Monday, 13 February 2012
-
A Friendly Response to "Is There a God?"
The following is a response to Nidan's post on Revelife: Is There a God?The Combatants
Our minds are indeed filled with great questions, most of which don't even begin to express the enormity of the task of providing accurate answers to those questions. One of the most humbling aspects of asking those questions is encountering the realization that we may not even be equipped to find the answers yet...or ever.
I really enjoyed the description of the three basic positions on the question of God's existence, primarily because it was more even-handed than most such descriptions. The list does omit some important distinctions, but it's pretty impossible to include them all if there's a character limit.
"On the question of God there are three basic positions. They are the Theist, the Agnostic, and the Atheist. Then in those positions people tend to lean on two sides.
- Theists lean from moderate to fundamentalist. (Though I prefer to use the word fanatic to describe them)
- Agnostics tend to lean towards theism or Atheism. (I lean theist)
- Atheists lean from moderate to fanatic as well. (Secular fanatic, specifically)"
So here they are, our contestants in the fight to answer what many people consider to be a great question, some consider to be an interesting question, and others consider to be a meaningless question. Who will win the battle?
The Battlefield
Nidan accurately points out that, in recent history, the public debate between theists and atheists has taken place largely on the battlefield of the questions of origins. Folks want to put forth their favored answers to the following questions: 1.) How did our world come about? 2.) How did we come to be in this world?
Obviously, there are related questions, (i.e. How long did it take for our world to come about?), and there are a variety of disagreements over the answers to those questions as well.
Rather than focusing on the questions and the various answers to them, which makes a discussion about answering the initial question either into a heinously long attempt to provide a comprehensive treatment of the subject or an impossible attempt to provide an account of the topic that is both concise and accurate...
Let's look at the tools we have available to answer questions about our existence, and see if we can pick the right tool for the job before heading into the fray.
The Weapons
As it turns out, we human beings don't have a large number of options when it comes to answering questions about our reality. There are two tools available:
- Reason
- Experience
Our combatants can use their experience or the experience of others to support their positions. They can use reason to construct and deconstruct arguments in support of their positions. And using both is often a possibility. Unfortunately, neither of these weapons work perfectly well in answering questions.
If we use reason to construct arguments in support of our positions, inevitably our opponents will use reason to deconstruct those arguments or attempt to falsify them using experience. If we use experience, our opponents will inevitably provide other experiences with which to counter it, or attempt to use reason to argue that the experience isn't sufficient to provide support for our positions. If we use experience and reason in tandem, those difficulties do not decrease. Sometimes the difficulties are compounded by using them in tandem because our opponents have more opportunities for effective rebuttal.
Some might suggest that if all we have are two lousy blunt weapons that we can't use to win the fight anyway, we should just stop fighting. I would agree that we should stop fighting over the answer to the question. It generally doesn't accomplish anything but headaches and hurt feelings. At the same time, the process of attempting to use those tools in the search for answers can be a great learning experience, especially if we do it in honest collaboration with those who do not share our views and are willing to challenge us in a constructive way.
The Terrain
In any battle, the terrain must be considered. We need to know which ravines we may fall into and which mountains we may have to climb. Speaking of which, I just noticed a boulder in our path.
The Law of Causality
I'm sorry, what law of causality? The Problem of Induction as laid out by David Hume demonstrates fairly well that even if causality exists, we have no rational justification for believing that it does. In addition, any inductive argument we make for our belief tends to simply beg the question or in some cases answer a slightly different question.
And even if we assume that the problem is solved by the means proposed to have solved it in the article referenced above, we still have a ways to go. If the Problem of Induction is solvable, and our belief in causality is rationally justified, then we just get turtles all the way down. I'll just apologize in advance to any turtles in may step on. But up ahead lies a jagged ravine. Let's take a look and see if those turtles can get us across.
Exclusion a Priori
I sympathize with your points about the use of Occam's Razor. I think it's overused and often abused in the debate over God's existence. There are too many instances of simple and yet horrifically wrong theories as well as complex correct ones for folks to be wielding that razor all willy-nilly.
And let's face it, Berkeley's idealism is a devastatingly simple approach to metaphysics, and yet is commonly rejected by the same folks who champion simplicity.
So when we have competing theories regarding the existence of God, how do we decide which is true if not using the principle of parsimony? Here we run into the Problem of the Criterion. I suspect that crossing this particular chasm, if it's possible, could take as many of our years as it takes light years to cross the universe. I don't think we have enough turtles for that.
