===========================
Is Religion Man-Made?
Sure it is. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens think that this fact about religion is enough to invalidate its claims.
“[R]eligion and the churches,” declares Hitchens “are manufactured, and this salient fact is too obvious to ignore.” True to his faith, Dawkins finds that the manufacturing and growth of religion is best described in evolutionary terms: “[R]eligions, like languages, evolve with sufficient randomness, from beginnings that are sufficiently arbitrary, to generate the bewildering – and sometimes dangerous – richness of diversity.” Harris finds a historical origin for religion and religious traditions, and it is not flattering: “The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.”
And, they continue, it wasn’t even the work of sand-strewn men who labored in the same place at the same time. Rather, it was pieced together from fragments and contradictory sources and then had claimed for it a spurious unity: “Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world” (Dawkins).
Hitchens adds that “the sciences of textual criticism, archaeology, physics, and molecular biology have shown religious myths to be false and man-made.” And yet, wonders Harris, “nearly 230 million Americans believe that a book showing neither unity of style nor internal consistency was authored by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity.”
So there’s the triple-pronged case. Religions are humanly constructed traditions and at their center are corrupted texts that were cobbled together by provincial, ignorant men who knew less about the world than any high-school teenager alive today. Sounds devastating, but when you get right down to it, all it amounts to is the assertion that God didn’t write the books or establish the terms of worship, men did, and that the results are (to put it charitably) less than perfect.
But that is exactly what you would expect. It is God (if there is one) who is perfect and infinite; men are finite and confined within historical perspectives. And any effort to apprehend him – including the efforts of the compilers of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran – will necessarily fall short of a transparency that will be achieved (if it is achieved) only at a future moment of beatific vision. Now – any now, whether it be 2007 or 6,000 years ago – we see through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians, 13:12); one day, it is hoped, we shall see face to face.
In short, it is the unfathomable and unbridgeable distance between deity and creature that assures the failure of the latter to comprehend or prove (in the sense of validating) the former.
O.L. (in a comment on June 11), identifies the “religion is man-made claim” as the “strongest foundation of atheism” because “it undermines the divinity of god.” No, it undermines the divinity of man, which is, after all, the entire point of religion: man is not divine, but mortal (capable of death), and he is dependent upon a creator who by definition cannot be contained within human categories of perception and description. “How unsearchable are his Judgments and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor” (Romans, 11:33-34). It is no wonder, then, that the attempts to contain him – in scriptures, in ceremonies, in prayer – are flawed, incomplete and forever inadequate. Rather than telling against divinity, the radical imperfection, even corruption, of religious texts and traditions can be read as a proof of divinity, or at least of the extent to which divinity exceeds human measure.
If divinity, by definition, exceeds human measure, the demand that the existence of God be proven makes no sense because the machinery of proof, whatever it was, could not extend itself far enough to apprehend him.
Proving the existence of God would be possible only if God were an item in his own field; that is, if he were the kind of object that could be brought into view by a very large telescope or an incredibly powerful microscope. God, however – again if there is a God – is not in the world; the world is in him; and therefore there is no perspective, however technologically sophisticated, from which he could be spied. As that which encompasses everything, he cannot be discerned by anything or anyone because there is no possibility of achieving the requisite distance from his presence that discerning him would require.
The criticism made by atheists that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all; for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.
This does not mean that my arguments constitute a proof of the truth of religion; for if I were to claim that I would be making the atheists’ mistake from the other direction. Nor are they arguments in which I have a personal investment. Their purpose and function is simply to show how the atheists’ arguments miss their mark and, indeed, could not possibly hit it.
At various points Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens all testify to their admiration for Shakespeare, who, they seem to think, is more godly than God. They would do well to remember one of the bard’s most famous lines, uttered by Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
4 comments:
Paul,
You're walking very, very dangerous ground by citing Fish, especially in this regard. If you've followed his column, you'll see that he's been forced into a continual backslide from a relatively strong "these atheists are wrong"-type of position to this post, which is almost conciliatory in tone; it's almost like he's saying "look, we know you're right, but I'm still going to hold on to my delusion, k?"
First off, I must take issue with Fish's assertion that we (meaning atheists in general, and Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris/etc specifically) want PROOF of god's existence. What we want is EVIDENCE; even a small amount that would lead a reasonable person, without in-born prejudices (like religious parents), to conclude that (a) there is a god, and (b) that god is a SPECIFIC god (i.e. Yahweh, Zeus, Ra, etc). Presumably, all of these religious folks must have SOME reason to believe, beside the fact that they were born into it, right?
But what Fish is doing is closing the door on this endeavour. According to Fish, "[i]f divinity, by definition, exceeds human measure, the demand that the existence of God be proven makes no sense because the machinery of proof, whatever it was, could not extend itself far enough to apprehend him." He is stating (by fiat, no less) that god lies outside of physical existence, and thus is not subject to the normal evidentiary process. Ahh, but there's the rub.
