gonna pull a Markadelphia on you and start throwing links to let others talk for me, because my physics education is only basic collegiate and I don't have the chops required to evaluate the information to see which theories are sound and which are ridiculous. However, given that one of your premises is easily shown to be false, and that plenty of physicists who DO know what they're doing seem to regard the "church of the Big Bang" argument as bad without needing to resort to denying the supernatural altogether (merely saying that it is not necessary to reconcile the big bang with physics by invoking the supernatural), I remain unswayed. Besides- even if you're completely correct, the only thing it would prove is Deism, not Christianity.
I find it remarkable that the author not only alluded to a Big Bang-like creation, but was able to correctly list milestones in the evolution of the universe and the earth, which no one could have possibly guessed, and list them in correct order.
Uh... I'm looking at Genesis now. Does the Big Bang theory imply that the sun and earth and water on earth be created before other stars, and that darkness came AFTER light? Because that's the order Genesis's cosmology goes in. It also claims that grasses and fruiting plants came before animals of any kind (animals were necessary to make fruit a workable strategy for plant reproduction), and birds before mammals and reptiles.
Sticking out to my mind's perspective like a sore thumb is the total lack of any mention at all of bacteria, which by far are earth's most abundant and diverse life. Bacteria were hardly irrelevant to ancient man- besides the obvious diseases, they are necessary to make wine, cheese, and yogurt, all things known to ancient man and some of which appear frequently in Biblical metaphor. (Milk, the precursor state to cheese and yogurt, is often used to represent abundance- and fermenting preservation methods were used very early on to preserve its nutrition and make it more portable.) God didn't see fit to mention his most versatile creation?
Contrary to what nonreligious people think, feeling actually negates faith.
If you say so. I based that entire line of argument from what I heard from the RELIGIOUS, not the nonreligious. I already know what I, a nonreligious person, think about it.
If you truly believe something -- if you feel it -- you're not engaging in faith.
Romans 10:8-13 NKJV
( 8 ) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”[5](that is, the word of faith which we preach):
(9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
(10) For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
I hate to cut n' paste, but your assertion and the NKJV seem to be in conflict. Granted, this could be a translation problem, but it would seem we are splitting finer semantic hairs than you make out. Hebrews seems to bear up your interpretation more- but if what you're saying is true, then there's a Biblical contradiction here.
All that's required is a willingness to accept, even on the basis of a sliver of hope, that God is.
Hebrews 11:6 (I think)
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
That implies more than just a sliver to me. I accept that the sliver is the starting point, but I'm not finding this line of argument intellectually convincing based on the text.
I don't know if it's out of apprehension, cynicism, pride, or what.
At the risk of making another "this is what the nonreligious belive the religious believe" type of error, I see this a lot, and it's one of the big things that turns me off, because it's NOT pride or fear or cynicism. The concept of God as He is presented in the Bible does not threaten me. I find it unconvincing, not emotionally worrisome. I stated one of the issues I had with the assertion that the Biblical God represented "the best" to hope for, but taking the Bible whole would square the issue and offer the comfort you described; besides, how I feel about God has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists or not, and what God is like if He does.
But most of our ideas about virtue are programmed into us as children and cultivated by our environment -- none of us would be the same people if we had been born in, say, China or 3,000 years ago.
Which is why I doubt that God is totally necessary to virtue in an individual or a society. At least two societies- the ancient Greeks and the Japanese- developed complex internalized codes of virtue that had no mystical basis whatsoever. Children learn the viscerals of "bad" and "good" long before they have the intellectual capacity to evaluate God or ethics through abstract thinking. True faith is an adult phenomenon- by the time we're capable of it, we've already been reared to believe in "bad" and "good" and to make a conscious choice between them.
I want to serve the cause of good. This reward we're supposed to get in Heaven for behaving virtuously just isn't tangible enough to motivate me, but my love of God is.
See my lengthy rambling above. The short version, I suppose, is that I want to serve the cause of good too- I just don't define "good" as coming or being defined exclusively from the Bible.
You have to actually repent. You've never done anything, not once in your life, that you'd consider sinful?
(I'm answering for myself rather than for Kevin since the issue is relevant to me)
Are you saying that repenting is the same thing as regretting and working to make restitution for it? I've done bad things in the past, felt deep regret for them, did my level best to make up to the people I hurt, and used the experience to remind me never to make the mistake again. Repenting implies confession to God- and unlike God, other people are not obligated to forgive me if I accept Christ's sacrifice.
That depends on your definition of "confession," "to," and "God."
:-)
Actually, the steps you outline as "regretting" sound very much like the traditional Jewish sequence of repentence. So as far as I'm concerned, you're in good shape.
The thing I've always liked about Judaism is that they don't recruit. You're either one of God's Chosen or you're not. No need to proselytize.
Ben:
Sure, I've sinned, if you define sinning as "hurting another person unnecessarily." When and where I've done this, I have apologized and tried, I believe, to make what restitution I could. A Higher Being was not involved, though. So, what's the deal with baptism, then, and why are the Methodists (and lots of others) wrong?
[In terms of something not being its own cause] That would be news to quantum mechanics. Some subatomic particles occasionally pop into existence in a perfect vacuum- a quick Google makes it clear vacuum fluctuation has been known and accepted for quite awhile. This premise is false.
This is nitpicky, but there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum. I think what you meant here is the vacuum energy, which is now commonly believed to be dark energy. There is no known cause for spontaneous pair-production, which doesn't necessarily mean that a cause does not exist. Typically, whenever statistics are used to explain something it means we don't understand the underlying cause. Anyway, subatomic particles pop into existence in something, the vacuum energy, which is a component of nature. The vacuum energy comprises 70% of the energy/matter density budget for the universe, so all that's happening is, by virtue of the uncertainty principle, these particles are borrowing some energy from this enormous "bank" for a very brief time before they annihilate and return the energy. It does not violate any conservation laws. The Big Bang appears to be the only bona fide example of creatio ex nihilo. But if we're going to use the quantum fluctuation analogy, then there needs to be some "space" into which the universe pops into existence. That space must necessarily transcend our four-dimensional spacetime, hence it's supernatural.
Incidentally, I never said that the Big Bang proves God or proves Christianity. I said it proves the supernatural. Hence, the only meaningful question is whether the supernatural force behind the Big Bang is conscious or unconscious. If it's conscious, call it God. If it's unconscious, then who knows.
I haven't looked very deeply into what motivated Burbidge to make his remark, but you'll forgive me if I have doubts about your interpretation. He tenaciously clings to the steady-state model in the face of mounds of evidence that proves him utterly wrong. For a brilliant scientist to behave this way strongly suggests an irrational bias against the Big Bang on a very personal level. Robert Jastrow underscores this when he points out that initially many scientists disliked the idea of the Big Bang precisely because it implies a "moment of creation."
Uh... I'm looking at Genesis now. Does the Big Bang theory imply that the sun and earth and water on earth be created before other stars, and that darkness came AFTER light?
Nope. There's a lot to explain here, so let's see if I can condense it down.
Day One (Gen. 1:1-5)
Bible says: The creation of the universe; light separates from dark.
Science says: The big bang marks the creation of the universe; light breaks free as electrons bond to atomic nuclei; galaxies start to form.
Day Two (Gen. 1:6-8 )
Bible says: The heavenly firmament forms.
Science says: Disk of the Milky Way forms; Sun, a main sequence star, forms.
Day Three (Gen. 1:9-13)
Bible says: Oceans and dry land; the first life, plants; only start of plant-life, which develops during the following days (kabalah).
Science says: The earth has cooled and liquid water appears 3.8 billion years ago followed almost immediately by the first forms of life; bacteria and photosynthetic algae.
Day Four (Gen. 1:14-19)
Bible says: Sun, Moon, and stars become visible in heavens (Talmud Hagigah 12a).
Bible says: First animal life swarms abundantly in waters; followed by reptiles and winged animals.
Science says: First multicellular animals; waters swarm with animal life having the basic body plans of all future animals; winged insects appear.
Day Six (Gen. 1:24-31)
Bible says: Land animals; mammals; humankind.
Science says: Massive extinction destroys 90% of life. Land is repopulated; hominids and then humans.
Students of the Torah understand that in Gen 1:1 "heavens" and "earth" refer to the immaterial and material realms, respectively, not the cosmos and the planet earth. Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was formless and void." "Chaotic" is another translation for the word "formless" and the Hebrew word for "void" also translates to "filled with the building blocks of matter" (Nachmanides points this out). So Gen 1:2 is more accurately translated as "And the universe was in a state of chaos but filled with the building blocks of matter." The building blocks of matter are quarks. Soon after the Big Bang the universe was comprised of a hot, dense "quark soup" which acted like a perfect fluid. "Water" in the Bible is a mistranslation, it more likely means "fluid" which brings Genesis into very good agreement with what the model says.
I'll note something else, just because it seems to be a major point of contention with a lot of people: the Bible does not explicitly say anything that contradicts the existence of hominids prior to Adam. The one thing that differentiates Adam from the other hominids is that God breathed a soul into him.
God didn't see fit to mention [bacteria] his most versatile creation?
God didn't explicitly mention bananas either, but this doesn't present a problem to most people. Do you expect that the original audience for the Old Testament -- primitive, backwards, illiterate, pre-science people -- could even remotely understand the concept of bacteria? Even relatively modern people couldn't readily accept the idea of something material that you can't see. That Genesis is silent about bacteria doesn't render it inconsistent with science.
So, back to my original point. It's incredible that Genesis manages to even list major milestones in the development of the universe and the earth, let alone get them in the right order.
In light of the resulting commentary on my initial posting, I find it necessary to provide some clarification as to what I meant.
I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic, and the difference is more than semantic. As a theist holds that the existence of God can be definitively proven, the atheist holds the non-existence of God can definitively be proven. I hold neither. I am a doubter. I don't know whether the existence of God can be proven or not.
Throughout mankind's history arguments have been advanced purporting to demonstrate God's existence. Some have gone as far to say, and with amazing success, that the existence of God can be demonstrated by the use of the unaided reason. The arguments are set out at great length and carefully constructed and are quite convincing.
Until...
You hear the other side of the story. And then the carefully embedded fallacies reveal themselves in these arguments and render them invalid, or at least significantly less impressive than formerly assumed. The remainder, which are grounded in some theological dogma, amount to circular argumentation, for they presume as true what they intend to prove, and then proceed in this manner.
I don't know whether God exists any more than Olympus, Plato's forms, Liebniz's monads or Hegel's zietgeist, or angels, devils, heaven, hell, purgatory or any other such metaphysical entity. But trying TO PROVE they exist, when you finally come to think of it, can be a pretty exhausting enterprise.
