The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. (Psalm 53:1)
We tend to think of atheism as a philosophical position. The Bible does not. Instead, both Old and New Testaments treat atheism as a moral problem; a malady brought on by a desire to convince oneself that God will not see and will not judge.
In this psalm, the “fool” speaks these words to himself in order to protect his psyche as he commits blatant sin. (Click here to read the entire psalm.)
Such self-delusion is common in all of us, unfortunately. Anytime we go against our conscience, and it’s more often than we think, we somehow have to convince ourselves that our particular sin isn't so bad: this is normally wrong, but not in my case; I am the exception; no one has been in this predicament before; life is unfair… Etc.!
If we did not lie to ourselves like this, our sins would drive us crazy. We would feel ashamed and harassed by our conscience, and we would fear God’s judgment. It would take a miracle to be delivered from such guilt.
But wait a minute… If we are lying to ourselves, and trying to lie to God, aren’t we all crazy to begin with?
Well, not me. I’m the exception.
Ken Shomo, New Jersey USA
About Me
- Ken
- Ken Shomo was saved by Jesus, given a wonderful wife and child, and he's currently associate pastor at New Covenant Presbyterian Church in Virginia Beach.
25 comments:
Is an agnostic also a fool? (I consider myself an agnostic.) To me, an atheist and a believer are two sides of the same coin, both claiming definite knowledge of the truth.
I do not see good evidence to believe in God; nor do I see how one could conclusively deny His existence. (Or the existence of some "god" in general that created, shapes, or has some influence over our world.)
Well yes, I know the arguments, but I just don't buy them. Something greater cannot come from something lesser? Why not? Combine two simple things (or even one simple thing with itself), and you get something somewhat more complex, do you not? Repeat ad infinitum. (I am not intending to debate here, just illustrating my point of view.) And if I had to be created, didn't God require creation also? Etc etc. I am agnostic because there are no satisfactory answers to these questions, at least that I am capable of understanding. But I also must recognize that just because I can't prove there is no God, nor can I prove there isn't. The ability to prove it one way or another is simply beyond my capability. So to me just because someone can imagine that God exists does not make him exist, and just because someone can imagine that God does not exist does not cause him to not exist. (Or maybe it does, see quantum stuff below.) But probabilistically, the odds would have to favor God's non-existence.
On the one hand, many Christians (and people of other religions, possibly) say it requires faith to believe; which is basically a way of saying, "Yes, these things can never be proven logically or with physical evidence available to your senses, but we believe anyway." Faith is only required when proof in the conventional sense is not available. Or you might argue that since we are more than physical beings, your faith actually precedes or is more fundamental than your minds and bodies -- that your soul believes (or simply "knows") because your soul is actually one with God, and that manifests itself as faith in the physical Earthly world. Anyway, on the other hand many of these same Christians "get into it" with atheists and others trying to debate on logical and physical grounds, essentially conceding to the atheists that the battleground over this issue is in the realm of the physical. But if you try to beat them on their own turf -- logic and physics -- you're always going to lose. (Although I must admit quantum physics offers some interesting new points of attack for one who wishes to argue for God's existence on physical grounds -- the fact that the act of observing physical reality affects and changes physical reality might argue for the existence of something outside the physical that can affect the physical. Can we find the soul in the quantum world? Maybe.)
So why do you (you meaning anyone who does) argue for God's existence on physical grounds on one hand, and on the other say it requires faith? Which is it? The faith option seems much stronger to me as it takes a position that there is no conflict between science and religion, and logic has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. God is beyond the physical, and beyond the logical. God is transcendent. In other words you're then not in a tit-for-tit debate about evolution or whatever, you are saying that stuff is IRRELEVANT to the existence or non-existence of God. The realm of the transcendent is religion's "turf".
All of this assumes of course you are talking about a personal god -- God with a specific identity that acts in particular ways, rather than the god of some traditions where everything is God, we are all God, etc...
Make that "tit-for-tat". My mind must be on the physical indeed...
Makeshift,
Thank you for leaving your thoughtful comments.
To answer your question, I would say that an agnostic and an atheist are not far apart in my view. I agree with you that atheism is a dogmatic position, really a kind of "leap of faith." Agnosticism is a little more nuanced, a little less dogmatic, but is still the same line of argument from what I can tell.
