I have had a curious and disturbing set of thoughts having read a blog post by Revd Alan:
I read this on Brian McLaren's blog on fundamentalism:
Quiz:
When I am presented with a new idea or proposal, my first question is more likely to be ...
___A. Is it acceptable to my religious/ideological community or belief system?
___B. Is it possibly true, valuable, and worth exploring?
Guess which answer Brian defines as fundamentalist?
The question is, if we choose B, what happens if it leads us to lose our faith and stop believing in God entirely? I find myself squarely in the B camp these days. In the past I debated with people with a closed mind, unwilling to go down routes that might cause me to lose faith, for my faith was so important to me. I feel relieved and interested that I have changed on that front, that now I am willing to have a truly open debate.
I then played with the idea that I had been persuaded that there is no God. What difference would it make? I decided that I would still pray, because it has a profound effect on me it terms of my mood and attitudes to others, and I would still read the Bible because it offers wisdom teaching that I find nowhere else. I also decided that the journey I am on, moving towards greater love, justice, humility, truth, gentleness, joy.. that route is one that I would wish to stay on. I would also still want to go to church and meet with others on that journey. I even decided that if it were up to me I would like to keep my job as a priest because I would wish to advocate the teachings of Jesus, the call to prayer and the love all humanity and the journey towards a type of enlightenment that I believe Christianity offers. Of course I think my bishop might have a problem with a priest who doesn't believe in God.
This shocked me. Why wouldn't being persuaded that there is no God radically affect me? People like Richard Dawkins have a view that folks like me might do harmful things because they think there is a Spy in the Sky. Could it be that people who kill each other in the name of God would kill each other anyway, and people who set out on a quest to help others in the name of God would do it anyway?
I don't really know. But I believe that God does help us understand the Bible, God is active when we pray, God is with us when we meet in church, God does offer us a journey towards healing and a calling to love others. When I do these things I meet with God, and whether I believe in God or not they are beneficial to me.
36 comments:
A dangerous hypothetical scenario. Do not become too complacent here. Keep a watch on your faith it is like precious gold in a world of sludge. Faith and confidence in God is what gives you your willingness to be open and receptive but there is a danger of vanity creeping in here by excluding God from the equation. To loose God from the picture you paint would be a tragedy on all fronts, and who knows what the consequences would be until you actually turn down that road?
Keep hold of your map and compass; and the odd sobering reminder about the dangers of getting lost in the mist and hypothermia should help keep us on course.
Why is the question so often couched as either/or? The answer to the question above could be both/and, and I see no problem with changing one's opinion on other topics based on new information.
This does not mean I am prepared to throw away some carefully thought-through positions on a whim or because someone else thinks differently to me.
I cannot imagine how listening to different views will make me lose my faith either - a related point is that faith isn't simply about logic or reason, it is about an experience of relationship with the Divine, and that's not really open to debate.
As a child Christian then an adult atheist and now a Christian priest I have discovered that the path to truth can be winding and long, and I haven't heard a new argument for atheism (or a convincing one) for many many years.
But, I try to remain open to reasoned and respectful debate, even if I disagree with you.
Where I have a closed mind it is to the people who think of debate and discussion as a competition with winners and losers rather than an opportunity to expand our understanding.
You seem to have caught the mood of the moment though with your comments "In the past I debated with people with a closed mind, unwilling to go down routes that might cause me to lose faith, for my faith was so important to me. I feel relieved and interested that I have changed on that front, that now I am willing to have a truly open debate."
Yesterday I was in a room where the older form of liberalism (recognising and respecting difference) was being discussed, and this 'openness' to difference was part of the debate.
I agree.
By the way, I love the way you can talk about these things so openly, please do continue. Most of my own responses serve to focus my own journey and if they seem a tad condescending it's probably because I am subconsciously telling myself off rather than attemting to convince anyone else...if you knew me you would think I was a total hypocrite. It's so easy to sit at home and type.
Thanks for the encouragement. Openness is a mixed blessing, I feel I can be no other way without severe compromise, but also feel I may offend.
