I've tried to avoid posting things that are too obviously autobiographical, though most of these pieces are oblique references to people and events in my life. This piece will be less veiled, but perhaps no clearer than the others: my thoughts on the matter at hand are far from clear. In this post I turn to (or away from) faith.
I started to think about my faith seriously, like many others, during college. I decided that, if I was to engage my faith in any relevant manner, that I'd best reconcile it with the imperatives of rational, reasoned thought. Once that stage was over, I could move on, I figured. I didn't pick this process arbitrarily. My life and identity have, for as long as I can remember, been intertwined with the church. My grandfather is a minster. My father is also a minister who spent most of his adult life teaching History of Christianity at the United Theological College in Bangalore, where I grew up surrounded by young men and women who wanted to be ministers. No less than 3 uncles, 1 cousin, and 1 grand-uncle are ministers. In some ways, the priesthood is the family business.
But as I grew older, I soon became aware that not only had the church defined a large part of my identity, it had circumscribe my own mental awareness of the church as an institution, and Christianity as a worldview. I knew no other way of approaching the divine. I was so steeped in the church, that 'rethinking' it could only follow thinking about it seriously and critically. This realisation coincided with my slow disillusionment with the church, youth meetings, services, liturgies, the Lord's Prayer, Vacation Bible School, and bible quizzes. I soon attended church less and less, and the 'Evangelical' turn my youth group had taken only made it easier for me to mentally and emotionally disconnect from the church.
This period was very refreshing to me. The pleasure of not having to wake up for Sunday service was coupled with the realisation that, for the first time, I had found some spiritual breathing room. The more I disconnected from the church, the more I was able to think about my faith. Thus, I came to the decision that I could flex the muscles of my reason within the realm of faith. Till then, faith had merely sulked in the back of my head as an entity that was vast in its scope and importance, yet something I was only dimly aware of. In this period, I started to drag my faith out from the shadows into the harsh light of my intellect. The closest analogy I can think of is the scene in The Two Towers where Gandalf reveals Grima Wormtongue to be the snivelling schemer he truly I was. I resented my faith, much like Gandalf did Grima. I resented the circumstances of birth, societal pressures, and plain dumb acceptance that had led me to this state. After all, I wouldn't accept someone's political views without some reasonable justification, why should my faith escape scrutiny? The systems of knowledge that I had been brought up to know, especially the sciences, would scoff at the notion of Newton following his Laws of Motion with the following proof:
Trust me, it's true. God told me so.
It seemed to me that all through my Christianity-soaked childhood, I had lapped up many such proofs for the elements of my faith: praying to an unfeeling, unresponsive ether; thinking about a heaven that included me, and excluded my Muslim best friend; standing up during 'testimony' and spouting how good it had been now that I had 'accepted Jesus Christ as my personal saviour.' Why should I pray, go to heaven, or accept a saviour? I began asking these things, and the answer was, "Trust me, it's true. God told me so." When I asked people who knew better about the rational basis for this faith that they held so dearly, they quoted the Bible. The circularity was both troubling and amusing to me. What's the use of quoting the Word of God to justify God?
And so I now come to the present day; I am agnostic. There. I said it. To clarify, I hold this position because it's inherently impossible to prove the non-existence of God. It's just as indefensible to say "There is no God." as "There is a God." Instead, I am what others have called a 'tooth fairy agnostic.' I think there's as much a chance of God existing as the tooth fairy existing. I am not the kind of agnostic that believes that some amorphous being exists that can account for this world's existence, however far removed from the Judeo-Christian god that entity may be.
Also, this is not a rejection of my Christian heritage, which has had many positive outcomes, but no more than a Muslim, Hindu, or atheistic heritage could have provided. I can no more reject this heritage than I can reject being an Indian, a Malayalee, or a man. Instead, this a rejection of a system of belief that posits as its basis an essentially unknowable, non-falsifiable divine.
A friend of mine commented that it's a difficult time to be a believer nowadays with all the subtle and overt scorn for religion and people of faith. That may be so, but I come from a different realm of difficulty. I was born into a desert of indoctrination that has asked me to take so many things on faith, and has proved nothing to me. Yet it threatens the apostate with hellfire. If that's not scary, I don't know what is. I once saw a TV special about a Methodist who had become an atheist. He described the moment of his rejection of faith as a moment of freedom and liberation. (Interestingly, that sounds like so many people who have 'accepted a personal saviour.') I don't feel the same freedom. My rejection of faith is, perhaps, more furtive. The furtiveness does not stem from uncertainty about my position, but is instead the shadow of the faith I leave behind. That shadow whispers in the background the words of John 3: 18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's unique Son." I am comforted by the fact that, like so much of my past faith, that's just plain illogical. I feared its repercussions, but we all get over the monsters under our beds sooner or later.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Public Space for Private Indiscretions
31 comments:
"....men go crazy in congregations,they only get better one by one"
Sting - All This Time
Interestingly, my lifelong flirtations with religion have been in the opposite direction. Having been born into a family (only immediate, the extended family is fairly religious) that largely rejected any institutionalised form of faith and held to an amorphous vision of divinity, I have off and on tried to discover any potentialities for a stronger religious identity that might exist in me. While that has not occurred, I have moved from an unquestioning atheistic standpoint to a more mediated agnostic one. Again my agnosticism is more faith-based than yours, instinctively turning to the idea of the amorphous superior being that might explain things. I expected this to be tested in the last two weeks, after my dad passed away, but that has not occurred. A rejection of this possible supreme order has not occurred with the disorder that has been thrust onto my family. I have not yet had the time and energy to consider why this has happened. But when I do understand it better I will let you know.