So when I stated "I discharged the whole problem of God's existence quite awhile ago," I meant that I discharged it from myself as a profitable inquiry. I remain open to the possibility of someone definitively proving God's existence, but I don't expect it to be forthcoming in the near future. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
And finally, I do not look down on or hold in contempt persons who are quite convinced of God's existence, or have fervent religious beliefs regarding man's, or that matter all of creation's, relationship to such a being. For these persons God's existence is a matter of faith. But to have faith is to have a belief that cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. In this regard I have little faith, with regards to God's existence or much else.
There is no known cause for spontaneous pair-production, which doesn't necessarily mean that a cause does not exist. Typically, whenever statistics are used to explain something it means we don't understand the underlying cause.
There is no known-for-certain natural cause for the Big Bang, which does not mean that a natural cause does not exist. Typically, whenever supernatural explanations have been used in the past, it turns out to have been an example of unknown natural law.
Again, I'm not going to debate the specifics of the physics involved, because I don't think I can do it well enough- suffice it to say you're now using the same logic I am but have reached a different conclusion of likelihood based on faith.
That space must necessarily transcend our four-dimensional spacetime, hence it's supernatural.
Why does four-dimensional spacetime as we understand it have to be the only natural possibility? It has been widely observed that using a language designed by creatures extremely firmly grounded in time and space as-we-know-it becomes increasingly inadequate for describing physics the more it moves away from that which we can perceive and understand through our senses.
He tenaciously clings to the steady-state model in the face of mounds of evidence that proves him utterly wrong.
That's Burbidge's problem. All of the places I found the quote were using it as a pithy example of what other physicists, who were not clinging to any pet theory, considered to be the problem with rushing to the supernatural when they felt there were satisfying natural theories.
Your interpretation of Genesis is a masterpiece of fitting fact to faith. You have reinterpreted clear language- light and dark and fruiting plants and grasses- to mean entirely different things than their commonly understood meanings. And, maybe you're right, and it can be reasonably interpreted that way; that's a good way to handle apparent scientific contradictions to faith. But your ORIGINAL ARGUMENT was that it's convincing evidence for the supremacy of the Bible as the Word of God because it is scientifically acccurate and supposedly foretells knowledge the ancients never could have! It only does AFTER you spend a good deal of time and energy retrofitting it with modern science. Otherwise, it looks like the creation stories of other faiths- an apparently absurd recounting of the order and specifics of what ancient peoples imagined putting together a world would be like.
Do you expect that the original audience for the Old Testament -- primitive, backwards, illiterate, pre-science people -- could even remotely understand the concept of bacteria? Even relatively modern people couldn't readily accept the idea of something material that you can't see. That Genesis is silent about bacteria doesn't render it inconsistent with science.
That Genesis can be reinterpreted to look like it is consistent with science doesn't render it accurate.
My point was that there isn't even a scrap of language that could possibly be construed as an acknowledgement of microbial life. You're basically saying that God would rework the Big Bang into language the ancients could understand, and thereby give them foretold knowledge of conclusions they could never reach on their own, but expecting God to say something about the cause of disease and the cause of fermentation- even in EXTREMELY different language as you are working Genesis physics into- is absurd! "And God made the milk to cheese and the grape to wine" is unreasonable, but describing electrons in terms of light and dark isn't?
The faithful are almost always taking much more on faith than they think they are, because once you have faith things become obvious in that light. The problem is when you think they should be obvious to the nonbeliever, too.
Speaking of, this is why atheists get so annoyed when Christians constantly imply that they are not accepting the Word because of arrogance or a reluctance to give up sinning. Christians believe in a loving God that sent Christ to redeem humanity, and they see that sacrifice as clear and concrete evidence of God's love. I know they believe this with all their heart. I've seen the notion make people cry, and I don't believe they were ignorant or insincere.
But to a person who has not already taken a number of things on faith, that story does not make God look loving! The story looks, to eyes that have not already been prepared with several heartfelt acceptances, like this:
"For God so loved humanity, he sent His only son to die, and removed all conditions from their acceptance into His company in the afterlife except an acceptance of the Savior after hearing the Word. Except for everybody who did not hear the Word for geographic or linguistic reasons. They were just out of luck, until hundreds of years later when the faithful came to them to spread the Word. And smallpox. More smallpox than Word, really."
Now, this is a recognized problem for Christian theology, and I've done a fair amount of reading to see how it is reconciled by the faithful, and it is fascinating. But Christians seem to think the loving God that is so obvious to them must be obvious to others- but to eyes that suspect the world may not have a divine presence, or that that divine presence may not like us very much, THE BEST God comes off in the Biblical story of the redemption is as having a singularly nasty sense of humor! Christian faith REQUIRES swallowing a lot more and bigger things than just one's pride.
You do realize that without a very Christian America, God's Chosen would likely not exist today.
You do realize that without the tolerance and plurality of the Roman Empire in later years, Christianity would likely not exist today. Does that imply they were right?
"I live in a society that believes in Justice and Mercy. I also recognize that other societies have existed that have not - at least not for people outside their societies. I would not, for example, want to have lived in one of the societies overrun by, say, the Mongols. Where was Justice and Mercy then?"
It was there also, it doesn't require recognition to exist, it is omnipresent.
Now, the Mongols, like the Germans of the Shoah, may have perceived it quite differently than others, but the imperfect and subjective perceptions of humankind are not to be blamed on the objective ideal.
(Kinda like that "I Am What I Am" business with Moses, and certain Juudaic scholars hold the Name of G-d, it's impossible for us to even begin to know).
And to answer your underlying question, I think it is because of our imperfect and sometimes widely varying visions of what constitutes Justice and Mercy that good people can, and have, done the most unjust and inhuman things to each other.
We can only do as we have been taught, and have faith that the Divine will accept what is good and correct where we have erred.
"For God so loved humanity, he sent His only son to die, and removed all conditions from their acceptance into His company in the afterlife except an acceptance of the Savior after hearing the Word. Except for everybody who did not hear the Word for geographic or linguistic reasons. They were just out of luck, until hundreds of years later when the faithful came to them to spread the Word. And smallpox. More smallpox than Word, really."
There's the Quote of the Day as soon as I get home.
If Justice and Mercy are omnipresent - then why didn't the Mongols show any during their predations? The Maori when they conquered the Moriori? Etc., etc., etc.?
We've been there and done that with absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights. Now you're suggesting that Justice and Mercy count among them?
"We've been there and done that with absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights. Now you're suggesting that Justice and Mercy count among them?"
As Rights?
No, I don't think that Justice and Mercy are Rights, but rather they are the Ideal that Rights aspire to cultivate.
Your interpretation of Genesis is a masterpiece of fitting fact to faith.
There is a certain degree of this, of course. It is unavoidable given the small sample size of the data, so to speak.
However, you do not speak to (because you do not grok the significance of) the fact that many of the sources Sarah cited (albeit too briefly to be convincing) are over a thousand years old, and yet express concepts regarding cosmology that were inconceivable to everyone else in the world and yet were shown to be essentially accurate.
In particular:
"Chaotic" is another translation for the word "formless" and the Hebrew word for "void" also translates to "filled with the building blocks of matter" (Nachmanides points this out).
A point that Sarah did not mention is that Nachmanides lived in 12th-Century Spain.
If you read his original language, the depth of his insight becomes even more frightening--especially when you compare it to the reigning Aristotelian theories of cosmology of his day.
Similar elements are found in many places. I once read an except from the Zohar (a work that is at least a thousand years old, and most likely closer to two thousand) that made my hair stand on end. It laid out in stylized language the idea that the physical layout of the Universe was "inscribed" into the initial point mass, pre-Big Bang (which is discussed in depth in this book, which is sadly unreadable.)
All of which is not going to convince people, I suppose. That you do not believe in God doesn't cause me great angst, since it's clear that you're a good person regardless. I do, however, want to convince you that it is possible to believe in God without being a devout practitioner of doublethink, and that many of us (not all, unfortunately) do so.
Mastiff: I'll save any further commentary for when I'm not trying to hammer out my thoughts on my own blog, I just wanted to respond that-
"I do, however, want to convince you that it is possible to believe in God without being a devout practitioner of doublethink, and that many of us (not all, unfortunately) do so."
I already am convinced of this. What I object to is people telling me that the Bible (or whatever) makes it "obvious" or highly convincing that it is the One True Word, when to me this is transparently not so.
" What I object to is people telling me that the Bible (or whatever) makes it "obvious" or highly convincing that it is the One True Word, when to me this is transparently not so."
Understood, which I try not to do.
I suspect that there are more paths to Jerusalem than we know of, and I believe that we will all get there one day.
I'd just observe that folks would tend to share the course that they believe they have found.
Did I start something? My statement was based on my death. In 79, I died in a motorcycle accident. No, I don't remember any of that "tunnel of light and tea with Grandma" crap, but I know when I woke up 4 days later some stuff had changed in my mind and heart. I just KNEW there IS another level beyond this one to existence. I KNOW that NO religion has everything right, some have a lot of stuff VERY wrong, some are good indeed, but YOU have to have that openess to the vibrational spirit of the universe.
I have no "religion", per se. Just a knowledge that there's more to life than here. It is the, for want of a better term, wavelength of your energy. I don't know how to say it really, I know what I mean. If you can feel what I'm saying here, good on ya.
Mustaine* is (or at least was last I checked) a born-again Christian who reportedly brought a minister with him on tour to help keep him on the straight and narrow. That sounds more religious than strictly-spiritual to me.
There is no known-for-certain natural cause for the Big Bang, which does not mean that a natural cause does not exist.
Yes, it does, if physicists understand the Big Bang correctly.
First of all, as a scientist, I never believe supernatural explanations for anything that occurs within nature. I'm not an Islamist who believes that God moves all things at all times according to his will. Whatever unknown rules that govern the creation of particle-pairs are rules that describe the system these particles inhabit, which is nature. But with the Big Bang we're talking about something entirely different. Something brought nature into existence, and it must necessarily be subject to whatever rules apply in whatever realm the universe was created, i.e. outside of nature. These rules are therefore not describable by the laws of nature.
You are free to disagree with this and come up with whatever logical twisting you like, but this is exactly what is taught by cosmology. Atheistic cosmologists like Steven Weinberg will comment that hyper-space fluctuations giving rise to multiple universes, baby universes, etc., are plausible explanations for the origin of our universe and do away with the necessity for God as the sole contender for the Cause. These ideas, which have been postulated by some of the greatest minds in science, were invoked for precisely the reason that the Big Bang absolutely requires the supernatural. Weinberg rightly points out that these are all speculative and untestable given that whatever rules govern these scenarios would not be the same rules that govern our universe. Again, this all explicitly assumes the supernatural. I really am at a loss as to why you fail to see this.
