One thing that has always been important to me is truth. One of my co-workers describes me as "a black-and-white kind of guy" and to some extent that's accurate. I don't just like to take other people's word for things; rather, I like to investigate things for myself and find out for myself whether or not they are right, true or beneficial. One thing I don't like much is the grey area of not really knowing; I prefer certainty if it's available, though of course I understand that certainty isn't always possible.One thing that has come out of this is that I am willing to question anything and everything. There are no untouchable areas that are beyond being questioned, because I strongly believe that if something won't stand up to scrutiny then it's not worth believing anyway.
I mentioned earlier that I don't like taking other people's word for things, but that's exactly what I've done all my life with regard to my Christian faith, and even my basic belief in the existence of God. I was brought up nominally Christian, and the existence of God was always an assumption in my family and my wider community, to the point that for most of my life it never even occurred to me to question it. It was one of those unspoken cultural things that I just took for granted as self-evident. That assumption became even more strong following my conversion experience 21 years ago. Now, though, I'm questioning those assumptions to see if they hold up in the face of doubt.
At the moment, as I've said before, I'm agnostic but with a leaning towards theism as a default position. Depending on which way the questioning leads me, I could end up going either way, but I'm comfortable with that.
So the question I'm asking myself at the moment, and which I'd like to put to anyone who still reads this blog, is this: What if there is no God?
If you were to discover, conclusively and with absolute proof, that there is no God and never has been, what would your reaction be? How do you think your life would change as a result - or would it change at all?
Posts
79 comments:
Mae fy hofrenfad yn llawn llyswennod
If it were proven to me that there is no God, there would no longer be anything to keep me from killing myself. It is only the fear of facing God after spurning him by taking my own life that keeps me from doing so. Of course, there is also the fact that suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness and I would not want to do that to my family. But still, the primary reason is the fear of God. So I guess a question I ask is, assuming that God exists, is his grace big enough to cover suicide?
Ydy'r llywswennod wedi dwyn dy hofrenfad fel ffordd hawdd o fynd i Ffrainc ar eu gwyliau?
Anon 18:48 - Think of your family, if nothing else. It would surely devastate them if you were to take your own life. If you have someone to talk to, please talk it through with them, or if you're in the UK phone the Samaritans and let them help.
Barry, I actually don't speak a single word in Cymraeg, so I can only respond to your response in Saesneg. I saw that you were seriously into Cymraeg, so I looked online to find a nice greeting. When I came across "My hovercraft is full of eels" I had to send that. I am fluent in no other language than Saesneg. I do speak a little bit of Spanish and Ukrainian and a smattering of Gaeilge.
I hope I didn't worry you with my other comment about a life without God. No danger really.
I'll translate my first comment then: "Have the eels stolen your hovercraft as an easy way of going to France on their holidays?"
Glad to hear there's no danger.
During the first days of my deconstruction that question would have driven me into a panic. I would imagine that consideration of no god at all would have made me afraid that every atom in place would spontaneously explode!
Lately, I would be able to accept that finality a lot easier. I don't think that anything in my reality would change with that news.
You popped up in my google reader today Barry with that question and I have spent the entire day seriously pondering how it would affect my world should I discover there is no God.
I think at first I would feel disoriented. Sort of like if I thought I was going the right way on a drive and there are landmarks and stuff to confirm it along the way. Then I discovered that I was going in the wrong direction and have landed in a completely different place.
I would be bewildered, need to retrace my steps to figure out where I went wrong because there were so many things that made me think I was going in the right direction.
The other thing that I would think is "well then who the hell have I been communicating with all this time?" It would be like someone telling me that my husband is not real. That he's a figment of my imagination. Seriously, I have gotten information from something out there that I could not have known. So that would leave me to think that even if the God of the bible doesn't exist that there is something out there in a different realm.
And then I thought, if it was proven to me that life on earth is all just scientific. That there is no spiritual realm whether with Godof the bible or not, I would feel deeply saddened for humanity. That would mean there is nothing special about being human. Everything about us would just be evolved with the sole purpose of survival. We would not be created in the image of the God. We would not have been created for something more....for love... for relationship...for holiness.
I could handle it if the Bible was wrong. If there really wasn't an ark and Jesus and all. But no purpose or design? That's hard to swallow especialy since so much in nature points to that fact.
I wonder if I would live life more selfishly? Would I cheat on my taxes? Would I live in the moment more?
Great question Barry...brings out honesty.
Michelle: I don't think much would change for me that hasn't already changed, either.
Ruth: Even if life is just physical with no spiritual realm, it's still amazing, and we still have the capacity to love, be in relationships and be moral and good people. That isn't dependent on a deity. We are what we are, whether or not there is a God. Also, being human is still special because as far as we know, we are the only species that is self-aware and able to think in abstract terms.
Why should you be more selfish or any less moral without God? You would still be the same person, and it would be hard to go against who you are, just as it is now.
I don't know that it would change much for me. I've already discounted much of the bible, and I don't go to church and I really pray or anything. But then, I was hiking by a river and a waterfall, in a forest yesterday, and stopped to think: "There is power in all this. There is power simply in the living, breathing earth." The same thing when I think about my kids and their personalities or potential, or think about generosity, or about love. So really, whether it's God or not, there is something just in the reality of living that is beautiful and holy. If that makes any sense.
Granted I believe there is a divine power, and although I think there are many ways to view that power, personally, I still see it through Jesus.