Sometimes i think that there is adistinct chance that we are nothing more than a cosmic mistake.
I remember some earnest discussions we've had about the church and having spent a whole year not attending church, I now understand you better now than I probably did back then. Maybe I just had to grow older to understand. I can't say I didn't enjoy the freedom or the 'me-centred' world for a bit but after a point it didn't make any sense.
Again, I don't understand your agnosticism. I've never needed to prove/disprove God's existence. Simple things I've experienced are proof enough but I understand that it needn't be the case for everybody.
I wish we could talk about this over some chai at the college kiosk.
Wow - what a wonderful piece. Loved every word of it!
Here's my response: I guess I wouldn't start with God. I'd start with truth - that is whatever it is that corresponds to reality.
So let not your agnosticism be passive (or aggressive) resignation – rather let it be an active search for reality and truth - whatever it is - whoever it is...
I'm posting anonymously...oohh, mysterious. I suppose I’ll promote the religious opinion, despite how un-cool that may be - I only hope you will not find my words too conclusory or glib. It is only natural, Anand, to feel refreshed upon escaping from any childhood indoctrination. Your experience seems wholly a process of growing up and out of circumstances that you never chose. This, I daresay, has nothing to do with the Christian religion or even irreligious spirituality; you are instead experiencing the joy of thinking for yourself. Folks on the other end of the spectrum - those who grew up absent any religious instruction whatsoever - experience a similar catharsis when they come to faith.
Even those of us fully grounded in our faith had to get there by leaving the faith. Any person who seriously thinks about anything is inevitably faced with questions: is my faith nonsense? Are there ulterior motives driving my belief? We all go through periods of agnosticism and atheism.
You're correct in observing that believers and nonbelievers seem unjustifiably sure of themselves. But we must weigh the evidence, with reason and rationality, just as we judge everything else around us. G.K. Chesterton, a 20th century English writer, said "truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion." Agnosticism thus seems to be the most honest approach, making it deceptively attractive. But agnostics hold that the metaphysical cannot be known; that is, agnostics purport to know something about what we(according to them) cannot know. Surely you must see how ridiculous such an assertion really is - it is, in fact, more ludicrous than belief or nonbelief. Believers and nonbelievers at least have evidence to reach their conclusions. Where and how do agnostics acquire the stones to declare what is knowable and what is unknowable? Is it not a contradiction to assert knowledge of our own ignorance? Do not be confused. Declaring “I know nothing of quantum physics” is entirely different from saying, “It is impossible for me to know something about God.” If there are aspects of existence that are unknowable, how could we possibly know they are unknowable? In regards to the tooth-fairy analogy – this is undoubtedly nonsense. It is a sour expression of frustration and disillusion. We have no rational reason to believe in the tooth fairy. You might say the same for God, but consider this: what evidence do you have to support the contention that other minds exist? Or that we are not, in fact, living in a virtual universe where our brains are locked in a laboratory in some alternate universe, receiving electrical impulses that compel us to think that the world we experience is something independent from ourselves? We have no proof to discount these possibilities – but clearly, no rational person believes them. I would urge you to pursue fields of inquiry that are entirely outside of the "God told me so in the Bible" explanation that you so despise. Pick up any piece on natural theology and you'll quickly find that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a religious person. As for your perception of Christianity, read the first few chapters of Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man". Getting outside of the rituals and the denominations and the creeds is just the beginning of faith.
[Anonymous, I think I may have some idea about who you are, given the authors you’ve quoted from. ;-) I suspect, however, that you remain anonymous because you don’t want my response coloured by my knowledge of who I am actually responding to. So I’m going write as if I have no idea who you are. I'm leaving your paragraphs in, and responding to them as problems arise.]
I'm posting anonymously...oohh, mysterious. I suppose I’ll promote the religious opinion, despite how un-cool that may be - I only hope you will not find my words too conclusory or glib. It is only natural, Anand, to feel refreshed upon escaping from any childhood indoctrination. Your experience seems wholly a process of growing up and out of circumstances that you never chose. This, I daresay, has nothing to do with the Christian religion or even irreligious spirituality; you are instead experiencing the joy of thinking for yourself. Folks on the other end of the spectrum - those who grew up absent any religious instruction whatsoever - experience a similar catharsis when they come to faith.
Even those of us fully grounded in our faith had to get there by leaving the faith. Any person who seriously thinks about anything is inevitably faced with questions: is my faith nonsense? Are there ulterior motives driving my belief? We all go through periods of agnosticism and atheism.
[I find this section odd. It smacks of a kind of arrogance: “Oh don’t worry, you’ll get over it….we all did it when we were kids.” I did describe my sense of catharsis as a way to reveal my inner feelings, but not as a self-evident justification for the correctness of my conclusions about faith. Yes, your statements are a bit glib, and don’t do much to help your actual arguments, which are, to quote a phrase, “undoubtedly nonsense.”]
You're correct in observing that believers and nonbelievers seem unjustifiably sure of themselves. But we must weigh the evidence, with reason and rationality, just as we judge everything else around us. G.K. Chesterton, a 20th century English writer, said "truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion." Agnosticism thus seems to be the most honest approach, making it deceptively attractive. But agnostics hold that the metaphysical cannot be known; that is, agnostics purport to know something about what we(according to them) cannot know. Surely you must see how ridiculous such an assertion really is - it is, in fact, more ludicrous than belief or nonbelief. Believers and nonbelievers at least have evidence to reach their conclusions. Where and how do agnostics acquire the stones to declare what is knowable and what is unknowable? Is it not a contradiction to assert knowledge of our own ignorance?