Going back to the Burbidge thing, you can't just write it off as one man's personal idiosyncrasy. You may personally not believe or understand the implications, but this places you at odds with the bulk of the physics community. (You once told me that sometimes we just have to trust the experts. Do you practice what you preach?) Burbidge's views are indicative of the battle that is taking place right now in physics over the implications of Big Bang theory. I know, because I am in the thick of it. I worked in the same department as Burbidge and personally met the man, and have sat within two feet of Weinberg many times listening to him talk about this stuff. I understand first hand the nature and the depth of the metaphysical crisis taking place in physics because of Big Bang theory.
...suffice it to say you're now using the same logic I am but have reached a different conclusion of likelihood based on faith.
You're making assumptions about my beliefs that are untrue. I was convinced by the logic of this line of reasoning after a lifetime of agnosticism, so faith or a desire to believe had nothing to do with it. I found it logically sound, and based on that I was compelled to accept it. The faith and desire aspects came many years later, which is why I only converted to Christianity last year.
Mastiff explained more or less what I would have in response to your criticism of the Genesis-fitting. I didn't mention that Nahmanides wrote in the 13th century, because I thought that was well known.
You are correct, to some extent, that this is a retrofit to science. But so what? It works, and, contrary to your claim, not by any real stretch. The interpretations I invoked, as Mastiff pointed out, are based on 12th and 13th century observations by Jewish commentators Maimonides and Nahmanides. I found myself incredulous of Gerald Schroeder's claims that these commentators did in fact say what they said respecting cosmology, so I checked for myself. He does not misrepresent them, and as Mastiff said, these commentaries are hair-raisingly prescient. I didn't do justice to the explanation, but that would be a difficult accomplishment in a comments section of a blog. It doesn't matter that the interpretation above doesn't jibe with commonly held beliefs by modern Christians -- they jibe with Jewish interpretation made by ancient scholars of the Torah. Anyway, I'm only superficially regurgitating what Schroeder presents in detail in The Science of God, which I thought you had read.
That you place much more importance on biology than cosmology is explained by the fact that you are looking at Genesis through a biologist's lens. For some reason unknown to us the author of Genesis alluded to electron-proton recombination but not bacteria. I don't know the significance of this, except that Maimonides commented many centuries after Genesis was written that the path to understanding God was through astronomy and physics. Maybe this is why so many biologists are atheists. ;-)
THE BEST God comes off in the Biblical story of the redemption is as having a singularly nasty sense of humor!
Only to a materialist who believes solely in the here and the now.
Now, this is a recognized problem for Christian theology...
I've not met many (in fact, any) Christians who have a problem with this. If Jesus is God, descended from Heaven to be among us, as most Christian believe, then He willingly offered Himself as sacrifice in order for His disobedient children to be reconciled with Him. So far, I'm not seeing what is so ghastly humorous about this.
If this is, in fact, a recognized problem for Christianity, and a subject of fascination, then I think you have at least dispensed with the widely-held notion that religion just offers a bunch of easy answers. You might suspect that someone making this story up out of whole cloth to control people or to satisfy some inner desire would have come up with something far more pleasant and easy to understand (and follow!).
You do realize that without the tolerance and plurality of the Roman Empire in later years, Christianity would likely not exist today. Does that imply they were right?
What has this got to do with the price of rice in China? My point was that, it is much easier to survive the long-term as a non-proselytizing group when you are protected by a proselytizing group.
Returning to the earlier stuff:
[Scripture] implies more than just a sliver [of faith] to me.
The sliver is the starting point. It has to be. How can a person go from abject disbelief to whole-hearted belief in one leap? The latter comes later, but not without effort.
Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
Well, of course. If you don't acknowledge that God is there, how can you be with Him? If you say that a door does not exist, you can't walk through it, can you? Recognize that "faith" has more than one meaning in the Bible, and in this case it also means "trust" which you can do without believing whole-heartedly.
For clarification, my explanation that belief negates faith was not in reference to biblical definitions of faith but in reference to a particular atheistic definition of faith which is conflated with blind allegiance in the face of zero evidence or loads of evidence to the contrary.
As I said above, you do have to work at your relationship with God. It takes work to nurture any sort of belief. Not many of my students "believe" astronomy until after a few semesters immersed in and devoted to the subject. In fact, I have at least one student every year who asks me, why should we believe this stuff? You seem to take it for granted that Christians arrive fully formed and ready to believe, when in fact it takes a great deal of study and thought to arrive at the point of Heb 11:6. Belief is held to be a virtue with Christians not because it requires you to overcome your reason, but because it requires a discipline and devotion to study.
At least two societies- the ancient Greeks and the Japanese- developed complex internalized codes of virtue that had no mystical basis whatsoever.
The Greeks had gods, didn't they? And this complex code of virtue was conveniently facilitated by a massive slave population. But, I didn't say that virtue has to have a mystical basis, and that wasn't my point. Yes, virtue can and does exist without a mystical basis. My point was that I am not virtuous because I hope for a reward. I'm (attempting to be) virtuous because I love God, and to me that satisfies the definition of virtue as its own reward, which is what we were talking about.
Also, regarding your objection to salvation and who hears the word of God (which is a reasonable objection), there are good explanations which I will point you to rather than try to summarize here.
Christians don't all agree on this stuff. Catholics and some others believe in purgatory, which offers a second chance of sorts. C. S. Lewis presents an interesting notion of this in The Great Divorce, a short but fascinating read.
(Yes, I am coming back to this, I've just been hammering at this in three places for about a week now and my brain needs some time on spin-dry.)
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/11/ok-heres-link-on-anti-theists.html (63 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
My question is, why is it these idiots refuse to believe in a creator, choose to believe that when they die that's IT, and work so diligently to try to destroy anyone elses beliefs? It had to start somewhere, and even if you believe in evolution, where'd it all come from to start with? To evolve FROM? Where does the energy that makes you run, your spirit, what makes you you, go when the body ceases function? Even if you want to think of it as a cosmic energy pool, your individual enrgy and consciousness goes to it.
I didn't read all of Dalrymple's article. I made it half-way through his critique of Dennett, then stopped. I found him boring. But just for the record...
Russell (Bertrand) was not an atheist, he was an agnostic, a position from which he never deviated.
For myself, I discharged the whole problem of God's existence quite awhile ago. Simply put, I do not think it's possible to reconcile to alleged omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the unvarnished facts of human existence. I could go on longer than Dalrymple on how I got to this stage, but I'd have to tie up this blog until doomsday.
You may say this is a somewhat bleak outlook, and I do not mandate others adopt it. But I am gratified that I've put an end to the whole issue.
Ballistic,
You are a tiny, infinitesimal being whose existence on a biological speck of dust in an infinite cosmos will span about a microsecond in the cosmic calendar -- and yet you confidently state that you've personally "put an end to the whole issue" of God's existence? Do you realize how absurd this is?
It's not unreasonable to struggle with logical objections to the existence of God, but I'll never understand the kind of psyche that actually finds comfort in the certainty of doom.
I'll never understand the kind of psyche that actually finds comfort in the certainty of doom.
That's funny. I'll never understand the kind of psyche that actually finds comfort in the certainty of Hell. (That there is one.)
Ballistic stated:
Those three terms of theology have done more to confuse the mind of both the believer, and the unbeliever, than any other words I can imagine.
None of them are found in scripture, yet they're treated as if they were. And the erstwhile theologies which surround those words are most often either wrong, or incomplete, or both.
Sadly, as long as the dialog regarding the nature of God continues to trip over man-made characterizations generated by those three words, the quest for understanding won't even be on the right road.
Hiding behind those misused and misconceived words as a dodge to excuse one's rejection of God is as incorrect as the meanings ascribed to those words.
And no, I'm not going nail my epistle on those words to this particular door.
Suffice to say, one particular preacher got it pretty right when he said something along the lines of "The Bible is so simple, you'd need help to misunderstand it. Problem is, we've already had about 2,000 years of help!"
Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Kevin,
I find it very comforting that guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and innumerable others like them will actually be punished for their crimes. Don't you?
On the other hand, the fact that I also deserve such punishment makes me very uncomfortable. But that's just the bad news side of the equation.
The good news side is that Jesus already took the punishment that I deserved. Furthermore, the evil side of my nature will be destroyed and I will be perfected and get to live in a perfect world. Why shouldn't that aspect be comforting?
BTW, I have a lot more stuff to respond to, but I've been so buried by work, repairs to my house and now a freakin' cold that I haven't had time to respond properly to comments which desperately need a response.
Now here's an interesting confluence of events. I was just listening to a podcast which has an interview with Dinesh D'Souza about his new book, "What's So Great About Christianity". The podcast was recorded this past Sunday, and the book—a direct response to the new atheists—was just released in October. Even more interesting, while I was inhaling my lunch, I checked out the link to your previous post, only to discover that you quoted from Mr. D'Souza. Have you heard of his new book yet?
"My question is, why is it these idiots refuse to believe in a creator, ...."
And people wonder why some atheists get a bit belligerent. For the record, it seldom helps your argument to begin by insulting the people on the other side.
Nor is ad hominem argumentation the only logical fallacy popular in arguments about religion. See also strawman argument, question begging, argument from ignorance, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ... and let's not forget tu quoque.
(A hint for militant atheists: Talking about your debating opponent's "invisible friend" is pretty much precisely as convincing as calling your opponent an "idiot". And "he did it first" didn't even work when you were 5.)
If you think I'm bashing your enemies in the argument for those logical failings, you're probably right. But I'm also bashing the enemies of your enemies.
Frankly, there's a great deal both comforting and chilling about both faith and the lack thereof. Being intellectually and morally consistent with either means swallowing a lot that is uncomfortable. It's the price of integrity.
Well said, LabRat. Well said!
I believe in a Supreme Being, though my conception of that Being is no doubt different than most people's.
One point which I heard a few weeks ago and cemented my belief (not that such cementing was needed, but anyhoo…) was a discussion of the Big Bang.
We know that a black hole is so termed because it would take an infinite amount of energy to retrieve a single particle of mass from beyond the event horizon.
We also know that there is no time in a black hole, because of the infinite distortion of space-time.
Finally, we know that at the beginning of the Universe, all matter was concentrated in a single point—forming the mother of all black holes.
So how do we go from there to a universe of dispersed matter? An infinite amount of energy would not be enough to do the job! Plus, if there is no time, then there is no change either. The universe should have been stuck in an eternal stasis, whatever other forces are at work.