Barry I see your point but it just wouldn't be the same. I don't think my personality would change or anything. I wouldn't start cussing like a trucker or whatever. I would still value love and justice and goodness, etc.
But there are things that matter to me simply because they matter to God. Principles like holiness, humility and selflessness. Even though I believe in them, they are not easy to pursue. They just might take a back seat in the event that there is no God.
Humility and selflessness would still be virtues without God. Holiness would be the exception, but if there is no God then holiness is a redundant concept anyway.
It is my hope that there is a God who is good and who is bigger than my doubts and questions. I hope that there is a God who loves me precisely as I am and who is actively committed to transforming me into His image in terms of my character, thoughts, and deeds. I struggle because the reality of my life does not necessarily support these beliefs. Often things which one person might view as clear evidence of God's loving involvement are to another person simply coincidence and proof of nothing at all.
I think that the Twelve Step recovery movement has shown that belief in a higher power, be that Jesus, Allah, or a magic doorknob, can be transformative in a person's life. Is the Christian God more than that? I hope so, but the jury is still out.
Barry, what is holiness? A deep and abiding trust in God? A level of adoration? Or a certain set of behaviours?
Great question about the existence of God, BTW.
Gary, I understand holiness to mean being consecrated or dedicated to God, set apart for him. It's a state rather than a set of behaviours. As such, its existence depends on the existence of God; if there is no god, there is no such thing as holiness.
I hoped there was a God who was all those things you mentioned, but I see no evidence for such a deity (or indeed any deity) despite looking for it, so I remain firmly agnostic.
Fine, just ignore me. ;)
I went to a Unitarian church today (my brother was singing - he's not UU, he's a professional vocalist, btw) and I have to say it was strange. All along I kept thinking, "Well if you don't believe in God, then why bother with church?" But then, another part of me likes that they don't deny the existence of a higher power, they just refuse to define that power. I came away more confused than ever.
Ignore who? ;o)
The whole UU concept seems strange to me. As you say, if they either don't believe in God, or have no defined concept of who God is, why are they bothering wasting their time with church?
Erin, I've left the best until last ;o)
You said: "But then, I was hiking by a river and a waterfall, in a forest yesterday, and stopped to think: "There is power in all this. There is power simply in the living, breathing earth." ... So really, whether it's God or not, there is something just in the reality of living that is beautiful and holy.
That makes sense. I wouldn't necessarily define it as God, though. For me these days, when I wonder at the natural world, I see myself as part of it. When I die, the molecules that make up my body will be recycled as part of this amazing system in which we live, and may even go on to new life as part of other organisms. In that sense, we're all part of a wonderful whole.
Barry,
First time on your blog - need to do some reading here...
Good question about how would I react if I found out there was no God!
Need to think about that one for a bit. I guess my first reaction (honestly) is "what would I tell my kids?"
It was really weird. And you know me, I don't really care what people believe or don't believe. I just found it strange to attend this church service, that is very much like any mainline service...except there is no core belief at all. "Spirit of life"? "All that is love?" I mean I guess it seems to be a lot of work to have church with no God.
Then again, this place is huge on social justice, community service, sharing, tolerance, peace, and I could relate to all that, very much. But I guess I've been one who has never enjoyed "church" (innie's curse, you know) so I can't understand that if someone doesn't believe something that compels them by way of theology to go to church, then why bother? I guess it's that relational thing.
Anyhow, it was weird.
PS I was just kidding about ignoring me :)
Interesting about the unitarian church. I would rather believe in God and not go the church. Although I do love community and believe we need one another. Just don't like the formal stuff.
By the way, there were four blog posts this week in my reader about truth and doubt. Two of them were spurred on by Gary's post on Communitas
Was going to let this one pass; but changed my mind.
To answer the original question: If I became completely convinced there is no God (which would require an alternative explanation of a lot of stuff in my life - I'm with Ruth on that) then what would change would largely depend on the nature of the alternative explanation. Certainly there are a few things I do *only* because I understand God to be a certain way and those things would likely change; but I don't see any gross overhaul of my life. Had this "discovery" come when I was younger, then perhaps it would have had a larger impact; but I'm old enough that the basic patterns of my life are set (or, as I understand it, God has already done a great deal of transformation in me :) ).
I also want to say to Erin, I've come to believe that "church" as practiced by most of the institutions that bear that name is NOT what the Bible describes or what God (as I understand Him) intended. I'm a big believer in the Organic/House/Simple Church movement, which is about smaller non-hierarchical groups mutually supporting each others to express God as a community with everyone contributing as God lead them. A very different experience then most folks get on Sunday.
If I was convinced there's no God 15 years ago I would have been relieved.
However, in that time I've come to understand and live in grace as well as experience God in some indeniable ways.
Ruth - I keep thinking that I don't want religion without the Jesus, I want Jesus without the religion, LOL! What were the other posts about doubt that you saw? I'd love to see them.
SteveS - I absolutely agree with you about churches. I can't say I personally know anything about house churches, but I've heard some people love them, and some people find them just like conventional church - no doubt allowed. But I'm sure it depends on the people.
Erin - yeah, the upside and downside of "many little groups" vs "a few large groups" is that there is greater variability.
My own experience is that it is a lot harder to keep your doubts hidden in a small intimate group like that - even the leader's doubts and uncertainties tend to be more visible. So doubts tend to get shared and supported; but I'd not be surprised by other experiences.
