In 2003 South Park aired an episode titled "All about the Mormons." (It's season 7, episode 12 if you want to watch; it is indeed quite hilarious.) The character Stan meets a Mormon family that has moved to town and learns about their beliefs. As they tell him the story of Joseph Smith, and as Smith's claims become more and more outrageous, they repeatedly respond to Stan's incredulity with, "Why would he make that up?" It's an argument I heard frequently growing up in the Church. It's true that Joseph Smith endured a lot of pain and difficulty because of the things that he taught. Why would he have chosen that kind of life if he knew that what he was saying wasn't true?
C. S. Lewis said, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell (from Chapter 3 of Mere Christianity)." LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland made a similar proposition about Joseph Smith: "Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase (from an address given in 1994)."
How often is anything ever that cut and dry, especially where human beings are concerned? (And before you jump in with, "But Jesus wasn't a mere human; he was God!" we have no evidence that he was God other than that he said he was and his followers believed he was, and he was neither the first nor the last person to convince people that he was God.) No human is either all good or all bad. This Bushian sort of all-or-nothing, with-us-or-against-us proposition seldom holds any validity in the real world.
I would venture that Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith were probably very much alike. Here my Mormon friends are saying, "Yes! Joseph Smith was very Christlike!" and my Protestant friends are saying, "How can you possibly put that charlatan in the same category as the Lord?!" Let me finish. Both were teaching something radical: Jesus, that he was God incarnate; Smith, that he had seen God and that he was a modern prophet of the same order of Moses. Both built on religious traditions already in existence: Jesus claimed he fulfilled the prophecies of Judaism; Smith claimed he was restoring ancient Christianity in its original and pure form. And while they both had devoted followers, they both also had just as many people who hated them. Indeed, both died for what they taught and who they claimed to be.
For reasons I didn't quite understand--because I found it absolutely suicidal to his argument--my friend also cited as examples the cults of David Koresh and Heaven's Gate.
You can believe in something strongly enough that you're willing to die for it, and still be dead wrong, pun intended.
My friend later explained that he was only trying to say that whatever Jesus taught, it must have been more radical than just "be nice" in order for the disciples believe it was worth dying for, though I still don't quite see how that's different. (Sorry, Patrik. I still like you! Feel free to comment if you feel like I'm misrepresenting what you were trying to say.)
Let's go back to the dichotomy proposed by Lewis and Holland: A good man wouldn't claim to be the Son of God --or a prophet--unless he actually was. If he was lying, then he was evil, and, supposedly, his only motivation could have been for personal monetary or political gain. We know this couldn't have been the motive for Christ nor Smith because neither was wealthy, and each gave up his life rather than back down from the cause.
I don't buy either of their claims. So what was his motive? Why would he make that up?
C. S. Lewis' statement has also been summarized thusly: Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Mark chapter 3 gives an account of Jesus' friends trying to "lay hold on him" because "he [was] beside himself (vs. 21)." In other words, they thought he needed some help. Later, when his mother comes for him, he doesn't receive her, but instead turns to his followers and declares that they are his family. (Charles Manson had a "family" too, remember.)
Margaret Toscano thinks we need to explore more middle ground possibilities for Joseph Smith as well. She says, "To me there are so many things in between the fraud and the completely truthful prophet that we haven't explored yet (from an interview given in 2006 for the PBS documentary The Mormons)." She also says, "[E]very religion, when it starts out, usually has a charismatic, chaotic stage, where in order to found a religion, you often have to have this kind of troubling, charismatic leader that later we have to cover over all the embarrassing things of a leader."
Dictionary.com defines the word "cult" as: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." By that definition every religion begins as a cult. The only difference between a cult and a "legitimate" religion is that some cults catch on and stick around and others don't.
Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith weren't very different from any charismatic cult leader who has come along, except that what they taught struck a chord with a particularly large number of people and their followers grew until there were enough of them that they were no longer considered cults.
Why did they make that up? Well, the all-or-nothing statement is partially true, which is what makes it a particularly difficult conundrum from which to extract oneself. I grew up believing the argument that my religion was either all good or all bad, and I knew that there was some good, so I performed all sorts of intellectual acrobatics to rationalize the bad. Either a person is lying or he isn't, right? Well, yes, but human imperfections lead to a messy middle ground. He might be telling a partial truth. Perhaps he had a vision of some utopian society where he believed people would have happy, wonderful lives and because of his good intention, he was able to rationalize the deceptive means he needed to employ to achieve his vision, in which case he wouldn't have been "all bad." Maybe he was, as Richard Dawkins suggests in chapter 3 of The God Delusion, genuinely mistaken. Perhaps he had some kind of mystical experience (because I don't deny that those experiences occur, even though I don't think God is the explanation for them) which caused him to believe that what he was saying was true, and so even though he was technically lying, he wasn't being intentionally deceptive, and therefore, again, not "all bad." Maybe he suffered from megalomania.
