Note: if you are a believer and sensitive of heart, please do not read this post; if you are a believer and read it, please do not think I'm judging you anymore than you are judging me when you express your beliefs in God or prophets or eternal life or the resurrection or the Bible.
I'm done with GOD; it's over or at least I'd like it to be over. I think I want to rewrite that great Simon and Garfunkel song "there must be 50 ways to leave your lover" (my ex-girlfriend played this song the first time we made out after my LDS mission--I'm confident she relished the irony knowing she'd dump me soon; still after-two-years of nothing, the make-out was tremendously delicious). I'm not a lyricist so I won't try anything silly, but the sense that you better "make new a plan" that you'll have to "get out the back" and "not discuss much" makes a lot of sense. God is a jealous lover. While I don't regret believing in "God" for about twenty years, it's damn hard to get out of the whole gawd damn GOD system. It seems human's conceptions of God, if you go down that road, seep into every crack of life: prayer in the morning, before bed and every meal, during a difficult time, connections to loved ones, marriage vows, THE reason for living, THE reason for doing good, ALL explanations of how we got here and where we will go after... It's an endless list of comfort thoughts.
I went on a couple hour bike ride through the potato fields of Rexburg, ID this past week. While riding I was listening to a Terry Gross interview with Phillip Roth. As they discussed his new novel Everyman, which is about the lonely deterioration and final death of a man who does not have religion, Terry seemed determined to raise questions about religion and belief. She asked Roth if he ever had the desire to believe in something (she knew he wasn't "religious"), he countered, "I've never desired delusion." Even when you were young, Gross pushed, "never." A powerful moment for me, a building of my new philosophy of life and death. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion one of the worst effects of religion is that "it teaches us that it is a virture to be satisfied with not understanding." Oh, the places one can go without the self-limiting baggage of religion. Not that these places or ideas will make one happier (Shaw said "the fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is not more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one"). I have a stirring desire to face life for what it is: 70 or so years (probably) with my family, friends, an amazing wonder which will then END, fading into the memory of those who knew me. I want to hold up my head and proclaim: I'm going to face this mother fucker head on, doing my best because that's what you do and that's it. I
Of course this isn't much different than I felt while "believing" in God as I was never too comfortable with the "rewards in heaven" speech. I just never understood, starting with that old girlfriend I mentioned and many others, who have told me they would live differently if they didn't believe in God and the consequences which follow. Several have told me they'd drink a lot, try drugs, have sex, cheat--what a strange way to live life. I mean if you want to do those things, do them, enjoy them and try not to hurt anyone, but to live your entire life being "good" because you hold a belief, one without any physical proof, that you will get a reward for being good... what a waste. Of course I know there are many religious people who, like me over the last twenty years, have a more existential, non-mathmatical view of it all. And even those who profess this type of do-good-now-for-rewards-lataer, wouldn't, I think, actually go do all those crazy things if they didn't believe in God. Which leads me to a mistake I think many religious folks make, including me on occasion.
We create a causal link between a person's disaffection with religion and their "bad" decisions. First, there's a huge evaluative judgment here--drinking, for example, is just fine and moral for many people though many Moromons would blame this "sin" on the someone's inactivity. But let's assume it is a real "bad" decision like a vicious and selfish divorce. Now, we can say, "Yep, if only he'd stayed active, but it was all downhill after he stopped going to church." Of course this kind of causal argument can easily be dismissed: there could have been any number of other essential factors like depression, a terrible wife, work stress, etc. But again let's assume that the mean-spirited divorce wouldn't have occured if the man had continued as an active church member. Yet again this is faulty reasoning because the idea of being active or inactive, going to church to prove one's worth etc., is a social construction which sets up real feelings and consequences in this life whether the religion is based in an real truth or not. Therefore the man who makes the bad decision could easily, conscious or not, be applying the rules of the constructed religion even as he moves away from it: "Because I'm no longer religious, I'm a bad person and will now act accordingly or at least have the leeway to do so." The very beliefs believers profess would have saved the man work against him in the negative.
There's some tough talk here, but in reality I'm quite nervous about proclaiming my new philosophy. I'm reminded of the Spanish film I watched several years ago, La Lengua de Las Mariposas (Butterfly in English), where a young boy, Moncho, develops an affection for his teacher, Don Gregorio, who teaches them about the amazing natural world around them. The film ends with Moncho angrily yelling, though probably feigning, with the rest of the town, "Ateo... ateo" (atheist) as they take Don Gregario away in chains, the now revealed communist. We sure hate godlessness. I hadn't heard the spanish word "ateo" for years until this past week. A man and a woman, speaking in spanish, were walking by our home looking for a "buton" (button) she'd lost. I interrupted my game of catch with my son to talk with them. Turned out he knew my mission president who presided over me in Spain. As we talked they, naively, assumed I was true blue believer. As we discussed Spain, he talked about how his cousin had dated several men from Spain and you know what, he pejoritively with much self-righteousness declared, "Alla todos son ateos." I was dumbstruck, finally mumbling something about how many of the Spanish people had struggled with corrupt "curas" (priests) which of course he agreed with, confirming his belief in the one and only true LDS faith. I considered clarifying my view but knew it wasn't worth it and would be difficult at best in spanish. Right then I realized with clarity that I too am some sort of "ateo" and all the terrible things that go along with it. Maybe it was so powerful because I was hearing the word in spanish, the langauge I had used to testify against godlessness during my mission.
As we figure out how to fully include gays and lesbians into the communal fabric of the US, we better start working on ateos, those godless sons of bitches. And this isn't merely pity party for atheists: it has immediate real impact at the highest levels. Tim Weiner, a NY Times reporter, in an interview again with Terry Gross, tells how President Eisenhower told the CIA to "inspire Jihad against the godless communists" in any way possible. This led to much arms and money, arms and money that are now used to fight against godless capitalism in the US, the most religious developed country in the world. What a waste of resources. And to think we will elect a president if he proclaims a belief in God, but we will not even seriously consider an impeachment process when it's clear his government created false accusations as the basis for a war which has killed tens of thousands; yet can you imagine any serious presidential candidate making it for a minute as an atheist or even agnostic? Not a chance. Much better to believe in God and then repent of laisons with mistresses, denunciations of blacks and gays, shady million dollar book deals, or any number of lies and atrocities.
