Wow, it's been a while. Sorry about that. I'll try not to do it again.
In the spirit of some of my previous posts, I'd like to talk about the doctrine of faith, and why it bothers me - specifically, my problems with the idea that faith is paramount and the only way to salvation (a view held by quite a lot of people).
Let me start with a quote from Bertrand Russell. Russell was asked, once, what he would say if he died and found out that there was a God after all, and God asked him why Russell didn't believe in him. "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence" was Russell's hypothetical reply.
This pretty much illustrates perfectly my position on the subject, but it also helps illustrate a larger problem - indeed, a problem that stems from the very reason we humans claim special status.
What is it that separates humanity from every other species on this planet? We are conscious, and through that consciousness we have gained an ability to reason that far surpasses all other life on Earth. According to almost all religious belief, this ability to reason is a gift from God, a sign that we are special and unique. And yet that very same religious belief is telling us that in order to achieve salvation - in order to have an eternity (a concept God evidently did not equip us to understand) in heaven, whatever that's supposed to be - we must ignore the very thing that makes us special in the first place. We must turn off our brains, ignore evidence, go against everything about the way we are built and put faith in spurious claims about a God who will not give us the slightest evidence that he exists.
I mentioned in a previous post that if you think God answers prayers, you have what is pretty much an impossible task if you want to pretend he's still a benevolent force - either he's capricious or he's malevolent or he doesn't have the powers ascribed to him. In this case, I again don't know how you can continue to paint God as a good force if the number one virtue he demands is faith without evidence.
There is exactly one framework under which this makes sense - that God is testing us. But the nature of the test is such that, if you believe he exists, God comes out looking like a narcissistic, capricious creep. He is saying that unless you ignore what the evidence tells you, unless you believe in him without the benefit of convincing evidence - which he could, but will not, provide - you're screwed. And, frankly, that is not the kind of being that I feel is even deserving of worship.
Because, let's face it, the evidence doesn't point to any sort of a God. Oh, a lot of people think it does, and do an impressive contortion act to try to make the facts fit their beliefs, but the more ironclad the beliefs, the more contortion you have to do. Any time you make specific claims (prayer, etc), there's nothing to back them up. And even people who think that the evidence does show that there's a God will have to admit that there's no smoking gun out there - God hasn't come down and told us flat out "Hi, I exist!". That's why everyone falls back on faith - because you cannot support religious beliefs on evidence alone.
Studies continue to show that religious faith declines as people get more educated (with the exception of the Mormons, whose statistics are skewed by BYU). The peak of this, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, is the National Academy of Science, where 93% of the Academy lacks any sort of religious belief. In contrast, poor and ignorant societies have overwhelming levels of religious belief - look at Africa, for instance. Are these societies somehow better and more virtuous? There's something wrong with the picture when your worldview states that the most educated men on Earth - because of that education - are in worse shape for the afterlife than the poorest nations on the face of the planet. Poverty is not a good thing, no matter what Mother Teresa (who couldn't sustain her own faith) tried to tell people, and we should be trying everything we can to bring people out of it. If poverty is more conducive to faith than prosperity and education, how can we see faith as the ultimate virtue? Exercising our ability to reason - which is what has elevated us above our cousins swinging in the trees - should not be seen as a bad thing.
When I die, I expect to cease existing. My consciousness will end, and my body will rot in the ground (or be cremated, or whatever). But if, somehow, there is something there, I'm going to tell it exactly what Bertrand Russell did - there simply wasn't enough evidence. And if that's not good enough - if exercising my ability to reason isn't what I was supposed to do - then that's not where I want to spend eternity anyway.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

32 comments:
In undergraduate I took an old testament class for fun and profit (of the metaphysical kind). The stories were always really interesting, but when you get into Deuteronomy and the psalms you get those same old arguments in class about the inability of man to concieve of God's plan, that God is allowed to be a total dick and give man impossible tests because he is omniscient and we are not, and we could never understand the truth about existence and the greater universe.
I think that's one of my biggest problems - that total acceptance of suffering, as though we somehow deserve to feel miserable all of the time because we are Fallen and therefore not worthy. It reminds me of an abusive relationship - generally speaking most people wouldn't put up with that kind of behavior. But since it's God, it's completely different. He's allowed to be a total jerk if he wants. Seems a bit sadomasochistic to me.
On a totally unrelated note, go Tribe! =p
I visited your page out of sheer curiosity. I am fourteen years old and a Christian who just wants to see what others have to say. This wasn't a let-down.
You bring up all the classic points about why believing in God is illogical; I've pretty much heard all this before, and will no doubt hear it again. God must be a snob, He must not be all-powerful, either, and if He really existed, blah blah blah.
Blah.
So there's not enough evidence for you? Then stop taking bits and pieces from the Bible and expect to get that evidence; read it, *earnestly* study it, and then tell me it's still a bunch of idiotic fables.
Actually, something tells me you WOULD do that, and it wouldn't change a thing.
Let me start over then (mind you, I'm not trying to convert you, not that you'd be open to that anyway...but yeah):
So God DOES need faith. His world, his rules. Go create your own universe and decide whether or not you want to show yourself to a world who would spit in your face. He CAN'T reveal Himself to us; we'd die. I know this sounds stupid, but you have to have faith in Him BEFORE you get to know Him, but I don't see that as stupid or illogical. He touches people in ways that stagger the imagination, and he changed my life, my parents' lives, in a way that is altogether Loving and Right. I don't think "disproportional reverence" correctly describes what people feel for one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence God has given to us and has preserved for over thousands of years.
On that note, study Greek. :P
No doubt you've heard this one before, but look all around you and tell me you believe that this all happened by chance. An unabridged dictionary doesn't get created when ink spills, a BOEING plane doesn't get built when a tornado sweeps through a junkyard. It was created by a God with a master plan.
You say that studies show that religious faith declines as people get more educated. I say that there was no true faith to begin with (and I don't like the word 'religion' paired with 'Christianity' -not that you did this- because it is not a religion at all) if this happens.
Contrary to that, I believe that my faith gets strengthened when I learn more. Like the time in fifth grade when I found out that the east never met the west and I remebered the Bible verse that said "as far as the east is from the west, so far have I removed your transgressions.." or something to that effect. If God didn't know his science, he'd say "as far as the north is from the south," but hey, He created this universe, and He knows what He's talking about. That's my weak example, but go read this http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_rise_of_science.htm
if you want something more solid. :P
And I believe that yeah, maybe "religion" is getting Africa in trouble, but there is a God who saves. Cut out the polytheism and the tribal practices, and bring them to faith in a God who provides, bring them missionaries who Love, and they'll get out of that.
America was founded on belief in this God, and hey, now we've got millions of immigrants who want to see this mighty nation for themselves. :P We are one of the only friends of Israel, and I believe God has blessed us for it. Read Revelations and do some research dude.
You've got a really bright mind; a little Biblical study wouldn't hurt it.
OH, and Jesus love you! =D
-becky
P.S. Thanks for an interesting read. Now I've gotta do my homework.
I followed the link from your Megatokyo signature out of curiosity, and although it's not the deepest arguement against faith that I've run across, parts of it are valid.
Before I say anything else, yes, I am a Christian, although I don't follow any particular denomination. All a lot of them do is encourage conflict, and while I do relate more closely to some than to others, it's not something I generally go into because it just tends to encourage controversy.
With that being said, there's a couple books that might interest you if you're legitimately interested in exploring some possible evidence of some kind of a god in general, and specifically non-denominational Christianity's God. Whether it's for the sake of arguement or whatever, they're both good as a foundational basis for most topics involving God vs. Nothing.
'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis is a compilation of talks that Lewis gave on the radio during WW2 in Britain. It goes through a rather interesting series of arguements for a god, then eventually Christianity's God in particular. I've mentioned it to several people, and even some atheist friends said that it did give them a better grasp on the concept of Christianity than a lot of the watered down Jesus-is-your-buddy silliness that they were taught as kids. It's an interesting read, even if you're not looking for a faith.
'The Problem of Pain,' my second reccomendation, is also by C.S. Lewis; it was decidedly written for people who believe in the God of Christianity. However, it offers some interesting views into the age-old question of 'If there is a god, and this god is supposedly good, why does everything continually go wrong?' As a forewarning though, 'The Problem of Pain' is a very intellectually challenging book, some of the concepts that Lewis gets into will take several re-reads to absorb. It's written far above the level of 'Mere Christianity.' I haven't even managed to finish the whole thing, because I had to reread so many sections of it in the context of other points he made. It is something that I am working on finishing though; the concepts in it are very thought-provoking.