There are many possible explanations, all of them more probable than a fatherless man rising from the dead or a farm boy translating an ancient record left in New York by Israelites who emigrated to America.
I used to hear a similar argument about the veracity of the gospels: the "lots of people who saw these things are still alive" therefore it must be true or at least easily verifiable. I never liked that argument much, but it really died for me when I was reading an article about the stories surrounding George Washington (the cherry tree, et al). All these stories were circulating, and widely believed, despite numerous witnesses (including Washingtons family) who tried to discount them as fables.
ReplyDeleteA more current example would be Fox New's entire corpus, but that's another story. :)
Very lucid; myself, neither atheist nor religionist, per se.
ReplyDelete"...so I performed all sorts of intellectual acrobatics to rationalize the bad. "
So close to home. People do this in so many aspects of life...I tend to see religious 'perspectives' as either the idealism or debauchery of their particular intimate relationships. Telling portrait, human views, either way.
I think that there is a quantitative aspect to this that is missing from your post.
ReplyDeletePeople tell you things. You wonder if they are true. Why would he make that up? If you cannot think of a reason why he would lie, you accept what he says as true.
That is a good and useful heuristic that works well nine times out of ten. Perhaps it is better than that and works ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but that still leaves the puzzle: what do believe when you encounter an oddball character who tells a very strange tale?
If you apply a heuristic that usually works to case that looks likely to be an exception you cannot have much confidence in the conclusion. You must have much less confidence than you have in the ordinary, work-a-day, cases in which you believe a banal tale because you cannot see what the teller has to gain from lying.
Why would they make it up? The same could be asked about Ellen G. White, Buddha, or Mohamed, and any other founding religious leader. It becomes easy to question the founding of a religion that you don’t belong to, but people have a hard time wanting to apply the same scrutiny to there own religion.
ReplyDeleteAlan brings up a good point, and I guess it goes back to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thing. If someone tells you they bumped into an old friend at the supermarket, you'd probably accept it as truth without even thinking (and if they're lying, it's of little consequence anyway). But if they told you they were in the supermarket when an angel descended through the roof and told you that all of humanity needs to obey certain rules OR ELSE, and gave you a book that explains it all, you'd be immediately skeptical and wouldn't believe or obey until you had proof. And you certainly wouldn't devote your life to obeying the alleged angel's rulebook without significant evidence (unless you were crazy, stupid, or otherwise deceived or coerced).
ReplyDeleteWhen someone makes an extraordinary and/or consequential claim taking it on his/her word alone is no longer good enough.
Actually, I don't think that there is ANY proof of the existence of God that atheists will accept, even in principle.
ReplyDeleteBy that I mean, given the belief...yes, belief, that all existence can be explained by mindless processes, then there is nothing, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, that would convince you.
Am I wrong? Give me an example of something...even in principle...that would prove the existence to your satisfaction.
I will then show you how it would not.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
The claim that all existence, including life, can be explained by mindless undirected processes is extraordinary.
And the extraordinary evidence would be to DEMONSTRATE this claim.
Such has not been done.
Leah, you say you welcome discussion as long as it is not an attack on a person's character.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you suggest the gospel writers were liars...yep, thats what you suggest.
The atheist standpoint, or at least mine, is that we don't know how everything got started. What we do believe, however, is what can be explained. If something can only be explained through the supernatural, then it does not have suffient evidence.
ReplyDeleteGoldstein, calm down. Did I say that the Gospel writers were bad people? No, I said they were probably mistaken. How is this an attack on their character? They were humans. Humans make mistakes.
ReplyDeleteEvolution HAS been demonstrated, through DNA evidence and the fossil records. We don't know how it all started, but any kind of designer would have had to have been more complex than the things it designed, and therefore, less likely to exist.
You're right that I can't think of any evidence that would convince me that there is a god. Maybe it's because I've already done the whole religion thing and examined what the theists claim is evidence and find that it's not good evidence at all.
"And yet you suggest the gospel writers were liars"
ReplyDeleteActually, what I think she was implying was that they were deluded (lunatics was the word that C. S. Lewis used in her quote). They believed in what they wrote, but that doesn't mean that what they believed was true.
Leah: sorry if I put words in your mouth.
If God appeared before me in person and gave me a radical demonstration of his power, then I would be satisfactorily convinced that God exists. Or at least that a very powerful being that claims to be God exists and possesses godlike powers.
ReplyDeleteStill doesn't mean I'd devote my life to him and obey his every whim.
Unless he used his powers to coerce me into obedience under threat of death or violence, which is something we all know a kind, perfect, loving God would never do. Right?