Conclusion
This isn't intended to be a demonstration that the existence of God cannot be proven, or even that God's existence cannot be supported via rational or empirical means. What I would like the audience to consider is that the attempt to demonstrate God's existence or lack thereof is extraordinarily problematic, and that we may not have so much room to judge our opponents for their lack of solutions to those problems given that we often haven't solved them effectively either.
I look forward to your thoughts on the questions about Christianity and Jesus.
Do you agree or disagree with the above conclusions? Do both sides of the argument have a lack of solutions to the problem? If so, why do we always judge each other so harshly? How can we have a more friendly discussion about the existence of God?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Nous_Apeiron@xanga
- Name: Sam
- About Me: I'm odd and nerdy, serious about my personal integrity and physical health, care deeply about others, enjoy writing poetry and song in particular, like to understand the world in a deeper way than most, die laughing at excellent satire, and prefer meaningful relationships. Strange, I know. In my interactions with other people, I try to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable, just like that Jesus guy people are always talking about.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 6 Views: 0 7009 Comments: 0 404 View all posts by Nous_Apeiron@xanga
Comments (176)
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "I don't buy it" is the typical atheist response to inconvenient facts. If you don't know the role of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages with regard to preserving Greco-Roman civilization and the creation of Western civilization then you should sue your schools for malpractice.
Your lack of education is not my responsibility. I doubt whether you are really interested anyway so I'm not going to waste even one second doing your leg work for you.@too_pretty_to_die@xanga -
Wrong again-boy it is hard to carry on a conversation with you, you are so uninformed on these issues. Instead of just spitting out reteric you read on some blog somewhere why don't you do a little research on your own.
Josephus was a Jewish historian, did you get that? Jewish. He was a Jewish Pharisee. He had every motivation to expose Christ as a fraudulent movement or fraudulent miracles or whatever. But he did none of that, wrote of no one person that dissented or broke ranks. Nothing was written because everything, I mean everything as the historical gospe claim happened exactly as it says. So I hope you like charred food for your going to be a little extra crispy when your eternally in the lake of fire!
btw none of any messianic claimants did the miracles Christ did or rose from the dead. Think! You need to consider the whole picture here.
Again wrong. Christianity was not an underground cult the first few decades. Man, you need to really get your head out of your behind. You really have no idea what your talking of. The first three decades Christianity was being preached openly all over by the Apostle Paul. Their headquarters was Jerusalem. I mean do you even read before you comment on things you have absolutely no idea what your saying. You are so incoherant I am having trouble discussing this with you rationally. Christianity did not start to become an underground cult until the fires of Rome were blamed on the Christians in 68AD by Emperor Nero.
Its not absense of proof. It is proof that the historical documents of who Christ claimed He was, the many miracles he performed and predicted, His crucifixion death, in the grave 2 days, rose from death on 3rd day, lived with desciples 40 days and ascension to heaven all occurred as the historical documents claim. All this means if you deny Him, and die before you recant asking for your forgiveness are eternally lost forever and ever!
Josephus is relevant because he records no evidence that it didn't happen. This is proof it did.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
Not only science. All education came from the church. It is still true today. The best schools in any 3rd world nation are always the Catholic or Christian ones.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
It is true. Without the Catholic church we would all be speaking Aramaic and Islam would be the only religion in the world. Without the Catholic church Islam would have overun Western Europe long brfore Columbus sailed.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga -
"He had every motivation to expose Christ as a fraudulent movement or fraudulent miracles or whatever."
why? we know nothing of Josephus' opinions on Jesus' followers, who at the time of his life still considered themselves part of Judaism as a whole. if Josephus really was motivated to dislike Christian belief, i think he never would have mentioned them to begin with. plus, Josephus was writing on behalf of Roman officials, for a Roman/pagan audience. and he was writing history as he knew it to have happened, not a personal treatise on religion. there's no reason to believe that, had he sought to disprove Christian claims, anything related to that would have ended up being written in the text.
" Nothing was written because everything, I mean everything as the historical gospe claim happened exactly as it says."
then i'd love for you to address the discrepancies in the Gospels, including the ones considered apocryphal.
"btw none of any messianic claimants did the miracles Christ did or rose from the dead. "
actually, if you really knew your Josephus, you'd be familiar with Simon of Peraea. google it, i think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
" The first three decades Christianity was being preached openly all over by the Apostle Paul."
and that was allowed by the Romans due to the fact that Christianity was still considered a smaller sect of Judaism, which was a legally recognized religion in the empire. i was speaking specifically of the few decades after Christianity became a distinct religion.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
"So it is irritating when atheists try to excuse or justify their denial of reality (the existence of God) with science, which is a product of Christianity."
you're the one who claimed you have scientific proof of God. i'm just wondering what it is. personally, i don't think the two have anything to do with each other. and my status as an agnostic has nothing to do with science whatsoever. so it's equally irritating for you to assume i don't believe in God because of science.