Either way, it's unusual to see someone with a relatively well-spoken reasoning behind their choice of atheism. I'm so tired of trying to talk to people who can't put a more comprehensive reason together than 'I asked God for an ATV and didn't get it, therefore there must not be a God.' Thanks for the interesting read, either way. :)
First off, let me say that I appreciate the responses from people who do believe - I disagree with you, obviously, but I'm happy you thought this worth responding to. I, of course, have some things I want to respond to in your comments.
First, to anonymous: There are a couple of things I have a problem with here. One, I'm sorry to tell you, but the Bible is a spectacularly unconvincing book if you don't look at it from a religious perspective. It's full of inconsistencies (I suggest taking a look at Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus") and is very clearly cobbled together by humans. And it's also full of quite a lot of pretty abhorrent or crazy stuff from a modern perspective (Leviticus is terrible) - Revelations, especially, just comes across as a weird, crazy end of the world fantasy.
Secondly, the argument from design has already been thoroughly deconstructed by Richard Dawkins and others. Evolution is not chance - mutations are random, but the way in which they are integrated and the way species evolve is not random and provides the only explanation we have for how complex creatures like ourselves can arise from noncomplexity. God doesn't do this - God is, to steal Dawkins' terminology, the Ultimate 747. If you go by 'anything complex must have been designed by something more complex', God ends up being the most complex thing there is - so who designed him? And the "well, he just happened" doesn't work if you then turn around and go "well, the Universe can't have just happened".
I'm curious what you mean about Christianity not being a religion - it is, and a pretty huge one at that.
Regarding Africa - I'm afraid that a lot of the damage that's been done to Africa by religion has been done by Christianity. Of course tribalism has done plenty - I don't support that either - but one of the biggest factors in the spread of AIDS has been Christian ministers preaching against condoms. It's dangerous and has absolutely contributed to thousands upon thousands of deaths.
Finally, I suggest you do some more reading about the Founding Fathers, most of whom were deists (not Christians) and had absolutely no intention of letting us have any sort of national church. The "America is a Christian nation" myth is patently false.
danita: You're not the first person to recommend Mere Christianity to me - I will say that what I've read of it, I found spectacularly unconvincing, but I haven't read the whole thing. Maybe at some point I'll pick it up and do a review of some sort explaining what I found unconvincing or wrong.
If you're looking for other well-spoken atheists, I suggest taking a look at PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog as well as the writings of Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens and Sam Harris. Bertrand Russell is excellent as well, if you want something a bit older.
Me again. =D
First of all, stop distracting me from my homework. :P Seriously though, this might be a little rushed, but I hope it won't be incoherent. My dumb science teacher is making us...right. You don't care. :P
Okay, first of all, I'd have to do some research about that "not by chance" thing. I'm SO not an expert about these kinds of things; I've never really had the chance to argue against atheism before now. :P Yeah, I guess that "can't have just happened" thing is pretty much gonna lead to circular reasoning, and again, it all boils down to the whole Faith argument which you don't like so much, so I'll move on. (Btw, isn't matter not supposed to be created nor destroyed? My excuse is that God was there to create it, what's yours? :P Oh, and aren't the gaps in our fossil evidence...eh, I don't know what I'm talking about anymore. Again, moving on..)
Now I'm curious about something YOU said. What is so abhorrent about Leviticus again? And Revelations would seem really crazy, I know, but if you pay attention to the news and analyze the book, you'd be amazed how many things are being fulfilled (the specific nations against Israel, planning for Temple-rebuilding, the developing technology, etc), but I guess it would seem weird from your standpoint, so whatever. :P
To alleviate some of YOUR curiosity, however, "religion", from my view, always has to do with "earning" salvation through good deeds and whatnot. (A principle which begs the question, "what if you didn't perform enough good works?" which doesn't bode well with me), while Christianity is just an acceptance of an already-there gift; it's a personal relationship with Christ. (I'm non-denominational; other Christians might have a different POV on this..)
Maybe Christian PEOPLE have done a lot of damage in Africa, but I don't believe Christianity has caused all these horrible problems. I've watched my fair share of missionary documentaries about people in Africa, and the work to me is just touching. Africa is in sin (sorry, "religious person" in me speaking) right now, and Christian ministers, instead of preaching Christ, are saying "don't use condoms." Again, I'd have to do research about that, because I've never heard of what you mentioned, and I'm just basing this on my uneducated opinion.
AND, contrary to what you said about the Founding Fathers, I believe the "deists" thing is a myth :P When they were writing the Constitution (or was it the Declaration? :P) they always started their meetings with a prayer to God to ask for help, and plus, our history started with the Pilgrims (seeking religious freedom) and after that, the Puritans, and..only two of the first 100 or so colleges were not Christian. [“Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."]
^The first original rule in the Harvard College (1636) handbook or something.
Yeah, I believe they were Christians. =D
Great points again - looks like I've got a lot of research to do.
Sorry if you can't understand this; won't bother to spell check; must do homework! :P
-becky
Glad to see you back. Plenty to respond to. :)
On the scientific side of the argument, I commend your ability to admit that you don't know enough (many religious people cannot). I do suggest you read about this stuff; it's fascinating, and it might shake some of your perceptions. I definitely suggest that you not try to argue that particular area with me, though - I'm certainly not a trained scientist, but I have had quite a bit more education and you have precisely zero chance of convincing me that the consensus of the entire credible scientific community is wrong.
As for the abhorrent stuff - have you read the same quotes I have? All of the stuff about stoning your neighbors or your family to death for homosexuality or eating the wrong foods or working on Sundays or... well, you can go on and on for quite a while. Suffice to say that the very worst of Christian bigots draw heavily from Leviticus.
I find your definition of religion a fairly strange one, given that I generally associate it with the worship of a god or gods (or even just spirits) and do not define it in terms of salvation. In fact, that's the first time I've ever heard it defined in terms of salvation.
I suggest you do, in fact, do some research on Africa - it's pretty horrifying stuff, and a lot of the missionary groups, even if well-intentioned, really fail in their tasks by avoiding all mention of birth control and preaching against condoms. Talk about sin all you want (well, actually, I have some issues with that too, but I won't get into those here), but if you're going to actively avoid, or preach against, something that can prevent STDs such as AIDS, you're complicit in the deaths of thousands upon thousands. Including children.
As for the founding fathers, I suggest reading some biographies - the "Separation of Church and State" idea came from a Thomas Jefferson letter, and Jefferson himself was very, very clearly a deist (and has some quotes that hint at atheism). You can find similar information about most of the founding fathers. The fact that Massachusetts was founded by very hardcore Christians does not change this fact (ironically, MA has become one of the most liberal states in the country).
Here's a quick link: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
It's got a ton of quotes from the various founding fathers which, well, often don't speak so well of Christianity and definitely point to deism. And it has the section of the treaty of Tripoli - written during Washington's presidency, signed during Adams', so we're talking the very beginning of the country here - where it is specifically stated that the US is not a Christian nation.
I'm sorry you have to do homework, incidentally. I remember that. It sucked.
I found this out of sheer boredom while trying to procrastinate on a looming paper, but your writing managed to catch my attention. Since I go to a Christian university and all, it's always refreshing to hear arguments from different ends of the spectrum. So thanks for that, really.
I'll have you know that I am No Great Debater, but I'll offer a couple ideas anyway. For one, I noticed that you mention this broad term of "evidence" a lot. Evidence of what? God's existence/nonexistence? Evidence that God is or is not involved in human life? Or something else?
You also wrote that "That's why everyone falls back on faith - because you cannot support religious beliefs on evidence alone." I have to agree with you. Faith is required to support religious beliefs, but it shouldn't replace the scientific evidence that is out there. From my point of view, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. One can be highly intelligent and support scientific advances, yet still believe in a God. I won't waste too much time on this, though, because I know I'm not as educated in scientific evidence concerning God and/or religion as I should be, being the nerdy English major that I am, and I can't put up a highly convincing argument.
On the other hand, I would like to point out that no "evidence" of God's existence does not mean that he doesn't exist. If you think about it, you really can't prove that someone loves you. Sure, she could tell you that she does, spend time with you, have sex with you, and by all appearances you could say she loves you. But you could really have no absolute proof; it could all be a very well construed lie. It's sort of the same concept with God's existence... for that matter, our existence.
Sure, it's a faulty analogy, and God is God and should be able to make evidence. I believe that he did leave some evidence for us. You said, "there's no smoking gun out there - God hasn't come down and told us flat out 'Hi, I exist!'." Maybe he hasn't done that for a while. I haven't had God step down from heaven and appear in front of me and say, "Hi, Erin! Guess what? I'm really here! You don't need to have faith anymore!" But in a way, he left a smoking gun for me in the person of Jesus Christ. No, I haven't seen Jesus personally (obviously), but I do believe the Bible. (If you haven't heard it all already, I could look into the historical reliability of the Bible. I've learned that before, but I'm not one for remembering specific details like that.) So for me, it's not just a blind acceptance of what it says because I want a hope for life after death. That's part of it, but I do use reason and I've decided that it's perfectly logical to believe the Bible. For me, there shouldn't be anything illogical about my faith - otherwise, I need to be re-thinking a few things. God wouldn't have given us reason and the want/need to use it if he was going to make faith illogical.