ReplyDeleteEvolution is no more a theory than the existence of gravity, or a round earth, or a sun-centered solar system; it is fact. Not only has it been corroborated by DNA and fossil records, but there have actually been multiple OBSERVED INSTANCES of speciation—that is, the emergence of a new species branching from an old one—occurring since the 19th century. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)
ReplyDeleteThe mechanism by which evolution occurs—natural selection—can rightly be considered a theory. However, it's such an incredibly elegant explanation that ties together all branches of life science and explains so many processes that were previously explained by guesswork at best (basically the life science equivalent to the "theory of everything" that particle physicists are currently searching for).
This sums it up well:
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
So (tongue in cheek) do you - in your views -
ReplyDelete"believe in something strongly enough that you'd be willing to die for it and still be dead wrong?"
And if so, how does that make Athiesm any different than people who believe in a Diety?
And in Mark 3: His family didn't think he needed help. They were concerned about his safety at the hands of the law (Pharisees) his behavior (and by that I mean the healing, fasting, crowds following him) was causing them concern for his safety.
In Mark 3:31, Jesus does not deny his mother and brothers. He uses it as a parable to teach that living a life under God and followng GOd isn't defined by a position within a biolical family, which during that culture was what everything was based on - honor, wealth, lineage, etc.
C.S. Lewis was not an emotional Christian but a rational one. His "Lord, Lunatic, Liar" argument centers on the rationale that IF he was indeed a Lunatic or a Liar, THEN no other cultures would uphold him as an honorable and wise man in any way.
And people the world over - whether they believe he was the messiah or not, acknowledge that he was a wise man.
So can people believe that a Lunatic and a Liar (for example - Charles Manson or as you've already stated, George Bush!) believe that he was also a person with honorable and useful teachings?
@ Mike -
ReplyDeleteActually, the God I believe in doesn't "coerce me into obedience under threats of violence." Instead, I am "coerced - that's the word you used - to believe in my god under "threats" of Grace, Mercy and Love. That sounds like a pretty kind, loving deity to me.
Now not at Mike - just at everyone...
I think it interesting to do some research into the mathematical probability of the big bang and evolution. It's interesting. The more science discovers, the more it's "proving" that this all isn't just happen chance.
Finally - a question for you - what do you make of believers who also support evolution and evolutionary processes? Where do they fit into the atheist mindset?
"Finally - a question for you - what do you make of believers who also support evolution and evolutionary processes? Where do they fit into the atheist mindset?"
ReplyDeleteMost theists argue that there are two types of evolution; macro and micro. Macro evolution, they claim, is the creating of new species, while micro evolution is small changes within a species (dog and cat breeds for example). I don't think that's a valid difference as the "micro evolution" eventually leads to the "macro evolution". It's the same process, just viewed on a different time scale.
Some others argue that god set in motion the events of evolution. I find that this argument sounds good, but it means that you can't take the Bible literally. If you can't take the Bible literally, then you're stuck picking and choosing which parts to follow. If you have to pick and choose, then I think it kind of defeats the purpose of the message a bit.
On your comment about us being here by chance, I actually find it quite humbling. Obviously we are the one known case in that chance, or else we wouldn't be here. Consider though the mind-bogglingly large amount of galaxies and the mind-bogglingly large amount of stars within those galaxies. That means that there are billions upon billions of chances for some sort of life to start.
Each supernova spreads the seeds of life for light years beyond it's event. That cloud of matter then re-combines over millennia to form a new star and solar system with yet another chance. I like thinking that we're all star dust.
Finally, I think that there may be a bit of a misunderstanding of where most atheists stand on the opinion of the existence of a god or gods. There are some who say that they know that no deities exist, but their numbers are quite few (on the order of a theist saying they aren't sure God exists, but believe anyway). Most atheists would say that we don't know, or even can't know, that they exist. I fall into that latter category. I don't know for sure whether or not god exists, but I find the Abrahamic god to be quite unlikely. If he did exist, I don't think I would want to follow him anyway. I don't like negative reinforcement (do good or spend eternity in hell).
I've kind of rambled, so I hope I was at least a little coherent.
No, there's no misunderstanding at all. The definitions of each are as follows:
ReplyDeleteAtheism: one who DENIES the existence of God or Gods
Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know but does not profess true atheism
Deist: a belief in a deity absent any doctrinal governance based on reason.
If you are an atheist who says you don't know then you are agnostic. If you profess true Atheism then you have fully denied a god and have determined that you KNOW there is not a god.
In terms of taking the Bible literally - there has to be an understanding that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. If you take the Hebrew words literally, it actually makes a lot of sense.
For example, in Hebrew, the word for "day" does not mean "1 24 hour period" it means "an amount of time." There was no Latin, then English word that means that. So when it was translated, the word "day" was used.
Can you agree that the earth was formed in an "amount of time?"