"Saint Thomas Aquinas, from the Middle Ages, wrote down the proofs of God from the ancient Greeks in his work, "Summa Theologica". "
the Summa is hardly scientific, secular OR mainstream. i'm going to assume that, in reality, you do not have any outside scientific sources for your "a posteriori" theory. so, thanks for playing :)
"I doubt whether you are really interested anyway so I'm not going to waste even one second doing your leg work for you."
and, since you originally introduced the argument without anything to back it up but your own opinion, i'm going to assume you're just arriving at whatever conclusions make you happiest and most comfortable in your faith. last i checked, it's not my job to find your evidence for you. you made a claim. let's see you prove it with something other than your own words.
have a good weekend!!!"
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I didn't claim to have scientific proof of God. I took special care to say that I didn't. By cooking up alternate realities you make it difficult to hold an intelligible discussion.
The Summa is an important work of philosophy and I only refered you to the part that you requested. The part on the ancient Greek proofs of God.
I made no claim that the Summa was a science book. You asked for a source, I gave you a great one and true to form you poo pooed it.
That's why I'm not wasting my time doing leg work that is your responsibility anyway.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga -
Your incoherant argument is useless. You have the evidence do your own research and legwork. Prove the bible wrong and write a book documenting it since you seem to think you can. You will be the first and it will replace the bible as the world's best seller. May God Bless you in all your indeavers.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - Okay, good answer. Well, that leads to a second question. Even if you could be convinced of his existence, then would you follow him? Would you give up all your hopes and dreams and be committed to serving him?
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Hello. Well, one, the afterlife is not all that matters. I never claimed that, but we can talk about that later. What would it take to convince you to turn to Christ?
@walawalawinksi@xanga - that's pretty simple. Christianity would have to represent the way i'd like the world to ideally work. after all, no one really has any proof of their deity's existence. so, in theory, the only reason someone ascribes to a particular religion is if that's what they'd like to be true.
now, my main issue with Christianity is the notion that what we believe matters more to God than what we do. if i'm going to go to Hell, i want it to be because i was a genuinely terrible person, rather than because i guessed the wrong theology.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I do not have a lot of time atm but I will respond more thoroughly. But, people do not go to hell for guessing the wrong theology. They go to hell because they have not loved God and because they have been a terrible person. But more on that later.
While I cannot speak for all people, I became a Christian when I was convicted of my sin and Jesus looked beautiful. It's not necessarily because it seemed "ideal" to me; rather, because I was convinced it was true (regeneration) and THEN it became ideal because I wanted truth. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, I'll talk to you soon. Thanks.
@walawalawinksi@xanga - it does. but that's the problem: the concept of sin is anathema to everything i believe about the world.
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - I'm sorry, you said "it does." What exactly did you mean? And is this your first comment to me or did I accidentally say something to you first? Just a little confused :)
@walawalawinksi@xanga - oh sorry, this is too_pretty_to_die. i decided to start a new blog :)
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - Oh ok gotcha. Well, let's see. You said: "the concept of sin is anathema to everything I believe about the world."
As I'm sure you're aware, there are a lot of people in this world who fully believe they are right about what they believe. Billions of people, fervently holding to their beliefs the same as myself and the same as you. Of course, there's what we believe, and then there's reality: what is actually true. How confident are you that what you believe about the world is right? And, how do you think we can know what is actually true about God?
@walawalawinksi@xanga - if we can never know what's really true, then what's the point of proclaiming your beliefs are the only correct option? Christianity could be just as wrong. in any instance, people are choosing what to believe because they like what they hear.
@walawalawinksi@xanga - "Well, that leads to a second question. Even if you could be convinced of his existence, then would you follow him? Would you give up all your hopes and dreams and be committed to serving him?"
I would not. I don't follow anyone, I don't hurt anyone, I don't need to be saved, I'm a moral person on my own, I don't desire to be a slave, and only sheep need a shepherd :)
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - I guess, then, I don't understand why you frequently try to combat whether or not he exists with other xangans, since by your own admission, even if he did, it wouldn't change anything about how you live your life. Sounds like, at least to me, you're not really looking for answers. Is this correct?
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - True. You're right. Christianity could be wrong. I'm well aware of that. But here's how I'm playing my cards.