46 comments:
Your friend and neighbor to the right (OK, far right sometimes) here, stg72861 . Forgot my password again.
My curiousity is peaked. You sound both relieved and yet still unsure.... is it a full blown case of atheism, or are we still at the agnostic stages of pulling away. Doubt or 100% bonafide sure thing?
You aren't the first person, nor will you be the last, to change belief systems during your life. Millions have experience this, I'd guess. While some would judge you and your change of heart to a "descent" into darkness, hell, an eternal abyss, etc., I'm sure you view this whole scenario as "enlightenment" and maybe more of a "liberation" from the shackels of a confining religion. And it may very well be. But believing in something doesn't have to be confining, unless we make it so.
While I have been less than enthusiastic about my religion (recommend expired a few years ago, no real motivation to renew, also no longer going to EQ nor do I H/T), my core beliefs have not really wavered. Yet if I want to swear, I swear. If I want to watch R rated movies, I do it. I me or my wife wants to have a drink, we will. If I want to cheat on my wife [for the record, this one I haven't done, nor even considered], then I'll do it. But I am not making these choices so much out of blind obedience to God (and fear of resulting punishment), but rather out of obedience to myself, and the person I want to be.
However, I would ask that you not have condescending judgement against those that have faith to blindly follow. I personally question (to myself, mostly) some of the "rules and guidelines" handed down by religious leadership. But there is a place for tolerance for those who don't believe the way you do. Some people are happy living in a structured existence; don't look down at them or judge them. Some of us (OK, I mean me here) didn't and don't even want to believe in things, or belong to religions, but can't help it [in my case, I amd a reluctant participant due to that nagging but confirming Holy Ghost].
It'll all sort out in the end.
"We create a causal link between a person's disaffection with religion and their "bad" decisions."
Nailed it for me! It has caused me to be very careful around people. I watch their behavior, and listen to their statements very carefully.
I have found myself apologizing for NOT believing. IT is interesting coming from a history of being a beliver. The insight into what my "past self" would think of "ateo."
For me, it has taken quite a while to be proud of my understanding. IT has been even harder, of late to be tolerant of others who believe, for just reason you pronounce. THEY have the numbers and the political power.
I am awestruck, Ron, at your courage and honesty. I am empathetic with the path you trod. Like your friend above, ANONYMOUS, there will be plenty of passive invective by believers (throwing in the holy ghost as though its a "given", and asking you not to condescend as they do so by preaching softly).
Finally, the organized bigotry surrounding disaffection of homosexuals and atheists, are bound in the same bundle with sexism, and racism. Given there is no rational basis for these prejudices, they bloom only from religious soil. Where religion sows honesty, integrety, and decency it should be revered. But in the areas in which it promotes division, bigotry, and lies it should be taken to task.
Best Wishes on this path my friend. May Gosh leave you alone and let you continue to think for yourself.
Trav
Neighbor, I'm glad you are acting of your own volition and doing that what seems right to you. That's one of the things I appreciate about you and your family--could I ask for a better neighbor? No way.
As far as condescending judgment, I'd refer you to the first paragraph of my post and ask you to really consider if anything I've said even comes close to the condescending judgment of non-believers at our local ward.
Still, you do raise a knotty problem: how does one express his or her own beliefs while not acting condescending to those who believe differently? I'm not sure I have the answer to that one. It may be impossible, but certainly you have a good point that it's not a good idea to judge others' life paths. I can totally agree with that.
Of course the the very beliefs of literal/ conservative Mormons dictate that they will judge non-believers like me quite harshly: to them, I've willingly given up my personal priesthood connection to God, eternal salvation with my family, access to the holy ghost, etc. etc. There's no way my beliefs could even support such an overall/eternal/harsh judgment of another person.
Congrats Ron, I think you'll be much happier living your life admitting your beliefs to everyone (yourself included). I certainly know how hard it is to come from a religious background and move in another direction.
I heard years of "all non-believers are going to hell" (with Hitler, for effect), "you'll never see your family in heaven" (assuming of course that you all make it there), "you're a sinner", "your friends are all going to hell" and other assorted goodies growing up in my family's church. Of course, OUR church was the ONLY right church and all the others are going to hell, too (yes, even the Mormons... in fact, especially the Mormons because they have a whole other blasphemous book). Once I got over the fear of believing differently and came to grips with what made sense to me, I was much happier. I have never experienced so much pressure in my life to conform to others' beliefs. This pressure continues to this day.
My true issue with organized religion is that they can't answer anything. It demands that you not question it, and that you take everything on faith. The Bible is based on oral traditions, with no scientific backing whatsoever (despite creationists' attempts to make it into "science") and is full of contradictions. It does have some relevance as a somewhat historical document (in places), but it should not be taken as fact. A book written/inspired by a omnipotent being certainly would have been better written, especially if it is intended to be a set of directions to follow.
Churches keep you coming through guilt and fear. A God that wanted you to love him would be insulted that the only reason you come to church is for the rewards you hope to receive. Pascal's Wager is similarly dishonest. In my opinion, they are selling an inferior product, and they know it. Religion can't compete with science, and I think it is a major error for churches to make the attempt. I think the intelligent design movement has done great harm to churches across the country.
Of course, I came from a church that took the Bible literally, so it was much harder for me to believe that the Noah's Ark story actually happened (for example) or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (and that man lived side-by-side with Dinosaurs). Later, when I had questions, nobody in the church could give me any answers. I was told that "it wasn't for man to understand the mind of God", and other BS replies. Even at a young age, it smacked of intellectual dishonesty.