It's funny that you say "I like to think we're all star dust." Hm. Judeo Christians also believe "for dust you are and to dust you will return. (Gen. 3:19) ;) And you were completely coherent - rambling and all!
I still think that you are incorrect with your definitions. The key is the word "believe." I dot not believe that there is a god, but I don't discount the minute possibility that there could be one. I just don't believe that there is, because I have no evidence. It's the scientific stance. Something is not true until it has been proven.
ReplyDeleteAn agnostic takes a stance in the middle of saying "I don't know whether there is a god or not, so I will withhold my answer."
Here is a great explanation for the differences from atheist to theist and everything in-between:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
PS: The dust reference in Genesis is specifically referencing to the act of God forming Adam out of the dust of the Earth. I suppose there are parallels. I still don't understand if it was supposed to be a metaphor, why would God confuse "star dust" (maybe it's more apt to name it "star guts" as there are way more elements than would be found in dust) with silicate dust?
Leah, with respect, you DID NOT say the gospel writers were mistaken.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of what you wrote, that the embellished and distorted the truth, if looks like you were calling them liars.
If that is not what you meant, you should clarify that in a post.
Also, Leah, if you can not think of any evidence that would convince you of the existence of God...even in PRINCIPLE as I said...then you have assumed a nonfalsifiable position.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are probably aware that potential falsifiabity is an element of the scientific method.
That said, I appreciate your admission.
You are relying on a belief that all existence can be explained by mindless processes and since such has not been demonstrated you can only fall back on that belief, in the face of ALL...even in PRINCIPLE...potential falsification.
What was it that guy said, "Even if one were to rise from the dead, they would not believe."
Ok, this is going to take a few posts because of character limits on the blog comments.
ReplyDeleteLeah, I’m curious, have you read Mere Christianity? I remember Richard Dawkins using that particular quote ‘The God Delusion’ when he was discussing this very thing. So, I’m curious if that’s where this quote emerged from. At any rate, I’m going to have to disagree with your inference that Jesus was insane from Mark chapter 3 and side with Andrea. Maybe Jesus’ family did think he was a bit nuts because of some of his claims and they knew that claiming to be God would get him killed. His family did not become believers until after his death and resurrection. His brother, James, later became the leader in the church in Jerusalem, wrote the book of James and was martyred. Sometimes you need to take more than one or two verses to get the whole picture. Richard Dawkins did this in his book and I felt it lead to a very weak argument, like suggesting that according to Matthew Mary and Joseph actually lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. Besides, if that passage is such a dead give away of his insanity then why would his followers leave it in if they were trying to embellish the story? Surely they would have eliminated such passages to preclude future points of contention or suspicion.
Is anything cut and dry you ask? “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.” (Luke 11:23) How’s that for cut and dry? That coming out of the mouth of Jesus. No room for relativism there. No wonder he is so unpopular in today’s age of relativistic thinking. Some things are cut and dry.
“…later we have to cover over all the embarrassing things of a leader.” – Maybe with Joseph Smith, because he did have a rather embarrassing history. I don’t feel there is a need to make a list so I’ll save some typing. Jesus on the other hand, needed no cover for any embarrassment in his past. In, fact, not much is said about his past at all prior to the beginning of his ministry.
@ Mike and the supermarket comment: I agree. Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence. Joseph Smith had some audacious claims. People had the right to question him. Conveniently enough for him the gold plates were taken back up into heaven and so he was unable to show the physical evidence. Lucky for him, I suppose. Jesus, on the other hand, DID back up his audacious claims. He spent 3 years traveling about performing great wonders and miracles to include raising the dead, controlling the wind and waves, turning water into wine, healing the blind, deaf, lame, and, according to John, many other things that if they were written the whole world could not contain the books that would be written, all this with the specific intent of adding credibility to his audacious claims. In one instance he forgave a man his sins. The Pharisees accused him of blasphemy because only God can forgive sin. Besides, how could they even know his sins were forgiven, as that is not a very tangible thing? So, to validate his claim of having the authority to forgive sin he healed the man of paralysis, which is quite tangible. So he did not just come and claim all these things and get brushed aside as a lunatic, he backed up everything he said with innumerous miracles. The Bible is just a book of stories with no historical evidence, right? And it would be a circular argument to use it to prove its own truthfulness, right? Well, since we are tossing out quotes, here are a few: “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.” John McRay, Ph.D author of ‘Archaeology and the New Testament’. He goes on to say “The premise is that if an ancient historian’s incidental details check out to be accurate time after time (such as things that can be archaeologically verified. Example: Luke makes mention of thirty two countries, fifty four cities, and nine islands with no mistakes.), this increases our confidence in other material that the historian wrote but that cannot be as readily cross-checked. (like the teachings of Jesus, or that he rose from the dead)” Here’s another one: “IF Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reportings, on what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well?” John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ‘Ready with an Answer’. Those quotes from the book ‘The Case for Christ’. Unlike The Book of Mormon, the Bible has significant archaeological support. Now, I can see a skeptic saying something to the effect “If the stories in the Bible are true then where is the ark? Surely someone would have found it by now.” To which I might reply something along the lines of “explain to me the origins of life. You don’t have all the answers so why would you expect me to have all the answers?”
