"It comes down to admitting that we all find the God or no-God for which we are looking.
"Both sides would be forced to admit that there is significant evidence to support the views held by the other side and each would have to take responsibility not only for the beauty and goodness achieved by holding their respective beliefs, but also for the incredible harm which has been done by those same beliefs and dis-beliefs. What we ultimately decide, says more about who we are than it does about anything else. And as long as the decision reached actually makes the world better and safer, even for those who don't share our conclusions, it would make it the right conclusion for us.
"Let each side stop talking about proofs and dis-proofs and speak instead about the results of belief and disbelief in their own lives. Let each side assess the impact of God in the world in which we live."
Maybe the goal isn't proving or disproving one belief or another, or lack of belief, but rather taking the evidence from the impact such beliefs have in our life and the lives of others.
I like that.
I know that my belief in God (as a general concept) makes me happier, makes me more peaceful, and makes me try to find the best in myself and others.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems to do the opposite to some other people. :)
I agree, Kay. I find peace and grace that I cannot explain. But yes, religion seems to do the distinct opposite for many people.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with the original article. I was looking for God; I found none. I certainly didn't find any proof to back up my beliefs, which is why I abandoned them. I never wanted to be an atheist, but the evidence clearly led me that way.
ReplyDeleteAs for "Let each side assess the impact of God in the world in which we live," how can an atheist do that when he believes there is no God to have an impact? Only a Christian with an inability to see things from the other side could have written that article.
Of course it's impossible to disprove the existence of something - try disproving the existence of fairies or Santa Claus, for example - but it's also ridiculous to say that any god whose existence can be proven is not worth believing in. He's effectively saying that only an imaginary god is worth believing in, and thus shoots himself in the foot.
I understand your points, Barry.
ReplyDeleteI think what the author meant by "assessing the impact of the God..." meant both if one believes in God, or in no God, how does that impact one's life? At least that's the way I read it.
Also, I think the author's point is that evidence has nothing to do with spirituality at all. I do know many believers who would argue this point, as a close family member made it his life mission to convince people of the "scientific" evidence of God...but the arguments make no sense.
In any case, I think the point of the article was just that we ALL should be looking at the good that our faith (whether it be in God or Man or Science) brings to the world. And that is what I agree with.
I think how one reads the article depends on where one stands in the theism-atheism spectrum, really.
ReplyDeleteI cannot assess the impact of God on the world, as I don't believe he exists, but I can assess the impact those who believe in him have had on the world. And while many of them have been responsible for innumerable individual acts of goodness and kindness, others have been responsible for innumerable acts of cruelty and evil in the name of their god. Atheism has never led to anything like the crusades, the Inquisition or 9/11, to give just three high-profile examples.
I tend to think I'm pretty far along the atheism spectrum, if it is a spectrum. Relatively speaking. :) I side more with you than the other.
ReplyDeleteSo here's my question....does atheism impact your life for good? If so, how? I think that's the point of the article, and it's something I think about.
Also, I tend to think that Christians and atheists need to agree that neither position is provable. Can you prove to me that God does not exist? (Not that I believe he does, but for argument's sake.)
In my mind, it doesn't make any more sense to NOT believe in God because there is no proof that he exists...than it does to believe in God because there is no proof that he does not exist. This is where I falter. I think the entire subject is far more complicated than that.
I absolutely agree with your other points. But, then, is it true that atheism does not cause anything harmful?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou're a rather unique case, Erin - a believer who can empathise with us nonbelievers. Believe me, I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteDoes atheism impact my life for good? I would say it does. Not believing in superstitions means I have to focus more on reality. Also, as I think I've told you before, I have much less fear of death now I don't believe in heaven or hell.
It's true that neither theism nor atheism is provable, but the balance of probability is so in favour of atheism that I'm willing to stake my life on it. Surely if God were real there would be ample evidence of his existence; so-called "lesser beings" have much more evidence for their existence than their supposed creator.
It's almost impossible to prove a negative, so I can no more prove that there is no God than I can prove there is no Santa Claus. However, the lack of evidence for either speaks volumes. I could turn the question around: why believe in a god for whom there is absolutely no evidence? Internal conviction can be misleading; Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes novels, believed absolutely that fairies were real. There was no less evidence for his belief than for a theist's belief in God.
Is it true that atheism doesn't cause anything harmful? In a word, yes. Both atheists and theists have done bad things, but nobody does them in the name of atheism. Stalin was an atheist, to give the most famous example, but his crimes were the result of his political ideology and his being a sociopath, not of his atheism. Nobody commits evil deeds in the name of atheism, but a great many have done so (and continue to do so) in the name of their God. Atheists don't fly planes into buildings, or at least not because of their atheism. Similarly, people do not organise crusades or inquisitions in the name of atheism.