Oh, and about Leviticus... I'd just like to point out that Leviticus is not... valid anymore, if I can use the word without making it sound as if Leviticus is completely pointless. I'm sure if you really looked into cultures around that time in history, you'd find many more ridiculous things that people did for their gods. That book was part of the "old covenant" - the one God made with Israel through Moses - and when Jesus came, he said that the old covenant is gone, and the new is here (I'm not sure of the Biblical reference, since I really don't feel like searching for it). Point is, those crazy rules in Leviticus should not be practiced today. I'd even go to say that anyone stoning someone else for homosexuality is not Christian.
Anyway, I've spent enough time putting off my paper, though this was much more fun. I love reading other perspectives than mine; it makes life so much more interesting and meaningful. So thanks for the wonderfully written argument.
-Erin
"you have what is pretty much an impossible task if you want to pretend he's still a benevolent force - either he's capricious or he's malevolent or he doesn't have the powers ascribed to him"
How can you argue against the rationale for religion by claiming that traditional conceptions of God are immoral? If that were relevant to a discussion of God’s existence, I need only state my opinion that God is moral and I in your view have apparently put forth a good argument for his existence. Is that what you mean to say?
"In contrast, poor and ignorant societies have overwhelming levels of religious belief - look at Africa, for instance"
Is the implied statement "all Africans are ignorant" supposed to be consistent with a rigorous empirical method, I wonder? Certainly missionary efforts in Africa often proceeded from that assumption.
"There's something wrong with the picture when your worldview states that the most educated men on Earth - because of that education - are in worse shape for the afterlife than the poorest nations on the face of the planet"
It’s interesting to know that you consider it a plain fact that scientists are the “most educated” human beings there are. With this bias in mind, it’s easy to see why you would disdain the arguments regarding religion put forth by philosophers who are, after all, less educated. Would I be right to guess that your own academic inclinations reflect this preference? You’re certainly not one of the less educated sort, like myself, are you?
Also interesting to me is the assumption that education is a sign of ethical worth. I’ll risk a Godwin and mention the historian I read who said that among intellectuals in Germany, scientists generally were the easiest to bring into line with the new Nazi regime.
"One, I'm sorry to tell you, but the Bible is a spectacularly unconvincing book if you don't look at it from a religious perspective"
If you’ve "closed your mind" to the idea, so to speak, it’s not surprising you wouldn’t find much appeal there or in any religious text.
"provides the only explanation we have for how complex creatures like ourselves can arise from noncomplexity"
And the only explanation we have must be the definitive one?
It’s not an argument for God, but it’s an argument against the smug certitude of atheists that tends to annoy agnostics, among others, who don’t see the scientific basis for it.
"The "America is a Christian nation" myth is patently false"
The "all the founding fathers were deists and they all wanted secularism consistent with our modern conceptions of the idea" is also a myth. If I hear one more atheist quote the Treaty of Tripoli as definitive proof that the founders were all of one mind about religion (amazing since they were not really all of one mind about anything) I’ll scream.
"And it has the section of the treaty of Tripoli - written during Washington's presidency, signed during Adams"
Oh Jesus Christ.
"I'd just like to point out that Leviticus is not... valid anymore"
Yeah but that never stopped anti-Christians from knocking down the Old Covenant straw man just the same.
"How can you argue against the rationale for religion by claiming that traditional conceptions of God are immoral? If that were relevant to a discussion of God’s existence, I need only state my opinion that God is moral and I in your view have apparently put forth a good argument for his existence. Is that what you mean to say?"
No, and I think you're plenty intelligent enough to realize that. The point of my posts here is not solely to talk about why I think God doesn't exist - I also have issues with certain aspects of religion and find a number of religious claims problematic even if you put aside the question of whether or not God exists. This is one of those cases. Certainly, that has nothing to do with God's existence - but even if he did exist, it would still bother me.
"Is the implied statement "all Africans are ignorant" supposed to be consistent with a rigorous empirical method, I wonder? Certainly missionary efforts in Africa often proceeded from that assumption."
I apologize for making that statement in a way that can be read like that. Unfortunately, the larger point remains - much of Africa IS dirt-poor and unfortunately pretty ignorant as a result. And just about the entire continent falls behind the whole West in terms of general education levels, which is what I was really getting at.
"It’s interesting to know that you consider it a plain fact that scientists are the “most educated” human beings there are. With this bias in mind, it’s easy to see why you would disdain the arguments regarding religion put forth by philosophers who are, after all, less educated. Would I be right to guess that your own academic inclinations reflect this preference? You’re certainly not one of the less educated sort, like myself, are you?
Also interesting to me is the assumption that education is a sign of ethical worth. I’ll risk a Godwin and mention the historian I read who said that among intellectuals in Germany, scientists generally were the easiest to bring into line with the new Nazi regime."
Certainly, getting a scientific education tends to have a larger effect - here is where the National Academy of Sciences statistic kicks in - but the studies I'm talking about are looking at things like "college education" here, not "science degrees". A smaller percentage of people with college degrees, period, believe in God than those who don't have a degree. You're well on your way to a college degree, so you certainly qualify - I am not, I'm afraid, discriminating against the humanities in the way you very clearly like to read into my statements.
But even if I was just talking about a science education, my point is still valid - if studying how the world works makes you less likely to believe in God, what does that say? This is the heart of the point I was trying to make. I'm not stating that we are morally superior to African societies - I'm stating that, if you think faith in God is the ultimate virtue, education (which I don't think anyone can argue is a bad thing) makes you less likely to have faith in God. Having an education is not a sign of ethical worth. But if your standard of ethical worth is such that acquiring an education makes you less likely to live up to it, there is something wrong with the standard.
"If you’ve "closed your mind" to the idea, so to speak, it’s not surprising you wouldn’t find much appeal there or in any religious text."
Well... I'm not religious. But, seriously, you're a Christian. I'm assuming you've read a fair amount of the Bible. Can you seriously argue that it's supposed to be a convincing book, by itself, to someone like me? It's not a case of 'closed mind' so much as 'this book does not in any way provide a reasonable argument for God'.
"And the only explanation we have must be the definitive one?
It’s not an argument for God, but it’s an argument against the smug certitude of atheists that tends to annoy agnostics, among others, who don’t see the scientific basis for it."
Well, if it's the only explanation we have, then yes, it is definitive. Until something better comes along. There is also a massive amount of scientific basis for it - frankly, people who don't accept evolution are either not scientists or they are bad scientists. And nobody - nobody - has come up with any sort of remotely credible alternative. Intelligent Design isn't even close. "You shouldn't be so certain" is a pretty weak argument when you don't give us any sort of credible alternative.
"The "all the founding fathers were deists and they all wanted secularism consistent with our modern conceptions of the idea" is also a myth. If I hear one more atheist quote the Treaty of Tripoli as definitive proof that the founders were all of one mind about religion (amazing since they were not really all of one mind about anything) I’ll scream."
Of course they weren't all of one mind about anything, but I think there's some pretty compelling evidence that quite a lot of them were deists, including most of the really influential ones. For instance, are you really going to argue with the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a deist? I mean, you can yell at me for bringing up the treaty of Tripoli all you want, but "ugh, I hate that argument" isn't a particularly convincing way to show me I'm wrong.
Finally, regarding the Leviticus stuff - you'll note that I only really went into it because one of the commenters on this post actually asked what was bad about it.
Yo Xellos~ Anyone who has followed my views on this topic on the MT forums will know that I am similarly critical of organised religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular. I grew up in a weakly Church of England family, which means I learned more than I was indoctrinated with, and through my historical and archaaeological studies have come to view religion not as some overarching 'truth' of the physicality of the world, but as a political construct that allows a firm social hierarchy to be based around a fundamental psychological human need for an outer authority figure (think Lacanian sublimation of an idealised father figure, perhaps, to mix my psychological similes). I know a great deal more about the origins and development of Christianity as a faith, so I will speak out more on that subject.
A few parts of your argument called for comment, though -
"If poverty is more conducive to faith than prosperity and education, how can we see faith as the ultimate virtue? Exercising our ability to reason - which is what has elevated us above our cousins swinging in the trees - should not be seen as a bad thing."