This suggests that whatever changed the situation, that Cause transcends the limitations of mass/energy and is outside of time.
I call that Cause God. What do atheists call it?
I call that Cause God. What do atheists call it?
Unknown physics. It's not as though we are anywhere remotely close to understanding all of natural law, just a small fraction of it.
Besides which, even if that Cause is a creator God outside and transcending the laws of nature, it does not automatically follow that that entity cares about what we do or is even aware of our existence- and it still leaves an ultimate explanation of "it just is" in response to the question "All right then, what caused God?" I find that no more satisfying than "the laws of nature just are". You have to come to "just is" someday- it's not an argument for faith, though it can be a reason.
Wow. Good stuff all around here. And, as usual, serendipitous. I had a long discussion over lunch with an evangelical friend of mine about some of these very topics.
One of the things I have always struggled is man's interpretation of God. My lunch friend today insists that there is only one interpretation-his-and everyone else is wrong or faux Christians. I say everyone is right and everyone is wrong and no one should judge anyone else or act as the official mouthpiece of God. I have noticed that people like my lunch friend create the God they need to have in their lives--for whatever reason.
God has a different meaning for each person and I think God likes it that way. Otherwise, why would there be so many books in the Bible? Or four Gospels? Or the multitude of faiths? I think God thrives on alternate perceptions, diversity, and, believe it or not, questioning everything, especially yourself. God didn't create us to be slaves. He created us to be his children, to grow , and evolve...perhaps someday attaining "god like" wisdom.
After all, isn't that what all parents want?
I say everyone is right and everyone is wrong and no one should judge anyone else...
Unfortunately, Mark, I think you apply this précis to far more than just religion. It seems to be a liberal mantra.
cmblake6 sez:
"My question is, why is it these idiots refuse to believe in a creator..."
The why was rather succinctly put by Stephen F. Roberts:
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Harrumph!!
So I should not judge Muslims who believe they do God's work maiming girls, stoning homosexuals, or murdering non-Muslims?
That idea can hitch a ride with Hitler and go straight to Hell.
A favorite quote of mine on the subject, that reveals just how puny we humans are:
In short, we're all kinda lame. When we're not busy being evil, God must have some good laughs watching us do our thing. I know how that feels, having two small children at home.
Kevin,
I find the prospect Hell a lot more comforting than the prospect of annihilation, because the corollary is that Heaven must exist. I'm no judge, so for all I know I'm bad enough to deserve an eternity in Hell. But if that means that something good -- any of the people I love -- will end up in Heaven rather than be annihilated, then it will be worth it to me. But, as Ed stated, we're already saved, so it's kind of academic.
LabRat,
Unknown physics. It's not as though we are anywhere remotely close to understanding all of natural law, just a small fraction of it.
Quite right, we understand very little of nature. But we're still stuck with the problem that the laws of physics only describe the natural, not the supernatural.
Besides which, even if that Cause is a creator God outside and transcending the laws of nature...
Just for clarification, this Cause, whatever it is, necessarily transcends nature. So, as you say, the question is really whether...
that entity cares about what we do or is even aware of our existence-
The Bible is fairly convincing evidence that He does and He is. Even in the absence of convincing evidence either way, why not choose to hope for the best?
...and it still leaves an ultimate explanation of "it just is" in response to the question "All right then, what caused God?"
Cause and effect only apply to temporal events, not to that which is eternal. God doesn't require a cause.
Kevin:
Jeeze, fella, you don't feel the urge to post, then you lay some Dalrymple on us...
You're a hard one, Mr. Baker.
But we're still stuck with the problem that the laws of physics only describe the natural, not the supernatural.
Yes, but I don't believe in the supernatural. I wouldn't go as far as the arrogant folks Dalrymple is describing and flatly deny it and go around hassling others to, but I've never been convinced.
Note that the supernatural is NOT the same thing as the metaphysical. Some things transparently exist regardless of their lack of physical nature- love, justice, mercy, freedom, compassion, etc. etc.
Just for clarification, this Cause, whatever it is, necessarily transcends nature.
Does it? As I see it, the alternative is that, pre-universe, conditions were so different from what we understand now that natural law itself may have been different. Whatever posited Event happened set the current ones in place- but if it's necessary that before the universe, there was something else, it does not necessarily follow that there wasn't a different condition of "natural" rather than "God".
The Bible is fairly convincing evidence that He does and He is.
To you. My problem is not that I haven't read the Bible or that I haven't understood it. I spend a fair amount of time reading theology because I feel I'd be illiterate for these kinds of debates if I didn't (that and I'm honestly curious, these are some very formidable intellects thinking things I never would on my own), but it's never resonated with deep truth for me the way it does for some. (The religion that resonates most strongly for me would probably actually be conservative Judaism, minus most of the rituals that seem to be hollow, but it's not enough to sway me all the way.)
We've had a lot of discussions on how well Judeo-Christian systems work in the world. To me this points to the conclusion that it's entirely possible it's so widespread because it works, not because all of it is true. The "if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him" explanation.
Even in the absence of convincing evidence either way, why not choose to hope for the best?
The best by whose definition? To quote, of all things, a TV character, "I find it more comforting to believe this is not a test". Not because I'm afraid I'd fail- because looking at things like people born with horrible and painful deformities, or stricken over and over again with tragedies they had no power to prevent, and thinking that it's all because someone who is not going to explain themself until after death is doing it for some abstract "test" is chilling. It's one of the things I was thinking about when I said belief and nonbelief both have their cold and hard aspects as well as their comforting. They have to, because LIFE is sometimes cold and hard. Sure, it would be nice to think I'm going to be rewarded for trying to be a good person, and see all the dead that I miss again... but I won't know the difference after I've died, will I? Besides- I was raised to believe that virtue IS its own reward, and if this is really all the shot at life we get, and all we have is each other, then I had better do the best I can because I won't get another shot.
Anyway, "choosing to believe" is not so easy as all that. I could profess belief tomorrow and in some ways my life would become easier except for losing some free time- but faith is something you feel, and I don't feel it- and it's not because I'm not open to the idea. To claim otherwise would be a lie, something that both Biblical values and mine agree would be wrong.
When I talk to the faithful, most of them say it's an experience as real as another person in a room. That's never happened to me. Any time I have a conversation with my conscience, it's always me wearing a mask- it doesn't feel alien, doesn't know anything I don't know already. It's just my mind adopting a tactic so I can tell myself what I might not want to hear. That experience is what it would take for me to believe. If I sensed the divine, and it was clear enough to me to take it for what it was- I don't require absolute proof, just a strong visceral sense, because that seems to be how it works- then you'd better believe I'd devote a lot of emotional and intellectual time and energy to it.
Cause and effect only apply to temporal events, not to that which is eternal. God doesn't require a cause.
True, but that isn't so much convincing as logically convenient. There is no logical reason temporal events can't have an ultimate beginning just because we haven't figured it out yet.
"You're a hard one, Mr. Baker."
His tolerance sometimes borders on masochism, doesn't it?
Ditto to LabRat's last comment, but I wish to add:
Even in the absence of convincing evidence either way, why not choose to hope for the best?
That's Pascal's Wager, I believe.
The problem is, according to every interpretation of Christian scripture I know of, acting like you believe is not enough. (We've been over this a time or two previously, I think.) Salvation requires actual belief - and I, like LabRat, ain't got it in me, and I've said so on more than one occasion.
Salvation does not require actual belief, Kevin. I used to think that too. Actual belief is reserved for the Bananas in the fruit bowl. However, when you get to the Matrix-esq point that I have, where you question the existence of the bananas in the fruit bowl, then you're ready.
Anyway, getting off of what I wanted to write, which is that it requires belief as in faith, not belief as in the bananas. So Linus had it all wrong. He really only needed faith, more like hope, than belief. Rock-solid belief in something you can't see or touch is impossible, in my opinion, no matter what anyone says.
Then all that is needed for salvation is to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ. It's pretty simple.
For most of my life, I have been a pretty adamant atheist. I had read the Bible, and while I had respect for the lessons that it taught, I rejected the core message. My steadfast atheism really took a hit the day I held my son in the delivery room for the very first time, as corny as that sounds. I wanted so desperately for there to be more than just this life on earth in store for my kids. Wanting it, however, doesn't necessarily make it true. Confused yet?
Where am I now? I'm really not sure; somewhere in the murk of agnosticism, I suppose. My wife's enduring faith has made an impression on me, and I have a lot of respect for the western Judeo-Christian tradition as a whole. I guess the bottom line for me is that while I am by no means certain as to the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus (there is no doubt in my mind that he was a historical figure at the vey least), the example he set as a way to live life and treat your fellows is a fine one to aspire to, at least for me, and my children. Faith may yet follow - I haven't felt any spark thus far, but my wife is eternally hopeful:)
Gaah, part of the reason why this debate is so acrimonious is because everyone is locked into the Christian paradigm of theology.
The problem is, according to every interpretation of Christian scripture I know of, acting like you believe is not enough.
Not for Christians, true. But "acting like you believe" is perfectly acceptable in traditional Judaism, if not preferred. It is, rather, a waypoint in your spiritual development until such time as the Divine law has refined your sensitivity enough to permit belief.
(Not "faith," by the way. Judaism doesn't go in for "faith." I'm not even sure the word has an exact analogue in Hebrew. The closest parallels are bitachon, "security," and emunah, which is often translated as "faith" but really means "to establish something as true." In mystical sources it is used to mean something more like an existential connection.)
Returning full circle, it is this refining of spiritual sensitivity that Dalrymple is speaking of. To believe in God means that there is something out there, some Principle or Standard or Ideal, that is superior to your own needs and expresses the "ideal blueprint" of how we as creatures of the universe should live our lives.
Athiesm, on the other hand, must rely on human reason or emotion to guide behavior, which leads you into problems of self-reference. Remember Kevin's uberpost in which he establishes the impossibility of working out a foundation for society on reason alone.
*objective foundation for society
LabRat,
I didn't quite understand your comments about transcending nature, but if you believe the Big Bang is the correct model, then you must accept the supernatural. Physics accepts that nature came into being with the Big Bang. Something caused nature to exist, and that something must necessarily transcend nature because nothing is its own cause. This is why some physicists have a problem with the Big Bang: they understand the theological implications. The great astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge is one such person, and famously made a remark about physicists rushing to join the "first church of Christ of the Big Bang." So startling were the implications of the Big Bang that many atheistic physicists rushed to come up with alternatives to God as the Cause. This is why we get speculative stuff like infinite parallel universes, baby universes, etc.