I think that most of the time when people sound offended they are just saying what they think they should say. This certainly is the case with me on the INTERNET. You guys don't even know me so how could you offend me, I don't even know the real you so to speak, so any debate is just that, a debate. We can do an injustice with our words, but mostly only to ourselves. How many times have I typed something and regretted it, but left it there anyway? Loads. It's a learning curve and we are social creatures that learn from each other (here I go again - who am I trying to convince?)
Thanks for your openness and honesty Lesley. I really appreciate it!
This is a scary way to go but it is the only one isn't it?. I came to the conclusion that if God is God then he can cope with my doubt but that if I have to hang onto faith then it cant be worth that much - at one point it seemed to me that I was more dependant on my own faith than on God, just another version of justification by works.
On the other hand I have found that the danger is of continually testing God, a bit like picking at a scab so that it never heals (sorry for the grotesque image but it is the best one I can think of).
I have found the most helpful idea is that faith is not about the strength of my opinion (or conviction) but about whether it leads to action. So yes, keep praying, reading and worshiping however shakey the conviction, better than being totally convinced but doing nothing about it!
Hi Lesley,
Looking from the outside, as an atheist, it seems your point of view in the main post is about as respectably open as I would expect from anyone who chooses or feels they have to maintain a faith. I guess I understand why some of faith might find it a scary prospect to be so open minded. John D's first comment looks to me more typical of what I've come to expect from someone with faith - the fear of loosing it is so strong that it instills a determination not to loose it, that in the wrong hands, the wrong mind, could become dangerous, though I'm not implying that would be the case for him. But a more vehement response along those lines would begin to smack of a fundamentalism that determines the faith and the church comes first whatever the cost. Surely God, if he exists, is a big boy and he can look after himself - as Richard J said, he can cope with doubt. It's dishonest to think that by protecting your faith you are defending God.
I think religion takes a serious credibility hit when it is obvious that some senior religious figure is very clearly dodging points of reason because it puts their faith or religion in question. People are generally not idiots. So, for example, when Lord Carey writes, "Recent decisions of the courts have illuminated insensitivity to the interests and needs of the Christian community and represent disturbing judgments...", he is clearly asking for special protection and privilege for Christians in legal cases. His attitude throughout his whole witness statement isn't a million miles away in sentiment from John D's plea to you. It's this unwise closing of ranks that has clearly got Ratzinger into trouble recently.
Your last paragraph in the main post brought to mind the fictitious Christian I invented in a comment in Red's blog, "I call myself a Christian. I think Jesus was a good mortal man, and I follow his teachings as explained in the Bible, but I don't believe in miracles and God stuff. I go to church on Sunday's and say prayers in order to encourage myself in my path to follow Jesus. This gives me the feeling that I know him personally and that he knows me, even though obviously, in reality, this isn't the case."
I guess there must be many Christians whose faith comes and goes and who are hanging on to sentiments like this. I don't see a problem with acting as a Christian, attending church and praying. After all this is what many atheists do - I see no evidence for a god, so I act as if there isn't one.
Many believers often say that atheism is a faith position, but it really isn't. Atheism is simply the current outcome, the conclusion, the working model, that we adopt in light of the fact we find no evidence for God. But what brings us to that point I guess is the nearest thing to what might be called a faith, and that is a commitment to scepticism and openmindedness about everything, including our own current working model of a world view.
Lesley, you said, "Openness is a mixed blessing, I feel I can be no other way without severe compromise, but also feel I may offend." I think the value of openness and honesty is so essential that we do compromise our own position if we avoid them. We can't afford to worry about causing offense by being open and honest in debate. Not wanting to hear disagreeable things that challenge your belief system is a sure way to closed mindedness.
Hi Ron,
Thanks for posting so many interesting comments on my blog. I am on holiday at the moment so not replying to many comments, but I couldn't resist this one.
I do feel I wish to return the compliment - I think there are not many atheists who are as reasonable and kind when interacting with people of faith because they themselves may think it unthinkable to end up as the sort of nutter they don't respect. So it is safer to have a barrier up and I feel you don't.
I don't feel I need to have a faith so I suppose I must have chosen it, although to be honest it feels more like it chose me...
Absolutely spot on about those who are so scared about losing faith that they become unreasonable. Also totally agree with the bit about God being a big boy (or girl).