If there was no evidence that my wife existed, you'd think I was crazy if I told you I was married. If there was no evidence that you existed, I'd be wasting my time trying to interact with you on a blog and on Facebook. If there was no evidence that Barack Obama existed, the USA would rapidly organise an election to choose a new President. Why hold God to different standards of proof?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK, so I understand the "I can't prove there is no Santa Clause". I get it. :)
ReplyDeleteI hope you know this is good-natured discussion, and not argument aimed at convincing anyone or belittling anyone's beliefs. I simply have to work through the things I'm not yet convinced of myself.
Why believe in a God for which there is no evidence? Of course, this depends on how one defines God. Not the biblical God, of course. But I do still believe in "something else".
I believe there is more to the human brain, more to the human connection, than science yet knows. Call it God or call it the unknown. But for me, there is something I cannot explain. I don't mean in the supernatural or paranormal sense, but in the intuitive, empathetic sense. The senseless acts of kindness, the love.
The following thoughts are not directed at you, but as a generalization about atheists. You say atheists cause no harm. I did say "harm", not "evil". The one thing I can point my finger to is the way some (many) atheists treat the faithful as if they are complete idiots. That is no different than the faithful judging atheists. It's the "I'm so enlightened, and you're so dumb" mentality. And I hate it from both sides. I like to think I'm smarter than average, and I understand the science that drives atheism and agree with it. However, I still believe there is more to our existence than we know at this point. I don't think this makes me dumb.
And then, who has the right to judge as true or not my personal, internal convictions - considering everything we still do not know about the human brain?
I'm not suggesting that science is in any way flawed, only that it is not a complete picture. I know there are things I feel that are not logical, and I fully believe these "feelings" may be scientifically proven one day as having a logical explanation. But for now, I call it "God". I don't think the science of today is the end of the road. If science had an end, we would all still believe the universe is geocentric. :)
As well, I believe historical peoples often assigned the term "God" to anything they did not understand. I also believe they used the idea of God to give weight to their lifestyle and practices. If those are true, who's to say God doesn't exist?
Why hold God to different standards of proof? It's not logical, to be sure. But it's because I believe God is in the as of yet unknown. I believer one day we will be able to prove God -- not the biblical God but something scientific that we have mistaken for God. Until then, I believe there is something I can feel that I cannot explain. I believe God is in the unknown of human physiology and possible of a connection we cannot yet understand or explain.
However, I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. :)
Wow that turned out to be long!
Don't worry, Erin. I know we're not arguing and I want to keep this discussion good-natured too. If I'm not pulling any punches (metaphorically speaking) it's because I think we know and respect each other well enough by now to know that neither of us is trying to score petty points or belittle the other.
ReplyDeleteI'll give you a full reply soon, but I wanted to get that part out front first :o)
There is always going to be more to reality than science knows. However, that’s not the same as saying it is *in theory* unknowable to science.
ReplyDeleteIntuition, empathy, kindness and love can all be explained by Darwinian means, however. Such traits are still functions of our brains, as are our minds themselves. They evolved for a purpose, because they were good for us as social animals. They seem good to us because they serve (or served) a role in the development of our species and thus improved our ability to reproduce. There is no reason to see a mystical purpose behind it, much less to attribute it to an all-powerful, personal God.
(For more on the evolution of religion, read Daniel Dennett's excellent book, "Breaking The Spell".)
I don’t think I said atheists cause no harm; I said atheism causes no harm. Atheists can be good, evil, beneficial or harmful just like everyone else, but that’s not a function of atheism. It’s a function of their individual personalities. I have a big problem with atheists who treat theists as idiots, just as I do with theists who assume atheists are all immoral or deficient in some way. I know some very intelligent people who are nevertheless Christians, Muslims, pagans or whatever.
I do draw a distinction between criticizing a person and criticizing what they believe, however. As far as I’m concerned people (usually) deserve respect and deserve not to be verbally attacked, but their beliefs are fair game. As are mine, of course.
You said: “And then, who has the right to judge as true or not my personal, internal convictions - considering everything we still do not know about the human brain?”
On an individual level, nobody can. But given the fact that people of all worldviews, many of them conflicting, have similar internal convictions that their worldview is true, I think we can make a general case that internal convictions are unreliable. That applies to mine as an atheist as much as to anyone else's. That’s why I try to base what I believe on evidence rather than feelings – it may seem cold, but it’s far more reliable.
“I'm not suggesting that science is in any way flawed, only that it is not a complete picture.”
I think anyone who knows anything about science would agree with you there. However, I see no reason to take the things we don’t understand and attribute them to a deity. It does not follow that because we don’t understand something, it must be supernatural or mystical in origin. We may not know the explanation yet, but that doesn’t mean a perfectly adequate physical or scientific explanation doesn’t exist.