With respect to evidence for God via the Bible, I was referring to Genesis. I find it remarkable that the author not only alluded to a Big Bang-like creation, but was able to correctly list milestones in the evolution of the universe and the earth, which no one could have possibly guessed, and list them in correct order. If I were to go back 3,500 years from now and hand someone a list of the 14 events in Genesis 1 and tell him to put them in correct order, the odds of him doing so are 1 in 87 billion. In other words, the author of Genesis could not have made it all up. This to me is compelling evidence that the Bible is the revealed word of God.
Accepting God on an intellectual level wasn't that difficult for me once I thought about Genesis and science. But actual deep-down belief in God, and especially in Christ, was very difficult. I didn't choose Christ because I felt it. On my day of baptism I felt like a fraud, because the only thing in my heart at that time was doubt. I took the leap of faith and gave myself to Christ, because it's the best I could hope for. Contrary to what nonreligious people think, feeling actually negates faith. If you truly believe something -- if you feel it -- you're not engaging in faith. I truly believe deep down inside that my husband loves me, because he acts in a way that's consistent with that belief. However, when we hit some rocky times in our marriage I had to take it on faith that he still loved me, because I sure as hell didn't feel it at the time. Do you see the difference? Like Ben said, without solid proof it's impossible to truly believe. All that's required is a willingness to accept, even on the basis of a sliver of hope, that God is. But people throw up these philosophical roadblocks for themselves, and I don't know if it's out of apprehension, cynicism, pride, or what. But it's not necessary.
I sympathize with what you said about people born into very unfortunate situations, and wonder how this fits into God's plan. I don't know how. And I don't know that existence is a test, either. But this is certainly where faith comes in, believing that in the end the suffering amounts to something good. When I was a child and bad things happened to me, I didn't believe my parents when they said that it's all OK and that in the end I would be a better person for it. I had an undeveloped intellect and an extremely limited worldview that prevented me from putting this stuff into perspective. It wasn't until I was older and more experienced that I understood, and even appreciated, those bad things. Maybe this is analogous to our relationship with God. All kinds of horrible things happen, but we don't have the capacity to understand why, and why it won't even matter in the next life.
You are right that virtue is a reward in itself. But most of our ideas about virtue are programmed into us as children and cultivated by our environment -- none of us would be the same people if we had been born in, say, China or 3,000 years ago. But as an adult you have some capacity to define virtue for youself. Why do you stick with it, especially when it's not always in your immediate interest to do so? For me, it's because I love God. I want to serve the cause of good. This reward we're supposed to get in Heaven for behaving virtuously just isn't tangible enough to motivate me, but my love of God is.
To believe in God means that there is something out there, some Principle or Standard or Ideal, that is superior to your own needs and expresses the "ideal blueprint" of how we as creatures of the universe should live our lives.
I've been gnawing on the idea ever since, and where I currently am in my thinking looks something like this (borrowing a bit from where I coincidentally went into the same subject elsewhere yesterday):
The word “metaphysics” was coined (sort of, the later translations were based on a misunderstanding, but a useful one) to mean “beyond physics”. Originally they just referred to the traditional ordering of the books of Aristotle, in which the chapters on virtue and philosophy came after those on natural science, but it later came to mean all that is outside the bounds of natural science- as abstracts usually are. Because something only exists in the abstract- whether you regard them (as I do) as things that have their own existence and were more discovered than invented by man because they were a natural end product of a reasoning, social mind, or as “man-made inventions”- does not mean it does not exist. The interesting thing about the Greeks, whose system of virtue was almost entirely enfolded into Christian theology (see Aquinas), is that they had a complex and solid system of virtues that had nothing to do with their gods, which tended to behave badly even by Greek standards. To them, virtue was just a thing that was, like math*, already extant and needing to be discovered through a process of reason and observing what works well for societies and individuals. From my point of view, Christian theology didn’t enfold the Greek virtues because it was stealing from them, and the Greeks didn’t happen to catch on to an idea the Jews had had first, they are mostly the same because they are mostly right.
There is an abstract- but real- ideal set of rules out there for social creatures that have learned to think. The Bible identifies sin as having begun in thought and knowledge, and it is correct: you can't do wrong unless you can conceptualize it. The purpose of religion- and of philosophy- is to give us ways to survive and thrive as thinking, feeling, conscious beings. We need meaning the same way we need love- and we DO need love, and not in any squishy "we'd be unhappy" way either. If you do not hold and touch and talk to an infant enough, IT DIES. Not for want of food or any other material thing. This doesn't happen to animals in the same way- though the more advanced and social the young mammal, the more it does need touch and interaction to survive and thrive. (Dogs are a good example- a dog mother that doesn't spend enough time with its puppies, not just feeding them, may have few survivors in the litter.) Likewise, humans need meaning, or they go mad- depressed or psychotic. It's the price we pay for our minds, whether you call that original sin or something else. And it ultimately must involve faith, if only in the idea that those virtues and standards have a reality beyond opinion. The Christian I was arguing with called that "a reach", but I find his God "a reach", so.
*I hate to use the comparison, because math is about the most universal truth out there and its beauty is that you CAN prove it because it works, but I was reaching for another idea that's a series of abstract representations with profound corresponding reality in the material. It's still a bad comparison, but it was the best one my tired brain can currently come up with.
Gah. I hope I made some sense.
Mastiff,
The reason these arguments tend to center on Christian theology is that commenters here tend either to be Christian or exposed mostly to Christianity in their lives. It's always good to hear the Judaic perspective, though.
Seeya tomorrow to respond more specifically, Sarah, though I did answer part of your question, I think.
If I looked in the mirror right now I'm half-convinced there'd be smoke coming out of one ear, so I think that spells "time to crash".
I'm not an atheist and I haven't been to church in over a decade. I do have some observations and questions for the atheists on here as I'm genuinely interested in hearing their opinions. Notice I'm not saying anyone has to believe in God...I could truly care less.
Science cannot give answers to moral questions any more than you can measure the Ph balance of the water in your pool with a ruler. Science can only answer how, never why. I do see atheists like ballistic saying they know despite the fact that what he "knows" is as unprovable as what the religious person believes. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable. So I don’t really buy the "no evidence" for God...IMO Athiests did not decide to be atheist because of "no evidence."
Atheists have a burden of proof. ~All~ world-views have a burden of proof.
What is so important about us that the women on this blog should not be raped or the men on here killed? What does it matter if we or humanity or this planet live or die? If the universe itself is an accident devoid of meaning and purpose, then so are we. Why is rape or murder or the sexual torture of infants or genocide – or any other crime that the average atheist as well as religious folk would agree is heinous – wrong? If all we humans are just amoral atoms and dust, then all of these "crimes" are just atoms and dust rearranging other atoms and dust. Where is the crime? For that matter what IS a crime - and who decides? To what authority do these atoms and subatomic particles appeal to determine which random movements of other atoms and subatomic particles are criminal? I could be wrong but the average atheist cannot believe in a universal, transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent. In other words, if the atheist is to be consistent, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.
If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code. You can either make up a moral code that everyone knows is a fairy tale or you can descend into a hellish swirl of nihilism and moral relativism. But you cannot both say there is no God and then declare any acts - including the past acts of Christian fanatics and current acts of Islamo-terrorists - wrong because you are left with only opinion and taste, which, without a God to create a transcendent moral code, are by definition arbitrary.
And then finally, the atheist has to account for why anything even matters at all. What difference does it make if a child lives a full life and dies in bed at 100 or if the same child is thrown in a dumpster in a Boston alley moments after birth to slowly freeze to death? You might answer because the child might grow up to make a difference in someone else’s life, find a cure for a disease. Then the question is why should a difference in this other person's life be made? Why should this or any disease be cured? To save humanity? To relieve suffering? Why should humanity be saved? Why should suffering be relieved? Why should there be any ‘should’ at all? Why does it even matter whether the universe exists or not? These are the questions that the atheist could give a compelling answer for or admit that if there is no God, acts of good and evil ultimately have no meaning at all because life itself is ultimately meaningless and devoid of a higher purpose.
Kevin:
"Salvation requires actual belief - and I, like LabRat, ain't got it in me, and I've said so on more than one occasion."
Pardon me, but I think that you do.
Do you believe in Justice?
Do you believe in Mercy?
Of course you do.
But are not Justice and Mercy merely shadows of an Ideal?
What is that Ideal?
And what is the Light that casts the shadows we perceive?
If you don't believe in Justice and Mercy, then what is the point of waking up in the morning?
You might as well put the muzzle of a handgun in your mouth and pull the trigger, you'll save yourself a world of meaningless pain and suffering.
Because without Justice and Mercy, whatever you may have to endure has NO meaning whatsoever.
You'll go through your day, and you'll wake up tomorrow and carry on, knowing that in the long run, you'll probably get not much more than a kick to the balls, just like the rest of us.
But you don't have belief?
Your actions say otherwise.
Last:
I could be wrong but the average atheist cannot believe in a universal, transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent. In other words, if the atheist is to be consistent, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.
I think you need to read this post.
As to your question "who decides?" - check your history. Human beings do.
Bilgeman:
I live in a society that believes in Justice and Mercy. I also recognize that other societies have existed that have not - at least not for people outside their societies. I would not, for example, want to have lived in one of the societies overrun by, say, the Mongols. Where was Justice and Mercy then?
Thanks for the link Kevin. Informative.
The movement that most embraced atheism (Communism) was responsible for tens of millions of deaths in its 74 years of existence. Therefore, I do not see (yet) how an atheist society would better serve its population.
Going back a generation or two, support for Josef Stalin, perhaps the greatest mass murderer in history, was almost entirely confined in the West to intellectuals. German Ph.D.s were also among Hitler’s greatest supporters. The moral record of secular intellectuals - Lenin’s "useful idiots" - is one of the worst of any single group in free societies in the last hundred years. I am therefore not quite bowled anymore by people attacking religion as the source of all the ills of the world.
To be fair, Stalin attended a Christian seminary as a youth but while in power Stalin was a passionate atheist who murdered untold numbers of Christian clergy, destroyed virtually every church in Russia, and forced Soviet students to study "scientific atheism".
Whether or not society would be better off without God is certainly an interesting question for discussion but I can provide an example of a society that didn't believe in God. Statistics show that godless Communism resulted in the death of over 100 million people. The Communists, as followers of Darwin, were consistent in their materialist faith. There are no rules except those which the State determines to be rules. Karl Marx believed in "the primacy of the individual". Communism's followers do not believe in a "a higher authority" greater than the State.
As always happens when individuals are made into Gods, they begin competing against one another for top-God. In order to quell the move toward moral anarchy, some new God must be raised up – in terms of Communism, that new God was the Government.