Yes, many (all??) of the blogs I enjoy that are written by Christians make precisely the same points you are making about Carey and the pope:
http://revdalan.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-nonsense.html and http://simplemassingpriest.blogspot.com/2010/04/scandals-and-how-to-make-them-worse.html
Yeah, I don't honestly know whether I would go to church if I didn't believe in God. I think it would get to me in the end, couldn't say the creed or the Lord's Prayer etc..
What if Christianity is the current outcome, the conclusion, the working model that I adopt in the fact that I find an internal resonance with what I perceive to be a God (but I accept that this may change).
Absolutely agree with you about openness. I think you can imagine that amongst some it provides a scary challenge. Out of interest in the atheist world what happens when someone feels like they have a sense of God, it that ridiculed in any quarters out of fear?
Hi Lesley,
Hope you are enjoying your holiday safely and that your not stuck somewhere distant waiting for clear skies.
If I started going to church now it would probably not persuade me to believe. I don't think it's that my mind is so set against it, though I can't rule this out; rather it would be because I'd be forever questioning: How do you know that? You tell me what God wants, but if I quiz you further you tell me he's unknowable, so how do you know what he wants?, and so on. The only answers I get don't convince me. It's not just the Anglican Protestant church that I grew up with, it's any mysticism. I just find it all diaphanous wishful thinking.
But I imagine this isn't the case with many who attend. Do they really ask searching questions? Or do they go with the flow? The whole atmosphere in a church, the hymns, the sentiments, the stories, can be very rousing, to an extent that I too find very moving, and sometimes inspiring - of course that has always been the purpose. And the mind is extremely pliable - any mind, but especially the young mind. It's no surprise that most believers follow the faith of their parents.
I suspect that if someone has the innate desire for the spiritual then they can be made to believe, whether there is any underlying truth in the belief of not. And what I notice about believers is that the spectrum of interpretation is so wide, from biblical literalism to theologies that define God to be so nearly nothing that it's almost atheism. That's a very accommodating spectrum.
I guess Christianity can be an outcome if you are immersed in the culture and the affirmations. I wonder what you would find if you took a break and immersed yourself in Islam. Would you find it too different culturally? Would you too recognise many of the problems with it that atheists see? Would you eventually say, no, that's not for me, give me my Christianity. But there are Christians who find discomfort with some aspects of Christianity - the trinity in what is supposed to be a monotheism, the resurrection of a mortal man. I have been online with one person who found this to be the case and found Islam, to which he converted, closer to what he could accept - Allah and only Allah as divine, where Mohammed is simply a human to whom God revealed himself, another prophet, just like Jesus.
If a particular faith resonates with you, or is suitably adaptable for this to be possible, matching your personality and culture, and if you immerse yourself in affirmations of it, then I supposed it is bound to be the outcome.
Is there anything wrong with this? Do I think it's immoral or irrational to lead oneself down such a path, in what seems to me to be fooling oneself?
Well, first, morality is an entirely different topic I'd love to discuss with you. But for now my primary moral code is the principle of least harm. We are all entitled to do what we choose, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Maybe the British cultural admiration and love for eccentricity influences me here. But from the moral perspective I only have objections to the religious who want special privileges or want to dictate how none believers behave, or who demand a respect from non-believers that they have no right to expect.
As to the irrationality of it, there is so much about the brain and human nature in general that we have still to learn that for now, though there does appear to be an element of irrationality in the arguments for God, maybe there isn't so much irrational about the human act of believing in God.
Enjoy the rest of your break.
regards,
Ron
Hi Ron,
Yeah, I am in England, bit of an environmental nut so I am pretty unlikely to fly.
I will probably get chucked out of the brownies but I would have no desire to encourage you or anyone to go to church or persuade you to believe. I like offering Christian thought and offering my experience but that is as far as it goes. I am pretty post-modern - how can I be so arrogant as to know what would be good for you? I hate the notion of such things - I fail to see how pressure has anything to do with love. Apart from the fact that I enjoy my atheist friends being atheist - it provides a check on religion, provides interesting conversations and the possibility to change one's mind and find a different direction.
For me I don't care so much about whether something is true in the abstract or absolute, I care more about whether it is on a path towards wholeness and love.
I agree the atmosphere in some cases can be very rousing and create the responses you state. I think there are those who question and those who don't.