[In this section you have succeeded in creating a straw man of my argument by latching on to the word “agnostic.” What you say about agnostics and their ridiculousness of their epistemological assertions are valid, but they are not true of the argument I made. I may have used the word “agnostic” ill-advisedly, but I meant it to characterize the “provability” of God, not the knowability of God.
To explain, I’m going to quote directly from an email I sent to someone quite recently-
God is posited as a first cause for the universe. God exists as a hypothesis used to explain the world and its origins. The first question that would be posed to someone who posits such a hypothesis would be: "What evidence do you have to confirm your hypothesis?" My main problem with the God hypothesis is that no convincing evidence seems to exist to confirm that hypothesis.”…. [Further] The burden of proof for the statement "There is no god." is too high to bear (in fact, infinitely so). … This has little to with God's existence in the realm of the metaphysical. I am not saying that the proof for God is unknowable since he exists in the metaphysical realm, by definition. Instead, what I am saying is that asserting the "God does not exist" hypothesis itself is unjustifiable because
1) it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something (unless it is in a closed, observable system- for example, I can prove that no oxygen exists in an airtight box full of carbon dioxide.)
2) it gives unnecessary creedance to the God hypothesis by assuming that a such hypothesis must be disproved in absolute "not" terms
The burden of proof is on the person who posits a hypothesis and wants to claim it as fact.
The word 'agnostic,' in this case, is used to describe a state of unbelief that refuses to choose between two unsatisfactory hypotheses.
*On a side note, I said in my blog post, “This a rejection of a system of belief that posits as its basis an essentially unknowable, non-falsifiable divine.” This was an assertion about the character ascribed to God, an entity outside the physical realm. It said nothing about the knowability of evidence in the physical realm that may be used to prove the existence of God, or at the very least, his manifestations in the physical realm. ]
Do not be confused. Declaring “I know nothing of quantum physics” is entirely different from saying, “It is impossible for me to know something about God.” If there are aspects of existence that are unknowable, how could we possibly know they are unknowable? In regards to the tooth-fairy analogy – this is undoubtedly nonsense. It is a sour expression of frustration and disillusion. We have no rational reason to believe in the tooth fairy. You might say the same for God, but consider this: what evidence do you have to support the contention that other minds exist? Or that we are not, in fact, living in a virtual universe where our brains are locked in a laboratory in some alternate universe, receiving electrical impulses that compel us to think that the world we experience is something independent from ourselves? We have no proof to discount these possibilities – but clearly, no rational person believes them.
[Your dismissal of the tooth fairy analogy is too convenient. I was indeed frustrated and disillusioned, but not to the point that it immediately proves your assertions.
So we have 4 scenarios that I cannot disprove:
1) God exists
2) The tooth fairy puts money under my pillow
3) Other people have minds
4) We live in a virtual lab experiment
To that, I would add two more, at least:
5) The sun revolves around the earth
6) The earth rests atop a pile of tortoises
Curiously, according to you, while “no rational person” believes assertions 2, 3, or 4, it is entirely possible that a rational person may believe 1, based on “natural theology” or some other version of apologetics. So, according to you, the problem is not that there’s no evidentiary proof for 1, but that I haven’t read the right books. Or, are you saying that these books will cause me to look at god in the “right” way, that is, the way that makes my evidentiary demands seem unnecessary? If that’s the case, then it’s circular.
The reason I brought up 5 and 6 is because they were hypotheses that people believed in a time before they were subjected to empirical scrutiny, and were disproven later. They were countered with
-a hypothesis: “The earth revolves around the sun” or “the earth does not sit upon tortoises.” And
-evidence, based on observations
Hence, no rational person believes them anymore.
However, In order for me to reject 1, I do not need to wait until the God hypothesis is challenged by an alternate hypothesis and then vanquished based on evidence it provides. I simply refuse to believe the God hypothesis because there is no evidence to prove it. I refuse to believe 2, 3, and 4 for the same reasons. The minute someone proves that a fairy put money under my bed I will believe that the tooth fairy exists. In the meantime, I refuse to believe it. I may go further to posit an alternate hypothesis for the money under my pillow: “My mother put it there.” For me to believe this, I need only wake up in the middle of the night to observe her placing money under my pillow, and I have both an alternative hypothesis and its evidentiary proof. In the meantime, however, I can continue not to believe the toothfairy hypothesis. ]
I would urge you to pursue fields of inquiry that are entirely outside of the "God told me so in the Bible" explanation that you so despise. Pick up any piece on natural theology and you'll quickly find that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a religious person. As for your perception of Christianity, read the first few chapters of Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man". Getting outside of the rituals and the denominations and the creeds is just the beginning of faith.
[Here, you fall victim to your own language. You assert that it would be, based on natural theology, harder for me to have “faith” in atheism than to believe in god. My statements about the lack of evidence for the existence of God are not based on a “faith” in a doctrine of atheism. Instead, they are based on the empirical deficiencies of the God hypothesis. What I am saying is “It would take more evidence for me to be a religious person than to be an atheist.” Faith has nothing to do with the issue.
I’m not fully sure what ‘natural theology’ means, but I hope it’s not some tired arguments about the wondrousness of the this world and the complexity of the human eye being evidence of an “intelligent designer.” That would be truly unfortunate.]
[I find this section odd. It smacks of a kind of arrogance: “Oh don’t worry, you’ll get over it….we all did it when we were kids.” I did describe my sense of catharsis as a way to reveal my inner feelings, but not as a self-evident justification for the correctness of my conclusions about faith. Yes, your statements are a bit glib, and don’t do much to help your actual arguments, which are, to quote a phrase, “undoubtedly nonsense.”]
