If, over the long evolutionary development of humans, a belief in God has enjoyed favorable evolutionary selection, --as perhaps it has on some readings --, then aren’t you tinkering with and changing something that has already been selected for? Maybe, it could be thought, a departure from such belief could be the next evolutionary transformation that confers enough slight advantage so as to become the new norm over the next geological eons. But we can’t really know that – we’re spitting in the wind. There seems to be enough advantage conferred on the religious these days (not to mention all through evolutionary history, which hasn’t lacked for both believers and nonbelievers in every period as far back as we can guess) that it would seem the hopeful atheist has neither evolution nor science on their side in this hopeful outlook.
Thank you for your response.
I would certainly agree we learn from experience, good and bad, and not only from ours but from the experiences of others. This is the source of the power of science, and I am concerned that some people are saying that we should change to guidelines of science so it findings do not have to be verified by experience or experimentation.
Now the question which arises from knowledge is: Is it “real” or not? If it is real then knowledge is objective and can be used reliably in different contexts. If it is not then experience is subjective and is not universal. Through the work over the years we have found that scientific knowledge or knowledge about physical nature is reliably objective. Some people say that quantum physics belies this, but I do not think that is true. Quantum physics is a special case that does not apply to ordinary experience.
On the other hand moral knowledge is about people and is much harder to make reliable generalizations about people than it is to make them about things. Nonethele4ss it would be impossible to live in an immoral, unpredictable world. We live is a basically moral predictable world, even though we know that not every one is moral.
Again this is evidence that our knowledge of right and wrong is basically objective, rather than subjective. People are structured to prefer good over evil and this is universal, but not as universal as the way nature works. We need to work to make honesty more universal.
Spiritual truth is the hardest to understand and generalize about. However if there is one Truth about nature and one Truth about morality that is real and objective, there logically is one God Who is the Source of spiritual Truth and moral and physical Truth. Our understanding of the Truth is not perfect, so we keep working on it, however our experience of the order on this world, rationality, and goodness of this world point to the God found in the New Testament, and I dare to say in my experience of Life…
I’m glad you have a way to think about life and purpose which you find satisfying. I think it is important to have an inner life which steers you toward what matters as well as an appreciation of science and how the world works. I don’t agree with nuts and bolts of all that you say but I too trust my inner compass and do not look to science to tell me which way is north.
You might be surprised to learn that morality is as important to atheists as it is to anyone else, even though most probably are content with conceptualizing morality as subjective. But really, how we conceptualize morality is far less important than how we live. There is one young anti-theist I know online at another site who would never step foot here. But he will argue to his last breath that morality is indeed objective although it requires no God to make it so. But please do not ask me to defend his position. I honestly don’t care that much anymore even though my honors thesis for my philosophy major was on that very subject, and I defended the subjectivist view. We’re not really so different though I do criticize him and others on my side for their flippant devaluing of anything not vouchsafed by scientific.
I recently shared this video on the divided brain by Iain McGilchrist which ends with a quote from Einstein which goes something like “the intuitive mind is a sacred gift while the rational mind is a faithful servant, but in our society we have elevated the servant and forgotten the gift”. You can see for yourself badly I may have mangled that here if you like. It is pretty entertaining accompanied as it is with the doodles and special effects.
Not really, greek gods for instance were supposed to be super powerfull beings living inside of reality, many of them were even killed in some myths. Do you really think I’m being unfair on saying that some atheists make unfair analogies when talking about the implausibility of God because they compare a creator/transcendent God to more “down to earth” things like greek gods or teapots floating around the moon of jupiter? I’m not claiming all atheist arguments are bad, I’m just saying these particular ones are in my opinion.
So you are not a materialist?
I don’t think it is. Like I said, just renaming something says nothing about its existence or plausibility. As far as I know the FSM is an attempt to compare the idea of God to a absurd ideia and suggest that they are equally absurd, is pretty much the same thing Russel does in the teapot around jupiter analogy. He is not just calling God a “teapot”, but rather saying that the idea of God is as implausible as the teapot idea.
But do you realize that the inexistence of God is a premise, and not a conclusion in your arguments? They might be right in case God does not exist, but they don’t do any good in arguing for its inexistence.
Oh I don’t think I’ve made a proper argument for anything. I’m only sketching out possibilities which make sense to me of the importance religious experience has had for human beings through time. I’m sharing that here to say I think a relationship with God is possible even if this 'God’s existence like that of my ‘self’ is dependent upon the consciousness arising in my mind. If it were true -which I have not and cannot demonstarte- I just don’t think it should be seen as a death knell for religious experience. I don’t believe in an external God but I am humbled by the occasional gift of insight, inspiration and the clarity of meaning which can arise from within. I don’t call the source God but I have no trouble acknowledging its validity and importance to those who do.
Frankly I’m much less interested in sharing this with believers than I am with non-believers because I don’t think you need it as much. But trust me, it is not an easy sell. Former believers very often no longer trust themselves to believe anything science will not sign off on. However, since this site is rethinking theology with the intention of reconciling more fully with science I am happy to share it here for what it may be worth. Perhaps you may have a child or know one who turns away from religion. It might give you a way to suggest to them a religion lite alternative which would be a better outcome than something more bleak.
I said “the Christian God or other such gods.” The Greek gods aren’t (the Islamic god for example is–I don’t know whether you regard them as the same or not, but that’s the kind of god I meant). I don’t understand what “atheist arguments” you are referring to. What I’m saying is that atheists with knowledge of the Christian God concept overwhelmingly recognize that the Christian God as presented is not entirely contained within our experience (as you say is what you meant by “reality” here) and is hierarchically superior to it. Could you be more specific about the arguments in question?