I find it ironic that the first people to ask for tolerance and restraint from condescension are religious people, who, incidentally, are typically the most intolerant and condescending towards people with opposing viewpoints. I have met religious people who will make it a point to "testify" every time they are around me, and who have no respect whatsoever for my beliefs, and who will not shut up even after I ask them to. Then, they say they will "pray for me", which is the most condescending thing they can say.
Anyway, good luck with this. I can't imagine how much harder it is living in Utah with your views than it is here, where at least for a lot of people, religion is your own business.
Thanks Rod. As your comment indicates, this issue runs deep for many of us.
Speaking of Pascal's Wager, I recently read a critique of it in Dawkin's *The god delusion*. He points out that the wager can only be seen as an "argument for feigning belief in God." He adds that you the God you believe in had better not be omniscient or he'll see right through your deception. In the next paragraph he goes on to wonder why religious people think (if in fact God exists) that God will reward belief: wouldn't Godjust as likely reward kindness, generosity, honesty, truth-seeking, humility?
Lastly, I do see your point that science is outstripping religion in many ways. But in another vein religion and science are not really competing at all. That is a big part of what religion does for others isn't readily accessible through science. I have no big pronouncements here, just wondering if a broader sense of spirituality, not tied to doctrine or a personal god, might be necessary to speak to this very human need for peace and for thinking beyond themselves. In this way I do think we can learn something from religion, from its varied rituals, music, and (at times) focus on helping others.
Impressive post.
I, too, am baffled by the belief of many religious people that the only basis for morality is religion. The idea that I can't distinguish between right and wrong without a "higher" authority to back me up.
I had this argument with some people in an education class. They couldn't grasp my argument that something could be "legal" and not "ethical." They were mostly religious people.
Think outside the religion box can be especially illuminating in these times. Why would we be "godless heathens" if it weren't for differing notions of god? It seems that there are many good reasons, outside of religion, NOT to kill others (I don't want to be hurt, I don't want to hurt others). I think it is difficult, in our current political and cultural environment, to stand up for our non-religious beliefs. Perhaps more difficult here. I admire your ability to think through these issues.
Stg72861 here again (not anonymous, as the asshole who thinks I'm preaching softly to you). I realize I'm in the lion's den as perhaps the only believer of any God posting within this blog subject, but I admit I was a little wrong in remotely implying you were being judgemental.
Fact of the matter is, some of your respondents' posts to this subject have made comments that lead me to believe they have been stung by the condescending Mormons, comments like "I'll pray for you". All I can say is that you Ron know we are all not like that. Comments like "you're a sinner for not believing", "you're going to hell", and "I'll pray for you" I agree, are as condescending as it gets. I don't have to tell you that there's an aire of superiority about many of the Mormons, derived probably from the "all other churches are an abomination" stance. I sense anger in some of the comments.
I find religion in many ways fascinating, all the while somewhat disinterested and reluctantly attached . To those who would say religion answers nothing, well as a former scientist, I would agree that nothing scientific is answered by religion. But people do find answers in religion. If people look for answers, they often find them. If they look for holes in the story, they will find them also.
Enough for now.
Agreed neighbor. I still think much of religion is amazingly fascinating. It's a monumental human achievement in many ways. Even though I don't see this achievement as proof of a God, I do see it as proof that on the whole humans do want to be moral, do want to do good, do want to move beyond their little selves even if religion (humans) often get it wrong.
Actually, my experiences with Mormons are quite limited (being born & raised in southern Illinois). My comments were directed more towards fundamentalist Christian types (I was raised in the Church of Christ, for example).
Ron's sister (my wife) will tell you that the first question anyone from here asks when finding out she was raised Mormon... "so, are you a polygamist?" ;)
Religion certainly provides meaning to a lot of people. I was merely stating that for me, I can't find any answers in religion, and the whole concept of organized religion strikes me as dishonest.
I will be the first one to tell you that people are free to do/believe as they like. I just wish I would be afforded the same privilege.
Sometimes the invective becomes explicit (like when people call you names). Its always fun when people reinforce your points for you.
HH
HH/Trav,
I'm glad I could be of help to you. Guess we all need a straight man to validate our otherwise unsubstantiated points.
You know us bottom feeding believers that you have found it harder of late to tolerate; well some of us do hope to ascend to the enlightened plateau someday. In the meantime, there was really no call for my behavior, using bad language that is. Sorry; can you forgive me?
But for now I will not make apologizies for my beliefs, (why would you apologize for not believing?), only for my bad language.
Childish sarcasm and insincerity really have no place in a sincere (and obviously sensitive) discussion. I am a mindless troll.
Apology accepted. I was not sensitive enough to your beliefs. It obviously riled you a bit. Sorry for baiting you. Sorry for angering you.
You are certainly no troll. You obviously care deeply about Counterintuitive's very profound thoughts (on a number of topics).
I promise to play nice in Counterintuitive's sandbox from now on. Nothing pointed toward any particular person again (I really do like to use sarcasm and this is no small thing for me).
Best,
HH
This just might be the nicest religion debate on the Internet, anywhere.
What an interesting turn of events, CI. Based on conversations we've had recently, it wasn't like I didn't expect something like this, but it is still significant. I am still quite fascinated by religion, but the G-man has never really figured into my psyche other than as that basic concept that I sort of refer to once in a while and hope for (although I know it is perfectly foolish to believe in him.) I prefer the middle ground on the god question: we don't know and we can't know so it is not really worth worrying about. What bothers me more, of course, are the people who think they know and, therefore, think they have the right to push their ultimate on everyone else.
Religion, not god, is the bigger problem and interest for me. God is all things to all people. Religion is a very specific (and all-intrusive) take on that elusive concept.
In other words: god as a concept is fine for me. God as what other people tell me god is, is the problem. We all have "god" but we all don't have religion. I know that makes no sense, but, then again, religion makes little sense.