To get back to the main point, *IF* the absolute proof that there was no God was *also* an absolute proof that there was no after-life of some form (reincarnation, heaven, whatever), then I think I’d have a lot more problems. Since this universe will have a finite lifespan (and therefore all life in it will eventually die), everything we do would become pretty futile – there would become a point at which it would all be gone, or at least there would be no one left to appreciate or benefit from what we do. I’m honestly not sure how I’d handle that if I became convinced of it.
Rainer: Thanks for stopping by. I hope you find the blog interesting.
Steve: If we're honest, I don't really think there are very many people whose lives would change hugely if they discovered that God wasn't real. We'd still need to work, eat, sleep and relate to others, after all - the fundamental, mundane things that make up normal life.
On your second point, nobody will remember us for longer than a generation or two after we die anyway, unless we happen to have made a major constitution to history (and even then it's our achievements, rather than us personally, that are remembered).
Here's the other posts about truth and doubt. In a way they are all connected. At least to me they are.
Kari: http://karilynnbryant.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/christianity-is-a-struggle/
Nicole:
http://mygodjourney.blogspot.com/2010/05/its-interesting-how-dogma-and-certain.html
Christy:
http://christyellis.blogspot.com/2010/05/great-quote.html
I guess I feel that because no one really knows for sure what happens when we die (other than the biological facts), we should do the best we can to make the world better within our sphere of influence, whatever that is, while we exist. And in my book this means meeting tangible needs, not necessarily saving souls to a heaven we aren't even sure exists.
Yes, no one will remember us, but so what? I think that loving others because they live is a good enough reason to care.
Ruth - Thanks. I saw Kari's and Nicole's, but I'm not familiar with the other blog so I'm going to check it out. Thanks!
Erin, I agree with you 100%. Whatever happens to us after death (if anything), making a difference in the time we are here is what counts - and if there's no God, that's what gives our lives meaning.
Who cares if people remember me in a few centuries' time? I won't be here to worry about it anyway.
Barry - Yes, I am sure that some people are motivated by the idea that they will be remembered; but as you say, that's pretty futile anyway. My issue is that beyond our not being remembered for it, even what we do doesn't matter in the long run. I could help 10 people live better lives, and they could each help 10 people and so on, after a couple generations my name would be forgotten; but my impact would still be there - I would have mattered.
That is, until you look far enough out at the universe ending in ice or fire, and then, will anything I have done *REALLY* mattered? If the universe ends in fire, all of my impact will be consumed and randomized so as to be erased. If it ends in ice, I *will* have had some kind of impact on the final state of the frozen universe - some atoms will be locked into different places because I had been there trillions of years before; but does that really matter? Will my life had had any meaning if there is no sentience to experience the universe I helped create? (even if such sentience does not know me). There's a whole other level of futility here.
I think if I truly believed that, I would become a compassionate hedonist - I would eat, drink and be merry because this is all there is; but do what I can along the way to help others eat drink and be merry too but that's also all they have.
Steve: Following that line of logic, what would be the point of having a positive influence on anyone even without looking to the future, as they're going to die in the end anyway?
Our lives are brief, so it's important that we live them fully, and enable others to do the same, while we are here. What happens at billions of years into the future has no relevance to us, as we'll be dead anyway. In that sense, the final death of a species is no greater in ultimate terms than the death of every individual member of that species by natural means, one at a time, throughout time.
But hey, we're not dead yet, so let's be the best people we can, and live the best lives we possibly can, in the here and now.
Barry, this sounds so much like me right now!
To answer your question, the first thing that came to my mind if there was proof that there was absolutely no god, was that it would just be proof of my insanity...all of the conversations I've had, all of the hopes, the fantasies, the stories...
In all honesty, I also had the same thought Ranier had - what will I tell my kids? The only real conversation we have right now is about loving others as we love ourselves and heaven, because they have unfortunately already experienced death, and it really does seem to make it better...
I think the two influences God has had in my life that I would like to keep are my understanding of grace, and of love. Other than those things, I'm not sure my daily life would really change much.
The more I ponder and search, it seems so much is on a personal level, what exactly you believe...if you like organized religion or church or just the idea of Jesus. There will always be reason to believe or doubt I suppose...I'm just kinda indifferent about it all right now.
The death of my mother has led my quest for God in my life...searching for a reason. But, as I get older, it seems like things just happen...is there a reason? Who knows?
Barry - Ah, but my original comment was predicated on whether there was some form of afterlife.
What I *do* believe today is that people are eternal - that death and even this universe is not the end. Given that, if I help 10 people live better lives, and they could each help 10 people and so on, *all* of those people will still exist (perhaps in a different form) long after this universe is gone. So whether they know me or not, I will have had a transcendent impact - my life will have mattered.
Absent some kind of transcendence, then I agree - what's the point? That's what I was saying in my earlier message.
Although I should recognize here that one of my favorite secular-humanist philosophers (Joss Whedon) came up with a different answer. he said (via his fictional creations) "If there is no great glorious end to all this, if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today."
Actually, in context, its even better:
Kate: I just couldn't... my whole life has been about being a cop. If I'm not part of the force it's like nothing I do means anything.
Angel: It doesn't.
Kate: Doesn't what?
Angel: Mean anything. In the greater scheme or the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win.
Kate: You seem kind of chipper about that.
Angel: Well, I guess I kinda - worked it out. If there is no great glorious end to all this, if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. - I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it.
Kate: And now you do?
Angel: Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world.
Kate: Yikes. It sounds like you had an epiphany.
Angel: I keep saying that. But nobody's listening.