-- I’ll admit that there was really no place for it. I suppose I do that when I’m either in a snarky mood or am, in the alternative, hoping to provoke a response. I’ll stick to the important points from here on out.
[In this section you have succeeded in creating a straw man of my argument by latching on to the word “agnostic.” What you say about agnostics and their ridiculousness of their epistemological assertions are valid, but they are not true of the argument I made. I may have used the word “agnostic” ill-advisedly, but I meant it to characterize the “provability” of God, not the knowability of God.
--Whether you meant “provability” or “knowability” is irrelevant to me; it’s the same flat assertion of “If it doesn’t stand the test of empirical analysis, I won’t believe it.” I meant to express the point that it’s dishonest to accept certain aspects of existence on faith while at the same time distinguishing the God question as the one that requires absolute certainty.
*On a side note, I said in my blog post, “This a rejection of a system of belief that posits as its basis an essentially unknowable, non-falsifiable divine.” This was an assertion about the character ascribed to God, an entity outside the physical realm. It said nothing about the knowability of evidence in the physical realm that may be used to prove the existence of God, or at the very least, his manifestations in the physical realm. ]
You seem to, again, require proof. No one claims to know anything for certain (at least, I don’t). If that were the test, then why place so much emphasis on ‘faith’? My only problem with agnosticism is that it shuts the doors on the entire inquiry; it’s a movement that confines itself to a specific mode of analysis. I guess I just I don’t see what’s ‘free’ about freethinkers.
So we have 4 scenarios that I cannot disprove:
1) God exists
2) The tooth fairy puts money under my pillow
3) Other people have minds
4) We live in a virtual lab experiment
To that, I would add two more, at least:
5) The sun revolves around the earth
6) The earth rests atop a pile of tortoises
Curiously, according to you, while “no rational person” believes assertions 2, 3, or 4, it is entirely possible that a rational person may believe 1, based on “natural theology” or some other version of apologetics. So, according to you, the problem is not that there’s no evidentiary proof for 1, but that I haven’t read the right books. Or, are you saying that these books will cause me to look at god in the “right” way, that is, the way that makes my evidentiary demands seem unnecessary? If that’s the case, then it’s circular.
The reason I brought up 5 and 6 is because they were hypotheses that people believed in a time before they were subjected to empirical scrutiny, and were disproven later. They were countered with
-a hypothesis: “The earth revolves around the sun” or “the earth does not sit upon tortoises.” And
-evidence, based on observations
Hence, no rational person believes them anymore.
However, In order for me to reject 1, I do not need to wait until the God hypothesis is challenged by an alternate hypothesis and then vanquished based on evidence it provides. I simply refuse to believe the God hypothesis because there is no evidence to prove it. I refuse to believe 2, 3, and 4 for the same reasons. The minute someone proves that a fairy put money under my bed I will believe that the tooth fairy exists. In the meantime, I refuse to believe it. I may go further to posit an alternate hypothesis for the money under my pillow: “My mother put it there.” For me to believe this, I need only wake up in the middle of the night to observe her placing money under my pillow, and I have both an alternative hypothesis and its evidentiary proof. In the meantime, however, I can continue not to believe the toothfairy hypothesis. ]
-- You state you don't believe 3) and 4) because there's no evidence behind them...my point was that evidence is not even considered under 3) and 4); indeed, as you noted, they are unprovable. What I'm saying is that it's entirely rational to believe 3) and 4) - even without proof - and we are, then, not obliged to subject every question of human experience to the same standard of scientific rigor. Furthermore, 2), 5), and 6) are clearly distinguishable: all of these hypotheses are subject to scientific scrutiny; they are falsifiable. Questions of ultimate truths (origin, purpose), do not fall in this category, and cannot be analogized to physical examples of how ancient peoples, for instance, when lacking an explanation for rain, simply resigned themselves to the idea that God was responsible, only to get their heads straight later. We are considering, instead, the metaphysical, imaginary or not. Let’s not misunderstand the role of science; it’s a fantastic tool for examining and explaining the natural world, but when approaching questions of “what is existence? why is there something instead of something?” it encroaches on, as I see it, circular reasoning. We end up relying on the scientific method to explain/validate the scientific method. By clinging to evidence as the end-all source of knowledge, you, without justification, exclude the rational possibility of the incorporeal, not to mention every feature of your own existence that is not (and cannot be) acknowledged or validated under this evidentiary standard. Since those never-yielding questions still remain, and we can rightly concede that science cannot explain them, they are then simply inexplicable under your view. I’m not sure that’s rationally acceptable.
I’m not fully sure what ‘natural theology’ means, but I hope it’s not some tired arguments about the wondrousness of the this world and the complexity of the human eye being evidence of an “intelligent designer.” That would be truly unfortunate.]
