Chris (Lambert) just showed me the response he has written to my post yesterday about spirituality. It's not directly related but I'm linking to it here because I really think anyone who participated in the earlier multiple-blog discussion ought to read it.
Arguments against theism usually take the form of factual objections: logical flaws in arguments, errors within religious texts, or contradictions between somebody's particular belief system and the observable world. But although a debate on any other subject would be won or lost on strength of factual argument, this does not apply to arguments about religion. This is because for most committed theists, there exists something inherently more important than evidence: faith, and for many of them it's clear that no amount of evidence could ever exist that would lead them to reconsider their worldview. In the minds of strong believers, their beliefs are completely unfalsifiable, and no factual argument, however well presented, will ever have any effect.
I hope this doesn't sound disparaging so far; I'm trying to express this objectively. But a note to the faithful in the audience: bear in mind that in some of the following paragraphs in particular I'm only referring to a subset of believers, so please don't assume I'm generalising; that's not my intention.
I actually find it fascinating to observe. After 11/9, the American religious right paraded an unremarkable cross-shaped piece of debris at Ground Zero as evidence of the existence and intervention of their god, while conveniently ignoring the horrific implications of their trust in a deity who would do nothing to stop a terrorist attack and save 3,000 lives -- but would play Lego with the rubble. Given an opportunity, many theists will see any suitable phenomenon or occurrence as evidence that supports their faith. But a worldview that includes faith as the highest form of 'knowledge' requires that anything that might contradict these beliefs can not be accepted; it must be dismissed, whether through alternative explanations however implausible, by fallacy or ad hominem, or just through simple denial. This is not always the case, of course; sometimes, the argument they are faced with is genuinely weak, and a solid defence can be made by the believer. But by maintaining over time the selective process of tending towards accepting any piece of evidence in support of their faith while tending towards not giving due consideration to any evidence against, the security of a believer's faith is ensured -- a cycle of reinforcement.
Many non-theists, as well as adherents of religions like Buddhism that encourage critical inquiry, find this dogmatism difficult to understand. Personally, I believe it can even be dangerous. I think that when somebody makes something unverifiable into their most important source of 'truth', they impair their ability to think critically or test a premise -- important skills in every part of life.
I try not to get angry on the occasions that theists use poor logic, bad attitude, or weak judgment in defence of their religious opinions. Almost always, they're actually neither poor thinkers nor disagreeable individuals, and would not even consider using weak logic or gratuitous insult in any other conversational context. I believe it's unintentional; when faith is permitted to transcend everything, then there is no option but to dismiss any challenge to faith. And the worst parts of human nature are sometimes exposed in doing so.
Or in summary, don't attempt to seriously debate someone who believes that their opinion is unfalsifiable; it's a lose-lose situation. (Straightforward, yes, but it's taken me an absurdly long time to figure this out.)
But back to the point of the post:
Chris (Lambert)'s personal argument for why he doesn't believe is quite different to the familiar ones. He does not attempt to debate the truth or falsehood of religion, arguing that it is completely irrelevant, because he has no need or desire for any supernatural influence to be exerted on his life. Chris thinks that mankind's strongest trait is its ability to withstand difficulty, and maintains a solid independence. "I will get myself through life and I take great pride in that." A fiercely humanistic position to be sure.
Chris doesn't have comments working because he hasn't written that part of the code yet, but until that facility's working, I'm sure he'll read any comments left here. If you haven't already, check out his words.
Thanks for the link.
Religeon is possibly the most interesting subject in the world. I'm eager to hear any counterpoints to my arguments - accepting that they're not really arguments, just a description of my belief structure.
"no one, as yet has been able to give me an answer to the simple question 'why?'" [from Chris (Lambert)'s page]
Simple answer, because we're broken. As Matthew and I mentioned in our blogs (Matthew being a pagan, and me being a Christian) we both believe people are fundamentally broken. We both believe we need something to fix us. I believe that is wholly external force (God) and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Matthew believes it is a mix of external and internal (God, Goddess and self-realisation maybe).
But obviously Chris (Lambert)'s opinion would be that we're not broken, or even if we are then we can fix it ourselves. Fair enough.
Oh and on the note of us being impressive:
1 - Whilst we've achieved some pretty cool stuff (Stone & Space henge), we've also done some pretty darn crappy stuff - wars, murders, dictators, genocide, pollution, exploitation etc. On balance I'd say that humans have done more bad than good, but maybe I'm cynical.