I think you're making a fallacious link between poverty, education and faith here. For one thing, faith decreasing as social rank and education increases is something that's very difficult to observe in the historical record. It could simply be argued that as rank increases, the need to make obviously religious statements and actions decreases (at least in historical terms).
It's worth remembering that the argument of reason over faith was originally used by the Romans, Cicero in particular, to argue against atheism. Our position on this topic comes from our backgrounds, and the experiences that make us dividual or individual beings. So from a materialistic viewpoint, which demands physically observable or deductable phenomena as proof, the philosophising of religious thinking seems woolly and inadequate (although this isn't always the case; Darwin's religous beliefs caused him great emotional turmoil when they conflicted with what his scientific work led him to conclude). From a deist viewpoint, the reduction of all life and human experience to physical interactions is similarly shocking, and reason tells them that there must be something higher to validate human existance (and in the case of the classical world, a renunciation of the wealth of the spiritual world was simply bewildering - tradition being as important as it was). Both sides effectively cancel each other out.
My own instincts would certainly turn more to the former viewpoint. Faith based reasoning is simply not enough for me to accept a defined theological and historical account that is basically full of holes and deeply suspicious. But that's Christianity as it is now. If you told me that 'faith' was an acceptance of a system of rules that required an abstract system of morality and an understanding of the self as an individual (essentially Confucianism but let's keep it abstract) then I'd be more willing to pay attention to what you have to say; it's on the basis of rules like this that societies are formed.
One more quick point -
"Exercising our ability to reason - which is what has elevated us above our cousins swinging in the trees - should not be seen as a bad thing."
I think this is again a case of you misinterpreting how reason is applied. The earliest humans, even Neanderthals, had a crude notion of religious beliefs. Is this a sign of primitive credulity - or a case of early rationalising of the exterior world? Early man could not have calculated that the Earth was round, that it orbited the sun which is a vast ball of nuclear fire, or understood fully that the light of the moon is a mere reflection. But similarly they did not just regard the sun and moon as bright things in the sky thart were just there, to be accepted - they challenged that view and attempted to form a more appropriate rationalising of the world they were in, bereft of the tools of science that we can use now.
I don't mean to equate science and religion here, to say that faith in the supernatural and faith in the observable data are comparable, but it should be made clear that human life relies on imagination, hope and optimism as much as it does on material evidence. As a sports fan, you should certainly appreciate that. :p Narrative fictions, imagined worlds, are an undeniably crucial part of human existance, and not even empirical thought is completely immune to that.
And on a final final note: If I ever find myself at the Pearly Gates, I'll a) almost certainly not be let in and b) would probably be rather grateful. The loss of individuality in exchange for becoming a dividual component of a metaphysical gestalt entity isn't really as fun as Christians make it sound. At least Hell has the best music...
http://www.primals.org/articles/khamsi11.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Miller_%28psychologist%29
Keg, I love you, you sexy beast.
That said, I'll have to agree with what Keg has said. Anthropology has you look at why people do things, or more specifically, to see if they do things for reasons that aren’t necessarily directly obvious. Case and point, someone mentioned polygyny in here. For those not familiar with the term in anthropology, one's "Fitness" is one's genetic representation in future generations. In polygyny based societies comparative research has been done between monogamy and polygyny, and it has been shown that one is better able to spread one's genetic representation (even for the women, for a reason I will explain shortly) using this method in the environment they live in. For one's genetic representation to survive (children), it helps a lot of have additional care around. In a polygamous situation you have that, you have support from multiple angles (especially when kin is not available to supplement), and the survivability of your children (shown statistically with life and death charts) increases significantly. Alternatively, in a situation where life is significantly less dangerous, it is much more advantageous for people to be monogamous. Fewer people need to work together to support their children to the age at which they can reproduce/support themselves. This is also hypothesized why today we have such high divorce rates, because we can further increase our genetic representation in that manner.
Culture obviously also plays a large role in this. Things like contraception prevent reproduction and muss with the above hypothesis. This doesn't mean it's wrong, the theory applies to us throughout human history and matches exactly the kind of subconscious mindset we would need to continue surviving. Something like contraception one would think is the counter-argument to my statements thus-far. In reality it's not. In our society where contraception is big, look at how long it takes for an individual to reach a level where he or she can support a family. It's a long time. Contraception aids in holding off pregnancy till that time comes along where an individual can supply their children with the resources necessary to continue the pattern.
Another example. Genetically speaking, the further away from ego (yourself) you get, the less genetically related an individual in your family is to you. One shares half their genetic material with their children, a quarter with their grandchildren, and so on (statistically speaking using averages. In reality, it is variable). It has been statistically shown time and time and time again through all studies I or any professor I've talked to has read that Hamilton's Rule, that the closer one is genetically related to you the more effort you'll put toward them (B*r > cost to you, means you help kin while B*r < cost means you don't help kin. B*r is a function showing the genetic relatedness to an individual).
Now you might look at that and say, "but I help strangers all the time". Absolutely. And you'd also expect strangers to help -you- when you needed a hand. Since the cost is low to you, you spend the energy in return for, some day, equally kind help from someone. It's called indirect reciprocity, and it occurs quite a lot. "If I help someone, they might help someone, etc.. and eventually it comes back to me."
Connections like these are -all over the place- and are constantly being investigated and having more and more evidence piled up in their favor (while other not so good hypothesizes get tossed out/updated/modified). Now, say you have a big system in place to ensure this kind of reciprocity, something that enforces standards and rules to help each other because "if you're living high and help those who're hurting, they might do the same if you ever fall from your high seat". I am oblivious to what the actual idiom is, but it runs along those lines. Religion -is- that kind of system. It ties together a people to a belief that collectively increases the survivability and thus genetic representation as a whole. A win-win situation for everyone, where everyone is quite literally doing something in preparation for someone else to do something for them.
Now I understand how many people can say "But that's how God intended it, for people to help people." The thing is, that's not what's happening. What's happening is that people are helping themselves by helping other people. It's a backup plan. If you help support other people with excess resources, one day when you find yourself short on resources they will help you! It's completely selfish and completely understandable. After all, would any of you really save someone else’s kid and not your own when you had to choose between the two?
"But similarly they did not just regard the sun and moon as bright things in the sky that were just there, to be accepted - they challenged that view and attempted to form a more appropriate rationalizing of the world they were in, bereft of the tools of science that we can use now.:
Exactly, working with what you got. Personally, I think we've got a lot more to work with now, and it will continue to change as time goes on. A different system was developed and adapted which has improved our survivability (health care), and the more we research the more it can improve (can, not does, but we don't know so we look). It makes perfect sense to me that more and more people are ending their belief in the supernatural (god(s), spirits, etc..) because there is another available method/system which works... better.. to accomplish the goal of passing on our genes.
While I consider myself agnostic, and can't say to myself, "No, it's not impossible", I am -functionally- of the same opinion as Micah here is, if not literally.
"The being we call god is merely a pawn working for a powerful and rational force in some far-off galaxy. This force is trying to weed out people who are irrational by seeing who would be stupid enough to believe in his god illusion so easily. Those that believe in this illusion, he will send to eternal damnation and he will deliver the rational beings, those who stoically refused to believe in a god, to heaven."
- Nicholas Yee
Well, this was interesting. You have very well-based arguments, and have posed some engaging questions.
However,
I'm not really sure if I want to enter into an argument with you, as I can see by some of the commentaries that you can disarm any man with your sharp tongue.
...
I will not try to convince you that God exists, as that is something that can only be believed in. I can't remember the exact placement of the verse, but somewhere in the New Testament it says something along the lines of "Faith is the conviction of that which cannot be seen" and there's something about hope, there too. I have a Norwegian Bible, so this is probably not the translation you will find in an English Bible. You will probably argue that the Bible is simpy a good-night story made up by humans, but then again, the Bible must be believed. If you allow any doubt into your belief, it will easily crumble. I must admit, I'm not entirely sure about my beliefs. I know I am a Christian, and I know I believe in God, but as of now, I'm still trying to blueprint it all.
However, I do think that Christianity is nothing more than a fraud in most parts of the world. I believe Karl Marx's words were, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Granted, I don't agree with him in every aspect, but I do think that religion has become opium for great parts of the Christian community. (As we're discussing Christianity, I'll leave Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. out of it.) Although it says in the Bible that He will forgive our sins if we ask his forgiveness, I don't believe it is right to sin. There is a difference between falling in sin, and commiting sin. Many people lead sinful lives, and the only thing Christianity is to them, is a way to lighten their conscience. So it doesn't really matter what they do, 'Jesus loves them anyway'.