Many atheists seem so distracted by a desire to deconstruct organized religion that they haven’t thought their own positions all the way through to the inevitable logical conclusion of those positions. That’s not saying Atheists have made NO attempt at serious thought on the subject. In my view, many just haven’t finished the job.
MORALLY, just arbitrarily creating your own meaning is the essence of anarchy. If you answer only to yourself, then given the human vulnerability not only to honest error but to bias, selfishness, greed, lust, etc., etc., you are an inherently unstable being who is a danger to both himself and his fellow man. Remember that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden, Castro and all the dictators and tyrants throughout history "created their own meaning" too, as has every mobster or small time crook or rapist. There is not a single one among them that are not or were not creating their own meaning and being "true to themselves" 24/7. Only if there is a transcendent moral code, something like the Ten Commandments for example, complete with a real Commander to keep you in line – is there any hope of us humans being anything more than a collection of impulses and appetites.
LOGICALLY, if the universe itself has no meaning and you are part of the universe, then it is logically impossible to create your own meaning because meaning does not exist. To claim otherwise is like claiming someone can get fresh fruit from a dead tree.
Indeed there were rules in place by human beings before the time of Christ. I'm quite certain that Democracy was a gift from the pagan ancient Greeks and our current Republican form of government came from the Romans (before Caesar). I also think the ideas of linear history and science predate the influence of Judeo-Christian values as well. There were people like Eudoxus, Archimedes, Hippocrates (I believe modern doctors still take a variation of his oath), and Diaophantus, just to name a few, who were among the west's first great scientists, and none were influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. I also remember reading something of Greek mythology and finding it remarkable how their version of the afterlife included a post-death judgement in which people were either sent to the eternal Bliss of Elysium or the eternal damnation of Hades on the basis of their moral behavior during their mortal existence. So pre-Christian European civilization certainly had an affect on the Judeo-Christian traditions that so many follow today. Human beings indeed.
Ben:
Then all that is needed for salvation is to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ.
repent: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
What if I don't really think I'm doing all that much sinning, and I'm pretty happy with the way I live my life?
baptism: a Christian sacrament marked by ritual use of water and admitting the recipient to the Christian community
So, if somebody splashes water on my head (or submerges me in it) and says a few words over me, my soul gets a free pass to heaven? (Full disclosure: I was raised as a Methodist and baptized as a child, or so I am told. I have no memory of the event.)
Sorry, Ben, but just acting like I believe and going through the motions on the off chance that God will spare me seems hypocritical. Strike that - it seems wrong.
Last:
You've missed a LOT of comment threads here. Most all of your points have been covered in here before at much older posts. I'd like to respond, but I now have to do something resembling work so I can collect a paycheck. Perhaps more anon.
Kevin, of course going through the motions is worthless. You have to actually repent. You've never done anything, not once in your life, that you'd consider sinful? It's great that you're living well now, though. I feel the same way.
And the baptism doesn't require anyone to say anything. And it doesn't help to be baptized as a child, unless you believe in "original sin" which isn't biblical btw.
Kevin, don't bother responding...you have things to do. I have a lot going on here too.
I'll do the homework on my own when I have time. As they say, I'll rtff (read the fucking forum).
Hopefully I've got enough caffeine on board for this...
Something caused nature to exist, and that something must necessarily transcend nature because nothing is its own cause.
That would be news to quantum mechanics. Some subatomic particles occasionally pop into existence in a perfect vacuum- a quick Google makes it clear vacuum fluctuation has been known and accepted for quite awhile. This premise is false.
The great astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge is one such person, and famously made a remark about physicists rushing to join the "first church of Christ of the Big Bang."
I know, I looked it up. It would seem that he had an issue with it not because he was threatened by the inevitability of God, but because he regarded "therefore there must be a God" argument as unnecessary- and looking for the quote netted me a lot of fairly sound arguments why. I'm not gonna pull a Markadelphia on you and start throwing links to let others talk for me, because my physics education is only basic collegiate and I don't have the chops required to evaluate the information to see which theories are sound and which are ridiculous. However, given that one of your premises is easily shown to be false, and that plenty of physicists who DO know what they're doing seem to regard the "church of the Big Bang" argument as bad without needing to resort to denying the supernatural altogether (merely saying that it is not necessary to reconcile the big bang with physics by invoking the supernatural), I remain unswayed. Besides- even if you're completely correct, the only thing it would prove is Deism, not Christianity.
I find it remarkable that the author not only alluded to a Big Bang-like creation, but was able to correctly list milestones in the evolution of the universe and the earth, which no one could have possibly guessed, and list them in correct order.
Uh... I'm looking at Genesis now. Does the Big Bang theory imply that the sun and earth and water on earth be created before other stars, and that darkness came AFTER light? Because that's the order Genesis's cosmology goes in. It also claims that grasses and fruiting plants came before animals of any kind (animals were necessary to make fruit a workable strategy for plant reproduction), and birds before mammals and reptiles.
Sticking out to my mind's perspective like a sore thumb is the total lack of any mention at all of bacteria, which by far are earth's most abundant and diverse life. Bacteria were hardly irrelevant to ancient man- besides the obvious diseases, they are necessary to make wine, cheese, and yogurt, all things known to ancient man and some of which appear frequently in Biblical metaphor. (Milk, the precursor state to cheese and yogurt, is often used to represent abundance- and fermenting preservation methods were used very early on to preserve its nutrition and make it more portable.) God didn't see fit to mention his most versatile creation?
Contrary to what nonreligious people think, feeling actually negates faith.
If you say so. I based that entire line of argument from what I heard from the RELIGIOUS, not the nonreligious. I already know what I, a nonreligious person, think about it.
If you truly believe something -- if you feel it -- you're not engaging in faith.
Romans 10:8-13 NKJV
( 8 ) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”[5](that is, the word of faith which we preach):
(9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
(10) For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
I hate to cut n' paste, but your assertion and the NKJV seem to be in conflict. Granted, this could be a translation problem, but it would seem we are splitting finer semantic hairs than you make out. Hebrews seems to bear up your interpretation more- but if what you're saying is true, then there's a Biblical contradiction here.
All that's required is a willingness to accept, even on the basis of a sliver of hope, that God is.
Hebrews 11:6 (I think)
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
That implies more than just a sliver to me. I accept that the sliver is the starting point, but I'm not finding this line of argument intellectually convincing based on the text.
I don't know if it's out of apprehension, cynicism, pride, or what.
At the risk of making another "this is what the nonreligious belive the religious believe" type of error, I see this a lot, and it's one of the big things that turns me off, because it's NOT pride or fear or cynicism. The concept of God as He is presented in the Bible does not threaten me. I find it unconvincing, not emotionally worrisome. I stated one of the issues I had with the assertion that the Biblical God represented "the best" to hope for, but taking the Bible whole would square the issue and offer the comfort you described; besides, how I feel about God has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists or not, and what God is like if He does.
But most of our ideas about virtue are programmed into us as children and cultivated by our environment -- none of us would be the same people if we had been born in, say, China or 3,000 years ago.
Which is why I doubt that God is totally necessary to virtue in an individual or a society. At least two societies- the ancient Greeks and the Japanese- developed complex internalized codes of virtue that had no mystical basis whatsoever. Children learn the viscerals of "bad" and "good" long before they have the intellectual capacity to evaluate God or ethics through abstract thinking. True faith is an adult phenomenon- by the time we're capable of it, we've already been reared to believe in "bad" and "good" and to make a conscious choice between them.
I want to serve the cause of good. This reward we're supposed to get in Heaven for behaving virtuously just isn't tangible enough to motivate me, but my love of God is.
See my lengthy rambling above. The short version, I suppose, is that I want to serve the cause of good too- I just don't define "good" as coming or being defined exclusively from the Bible.
You have to actually repent. You've never done anything, not once in your life, that you'd consider sinful?
(I'm answering for myself rather than for Kevin since the issue is relevant to me)
Are you saying that repenting is the same thing as regretting and working to make restitution for it? I've done bad things in the past, felt deep regret for them, did my level best to make up to the people I hurt, and used the experience to remind me never to make the mistake again. Repenting implies confession to God- and unlike God, other people are not obligated to forgive me if I accept Christ's sacrifice.
Repenting implies confession to God…
That depends on your definition of "confession," "to," and "God."
:-)
Actually, the steps you outline as "regretting" sound very much like the traditional Jewish sequence of repentence. So as far as I'm concerned, you're in good shape.
Mastiff: There's a reason I said that the religion I was most drawn to, though not enough to convert, was Judaism.
The thing I've always liked about Judaism is that they don't recruit. You're either one of God's Chosen or you're not. No need to proselytize.
Ben:
Sure, I've sinned, if you define sinning as "hurting another person unnecessarily." When and where I've done this, I have apologized and tried, I believe, to make what restitution I could. A Higher Being was not involved, though. So, what's the deal with baptism, then, and why are the Methodists (and lots of others) wrong?
[In terms of something not being its own cause] That would be news to quantum mechanics. Some subatomic particles occasionally pop into existence in a perfect vacuum- a quick Google makes it clear vacuum fluctuation has been known and accepted for quite awhile. This premise is false.
This is nitpicky, but there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum. I think what you meant here is the vacuum energy, which is now commonly believed to be dark energy. There is no known cause for spontaneous pair-production, which doesn't necessarily mean that a cause does not exist. Typically, whenever statistics are used to explain something it means we don't understand the underlying cause. Anyway, subatomic particles pop into existence in something, the vacuum energy, which is a component of nature. The vacuum energy comprises 70% of the energy/matter density budget for the universe, so all that's happening is, by virtue of the uncertainty principle, these particles are borrowing some energy from this enormous "bank" for a very brief time before they annihilate and return the energy. It does not violate any conservation laws. The Big Bang appears to be the only bona fide example of creatio ex nihilo. But if we're going to use the quantum fluctuation analogy, then there needs to be some "space" into which the universe pops into existence. That space must necessarily transcend our four-dimensional spacetime, hence it's supernatural.
Incidentally, I never said that the Big Bang proves God or proves Christianity. I said it proves the supernatural. Hence, the only meaningful question is whether the supernatural force behind the Big Bang is conscious or unconscious. If it's conscious, call it God. If it's unconscious, then who knows.
I haven't looked very deeply into what motivated Burbidge to make his remark, but you'll forgive me if I have doubts about your interpretation. He tenaciously clings to the steady-state model in the face of mounds of evidence that proves him utterly wrong. For a brilliant scientist to behave this way strongly suggests an irrational bias against the Big Bang on a very personal level. Robert Jastrow underscores this when he points out that initially many scientists disliked the idea of the Big Bang precisely because it implies a "moment of creation."