--There are all sorts of compelling arguments that I find hard to ignore. One, science gives us the Big Bang, proving that time and space had a beginning and are finite (before this, folks were free to assert that there was no need for an eternal creator, and instead posited matter itself as eternal). Another interesting point goes to the plain contradictions embedded within metaphysical naturalism (the idea that the physical world is all there is, without need of anything beyond it). Under this rubric everything is chemical…indeed, my own mind is nothing more than neurons and molecules, all firing off at random. More sophisticated, yes, and perhaps more evolved (evolution, of course, promotes survival, adaptability, and power; it has nothing to do with ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘truth’ or ‘false’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’), yet, under this perspective, it is not at all any different from a rock tumbling down a hill or perhaps a giant fart…it’s simply my brain fizzing in one way, you fizzing in your way, and a leaf fizzing in its way…there would be no reason, then, to conclude that my thoughts have any relation at all to reality or truth. There would be no way to validate the intellect, or any conclusion that might result from its interworkings, including the idea of naturalism. An argument from morality works off the same idea, but presents itself in a subjective/objective sense. Without an objective being to ground morality in (much like one we would ground our ability to reason in), human morality is simply an illusion…a cultural phenomenon that is ultimately subjective. It’s late, and I hope this went to your responses, yet I suspect it did not…better to merely be wrong in this instance than to be wrong and rude as in my first response, I guess.
Anonymous,
My response to your comments will be in the form of a full essay, not a point-by-point response. I take issue with two basic points that you have made during the course of your most recent comments.
I was mistaken to dismiss the mind as something I will not believe exists until provided proof of its existence. Therefore, your point is a good one: “…it’s dishonest to accept certain aspects of existence on faith while at the same time distinguishing the God question as the one that requires absolute certainty.” It would indeed by dishonest of me if the following points, which you imply, were true:
1)I accepted the existence of an amorphous concept like the mind while denying the existence of equally amorphous concepts like God.
2)I demand higher evidentiary standards to accept the existence of God than, that is, of an absolute nature
Firstly, you draw false parallels between concept like the mind and the divine. The term ‘mind’ is much like the word ‘state’ – they both represent verbal conceptions that attempt to capture the totality of the variegated processes that are the basis of their existence. “States” have no objective ‘existence,’ instead they are a good way to aggregate the numerous social and political arrangements that govern territories and civic life in the contemporary age. In the same way, “minds” have no existence outside the psychological and biochemical processes that underlie their existence. Therefore, the term “lose one’s mind” does not mean the literal loss of a concrete object. Therefore, I admit the existence of constructs like states and minds without the need for evidence because of their constructed nature. However, to say something is “constructed” is not to label it “untrue” or “non-existent.” They exist because we talk about them across humanity with some degree of agreement, but they are nonetheless dependent on these ‘semantic pacts.’
God is in a completely different order. God is not merely a concept by which we try to verbalize phenomena we see in the world, but is (usually) described as a single being that has an active, tangible role on the physical realm. We may apply the term ‘god’ to aggregate the numerous explanations that ancient people had for physical phenomena (like storms) for which they had no explanation, but in the modern, monotheistic sense (in which I believe you are speaking), God is a far more compelling force than a mere ‘concept.’
Therefore, the difference between God and the mind (and states) is that God is posited as an explanatory variable in the physical realm. Minds are not explanatory, so it does us no harm to get rid of the concept “mind.” If we all decided that they didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be at a loss to understand the various processes that contribute to the ultimate meaning of the term “mind.” But, we can’t (or rather, shouldn’t be able to) do that to God. Any god worth his salt should have some explanatory power in the physical realm. There is no challenge to god if he is only expected to exist in the metaphysical realm and have explanatory power there. If he is as most religions describe him to be, then he should have some manifestation in the physical realm that serves as an explanatory variable for phenomena in the physical realm, variables that we have no non-divine alternative to. If he only has explanatory power in the metaphysical realm, then you may as well be an atheist. Indeed, such a God would be quite impotent.
Second, you say that for me to accept his existence, I am placing absolute demands on God, which I would not place on anything else. In response, I am going to quote Stephen Hawking extensively. I think this will also make respond, in some measure, to your critique of ‘metaphysical rationalism’ (whatever that is.):
“In order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss questions of whether it has a beginning or end, you have to be clear about what scientific theory is. I shall take the simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relates quantities in the model to observations we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations….Any physical theory is only provisional, in a sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of an experiment agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.” (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 9, 10).
I think this quote should clear up the kind of demands I am making on God in order to accept his existence. I am not making any demands of an absolute nature. I am merely demanding that God’s purported active presence in the physical realm (NOT the metaphysical) and as a causal variable in that realm be backed up with evidence. Furthermore, these demands are merely in the “provisional” sense that Hawking talks about.
Also, Hawking’s quote speaks to a point I think you were making: if our mental processes are merely a result random “fizzes” then “there would be no way to validate the intellect, or any conclusion that might result from its interworkings.” So, the intellectual pursuits using the scientific method are not only constructed, but may also have no connection to reality. But the provisional nature of scientific theory acknowledges this. My accusation against the god hypothesis is that it doesn’t even meet these meager, provisional demands of the scientific method.
But you make another interesting point: that the contingent nature of intellectual pursuits necessitates some metaphysical, ‘objective’ grounding. There are two problems here
1) The link between a metaphysical, grounding reality and God is quite a stretch: the first doesn’t make the second obvious. Even if you are to prove the necessity of the metaphysical realm, that’s only one step in the direction of proving the existence of the metaphysical entity we term God.
2) Your assertions about the necessity of a metaphysical realm are contingent; they take on an IF-THEN form- “IF we are to establish a connection between our intellectual pursuits and reality, THEN we need a metaphysical reality to ground it.” But the scientific method does not profess establish absolute truths. It does not dismiss the possibility that all scientific observations recorded through history may actually aberrant, and that a new, apparently conflicting observations, may set us all straight. Therefore, the ‘if’ portion of your argument does not actually exist, at least in the case of the scientific method, which underlies most naturalism, thus dismissing the ‘then’ portion of your argument.