2 - My belief is in a creator God, so of course this is just my beliefs coming through, but I think that nature is just a tad more impressive than anything man ever has or ever will achieve. But you may not believe it was an achievement, more a progression or evolution or even accident. Fair enough.
"It is only ourselves who we can totally rely upon."
I'm very glad I don't feel that way. I let myself down constantly, but maybe I'm just crap.
And on to Chris (Chapman)'s entry...
I too worry about people who take anything as a sign to affirm their faith. For instance, I don't think I'd take the cross-shaped piece of rubble from 9/11 as a sign from God. I might take it as a reminder to think of him in that situation, but not that somehow it made the whole thing go away.
Why God didn't stop the atrocities of 9/11? Why he doesn't stop murders? Why he doesn't stop children being run down? Why he doesn't stop people breaking their limbs? Why he doesn't he stop me banging my head? I don't have a complete explanation for any of those. It's all mixed up in the "we're all broken" and "free will" thing.
I'm glad the faith-over-reason thing has come together in your head, I guess that helps you see where us Christians are coming from. I like the new chilled-out Chris :) (Not that I didn't like the old one, but he did wind me up a bit more and probably v.v. no doubt).
I think that'll do for now - eyes getting tired... brain shutting down...
I don't really think that's a valid argument.
"I'm broken" is not a reason to need God. Everyone has difficult times in their life and this is just part of life. However these difficult parts of life are all psychological. The causes of the feelings may not be but the feelings them selves are -- if you follow me. We're not born broken - like a car we need the occasional tune up, or new gearbox, but these are all things we can undertake ourselves with self-confidence and a Haynes Manual.
At the risk of being offensive - which I truly don't mean to be here - saying you are broken and can't fix yourself is both self-defeating and irresponsible. Even the bible says that "God helps those who help themselves". If God does exist then I'm sure he get's irritated with Christians coming up to him and saying:
"Go-oood... I'm broken again. Can you ix me, please?"
It would be like you building a PC for someone and them bringing it over ever week or so because they've deleted the registry by accident - or something.
Of course mankind has done some terrible things. I don't think there's enough Dulux in the world to put a fine gloss over Hiroshima, but we also have done some wonderful things and we are still a very young species - I think it's fair to say that we are not as bloodthirsty now as we once were - despite our weaponry becoming much more devastating.
Nature and the universe itself is wonderous but it's a moot point as it were, because neither of us will ever agree on how it came into being. Although I can assume, I hope, that you agree it took slightly longer than 144 hours. So yeah, it is great, but we're not playing "Wonder Top-Trumps" here.
I think the main argument I've got, really, is that this feeling of comfort that God brings to Christians is identical to the feeling I get when I think "Ah f**k it, I can handle this." and so maybe it isn't God at all that you feel in those moments of doubt - maybe it's your strength within. And isn't it this feeling that is the entire basis of belief?
Sorry to end on such a confrontational note - it's not really meant to be that. I'm just massively fascinayed in it all - as I've said.
"I don't really think that's a valid argument. "I'm broken" is not a reason to need God."
Well, I guess that's your opinion. I believe that I'm broken beyond what any human can repair - can something imperfect ever make something perfect? Yes, I believe God demands perfection (Jesus said "Be perfect as I am perfect").
"Everyone has difficult times in their life and this is just part of life. However these difficult parts of life are all psychological."
Yes, difficult times in life are part of life. Yes, these are, at least in part, psychological. No, I'm not talking about "difficult times" when I talk about being broken. I'm talking about us not doing what is right (However we define that. I think most people change their definitions of what is "right" based on what they've done in the past, so they can say they've never done anything "too wrong", but in reality before they did it they would have thought it wrong. Anyway, I digress). We're broken because we don't have the capacity to do the right thing all the time.
Now, I'm not claiming that becoming a Christian makes you do the right thing all the time. Far from it. If anything it makes you even more aware of how little of the time you do the right thing. However, because I believe there are consequences of our not-doing-the-right-thing (a.k.a. sin), we need some way of making up for that. And since we cannot ever make up for it fully (imperfect things being unable to do perfect things), it has to be down to a perfect thing to do it for us (God).
"We're not born broken - like a car we need the occasional tune up, or new gearbox, but these are all things we can undertake ourselves with self-confidence and a Haynes Manual.