Again if someone has an innate desire to believe then I am sure you are right. The thing that gets me though is I didn't. I was a very confirmed atheist, my self image was one of cynicism, my image of the world was that it was cruel on the whole and I enjoyed concrete pragmatic argument.
You may be right about immersing myself in other religions. My only experience of that is when I did an essay on Islam, assuming that I would find treasure in it and that at root it would be similar to Christianity. I found that I was off put in a big way by some of it, and I must say I would much rather have no faith than one that supports inequality and has a god that is so dictatorial.
I am with you on morality. I understand your frustration with arrogant religion.
Thanks for your kind wishes. Hope I covered most of your points.
Lesley
For me there can never be certainty. Faith is a response to personal experience and that can only be subjective. As for morality, although many will say that there is no morality without religion I don't agree - Richard Holloway (previously Bishop of Edinburgh) wrote a book "Godless Morality" which I found helpful.
Well put Alan. And another theist blog to read. Damn, when am I going to have time for my atheist fix from the likes of PZ Myers? Well, judging by your comment your blog may do the trick - a theist that lacks certainty and sees religion as a subjective experience - that does it for me. Holy smoke, am I really a theist?
Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that it is a subjective experience as in not real - just that there can be no objective proof.
That's the atheist position too, except the atheist says, if there's no evidence and no proof, then why believe? Or, more to the point, how do you know which god of many to believe in?
If it's a question of, well that story fits how I feel about life and morality, so I'm going to run with that as a standard to which I can aim, a measure of my success in achieving my own moral standards, almost as an aide memoir, or rallying call, then I guess that's fine. That's why many atheists sign up, in principle if not actuality, to a Humanist agenda. If God is just a label for a set of principles that's fine too.
But I'm not sure what it means, or what it gives you, to say that this God, from the Bible that describes him and Jesus, that I follow without proof of actual existence, actually exists.
I am planning to post more on this on my blog - but in the meantime... Faith is a relationship with God, not a belief in some facts. That is where the subjective experience comes in. As Lesley has at the top left of the blog (today anyway!) "Believing in God is like catching a plane or falling in love - it require trust, risk and a leap of faith". What is not needed is an intellectual proof. Can you prove intellectually that you love anyone?
Hi Alan,
This goes much deeper than I think many theists are prepared to go - they'd rather skip over the tricky bits because it's inconvenient for their faith. Yes this stuff matters if you're serious about wanting to understand.
I won't use the word 'proof' because it's inappropriate. Facts are nothing more than bits of data for which we have sufficient evidence to support them. We also have theories, which allow us to predict facts. The word 'proof' is associated with deductive logic, which is useful only when you already have the facts - it allows us the convince ourselves that fact C is true if fact A and B are true, and so on. This doesn't apply at the edges of our experience and knowledge because we can't be sure of the initial facts, the premises; we can only suggest them as hypotheses. Virtually all our knowledge comes from inductive logic, which has its flaws, but it's all we've got. Inductive logic can only show support for some case, based on evidence. This is very brief, but I can give more detail on why this is the case.
So, you can't prove God exists and I can't prove he doesn't, in the deductive sense. We can't be sure of our premises.
Yes, the subjective experience comes in. But we still have to ask many more questions about subjectivity, such as how much evidence supports our subjective opinions, and how reliable our subjective opinions can be. Otherwise we are simply having a quick think about what we feel like, coming up with some guesses, and refusing to really scrutinise them. From then on in, saying that you're not interested in facts, or as Lesley says about the origins of the universe elsewhere, "Who cares", then you're burying your head in the sand because the questions aren't palatable. This type of faith is a pure cop out, and no amount of theology will get you any further if you don't take these challenges seriously. Unless you are really questioning with all that's available as far as you can possibly go, then are you really doing your faith justice?
"Can you demostrate [not prove] intellectually that you love anyone?" - Yes. Watch this. The assumption that emotions like love are unfathomable, unapproachable by science, is a myth. In the context of this video I think many believers are so smitten by God or Jesus, so in love, that they suffer the same delusions and withdrawal symptoms described here.
How do you have a relationship with an entity that does not appear to exist? It seems like fantasy to me.