I don’t interpret Hawking to be exercising humility in this phrase, rather, I see him as exalting science for its ability to adapt to new information. Firstly, there’s no disputing that theories are just theories in that they could someday be contradicted; science owes its success to this approach. But by presenting this acknowledgment that ‘it could all be in our minds', Hawking professes to know something about the illusion (or the possibility that everything is an illusion). But this goes back to our discussion of agnosticism. How could we ‘know’ about the illusion and still call it an illusion? Surely Hawking does not go so far as to concede the possibility that 2 and 2 is 4 is all wrong, or that truth does not exist independently of our own minds. The difference is that I don't compare religion and science to see which is better or more likely to reach the truth. I think they are both viable in that respect, albeit in respect to different questions. But you’ve chosen science as the ‘better’, and have thus appropriated this evidentiary standard onto the analysis as a whole by way of comparing the two fields. Perhaps you find Christians to be more certain than is warranted – I share that annoyance with you. I don’t think this is the general attitude among religious people, however. (See Michael Novak’s “No One Sees God”, or, in general, the church’s emphasis on ‘the mystery of faith’ – I don’t think I need to tell you about that one).
Overall, I find your assertion of the world's inexplicability to be just as unwarranted or grandiose as my characterization of the metaphysical as necessary. Outside of comparing my approach to how the scientific method operates (under provisional standards), I still know two things (with certainty): 1) I exist, and 2) my existence is not necessary. My existence is therefore contingent upon something that has always existed. There are two candidates here: God, or the world. Instead of getting into that, I'll just say that we cannot approach the question under standards set by the scientific rubric alone; indeed, provisional or not, the scientific method is not equipped to provide a rational answer.
I quote, "But the scientific method does not profess establish absolute truths. It does not dismiss the possibility that all scientific observations recorded through history may actually aberrant, and that a new, apparently conflicting observations, may set us all straight." Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to hint here that eventually science will 'set us all straight'...my contention is that it's logically impossible for science to answer those ultimate questions.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Keeping-the-lid-on---and-the-science-out-8608595-78165392.html
Ok wow. You've covered a lot more ground!
I read some passing references to Stephen Hawking which reminded me of Henry Schaefer who has some interesting thoughts on him and the Universe.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/bigbang.html
I'm not making any point here just pointing out a connection that went off in my head when I read some of your previous comments.
I don't know if Anand is still reading...
but if he is: Anand, I realize I side-stepped your criticism of the mind-divine parallel, and just want to let you know that as soon I find some time I'll try to figure a way to better address your points.
"The difference is that I don't compare religion and science to see which is better or more likely to reach the truth. I think they are both viable in that respect, albeit in respect to different questions. But you’ve chosen science as the ‘better’, and have thus appropriated this evidentiary standard onto the analysis as a whole by way of comparing the two fields."
ALSO
"Instead of getting into that, I'll just say that we cannot approach the question under standards set by the scientific rubric alone; indeed, provisional or not, the scientific method is not equipped to provide a rational answer."
With these statement, you've created a convenient delineation between then 'realms' of science and religion. That science is best applied to understanding the physical realm, and that religion, the metaphysical. I'll grant you that point, but it's a fairly meaningless one. It's meaningless because
(a)As I said before, who cares if God, as a metaphysical being, has power only in the metaphysical realm? If we have questions about the natural realm, and religion only answers questions in a supernatural framework, then why do we even care? It's not really useful. Now, if religion were able to fill in the gaps of our knowledge about the natural realm (like the origins of the universe) without falling back on variables that only operate in the metaphysical realm (like God), it would be truly valuable.
b) I take my defense of science as a bit of a strawman -- you may be right about science's deficiencies. But the fact that science is wrong does not imply that religion is right. You'd have to give me proof that religion can stand on its own feet as an explanatory framework (but then again, who cares about 'proof' right?)
"I still know two things (with certainty): 1) I exist, and 2) my existence is not necessary. My existence is therefore contingent upon something that has always existed."
I can agree with assertion (1). But what do you mean by "necessary?" "Necessity" is contingent upon an entity that can conceive necessity, and separate it from the unnecessary. It's not an absolute term. So, in this context, mostly meaningless.
But let's assume that you misspoke and that you mean that your existence is contingent, that the existence of a planet that supports carbon-based life forms does not you mean that YOU as a specific carbon-based life-form should come into existence. I think that's a reasonable statement. But how do you get from that to the idea that something that has existed in eternity is the variable that explains your existence. It's a comforting thought, for sure, but a serious logical leap. It may explain why you feel unique and special, but frankly, none of us are all that special. We have a fairly good understanding of the biological processes that created you as an individual, and they're fairly consistent across the human species. There are very god non-eternal processes that explain why you are here.
' Now, if religion were able to fill in the gaps of our knowledge about the natural realm (like the origins of the universe) without falling back on variables that only operate in the metaphysical realm (like God), it would be truly valuable. '
I think in a previous conversation about the Universe we agreed about the fact that since the Universe is finite, there must be some first cause which is not the Universe itself but something external.
We know the Universe if finite since the latest 'Big Bang' theory of the Universe shows us that at a point of time it came into being. It is not eternal. The Universe had a beginning.
I think the conclusion drawn here is that this this 'First Cause' is capable of causing the cosmos.
Does this sound fair? We do not have to call this 'First Cause' anything yet. That 'leap' will come with further arguments.
Reading through the other argument. I think it might be useful to point out some characteristics of a 'necessary' being before deciding who/what is meant by 'necessary' :)
A necessary being is unchanging, pure actuality, eternal and infinite.
We are not 'necessary' given the above context. The point is, our existence is a dependent existence since it originates outside of ourselves.