The Bible would disagree with that. Have a google for "total depravity" if you want to read around what the Bible says about how sinful we are. It would go further than saying "we're all a bit broken and need the odd repair" and would say "we're all absolutely dead, entangled in things we can't get out of in our own strength".
Not only does the Bible say that, but I find it to be true in my experience. Maybe it's because I'm weak-willed, maybe it's because I don't try hard enough, but I find I can't work myself out of my character flaws...
"saying you are broken and can't fix yourself is both self-defeating and irresponsible."
Self-defeating, yes. I acknowledge that I'm crap and if I just had myself to depend on, I'd be down and out. Irresponsible, no. I take full responsibility for my actions, and believe that justice will be done, punishment exacted for every time I fail to do the right thing... which is pretty often. Just as a Christian, I believe I don't take that punishment, Jesus does. Again, he's perfect, so he's the only one that can deal with it properly and permanently.
"Even the bible says that "God helps those who help themselves"."
That's not true, it doesn't. See http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/bulletin_board/16/messages/895.html.
"If God does exist then I'm sure he get's irritated with Christians coming up to him and saying: "Go-oood... I'm broken again. Can you ix me, please?"
"It would be like you building a PC for someone and them bringing it over ever week or so because they've deleted the registry by accident - or something."
Yep, it is pretty much like that. But fortunately, God has infinite love, patience, mercy and grace, so he puts up with us. God bless him :)
"Although I can assume, I hope, that you agree [creation] took slightly longer than 144 hours."
If I believe in an all-powerful creator God, then why couldn't he have done it in that time-frame? Why couldn't he have made it look like we evolved from apes? or turnips? or anything. It's up to him. I don't limit God to what seems reasonable to me right now (imperfect brains are not so good at understanding infinity and perfection). However, I do believe that it took longer than a literal 144 hours as we see it now, but that doesn't mean I believe in evolution... but let's not go there :D
"this feeling of comfort that God brings to Christians is identical to the feeling I get when I think "Ah f**k it, I can handle this." and so maybe it isn't God at all that you feel in those moments of doubt - maybe it's your strength within. And isn't it this feeling that is the entire basis of belief?"
We've been talking about religious experiences in this debate of course, but my faith is not solely based on a feeling. In fact, my faith started before I "experienced God", as I saw him work in those around me and from their testimony, as I learnt about him and started seeing him work in my life. Feeling is a part of it, but feelings are very temporary, or at least fickle. Love is the core of my faith. Love isn't just a feeling, it's so much more than that - an understanding, a living relationship, going through "difficult times", having good times, spending time together, it develops, it grows, sometimes you feel it a lot, sometimes you feel it less. Such is the way of love, and such is my life.
One thing I'm really aware of, and I've obviously picked up on from your comment, is that we often state things as clear fact that are often based on assumptions further down the chain. I know I'm guilty of this too, so I'd just like to state that everything I've said above is my firm belief about the ways of the world, and I apologise for any assumptions that I've made that might offend you. Hmm, sounds like a disclaimer to me! hehe.
>> do the right thing all the time
But that would require there to be a thing which was right.
Who defines that? How do you get to know about it?
That's the exact same thing I was thinking, Mr Huggins. The problem with...
Oh. Here's a disclaimer. :) No offence intended, all remarks within this post are written in the interests of making valid points and cogent arguments within the discussion at hand. That should do it. Oh and I use the word "morals" all the way through here, as I don't want to get dragged into a "Morals=Ethics?" debate.
The problem I have with your post, x3ja, is that it's pretty much the definition of a cyclic argument:
1. I am broken because I am unable to do the right thing all the time.
2. Jesus helps me by taking flak when I am unable to do the right thing - when I sin.
3. To Sin is to break the rules of God.
But if Jesus does not exist then neither does God and so this Absolute Sin does not exist either.
This is possibly the most irritating thing about Christian beliefs, to me (again no offence), but Christians do tend to think that they exist on a moral high-ground - "If anything [being a Christian] makes you even more aware of how little of the time you do the right thing". The assertion that non-Christians' moral-compasses (moral-compi?) are stored in electro-magnetic pockets (if you'll excuse the clumsy dialogue) just seems patronising.
Again I'm talking generally here and am aiming no accusations at anyone.
I have a pretty good moral code, I like to think, and I don't believe that it is any less stringent than the one held by people of faith. True I will think nothing about breaking the first commandment but I think, after that we're pretty much on the same page. Actually I just checked and I break 3 of them: Worship God; Don't take His name in vain; Don't work on the Sabbath. Actually I'll move off tthem now because I arguably break more than 3.