Let's take an example. You own a car, and a really nice, expensive one at that. One day, a person comes and scrapes up your car, covering it with marks and dents - all out of pure vandalism. If that man came back and asked your forgiveness, what would be your condition? (Jesus already compensated your loss (money) when he died at the cross for us.) I know mine would have been that the man promise to never do it again. So why do we repeat our sins consciously? God wants us to defeat the temptations that are in our flesh, and by that I mean i.e. jealousy, laziness, lying, anger, irritation, greed, honor, pride, murder... you know, all the bad things you can think of that humans do. When we defeat our human nature (because when Adam/Eve did that whole apple thing, the human flesh was made to have all these temptations. The God-like nature humans had before that was lost.), we can approach the God-like one. .......
I guess I'm not really doing that good of a job explaining this... I'm not even too sure about the connection of it all.
Oh well.
But all of this is hidden for most people. It says in the Bible that it will only be revealed to the believing, or something or other. But I guess you don't have to worry about that then.
I'm just curious. If you do not have a faith, and no hope for the afterlife, what is your reason to live? Wouldn't it be extremely easy to be given over to constant melancholy if one didn't believe there is more to life then what is visible to the human eye? What do you hope to be a part of, other then the collective mold in the graveyard?
Of course it's important to be individual. Every person is individual, and religion does not erase that. (But it also a human need to be a part of something.) Neither does religion erase education, nor the other way around. I know many people with a high education that are sincerely religious. My father, for example, is a cardiologist and has studied medicine and science for many years. He encourages our religious upbringing.
But you must understand that every person has an individual perception of religion. I'm sure I practice my beliefs in a very different way from my friends, but common for all of us, we believe.
And we try to suppress the temptations in our flesh, but that is not the same as not thinking. I love thinking. I love debating and discussing. Although I like to think I'm fairly open-minded, I recognize prejudice in my childish ignorance. It's very easy for me to think that I know all that there is to know, and that I have all the right views, but who am I to say that I'm still not childishly ignorant? I'll probably look back upon my early teen years later in life, and think that I was so ignorant.
I think I sort of got off track here... What point was I trying to prove again?
Totally random, but I remember that you said somewhere that God does not exist because of the unmanageable trials he puts us through. Corinthians (Korinthians? What is it called in English?) 10.13 clearly states that God does not lead us into temptation where we cannot emerge victorious, but that we are always capable of defeating the sin knocking on our door.
And I don't feel like I understood what you said about the Christians and Africa. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I think all of Africa should rot in hell. On the contrary, I consider myself a person with human rights aspirations. Doctors without Borders has appealed to me from a young age, and I believe 100% in helping. However, I'm not saying they're not sinning, because there's no denying that a lot of them are. But then again, I believe stealing a loaf of bread is justified if you're taking from someone with enough, and your party is in severe need. AIDS and HIV wouldn't exist if nobody sinned (such as fornication), but I'm not laying the blame on Africa as a whole's doorstep. I.e. it is not the women that are raped's fault, but if the men that did the raping, did not, and were pure themselves, then AIDS would not be a problem. But it is a modern world we live in, so it can't be expected that everyone follows the New Testament. (But if everyone did, the world would be a better place.)
Well.... It's almost 2 am here, so I'll go before I fall asleep on my keyboard.
I hope this makes sense, but knowing me, it's probably all really random.
Any crappy English and grammar? Well I blame the wonderful excuse of ESL. English Second Language.
Kristine
You quoted several parts of the bible which carried a theme.
"But all of this is hidden for most people. It says in the Bible that it will only be revealed to the believing, or something or other."
and
"but somewhere in the New Testament it says something along the lines of "Faith is the conviction of that which cannot be seen" and there's something about hope, there too."
The problem, from an outsider's view, is that these are saying that it doesn't exist without belief. That you can only receive it's rewards if you believe in it. One of the issues with this argument is, there's no evidence for it. Religious people don't have better lives or luck or anything. Statistical data backs this up fairly well. Some data suggests that those who hold religious beliefs (christian in this case) have higher rates of divorce and other sorts of problems. Personally, it makes sense to me, that the way we as a society deal with things is changing and those trying to cling onto traditional methods are unable to fully adapt (or refuse to) which only serves to create more friction in their lives and world views.
"I'm just curious. If you do not have a faith, and no hope for the afterlife, what is your reason to live? Wouldn't it be extremely easy to be given over to constant melancholy if one didn't believe there is more to life then what is visible to the human eye? What do you hope to be a part of, other then the collective mold in the graveyard?"
Your reason, as it seems to be, is to live for a life which is unlimited and "perfect?". My reason, being one who believes there is likely no afterlife, is that's how life is. The only difference between us an a deer is that we have brains that can contemplate the question while (likely) nothing else on the planet does, and thus is not plagued with those questions. My reason for living and going on, is because I enjoy my life. I enjoy figuring things out and going through life. Eventually I will die. I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that there is an end to things, just as there are begginings.
So in return I ask you this. How is it, with faith and the expectation that you will - in one form or another live forever - that you hope to be able to confront the concept that the life you live now is all there is and that nothing exists beyond death? That death is simply the cease of the chemical reaction which is biology and specifically brain function?
This is the exact same question you asked, from the other side of the pond's point of view. How can you dillude yourself into beliving in something that there simply is no realistic evidence for existance, and thus waste a great deal of the life you have devoting time to something which has, in the sense you see it*, no real meaning.
*I refer to an anthropological view in which religion is a social framework from which societies function togeather by forming an accepted set of rules, norms, and standards by which they all adhear to in order to promote their own survivablity. By working togeather you reduce mortality rates. AKA this is the cultural product of our biological adaptation to help our species survive and thrive.
Divine -
Sorry for the absence.
Well, you said:
"The problem, from an outsider's view, is that these are saying that it doesn't exist without belief. That you can only receive its rewards if you believe in it. One of the issues with this argument is, there's no evidence for it. Religious people don't have better lives or luck or anything. Statistical data backs this up fairly well."
Well, I'd have to say I disagree with that. I understand that it is hard from an outsiders view to see how faith is reasonable, but that's the whole point of it. Faith is meant to be surety in the unsure. There is no evidence for it, and why, I cannot say, but God wants us to be faithful to him, and to trust him. And you said there was no evidence in real life of God's grace, but there is. I don't know if there is, when religion as a whole is represented, or even Christianity, but I know there is in the Christianity I see around me.
I was born into a small, but world wide Christian Protestant church. We are popularly called Smith's Friends, after the establisher Johan O. Smith. And I see God's grace around me. I could tell you countless stories of how God has blessed us. We are generally not extremely wealthy, but we are extremely happy. We have (and world-wide we are about 40,000) everything we need and could possibly want. And what is so great is that everyone goes around thinking about what they can do for the other.
Well, my point was that there IS evidence that God blesses those who truly believe in him, you just have to know where to look, for to be honest, there are a lot of Christians out there who is a shame to the name. Just because someone goes to church doesn't mean they are necessarily Christian. Christianity can be a nice place to lean and gather hope from because of the whole 'Jesus is the saviour of all' thing. But the question shouldn't be what Jesus can do for you, but what you can do for Jesus.
I think you'll agree with me when I say that jealousy, fear of people (and their opinions about you), selfishness, greed, seeking honour, lust, stinginess, dishonesty, lying, pride, etc. are evil, as in opposed to good. God wants us to deny our self these feelings, and instead focus on being happy for your neighbour, fear God (do what he tells us to, be honest when nobody but God sees us, etc.), selflessness, generosity, low in oneself, purity, honesty, and humility, etc.
So that brings us to this next question.
"So in return I ask you this. How is it, with faith and the expectation that you will - in one form or another live forever - that you hope to be able to confront the concept that the life you live now is all there is and that nothing exists beyond death? That death is simply the cease of the chemical reaction which is biology and specifically brain function?"
Well, I am convinced that we have an afterlife, but if I ever died and that was it, then what would I have to be sorry for?
I'd have spent my life well by being nice and generous and selfless towards other people. Don't you agree? I am aware that there are a lot of accomplishments that I could have gained, but may have passed up because of a situation that required me denying myself. Well, the way you see it, we will all be dead and that is it. I'd have no possibility to regret the choices I'd made in my life. And if I spent my life denying myself and helping others, I would have had a happy life.
Haven't you too experienced the joy of doing something for someone else with no thought whatsoever of what you yourself might gain from it? That is true happiness, and I strive to live for it. I believe that God is the one that governs that happiness, and the one who grants it.
And by suffering in my flesh for a short time>> suffering = denying, short time = 80 years, my life. Denying oneself is suffering because it hurts to deny oneself. It hurts to give someone else what you want, it hurts to not get angry and violent when my little brother irritates me, just as it is hard to deny myself the lustful thoughts that youth brings, but I must remain pure for my Lord.
