I read a bite-sized article recently called 10 MYTHS — AND 10 TRUTHS — ABOUT ATHEISM, by Sam Harris - and while it's not an ideal introduction to the ideas of Atheism (more of an entry-point, really) my immediate reaction upon reading it was to wanna post it as a MySpace bulletin; I decided a blog might be a better choice of context, though. After all, I have a diverse group of friends ranging from Christians and Quakers, to Deists, Agnostics and Atheists -- plus probably some new-agey crystal-worshiping types -- and while I know none of them would be offended by my posting an informative bit about Atheism, I thought this might be more constructive.
These are my thoughts: Why is it that religion is such an impossibly sensitive topic—among friends, even? I mean it's the one fundamental belief that we all have (or don't have), upon which arguably all of our meaningful decisions are somehow based, and yet the subject seems almost pathologically avoided in the presence of opposing viewpoints. Granted, I do have a few religious friends with whom I've managed to have meaningful discussions, and I don't want to marginalize them. But on the whole, there seems to be a threshold of emotion that you don't have to cross to know is there. In a sense, I feel obliged to the same terms of privacy that apply to one's sex-life, the difference being that belief and non-belief have everything to do with what motivates those around me. For this reason, I'd like to promote some online dialogue because in my experience, any disputing of religion (outside the context of mediated debate) is unpleasant; it either becomes uncomfortable, or loses any sort of focus, to the extent that I'd sooner propose the party topic "What STD's does everyone have?" than challenge the merits of religion in mixed company. It's just too steeped in emotion.
So why bring this anxiety to MySpace, Matt? What gives? I'm here to have fun and forget about things. And aren't you being kind of "psycho" about all this? Well, that's for you to know and me to find out -- I certainly don't mean to offend. Really, I'd just like to open the lines of communication in this here blog, so consider this an invite to share some information regarding Belief vs. Non-Belief; an article, a story, a reaction… anything is welcome.
I'll start with this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
actually this is Swoops (a comment from earlier), and I've responded below---------
Matt, you’re correct in insisting that in order for us to have a meaningful discussion about god/religion we must first agree upon a suitable definition of what sort of god-form we aim to debate. Bryan has emphasized the constraints/impediments of language in doing so, raising concerns over how difficult this can be. I believe that it is both necessary and possible, however, the nature of religious testimony is slippery, and I’ve noticed religious apologists doing their best to cloud the waters surrounding the issue of a personal god, often appropriating Metaphysics and Naturalism in misleading ways to support their very specific and nuanced claims of what God is to them. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, sees a need to differentiate between three different types of religious sympathy:
1. Deism holds that there is a supreme being—a creator of the universe—but that there is no reason supporting that being’s involvement in the affairs of humankind (i.e. no answering of prayers, no final judgment, no divine moral imperatives)
2. Pantheism/Naturalism suggests that god is all that exist—everything encompassed in the known and unknown universe is equivalent to God—leading to the interchangeable use of the words God and Nature. (***It’s worth noting that Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and other dedicated rationalists, have used “God” in a loose or metaphorical sense to describe the astounding interactions of nature. For Einstein in particular, this was a tendency largely influenced by the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who was a Pantheist, and who’s writings are often sited to argue the existence of God***)
3. Theism—the familiar platform— is one that believes in a deity or deities that are appropriate for worship. In most cases, that deity is an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent supreme being. (Origins: religious texts, prophets, divine sources)
So how meaningful (or surly a better word is ‘applicable’) are the first two more nebulous and equally unverifiable ideas of god: deism and pantheism? I would say not very, because they don’t bring us any closer to the prospect of a personal god to which we are accountable. Bryan, I felt that you were outlining a sort of Naturalistic (Darwinian), but more so metaphysical (Hegelian) god hypothesis, so that we might try and test it and realize the difficulty in doing so, in which case, my aim is to delineate the stark contrast between those devoted to a personal god—living in accordance to scripture, embracing the “incontrovertible” truths communicated to them through divine revelations—and Naturalism, the overarching umbrella of a variety of impotent theories on creation. Pantheism, Deism, and-the-like, are a far cry from any commonly accepted notion of God, and are of little help in guiding our daily actions.