I believe that many misunderstand the nature of Christian faith when they treat is as a "leap of faith" - that is, a blind leap in the dark without any reason behind it, as if we jumped from a 12 story building and hoped that miraculously a net would appear to catch us.
Christian faith is, rather, a very reasonable position. While not relying on test tubes and laboratory experiments, it nevertheless takes account of the data we possess as human beings and says, "Yes, this set of beliefs makes sense."
The evidence I speak of is not simply the natural world and what can be touched with our hands, but also the evidence of conscience, history, morality, beauty, etc. When all the experiences of humanity are weighed, I find the Bible compelling and naturalism wanting. How can naturalism ("there is nothing but what we can see and touch") explain absolute morality, beauty, sense of right and wrong, etc.? It cannot.
I believe that the agnostic or atheistic position is therefore quite wooden and 1-dimensional. To only allow as evidence that which our hands can manipulate, and to not allow considerations of history, philosophy, morality, and beauty is to me a giant mistake -- and a leap in the dark.
Well, personally, I DO allow for all those different kinds of things, but still that does not lead me to CONCLUSIVELY say, "Ok, definitely a God" (or Creator) or "Ok, definitely not". Which is why I am agnostic. I can make good arguments either way about the way things are. I don't see anything that REQUIRES a god, whereas you look at the same world and conclude it does. But a god not being required, and a god not existing is not the same thing. Thus agnostic. I am saying there could be a god, but there doesn't have to be.
So while the Christian position may be reasonable (and I never mock Christians for believing in "nonsense" like some atheists might), being reasonable or plausible doesn't make something conclusively true. There has always got to be some leap of faith there to bridge the final gap.
And correct me if I wrong here, but don't some Christian traditions (Lutheran?) basically say, "There will always be faith required -- God WANTS it that way." In other words, God has set things up so that it is literally impossible to prove his existence -- you just have to believe. Personally, I find that idea the most powerful and most attractive. If you as a religious person come out and say, "God exists and I can PROVE it" well then I'm much more likely to say "Ok, now you are full of nonsense". Much more credible and powerful if you say, "I CAN'T prove it, but nonetheless KNOW it in my heart". Trying to prove it makes you look foolish, IMHO, although I suppose trying to show that it is "reasonable" is well...reasonable.
I quite respect the Christian tradition, if not all through history (it went through its radical phase and much blood was shed) then certainly in the last 100 years or so, and especially in America where it was been a moderate force. So while I can't go along with the ultimate truth of the theological underpinnings, it has been quite effective as a "values-delivery system" and producing good people behaving decently. The secular alternatives have so far been complete and far more bloody disasters.
No, probability is not a force, just a way of explaining a "degree of belief" in the face of uncertainty. Probability is subjective, i.e. it boils down to the construct, "GIVEN what I know, I believe the chances of X being true are such-and-such."
To explain what I meant about the probability of God existing, here is an example: Let's say there are a bunch of wooden blocks (like a child would play with) in the shape of a pyramid -- say 5 levels with a single block on the pinnacle. We didn't witness the building of this block pyramid -- it is just there, and let's say we can't touch it or examine it closely. Then we ask the question: "What is holding up the top block -- the pinnacle?" We decide that two possible answers are:
A) All of the lower blocks below the top one are holding it up.
B) It is actually being held up by a unseen force of some kind -- maybe supernatural, or maybe a magnetic field (there could be metal or a magnet inside the blocks for all we know), and if you were to remove all the lower blocks it would still stay floating there in the same spot.
Now we want to assign probabilities to each of these alternatives. Based on my experiences in the physical world and my knowledge of blocks in general, I would say that choice A is much more likely to be true than choice B. Now then, some unseen force COULD be holding that block up, but I've got no particular reason to think so. It is a possibility, but given what I know, an unlikely one.
Now this may sound a little weird, but I don't believe you can choose your beliefs. If I believe something, I believe it; and if I don't, I don't. I can't CHOOSE to not believe something I believe, or vice-versa. (You can lie to yourself and pretend that you can, but it doesn't really work.) Now beliefs can change, just not by choice -- only by observation. In order for a belief to change, you have to perceive something (and believe what you are perceiving) that makes your belief no longer tenable.