If it is to mean “the material is definitely all there is and all there can be”, no (as you apparently have divined from what I said above.) However, the material sphere we are familiar with is all that presently seems to be accessible to us, as far as I can see.
The FSM was created directly as a result of the ID movement in the States. In short, someone sent a letter to some school board or other government organ suggesting that if ID (which was more overtly Christian at the time I believe) was to be given equal time in the classroom, FSMism should also be given equal time. So it originally was an attempt to show that ideas which had no scientific backing should not be given any preference as an “alternate theory.” Certainly it’s taken on a life of its own as a spoof of god-ideas, but I don’t see how that’s connected to any particular “argument”. Russell was making a statement about the burden of proof, that someone advancing an unfalsifiable idea has the burden of proof for it. I can’t speak to how all atheists will use these concepts, but in general, I don’t think you’re accurately characterizing them.
Thank you for your response, but I am disappointed that that no one, believers and non-believers seems to be able to separate themselves from the dualistic Western world view.
The point of what I am saying is objective and subjective are not opposites, but complementary. We can only have a suitable morality if it meets our subje4ctive needs and the objective needs of others. This seems to be quite obvious, but when we get bound up in our world views we seem to lose sight of the obvious.
We need to use scientific, philosophical, and theological thinking to find a holistic understanding of life . Even the presentation of the left and right hemispheres of the brain suffers from this type of dualism. I describes a problem, but does not point to a solution as far as I can see.
We need a third way beyond the scientific or practical and the idealistic or intellectual. I think Jesus Christ lived, taught, and exemplified that third way, so that is why He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.
I think that many atheists (and perhaps to a lesser degree some theists) find the theology of the transcendence and simplicity of God difficult to understand. Within this theology, the Christian faith speaks of a personal transformative experience and existence, as a conversion of ones very being, arising from an intimate relationship with God, in the life and resurrection of Christ. A great deal of Orthodox theology speaks of this as a mystery.
Initially many Greco-Roman pagans took this as a view from atheists, since it denied their human based conceptions of gods. I wonder if atheists nowadays have moved from this pagan view.
Good luck with your studies and projects. It sounds like you’ve found a way that works for you and that is very fortunate.
Thanks for your good wishes. Judging from the news we need a way that works for everyone, so it is sad if we cannot agree.
The only way I could be less happy with my own way would be if I knew it made others sad. Wouldn’t it be funny if our situation was akin to the blindmen and the elephant? We both describe holding something pretty different yet we both may have hold of the same elephant.
Excellent view
It is clear that in the USA there are two opposing views. Each makes the other sad, so are you going to change yours to please the others?
Science has convinced us that natural laws are the same regardless of where we are in the world. Why then should we think that human nature and the nature of Good are different in different parts of the world?
The world has been united by travel, trade, politics, and communication for some time now. Is there any evidence that N. Korea is just another part of the elephant?
Honestly I do not think it would be funny of Maoism, Jihadism, and Trumpism were just parts of the elephant.
It is correct that tolerance can not tolerate an intolerant view that aspires to vanquish it. There are however lots of views that have learned to coexist. I agree that Maoism etc are bad manifestations of a given point of view. However aren’t there admirable principles that have gone astray? Protestants and Catholics have the potential for great devotion to God. The fact that North Ireland and the religious wars of the Reformation occurred doesn’t define them though. Good points. Thanks
You are right that we should not change a view to simply accommodate another’s comfort. I am still learning on this.
I’m not sure the transcendence is so hard. I don’t find it hard to imagine that God transcends our physical world, at least, if that’s what you meant by it. I’m less sure about simplicity. I can’t think of any real reason why God would necessarily be either more simple or more complex than the world we know.
Within this theology, the Christian faith speaks of a personal transformative experience and existence, as a conversion of ones very being, arising from an intimate relationship with God, in the life and resurrection of Christ. A great deal of Orthodox theology speaks of this as a mystery.
I get this. With regards to my and BB’s conversation though, this kind of personal experience isn’t really the stuff of arguments.
Very little danger of that. I have faith in something beyond myself which I do not call God. That faith has been resilient for a long time.
But there are many more than two views in the US and not all of them are in opposition. I’m sorry if you feel compelled to struggle to make your own view win out. I long ago realized that my own happiness depends on my accepting other adults as peers. Even those I think are in error in important ways must be granted the autonomy to find their own way. But most differences are in regard to flavor and such diversity adds richness. Too much homogeneity would be dull.
The point of my post has more to do with the basis of any discussion on God as Orthodox Christianity would undertake - if an argument is put for another notion of a god, the exchange would be either incoherent, or simply impossible to undertake, e.g. transcendence as we would discuss God is way beyond the physical…
I am glad to hear this. On the other hand if nomenclature is important and it can be, I would characterize you faith as agnosticism. You believe in a spiritual reality, but do not call it “Theos.” Have you considered “I AM WHO I AM?”
What is am referring to is to those who seem to be closed minded and those who are more open minded. It is more an attitude than liberal or conservative, which makes it difficult to understand.
I do not see it that way. The world is or should be a market place of ideas. That is the ideas behind BioLogos I believe. Everyone should have the ability to present his/her ideas as forcefully as they can within the standards of sound thinking. We live in a time of radical change and we need for all the possibilities to be examined so the best can be available to all. That is what I try to do.
Since Jesus was executed because He was the supreme nonconformist, I do not think my view leads to homogeneity nor should Christianity. We need unity and diversity. Not unity for unity’s sake or diversity for diversity’s sake. We need to all work together for the benefit of everyone.
agree with this. thanks.