The claim here is that it we are caused by a 'necessary' being.
If you put the two together, the claim so far is that we are aware of the existence of the known Universe. We know that it had a beginning since it is finite. If it had a beginning, there has to be a 'first cause'.
These are not yet 'religious' claims. These are partly scientific, partly philosophical arguments in the favour of theism.
"We know the Universe if finite since the latest 'Big Bang' theory of the Universe shows us that at a point of time it came into being. It is not eternal. The Universe had a beginning."
This is a fairly banal point to make, all things considered -- The universe exists and therefore must have a causal variable to explain its existence. Ok. So what?
You've basically stated the problem that physicists and mathematicians have tried (and failed) to answer (till now). The real question is whether we can say anything useful about that causal variable itself.You say you can.
You say God is the causal variable that explains the existence of the universe. The obvious question is "How do you know that?" If you answered as follows, I would find it compelling: "We know because we have observable evidence x,y, and z that God, a willful and powerful being, caused this universe to exist." Instead, you say "We do not have to call this 'First Cause' anything yet." A convenient side-step. Nonetheless, your logic (or lack of it) is clear -- you are basically positing that since God is, by definition, a creature capable of creating a universe (due to the property of omnipotence) then he must the causal variable that we all have been so desperately seeking.
I ask again - How do we know that God created the universe? Because he can, that's why.
That's a major tautology.
Not only does tautology plague your logic, so does the problem of infinite regress -- If God is omnipotent, then what is the causal variable that created such an omnipotent being? ("We don't need such a variable," you say, "because God is eternal."
-"How do you know that God is eternal?"
- "Because he is eternal by definition."
Thus, we reach yet another tautology, and yet another instance of the problem with your entire argument -- it's basis is definition, not observation)
You say: "That 'leap' will come with further arguments," you say. It does indeed.
"A necessary being is unchanging, pure actuality, eternal and infinite."
Where did you get that definition? And what exactly does "pure actuality" mean? I think it would be more honest for you to say "God is unchanging, pure actuality, eternal and infinite." By creating a class of variables, which you term "necessity," that have the same characteristics as the variable "God" is merely convenient obfuscation. You're doing the same thing you did in the first half of your discussion -- falling back on definition as proof.
"We are not 'necessary' given the above context. The point is, our existence is a dependent existence since it originates outside of ourselves. The claim here is that it we are caused by a 'necessary' being."
Another banal point. Of course we're not "necessary"! You defined "necessary" as "eternal." Humans are not eternal,so we're not "necessary." So what??
We know that we are caused by something outside of ourselves -- it's called the universe! We know LOTS about the processes that brought you and I to life. It makes us dependent on something, for sure, but how that something is an obvious case for the theist is totally unclear.
This is the process by which your argument has been constructed:
1) You define the class "necessary" as closely to the definition of God as possible (without even providing any good reason for us to accept your definition, but let's ignore that)
2) By inference, you create a class of "non necessary" beings. Humans fall within that class
3) You then posit that the "non necessary" class owes its existence to the "necessary" class. You don't explain the reason for this assertion -- we're just supposed to accept it. The only reason you get away with this is because of the semantic confusion you cause by using the word "necessary"
4) You then point out that God, being the entity that most perfectly fits the description of entities in the "necessary" class, is the most obvious variable that explains the existence of entities in the ostensibly dependent "non necessary" class. (Again, the only reason God falls into that class is because you define him as such).
You're arguments are circular, dishonest, and wholly infuriating.
Before going further I think it's worth pointing out the things we seem to agree on.
"This is a fairly banal point to make, all things considered -- The universe exists and therefore must have a causal variable to explain its existence. Ok. So what?
You've basically stated the problem that physicists and mathematicians have tried (and failed) to answer (till now). The real question is whether we can say anything useful about that causal variable itself.You say you can."
There is a breed of atheists that argues against the Universe being finite. You are not one of them. That's why this sounded 'banal' to you. Now that we have that out of the way we move on to the other stuff.
"You say God is the causal variable that explains the existence of the universe."
I didn't actually start out with this but I definitely wanted to get there as is obvious by my last statement. I think if we start out here then there is that danger of finding something just because we are desperate enough to look. Whereas like you mentioned, if we observe carefully and then arrive at something is more likely to lead us to belief. I agree.
The obvious question is "How do you know that?" If you answered as follows, I would find it compelling: "We know because we have observable evidence x,y, and z that God, a willful and powerful being, caused this universe to exist."
- Yes so I was in the process of outlining a few of the arguments. So far I have only outlined a couple. I can outline the entire argument for you - please don't take it to be an elaborate 'proof' - they are a series of arguments which if put together can lead one to a theistic belief.
I think it's worthwhile to point out here that we both agree that there is no way to prove God.
I ask again - How do we know that God created the universe? Because he can, that's why.
I think to this point I have to say we are running ahead of ourselves. I did not intend to side-step God as creator but I do think it's worthwhile to examine all the possible arguments for his existence first and then reach a conclusion.
That's a major tautology.
Not only does tautology plague your logic, so does the problem of infinite regress -- If God is omnipotent, then what is the causal variable that created such an omnipotent being? ("We don't need such a variable," you say, "because God is eternal."
-"How do you know that God is eternal?"
- "Because he is eternal by definition."
Thus, we reach yet another tautology, and yet another instance of the problem with your entire argument -- it's basis is definition, not observation)
I think the problem of infinite regress plagues your logic as well. Since we both agree that the universe is finite and has a cause, we are going to have to deal with this possibility.