If god appeared to us tomorrow as a 30 foot high bearded white man, sitting on a cloud, and exclaiming that he was Yahweh, ruler of all nations, father, son, and holy spirit, who had returned to judge the wicked and proclaim a 1000 year reign, most sensible atheists would be forced to admit that they were wrong; I still wouldn't workship such a horrid character (sending bears to eat innocent children?!?!?!? 2 Kings 2:23-24), but I would be forced to admit that this constitutes significant evidence in favour of the existence of Yahweh.
Fish, on the other hand, is forced to stick to his assertion that god is outside of physical evidence. He (and presumably you) would remain unimpressed; to Fish, this would be evidence of god's LACK of existence, because god cannot show evidence of his own existence.
Ever heard of Douglas Adams' Babelfish? Here's the story:
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non -existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
The other problem here is that many, if not most, religions claim that god HAS manifested himself (and I use the masculin pronoun for good reason...) in the physical realm. Ask yourself whether the supposed historicity of Jesus is part of the reason why you are a Christian? If Jesus hadn't existed in physical reality, would you be a Christian? Do you believe that the fact that the universe LOOKS created is evidence that it WAS created (despite the fact that this begs the question)? If you believe these things, then you are using EVIDENCE to justify your conclusion (that god exists). But Fish doesn't accept this. To him, any evidence for god's existence is evidence AGAINST god's existence, because god is outside of evidence. Does this make sense yet? Of course it doesn't, because you are an intelligent thinker (as evidenced by your well-thought out posts and comments here). No, in order to believe in god you MUST first accept that he exists; he DOES lie outside of evidence because that's the only way you can reconcile your belief with your rationality. Fish knows that the evidence isn't there; the only option is to downplay the importance of evidence to the process.
You cannot have it both ways. God either exists or he doesn't. More importantly, you either believe or you dont. If you believe in something, there should be a good reason to believe. If you allow yourself to put aside the prejudices of your birth, and look at the situation objectively, you will see that there is simply no good reason to believe in Yahweh, or any god, for that matter.
This is a VERY dangerous place to tread, because you'll contradict yourself very easily. If you choose to accept Fish, and state that evidence of god is immaterial, expect to continually receive the Babelfish reply. This whole issue is so infuriating, because if it were anything else, your reason would prevail. But because you've presupposed god's existence, without looking at the evidence first, you MUST ignore the deafening silence that is the evidence for god's existence.
More chillingly, you must immediately cease all discussions surrounding the supposed "evidence" for god (e.g. the universe looks 'tuned' for life, we are moral beings, etc, etc, etc...). To Fish's followers, evidence is immaterial; this is fine by me, and simply extends my dismay at those who compartmentalize their intellect. But if you want it to be like this, then you cannot suggest that ANYTHING is evidence of god's existence; doing so is a clear contradiction of your own logic, although, that doesn't seem to stop most theists.
Theists should just admit that their belief in god is based purely on faith, not reason, and certainly not evidence. I can accept this; I think it's ridiculous, but I can accept it. But once you bring 'evidence' into play, you are forced to compartmentalize again, and the argument rapidly falls apart.
no word of a lie: i was using altavista's babelfish website to translate something from chinese to english when i started reading mike's response. it must be a sign. ;)
that was a joke. the bit about the sign, i mean. anyway, this may be incoherent, as it is ridiculous o'clock:
"Theists should just admit that their belief in god is based purely on faith, not reason, and certainly not evidence."
i thought that part of what fish *was* doing was clarifying that belief in God is not based on evidence. he was also asserting that evidence doesn't play into the equation, which may be troubling. (it is to dawkins, anyway, and i think it might be to me, too.)
to reiterate something paul has said elsewhere, it is worth noting that many of the arguments advanced by Christian apologetics were long-standing beliefs before they became "useful" for the purposes of debate. one can say, "well, isn't that convenient" if one wishes, but please remember that they are honest convictions, and not ones manufactured ad hoc. that doesn't prove anything, per se, but it does make conversation more pleasant.
two things:
1)a) i was wondering today if faith means "belief in the absence of concrete evidence" or "belief that is contrary to evidence" or "belief that is contrary to evidence and reason."
only the former describes my situation, but people often project the latter two on me.
i am comfortable saying that my faith is supported by reason and what one might call historical-legal evidence. many of my convictions have evolved on the basis of experience, reason, and evidence. it is my great hope that they will continue to evolve.
b) neither my parents nor my friends nor anyone who mattered to me encouraged me to believe in God. in fact, i sought it out while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that few would offer support and some would actually reject me for it. it was neither community brainwashing nor immature rebellion.
i'm willing to concede that i may be in the minority, but how's about we make a rule: let's stop pretending people who disagree with us are all the same. fear of nuance is a dangerous thing.