ReplyDelete@ Goldstein, Ray, Leah: “The claim that all existence, including life, can be explained by mindless undirected processes is extraordinary.”…we don’t know how everything got started. What we do believe, however, is what can be explained.” “…we don’t know how it all started.” Life exists. Therefore you believe that somehow life started even though you can’t explain it. Therefore you do believe in something you can’t explain. Let me give you a real scientific explanation on how life got started: with a stroke of luck. In fact, so much luck that the probability of it happening is so extremely improbable many orders of magnitude more than most people realize! That courtesy of Richard Dawkins. So often religious people are looked down on because they have faith, which is belief that is not based on proof. And yet science has no problem explaining away immensely improbable events with terms such as “luck”. In my opinion, the “scientific” term for faith is luck. Ray, I would argue that you believe that life started because we are here. That is the evidence. What you have faith in, because you can’t explain it, is that it got started somehow. Dawkins attributes it to sheer luck, you may have your own opinion or theories, but in the end you have faith because it is not based on proof. This is not the only area of scientific study that Richard Dawkins attributes luck to, but I won’t delve into that here. But I will say that he relies on a LOT of luck, or faith, depending on your perspective.
ReplyDelete@Leah: “any kind of designer would have to had been more complex than the things it designed, and therefore, less likely to exist.” Leah, this is soooooo Richard Dawkins. I’m starting to think that you are a fan. Richard Dawkins discusses this very thing on more than one occasion in ‘The God Delusion’ of which I’ve previously written to you about. I agree that for God to be able to create the universe then he has to be immensely bigger and intelligent to be able to do so. However, if we, with our little finite minds, can’t even understand the origins of life, or on a larger scale, the origin of the universe, then how can we even begin to think that we can grasp the infinite grandeur of God? Though I stand in awe when I consider the earth and all that is in it and its beauty (and don’t think that I don’t because the incredible complexity of life just boggles my mind!), and the universe and its immensity, it instills in me even more awe of the Creator of it all! I got the impression that Richard Dawkins limits the scope of God to what he can understand based on the many things he said in his book with reference to the scope and abilities of God. If you do the same thing then God would be very small indeed and it would then be highly improbable of him to be able to create anything.
Back @ Mike (I’m trying to keep my comments in the same order as the post and its ensuing comments): “If God appeared…radical demonstration of his power” He did appear. He did radically demonstrate his power as I mentioned above. I’m sorry it didn’t occur in your lifetime. “Through everything God made they can see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” Romans 1:20. I stand in awe of God’s creation, and in his creation is the evidence of his divine nature.
ReplyDelete@ Andrea: on the whole mathematical probability thing….I have read a few books on the topic. Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” attributes luck to the origin of life, the emergence of the eukaryotic cell, and the rise of consciousness. The latter two are described as more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the previous. The origin of life he describes as being many magnitudes more improbable than most people realize. He would attribute the bridging of these improbabilities with luck. In another book an astrophysicist named Hugh Ross suggests that the probability of the anthropic principles all aligning just so for life to be possible on earth at 1 in 10138 . Just some food for thought. While I’m on the top of probability, Ray, you mentioned later on about the billions and billions of chances for life to start. At the end of ‘The God Delusion’, Dawkins address this very thing. He says, “On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe (emphasis added by me), molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing, and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter.” That’s pretty much along the lines of Ross’ level of probability.
And finally, Ray to one of your last comments: “do good or spend eternity in hell.” I don’t know how it is in the Mormon church, but I do not follow God in the hopes of pleasing him with my good works in exchange for not going to hell. There is no cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s (metaphorically speaking) to earn your way up the ladder. The Bible is very explicit about salvation being a free gift. Paul says in Romans that there is no one who does good. And that we are made right by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. And in Ephesians he says that we are saved by God’s grace when we believed. We can’t take credit for it, it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done so that no one can boast. I apologize if this last bit sounded a little preachy.
Goldstein said... "Actually, I don't think that there is ANY proof of the existence of God that atheists will accept, even in principle"
ReplyDeleteLike Mike Elliott already pointed out some personal appearances from god himself, could likely be very helpful in convincing many more people and save many problems.Is that really to much to ask of a omnipotent supreme Being father who supposedly loves us?.Cant see why.
Some folks of faith will then argue,well you see(its not for us humans) to understand all things about god or reasons why he does or doesnt do certain things.He`s god the almighty he can do no wrong what ever "he chooses".