This is not to say that these 'best guesses' are completely without meaning—they do, after all, attempt to answer the most begged questions of all time—but they are indeed hypotheses that cannot be proven or attested to by any familiar standard. Karl Popper, the influential 20th century Austrian philosopher may have unintentionally lent his ‘Criterion of Falsifiability’ to misconstruction in posing that while there is no way to prove that assertion (A) is the case, we can hypothesize that it is, and so long as it is not disproven and continues to seem consistent with our theory, we can go on believing it. This however, should be understood in the context of the debate going on at the time, which concerned Hume’s ‘Problem of Induction’; the logical fallacy that is our assumption that the future will continue to conform to the past (i.e. the sun will continue to rise and set, the forces of gravity will continue to act on us) The obvious difference though, between daily events and theories of creation, is that the coarse of the sun and the effects of gravity can be witnessed first hand. God, on the other hand, can only be attested to in the form of religious experience, which as you stated Bryan, is a lot like trying to describe “yellow” to someone who has no prior concept of yellow (or the color wheel for that matter). The burden of proof nonetheless lies on the theologian, and in that respect, appeals to Naturalism and Metaphysics (God as an abstraction, ect.) are a great way of creating a vehicle to carry religious interests past the border-patrol of science and rationality—it’s a sly way of opening the doors to a god prospect (and maybe a language game more than anything)—but it’s the point at which that vehicle is loaded-down with specific knowledge-claims of God’s identity—and the implied demands of how we ought live in accordance with that god—that it becomes more than an addendum; to me it’s an impossible leap.
I would love to have someone address the above-mentioned ‘leap’ on this forum because this to me is the debate of consequence.
So my question is: What constitutes the ‘leap of faith,’ as it applies to our world religions, and why should we continue to give it serious consideration?
Posted by Swoops On Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 1:09 AM
BF--------------------
For most folks, Naturalism and Deism don’t dictate our daily actions so explicitly as Theism, you’re right about that Swoops. But I disagree that Naturalism and Deism are of little help to the ethically-conscious human (in her day-to-day life). I, personally, find a lot of excitement in Spinoza’s claim that all substance is infinite, quite like (if not, the same as) God. How am I to act ethically without some sort of eternal or timeless perspective on matter?
That said, concerning Theism: People listen or worship gods for a variety of reasons. I propose the least of the reasons that people worship is because their God deserves their worship. People worship God for the good of their physical health, their wisdom, their immediate salvation (which I like to think of as happiness, euphoria, or Zen), or their eternal salvation. It seems to me that popular Atheism’s primary beef with Theism is NOT that theists irrationally conceive of God; atheists disprove of poorly conceived forms of God-worship. Examples of irrationally-conceived forms of God-worship might be: prayer, legislature, war, or any other personal interaction with God at the expense of another living thing.
I think that these forms of worship are the “leaps of faith” most applicable to our discussion. When we talk about a “leap of faith,” we usually refer to a specific action, rather than a general belief: the action has immediate consequences. In “The Last Crusade,” Indian Jones had to take a leap of faith over the chasm, a do-or-die moment in time. To me, Theism doesn’t seem like a “leap of faith,” because there are no immediate or certain consequences. But in answer to your question,
(What constitutes the ‘leap of faith,’ as it applies to our world religions…?)
world religions employ “leaps of faith” in order to rationalize their daily modes of worship. Example: “God intends for me to own this land, and by forcefully taking the land I am pleasing God and myself.” Woah! This statement ignores our previous observations, like (1) violence breeds retaliation, or (2) necessity, not destiny, determines habitat? (1) and (2) are fine examples of falsifiable criterion, yet to be disproved. When we overlook long-standing hypotheses such as these, we make a “leap of faith.” (Side note: don’t all natural laws and commonly accepted facts fall into this category of falsifiable criterion?)
The world of humans has a problem with day-to-day decision-making. Why is this? Do the poor decisions of militant nations really have as much to do with God as they do with any number of other factors? …like (1) misunderstood social identity, (2) misunderstood history, (3) lack of education, (4) evolutionary mutations (i.e. new social ideas!) which contradict previously accepted falsifiable criterion?
Another way to ask this question is: If God wasn’t involved, would people still likely make poor decisions?
-BF
Post a Comment