2) my main concern is that we exercise discernment, so that if God does exist, and operates on the level of deniability, we don't miss out because we've constructed a standard of "evidence" which excludes experience, existential hungers, moral instinct, and so on simply because they are unscientific.
p.s. i take far less issue with God sending bears to kill a few obviously guilty young people (up to thirty years old, from what i understand) than i do with Him sending His people to slaughter whole villages, including manifestly innocent children. but i'm in the process of taking that up with Him.
"i thought that part of what fish *was* doing was clarifying that belief in God is not based on evidence. he was also asserting that evidence doesn't play into the equation, which may be troubling. (it is to dawkins, anyway, and i think it might be to me, too.)
It is what he's doing. But asserting that the existence of god CANNOT be shown through evidence means that you must ignore any evidence that comes your way; the Babelfish and all that. Theists often want things both ways; when no evidence can be proffered, they say "god exists outside of evidence", but when things happen that they ascribe to god, they say "look at what god has done", or some such. If you start dealing in evidence, you must be prepared to come to ANY evidence-based conclusion. If evidence was presented suggesting the existence of Yahweh, I would amend my beliefs. As it stands, the evidence no more suggests Yahweh's existence as it does the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not to mention Zeus, Ra, Thor, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu, or John Frum.
"i was wondering today if faith means "belief in the absence of concrete evidence" or "belief that is contrary to evidence" or "belief that is contrary to evidence and reason."
To me, faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. There is no reason to believe in the existence of anything without actual evidence that the thing exists. Faith certainly fits here.
"i am comfortable saying that my faith is supported by reason and what one might call historical-legal evidence."
Alright then, let's have it. What is the evidence that suggests that:
(a) there is a god, and
(b) that god is Yahweh?
Note that these are NOT the same question. Even if the answer to (a) is 100% "yes", that does not, in any way, suggest the existence of any particular god.
So I say we stop beating around the bush here; you're making the positive claim ("god exists"), so let's have the reasons why. Note that the following do not constitute "evidence" of anything:
1. Argument from personal incredulity ("I can't see how the universe could exist without god")
2. Argument from consequences ("A universe without god would be chaos, and I don't want to live in a chatotic universe")
3a. Question-begging ("The bible says that god exists, and the bible is the word of god")
3b. The bible, period. (The bible, by itself, isn't evidence of anything, except the existence of the bible)
4. Argument from design (Paley's hasn't been a valid argument since 1859)
5. Fulfilled bible "prophecy" (The writers of the new testament had a vested interest in ensuring that the new testament "prophecies" came true).
With these few caveats in mind, let's go. Show me why you believe in (a) god and (b) Yahweh (assuming it's Yahweh in which you believe; replace with any specific god if you'd prefer).
"Neither my parents nor my friends nor anyone who mattered to me encouraged me to believe in God. in fact, i sought it out while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that few would offer support and some would actually reject me for it. it was neither community brainwashing nor immature rebellion."
Good to hear, although this puts you in the vast, vast minority. There is no bigger predictor of religiosity than the religion of one's parents.
I should also ask, since you seem to have come to Christianity (????) through careful study, why you reject all of the infinite number of other possible gods? Surely there must be a rational reason why you prefer your story over another (and remember, the set of all possible religions is VERY large, indeed)? Is it the evidence for your god, or does Yahweh simply make you "feel" better than Vishnu?
"my main concern is that we exercise discernment, so that if God does exist, and operates on the level of deniability, we don't miss out because we've constructed a standard of "evidence" which excludes experience, existential hungers, moral instinct, and so on simply because they are unscientific."
The existence of god IS a scientific question, in that it is either true or it is false. What OTHER standards of evidence would you have us use? People having been having religious "experiences" for tens of thousands of years, and people of all religions have them today. They cannot all be right as to the existence (nevermind the nature) of god.
Moral instinct has nothing whatsoever to do with god. It is prevalent in secular societies and amongst atheists, it occurs in primates and other "lower" organisms (even bees act altruistically), and it is predicted by natural selection.
You may "hunger" for some meaning to your life; that doesn't mean there is one. And even if there is, how on earth does one conclude from this that Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead on the third day, and currently sits at the right hand of the father to judge the dead (and all of the nonsense that comes with "knowing" this)?
"take far less issue with God sending bears to kill a few obviously guilty young people (up to thirty years old, from what i understand) than i do with Him sending His people to slaughter whole villages, including manifestly innocent children. but i'm in the process of taking that up with Him."
All I will say is that if you don't find 2 Kings 2:23-24 to be morally repugnant, there is something VERY skewed about your ideas about morality. No child is guilty enough to be eaten by a bear (nevermind to be stoned to death, or gang raped by townsfolk, or any one of the other "moral instincts" so prevalent in Deuteronomy and Leviticus; not to mention the whole "I bring not peace but the sword" business in the NT).
Post a Comment