I have sinned, many times, but I always regret it and strive to do better the next time, to deny my sinful nature the next time. And the more I deny myself and emerge victorious, the easier it is to deny the next time. Sometimes it is extremely hard, but I pray to my Lord to give me strength. So it becomes easier and easier to deny myself, and I pray more and more to the Lord, and the happiness surrounds me more and more, until I live a life in complete happiness.
Now tell me that's not a life worth living.
So, as I said, if I ever die and there is no more, I will quote Leonardo da Vinci, “As a day well spent brings happy sleep, so a life well used brings a happy death.”
There you have it :)
Hi Kristine, good to see the discussion is still going strong! Reading your post, a few things caught my eye though:
"And I see God's grace around me. I could tell you countless stories of how God has blessed us."
Leaving aside the fact this is anecdotal evidence (you speak of your own personal experience; you can't possibly speak for all Christians), this is really more of a philosophical position than a theological one. You could just as easily put your circumstances down to Vishnu, Gaia, Zeus or just fortune itself. Divine's argument was that Christianity doesn't make you inherently more fortunate than non-Christians; anecdotal evidence doesn't really address that.
"Well, I am convinced that we have an afterlife, but if I ever died and that was it, then what would I have to be sorry for?"
I agree entirely, but is this really a Christian position? It's the basis for any secular morality, really; that satisfaction in life comes from the self, and that virtuous actions are their own reward. It's certainly not incompatible with Christian thinking entirely (I'd like to think that most would try to be good for goodness's sake rather than a ticket into Heaven), bu it doesn't require a God to judge what is good and what isn't.
As for your lifestyle choices; have you considered the links with Stoicism before? I think the argument could be made that philosophy of self-denial need not be done solely for a deity's sake, but for its own reward.
"Well, I'd have to say I disagree with that. I understand that it is hard from an outsiders view to see how faith is reasonable, but that's the whole point of it."
Mmm. I never said it was unreasonable. Faith itself and religion is plenty resonable, in a sense. It's a common system of believe which helps to hold togeather a society to work togeather, grow, and survive through strength in numbers by supporting eachother. As Kegluneq mentioned, the ideas of being good to eachother and helping eachother are not unique to christian theology. In fact, across all examples I can think of (which is a lot, considering I study cultures across the world), there are rules and standards to help those around you, in one manner or another. Functionally, by investing resources in others, we grow a rapport with them and in our time of need they would be much more likely to return the favor. To increase our and our children's survival, having a sense of group and helping others is an amazingly benificial thing. So to be good for God's sake, or for the afterlife, isn't really a valid argument. I'm good to my fellow man because, frankly, I'd have a much more difficult life all alone.
"I don't know if there is, when religion as a whole is represented, or even Christianity, but I know there is in the Christianity I see around me."
As Kegluneq pointed out, using personal experiance doesn't address my point. Sure, life would be great in a middle class suburban neighborhood (wild guess, but since you've got internet I'm going to say I'm pretty close). But what about in Africa, or hundreds of other different cultures and peoples across the world who have been devistated by disease brought along with missionaries? The missionaries converted man individuals and societies, but that didn't stop the diseases from attacking the weak immuno defenses of natives.
That's just a general example, but what I was talking about before suggests that over all if you polled your neighborhood and got a good balance of people from all beliefs, you really wouldn't find too much of a difference.
"We are generally not extremely wealthy, but we are extremely happy. We have (and world-wide we are about 40,000) everything we need and could possibly want."
So are millions upon millions of people of other faiths, as well as athiests and agnostics. But don't tell me you've never wanted more. Your comments later on in your response mention lust, and many other sins. Pretty much all of those sins have to do with material goods and/or wants.
"Well, my point was that there IS evidence that God blesses those who truly believe in him, you just have to know where to look..."
There IS evidence to those who choose to inturpurt it as evidence. There's nothing suggesting your good fortune and happy lives are attributed to God. You simply believe that they are.
"I think you'll agree with me when I say that jealousy, fear of people (and their opinions about you), selfishness, greed, seeking honour, lust, stinginess, dishonesty, lying, pride, etc. are evil, as in opposed to good."
Not really, actually. Though I'm confused why you put 'seeking honor' in there. Honor is a good thing. Seeking honor is just another society's way of doing good and helping those around them.
"God wants us to deny our self these feelings, and instead focus on being happy for your neighbour, fear God (do what he tells us to, be honest when nobody but God sees us, etc.), selflessness, generosity, low in oneself, purity, honesty, and humility, etc."
This is what I was talking about earlier. Social rules which bring a group of people to work togeather. Their basis in reality is without evidence, but people's belief in them does have an effect in the real world. If you all worked solo you'd all be a lot worse off.
"Well, I am convinced that we have an afterlife, but if I ever died and that was it, then what would I have to be sorry for?"
Do you need a powerful entity telling you to do things to live a good life? I don't.
"And if I spent my life denying myself and helping others, I would have had a happy life."
You could also have a happy life doing many other things, depending on what you value.
"Haven't you too experienced the joy of doing something for someone else with no thought whatsoever of what you yourself might gain from it? That is true happiness, and I strive to live for it. I believe that God is the one that governs that happiness, and the one who grants it."
Sure, I'm a good guy. I don't believe any supernatural being governs it though. There's no reason to. That's like saying Thor of ancient Norse mythology governs lightning. Sounds cool, but there's really no evidence.
"And by suffering in my flesh for a short time>> suffering = denying, short time = 80 years, my life. Denying oneself is suffering because it hurts to deny oneself. It hurts to give someone else what you want, it hurts to not get angry and violent when my little brother irritates me, just as it is hard to deny myself the lustful thoughts that youth brings, but I must remain pure for my Lord.
I have sinned, many times, but I always regret it and strive to do better the next time, to deny my sinful nature the next time. And the more I deny myself and emerge victorious, the easier it is to deny the next time. Sometimes it is extremely hard, but I pray to my Lord to give me strength. So it becomes easier and easier to deny myself, and I pray more and more to the Lord, and the happiness surrounds me more and more, until I live a life in complete happiness.
Now tell me that's not a life worth living."
Sure it is. It's just that what you believe in has little bearing on reality and how your life turns out. If you're with a group of people who believe the same things as you, you have support. Does it matter what they believe? Not really unless they're all from Psycho Murderes Anomynous. People work togeather because it's benificial to work togeather. This is shown across the world in as many situations as there are pairs of people. What isn't consistant is their beliefs.
"So, as I said, if I ever die and there is no more, I will quote Leonardo da Vinci, “As a day well spent brings happy sleep, so a life well used brings a happy death.”
There you have it :)"
But you'll be dead because there's no more. How could you quote anyone. @_@'
I accessed this from fictionpress.
Interesting discussion. Also interesting that it's centered around Christianity. I thought it might be interesting if another point-of-view were introduced - because God is a concept that ALL world religions share. If you do not find truth in the Bible, there are hundreds of other, equally valid approaches to spirituality and God.
It seems to me that you are not attracted to Christianity as an "organized religion," such as the missionaries and the grief they have caused in Africa. (Just so you know, I'm not Christian - I'm a Hindu who is familiar with the Christian religion). And admittedly, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of rules that cannot be followed today (the one about cutting off a woman's hand if she grabs the balls of a man during a fight?) But all religions are written with a context in mind. There are still valuable things to be learned from the Bible, if you take it in its context.
But I feel you don't realize that there are many other religions. I guess I'll go through your post quote by quote.
"And yet that very same religious belief is telling us that in order to achieve salvation - in order to have an eternity (a concept God evidently did not equip us to understand) in heaven, whatever that's supposed to be - we must ignore the very thing that makes us special in the first place. We must turn off our brains, ignore evidence, go against everything about the way we are built and put faith in spurious claims about a God who will not give us the slightest evidence that he exists."
First of all - who said reason must be detached from faith? Hinduism, for example, says the individual quest for knowledge is essential to salvation - and this involves questioning, the use of reason, etc. Reason is ESSENTIAL for scientific people to believe in God (in many Eastern religions).
Then - ah yes, evidence. Maybe the best metaphor I can come up with is - you can't see the human mind. You can only see the brain. THe mind and intellect are intangible - you can't touch them. And yet you know the mind and intellect exist within the brain, somehow. God (this is just one viewpoint) is like the mind and intellect. God is that life-force within humans that cannot be pinpointed inside a body, but God is the way humans live. The very presence of a life-force (which science, by the way, has yet to explain!) is, to me, enough proof of God.
The way you describe God is unflattering - you seem to think he is some sort of human-on-steroids, with numerous unpleasant qualities - "God comes out looking like a narcissistic, capricious creep."
"And, frankly, that is not the kind of being that I feel is even deserving of worship." I understand this.
But it seems you are stuck in a very Western point of view. The Eastern concept of God is that God isn't some overgrown human in the sky - God is just truth and life. In that case, what evidence is there AGAINST God?