Funny crazy mad thing is though its already been proved human must be able to know things about God.Because we have beliefs and books already written about it,and it "the humans" that have done all the "choosing" too of (what the humans believe).
So what we are dealing with is we have certain humans who feel (they) have some special right or special knowledge to decern for everyone.What (THEY think) should be able to be known v unknown.While trying to have other folk believe things cannot be known by humans.
So in effect they will simply quite happily agree humans (cant know)somethings about gods,then simply quite happily put themselves in another position where humans (can know)somethings about gods.
Most likely to be a fraud.
Propped up with little more than written history married with myth.
"Why would he make that up?"
Same reasons as today.Best publicitity,wealth,control,dominance,ideologies etc
I really appreciate all the discussion taking place. I wish I could respond to everything, but I just can't. I have other life responsibilities that kind of have to take priority, so just a few things:
ReplyDelete@ Goldstein, I disagree that because I can't think of a proof of God's existence that would satisfy me then I'm saying that the "no god theory" is not falsifiable. It's possible that one day we'll find evidence beyond the realm of what I can currently imagine. We're all the time discovering things we never imagined existed and didn't expect to find. I think that if there were definitive proof of god, we would have found it by now, but I don't deny that it's possible that some irrefutable evidence could surface in the future. In the meantime, I'm not going to try to force myself to believe in something that doesn't make sense to me.
Which brings me to Andrea's statement that since I'm atheist, then I'm claiming to KNOW that there's no god. Very few atheists claim to know that god absolutely does not exist (in contrast to many religious people who do claim to KNOW that God does exists). Atheism is simply a lack of belief that a god exists. Richard Dawkins (yes, Patrik, I'm a fan) describes a spectrum of belief from 1 being sure knowledge that God exists to 7 being sure knowledge that no god exists. Dawkins places degrees of agnosticism from 3-5 on this scale. I place myself as a 6: "de facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there (from chapter 2 of The God Delusion)." I define myself as atheist because I don't believe God exists, not because I KNOW he doesn't.
@Patrik, yes, I have read Mere Christianity, although it's been a few years. It was one of the books I read when I was still trying to believe in something. I really, really tried to believe. In the end, I just couldn't.
@Andrea - that Hugh Ross stat was supposed to be 1 in 10X138th power (1 with 138 zero's after it) not 10138. The superscript did not transfer over into the blog I guess.
ReplyDeleteAndrea said...
ReplyDelete"So (tongue in cheek) do you - in your views -
'believe in something strongly enough that you'd be willing to die for it and still be dead wrong?'
And if so, how does that make Athiesm any different than people who believe in a Diety?"
So, Andrea, I assume you're driving at, "Why are you so certain that God doesn't exist that you're willing to risk hell for your beliefs?" To paraphrase Sam Harris, it's the same sureness that makes Christians sure they're not going to go to hell for not believing in Islam. Christians and Muslims have similar reasons for believing what they do: they both have a book they claim was written by God that explains the will and truth of God. But Christians don't lie awake at night wondering if they should convert to Islam, because Muslims can't really back up their extraordinary claims; they aren't intellectually honest about their beliefs, and they're obviously devoted to a massive program of self-deception.
I feel about all religions the way Christians feel about Islam.
@Patrik - "Jesus, on the other hand, DID back up his audacious claims. He spent 3 years traveling about performing great wonders and miracles to include raising the dead, controlling the wind and waves, turning water into wine, healing the blind, deaf, lame...[etc.]" You can't back up extraordinary claims by citing more extraordinary claims, silly. Since you're aware of the circular argument problem, I'll save myself the typing and skip to the meat of your argument. A consensus of scholars calling Luke "erudite," "eloquent," "educated," and "very accurate as a historian" doesn't even come close to the kind of extraordinary evidence required to verify that Jesus actually performed all of those magic tricks in real life. It might be sufficient evidence to convince me that there was a philosopher named Jesus who lived 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem and claimed to be God. Sure, I can swallow that. But just because archaeology verifies the mundane natural aspects of the story is no reason to give automatic credence to the supernatural aspects.
Can you imagine if J.K. Rowling had written Harry Potter 2,000 years ago? And a consensus of scholars hailed her as well-educated, and lauded her writing style, and all the clever (inspired?) tie-ins with the mythology of various cultures, and the complexity of the carefully-laid clues and red herrings, and the way events in the earlier books foreshadow (prophesy?) the events that occur in the later books? And what if some archaeologists found the ruins of what was quite likely Hogwarts castle, as well as the ruins of the neighboring town of Hogsmeade, and perhaps some other findings that seemed to corroborate the physical details of the stories? Would you take that as sufficient proof of the fantastical events that occurred in the books?
Moving on...