"Ruth: Even if life is just physical with no spiritual realm, it's still amazing, and we still have the capacity to love, be in relationships and be moral and good people. That isn't dependent on a deity."
If god doesnot exists then there cannot be morality,love,beauty etc. All there is the random movement of atoms. That's what everything boils down to. Atoms randomly moving around having nothing to do with morality, love or beauty. Such things are human constructs.
So I disagree that you can love and be moral if there is nothing.
If there is nothing then even the thoughts that flow through our head are the result of random movementsof atoms in my brain - even everything I'm writing now is the result of random movements of atoms.
Anon: Of course there can be morality, love and beauty, whether or not God is real. Morality is not a function of religion, but of human society and the greater well-being of the family/tribe/society/nation. Beauty is self-evident, so if there is no God then it's clearly there anyway. As for love, again it clearly exists so whether or not there is a God, we know love is real.
Why do you assume that everything without God would just be the ransom movement of atoms? The world has beauty in and of itself, we can feel love in and of ourselves, and the workings of our brains are anything but random. These things are true whether or not God is real.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the world is as we experience it now, with all its good and bad features. If we were suddenly to discover that there is no God, the world would be exactly the same as it is now. It would not change in any way.
Kari: Should it turn out that there is no God, those of us who previously believed in him would be shown up to be merely mistaken, not insane.
"Anon: Of course there can be morality, love and beauty, whether or not God is real. Morality is not a function of religion"
Sorry, I disagree. Morality is a human construct - whether or not it comes form religion is irrelevant.
Speaking from a purely logical standpoint how can anything be "moral" or "immoral"? It is purely subjective.
Just because we have evolved to have morality for the good of society this does not mean something is actually "bad" or "good". Just because we have evolved to have a concept of "good" or "bad". So what? There may be civilizations out there who have not evolved this way?
There cannot be any "objective" morality only purely subjective morality. Why is murder immoral? Scientifically all that is happening when you murder someone is atoms are moving around in a certain configuration. How can this be immoral?
Just because a part of out brain has evolved to feel guilty about it - this means nothing. It didn't need to evolve like this - it could have evolved the opposite way. What then?
Same for beauty and love. Beauty and love are purely subjective.
Love is nothing more that chemical reactions in the brain that humans have evolved to feel over millions of years - and those chemical reactions are simply atoms randomly moving around - yes, "randomly" - it really is random. It is only that we "assume" that it is not random due to the purpose we subjectively assign to it. Ultimately "You cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'"
There are no civilisations that have evolved without morality, because such a civilisation would be unable to function and would rapidly cease to exist. Murder is immoral because if it were to be allowed it would threaten the existence of the tribe or whatever.
Atoms moving around is not all that happens when someone is murdered. Not even atheists believe that. That is a person, not just a collection of atoms and molecules. It is a person who has a life, who is self-aware and who can feel pain, love, happiness and despair. Regardless of whether one believes that person is here because of God's creative actions or because of evolution from lower life-forms, the fact remains that this is a person, and we regard people as special. As such, they should not be killed.
Why should the fact that morality is subjective make it any less valid? True objectivity is impossible for humans, limited as we are to one single perspective.
We could not have evolved not to feel guilty about murder, because if that had happened then our societies would not be able to function and we would quickly drive our own species to extinction. Think what happens to those who do, in fact, have no qualms about murder (i.e. psychopaths) - are they accepted by the majority within society? Of course not. They are imprisoned, shunned and (in some countries) executed to prevent their influence on other people. Society acts to remove these moral anomalies, in other words.
I disagree about love. Love is not random, any more than our existence is random. The very evolution of our species was not random either - it was dictated by our environment and the well-being of the species. The fact that we feel love shows that it must be beneficial to us, in evolutionary terms. It forms the basis for the formation of a stable family unit, which is the best environment for the conception and upbringing of children, thus giving the species the best chance of continuation.
Yes, beauty and love are purely subjective, as is every other aspect of human experience. What I would regard as beautiful is different from what my friend, cousin, neighbour etc. would regard as beautiful, even if only in subtle ways. That does not mean there is no such thing as beauty or love, only that we experience it in different ways and to different degrees.
If our feelings, our perceptions and our morality were really random, as you claim, then they would be constantly shifting. However, this is demonstrably not the case, as we have relatively stable societies with more or less fixed ideas of morality, and people do not suddenly go from being law-abiding citizens to being psychopathic serial killers just on a random whim one Tuesday morning because an atom in their brain decided to move in a different direction that morning.
So I stick by my original statement, which is that the source of morality is not religion or a deity, but is a function of our evolution as a social species.
I think you misunderstand my point Barry.
Firstly, I'm writing from the perspective imagining that there is nothing, i.e. no God.
I’m writing from an atheistic perspective.
So, whether or not we see something as "moral" or "immoral" is ultimately irrelevant. I'm not denying that we have evolved love and morality for the better of society etc but this statement completely misses the point.
I guess I'm trying to get you to step back and analyse what you mean when you say “good” or “bad”.
Let me try an analogy. Take mathematics – this is something that has been developed over thousands of years and we take for granted that 1+1=2 is true. But suppose another civilization evolved to believe 1+1=3, would that mean 1+1 really did = 3??
Quite a few distinguished mathematicians (Penrose for one) believes in the Platonic realm – they believe mathematics is not some subjective thing we have evolved or created – rather it is something that we have “discovered” it really exists in some way “out there”. We’re apprehending something that has an objective reality.