Pastor Shomo says: "The evidence I speak of is not simply the natural world and what can be touched with our hands, but also the evidence of conscience, history, morality, beauty, etc. When all the experiences of humanity are weighed, I find the Bible compelling and naturalism wanting. How can naturalism ("there is nothing but what we can see and touch") explain absolute morality, beauty, sense of right and wrong, etc.?" and then concludes flatly, "It cannot."
To that I would say, "Why not?" I don't see why God is required for beauty, conscience, morality, etc just like I don't see why an unseen force is required to hold up that top block. Now you believe the opposite -- your observations are telling you that there must be a God -- you simply can't conceive otherwise. But did you choose that belief or simply "come to have it"?
Now for certain things, like ABSOLUTE morality -- by which I presume you mean we will judged by something external to ourselves -- might require a god, but first you've got to show that absolute morality exists (that we will in fact be judged), which you cannot. It is a circular argument. You are then arguing against the RAMIFICATIONS of there being no god -- i.e. "There must be a god because if there wasn't there will be no ultimate justice." Well ok, maybe there won't be ultimate justice, and maybe that sucks, but the yearning for there to be ultimate justice doesn't make it so.
Makeshift,
Again, thanks for taking the time to comment and express your beliefs.
A few comments:
First, how did that pile of blocks get there? That's what we're talking about.
Second, regarding faith. You are absolutely right that there is an interplay between faith and evidence. In my experience, it is not always easy to delineate how one might follow the other. But I belabor the point that "blind faith" is NOT a biblical/Christian concept, because the faith described in the Bible is not a leap in the dark but something that makes complete sense - especially given the resurrection of Jesus, but not only for that reason.
Third, regarding truth-beauty-conscience-morality-etc. I would simply put the question to an agnostic or atheist, how does a materialistic world explain such things? And how does a materialistic world explain the longing for such things as justice, since justice (and the longing for it) is not "material"? How can anyone who claims materialism as their worldview complain when two planes fly into the World Trade Center, since there is no absolute morality to exclude such actions?
If materialism doesn't explain so many realities (including those not expressed in this paragraph) why should that worldview win your affections over against another view that accounts for such things?
Again, thank you for reading and thank you for carefully and thoughtfully expressing your views.
Ken
Re: the blocks
How did the blocks (meaning the universe) get there? If I have to answer that, then why don't you have to answer the question, "How did God get there? Who created him?" If I require a creator, then why doesn't God? If God can be eternal, why can't the universe be eternal? I think we get quite confused by the way we experience time -- that one thing must come before something else, but in fact there is nothing in the laws of (quantum) physics that makes this so. The idea of multiple parallel universes is actually becoming a mainstream theory among scientists. (In the quantum world, things do literally appear and disappear in and out of physical reality all the time.)
So where did EVERYTHING come from? Beats me. You can say God, but then you run into the problem expressed above -- where'd he come from?
But given the world we have, I don't need a god to explain humanity or the other stuff we've been talking about. (i.e. the top block)
Re: faith
I don't disagree there, but why would since it is a point about your own theology. But I understand you must run into this problem often with people who don't have any religious background. BTW, I'd like to see you write something about the current perception of Christianity in the culture at large, specifically in the political realm. Christians have been taking a beating for years now in movies, TV, etc, but I'm astonished at what I hear lately from people commenting on religion in the current climate. Many people are downright FRIGHTENED of any Christian like you're all part of the Manson cult. (But not afraid of Muslim extremists, strangely enough.) It is quite apparent that many of them have had absolutely no exposure to Christianity in their whole lives, which is amazing and this is the first generation of Americans with a large portion of them totally ignorant of even simple stuff like "what happens at a church service". I've seen interviews lately with people that are actually scared just to TALK with a Christian. Astounding. (On the other hand, many Christians -- fundamentalists mainly -- have no conception whatever of the world of science they like to rail against -- butchering the concepts of evolution beyond recognition while arguing against it. Am I right in thinking most mainstream Christians don't have a big problem with evolution? I was taught evolution in a Catholic school, so they seemed ok with it.)
Re: Materialistic explanation of truth-beauty-conscience-morality-etc.
Well, the short answer is that they are functions of the brain and the body. Thoughts and emotions ARE physical -- they are electrical and chemical. All energy is physical -- there is literally nothing we know of that is not physical, even if unseen. You might want to argue that they are more than that, but you can't deny they do have a physical component. And since that physical component is all we can experience, again we really don't have any reason to think it is more than that. It MIGHT be, but we've got nothing to pin that on.