Also, you're looking at the Old Testament. The New Testament is an entirely "New Law" - a new way of looking at life, instead of the "eye-for-eye" politics of the Old Testament. The New Testament is based on love and forgiveness. So that's another assumption you seem to make - that all Christians worship this vengeful God. But that's not true - they look to Jesus (the symbol of love) for salvation.
"Studies continue to show that religious faith declines as people get more educated....In contrast, poor and ignorant societies have overwhelming levels of religious belief..."
Maybe it's because as people become more educated, people need God less. People don't need to believe in a greater Power because they're making their own money, they're learning about science, it's not vital or necessary to be spiritually inclined. Poor people cling to faith, certainly, because that might be all they got - but faith has enormous healing powers. Does that mean they're ALL believing in something fake - in something impotent?
Besides, I think I contradict that statement. The more educated I become (and I love learning and seek it out), the more my belief in God is reaffirmed.
I thought your referral to poverty was a digression, actually.
"Poverty is not a good thing, no matter what Mother Teresa (who couldn't sustain her own faith) tried to tell people, and we should be trying everything we can to bring people out of it. If poverty is more conducive to faith than prosperity and education, how can we see faith as the ultimate virtue?" It doesn't follow. Mother Teresa doubted her own faith, yes. But she DID try to bring people out of poverty? People don't become poor just so they can have more faith!! I mean, it's not the poverty is "more conducive to faith" - it's that poor people need God more. It's not that poverty is the best way to get faith, either.
"When I die, I expect to cease existing. My consciousness will end, and my body will rot in the ground (or be cremated, or whatever). But if, somehow, there is something there, I'm going to tell it exactly what Bertrand Russell did - there simply wasn't enough evidence. And if that's not good enough - if exercising my ability to reason isn't what I was supposed to do - then that's not where I want to spend eternity anyway."
(Side note: you seem to believe in what the Ancient Hebrews believed - that when you die, there's nothing else.)
Anyways, I suggest you broaden your perspective a bit by looking at other religions (and even just outside the Old Testament). You might see that many religions encourage the use of reason - that God can go with reason (that God could be the reason for man's reason, if that makes sense) - that God isn't necessarily an angry old man in the sky - and that intelligent, educated people can find proof in God in everyday life.
Thanks for the food for thought.
God is not about logic, but rather, about faith; I do not know that God exists, but I believe that God exists. Ultimately, God and religion on a whole are meant to give people hope, whether it is hope that they will continue a blessed life, or that they will escape their misery and live in paradise. Different people and different cultures will cast that hope in different lights. All major religions have had the same start: a teacher recieves a revelation from a "greater being," and as a result, sets on a life-long journey to spread his revelation. Many of the core beliefs also have common ground: the idea of a higher consciousness, a place of ultimate peace, punishment for those who stray--are they coincidence? Or do they point to faith that is inherent in humans?
Interestingly enough, I am agnostic, and not Christian...must be the East Asian plus science-oriented thing...
This is an interesting blog, and I will be keeping up with this. So keep posting. :)
I am a Christian and I believe in God.
Honestly though, all you eloquent, ardent Christians.. even if you win an argument a soul is likely to be lost. Thus, I will not argue although I do disagree with some of what has been said.
To the author (Micah, is it?): Just wondering, have you heard of Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box, the Edge of Evolution, etc) though? If not, you should consider taking a look at his writing. He is not religious or a Christian and I think you could/would appreciate his views.
"To the author (Micah, is it?): Just wondering, have you heard of Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box, the Edge of Evolution, etc) though? If not, you should consider taking a look at his writing. He is not religious or a Christian and I think you could/would appreciate his views."
I would counter your suggestion with a suggestion of my own. Evolution for Everyone, by David Sloan Wilson. Our blog host has already read this I believe. From what I've read so far, it's really good at explaining the theory and all the jibber jabber surrounding it.
i hope that one day, you will open up your heart.
because not all comes down to mere logistics and sense.
you should not discount it for what it offers, but should investigate it thoroughly before cancelling it out so completely.
so many things of this world are temporary highs.
there is only one complete and infinite happiness, and i pray that you will find it one day.
and megalomaia!:
sadomasochistic?
wow thats a pretty intense manner of completely writing off something that means so much to countless people. do you honestly think that it is all just a mere coincidence. please. see the truth.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Dieta, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://dieta-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
People debate religion from different sources, through different subjective lens, and in different sociological cultures.
That's my two cents.
I'm posting because I'd really like to know about Micah's sources for the Christianity blame for the AIDS epidemic. I'm doing research for a novel that's very theologically based. Imagine that.
Micah, if you've got the time and inclination, would you send that information my way? I'd appreciate it.
The chances of everything being here exactly as they are are 1. Because life as we know it exists, then the chance of that existance is 1.
Actually proving that existance using anything other than an a priori argument is impossible. Thus to either prove or disprove the existance of God, relies on the premise that there is at least one known piece of knowledge.
Since you choose to reject the notion that God exists as part of your a priori standpoint, then proving the premise is impossible.
"Faith" for want of a better word, is, merely the belief that whatever a priori standpoint you take (because even an athiest takes a staring point) is correct.
Your dismissal of the Mormons in your argument that religious conviction declines with education strikes me as surprisingly illogical. "People become less religious the more educated they become, except for the Mormons--but they don't count, because...they have a school." But of course we all know that BYU is only an indoctrination center. After all, no one from BYU ever contributes anything that can be considered REAL science.
What's ironic is that of all the religions in the world, Mormonism is one of the only ones that claims that God DID"come down and told us flat out 'Hi, I exist!'" and gives us "evidence that [God] exists." But if that's not evidence enough, I don't know what is.
onelowerlight: Congratulations, you picked a good time to comment. I'm actually going to restart this damn thing.
Anyway, I honestly think it's fairly obvious that BYU skews the higher education numbers for Mormons. It's not an indoctrination center, but it does enable continued belief. People are more likely to challenge their beliefs in an environment that does not coddle them. When you go to BYU, you are surrounded by tons of people who believe as you do, people who you would likely be alienated from if you dropped your belief, and so you are likely to continue to believe it. Mormons are also a better organized religion than most, AND they have the two-year missionary commitment, which likely helps affirm the faith and takes place around college age. It is, I think, the single best religion in America at building a faith support system around its members. My comment was not incorrect, but it was incomplete.
This isn't to say that BYU isn't a good school in many respects. It has a number of highly respected programs, I believe. And it's not like I'm saying Mormons are stupid - one of my senior Clinic project members at Harvey Mudd was a Mormon, and he made an excellent team leader. Some of the smartest people I've known are Mormons. But they all have an incredibly strong support system built around their faith, one that you'd have to take a sledgehammer to before you could even get one of them to start questioning their beliefs.
That's one of the things that I think higher education usually does - it gets people out of their support systems and lets them take a look at what they believe without a whole chorus behind them going "what you know is right," because as long as you have that, you generally don't even WANT to consider that you might be wrong. And it gives them the tools they need to question those beliefs. But between BYU and missionary work and the sheer level of organization in the Mormon Church, this process works in reverse for many Mormons. It gives them the same tools, but puts them to use in support of their beliefs, and that makes them even more solid. The Mormons that I have known, almost invariably, are very friendly, very smart, and the most religious people that I know.
Which is, frankly, why I often avoid arguing with them about this stuff. Because I think the whole religion is a fairly obvious con and has been from the start. Christopher Hitchens has the whole thing summed up fairly succingly here. I'm afraid you're likely to find it terribly offensive (or at least egregiously wrong, probably both), but I guess that's the nature of the debate.
Yes, the LDS church is very well organized and has an very supportive social dynamic. However, this doesn't mean that we aren't encouraged to question our beliefs. Growing up in the church, I always felt there was strong, unrelenting pressure for me to "gain my own testimony" and not "live off of the testimony of others." In Mormonspeak, gaining a "testimony" means finding out for myself if Mormon doctrine is true and if I can believe and accept it regardless of any support system. I was always encouraged by my church leaders to question my beliefs, to put them to the test and find out for myself, independent of anyone else, if they were true.
All of this happened before college. In fact, it happened before my mission, too. Missions are unique experiences. Yes, there is a very well organized support system for missionaries, but at the same time, the rigors and stresses of the work make it impossible to simply coast along. A lot of missionaries actually drop out and go home early because they aren't ready to stand on their own conviction, independent of the other church members. In some ways, it's like a Mormon boot camp, where you won't make it to the end unless you find / already have a strong personal conviction, independent of the church's social structure or support.