So there really will be an answer to whether or not 1+2=2 or 1+1=3 because it points to something beyond it that is objectively real. It is irrelevant what mathematics each civilization has evolved to believe – because there is an “objective” answer. At least this is the case if these mathematicians are correct.
In other words, my first point is that in an atheistic purposeless universe there no ultimate objective “right “ or “wrongs” – there simply cannot be because they are based on nothing other than our subjective evolutionary beliefs.
Secondly, if they are based on nothing but our subjective evolutionary beliefs then they are ultimately irrelevant and meaningless. So what if we have evolved to “believe” certain feelings we have by denoting them as “right” or “wrong”? I’m not interested in that, my question is how can you say that it is actually “wrong” – not simply that we have evolved to believe it is so.
Thirdly, I’m trying to express that even the concept of morality is impossible in an atheistic universe.
To even talk about “good”,”bad”,”beauty”,”ugly” etc is simply not possible in an objective way – they are 100% subjective. They’re simply words we have invented to describe feelings caused by chemical reactions in the brain that are the product of evolutionary chance. They don’t “mean” anything.
To illustrate this simply – suppose a civilization had, on the whole, evolved to believe that an image of a sun setting over the sea was very ugly. Our civilization, on the whole, would see this as something of beauty.
Who is right? From an atheistic perspective – nobody because “beauty” or “ugliness” have no meaning and don’t exist outside the subjective minds of those self-conscious mass of atoms we call people.
From a theistic perspective – there will be an objective answer (even if we don’t actually know what it is) because the “beauty”or “ugliness” we talk about points to an objective reality that is somehow “real” maybe existing in another platonic realm or whatever.
Fourthy, as Hume stated - You cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. In other words, in a universe that has no purpose and just ‘is’ – morality does not follow, i.e. what we ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’ to do.
In a purposeless universe we are an accident, evolutionary history was an accident – all evolutionary biologists acknowledge this – our evolutionary history could very easily have turned out completely differently. Arguing that we ‘ought’ to do something “good” because we have evolved to be like this as a society is fine, as long as we realise it isn’t actually “good” – it’s simply a word we have created.
From an atheistic standpoint we are simply the product of random movement of atoms and being “good” or ”bad” is irrelevant and meaningless. A lot of atheistic philosophers argue that self-awareness and consciousness is simply an illusion anyway – we really are just a collection of atoms. There is no good,bad,beauty or ugliness there just ‘is’.
I still don’t think I’ve explained properly what I’m trying to get at here, but I’ve attempted to a bit.
I've wondered if the reason God doesn't give us in your face evidence of himself is because he wants us to figure it out...to honestly wrestle with it. All these things we're talking about obviously (at least to me) point to intelligent and purposeful design.
When my daughter was 2 or 3 she looked around her room one day and said "Look at my room, all set up for me". She realized that it was arranged and equiped specifically with her in mind. I remember thinking that's what God intends for us to do when we look at the world. He wants us to search for him.
Anon: (I get the feeling you may be someone I know - am I right?) If you're saying that we can't say that something is objectively good or bad in a universe without God, then of course we can't say that. Our concept of morality, near universal though some of its components may be among humanity, is necessarily subjective. As I said before, though, "subjective" does not equal "meaningless". Thus concepts such as "good", "bad", "beautiful" and "ugly" may have no objective meaning, but that doesn't mean they are meaningless. We create their meaning, even though they are "only" subjective and abstract qualities.
You're talking about ultimate meaning, in some objective sense, and I think we can all agree that if there is no God, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to the universe; it simply is. However, that is not to say that our lives and actions are meaningless. They have meaning because we assign meaning to them, and if that meaning is only transitory and without ultimate purpose, nevertheless it is still meaning and still "real" in the sense that we perceive it to be so.
Ruth: That argument doesn't work for me. Can we really say that the world, with all its earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, fires, floods, deserts, poisonous snakes, large aggressive predators etc. is really set up specifically with us in mind? To me, it's more clearly the case that we have adapted to fit our environment, rather than the other way around.
As far as honestly wrestling with the existence of God, if there is no evidence of God's presence then there is no reason to conclude that God exists. Surely an all-powerful deity who created us, loves us and wants to be in relationship with us would have made it so that there was enough evidence for us to know he is there and actually have a relationship with him. Instead, our relationship with God consists of speaking into thin air to a deity who, if he is there at all, is invisible, inaudible, apparently either powerless or unwilling to exercise his power on our behalf, and aloof. That hardly inspires confidence in his existence.
Oh poo on you Barry. :)
Ugh - unhygienic! ;o)
I like what the belief structure brings to my life. The benefits that come to my family and relationships because of the teachings of the bible. I would not change me at all.
Why? Because I know there is no proof, and choose to believe anyway.
What a fascinating conversation.
Anon's comments about love simply being chemical reactions in the brain, just atoms randomly moving around, sounds more like lust than love. Love is an inherent need, but also a learned capacity. It's more than affection, it's desiring the companionship of the beloved. It's desiring positive experiences for the beloved. The evidence of love is self-sacrifice for the good of the beloved. It's an exercise of the will. To call it a simple chemical response lowers it to a primitive urge.
On the other hand, humans deprived of human touch in infancy (perhaps an expression of love/comfort they are capable of perceiving) grow up to be psychologically deformed adults and even sociopaths.
