Does someone who believes in God have more faith? More hope? Are they, by in large, better people? More charitable? It seems a lot of those who believe in God think so (e.g. What would you live for without a belief in God or hope for afterlife with your family? Why be moral?) Another possibility, though not inevitable, occurs to me.
To be a good person, continuing to have hope in this life, without a belief in a God or afterlife asserts a genuine faith in the human ability to do good in spite of any retribution or reward. This is in stark contrast to some who believe in God because of their profound distrust in humanity and in their own ability to create meaning. With this in mind, some kinds of belief function to reduce the amazing adventure and wonder around us into a game with a list of rules where we play to win the ultimate prize--eternal life.
I used to justify my own shaky belief in God by citing Pascal's Wager that it's a wise decision to believe in God because as Pascal said: "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." The potential costs of belief were mostly lost to me then; now they are ever-abundant--the ease of judging others, justification of environmental degradation, avoidance of ambiguity, a lack of faith in one's self and others to do good for its own sake, the inability to confront one's mortal existence...
There are almost always costs and benefits to any decision we make though I'm not suggesting all those who believe in God necessarily experience these costs, but they are certainly risks. And, of course, there are costs associated with my belief in humanity over a god. To reiterate I do not think all believers experience these costs and, in fact, paradoxically, some use belief to avoid these very costs. But I do assert that there are real risks in an unwavering belief in God and real potential benefits to unbelief or belief in humanity. Amazingly to me these two facts are rarely admitted to.
Pascal's Wager turns on its head for me--a cost/benefit analysis of "belief" puts me squarely in the black with (un)belief in humanity.
9 comments:
Can't sleep, so am posing this side question which has been on my mind, as I've read many posts (by you and others) about unbelief: do you find that the impulse to put your faith in something is still there? or maybe more importantly, do people seem to substitute some other thing that effectively becomes their religion, in place of the God-belief?
Liked your point about the risks of putting one's faith in God. I'm still a believer in some very persistent sense,but I think you're right about this.
Adding to the above . . . and I also wonder if the substitute "religion in effect" has some of the same risks--becoming judgmental, self-justification, avoidance of ambiguity . . .--that you identify for religious faith?
Did you listen to "Speaking of Faith" yesterday? I listened for a few minutes and thought of you. It was a Humanist Rabbi or someone. But he talked about how culture wants to define atheists by what they don't believe in, but he is a humanist (as well as an atheist, and wants to be defined by what he does believe in, which is humanity. Also there is a focus on literature, which I like.
But I think you can not believe in god, believe in humanity (to some extent), and also believe in other things (like nature and string theory). I also believe in nothingness (like black holes), which can be a kind of belief, because nothing is something.
Nice post here. I completely agree with you about the negative consequences of religious belief. To me, though, it's important to distinguish the difference between superstitious belief, or faith, and non-superstitious belief, such as a belief that the sun will come up tomorrow or that your wife is faithful. In other words, believing in something because your knowledge and experience support a certain likelihood is different from believing in something as an act of obedience or delusional hope. It seems to me that you do have the latter kind of belief in humanity, at least on a personal level, or you wouldn't be married, have kids, have friends, etc. So, when you say that you don't believe in humanity, are you saying that you don't believe human beings as a whole will "do good in spite of any retribution or reward" or that no human being, including yourself, will ever act "good" without incentive? I'd like to know your definition of "good". Do you have the same "unbelief" in other animals?
lisa b: I agree something else does "replace" god and certainly carries risks but I don't think in most cases it becomes a "religion." Very few organizations can up the ante like religion can.
dr. write: I've got it podcasted for my trip to New Orleans.
shane: I think my little rhetorical ploy must have confused you. When I said "(un)belief" in humanity, I meant to play off of the fact that religions seem to own the word "belief." So if I do believe in humanity, which I do with certain qualifications, then I am still seen as an unbeliever, to possess unbelief.
In short I totally agree with your distinction about belief and I do believe in humanity.
The real issue with Pascal's Wager is this: If God does exist, and there is a heaven, do you really think he will let you in because you "believed" just to get a reward? I would be more apt to send you to hell for being so insincere and self-serving.
Another real "cost" of belief is losing 1/7th of your life (at the minimum) spent sitting with people who gossip about you and judge you for every little thing you do.
The reality is that organized religion is a business. The people who are in charge lust for power and authority over others, and don't hesitate to practice their power. They use guilt and intimidation to keep you coming back.
I don't waste my time worrying about whether "God" exists anymore. To me, the answer is completely obvious.
On a related topic... there are those who will quote the "80% of Americans believe in God, so they must be right" (I heard that one the other day). Just remember, 100% of 5 year-olds believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't make him real either. At least there's evidence of Santa Claus.
Ahh, a rhetorical ploy. Yeah, went right over my head. My bad.
I was going to write something prfound, but it would have been zactly what Rod wrote. So I won't take the time.
However, Christopher Hitchens asked a profound question, "can you name one moral act that any atheist can NOT do that a theist can?" The silence after that question is deafening. Simple proof that religion has no special claim to morality.
"Atheists have nothing to look forward to," is a statement often heard. Again, I look forward to a good dinner, and then sexual congress (sorry Shane) with the wife. Its quite enough for me. ;)
IN the end we are, all of us, Atheists. Some of just are "complete" atheists. The rest of us simply allow for exceptions based on irrational and capricious reasoning.
Wonderful (as usual) Ron,
HH =)
coming in late to the conversation (as usual)....
Great post Ron. It is something that I've thought about a lot too. Had an interesting conversation with a believer not long ago... when asked why I don't go to church and how I learn and intend to teach my children morals...assuming that church would teach me and my children morals, I assert that there isn't anything that I could learn in church with regards to how to be a good person more than what we already possess inside. I believe that we already have the program for the social moral code and I think it is something innate, like learning to walk or speak a language. Is this "moral code" something that can be taught anyway? It seems like we are born with it but when we are socialized into groups we often override it with stuff that we'd be better off not learning. (racism, sexism, xenophobia)...
I felt pretty good about that argument...until I attended a church not long ago (not a Mormon church) and the topic discussed over the pulpit challenged me to do something to make a difference in a particular area. It touched me deeply and I was moved to action, or at least begin the action. It made me reconsider the potential benefits of a formal organization, Mormon or otherwise. Perhaps it is the benefit of the society itself, the excuse to get together and talk about important social issues and the opportunity to exercise the good in us. Just like the PTA or the Lion's club or the Masons or any social organization. But that isn't so much about belief, it is more about living up to the moral urges inside of us. It is easy to get wrapped up in myself and become myopic and self centered when I'm not reminded regularly that there are other people who suffer. I think that can mainly happen within a community. But the dogma that is taught over the pulpit (of what and who we should believe in, etc) can actually distract from this purpose. Ultimately, I don't really think that belief really matters that much. I think that God, assuming for a moment that He, She, It, or They exist, would care much more about what someone does with this limited space of time much more than whether we had a belief in a God, or Kolob or David Koresh or whatever.
I liked the quote by Sweeny about how the invisible and the imagined look exactly the same. I've decided that it all really doesn't matter. Let the believers believe in peace especially if they get something out of this. Sure some can be arrogant and condescending with their beliefs, so can the nonbelievers. I don't really care, that's not my problem. I have strong enough boundaries that it doesn't affect me and I don't need to fuse with their ideology (even if they think I should).
Post a Comment