However, it does not bother me as such since only 'finite' things need a cause. If it is not a stretch to imagine the possibility of the existence of the infinite - then I do not see a problem here. Something that is 'infinite' in nature does not need a cause. If I had to look at this argument in isolation, it would trouble me. But when I look at several other arguments in combination then it doesn't bother me so much.
How do you attempt to move past the logic of the problem of infinite regress? I think science can leave us with this problem unless it can 'prove' the existence of something infinite. I'm not sure how anyone would go about trying to 'prove' that.
I think for now this leaves us in the arena of philosophical speculation. To get here we've definitely looked scientifically at the observable universe and logically concluded it's beginnings. This beginning forces us to consider the issue which is why we move into speculation.
If the problem didn't exist then we needn't push ourselves attempt to discover the existence of a solution.
How do you know that God is eternal?
Because of the problematic existence of a finite Universe. We observe that we exist and that the Universe exists.
If this was a chaotic universe, I'm not sure how much God existing would matter but it is not. It is based on some observable, scientific laws.
We are relying on the scientific law of 'cause and effect' because we believe that this is a universal law that is applicable to everything within the universe and that forces us to consider the possibility of the existence of 'something' that evades these laws.
["A necessary being is unchanging, pure actuality, eternal and infinite."
Where did you get that definition? And what exactly does "pure actuality" mean? I think it would be more honest for you to say "God is unchanging, pure actuality, eternal and infinite." By creating a class of variables, which you term "necessity," that have the same characteristics as the variable "God" is merely convenient obfuscation. You're doing the same thing you did in the first half of your discussion -- falling back on definition as proof." ]
-- At this point I'd like to point out that the whole argument about 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' beings emerges from our own existence. We know we exist - and yet we really need not. So this is sort of parallel in nature to the finite/infinite argument that I had made about the universe. If the 'infinite something' can exist then a necessary being is also possible.
These are all inferred from our existence and the existence of the universe both of which are observable facts. I don't see this as falling back on a definition rather speculation based on observable facts.
The fact that we are contingent points to the fact that even we are caused so I don't think the argument overall is an irrelevant one.
["We are not 'necessary' given the above context. The point is, our existence is a dependent existence since it originates outside of ourselves. The claim here is that it we are caused by a 'necessary' being."
Another banal point. Of course we're not "necessary"! You defined "necessary" as "eternal." Humans are not eternal,so we're not "necessary." So what?? ]
So we agree! :)
We know that we are caused by something outside of ourselves -- it's called the universe!
- I doubt that I was caused by the universe because if you go back to the law of uniformity (natural laws are constant across time and space) then it does not follow that after the universe was caused, it caused us.
Mostly because we do not really resemble the universe. We have personality, minds, morality that distinguish us from pretty much everything that we know that exists.
This actually brings me to the two other arguments that I had to make overall in favour of theism.
[This is the process by which your argument has been constructed:
1) You define the class "necessary" as closely to the definition of God as possible (without even providing any good reason for us to accept your definition, but let's ignore that)
-- I've tried to define something that is not contingent which is consistent with the speculation of 'infinite' that we had when discussing the universe.
2) By inference, you create a class of "non necessary" beings. Humans fall within that class
- because they exist humans fall into that class - not the other way around.
3) You then posit that the "non necessary" class owes its existence to the "necessary" class. You don't explain the reason for this assertion -- we're just supposed to accept it. The only reason you get away with this is because of the semantic confusion you cause by using the word "necessary"
-- Again this may seem troublesome when considered in isolation. It's the combination of the arguments that gives us a clear picture of whether a God need exist given all that we know and observe.
4) You then point out that God, being the entity that most perfectly fits the description of entities in the "necessary" class, is the most obvious variable that explains the existence of entities in the ostensibly dependent "non necessary" class. (Again, the only reason God falls into that class is because you define him as such).
-- well I think I have mostly argued from observation and definitely speculated. The definitions merely follow that line of speculation rather than the other way around.
The last two arguments are fairly similar. They look to the law of 'cause and effect' for their validity.
In a nutshell, since humans are intelligent beings so is this 'first cause.' What we see in the cause is naturally seen in the effect.
Humans are also moral and personal beings since they came up with words like 'good' and 'bad' and decided that they exist. The 'first cause' is also moral and personal.
We act in a way that shows that we believe some moral law already exists. If the law exists then it requires a law-giver as well.
Put it all together and we have being who is powerful enough to cause the cosmos into existence, intelligent enough to create the known universe, humans and more, is moral and personal. That's how you end up with a God person.
This is of course only a part of the argument since we only end up arguing the existence of God as observed from nature.
I suppose it is likely to dismiss all arguments, either individually or collectively as merely philosophical speculation. I think that's a cop out since we know that there are several logical problems with what we know so far about ourselves and the Universe.
If reasonable speculation bridges that 'knowledge' gap then I think the effort is wholly worthwhile.
After all, the underlying assumption to the whole question of 'whether or not the universe is caused or caused itself' is that it is we think it is meaningful to consider this question and attempt to find a meaningful answer. 'If anything is meaningful then everything is meaningful.'
Woah! This is the most indepth discussion I have seen in the comments section. My eyes glazed over after your response to the 1st anonymous post :)
Interestingly I've had two 180 flips from Christian to unbeliever and back to Christian (there, I've said it moment!), except it's not the Jesus-is-my-personal-saviour type.
For example, the passage you pulled out "Whoever believes in him is not condemned..." makes a lot more sense to me now (despite translational issues), however it's not what the "church" told you it means.
But can't say much more here, or your other readers would brand me a heathen, which I am :D
When are you back from Amreeka da?
Post a Comment