If a certain portion of the prefrontal cortex is damaged a person becomes incapable perceiving empathy and therefore unable to love. So both those things could support the idea that love is simply biological. But I still think it is far more than that. And, as Barry said, just because something is subjective does not make it meaningless. My career has been in marketing where the phrase "perception is reality" is often heard.
Regarding beauty, yes, beauty is subjective. I remember driving over a ridge into a valley at sunrise. In the distance was Mt. Rainier brilliantly backlit by the rising sun. The sky was filled with gilt-edged clouds. Above, the twilight gradually darkened to the last vestiges of the night sky in the west. The valley floor was covered in mists. At the base of the hill is a heron rookery. A great blue heron rose from the valley floor and silently flew just above the top of the mists.
In the car, I, and one of the passengers, were both wowed. It was as if the breath had been sucked right out of us. He and I expressed our awe with reverence, (thought neither of us were believers) unable to say much more than "wow".
The third passenger observed how stunned we were by the sight. In disgust he exclaimed, "What are you guys getting so excited about? It's just a bunch of rock and snow (referring to the mountain)." He had no inherent appreciation for the beauty of the scene.
That memory makes me wonder, if the perception of beauty (or any of the arts for that matter) is an evolutionary product, what possible purpose could it serve to help the human race survive?
To get back to your initial question, Barry, I think that I were to encounter irrefutable proof that God does not exist (it boggles my mind to consider what kind of evidence that could possibly be) most of my life would be much the same. However, the reason that I pursue God despite my questions and doubts, is because I want to believe that there is an external force involved in the process of transforming me from a dysfunctional fool into more fully alive, more fully present, more fully loving person. To suddenly find that He is not there would be disappointing, but not devastating. Just another of life's disappointments.
still, I have this belief, this visceral sense that God IS. I have long since jettisoned much of how I used to envision God. My years of religious searching in evangelicalism led to a dead end spiritually. Yet, I still cling to a belief that He IS. Meister Eckhart's saying from the 14th century comes to mind, "God rid me of God." Meaning, God rid me of all my concepts of who You are.
There is something within me, perhaps a simple neurosis, that compels me to seek this mysterious, unknowable God. There is part of me that longs to worship Him. I think that my desire springs from reading the accounts of so many brothers and sisters in the Church, both ancient and contemporary, who have a rich, abiding experience of God that gives their life profound meaning and satisfaction.
So if I were to find conclusive proof that God does not exist and that all evidence to the contrary in the lives of believers was nothing more than delusion, well that would be cause for a deep re-evaluation of everything in my life. That pursuit of union with God has become such a deep part of my identity, that to lose it would be earth-shaking to me. I've been through something like that already, when my faith as an evangelical Christian died.
Nate: I see where you're coming from, and if that works for you, great. For me, though, truth and reality are based on evidence rather than on choices. If I had no evidence that a rope would hold my weight, much less that it actually existed at all, I wouldn't trust it for abseiling purposes.
Gary:
if the perception of beauty (or any of the arts for that matter) is an evolutionary product, what possible purpose could it serve to help the human race survive?
It's possible that it is simply an evolutionary by-product of something more useful, with no inherent evolutionary value in itself. Perhaps the useful trait is the recognition of a healthy mate, or a good place to live, or fruitful hunting/gathering grounds, or whatever, and the appreciation of beauty is an enjoyable by-product of that.
Of course, it is impossible ever to have proof that God does not exist, just as it is impossible to have proof that he does. Actually, thinking about it, that's not really true - it's theoretically possible to have proof that God exists, as all he would have to do is come here and show himself to us, regrow an amputee's arm in front of us, or whatever. Perhaps it's more true to say that there is currently no evidence of God's existence or non-existence.
That visceral sense that God is real could be attributable to our cultural, social and family conditioning. All my life I have held unquestioned the cultural assumption of the existence of God, and questioning that on a logical level still doesn't get rid of the gut feelings caused by my cultural indoctrination. That in itself doesn't make it real though.
Barry,
I'm willing to entertain the idea that my visceral sense that God IS may be nothing more than cultural conditioning. I was going to say that I find comfort in the assumption that God IS. But that's only partially true.
A friend recently wrote to me and said, "I asked my priest 'can I be a Christian if I don’t believe in God?' She smiled and said 'so who is this God that you don’t believe in? Because if you’re thinking of who i think you’re thinking of I don’t believe in that god either.'”
My cultural conditioning conjures up a vision of a rather awful Christian god. This god is one who is rather bipolar and therefore cannot be trusted, who must be appeased by violent death (though thankfully, not of children, even though He does command the destruction of children, including your own in certain circumstances), and who will send you to Hell if you don't live out Jesus and Paul's instructions.
Grace is used as part of the bait-and-switch conversion process. But once you're in, the religious manipulation comes at your from all sides. even Jesus supports this stance if your read his words as I did again recently, several times in a row in fact.
The Jesus of the New Testament narrative is judgmental, loves conditionally, vindictive, vengeful, and as the Calvinists say, does NOT love everybody.
If God is LOVE (and that is rather dubious, as God's record in the Old Testament is a bit dodgy. He comes across as a genocidal, sociopathological dictator god at times. But even if God=Love, the same cannot be said about Jesus . . . . well, not if you look at the whole picture. Sure He eats with sinners and He talks about love a lot. But He talks about judgment and Hell even more. (Now I need to go back and do word count to make sure of that.)
So perhaps there is a little of that god kickin' around in the shadows of my mind. But the God I long for is quite different from the one I have generally been taught about, the one who I just described.