Rod, you crack me up. We will soon all be sitting around a campfire, roasting marshmellow, and singing Kum-by-ah (spic?) and telling each other "I love you, man, really, I do" and other niceties.
I don't know .... maybe if this gets any more friendly, we could talk about the +/- of illegal immigrants in the US, or the merits(?) of Bush's foreign policies?
Religion and politics .... the Holy Grail of dangerous and volatile topics. It either touches a nerve, or you're braindead. Neighbor, dare we stir the pot?
Anonymous,
Don't push it. Religious beliefs are one thing, but the topic of BUSH will push me over the edge. I can't be held responsible for my behavior with respect to politics.
HH =)
Theorris: I wonder if it really is the religion part. I see what you mean but that's kind of like making a separation between doctrine and culture in a particular religion. I found that separation wasn't possible and that the culture which I thought bugged me really didn't, it was the doctrine. And I'm tempted to say the same about religion and God, though I don't know exactly what I mean by that. I guess I mean that the religion--if that's the rituals, people getting together, people checking up on each other etc.--sits fine with me but the BIG FATHER GOD who knows all is where my problem comes in. Of course one may ascribe this concept of God to that particular religion. I'm now talking in circles so I will make a quick comment on all the comments:
I have to say I was worried to find my email full of comments. I was thinking I hope neither my cousin-in-law or brother-in-law come a visiting and get in a fight with my neighbor. Of course that would be unwise as my neighbor used to play football.
But what do I find? Aplogies all around. You guys are great, really. In all seriousness thanks for taking my original post serious. Often I just post stuff and I really don't care if anyone else's cares or not but this time it would have been hard if no one really got involved in the discussion. I've been enlightened by both the believers and non-believers.
To me god as a concept is completely separable from religion. God is a metaphorical abstract that none of use can pin down. I think, however, I see the distinction you are making. Being done with god is one thing--being done with religion is another. I'm fully done with religion, if I ever even was accepting of it.
To me god might be my best buddy. He is not the authoritarian figure telling me I'm doing everything wrong. That kind of god is the god of the religion. I like a supportive god. One who knows I'm trying, despite my failures. Does that make that god real? Of course not, and it shows you the very heart of the problem with religion. God as best buddy is the god of the one who then tells everybody else they are wrong and should repent etc.
So who tells me I'm wrong? I hear you ask? I'm fully capable of such self-criticism. I don't think I'm bragging when I say that I don't think many others are capable of that.
I've been enjoying the Bronowski book you loaned me. It has precious-little to do with this conversation, but it reminds me of the spur of the YouTube video I posted. When people think they have the finite answer, that's when the problems begin. As Bronowski points out, Science (and I capitalize it on purpose) demands that such statements deserve clear connections with what we call "reality." It is non-sense in science to say there is a God simply because it is unprovable.
How in the hell did I get here? Good question. Let's go look and stop throwing chicken bones and believe that provides an answer. Religion does nothing but throw chicken bones. God or no god. They've got nothing to show for it besides the cast of the bones.
I amuse myself with religion. It is a bad habit, for sure, but it has precious-little to do with whether god exists or not.
How's that for some fancy-pants metaphysics?
Sorry Ron, it costs way too much for me to just come a visiting.
Besides, I can rant all day long on the Internet and not get mad. One of my favorite e-sayings is: "Arguing on the Internet is like being in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded".
If I were to get upset over religion, it would be with my family. I like a good discussion anyway, especially if people get worked up. I'm more likely to get upset if you let your dog crap on my lawn than if you disagree with my politics/religion.
And by the way, I do know some fancy karate type moves, so watch it football guy. I've got my eyes on you.
On another note... Giuliani in '08? Will America ever vote for someone whose name they can't spell? Discuss.
Rod,
I'm with you --- the dog crapping on my lawn (the dog from the house on the left/other side of Ron) is more upsetting to me also than disagreeing about religious beliefs. It would be sooooo boring if everyone felt the same way about things.
Mid-post Joke: What do you get if you cross a dyslexic with an agnostic?
Answer: Someone who isn't really sure if there is a Dog.
The biggest problem I have with religion, as some of you have already expressed, is that person who 1) tries to force their beliefs down your throat, 2) who's sense of superiority makes them unapproachable to even discuss other thought patterns, and 3) who looks down at anyone who disagrees with them, or who doesn't believe in God at all, as some kind of lesser being. Unfortunately, my religion is full of those kind of pompous windbags.
Giuliani as president... Politics and religion all in one post; hmmm. Begs the question, in light of this blog: would any of you votes for Mitt Romney? Or rather, would any of you vote against Mitt Romney, as the Mormon candidate? Does religion play a role in your vote for any politician?
have thought whether I wanted to say anything here, except to echo something theorris said--although with a slightly different tilt, I guess--God/god is an unknowable question, and I choose to maintain the usefulness of the idea, in the sense that it speaks to what yearns and aims for good in all of us. Since it is an unanswerable question (my premise), I find arguments that try to pin it down one way or another to be mostly irrelevant to me. Sometimes really distasteful, too, though not yours. I too find religion troubling but have found authentic community and occasionally a home for spiritual yearning. I grieve that the religion of my family is, ultimately, inhospitable, even though it is ironically a place I've found (again) authentic community and a home for my spiritual yearning--grief that doesn't really abate.
I could probably just say that my thoughts echo those of lisa b.'s--especially the part about grief that doesn't abate. I left the religion on my childhood and my young adulthood behind, but I certainly experience grief for its loss. I wish that I could answer the fairly gaping hole it left behind with a confirmation of the negative, but I can't seem to get there. Ultimately, I think that all of us are unsure about who we are as humans, what this world is all about, what exists beyond us. We're all trying to figure it out--some of us with religion, some of us with the denial of God, some of us with alien encounters. To me, all of it seems to be the same sort of pleading--a longing to fix ourselves in the overwhelming image of a tiny globe in an incomprensibly vast universe.
What a midlife crisis you're indulging.
It doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not.
It's just that your reasoning for justifying your non-belief is faulty.
Richard Dawkins is desperately seeking company for his atheism/agnosticism based, he supposes, on his fortress of scientific observation.
Yet his science is founded on astonishing leaps of faith not less than a disdained childlike belief in God.
Example--the universe is held together by unobservable/ undetectable "dark matter," and the expansion of the universe is powered by unobservable/undetectable "dark energy."
At the local level, science presumes that the observable mass of the Sun maintains order in our solar system.
If dark matter is 49 times more pervasive in our solar system than observable mass, which is sufficient to the behavior of observable mass in our solar system, why has it not been detected or observed yet. Does dark matter/energy exist everywhere in the universe except the palm of my hand?
The leading candidate for carrying gravity is the never observed/detected Higgs boson, which is cutely nicknamed the "God Particle."
Louis Pasteur won a Nobel prize for the idea that life does not arise spontaneously, yet science proclaims confidently that life arose spontaneously.
The laws of thermodynamics preclude spontaneous aggregation of matter into a singularity such that the Big Bang could follow. (And the term "Big Bang" was coined in derision of that very notion of the origin of the universe.)
Scientists cope with the lack of understanding by ignoring the difficult bits. For example, I haven't yet anyone address how hominids made the reproductive leap from asexual self-replication to heterosexual reproduction. Just how would that transition transpire? Two freakish mutations of hominids such that one became male and the other female--those two found each other attractive, mated, raised successful offspring, who in turn engaged in incest to continue the abandoned asexual system? (Please pardon the turn to the graphic.) The point is that as of now, I haven't encountered an attempt to explain that transition. (It may be only my own vicuna; if so, it's another aspect of education to pursue.) Hiding from that issue certainly is a game of believing despite the utter absence of any scientific observation.
All of which is not to say that because science requires childlike faith in the undetectable/unobservable, anyone should accept and adhere to a religion.
Likewise, it is silly to abandon religion because science has not confirmed its veracity. Somehow I suspect that if Richard Dawkins were put in charge of the religious exploration, an element of investigational bias might taint his presumably negative conclusion.
No, abandoning religion for lack of scientific detection or observation grants science far too much leeway for its own leaps of faith.
Good luck and fortune in your search for meaning and happiness.
TC
Lisa B: I too would like to have a connection to the idea of God/god. But I can't abide with, and here I'm agreeing with Theorris I think, how many/most relgions and individuals use God as THE answer for everything unknowable. When God gets in the way of understanding how the world or we humans work, then it's dangerous. That's the kind of God I'm saying goodbye to, but I hope someday to recover, refind, work out a God I can abide with.
TC: I'm certainly not looking for science to confirm religion. There is so much that is unknowable. And of course you are right, science often requires leaps of faith. This has been demonstrated by many working in a social construction/postmodern framework. But, as I said above, the idea of God is often used to trump all reason and that I reject. You seem to go down that road by indicating, very smartly by the way, the holes in evolutionary theory. But as Dawkin's points out (and I can only go so far with Dawkin's as he rejects anything unknowable or messy, even postmodernism) filling in these evolutionary gaps with God doesn't get us anywhere--who, then, created God, a creature that would have to be fairly complicated to have created us? That's where most of religion is dishonest--they have no more answers (actually a lot fewer) about where we came from than an atheist or an evolutionist. But I'm generally fine when religion speaks about what's it's good at: ritual, community, the spirit, etc.
TC: Richard Dawkins is not desperate for company. Ad homonim attacks on him are pointless.
Your analysis, as well, shows a misguided understanding of science. Science takes axioms and attempts to test those against a world of observable data. Sometimes shortcuts must be taken given that one cannot completely control for a situation. Nevertheless, no axiom is ever untestable. No axiom is seen as an absolute, all-encompassing truth that can never and should never be tested.
Religion, however, tests nothing and demands adherents place everything on faith in the story that someone else is telling them about the world.
To Counterintuitive:
I just re-read your post and my comment. In hindsight, I should have re-worded and edited some of it. Nice to deal with someone who discerns the content despite obvious warts. Also nice to not put you on the defensive or consider this a home teaching visit.
God is not the surrogate for reasoning or mortar to fill gaps in my understanding. I have to acknowledge that gaps exist and that perhaps time will allow for science or God to fill those gaps. Is there any other alternative?
Dawkins’s thoughts are self-adulatory swill. Let’s apply his criticism to his religion of choice, science. He wrote, religion “teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." Where are the citations for that assertion? It is not a tenet of the religion to which I belong, which teaches that one should seek truth wherever it may be found until God level knowledge is acquired.
But let’s return to the religion of science. Richard Feynman wrote, "nobody understands quantum mechanics" (The Character of Physical Law, BBC Publications, 1965). It’s been forty years, but the situation hasn’t changed.
Feynman also said that science cannot explain the why of physics—it can only describe what happens. The absence of understanding about the why of physics seems to be a gaping vicuna for quantum physicists.
Ok then, let’s consider for a moment the fantasy of string theory, which is inherently unprovable. A Nobel prize awaits Theorris for his explanation and physical demonstration of how strings exist and behave in 11 different physical dimensions. What does 11 dimensions even mean?
Tell us, O Theorris, how many strings dance upon the head of a pin??????? (And doesn’t your understanding of science depend upon what others have told you—or have you personally observed electrons, protons, neutrons, and their constituent particles? You must place blind faith in what they tell you.)
One reason I continue to adhere to a religion is that in the balance, the religion offers more tenable, albeit incomplete, explanations for much in the physical world than science.
Even if one supposes that Joseph Smith was a fraud, one must admit he was somewhat intuitive about scientific theory that developed decades later—general relativity in the Pearl of Great Price regarding the relative passing of time on earth compared to the place where God dwells; that everything is dependent upon the “light of Christ.” Lo and behold, matter cannot be understood without treating fundamental particles as light waves at some times. The POGP reads of God creating worlds without number. That notion bothered me for decades until the Hubble telescope revealed that galaxies number in the billions, each comprised of perhaps a billion stars or more. Worlds without number indeed. How was it all created? Creatio ex nihilo? Maybe, but if that disturbs a scientist, how is that different from the Big Bang ex nihilo?