"However, if we, with our little finite minds, can’t even understand the origins of life, or on a larger scale, the origin of the universe, then how can we even begin to think that we can grasp the infinite grandeur of God?" I think the point of the "God would have to be more complex than the universe" argument is: how is it that you're unable to swallow the idea that our complex universe emerged from inert matter, yet you have no trouble believing that something even MORE complex somehow emerged from nothing?
Either way, if the complexity of the universe is evidence of creation, I'm still baffled as to how it's supposed to verify your particular God. Just about every religion has a creation story of some sort, and they're all equally plausible (or rather, implausible). Actually I find the creation story of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be more plausible than other religions because it actually has an explanation for the discrepancies between the claims of its creation story and the evidence of scientific findings.
"a-theist" -- means without (or lack of belief in) gods. Not surprisingly, there are nuanced versions of its meaning, as mentioned above. As an atheist I simply have no use for gods or magical thinking. Period.
ReplyDeleteDescribing the workings of the universe as "mindless processes" is simply an argument from ignorance. Leaping to (or implying) the conclusion that one's particularly specific version of protestant (or pick) christianity (or pick from 1000s of religions and personal beliefs) must be true because science hasn't answers for the entire universe isn't at all persuasive.
Here is something mundane, yet sublime in its own right, and may even be happening outside your home right now: the formation of a snowflake from *randomly* moving water vapor molecules. And no, they do not assemble in a statistical fluctuation of insanely small probabilities involving ~10^{18} H2O molecules. They form molecule by molecule, in a system of particles interacting via electric and quantum fields, minimizing free energy. The formation of a star or planet, or of amino acids that are then strung together into proteins of living cells, and all the way up the scale to a living being, be it a bacterium or a human, follows the same simple and universal principles.
And yes, we understand where electric fields and molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc come from (we're still working on quarks). And while science hasn't answers to all questions (the universe is just a bit on the large side, no?), there is no evidence that anything we observe in the world is magic.
If belief in a magical world makes you happy, then fine, but then just stand by the definition of faith and don't defend your point of view by arguing in ignorance of science.
In reading all of these comments, I have noticed one overwhelming theme... the need to prove something. My question would be, "Why do we have to prove whether there is or isn't a God?". When one believes in a Deity (I spelled it right, Leah), it gives them purpose. They have something to look forward to, and a reasoning behind their actions. When one decides they are unsure or do not believe, they are then forced to find a different focal point and purpose. One who has purpose is constantly moving forward.
ReplyDeleteIf there were no belief vs. disbelief in a Deity, there would be some other intrinsic belief that would cause as much discussion, argument, cohesion, separation, etc that belief or disbelief in a Deity causes.
In conclusion, I wonder what the world would be like if Love were the center and purpose of the human existance... no God, no Heaven, no Hell.. To me, this is both frightening and intriguing. I have chosen to base my purpose and actions on love or lack thereof, which has been a beautiful and scary experience, and has afforded me an abundance of peace and very little conflict.
Why Joseph lie? It wasn't all suffering and persecution. Joseph Smith benefited tremendously from his chosen career.
ReplyDeletehttp://leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com/2007/03/did-prophet-joseph-profit.html
Back @ Mike (I’m trying to keep my comments in the same order as the post and its ensuing comments): “If God appeared…radical demonstration of his power” He did appear. He did radically demonstrate his power as I mentioned above. I’m sorry it didn’t occur in your lifetime. “Through everything God made they can see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” Romans 1:20. I stand in awe of God’s creation, and in his creation is the evidence of his divine nature.
ReplyDelete@ Andrea: on the whole mathematical probability thing….I have read a few books on the topic. Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” attributes luck to the origin of life, the emergence of the eukaryotic cell, and the rise of consciousness. The latter two are described as more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the previous. The origin of life he describes as being many magnitudes more improbable than most people realize. He would attribute the bridging of these improbabilities with luck. In another book an astrophysicist named Hugh Ross suggests that the probability of the anthropic principles all aligning just so for life to be possible on earth at 1 in 10138 . Just some food for thought. While I’m on the top of probability, Ray, you mentioned later on about the billions and billions of chances for life to start. At the end of ‘The God Delusion’, Dawkins address this very thing. He says, “On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe (emphasis added by me), molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing, and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter.” That’s pretty much along the lines of Ross’ level of probability.
And finally, Ray to one of your last comments: “do good or spend eternity in hell.” I don’t know how it is in the Mormon church, but I do not follow God in the hopes of pleasing him with my good works in exchange for not going to hell. There is no cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s (metaphorically speaking) to earn your way up the ladder. The Bible is very explicit about salvation being a free gift. Paul says in Romans that there is no one who does good. And that we are made right by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. And in Ephesians he says that we are saved by God’s grace when we believed. We can’t take credit for it, it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done so that no one can boast. I apologize if this last bit sounded a little preachy.