Uh... I'm looking at Genesis now. Does the Big Bang theory imply that the sun and earth and water on earth be created before other stars, and that darkness came AFTER light?
Nope. There's a lot to explain here, so let's see if I can condense it down.
Day One (Gen. 1:1-5)
Bible says: The creation of the universe; light separates from dark.
Science says: The big bang marks the creation of the universe; light breaks free as electrons bond to atomic nuclei; galaxies start to form.
Day Two (Gen. 1:6-8 )
Bible says: The heavenly firmament forms.
Science says: Disk of the Milky Way forms; Sun, a main sequence star, forms.
Day Three (Gen. 1:9-13)
Bible says: Oceans and dry land; the first life, plants; only start of plant-life, which develops during the following days (kabalah).
Science says: The earth has cooled and liquid water appears 3.8 billion years ago followed almost immediately by the first forms of life; bacteria and photosynthetic algae.
Day Four (Gen. 1:14-19)
Bible says: Sun, Moon, and stars become visible in heavens (Talmud Hagigah 12a).
Science says: Earth’s atmosphere becomes transparent; photosynthesis produces oxygen-rich atmosphere.
Day Five (Gen. 1:20-23)
Bible says: First animal life swarms abundantly in waters; followed by reptiles and winged animals.
Science says: First multicellular animals; waters swarm with animal life having the basic body plans of all future animals; winged insects appear.
Day Six (Gen. 1:24-31)
Bible says: Land animals; mammals; humankind.
Science says: Massive extinction destroys 90% of life. Land is repopulated; hominids and then humans.
Students of the Torah understand that in Gen 1:1 "heavens" and "earth" refer to the immaterial and material realms, respectively, not the cosmos and the planet earth. Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was formless and void." "Chaotic" is another translation for the word "formless" and the Hebrew word for "void" also translates to "filled with the building blocks of matter" (Nachmanides points this out). So Gen 1:2 is more accurately translated as "And the universe was in a state of chaos but filled with the building blocks of matter." The building blocks of matter are quarks. Soon after the Big Bang the universe was comprised of a hot, dense "quark soup" which acted like a perfect fluid. "Water" in the Bible is a mistranslation, it more likely means "fluid" which brings Genesis into very good agreement with what the model says.
I'll note something else, just because it seems to be a major point of contention with a lot of people: the Bible does not explicitly say anything that contradicts the existence of hominids prior to Adam. The one thing that differentiates Adam from the other hominids is that God breathed a soul into him.
God didn't see fit to mention [bacteria] his most versatile creation?
God didn't explicitly mention bananas either, but this doesn't present a problem to most people. Do you expect that the original audience for the Old Testament -- primitive, backwards, illiterate, pre-science people -- could even remotely understand the concept of bacteria? Even relatively modern people couldn't readily accept the idea of something material that you can't see. That Genesis is silent about bacteria doesn't render it inconsistent with science.
So, back to my original point. It's incredible that Genesis manages to even list major milestones in the development of the universe and the earth, let alone get them in the right order.
I'll respond to the faith stuff later this week. It's not my strongest subject, and I need to think some more about it.
Meanwhile, Kevin:
The thing I've always liked about Judaism is that they don't recruit. You're either one of God's Chosen or you're not. No need to proselytize.
You do realize that without a very Christian America, God's Chosen would likely not exist today.
In light of the resulting commentary on my initial posting, I find it necessary to provide some clarification as to what I meant.
I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic, and the difference is more than semantic. As a theist holds that the existence of God can be definitively proven, the atheist holds the non-existence of God can definitively be proven. I hold neither. I am a doubter. I don't know whether the existence of God can be proven or not.
Throughout mankind's history arguments have been advanced purporting to demonstrate God's existence. Some have gone as far to say, and with amazing success, that the existence of God can be demonstrated by the use of the unaided reason. The arguments are set out at great length and carefully constructed and are quite convincing.
Until...
You hear the other side of the story. And then the carefully embedded fallacies reveal themselves in these arguments and render them invalid, or at least significantly less impressive than formerly assumed. The remainder, which are grounded in some theological dogma, amount to circular argumentation, for they presume as true what they intend to prove, and then proceed in this manner.
I don't know whether God exists any more than Olympus, Plato's forms, Liebniz's monads or Hegel's zietgeist, or angels, devils, heaven, hell, purgatory or any other such metaphysical entity. But trying TO PROVE they exist, when you finally come to think of it, can be a pretty exhausting enterprise.
So when I stated "I discharged the whole problem of God's existence quite awhile ago," I meant that I discharged it from myself as a profitable inquiry. I remain open to the possibility of someone definitively proving God's existence, but I don't expect it to be forthcoming in the near future. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
And finally, I do not look down on or hold in contempt persons who are quite convinced of God's existence, or have fervent religious beliefs regarding man's, or that matter all of creation's, relationship to such a being. For these persons God's existence is a matter of faith. But to have faith is to have a belief that cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. In this regard I have little faith, with regards to God's existence or much else.
There is no known cause for spontaneous pair-production, which doesn't necessarily mean that a cause does not exist. Typically, whenever statistics are used to explain something it means we don't understand the underlying cause.
There is no known-for-certain natural cause for the Big Bang, which does not mean that a natural cause does not exist. Typically, whenever supernatural explanations have been used in the past, it turns out to have been an example of unknown natural law.
Again, I'm not going to debate the specifics of the physics involved, because I don't think I can do it well enough- suffice it to say you're now using the same logic I am but have reached a different conclusion of likelihood based on faith.
That space must necessarily transcend our four-dimensional spacetime, hence it's supernatural.
Why does four-dimensional spacetime as we understand it have to be the only natural possibility? It has been widely observed that using a language designed by creatures extremely firmly grounded in time and space as-we-know-it becomes increasingly inadequate for describing physics the more it moves away from that which we can perceive and understand through our senses.
He tenaciously clings to the steady-state model in the face of mounds of evidence that proves him utterly wrong.
That's Burbidge's problem. All of the places I found the quote were using it as a pithy example of what other physicists, who were not clinging to any pet theory, considered to be the problem with rushing to the supernatural when they felt there were satisfying natural theories.
Your interpretation of Genesis is a masterpiece of fitting fact to faith. You have reinterpreted clear language- light and dark and fruiting plants and grasses- to mean entirely different things than their commonly understood meanings. And, maybe you're right, and it can be reasonably interpreted that way; that's a good way to handle apparent scientific contradictions to faith. But your ORIGINAL ARGUMENT was that it's convincing evidence for the supremacy of the Bible as the Word of God because it is scientifically acccurate and supposedly foretells knowledge the ancients never could have! It only does AFTER you spend a good deal of time and energy retrofitting it with modern science. Otherwise, it looks like the creation stories of other faiths- an apparently absurd recounting of the order and specifics of what ancient peoples imagined putting together a world would be like.
Do you expect that the original audience for the Old Testament -- primitive, backwards, illiterate, pre-science people -- could even remotely understand the concept of bacteria? Even relatively modern people couldn't readily accept the idea of something material that you can't see. That Genesis is silent about bacteria doesn't render it inconsistent with science.
That Genesis can be reinterpreted to look like it is consistent with science doesn't render it accurate.
My point was that there isn't even a scrap of language that could possibly be construed as an acknowledgement of microbial life. You're basically saying that God would rework the Big Bang into language the ancients could understand, and thereby give them foretold knowledge of conclusions they could never reach on their own, but expecting God to say something about the cause of disease and the cause of fermentation- even in EXTREMELY different language as you are working Genesis physics into- is absurd! "And God made the milk to cheese and the grape to wine" is unreasonable, but describing electrons in terms of light and dark isn't?
The faithful are almost always taking much more on faith than they think they are, because once you have faith things become obvious in that light. The problem is when you think they should be obvious to the nonbeliever, too.
Speaking of, this is why atheists get so annoyed when Christians constantly imply that they are not accepting the Word because of arrogance or a reluctance to give up sinning. Christians believe in a loving God that sent Christ to redeem humanity, and they see that sacrifice as clear and concrete evidence of God's love. I know they believe this with all their heart. I've seen the notion make people cry, and I don't believe they were ignorant or insincere.
But to a person who has not already taken a number of things on faith, that story does not make God look loving! The story looks, to eyes that have not already been prepared with several heartfelt acceptances, like this:
"For God so loved humanity, he sent His only son to die, and removed all conditions from their acceptance into His company in the afterlife except an acceptance of the Savior after hearing the Word. Except for everybody who did not hear the Word for geographic or linguistic reasons. They were just out of luck, until hundreds of years later when the faithful came to them to spread the Word. And smallpox. More smallpox than Word, really."
Now, this is a recognized problem for Christian theology, and I've done a fair amount of reading to see how it is reconciled by the faithful, and it is fascinating. But Christians seem to think the loving God that is so obvious to them must be obvious to others- but to eyes that suspect the world may not have a divine presence, or that that divine presence may not like us very much, THE BEST God comes off in the Biblical story of the redemption is as having a singularly nasty sense of humor! Christian faith REQUIRES swallowing a lot more and bigger things than just one's pride.
You do realize that without a very Christian America, God's Chosen would likely not exist today.
You do realize that without the tolerance and plurality of the Roman Empire in later years, Christianity would likely not exist today. Does that imply they were right?
Kevin:
"I live in a society that believes in Justice and Mercy. I also recognize that other societies have existed that have not - at least not for people outside their societies. I would not, for example, want to have lived in one of the societies overrun by, say, the Mongols. Where was Justice and Mercy then?"
It was there also, it doesn't require recognition to exist, it is omnipresent.
Now, the Mongols, like the Germans of the Shoah, may have perceived it quite differently than others, but the imperfect and subjective perceptions of humankind are not to be blamed on the objective ideal.
(Kinda like that "I Am What I Am" business with Moses, and certain Juudaic scholars hold the Name of G-d, it's impossible for us to even begin to know).
And to answer your underlying question, I think it is because of our imperfect and sometimes widely varying visions of what constitutes Justice and Mercy that good people can, and have, done the most unjust and inhuman things to each other.
We can only do as we have been taught, and have faith that the Divine will accept what is good and correct where we have erred.
BTW...Good Morning. ;-)
"For God so loved humanity, he sent His only son to die, and removed all conditions from their acceptance into His company in the afterlife except an acceptance of the Savior after hearing the Word. Except for everybody who did not hear the Word for geographic or linguistic reasons. They were just out of luck, until hundreds of years later when the faithful came to them to spread the Word. And smallpox. More smallpox than Word, really."
There's the Quote of the Day as soon as I get home.
Good afternoon to you, Bilgeman!