So, while the church organization does provide a lot of support for the members, it's not the kind of support that shuts out the outside world and keeps its members from ever being exposed to the difficult questions. In fact, one of the strengths of the church is that it both encourages its members to ask the difficult questions and points them towards the answers at the same time. In the end, it's always a matter of personal discovery and revelation, which the church encourages. As Joseph Smith said, "I teach men true principles and let them govern themselves." The church teaches us the principles and sends us out in the real world to discover what they actually mean.
As for the article you linked, I glanced over it and found it slightly amusing. It struck me as a typical hatchet job that repeats old claims that have been extensively rebutted, relies heavily on innuendos and pathos instead of clear, measurable accusations, and ignores inconvenient facts. For example, the author referenced Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History, as one of his main sources, but from his discussion it appears he's never read or considered Hugh Nibley's systematic rebuttle of Brodie, No, Ma'am, That's Not History. A fair discussion of the issues would have addressed Nibley instead of rehashing a discussion that was already old two or three decades ago. In other areas, the author simply reported false information. He claims that Joseph Smith never showed the gold plates to anybody, yet in the first few pages of the Book of Mormon you will find two affidavits signed by eleven men who witness that they saw and handled the gold plates. Besides this, Joseph Smith's mother in her biography of her son gives a detailed description of the plates when she carried them in a burlap sack. Joseph Smith also showed the Urim and Thummim, the device found with the plates that he used to translate them, to numerous people. That the author simply glosses over these documented historical events is evidence of his own ignorance and poor methodology.
In short, if all of your exposure to Mormonism consists of this article by this man, you are doing yourself an immense injustice. It would be like me going to Jack Chick to learn about the way the atheists see the world. In fact, I'm not sure which would be more credible--Jack Chick on atheism, or Christopher Hitchens on Mormonism. They both are basically doing the same thing.
Oh, and you might find this rebuttal of Mr. Hitchens interesting. Really, I'm surprised that a man of your intelligence would put any credence in this Christopher Hitchens at all. His accusations, not only against Mormonism, but against religion in general, are so ridiculous and absurd that I find it hard to be offended by him at all.
OK I know this post was like eons ago and I don't even believe that you'll read this... but... I still want to leave a comment, in case you DO actually happen to read.
Don't worry I am not gonna try to enlighten you and try to prove to you that God DOES actually exist.
I am a Christian, but I guess that the way I see and what I understand under Christianity is far different from what most people think. In fact I'll go prob to hell in their opinion (which is really ridiculous, since I don't believe in something as primitive as heaven and hell).
But I wanted to point out to you a few matters. I think that if we are really honest with ourselves, we'll have to admit, that in the end, we all believe in something, and I am not talking about religious beliefs. Like an Atheist believes that there is no God, someone else believes in love and so on. But in the end, we all believe in somehting, caus ethat's human nature, in fact I think that we CANT live without believeing in something. It tears us apart, not to believe in something, and be it only that the sun goes up every single morning, that we'll see the sun after each night.
I believe in christianity as a way of living, as a view of life, that goes far deeper than any stupid, egoistical prayers, and lets be honest, most people pray only for egoistical reasons "God, give me money," "God, help me win this game" "God.... blah blah blah" no wonder that most people are so disgusted by that. All those churches are so rotten and decadent, it' really disgusting. There is nothing left of true christianity.
So back to that, I believe that Christianity is really a worldview, a way to live that doesn't come from any belief, that isn't dictated from the church (seriously, in what century do we live?!!!) but comes from oneself. It's essence is always the question, how do I have to live, what do I have to do, to let everybody around me free while not loosing my own freedom. What do I have to do to not be egoistical but never loose my own will. And that is one of the most difficult questions at all. It's too easy to say God know everything, i only have to be a socalled good person and I'll go to heaven. And everything about those arguments are so ridiculous that most of the time I don't think that they're even worth replying to. But to do something because your belief says so and because you are scared to go to hell is really just absurd. You can be a good person without all that God trallallaaa, and you'll probably even do a lot more good in the world.
No I don't believe in a God like that, I don't believe that one has to go to church to achieve salvation, I don't believe in salvation and I am probabl going to go to hell in those peeople's opinions. But I think that nowadays, the church should never be the primary force, it should never be because of some primitive priest who tells one what to do, that one decides to really do something good. I think that you can't believe anymore nowadays, but you can live after that principle (how to never ever limit and offend the freedom of those around you, while not loosing your own freedom), and when you still feel the need to go to church then you can do that. But Christianity does not come from the church, it is a way tolive that should come from the soul, and for that you don't need any priests.
And no I don't believe that being a true Christian invloves studying the Bible, being baptized and so on. We just have to look at all those sick people who called themselves christians but did one horrible disgusting deed after the other. It's stupid to say one has to read the Bible and be enlightened when people don't even undertand half of what is written in the Bible. People ho call themselves true Christians read Dan Brown and think that they have finally understood it all. I think that really proves how truly deep their belief is going.
No being a true Christian is a way of living not because there is an almighty God who will punish you for your evil sins, but because that view of life encompasses ones whole soul and it is a really just a lot of working one oneselve and ones flaws, because otherwise one will never ever be able to live after that principle of freedom. If one truly does try to do that, one will have to face a lot of oneselves problemms, and have to learn to see and UNDERSTAND ohters, to truly see them, leave ones own predujices behind and learn to delve into others.
It's really a very old way of living and after the same principle as Manichaeism. Because once one truly starts to that, really learning to understand and see others, then one comes to the point, wehre the pain and suffering of another person becomes ones own. And in the end people who live after that principle, say:
We can't be happy, as long as there is a single person on this earth, still suffering and so we won't stp in our quest to really do everything to take the pain of others and help them.
(and by that I don't mean bringing the right and true religion and salvation).
I don't expect everyone to think lie that, and I know that most "christians" will call me all kinds of names, but I believe that that's what christianity in it's essence is all about, it's what the early Christians tried to do, long before the church and nowadays, I don't believe that anyone really needs a church, not for this kind of work. At least not a church as most of them, because if we are all honest, nowadays, most churches are just rotten festered from the inside.
Ani
(PS: sorry for any stupid mistakes, but English isn't my first language, actually forth, so I am not as fluent).
Foremost, the dominant religion in Africa is Islam, with Christianity a close second. While largely Christian countries in Africa have a high rate of AIDS in relation to Muslim countries that have a lower rate, the reporting of incidents of AIDS in Muslim countries are inconsistent and less likely (and, also, countries such as Egypt are more industrialised, and access to healthcare is not easy by any Scandinavian standards, but it is definitely easier than in other countries).
I have worked in Uganda (and continue to do so) in the field of education and relief/aid (currently, I am working with an organisation that is building a free, SECULAR, non-government primary school to get the kids out of the sandmines), and they are one of the most Christian countries in the region. They have also been one of the most successful to reduce their rate of AIDS in the last 15 years. This was due to government initiatives (in particular, working in coalition with churches)through education, a stabilising economy, and access to healthcare and to affordable contraception.
Economic stability is a contributing factor to AIDS proliferation, as emerging economies tend to have men (many of whom are married) who regularly travel into the cities to earn money. They are more likely to have multiple sexual partners without the use of contraception. A deep Christian faith would actually suggest married men to remain faithful to their wives. This is the reason a condom-only approach of AIDS in Africa doesn't work because their compulsions are not necessarily religious (though they could be). In the case of Uganda, they used the "ABC" approach (Abstain, Be faithful, Condom use). Contraception and Christianity in Uganda are not necessarily mutually exclusive and have proven to be effective.
But it is simplistic to propose that Christianity has contributed significantly to the AIDS crisis in Africa, just as it is simplistic to believe that Christianity and catchy slogans such as "ABC" have solely alleviated the AIDS situation in Uganda. We must first understand, number one, that each of the countries in Africa are not interchangeable and so how AIDS is addressed depends on the African country itself; and, two, that you cannot isolate a single factor in the "AIDS crisis in Africa" to explain why AIDS continues to spread as it does, without also understanding the effects of colonialism, tribalism, government systems, corruption and the economic situation.
I found your blog entry to be generally cogent and thoughtful, but it was the example using Africa that I raised a brow at. Too often, here in the West, we reduce the situation in Africa to certain issues, themes, or images we see on poverty-porn advertisements. Referring to African nations as "ignorant societies" is an ignorant statement. Education does not only rest on how many philosophers one can cite. There are very smart (and rich!) people in Africa, and often they are the ones who profit from the situation there and work to keep it that way. To have such an arrogant and patronising view of the continent is insulting to the great strides people make there, and counter-productive to educating people outside Africa on its situation. The political economy in the different countries, and what happens on the ground is far more complex than what is seen on TVs, what can be read in books, or what statistics on literacy rates imply; which is why AIDS reduction programs and strategies should be (and are) developed with this in mind.
Post a Comment