It occurs to me that before talking about whether there is a God, we should see what our biases are. I’ve put my cards on the table: I obviously want the evidence to support, or at least avoid conflicting with, the notion of an infinite God. On the other side of the fence, I’ve seen atheists who don’t merely believe that there is no God: they’d prefer it that way. Richard Dawkins is one of them. In The God Delusion, he argues that the notion of a creator is demeaning to human existence.
It goes without saying that biases on either side of the divide can threaten the quality of an investigation, so it’s useful to know what they are. But there’s another reason to look at our biases: they tell us a lot about how we conceive of God.
I once had a professor who, apropos of nothing, asked why religious people often feel compelled to spread their faith. He found it offensive, and his theory was that they do it to score points with God or out of some sense of superiority: our team’s winning! I was too timid to say anything at the time, but my response was this: if you found the cure for cancer, you’d be running through the streets telling people about it. (Well, at least you’d try to get it published in a medical journal.) People of faith believe they’ve got the cure for death. That’s something you don’t keep to yourself.
I’ve met some atheists who don’t believe in God because they’re not convinced—they don’t think the evidence is there, and they’re not going to accept faith blindly. Fair enough. But as I said earlier, I’ve met others who would actually rather that there be no God. Why? I think it comes down to what you think God is, and what you think the consequences of faith may be.
I think most confirmed atheists (and a good many theists, for that matter) see God as a judge with some kind of “sin abacus” and faith as a list of rules that we all routinely break. If that’s my reference point, and if I’ve got even a modicum of self-awareness about my failings as a human being, I am going to be deeply invested in the position that there is no God. I’ve felt that way myself. When that was how I conceived of God, there were times when I thought it would have been better if he didn’t exist. (For one thing, I would have had a lot more sex a lot sooner.)
But if God is not a frowning judge in the sky, things change. If, like the people in my cure-for-cancer analogy, we see faith and God not as a series of prohibitions but as quite literally the cure for death—how could that not be attractive? Who wouldn’t want that?
I am, of course, vastly oversimplifying God and faith by describing them as “the cure for death.” So let’s expand the proposition a bit. Christians believe that God is an all-powerful being whose chief characteristic is complete and perfect love, and who for reasons unknown has decided to focus a great deal of attention on sharing that love with us. As C.S. Lewis put it, this includes the offer to “make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine”.
This is the actual Christian view of God. Whether you believe in it is another story entirely, but if that’s the reference point, it becomes very strange and deeply irrational to prefer that it not be true.
4 comments:
Well, you're right. on the first level, I'd just as soon God didn't exist because of the tiresome way he gets used. But fundamentally I have no idea whether he does or not, of course, and I'm not much interested either way.
I do think that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble by just accepting death. Perhaps this is easy to say when I'm young, healthy, well-educated and expect to have about 50 more years of relatively comfortable life. But I have an idea that if I live those 50 years to their full potential, by 80 I might just be done.
Clearly life is not fair. It is not fair that lots of children die without getting to experience life, or security, or even affection. It's not fair that lots of people don't get the education I have or the opportunities. It's not fair that the arches in my feet are falling. But life is also very much what we make of it.
Cancer is an aberration of how our cells are supposed to function but death not so much. Suppose "natural' death...stuff breaks down and doesn't get repaired. Necessary ingredients stop being produced. Would it be better if all functions continued full speed indefinitely?
Well, think of how many physical and mental marks, scars, habits, baggage we carry already in our twenties. We will only pick up more, both good and bad as we progress. Do I want to carry all that stuff around forever? The mechanisms that support my consciousness...can they support it forever? Would I want to be me forever? I don't think so. This isn't the deal with Christian Heaven, of course...we come back as our purer, more essential selves or somesuch but I expect the changes to me that would allow me to support eternity would be so profound that I would not recognise me, in which case, how do I apply the emotion of my current self, "I desire to live forever" (unless there is some other reading of a "cure for death") to whatever aspect/incarnation/whatever of me could actually stand to live forever. My head does not get around that concept, period. So why am I so sure that I want eternal life? I'm not so sure, as you may have guessed. I'm pretty resigned to it being unequivocally over. Hopefully at 80 something, possibly surrounded by friends and children and not by a bus or an inattentive driver as I cycle along, but this is not something I will necessarily get to choose. On the bright side, once dead I won't be too upset about it; it's the people adjusting to my absence who may have a hard time.