The Bible is undoubtedly unlike any other book in existence. It is for one, very very unique, composed by many authors over thousands of years. Even if it were completely 100% false, it's still a book worth noting, in that it stands out from anything that we have ever seen. Also, it is unlike any other religion in that it is not works based. I don't have to have my good works outweigh my bad works, I don't have to offer sacrifices to please my god, and I don't have to worry whether or not I have enough "gold stars" to be considered good enough to enter heaven. Christ has done it all. All other religions say "do" and Christ says "done". Even if it's not necessarily appealing, I don't understand why it wouldn't be. Even though it does say that all are sinners( that includes you and me), it offers the remedy. So, statistically speaking, there's a good chance that there's something about Christianity that is worth placing all my eggs in a basket for. Even if I'm wrong, I stand to lose much much less than someone who chooses not to believe at all (not saying that's you, just saying in general).
Sorry that was long; all that to say, even though we may cannot KNOW for sure that Christianity is true, it's pretty wise to go with it. I don't KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow, it makes sense to assume that it will sense it always has. Not a perfect analogy, but it makes a lot more sense than most other religions out there, and I feel like it can answer a lot of life's questions that other gods simply cannot answer.
But seriously, even if Jesus showed himself and proved himself to everyone right now, no one would submit their lives to him. They'd keep living just as they always do. It's not an intellectual decision to be a Christian. That's part of it, but it's really a moral submission. Sorry, does that make sense?
@walawalawinksi@xanga - P.S. I mean, you'd really rather go to hell than submit to a God you knew to be true?
@walawalawinksi@xanga - "
Is this correct? "
I'm a frayed knot :)
First off, I rarely actually dispute the existence of Christ for a couple of reasons. For one (1), it often puts the religious discussion in a direction I don't really care about, it makes it seem as if: if the Christian proves his existence, then Christianity is true, and I have to disprove his existence for Christianity to be false, both are kind of absurd endeavors. Therefore, I usually contend that Christ existed even though there is no solid scholarly evidence for it (which if he did exist, especially as the son of God, there would be - people tend to mention special events, such as doing all of the magic tricks that Christians consider to be Christ's miracles) - if only to keep the discussion from falling into such a false dichotomy (not to mention I'm not looking for an us-versus-them scenario), and also (2) because Christ doesn't have to not exist for Christianity to be false - Saint Nicholas certainly existed, but that doesn't prove Santa Claus.
The exception is in a case like this one, where the person I was arguing with was making the forward claim that not only did Jesus absolutely exist but that his miracles/prophecies are well-accounted for with solid evidence - which is an easily disputable claim, and a claim that would need to be disputed if the discussion is to continue as an honest dialogue.
Secondly, to say that my unwillingness to become a slave (even to a creator) implies indifference to the truth is absurd. To me the most important thing for our species to figure out, is what is called "the big question" in cosmology - it's actually a lot of questions regarding existence, beginnings, creations, et cetera, and our (as is the human species') context in it all - the most philosophically important (and profound) things we could ever figure out (to me). Needless to say, Christianity being true would have fundamental relevance to such subjects.
How does the saying go? Something that pertains to "Follow those who seek the truth, but question those who've claimed to find it..."
@walawalawinksi@xanga -
" Also, it is unlike any other religion in that it is not works based."
and, that's where it loses me. i support works-based religious traditions. to say that something other than right action can correct wrong action makes zero sense to me. Christianity just sounds like a great tool for people who aren't really interested in changing their behavior.
" I don't have to offer sacrifices to please my god"
ah, but you ignore the fact that the sacrifice was replaced by Jesus. so, even though Christianity goes about it differently, it still follows the ancient, pagan mentality of blood sacrifice in exchange for a deity's approval. that's not very unique, especially considering how many dying gods there are in mythology.
" Even though it does say that all are sinners( that includes you and me), it offers the remedy."
i think the remedy for sin is to *drumroll* not sin. and i don't see why that's so difficult. i have no problems following my moral code. and i think the only people who tend to screw up are either unwilling to put forth the effort (because it IS hard), or they don't really believe in the moral code they claim to follow.
"Sorry that was long; all that to say, even though we may cannot KNOW for sure that Christianity is true, it's pretty wise to go with it. "
i don't really buy into the Occam's Razor argument. one, any deity that would find such worship acceptable in terms of offering salvation isn't worth my time. two, i like to think of myself as a very genuine human being. if i believe in something, i REALLY believe in it and commit to it wholly. when i was Christian, i was all set to become a nun and pray for a mystical experience or stigmata. when i was Wiccan, i made plans to start my own business selling supplies needed for rituals, because i found it so difficult to get those things in my area. the list goes on and on.
the bottom line is: i would never attach myself to a system of belief that demands so much, just to be on the safe side.