But the point is that the 10 commandments are rules set out by a creator that I don't believe in. And so, morally, I see no reason to obey them.
However, there are a few in there I do obey, not because of God, but because I feel morally obliged to - Thou shalt not Kill, honour thy father and mother, thou shalt not steal (... well up to a point if you follow me).
Generally I work on the precept that everyone is like me in the world and the way I behave toward them is the way I would like people to behave to me. I'm polite, kind and treat no one as my lesser. After that I think it's free game.
I'll try to move on to that valid argument I was talking about, now. The following is a view of the world from the perspecive of me, a non-christian.
The world is not black and white. Nor is it simply shades of gray. It is a complex multi-coloured thing - some of the colours we can't even see - and there is no such thing as a moral absolute. Morals change as society changes and although some are pretty much constant (murder=bad) others... well not so much (polygammy=bad?). Our personal morals are shaped through our upbringing obviously and form as we enter adulthood. Basically I'm claiming that there is no such thing as "Right" and "Wrong" in the way you claim.
For example (and I am aware that I may be on shaky ground here - although I wish I wasn't) "many" Christians now see homosexuality, not as a sin, but as the way some people are. Where as 200 years ago the same could not be said... As I write this my heart sinks, as maybe my optimism is ill founded. I'll move on to more solid ground...
For example the bible says that we should shun mensturating women and I am pretty sure that nowadays even Christians (and followers of Judaism) do not continue this practice. The Bible was written in the past and even if it was written by God, through man, then translations and the moral code of the time will have caused certain abberations.
On your rebuttal to my "God helps those..." ststement. You win, sorry, I admit defeat on that one. But you cannot relinquish all personal responsibility to God. You have to be responsible for your own actions and by putting yourself in such hole to begin with - "we're all absolutely dead, entangled in things we can't get out of in our own strength" - you do have a get out clause. You do something wrong and it becomes "Oh, well, Jesus'll sort it out. Besides I'm a pathetic human - how can I even be expected to do the right thing". We all have total control over our lives.
On Evolution I think I'll leave that one. Except... No I won't, actually, because it bugs me. Here's my argument:
Let's start from the precept that God is real and He wrote The Bible (the old testament).
Well, for a start, God clearly didn't write The Bible, He influenced others to write it. He did this (roughly speaking) about 4,000 years ago.
We know several things about the universe. A couple of these things are:
1. Cosmological constants are set that ensure matter and energy behave in certain ways.
2. If any of these constants were different by very small margins life would not exist.
Ignoring the anthropic principle we take this as proof for the existence of God.
Now let's perform a thought experiment. You are God. It's 2,000BC and you decide to tell mankind how you created the world and life. Are you going to say:
a) Cosmological constants were engineered to ensure electrons wouldn't spiral down in their orbits and prevent matter from forming, and that gravitation allowed orbiting planets on which life could take hold? Essentially would you explain to humans how you *actually* created the universe?
b) Would you use analogies and alegories to get the point across because, being God and all, you were well aware that talk of Boltzmann's Constant and relativity would sail clear over their heads?
God explaining how he created the universe to mankind (even now, nevermind 4,000 years ago) would be like us trying to explain to ants how to make a computer.
This is why a literal interpretation of the bible - especially Genesis - is just impossible. You can't say this is how it happened exactly, because it's all been filtered through the minds of those who were incapable of understandig the wonder of the universe.
Besides there is no doubt in the scientific community's minds that the universe is a lot older than 6008 years. The speed of light has not decreased and I would think that Christians would have more respect for God than to think he put a load of dinosaur bones in the ground to play a trick on us.
I close on a statement I have made before: "Science doesn't prove God didn't create the universe, it just shows how He did it (if of course he did)."
I suggest we move this to a place designed for longer structured replies, I find it hard to make out all the quoting and stuff on here. I'm trying to think of where we could do it. I guess I could set up some a forum on my website or something. I just think it might make it easier.
What do you think? Or shall we continue this here anyway?
Like Sunday morning, I'm easy.
After typing that I just realised that it might sound like a dig. It was a reference to the song, though.
Tricky to not be offensive when you have a conversation of two diametrically opposing viewpoint, don't you find?
Have a look here for this thread on forums that I just set up, dunno if you have to register or owt, but probably... http://www.x3ja.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2
If you didn't want your comments re-posted, then please let me know and I'll unpost :D