So here's what I've been thinking lately. I have spent a great deal of time talking with my kids about mythology in recent weeks. My 10 year old just discovered Tolkien, and he has been studying greek mythology at school, so we've had some interesting discussions. And I've learned a few things.
It has occurred to me that the old testament is a mythology. While I realize this isn't a new theory about the bible, it's new to me and I have just begun investigating. I have found that some experts say the biblical mythology closely parallels norse or greek mythology.
I can't help but wonder if the OT was simply an oral mythological tradition of an ancient people, passed down through so many generations before it was actually written down that accuracy to the original is sketchy. It was mythological tradition that attributed their successes (as a people) to a deity, and their failures to that same deity's wrath. The possibility exists that the mythology was simply altered to fit the idea of Jesus as their messiah...because the mythology was quite a bit more sophisticated by the time Jesus lived, and the people were desperately seeking salvation in the form of a Jewish King. The possibility also exists that there is a very limited connection between the OT and NT. There are some holes yet for me to fill there, and I haven't yet decided if those conclusions would negate the deity of Christ or not, in my mind.
However, for me the question remains...I can't deny the peace I sometimes experience that is beyond any intellectual explanation. And I can't deny that my heart is driven by spirit outside myself -- call me a hopeless romantic (or an INFP), but I simply cannot boil it all down on an intellectual level. At the moment, however, I cannot be certain what exactly any of those things are attributed to.
Wow 58 comments! This conversation is rockin'.
Barry I have to agree with your point about choosing to believe. A faith needs to be based on something or it's insanity.
However, Jesus was always blasting the Pharisees for demanding evidence. He said they would never believe even if it was in front of their face. So it requires something different than just weighing up facts.
God has placed eternity in the hearts of men and displayed his splendor by the work of his hand. Things just point in that direction in the same way that you would know what the next number is if I gave you 5 10 15 20. Much of the bible entails reading between the lines.
And to Gary:
I hope you don't mind me picking you but you seem to have some circular reasoning in that direction and I just have to call you on it because you later contradict yourself.
You said:
"However, the reason that I pursue God despite my questions and doubts, is because I want to believe that there is an external force involved in the process of transforming me from a dysfunctional fool into more fully alive, more fully present, more fully loving person. To suddenly find that He is not there would be disappointing, but not devastating. Just another of life's disappointments."
Just another of life's dissapointments???? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that? And do you simply "want to believe"? It sounds like you're just hedging your bets like our friend Barry here says he's doing. That you don't have much substance at all in your faith. And maybe that's where you're at but I get the sense that you have a much more substantial faith than that.
Then you go on to say:
"So if I were to find conclusive proof that God does not exist and that all evidence to the contrary in the lives of believers was nothing more than delusion, well that would be cause for a deep re-evaluation of everything in my life. That pursuit of union with God has become such a deep part of my identity, that to lose it would be earth-shaking to me."
So with much friendly respect Gary I ask you which one is it? Just one of life's disapointments or earth-shaking?
Gary: I can relate to a lot of what you're saying. If there is a God, I'm not sure that he is the God of the Bible.
Ruth: I think this is the most commented-on post I've ever written! I disagree with you that things naturally point in the direction of God, though. I've been looking really hard, but I can find no actual hard evidence for God, and no circumstantial evidence that can't be explained by anything else.
What good is faith in something non-existent? If God is real, there must be clear evidence that he is real. In that case, where is it? So far I can see as much evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy as for God; which is to say, none at all.
Erin: I agree that the Old Testament is basically mythology. The New Testament seems to be based on a different mythology, or at least a mythology that developed in a different direction, as the contrast between the God of the OT and the God of the NT is striking.
As an INFP, naturally you are more tuned towards feeling and intuition, but could this not be from some part of you, be it you subconscious or your prior conditioning, rather than from an external source? Just throwing the question out there.
To take a quote from Ruth that she borrowed from Gary:
"So if I were to find conclusive proof that God does not exist and that all evidence to the contrary in the lives of believers was nothing more than delusion, well that would be cause for a deep re-evaluation of everything in my life."
My own thoughts on that are simple...I am entirely open to the finding that "God" is something entirely different than that which I have spend the better part of my life pursuing. But there IS something to life beyond the obvious.
My brother the brain (aspie) has said that he thinks there is more to this "god particle" thing than we know. He also says that there is scientific proof (though I can't recall his explanation because it was over my head) of a connecting force between all living things. I'm not saying I've adopted this, but it is just another possibility.
Barry - Absolutely - I could be deluding myself. But at this point my comfort level is that there is some source...even if it only be life itself, that has power.
I tried for years to accept the literal biblical creation (poof) of human beings about 10K years ago, and I couldn't believe it. And I have tried to believe that we simply spontaneously "evolved" from other creatures, but I can't fully accept either because I have really sat and thought hard about it and it just doesn't seem plausible all by itself. There has to be something more to it. Why hasn't any other creature evolved into a more intelligent life form?
In fact, I'd be interested in your take on that last question, Barry.
The Tooth Fairy is real. Who else puts the money under the pillows?
And I have tried to believe that we simply spontaneously "evolved" from other creatures, but I can't fully accept either because I have really sat and thought hard about it and it just doesn't seem plausible all by itself. There has to be something more to it. Why hasn't any other creature evolved into a more intelligent life form?
Read Richard Dawkins' book The Greatest Show On Earth for a far fuller treatment of evolution than I could ever give. In it he explains how evolution works in understandable terms. Reading the book makes it all seem far more plausible, and I say that as someone who was already convinced even before I read it.