If Justice and Mercy are omnipresent - then why didn't the Mongols show any during their predations? The Maori when they conquered the Moriori? Etc., etc., etc.?
We've been there and done that with absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights. Now you're suggesting that Justice and Mercy count among them?
Kevin:
"We've been there and done that with absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights. Now you're suggesting that Justice and Mercy count among them?"
As Rights?
No, I don't think that Justice and Mercy are Rights, but rather they are the Ideal that Rights aspire to cultivate.
LabRat,
Your interpretation of Genesis is a masterpiece of fitting fact to faith.
There is a certain degree of this, of course. It is unavoidable given the small sample size of the data, so to speak.
However, you do not speak to (because you do not grok the significance of) the fact that many of the sources Sarah cited (albeit too briefly to be convincing) are over a thousand years old, and yet express concepts regarding cosmology that were inconceivable to everyone else in the world and yet were shown to be essentially accurate.
In particular:
"Chaotic" is another translation for the word "formless" and the Hebrew word for "void" also translates to "filled with the building blocks of matter" (Nachmanides points this out).
A point that Sarah did not mention is that Nachmanides lived in 12th-Century Spain.
If you read his original language, the depth of his insight becomes even more frightening--especially when you compare it to the reigning Aristotelian theories of cosmology of his day.
Similar elements are found in many places. I once read an except from the Zohar (a work that is at least a thousand years old, and most likely closer to two thousand) that made my hair stand on end. It laid out in stylized language the idea that the physical layout of the Universe was "inscribed" into the initial point mass, pre-Big Bang (which is discussed in depth in this book, which is sadly unreadable.)
All of which is not going to convince people, I suppose. That you do not believe in God doesn't cause me great angst, since it's clear that you're a good person regardless. I do, however, want to convince you that it is possible to believe in God without being a devout practitioner of doublethink, and that many of us (not all, unfortunately) do so.
Mastiff: I'll save any further commentary for when I'm not trying to hammer out my thoughts on my own blog, I just wanted to respond that-
"I do, however, want to convince you that it is possible to believe in God without being a devout practitioner of doublethink, and that many of us (not all, unfortunately) do so."
I already am convinced of this. What I object to is people telling me that the Bible (or whatever) makes it "obvious" or highly convincing that it is the One True Word, when to me this is transparently not so.
LabRat:
" What I object to is people telling me that the Bible (or whatever) makes it "obvious" or highly convincing that it is the One True Word, when to me this is transparently not so."
Understood, which I try not to do.
I suspect that there are more paths to Jerusalem than we know of, and I believe that we will all get there one day.
I'd just observe that folks would tend to share the course that they believe they have found.
They mean well.
Did I start something? My statement was based on my death. In 79, I died in a motorcycle accident. No, I don't remember any of that "tunnel of light and tea with Grandma" crap, but I know when I woke up 4 days later some stuff had changed in my mind and heart. I just KNEW there IS another level beyond this one to existence. I KNOW that NO religion has everything right, some have a lot of stuff VERY wrong, some are good indeed, but YOU have to have that openess to the vibrational spirit of the universe.
Religion is for people who don’t want to go to hell – spirituality is for people who have already been there and don’t want to go back.
I believe that quote belongs to Megadeth lead man Dave Mustain. At least he's the first person I heard express it.
I have no "religion", per se. Just a knowledge that there's more to life than here. It is the, for want of a better term, wavelength of your energy. I don't know how to say it really, I know what I mean. If you can feel what I'm saying here, good on ya.
Kevin,
Mustaine* is (or at least was last I checked) a born-again Christian who reportedly brought a minister with him on tour to help keep him on the straight and narrow. That sounds more religious than strictly-spiritual to me.
[* My favorite guitarist next to Jimmy Page ]
LabRat,
There is no known-for-certain natural cause for the Big Bang, which does not mean that a natural cause does not exist.
Yes, it does, if physicists understand the Big Bang correctly.
First of all, as a scientist, I never believe supernatural explanations for anything that occurs within nature. I'm not an Islamist who believes that God moves all things at all times according to his will. Whatever unknown rules that govern the creation of particle-pairs are rules that describe the system these particles inhabit, which is nature. But with the Big Bang we're talking about something entirely different. Something brought nature into existence, and it must necessarily be subject to whatever rules apply in whatever realm the universe was created, i.e. outside of nature. These rules are therefore not describable by the laws of nature.
You are free to disagree with this and come up with whatever logical twisting you like, but this is exactly what is taught by cosmology. Atheistic cosmologists like Steven Weinberg will comment that hyper-space fluctuations giving rise to multiple universes, baby universes, etc., are plausible explanations for the origin of our universe and do away with the necessity for God as the sole contender for the Cause. These ideas, which have been postulated by some of the greatest minds in science, were invoked for precisely the reason that the Big Bang absolutely requires the supernatural. Weinberg rightly points out that these are all speculative and untestable given that whatever rules govern these scenarios would not be the same rules that govern our universe. Again, this all explicitly assumes the supernatural. I really am at a loss as to why you fail to see this.
Going back to the Burbidge thing, you can't just write it off as one man's personal idiosyncrasy. You may personally not believe or understand the implications, but this places you at odds with the bulk of the physics community. (You once told me that sometimes we just have to trust the experts. Do you practice what you preach?) Burbidge's views are indicative of the battle that is taking place right now in physics over the implications of Big Bang theory. I know, because I am in the thick of it. I worked in the same department as Burbidge and personally met the man, and have sat within two feet of Weinberg many times listening to him talk about this stuff. I understand first hand the nature and the depth of the metaphysical crisis taking place in physics because of Big Bang theory.
...suffice it to say you're now using the same logic I am but have reached a different conclusion of likelihood based on faith.
You're making assumptions about my beliefs that are untrue. I was convinced by the logic of this line of reasoning after a lifetime of agnosticism, so faith or a desire to believe had nothing to do with it. I found it logically sound, and based on that I was compelled to accept it. The faith and desire aspects came many years later, which is why I only converted to Christianity last year.
Mastiff explained more or less what I would have in response to your criticism of the Genesis-fitting. I didn't mention that Nahmanides wrote in the 13th century, because I thought that was well known.
You are correct, to some extent, that this is a retrofit to science. But so what? It works, and, contrary to your claim, not by any real stretch. The interpretations I invoked, as Mastiff pointed out, are based on 12th and 13th century observations by Jewish commentators Maimonides and Nahmanides. I found myself incredulous of Gerald Schroeder's claims that these commentators did in fact say what they said respecting cosmology, so I checked for myself. He does not misrepresent them, and as Mastiff said, these commentaries are hair-raisingly prescient. I didn't do justice to the explanation, but that would be a difficult accomplishment in a comments section of a blog. It doesn't matter that the interpretation above doesn't jibe with commonly held beliefs by modern Christians -- they jibe with Jewish interpretation made by ancient scholars of the Torah. Anyway, I'm only superficially regurgitating what Schroeder presents in detail in The Science of God, which I thought you had read.
That you place much more importance on biology than cosmology is explained by the fact that you are looking at Genesis through a biologist's lens. For some reason unknown to us the author of Genesis alluded to electron-proton recombination but not bacteria. I don't know the significance of this, except that Maimonides commented many centuries after Genesis was written that the path to understanding God was through astronomy and physics. Maybe this is why so many biologists are atheists. ;-)
THE BEST God comes off in the Biblical story of the redemption is as having a singularly nasty sense of humor!
Only to a materialist who believes solely in the here and the now.
Now, this is a recognized problem for Christian theology...
I've not met many (in fact, any) Christians who have a problem with this. If Jesus is God, descended from Heaven to be among us, as most Christian believe, then He willingly offered Himself as sacrifice in order for His disobedient children to be reconciled with Him. So far, I'm not seeing what is so ghastly humorous about this.
If this is, in fact, a recognized problem for Christianity, and a subject of fascination, then I think you have at least dispensed with the widely-held notion that religion just offers a bunch of easy answers. You might suspect that someone making this story up out of whole cloth to control people or to satisfy some inner desire would have come up with something far more pleasant and easy to understand (and follow!).
You do realize that without the tolerance and plurality of the Roman Empire in later years, Christianity would likely not exist today. Does that imply they were right?
What has this got to do with the price of rice in China? My point was that, it is much easier to survive the long-term as a non-proselytizing group when you are protected by a proselytizing group.
Returning to the earlier stuff:
[Scripture] implies more than just a sliver [of faith] to me.
The sliver is the starting point. It has to be. How can a person go from abject disbelief to whole-hearted belief in one leap? The latter comes later, but not without effort.
Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
Well, of course. If you don't acknowledge that God is there, how can you be with Him? If you say that a door does not exist, you can't walk through it, can you? Recognize that "faith" has more than one meaning in the Bible, and in this case it also means "trust" which you can do without believing whole-heartedly.
For clarification, my explanation that belief negates faith was not in reference to biblical definitions of faith but in reference to a particular atheistic definition of faith which is conflated with blind allegiance in the face of zero evidence or loads of evidence to the contrary.
As I said above, you do have to work at your relationship with God. It takes work to nurture any sort of belief. Not many of my students "believe" astronomy until after a few semesters immersed in and devoted to the subject. In fact, I have at least one student every year who asks me, why should we believe this stuff? You seem to take it for granted that Christians arrive fully formed and ready to believe, when in fact it takes a great deal of study and thought to arrive at the point of Heb 11:6. Belief is held to be a virtue with Christians not because it requires you to overcome your reason, but because it requires a discipline and devotion to study.
At least two societies- the ancient Greeks and the Japanese- developed complex internalized codes of virtue that had no mystical basis whatsoever.
The Greeks had gods, didn't they? And this complex code of virtue was conveniently facilitated by a massive slave population. But, I didn't say that virtue has to have a mystical basis, and that wasn't my point. Yes, virtue can and does exist without a mystical basis. My point was that I am not virtuous because I hope for a reward. I'm (attempting to be) virtuous because I love God, and to me that satisfies the definition of virtue as its own reward, which is what we were talking about.
Also, regarding your objection to salvation and who hears the word of God (which is a reasonable objection), there are good explanations which I will point you to rather than try to summarize here.
What happens to those who never hear about Jesus?
How can faith be rational?
Christians don't all agree on this stuff. Catholics and some others believe in purgatory, which offers a second chance of sorts. C. S. Lewis presents an interesting notion of this in The Great Divorce, a short but fascinating read.
God is the servant of man.
Now what are we doing to be worthy of such an honor?
As far as I can tell only the Jeddi know the true secrets of the universe.
No, only math teachers do. :)
(Yes, I am coming back to this, I've just been hammering at this in three places for about a week now and my brain needs some time on spin-dry.)
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>