I've no objection to fantasy of course. I know it works, in its place. I know believing in God has an effect, since the change in brain states can be measured. The human brain is really convincing when it wants to be. I have a fear of heights, and as teen was challenged to go up a tower. At the time I was reading Dune, and being an atheist and not having anything else, I thought I'd give the Bene Gesserit Litany a try:
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
It really helped. Non-theistic meditation works too. I'm not denying you get a great deal out of your faith, and that in itself is fine.
But I think it's important that we don't kid ourselves intellectually about what's really happening, even if it useful to kid ourselves emotionally. Because if we fall for it intellectually than we can be convinced of anything, despite any evidence to the contrary, simply by pressing our emotional buttons. This is the distinction between rationality and irrationality. And we know what irrational religious belief can do.
Mmm laying down a gauntlet saying theists are too scared? Rats I can never resist a challenge - one of my many failings. I don't think though I would accept that either Alan or I skip over things that are inconvenient for our faith..
So, you can't prove God exists and I can't prove he doesn't, in the deductive sense. We can't be sure of our premises.
yep
Yes, the subjective experience comes in. But we still have to ask many more questions about subjectivity, such as how much evidence supports our subjective opinions, and how reliable our subjective opinions can be. Otherwise we are simply having a quick think about what we feel like, coming up with some guesses, and refusing to really scrutinise them.
Fair point. However, I don't think I am burying my head in the sand - I just don't see how the origins of the universe will affect me. If I were a research scientist in that field I would be fascinated... Grr.. not happy with my faith being labelled as a cop out..
How do you have a relationship with an entity that does not appear to exist? It seems like fantasy to me.
Ah.. well to me God does appear to exist - but I can't prove it. So there are many instances when I have felt an inner nudge that I can't attribute to any part of my consciousness and can't make any sense of it being in my unconscious.. and it feels like God. There are times when the nudge is to do something like Ordained Ministry and I resist then give in.. and it is amazing. I always initially think it is just me.. but I don't believe they are, genuinely, trust me I am horribly cynical.. and the thing is now there is a sense of an 'other' with me all the time that feels benevolent to me in a way that I was never to myself..
In these ways it is like a relationship - I am sure if you CAT scanned me talking about my kids and about God it would be similar.. But I don't need objective facts..
I accept it may be fantasy, but I don't believe it is.. ok sometimes I believe it is, but mostly I simply don't. Like I believe some people love me, it is a heart thing rather than ahead thing..
I don't think, even though I believe in God, that I would fall for much.. do you really think that?
Hi Lesley,
"So there are many instances when I have felt an inner nudge that I can't attribute to any part of my consciousness and can't make any sense of it being in my unconscious" - Could it be that this is just what some brains do?
Of course this could mean, as the article speculates, that this is actually a divine antenna, and so supports the notion that there is a God. But...
There's also the case where direct neuronal stimulation was being used to look for the location of a patient's source of epilepsy and the stimulation cause the patient to have an out of body experience, and another to observe a ghostly experience of a man stood behind comforting them, and another who heard his favourite music.
So, either God exists, as in the first case, and ghosts and other apparitions also exist, as in the latter; or, it's simply all delusion caused by brain states. And we know some delusions caused by brain states really are delusions; or we've been locking up real Napoleons by mistake.
The other problem I have with the God antenna idea is that Dawkins doesn't appear to have one. That sounds like God left him out, and if he did then the heaven/hell salvation option has been denied him. It's not as if Dawkins can suddenly find God if his brain doesn't work that way, unless God is into neurosurgery.
I too am sure a scan would show a real effect when you think of God. But the same bit of visual cortex lights up a scan whether you're looking at an object with the eyes or imagining it with eyes closed. Imagination, creativity, these are what we do.
"Like I believe some people love me, it is a heart thing rather than a head thing" - By heart thing do you mean an emotional thing, which of course is a head thing? Not just being picky; I just think all this stuff is in our heads.
"I don't think, even though I believe in God, that I would fall for much.. do you really think that?" - Why not? We all do. Thinking stuff that isn't true has a possible evolutionary explanation - false positive: better to think the stick is a snake at first glance for quick avoidance, rather than think it's a stick and find it was a snake.
Again, fantasy can be effective, but I would really want to understand what it is I say I'm believing in.
How do your parishoners react to your particular notions? Do they think you're a closet atheist, or a doubting believer? I'm all for your version of Christianity over most others, I'm just curious about how you maintain that, especially given some of the comments on here.