Now I'm sure you can recognize the possibility of what I'm saying is true -- in other words if you "yearn for justice", why CAN'T that be "material"? Those electrical impulses will show up on a brain scan, right? I mean, yearning for justice doesn't break any physical laws that I know of. Once again, I think your best hope for arguments on physical grounds would be in the quantum world, which is seriously weird.
So if everything is material, how can anyone complain about planes slamming into a building, since we don't have absolute morality? Well, why CAN'T they complain? If there is no absolute morality, we still exist. We can complain about whatever we want. Are we "cosmically justified" in complaining? I dunno, but we will still strive to make the world as we want it to be, absolute morality or not. This is the ramifications thing again. Christians often talk as if it were somehow discovered that there were no God, that suddenly all hell would break loose -- that the world would suddenly become a different place. Life would have no meaning, no one could be happy, etc etc. But if there isn't a God, that means that there never was, and the world is just as it is now. Can people be happy with no God? I think so, because I believe there are happy people, and I also believe there is quite likely no god. Does life have meaning if there is no god? Why not? I believe some people have found meaning and purpose in their lives. If it turned out that was no god, would that meaning be then taken away? God or no god, we're all in the same boat -- religious people often act like they inhabit a DIFFERENT world than the rest of us -- but of course the only difference is in what they believe. So if people are happy or sad or want justice or have a conscience or think that there is good and evil, etc etc, it is because that's the way people are, and the existence of god or not isn't going to stop them.
Do you think no atheists are happy? Do you think no atheists believe in morality or justice? You would probably say, "No, not truly" to the first question, and to the second, "Yes, but their belief has no FOUNDATION" which puts you in the unfortunate position of arguing to the atheist that given their beliefs, they should actually be acting more amorally since to you without absolute justice there is no justice at all.
[ Now I now you're thinking that if there was no God, there wouldn't be a universe or people at all, but if you play that card there is really nothing to talk about. ]
Makeshift,
I would ask you to reveal your true identity at this time. I have my suspicions.
The Moderator
Joseph,
Gee, I really didn't mean to debate all this stuff, but that's the ramifications thing again. Just because you wouldn't like what you see as the consequences of there not a being a god doesn't make God exist. (And I would disagree that those would be the consequences.) But if that turned out to be the case, your life would FEEL the same as you were living it -- the sense of meaning you have now would still be there while you're alive.
Ken,
Oops, cover blown, and so quickly. Let's just say my name rhymes with "Blandy Slurpa"...
Blandy,
You were in my Top 3 list of who might be behind the Makeshift mask, believe it or not.
Well, at least now I know you're a real agnostic anyway... so, let the conversation continue.
Where are you living now?
Ken
m.r., ken and Joe,
Many Christians will agree (rightly so in my book) that it is folly for us to attempt to formally prove the existence of a "god", meaning supreme power or being.
First, the God of the Bible would not be proven anyway as God is only known to us through his own revelation of himself through Scripture. Without revelation we are groping in the dark for knowledge of God.
Second, "proving" any historical event or person in a absolute sense is not possible. We know that Washington was the first president because we are told so by sources deemed trustworthy, have his correspondence, etc., but this is not "proof", just evidence which may be accepted or denied. Evidence that God exists may be assembled, but absolute proof, no.
Accordingly, faith to a Christian should not an irrational leap into darkness, but a belief in/acceptance of the accounts and testimony of the Bible (which may be supported by historical evidence and more importantly, tested for internal consistency but never "proven").
It is correct to state that both Christians and atheists claim definite truth. The difference is that Christians rely on revelation from God for truth (which may be accepted or rejected), while atheists look to their own philosophising and determine it to be infallible (which is not logical). The agnostic recognizes that he cannot know God without God coming to him. I think that we Christians here would agree that we would be agnostics if we did not have revelation from God. The agnostic is faced with the task of evaluating the claims of Christ and the Bible and then rejecting or accepting (not accepting is rejecting as the God of the Bible requires belief).
Mr. Copper,
My only quibble with what you have written is this:
I think it leaves out the powerful testimony placed by God within nature and within ourselves, to Himself.
To illustrate: Let's say I drive down the road and grab my cell phone, try to make a call, and in the process hit a biker. I am horrified at what has happened. I immediately know I was wrong to surrender my concentration to phone dialing when I know it averts my attention from the road.