If something is not logical, then I see no reason to believe it. I do agree that there is something scientific that people have mistaken for God, but I think that could best be explained by neuroscience and sociology rather than by mysticism or religion.
“I believe God is in the unknown of human physiology and possible of a connection we cannot yet understand or explain.”
In that case, what you are calling “God” is in fact not a divine being or the eternal creator of the universe, but just another function of the human brain. That sort of “God” I can accept, but I would never call it “God” as it is no more than a part of the mind that people unconsciously externalize and erroneously view as a separate being. Such a phenomenon, in my opinion, is so far removed from the usual concept of "God" that the term is no longer appropriate.
“However, I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. :)”
So do I, and so does anyone with any sense. However, I’ll only change my mind if either more evidence, or a better explanation of the evidence, comes to light.
Wow, you’re not the only one who can be long-winded! :o)
Trust in your feelings.
ReplyDeleteHaha. You summed up my entire point right here:
ReplyDelete"I do agree that there is something scientific that people have mistaken for God, but I think that could best be explained by neuroscience and sociology rather than by mysticism or religion."
That's what I'm saying. Maybe it makes no sense on a logical level, but for sure, there is something that has been considered to be God for many millennia. Until I know that such a thing can be scientifically proven (which I'm almost sure it can, one day) I don't understand it and to me it seems like something beyond me. I don't necessarily believe in God by any traditional definition, but I do believe that something that has been considered to be God, well, exists.
Scientific or not, there is a reason billions of people have believed in something that is traditionally explained as being God -- because there is. Those things connect with people on a level we do not yet have a good scientific explanation for. We very well have misunderstood the explanation as being metaphysical or ethereal for the emotional, spiritual and mystical experiences that have been shared by the masses. That doesn't mean those things don't exist, haven't happened. We just misunderstand them. But whatever those things are, they obviously have power, or they would not be followed by the masses. Maybe it's mass hysteria, but there has to be a reason that happens. It's not spontaneous.
On this level, I believe in God.
You said:
"In that case, what you are calling “God” is in fact not a divine being or the eternal creator of the universe, but just another function of the human brain. That sort of “God” I can accept, but I would never call it “God” as it is no more than a part of the mind that people unconsciously externalize and erroneously view as a separate being. Such a phenomenon, in my opinion, is so far removed from the usual concept of "God" that the term is no longer appropriate."
That is the place where we disagree -- what to call this phenomenon. Why do I continue to call it "God"? I don't know. Maybe because that is the simplest term for the purpose of explaining to people what I believe.
So maybe I'm "so far removed from the usual concept of God" that I shouldn't call it that. But I do. :)
I appreciate the conversation, Barry.
Nate - I do. I'm not sure what the cause of those feelings is, but I don't deny them.
ReplyDeleteSounds like we're actually not too far apart in our thinking. It's just that we use different terms.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that interesting? :)
ReplyDeleteTwo things stop me from being an atheist. I refuse to deny that there exists something that has power that we cannot explain. That, and I believe the words of Jesus have changed me for the better.
I enjoyed reading this exchange between you and Barry. I wish I could be so sure of myself in either direction. I think I can relate to wanting to believe in God but just not being able to.
ReplyDeleteBarbara - I wish I could be certain of something...all I really know is the idea that there is nothing to spirituality doesn't work for me...but I don't know what does. :)
ReplyDeleteOkay if I come late to the party?
ReplyDeleteThis comes quite close to what I've said for some time. If someone asks me why I believe in my gods, I will do my best to explain it to them. However, they would be in error if they assume that I am telling them why they should believe in my gods. I simply do not do that. I have no need or desire to do that.
I'd much rather talk about how my belief in and experience of my gods alters my life. I love to share how certain rites make me more aware of the need for compassion and fill me with the desire to seek out and help other people, in whatever little (or not so little) way I might discover.
But again, I think there is a danger is even this. When I speak of how my belief in and experience of my gods move me to act in certain ways -- usually in ways I consider good and noble -- I should take care to never imply that others are not moved to behave in equally good and noble ways by some other belief, philosophy, or line of reasoning. Otherwise, "sharing the impact of belief" merely becomes another way of arguing over whose belief (or lack of belief) is better.
Hey Jarred! I think you sum it up pretty well...and I wish that most religions would hold the attitude that everyone should believe the same thing. The world would be a nicer place.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that sharing why a your belief (or non-belief as it may be) does good in your life is the same as insisting that that should be everyone's experience. In fact, I think it's almost a mandate for any faith to have an answer for "what good does it bring in your life?" because if the answer is "none" then there is a problem. But then, your last sentence speaks volumes. It can't become a competition, and it has.
Glad to see you!
** I meant "I wish that most religions would NOT hold the attitude that everyone should believe the same thing."
ReplyDeleteI left out the "not" and the meaning changed. Oops!