Hi Ron,
Meant to say that you seemed a bit aggressive in the comment before last - wondered whether I had offended you?
Could it be that this is just what some brains do?
Yes it could. Weird that it only happened from the time I came to faith though. And weird I had NO sense of God with me before that. (You will say it is the fantasy.. I can't deny it but it feels a bit like my Muntjac and Wild Boar post).
In general I dislike 'interventionist God' arguments, and keep most of my experiences to myself, but.. as a for instance.. soon after my conversion I had a friend, Rod, had (unbeknown to anyone except his wife) been thinking about going forward for ordained ministry. He had a verse from the Bible that kept coming back to him in his head. But he was very unsure. My boyfriend at the time was losing sleep - he kept being woken up with the sense of this verse from the Bible and the sense that he should give it to Rod. It seemed mad, peculiar, neither of us had ever heard of such a thing before. How would it be received? We looked the verse up and it just seemed odd. Eventually, I persuaded my boyfriend to just tell Rod and risk looking like a nutter. When he did, Rod said he was the third person, out of the blue, that had been losing sleep in this way and given him that exact verse.
I accept that if you stimulate the brain all sorts of memories and odd sensations occur. (You telling me I am odd in the brain? :) ) Just because you can delude the brain into believing in God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist..
However, I take your point, I have been deluded myself and I KNOW how bad that can be and how careful we need to be and I think your words of caution are wise, and all religious people (and areligious people) need to know that.
I suffered from the delusion that codependency was God. Every time I tried to escape abusive relationships I thought 'God' was drawing me back. It is exceptionally hard at times to distinguish our deepest psychoses from the voice of God :( And those who can't do that are far more destructive that those who don't believe in God.
I also believe those who tell you that you have to do something because God wants you to are particularly abusive. - You have to stay with me because I have a message from God that you must, or you have to give your money etc etc.. I think the interventionist God arguments are very dodgy.
The other problem I have with the God antenna idea is that Dawkins doesn't appear to have one.
Yeah, but does he want one - we have already agreed that the brain is a powerful thing, can that not work either way? I think God is more compassionate than any of us, if we feel compassion for those who don't get God then God will too.. (sorry - that sounded condescending and I didn't mean it to).
By heart thing do you mean an emotional thing, which of course is a head thing? Not just being picky; I just think all this stuff is in our heads.
ok, but I beg to differ on the picky thing. But in order to avoid misunderstanding I too think all this stuff is in our heads.
"I don't think, even though I believe in God, that I would fall for much.. do you really think that?" - Why not? We all do.
Sorry - meant do you think my belief in God made me more likely to be generally deluded than if I didn't
..ctd
Thinking stuff that isn't true has a possible evolutionary explanation - false positive: better to think the stick is a snake at first glance for quick avoidance, rather than think it's a stick and find it was a snake.
That is interesting.. and you feel that has an impact on belief in God? Do you have a blog post that explores that more on Ramblings?
Again, fantasy can be effective, but I would really want to understand what it is I say I'm believing in.
I too want to understand, which is why I felt offended when you said my faith was a cop out. But how do you know that it isn't you with the fantasy and me with the reality?
How do your parishoners react to your particular notions? Do they think you're a closet atheist, or a doubting believer? I'm all for your version of Christianity over most others, I'm just curious about how you maintain that, especially given some of the comments on here
This comment has opened up a whole raft of things I would like to explore with you - if you don't mind I will post things on 'stages of faith' and 'postmodern christianity' and probably risks, abysses, the need to follow faith journeys even if they take you away from the faith.. over the next few days - could you read them there?
The short answer is that I think people think I am a bit radical but basically I love God, I follow Jesus, I preach from the Bible. More than that don't forget most of my parishioners don't go to church and they think I am a laugh, and I listen, and I accept criticism of my faith and I regularly get the comment 'if there were more vicars like you more people would come to church'. Lets face it, lots of people want to explore these questions from many perspectives and don't want their hands slapped if they have something less orthodox to say..
What are the comments you find particularly atheistic that I made?
PS I sense you like neuroscience as your discussion medium of choice and I prefer psychology. I can see why you like the former and I like the latter, is this an issue we need to discuss?