As to why no other creature has evolved into a more intelligent life form, who knows? Perhaps it's a matter of time. Or perhaps it just happened that we are the ones at the top of the tree in terms of intelligence - after all, one species has to be, so why not us? Also, who's to say that other species haven't evolved intelligence similar to our own (or even greater) elsewhere in the universe? True, we currently have no way of knowing, but that doesn't make it impossible.
what do you make of the arguments given in this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-God-Scientific-Basis-Rational/dp/0671797182/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275413703&sr=1-1
As I haven't read the book, why don't you give a summary of some of the main arguments it gives?
"If I had no evidence that a rope would hold my weight, much less that it actually existed at all, I wouldn't trust it for abseiling purposes." Niether would I.
But what does belief cost. Nothing.
The question I think you may need to solve first is, why do you HAVE to be right?
Proof being immaterial to the question.
For so long as I have been coming to your sight, you have been searching for THE answer. It doesn't matter where you looked. Quaran, Torah, hinduism. You just want the answer. WHY?
No offense intended, but before you can get past this stage you are at, you will have to know the answer to that question about yourself.
Nate: Belief may cost nothing, but it's not as simple as just choosing to believe. You either believe something or you don't; choosing doesn't come into it, and I have a hard time believing something that has no evidence to cause me to believe it.
Why do I have to be right? Well, I know I will never be right about everything, but on the question of God's existence it's of huge importance. Either there is a God, in which case there will be evidence of that fact waiting to be discovered and I'd better find it and get myself right with him; or there is no God, in which case I need to stop wasting my time on theology, the bible, prayer, religion, fear of hell... you get the picture, I'm sure.
That's why I want the answer. The question of God's existence is of supreme importance. I can't just choose to believe in God despite the (lack of) evidence, because all my life I've been taught that conclusions should be based on evidence, not on wishful thinking. Wanting there to be a God (and I do, by the way) makes absolutely no difference as to whether there actually is a God.
I would venture a guess, Barry, that there is no proof. You may have to find it within yourself. What gives you the most peace, belief or non-belief? And if it is belief, what "kind" of belief?
Because I've been searching on the same journey, and am convinced the only ability to know anything is inside myself.
I guess my question is this: if I were to tell you there is NO satisfactory evidence either way, what does that mean for you?
Erin I've been thinking that too. That faith in God is found inside.
When I was at the end of my faith because it wasn't relevant to me, I told God I'm not moving until he reveals himself in a way that I can't be mistaken. In time it happened...but not without much struggle and angst.
Erin I've been thinking that too. That faith in God is found inside.
When I was at the end of my faith because it wasn't relevant to me, I told God I'm not moving until he reveals himself in a way that I can't be mistaken. In time it happened...but not without much struggle and angst.
Erin: It's not about what would give me the most peace, but what is true. I know that, being an ISTJ, I am almost inevitably going to see things differently to you, but I don't believe that empirical truth can be decided by inner feelings, however strong they may be. I could have a strong inner feeling that led me to believe that Oregon was in Canada, but that wouldn't make it so.
Of course, it is in fact the case that there is no empirical evidence either way concerning the existence of God. That being so, should we not be concerned? Surely if God is real then the evidence should be both abundant and clear; it is neither.
It is also true that there is no empirical evidence either for or against the existence of leprechauns, unicorns and fairies; yet no-one is suggesting that we should suspend judgement on those, or choose to believe in them. (Some people have, indeed, chosen to believe in them based on a strong "inner witness" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes tales, firmly believed in fairies.)
What does this mean for me? That I remain agnostic, but my current leanings based on the lack of evidence for God are towards there being no God. That could easily change if any credible evidence comes to light, however.
Ruth: I have prayed constantly, long and hard, and with pure motives, for God to show me that he is real. I have prayed that for years. Thus far he has not done so, and I have now reached the point where I am not expecting that he will do so, though I still occasionally ask him.
Yes, faith is found inside, but there has to be some basis for believing in the first place. For a long time I was content to believe based on my upbringing that assured me that God existed, but that's only hearsay and cultural mythology and it's no longer enough.
I understand that we see things differently, and I understand the fact there is no empirical evidence doesn't mean we stop asking the question.
I agree with you that the search must be ongoing. Lord knows much of the problems with religion today stem from the people who make camp and refuse to move forward. Today, maybe you are an agnostic...tomorrow or next week or next year you might change your mind one way or another. And being willing to consider faith (or lack of it) an ongoing journey is certainly the safest bet.
I have prayed for evidence, too, and never really seen it. Yes, there have been a coincidence or two along the way, but who knows? I just know that for me, I experience a connection to the world that is greater than intellectual or biological. However, I have devolved a great deal, and maybe that will continue to the point that I no longer believe.
So I'm not trying to talk you into it, just discussing the various possibilities.
Barry, let me know your addess and I'll send you the book
Erin: We all see things differently, I suppose.
Anon: There is no way I'm posting my address on a public forum such as this!
Barry you are one of the sincerest people I've met in your search for truth. It's quite refreshing.
I completley agree with you that a faith has to be founded on something. We're being dishonest with ourselves to blindly believe. I think a lot of people play the game of the emporer's new clothes.
Thought the google quote of the day was relevent here:
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch."
Thanks, Ruth. I do try to be sincere and honest in my search for the truth. It's too big a subject to treat frivolously or lightly.
Post a Comment