How could God communicate over such great distances? Action at a distance, which is information traveling faster than the speed of light, which is a concept recently proven.
To return to the evolution example in my original comment, it is highly improbable that fossil evidence will have recorded that magic moment when one asocial, asexual-hominid persuaded another asexual-hominid to choose a gender, become a sexual-hominid, and embark on wiping out all other asexual hominids. (Or if that is too improbable, then is it the case that two opposite-gendered, sexually-reproducing hominids concurrently sprang from the swamp ex nihilo and began populating the entire human family?) Hmmm, these seem to be undetectable, unknowable events. Using Dawkins' razor, to accept evolution from the primordial swamp requires belief in events utterly lacking observable evidence. So just who is dependent upon being satisfied with a lack of understanding?
How then is evolutionary science, science at all? Isn't it merely scientific dogma to be unquestioned and accepted at face value lest one be ex-communicated from the university?
Dawkins is just such a dogmatist. I won't apologize for the ad homonim attack. His writings are not much more than rants against religion. He chooses to be an atheist. Whatever. His lack of faith does not threaten my own.
You seem to be a reasonable bloke, Counterintuitive. More power to you.
You Theorris, on the other hand, seem to be a condescending PITA. I am well acquainted with the scientific method.
I've had firsthand experience with dogmatic scientist-bureaucrats at FDA and the NIH, who pervert the notion of science to suit their ends. I'll skip the anecdote.
I will not bow deferentially and unquestioning at the altar of science, as I do not so defer at the altar of God.
To acknowledge gaps in understanding is merely to be honest.
Counterintuitive, you seem to be coming to grips with yourself. Good on you. May we all do so.
TC
TC: You are one to talk about being condescending. You start off by reducing the quest into a deep philosophical question as "a mid-life crisis." Now you claim to know who I am based upon criticism that you, apparently, are willing to dole out, but cannot take.
As for whether Dawkins is dogmatic or just a person of great conviction, I refer you back to the scientific method. Given that we are all human beings and subject to human failures everyone is bound to be a hypocrite on any given topic, it would, however, be a hard call to state that a scientist is dogmatic given the very nature of their philosophical system. They accept certain axioms about the world, yes, but they also will question those axioms if necessary.
Science has no altar to bow down to. It is a belief system about the world that self-consciously changes to adapt to new understanding and theory. It is a way of describing the world. Religion is a way of telling the world what to be.
I'm the pain in the ass? Phht.
Oh, and as for electrons, and other scientific theories and principals, the only "faith" in that information is that it was gathered using sound scientific methods and is repeatable by others. That is trust more than it is faith. If a scientist violates the basic trust of science itself then his reputation is suspect and his results highly dubious.
Ad-hominem and straw man arguments. How typical, and disappointing. Your arguments are logically weak, despite your extensive vocabulary. It's unfortunate that you resort to logical fallacies, like most other religious types, when constructing your arguments. However, I am not intimidated by big words, as it is easy to defeat arguments such as yours.
To say that science requires just as big of a leap of faith as religion is laughable, and again, typical. You are too quick to dismiss science, and in particular evolutionary science, as "dogma". No one has ever claimed that evolutionary theory cannot be questioned. Every scientific theory is questioned, tested, and questioned again. That is the nature of science, which is what places it in direct opposition to religion. I reject your assertion that string theory is "unprovable". Perhaps it is today, but it won't always be so. It is irrelevant anyway; it does not make God exist or the Bible factual. A typical A/B ultimatum-type argument, and not at all original. It makes no difference whether it takes humans 50 years or 5,000 to understand quantum mechanics, it does not make the God/religion argument any more viable. At any rate, the burden of proof of God rests on those making the assertion of his existence - not scientists.
Please explain to me how evolutionary theory is not science. I am fascinated to know.
To claim that science is invalid because we have not filled every gap in the evolutionary chain is ludicrous. So are you saying then that we were created, spontaneously, out of nothing, by a supernatural being who nobody can prove exists or has existed? That to you makes more sense?
Re: action at a distance. Even if a supposed God could communicate, it does not prove that he does or has. So what is your point?
I can hardly believe that you really think that studying the scientific works of experts is placing "blind faith" in them. Because I have not personally conducted the research, I cannot learn from, or believe it? Their work is testable and verifiable by others. Your statement is absurd.
Science is not a religion. Science does not claim to explain everything. Scientists are the first to admit that we barely know anything about the world we live in. It is a continual work in process. I am sure that 1,000 years from now, we still won't know the answers to every question we have today. Does that mean we should abandon the search for facts in favor of mythology? Does that mean (insert question X) is unknowable? Of course not. Not every scientific theory is correct, or even immediately provable. The nice thing about science is that when a theory is found to be false, it is abandoned. When new facts or ideas come to light, new theories are developed and old ones discarded. Religion takes the easy way out and demands adherence to a dogma, not science.
Religion avoids the hard questions, not science. Religion makes up supernatural, unprovable claims to answer every question. Religion takes the easy way out, the intellectually lazy explanation of the universe. The feel-good, cure-all answer to every question. How nice. Science is not a religion, nor is religion a science. You do not get to legitimize organized religion by equating it with science.
Lastly, I quite enjoyed your "springing from the swamp" argument. Typical straw man fallacy. Nobody is claiming that anything "sprang" from a swamp. Evolutions takes BILLIONS of years. The minute changes are not directly observable 99.99% of the time, but show up cumulatively over thousands of generations. How easy though to construct your straw man and defeat him (while wanting readers to believe you are defeating the real issue, when you are not). How silly must evolution be to say that hominids sprang from the swamp and populated the Earth! Or even that heterosexual hominids CHOSE to wipe out asexual hominids (which demonstrates a lack of understanding of natural selection). How silly evolution is! Let's dismiss it outright. Instead, let's just say God created everything, and avoid the tricky issues of finding out how things really happened.