Here is the link to my blog post on this as promised! http://revdalan.blogspot.com/2010/04/proofs-of-existence-of-god.html
Thanks Alan, I'll comment there soon.
"And weird I had NO sense of God with me before that." - Quite possible your brain was suitable, but just not activated.
"You telling me I am odd in the brain?" - Yes. But since we're unique, we all are by definition.
"I accept that if you stimulate the brain...Just because you can delude the brain into believing in God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.." - And it doesn't mean he does. In fact it says nothing about any actual God. It does say that ideas about God are functions of the brain. If anyone wants to show an association between this data and an actual God, then they first need an actual God, and then a demonstration of the association.
"hard at times to distinguish our deepest psychoses from the voice of God" - I'm not being sarcastic here. Genuinely, how would you know the difference, ever?
"meant do you think my belief in God made me more likely to be generally deluded than if I didn't" - Yes, with respect to religious beliefs. It happens to all of us. It's 'priming'. Just one more characteristic of he brain that has it's uses, but needs to be guarded against.
"I too want to understand, which is why I felt offended when you said my faith was a cop out. But how do you know that it isn't you with the fantasy and me with the reality?" - It might be, I'm trying to figure that out. But I can't see the benefit of faith in this respect, as it's essentially an intention to accept something without further question. You may question the details, but not what might be called your core beliefs. I think you are more open to questioning your beliefs that many theists, so the cop out remark wasn't directed specifically at you; it was a broad brush meant to cover the faithful in general. But when you said "Who cares?" about the origins, isn't this part of your core beliefs?
On the questions about parishioners, OK on further posts. But from your brief answer it is nice to know that their's plenty of scope for ideas in your parish, and it seems 'if there were more vicars like you more people would come to church' might well be true. I really like churches, well, old ones anyway, and I like the atmosphere in some of them. It would be nice to think they were being used for the exploration of ideas instead of the strict adherence to old static ones. Some theists like to triumphantly point out that many early scientists were religious, and that many were monks or priests, as if that's a sticking point for an atheists. Since they were the ones with the education, time and solitude for study and thought it would be nice to think churches became sources of learning about stuff that isn't necessarily on hymn sheet.
"What are the comments you find particularly atheistic that I made?" - No specific comments. Just your openness to question what you believe, which appears to go beyond basic doubt about faith, which I gather many theists have.
"neuroscience ... psychology" - I don't think you can have one without the other these days. Neuroscience tells you the details of what's happening in the brain, while psychology tells you about behaviour, and combined they relate these areas of data. This is particularly applicable when providing therapy. Psychiatry needs psychology to understand behaviour and recognise abnormal behaviour and neuroscience explains the mechanisms of how the brain might be faulty and how it might be fixed.
Before good scientific psychology and neuroscience we only had external behaviour to study, from which it's difficult to come up with good theories and therapies. Even common mental illnesses that were once identified by external symptoms alone are now recognised as distinct conditions with different causes, because the neuroscience sees different brain areas affected or different neurotransmitters involved, which leads to a more precise scrutiny of external symptoms.
I see religion being (still) in the early stages of observational non-scientific phase of human understanding. The many bogus psychoanalytical theories developed from simple observations and the wild imagination don't look an awful lot different from theologies. Other alternatives are available, such as astrology and countless New Age ideas that invent 'energies' and 'fields' in just the same way that religion has concepts like the soul.
ok, the first few comments we both know that neither of us can neither confirm or deny stuff, so ok if I move on..?
I'm not being sarcastic here. Genuinely, how would you know the difference, ever?
Yep, excellent question. I think there are two things that are important to me. The first is that I believe that my 'faith' is a journey towards love and away from fear and a load of other negative stuff. So I would tend to take it as psychoses if they were leading me away from love. The second thing is that we have the benefit of experience, and having gone down every possible fox hole I am now finding I avoid them more...
But I can't see the benefit of faith in this respect, as it's essentially an intention to accept something without further question. You may question the details, but not what might be called your core beliefs.
I'm trying to honestly work out whether that is true, I hope it is not.. I feel in these debates I am willing to accept that my beliefs may be fantasy. To be honest sometimes that does feel more true than false, but mostly I find that I still believe however rigorously I question. I think it is possibly the impact of the words of Jesus, coupled with the sense of God with me and the times when things have happened that I can't explain.