Now, before the biker perished, I knew deep inside that fidgeting with the phone was unsafe. Yet I rationalized it: I've never had a major problem before; I'm quite busy and I deserve the luxury of speaking on the phone; it will only take a minute; etc.
Now, I believe this is what it will be like to stand before God one day. Decisions that seem blase (pronounced blah-say) right now, and so many of them made each day, will one day be exposed. Decisions to violate our conscience, to ignore creation, to be slothful toward eternal questions, will be recognized immediately as terrible decisions... even though now we take such daily choices quite lightly.
The point is this: On the one hand it is quite easy to cover over the testimony God has given to us. (I did it for years). Indeed, the Bible actually teaches that humans are masters at this and that it requires a brand new work of God to force us out of our dark basement and into the daylight. Yet on the other hand, there is truly a testimony there. A testimony strong enough that God will not offer apologies to us on the final day.
Ken
Hello,
I'm in Denver. I believe I sent you the info some time back.
Anyway, I've got some comments on these last posts, but I'd really like to hear your take on my last post -- other than "identify yourself mister". Do you have some nemesis that you thought I might be?
About being an agnostic -- I had to look up the term just to make sure, but turns out that is what I am. I think many people who are simply non-denominational identify themselves as ignostic...
Ken - I don't disagree with you, but the point I was trying to make is not that in our current state we do not have evidence pointing to a creator or to moral absolutes outside of revelation, but that we cannot know God without him revealing himself to us. If all we had to know God was the creation, then we might be inclined to search after a creator but would ultimately throw up our hands in frustration in our failure to know God.
Joe - I think we are talking past each other on what it means to "prove". I mean in the logical A=B and B=C so A=C incontrovertible argument sense(e.g. historically the Ontological, Cosmological arguments, etc). I believe you mean in a balance of evidence way. I would agree that evidence is useful in supporting the Christian faith; however, the best philosophers and theologians have attempted to formally "prove" God for ages without success. I'm not bold enough to state that I'm better!
Joe,
Your comments are being left more than once - might want to check up on that.
Makeshift,
I will indeed respond to that post that got past me. I will have to do that this evening.
You were #3 on the list of who I thought it might be. But my #1 person was a fellow pastor, and so I refrained from continuing the debate (for a moment) in case someone was just trying to put me through an exercise.
I didn't know you were in Denver... I had tried to email you a while back because I think I ran across you on some Chess websites (or do you run one?).
Just last night Cheryl was speaking to a friend in Denver and we talked about visiting out there. That's pretty cool.
Ken
Those fellow pastors are a wily bunch -- tricksters they are...
Response #1 to Makeshift,
What you said regarding how Christians are viewed in broader culture was insightful, and was in fact part of what made me wonder if I was speaking to a true agnostic. It’s encouraging to hear someone from outside the Christian faith (though not completely outside the tradition) speak with some degree of nuance on such matters.
The comparisons with Muslims is very interesting. What is it that makes leaders and media outlets sympathetic to violent Muslims while being unsympathetic (or far less sympathetic) to Christians? E.g., why are Muslim riots and calls for the pope’s assassination not quickly and universally denounced? I think it is partly fear; partly wishful thinking concerning placating violent people; and partly multiculturalism revealing its anti-Christian and secular bias.
On that last point, I think that secularists (unlike yourself) have at times been quick to want to make the point that all organized religion leads ultimately to violence. While the church has sometimes been misled into unfortunate alliances with the state (and maybe sometimes into fortunate ones?), a broad stroke is inappropriate here. You said in one of your posts that, in America, Christianity has been a “moderating force” – so it seems you would agree that assuming that contemporary American Evangelicalism leads to something akin to terrorism is a disconnect. (I once saw a picture of rioting Muslims juxtaposed with a picture of a man praying outside an abortion clinic, as if these were equal threats. On the other hand, it makes for great discussion about any religion’s desire to change its surrounding culture.)
Well, that’s a sociological view anyway. Woven into that is a spiritual dimension; in brief, I think it is also demonic/Satanic and a broad kind of spiritual darkness. This is not to say that Christians deserve great press, sometimes they don’t; but as you point out, something strange is indeed going on!
Okay, that’s one response. These conversations have a tendency of developing many tentacles, and so we are dealing with numerous issues. I’ll post other responses as separate comments to keep things under control a little bit.