God: much easier.
Go Rod! I wish you were my brother-in-law... err.. I better that that back. I have Shane. Ahhh to hell with it... I wish you were my Brother-in-law.
I have nothing to add to your retort.
Trav/HH
I've been following this conversation since it's inception. It has been thought provoking and entertaining and I mean that respectfully. Kudos to you Ron for making statement and sticking with it.
By the way, I've decided to adopt Shane as MY cousin too so I don't see why Rod can't be your brother in law.
Ah, Feel the love!
Anyone want to adopt a wookie?
does the wookie have fleas?
What kind of wookie do you take me for? Of course I have fleas!
House trained?
Well, well. It seems my blog, for the first time in its two year or so life, has taken on a life of its own. I probably would have stuck my nose into the current science/God debate earlier but my sister has been here so I haven't been online; we hiked up Timp Cave today and just got back. A beautiful hike and cave BTW.
Doesn't seem there is much to say and I hightly doubt the two sides will convince one another--big surprise, eh? Of course I will still say something.
From my perspective something Rod said makes the most sense to me:
"The nice thing about science is that when a theory is found to be false, it is abandoned. When new facts or ideas come to light, new theories are developed and old ones discarded."
While I might question some of what Rod says (e.g. I do think science can be dogmatic, can be biased, can be used by others for fame and fortune) ultimately the foundation of science, what makes science science, will eventually knock out faulty theories. But this isn't so with religion. Relgion has a very tough time discarding false principles (Blacks and the priesthood would be a good example from Mormonism); instead religion takes the safe way out and points to continuing revelation and God's time.
Still, I'm not sure religion is all that different from many organizations. It seems businesses, schools, my own workplace are not very good at admitting mistakes. The key difference is I can fairly easily get another job if its beliefs begin to contradict my own, whereas that's not too easy with religion. Plus I won't generally be judged by family or friends if I change jobs. With the suffocating pressure to keep one's true religion (i.e. almost always the one you are born into or around), religion has a built in "keep everyone coming" even if it never admits to mistakes or changes beliefs which are outdated, discriminatory, and damaging.
Even with these dangers of religion, I can certainly understand why many hold onto their traditions and relgious beliefs. There's much one can gain through religion when it goes right--peace, self-reflection, a focus away from materialism and on helping others, uplifting (I know it's a clich) ritual, etc. I still love to hear and sing Mormon hymns even though I do not (and haven't for sometime if I ever did) believe in their content. I can't dismiss religion as quickly as it seems Rod and Theorris can, but they've had different experiences.
I do, though, along with many who have commented here, wish more religions and those individuals within them would focus their energies on core beliefs about becoming better people. It seems almost too obvious to point out that lots of bad stuff happens, and has historically, when religion sets itself up as THE scientific, political, or moral authority. And, for me, this "bad stuff" is allowed to happen because of religion's epistemological system which is indeed very different from science's.
Rod,
I regret making the mid-life crisis comment. It wasn't meant as a criticism--I don't see anything wrong with changing course mid life. I am doing so myself at 43. I wrote and do wish Counterintuitive well in his pursuit of happiness.
Just as blind, unthinking faith in religion is absurd, so is blind, unthinking acceptance of science. Dawkins' writings are merely his fine opinion.
I didn't write, and don't believe, that an error in science confirms any religious belief. You shouldn't have inferred that idea from what I wrote.
As for science and dogma, for many years I made a fine living sparring with dogmatic "scientific experts" at FDA and NIH where their opinions were grounded not in reproducible science, but dogma. It was hard to stifle laughter when their failure to be acquainted with the scientific literature became apparent. Again, this is Counterintuitive's blog, not a newsgroup, so I won't elaborate.
Ok, I will elaborate because it demonstrates the fallacy of the notion of "science." NIH sponsored a study of glucosamine, chondroitin, and celebrex for treating arthritic knee pain. The subjects were selected so that 80% of them had mild to moderate knee pain, and 20 % had moderate to severe knee pain. Each group could gulp all the tylenol they wanted. In the 20% group, the supplements performed better than Celebrex. In the 80% group, it was Celebrex performed better by a nose, but essentially equivalent to placebo.
The authors averaged the data in a groups, and the headlines screamed G + C are no better than placebo. Had the study been 70% mild to mod and 30% mod to severe, the data would have meant Celebrex is no better than placebo, and G + C are effective for treating arthritic knee pain.
That is only one example of dogmatic science causing real world harm where Celebrex is touted as the answer yet increases risk of cardiovascular accident and statistically is not better for mod to severe knee pain than G + C, which reduce risk of cardiovascular accident.
In short, "science" is no reason to abandon faith in God.
And thank you for the homily on the scientific method. Too bad it wasn't delivered 25 years ago as I pursued a degree in chemistry on a scholarship.
TC
I think we are at the heart of the issue, TC--neither science nor religion does well with instant headlines, nor instant debate (such as a comment system on a blog).
Given that I will still trust science over my numerous local religious leaders. I understand your position much more clearly than my reactionary initial posts (that mid-life crisis statement really irked me, given that I've spent a lifetime exploring the nuances of philosophy and ideas and to see it reduced to such simplistic terms was annoying. I understand where you are coming from, however.)
I will not concede my argument for good solid science, however. Science by its very paradigm will weed out what is not science. Science is never going to be about instant gratification and that is what is dangerous about a media that subscribes to an ancient paradigm (i.e. a religious one) that demands instant, oracular answers to every human problem.
In our system of the free exchange of ideas anyone is permitted to proclaim anything. One must, however, use ones discernment to decide what to trust and what to not. I would still argue that is not faith. That is simple human reason.
Yours in the PITA.