"Not a perfect analogy, but it makes a lot more sense than most other religions out there, and I feel like it can answer a lot of life's questions that other gods simply cannot answer. "to you, perhaps, but not to me. a religion that combines an omnipotent deity creating short-sighted humans and letting them decide their own eternal fates, the elevation of belief over action, and punishment for not having the right kind of belief not only makes no sense to me... it almost offends me. and i don't have any questions to begin with, so all Christianity does is create problems where they're weren't any before.
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - I' m sure we could talk about this on and on, but so I don't waste your time, I strongly encourage you to, if you're interested, dive deep into the Bible, because you have some strong misunderstandings about what it means to be a Christian. I don't want to just correct every little thing you say because that can come across (especially through the internet) as being mean. With some of the response you have, either I'm not being clear or you're just not understanding. I'd be glad to explain some things to you but like I said, I don't want to waste my or your time if you're really not interested, lol. Sorry, it's just I've really thought and prayed over a response to someone, only to have them not give a crap, so I was just letting you know.
Long story short, IF the God of the Bible is true, then go ahead and try not to sin. I don't know you, but I know that you have not loved God with all of your heart and soul, and you have not loved others as you love yourself. You're right in that we could just NOT sin. But we do sin. Everyday. Ever had a bad attitude? Disobeyed your parents? Thought even one bad thought? Not good.
"ah, but you ignore the fact that the sacrifice was replaced by Jesus". Again, not sure if I am just not being clear or you're misunderstanding me. The whole foundation of the Christian faith is that the sacrifice was replaced by Christ. In no way am I ignoring that. I just said that I don't have to go burn a goat this afternoon. Some people are still doing that today.
"to say that something other than right action can correct wrong action makes zero sense to me. " Christianity never makes that claim. Jesus lived the perfect life. He did everything right. Absolutely everything. He LOVED his father. He loved his neighbors. He lived the life that we shoud've lived, so on the cross, Jesus "became" sin (Galatians says this). Jesus's righteousness was placed on all believers and sins were placed on Jesus. It's called the "Great Exchange" or the Atonement. Jesus's right actions/right heart corrected everything any future Christian has ever and will ever do wrong.
Enjoying the convo with you :)
P.S. I have no idea who Occam Razor is, lol. But apparently I agree with him.
@walawalawinksi@xanga -
"But we do sin. Everyday. Ever had a bad attitude? Disobeyed your parents? Thought even one bad thought? Not good."
you're correct... according to the morality of the Bible, i do sin. but, since i'm not Christian, that morality is meaningless for me. i don't think that thinking bad things is a sin, unless you choose to act on them. same goes for having a bad attitude, especially since that's often something out of our control (and i doubt any loving deity would punish us for something we cannot control).
i was just making the point that, for my own personal morality, i tend to follow it perfectly. and i think it's because i truly believe in my personal concepts of right and wrong. they weren't dictated to me. i think a lot of Christians still sin, despite believing in God, because they don't REALLY believe they're doing anything wrong. to them, it's only wrong because it displeases God. if God is taken out of the picture, their morality would change.
'I just said that I don't have to go burn a goat this afternoon. Some people are still doing that today."
i understand. but you tried to make it sound like the act of Jesus being the sacrifice, instead of the goat, is somehow unique and revolutionary. it might be...... in the religious context of the times. but throughout history? plenty of other belief systems don't even have the notion of blood sacrifice. Jesus doing away with the concept of sacrifice to begin with, rather than using the framework, would have been truly revolutionary.
and, as someone who does not believe in a need for blood sacrifice of any kind, that would speak volumes to me. and that's kind of the point i'm trying to make: the message of Jesus is that he became the sacrifice. that message is meaningless if i don't believe we needed a sacrifice to begin with.
"I have no idea who Occam Razor is, lol. But apparently I agree with him."
basically, Occam believed that your best bet is to go ahead and be Christian just to save yourself from Hell. he argued you have less to lose if you go with Christianity and it turns out to be wrong, than if you don't choose Christianity and are wrong about that. while that is true, the argument against it is that adhering to a religion for such a reason doesn't really count as genuine belief. a genuine Christian would always worship God, no matter the circumstances. and many argue that God would rather see someone believe wholeheartedly in whatever they go with, than have someone take up Christianity just to play it safe.