Ken
Makeshift,
Here’s response #2, and this regards your more philosophical questions about the existence of God.
You bring up good questions, I think. Regarding the possibility that the universe is eternal, I would pose the question this way: does creation really lead us to a creator? I believe it does. But after giving this some more thought, I think that this is not something that can be presented on paper as a logical formula such as Creation + Beauty = Creator. It may require one’s conscience to kick in, which is subjective. Either all of us have an innate sense that there is a God who ordered all this complexity and beauty, or we don’t; I affirm that we do have such a sense, but whether I can in writing prove that is another story.
But I need to add to that. Here goes…
You and I come into this world with all sorts of data and experiences to reconcile. Some of that data includes the invisible things mentioned previously – sense of beauty, longing for justice, sense of absolute right and wrong, etc. We have in our world also something called the Bible, which provides a key to understanding these things – and it’s a key that, in my opinion, fits very, very well. It turns the lock like nothing else when it comes to explaining both the lofty ideals of man and mankind’s utter failure to achieve them. Materialism does not. It’s philosophically interesting, but it really doesn’t fit as well as what is presented in the Bible which is far more complex and interesting (is it not?). Materialism is, somewhat by definition, one dimensional; the Bible is multidimensional. Why in the world would we choose the one dimensional solution when the door we need to unlock is clearly multidimensional?
Furthermore:
Into this world we also have a man named Jesus Christ. Now, something has to explain him. His followers were willing to die for their testimony that he rose from the dead. His teaching was so lofty that it does not fit the mind of a maniac or liar and, in fact, that teaching (which has positively shaped our culture and others) requires the multidimensional thinking cited above. Jesus’ moral teachings are so intertwined with views of eternity and our relationship to God that they all fall apart otherwise. So, what’s that all about?
Given our options, why would we not choose that which makes the most sense… and which also happens to meet our every need? It seems human beings, for reasons explained in that book of books, don’t always operate according to what makes sense or is in their best interest. That’s for another post, I suppose. Wait, I think that’s the post that started this whole thing!
Ken
Makeshift,
Response #3 concerning atheism.
My other comments were long, so I’ll make this short.
I think atheists can be happy. God gave us a beautiful world, after all, so there’s a lot to enjoy. But I think that atheists often act as non-atheists to maintain their sanity. Those atheists that take their materialism seriously end up with worldviews steeped in despair: and why not, if there is no meaning, hope, purpose, or future beyond death? Furthermore, societies steeped in atheism have been violent and hurtful: witness the 20th century (Naziism, communism, fascism). But, individuals can claim to be atheists while still enjoying the non-atheistic concepts of justice, purpose, love, meaning, etc.; whether they acknowledge it or not, they are living in a theistic way when they do that.
I don’t mean any of this in an antagonistic or cold way. We’re talking philosophy here, so it might come across that way. Not how it’s intended.
Ken
I should add to this, too, that Christians can live in an atheistic manner, i.e., as if there is not a God, hope, future, etc. Again, this goes back to original post ("Crazy?").
Some final thoughts:
Re: Muslims
I think the "pass" the violent Muslims are getting from the media and the left is almost entirely due to their hatred of George Bush. I think if Bill Clinton was prez and doing the exact same things Bush were doing now, the attitude would be completely reversed. (And no doubt it would be the Republicans complaining about the war.) Right now the liberal establishment can put the Muslim hatred of the Western world in the "oppression/poverty/etc" framework (i.e. it is all our fault), but if it was their guy at the helm they would probably put it in the "gay oppression/women's rights/etc" framework (i.e. Muslims extremism is the enemy of liberal values). But since their highest value seems to be hatred of Bush, everything else is trumped by that. And Christianity is also caught in the political cross-fire, since Bush is thought of as being "faith-based". (Whereas guys like Kerry or Gore will talk about their faith during election cycles, which the liberals know is part of the getting elected game and ignore because that is the last you'll ever hear of it.) So they will say literally anything that they perceive makes George Bush look bad.
Re: God's existence
The bottom line for me along this train of thought is this:
Christians often argue that the beauty, complexity, and intricate design of the world must indicate a designer -- that all this couldn't have occured at random.
Ok, that argument brings up two main counter-arguments, one physical and one more to do with logic.