I might add that to ask a wookie if he is house broken is like beating him at chess.
Furthermore, I don't know why I suddenly cast myself as the defender of science. I think there is entirely too much binary opposition shit going on here.
Here's my criticism of Dawkins, if you want it: he is from the English logical positivist school that lacks a sense of nuance. He addressed, himself, that very issue in the God Delusion. I don't think he even has a clue as to what it really means.
Jacob Bronowski--now that's a dude that can bridge the Continental philosophy and the logical positivists.
That doesn't mean, however, that I'm still not going to test my textual self against the perceived natural world.
Talk about religion! Woosh!
Thorris you can be my starship co-pilot any time. And you can kick my butt at chess, no problem. I will require that you allow me to pet you occasionally like Han Solo did (nothing sexual mind you).
I must agree with TC on a few points. First, science is not a good reason to abandon the idea of God. I agree. And, its kind of funny that no one on this thread ever made that case anyway. Nice tilting at windmills there.
Its fascinating that TC cites poor research (NSAID, Glucosimine, etc.) that has the data skewed to acheive a questionable outcome. I was given some Celebrex for some neck pain. IT didn't do any better than Ibuprofen for me. (One data point). The only way to determine poor science is by analysis through good science. I doubt TC prayed and his conclusions dropped from the outstreched hands of a priest. Therefore it is kinda contradictory to say science is not good for determining truth, and then use science to show what is true. Confusing.
In the end the idea of God/gods must be judged on its own merit. I have yet to see anyone make the case FOR the existence (or even the usefullness) of God.
It is always helpful to assent to the straw-men arguments, grant them true. Then require the asserter to make the case for his/her belief. Not only is it honest, it is honorable. So TC, I invite you to visit my blog and make your case FOR god please do so. I would love to hear the new arguements that someone with your chemistry background, and obvious intelligence would make.
HH
p.s. I wasn't going to jump in, but everyone is having so much fun...
STG72861 here again. Still don't remember my password, so I am still and anonymous blogger. As a former scientist (once a scientist always a scientist?) with a degree in Chemistry, a minor in Biochem, and a number of physics classes, I consider myself a bit of a generalist when it comes to science. With religion, I also consider myself somewhat of a generalist, having belong to three different churches in my life (limited, though, to the realm of Christianity).
I have, and will continue to take, a non-confrontation, non-exclusive approach to religion and science when view simultaneously. Must things be mutally exclusive between the two? I have scientist friends who demand that God and creationism can't co-exist with science's Big Bang theory, but I can live with both as being truth. These same folks will insist that Darwinism and the theory of evolution contradict creationism. (Why is it still called the "theory" of evolution?) I think they can both exist side-by-side as truth. It's all theory, and my can be a blend of both science and religion.
Some one just posted the suggestion that there's yet to be made the case for the existence of God, and also the usefullness of God. First, let me say that while proof of God may not be universally out there and accepted, I have yet to see proof there is not a God. It goes both ways in the proof department.
Second, I would suggest that there is a usefullness of God, much of it good, some of it bad. It can be a rallying place for people searching for something, people who are dying to believe in something, anything; a sense of belonging can take place, if nothing else. It can also be used as a tool of unrighteous dominion (think Jim Jones or David Koresh here) and a power grab, or a moeny making scheme. Millions have been fed and clothed by religious organizations. Millions have also died because of religion.
I say believe what you want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, don't force feed your religion on anyone, and share only if someone really wants to here it. And one more, don't condemn others' beliefs.
HH,
I didn't make myself clear if you inferred that I had any intention of persuading anyone to believe in God. I don't.
As for the basis of my faith, I can't see how it would meet your standard for evidence. You'll just have to accept that I formulated an axiom for testing, predetermined what I would accept as reliable data points, and proceeded from there. Was the experiment biased? Yes, it probably was because I had a pre-existing desired outcome. It doesn't meet the definition of science because no one else can reproduce the experiment and verify my personal results. Thus, I wouldn't expect you to accept my experiences as objective, reliable evidence persuasive to you. So I won't undertake the effort.
Your invitation poses a framework for debate that is uninteresting to me. I won't argue that God or religion may exist solely for man to find a way for God to be useful. One might just as well substitute "appendix" for the word God and have a go at the debate. It's an angels on the head of a pin debate. I'd rather converse about more pressing issues.
In short, it couldn't matter to me less if Counterintuitive or anyone else here believes in a diety or not.
I've tried to state this point ad nauseum--the existence of science is no reason to abandon religious faith any more than the existence of religious faith is a reason to abandon science. The issues are non-sequitors.
It's funny you mention your experience with Celebrex. Same here. I had a debilitating, painful plica, the knee's evolutionary equivalent of the appendix. (Egads! I used the word "evolution.") OTCs, celebrex, rest and ice, no relief. Given Vioxx, instant cure. If we humans are so homogenous genetically, why do we respond so randomly to different variations of anti-inflammatories? A question for God some fine day I suppose, since science can't seem to provide the answer. Yet.
This comment section seems to have run its course.
Thanks for tolerating it Counterintuitive.
Maybe you can take heart that your post instigated some spirited writing.
Adios, cruel world.
TC
As for closure, I don't think the matter will ever be resolved. There are far too many questions to be answered.
I will say one thing, however, TC's statement that there is no reason to abandon God for science is sound. I quite agree and never stated such. I was actually the one turning this discussion on an anti-religion bent. I, quite honestly, have no problem with the concept of God. What I have a problem with is the method that religion takes to perceive that God.
In sum, I agree with what lisa b state early in the discussion--that it is hard to throw the concept of God out, considering the ideal that it represents.
I apologize for co-opting this discussion to my anti-religion bent. I have no other way of talking about it, however, since religion has stolen the concept of God, as has been seen from ancient times, attempted to make it an inaccessible club for the initiated.
Bunk, I say. Pure bunk.
I just hope this doesn't interfere with your home teaching.
Post a Comment