"On the other side of the fence, I’ve seen atheists who don’t merely believe that there is no God: they’d prefer it that way. Richard Dawkins is one of them. In The God Delusion, he argues that the notion of a creator is demeaning to human existence."
This is a huge misclassification of RD's postion, who, I think, wouldn't care one way or another about whether god exists. An honest reading of TGD (and of RD's other books) shows us that he simply hasn't seen the evidence.
"if you found the cure for cancer, you’d be running through the streets telling people about it. (Well, at least you’d try to get it published in a medical journal.) People of faith believe they’ve got the cure for death. That’s something you don’t keep to yourself."
This is going to sound offensive, but this is a ridiculous analogy. The cure for cancer will come as the result of painstaking research, conducted by thousands of scientists, clinicians, and others, over many, many years. The result will be subjected to rigorous attempts at falsification, and, if necessary (as is usually the case), will be refined according to new data.
Religion subjects itself to exactly none of this. You don't have to keep your "cure for death" silent, but you do have to expect that people will want evidence to back up this claim. The single biggest point that should be taken from writers such as RD, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett (et al) is that religion does not deserve immunity from critical thinking.
The cure for cancer, I am sure, will be found in the bible; but only after it is found in the lab first.
"I think most confirmed atheists (and a good many theists, for that matter) see God as a judge with some kind of “sin abacus” and faith as a list of rules that we all routinely break."
I see god as a made up entity, created for the express purposes of mankind. Until such time as evidence is proffered to suggest this is not true, I feel this is a valid null hypothesis.
The very fact that you can define "god" to be anything you'd like should tell you a little about the slippery slope you're on. You may define god to be the essence of goodness and grace, and that fundamentalism is a straw man version of "true" religion. But I see moderatism and fundamentalism as precisely the same thing; they are iterations of the same falsehood, and the fact that YOU get to define your faith as whatever you'd like means you have to accord the same to everyone else. It is to be commended that you've chosen to ignore Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and don't stone homosexuals and adulterers to death, or that you choose not to fly planes into buildings on a Tuesday morning. But there are those of you who do exactly those things. To me, the fact that religious beliefs (of all types) have been exempted from rational discussion means that religious moderates simply facilitate the actions of those who would "define" their faith in other ways. I simply say "you are both wrong" and have done with it.
"But if God is not a frowning judge in the sky, things change. If, like the people in my cure-for-cancer analogy, we see faith and God not as a series of prohibitions but as quite literally the cure for death—how could that not be attractive? Who wouldn’t want that?"
Things don't change; you've simply redefined god by fiat. I would ask you this: what is god? Define it now, so that the goalposts become firmly entrenched and immovable.
"Christians believe that God is an all-powerful being whose chief characteristic is complete and perfect love, and who for reasons unknown has decided to focus a great deal of attention on sharing that love with us."
I notice you've chosen to leave out the bits about virgin births, ressurections, and such. Probably wise. I have no objections to the above defintion. But you'll have to leave your miracles at home; those demand evidence.
And while we're at it, why aren't you a muslim for the same reasons? Or a hindu? Why don't you believe in Thor, or Zeus, or Ra? Presumably there are (or were) millions of people who feel (or felt) the same way about their god as you do about Yahweh. Surely there must be some standard through which you have chosen your particular faith. Or were you simply born into it (and if so, what does THAT tell you about the nature of belief)?
"Whether you believe in it is another story entirely, but if that’s the reference point, it becomes very strange and deeply irrational to prefer that it not be true."
It isn't true. It makes no difference what anyone "prefers"
Mike, thanks for your replies. You raise a lot of issues, and I believe I have answers for them. But it'll take us a while to hash them out in the degree of detail that they deserve.
If you're interested, stick around and we'll see if we can learn something about each other's positions. More to follow...
"If you're interested, stick around and we'll see if we can learn something about each other's positions. More to follow..."
I'll be here...very interested in a good discussion of this topic!
Post a Comment