#1 -- the physical
The beauty, complexity, and intricate design of the this world is actually exactly what you would expect if everything was designed at random, following the physical laws of the universe and the principles of evolution. I'm using evolution in the very broad sense here -- evolution is really another word for time -- the way things change in time. To get into the details of how this could be would be too lengthy to get into in a blog comment, but anyway the design we see around us is pretty much what we would expect to get given the laws of nature that we know of. In other words it doesn't contradict any physical laws -- it is the manifestation of the laws in action.
Now to me, any arguments about evolution aren't really counter-arguments at all because I have never seen a conflict between evolution (in the broad or the specific sense) and the existence of God. But many Christians do for some reason. (Like I said, I was taught evolution in a Catholic school, where they openly mocked fundamentalist ideas and certain literal interpretations of the Bible.)
So while I don't think the physical world argues for a God, nor do I think it argues against one. The world is neutral on God.
The world, that is, AFTER it existed. Evolution (broad sense again) only concerns itself with how things have happened since the Big Bang. (And the Big Bang has pretty much been confirmed.) The question of how/where the universe came into being from nothing is an open question, and not a question science can answer. So that MAY argue for a creator, but then we run into counter-argument
#2 -- the logical
This argument is rather child-like in the sense it is the kind of question little kids ask about God. (I know I did, and I'm still waiting for an answer.) That question is, of course, if we needed to be created, why didn't God? If we needed to be created because everything is so complex (or whatever), God is all that and more right? So if our existence argues for a creator, then God's existence argues for a creator even more so. It is the chicken and the egg problem. As soon as you say, no no, God didn't need to be created, then you are saying that some things need to be created (by others) and some don't. Which means our universe was possibly not created either, and just IS. It doesn't mean God didn't create it, but it does mean it didn't have to be.
Now, this isn't the reason per se I am agnostic, but that is my reaction to the "we must have a creator -- just look at things" argument. An argument that sounds to me as if you are saying, "There's just gotta be a creator! There's just gotta!" It is a yearning, an emotional need for the transcendent that is disguising itself as a logical or physical argument based on evidence, but it isn't really. You WANT there to be a creator, so you argue for it. (In a more subversive moment I might argue that this is why you find the Bible such a well-fitting key -- maybe it was written by men with those same emotional needs who wrote things down that satisfied those yearnings. In another moment I might explain that I think the Bible has become less relevant over time precisely because it was written down at some point and got "frozen". I'm pretty much on-board with Joseph Campbell if you are interested in ideas along those lines.)
But for me, it comes down to me throwing up my hands and simply admitting, "It's a mystery!" And I'm content with that. Now I do think mankind NEEDS the transcendent, but not neccessarily in the form of a PERSONAL God (i.e a being, a divine individual). We can get into that another time maybe. (Again, see Joseph Campbell.)
I pretty much agree with njcopperhead. If there is a (personal) God, then he needs to reveal himself to me. And I mean I've got to KNOW it -- if I've got doubts about it, that doesn't count, it isn't "fair". (You probably don't like to see me telling God what the terms are rather than the other way around, but so be it.) And if God does reveal himself, I'm certainly not going to reject him; I'm no fool. (Actually I am according to you -- that is what started this discussion.) But is that all life is -- an entrance exam to get into heaven? I once heard a Mormon pastor explain that they believe that of course you should believe in God, but if you don't, you'll still get your chance when you die and God will be right there before you saying, "See, here I am." And who would deny his existence at that point?
Makeshift,
This has been a long discussion, thanks for sticking with it so long. I take it by your giving some "final thoughts" that you are ready to call it a day. And that's fine, I know these kind of discussions have a way of growing beyond control and at some point you just have to decide that we've heard each other's thoughts sufficiently.
I honestly appreciate your willingness to share your different-than-my opinions, and hope you will check in again.
FYI, what started this whole discussion was my post about being a "fool" according to Psalm 14. I only hope you notice that my intention in that post was to say that all of us, whatever we believe, act foolishly -- or "crazy," as I said -- at some point or another.
I am not claiming to be without sin... that would be crazy. Not to mention foolish.
Ken
Well, this is a blog, not a general discussion forum, and your blog at that, so I don't want to monopolize it with my other-than-your-point-of-view rantings. I can make my own blog for that. But I'll comment on things from time to time...
Post a Comment