@ Mike and the supermarket comment: I agree. Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence. Joseph Smith had some audacious claims. People had the right to question him. Conveniently enough for him the gold plates were taken back up into heaven and so he was unable to show the physical evidence. Lucky for him, I suppose. Jesus, on the other hand, DID back up his audacious claims. He spent 3 years traveling about performing great wonders and miracles to include raising the dead, controlling the wind and waves, turning water into wine, healing the blind, deaf, lame, and, according to John, many other things that if they were written the whole world could not contain the books that would be written, all this with the specific intent of adding credibility to his audacious claims. In one instance he forgave a man his sins. The Pharisees accused him of blasphemy because only God can forgive sin. Besides, how could they even know his sins were forgiven, as that is not a very tangible thing? So, to validate his claim of having the authority to forgive sin he healed the man of paralysis, which is quite tangible. So he did not just come and claim all these things and get brushed aside as a lunatic, he backed up everything he said with innumerous miracles. The Bible is just a book of stories with no historical evidence, right? And it would be a circular argument to use it to prove its own truthfulness, right? Well, since we are tossing out quotes, here are a few: “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.” John McRay, Ph.D author of ‘Archaeology and the New Testament’. He goes on to say “The premise is that if an ancient historian’s incidental details check out to be accurate time after time (such as things that can be archaeologically verified. Example: Luke makes mention of thirty two countries, fifty four cities, and nine islands with no mistakes.), this increases our confidence in other material that the historian wrote but that cannot be as readily cross-checked. (like the teachings of Jesus, or that he rose from the dead)” Here’s another one: “IF Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reportings, on what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well?” John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ‘Ready with an Answer’. Those quotes from the book ‘The Case for Christ’. Unlike The Book of Mormon, the Bible has significant archaeological support. Now, I can see a skeptic saying something to the effect “If the stories in the Bible are true then where is the ark? Surely someone would have found it by now.” To which I might reply something along the lines of “explain to me the origins of life. You don’t have all the answers so why would you expect me to have all the answers?”
ReplyDelete"Finally - a question for you - what do you make of believers who also support evolution and evolutionary processes? Where do they fit into the atheist mindset?"
ReplyDeleteMost theists argue that there are two types of evolution; macro and micro. Macro evolution, they claim, is the creating of new species, while micro evolution is small changes within a species (dog and cat breeds for example). I don't think that's a valid difference as the "micro evolution" eventually leads to the "macro evolution". It's the same process, just viewed on a different time scale.
Some others argue that god set in motion the events of evolution. I find that this argument sounds good, but it means that you can't take the Bible literally. If you can't take the Bible literally, then you're stuck picking and choosing which parts to follow. If you have to pick and choose, then I think it kind of defeats the purpose of the message a bit.
On your comment about us being here by chance, I actually find it quite humbling. Obviously we are the one known case in that chance, or else we wouldn't be here. Consider though the mind-bogglingly large amount of galaxies and the mind-bogglingly large amount of stars within those galaxies. That means that there are billions upon billions of chances for some sort of life to start.
Each supernova spreads the seeds of life for light years beyond it's event. That cloud of matter then re-combines over millennia to form a new star and solar system with yet another chance. I like thinking that we're all star dust.
Finally, I think that there may be a bit of a misunderstanding of where most atheists stand on the opinion of the existence of a god or gods. There are some who say that they know that no deities exist, but their numbers are quite few (on the order of a theist saying they aren't sure God exists, but believe anyway). Most atheists would say that we don't know, or even can't know, that they exist. I fall into that latter category. I don't know for sure whether or not god exists, but I find the Abrahamic god to be quite unlikely. If he did exist, I don't think I would want to follow him anyway. I don't like negative reinforcement (do good or spend eternity in hell).
I've kind of rambled, so I hope I was at least a little coherent.
So (tongue in cheek) do you - in your views -
ReplyDelete"believe in something strongly enough that you'd be willing to die for it and still be dead wrong?"
And if so, how does that make Athiesm any different than people who believe in a Diety?
And in Mark 3: His family didn't think he needed help. They were concerned about his safety at the hands of the law (Pharisees) his behavior (and by that I mean the healing, fasting, crowds following him) was causing them concern for his safety.
In Mark 3:31, Jesus does not deny his mother and brothers. He uses it as a parable to teach that living a life under God and followng GOd isn't defined by a position within a biolical family, which during that culture was what everything was based on - honor, wealth, lineage, etc.
C.S. Lewis was not an emotional Christian but a rational one. His "Lord, Lunatic, Liar" argument centers on the rationale that IF he was indeed a Lunatic or a Liar, THEN no other cultures would uphold him as an honorable and wise man in any way.
And people the world over - whether they believe he was the messiah or not, acknowledge that he was a wise man.
So can people believe that a Lunatic and a Liar (for example - Charles Manson or as you've already stated, George Bush!) believe that he was also a person with honorable and useful teachings?