When you said "Who cares?" about the origins, isn't this part of your core beliefs?
To be honest, no. Why do you think it should be? (not being sarcastic). My core beliefs are that there is a Good God that loves us and leads us to wholeness. My secondary belief is that Jesus is God on earth who lived and died and rose again to display love and to show the way to journey.
It would be nice to think they were being used for the exploration of ideas instead of the strict adherence to old static ones.
It would. I wish it were so. I wish we could debate freely without people getting scared. I think it all depends though so many things, like stages on faith journeys that I will discuss in another post.
I really thought the old scientist v theologian debates were dead. Almost all the scientists I have worked with have had strong faiths and it never seemed to be an issue.
Oh, I agree with all you say about neuroscience and psychology, I was anxious that you may want things proved by neuroscience rather than the empirical data provided by psychology.. clearly not..
I see religion being (still) in the early stages of observational non-scientific phase of human understanding. The many bogus psychoanalytical theories developed from simple observations and the wild imagination don't look an awful lot different from theologies. Other alternatives are available, such as astrology and countless New Age ideas that invent 'energies' and 'fields' in just the same way that religion has concepts like the soul.
OOO you're so cutting. I feel religion is on a different basis than science - more based on wisdom and philosophy and morality. I think it is based on the presupposition that there is a good God, and that people just believe that by faith. Yes it could be fantasy, but to those of us with faith the world turns on a different axis once we believe and it seems so hard not to think of God as real once we have heard the whispers of pure grace. I understand that is all way too woolly for you. So put yourself in my shoes, imagine for a minute that it is true and explain to me how I might interact with these questions in a less frustrating way.
First, an apology. I keep straying into generalisations about theists which clearly don't apply to you. Case in point: my question - When you said "Who cares?" about the origins, isn't this part of your core beliefs? - to which you said "To be honest, no. Why do you think it should be?" - If you have your Christian principle foremost, then choose to believe in God, to have faith, almost as if you construct God, then I guess I suppose that it is the God of creation, the omniscient, omnipotent, etc. - and I'm sure that's what he is to many Christians; they really think there is an existent entity out there.
And again when you say, "I'm trying to honestly work out whether that is true..." - I guess I appreciate what you're saying in that paragraph. I'm not sure I could ask any more of you without browbeating you into capitulating just to shut me up. I wouldn't want to do that, and I'm sure you wouldn't let me. But I still don't feel I understand how that works. This may be a gap we can't bridge. Maybe if we keep trying different tacks it will come. I do feel I understand far more about your beliefs than I did when I started, so I still feel it's progress.
"I feel religion is on a different basis than science - more based on wisdom and philosophy and morality." - That sounds okay, but I'm always wary of that approach in principle, because it can lead to the absurd. I don't know if you've read any Deepak Chopra and other mystics. They start out with this notional approach to philosophy, but it very quickly becomes nonsense, bringing Quantum Physics into their mysticism, which is total bollocks.
"I understand that is all way too woolly for you." - I have to accept that and keep on trying to understand.
"So put yourself in my shoes, imagine for a minute that it is true" - That's the bit I have difficulty with. I imagine it's true, then start asking questions, and the answers don't tally with it being true, so I don't get to the point where I can express it in terms I find convincing.
"So put yourself in my shoes, imagine for a minute that it is true"
For me it depends what you are trying to reconcile. It may be a cop out - but I don't believe in a God who is logically falsifiable! So if you imagine that it is true and behave like it is true then many people find that that leads to a better quality of life - and that is the only "proof" there is.
Of course, it perhaps depends on what you mean by "it". If you mean a description of how the world came into being then I don't think "it" tells you about that. There is a slightly trite saying that science tells you about how and religion about why - if you are trying to use religion to answer how questions then it won't be convincing.
Hi Alan,
Good point.
A placebo is a substance having no pharmacological effect but given merely to satisfy a patient who supposes it to be a medicine. In this sense it assumed the placebo actually has no effect.
But there are many cases where both the placebo and the medication have a positive effect. This means the medication has no benefit greater than the placebo, but it still recognises that the placebo has a positive effect, which is really confirming that the mind is capable of making both further mental, and some physiological changes.
Would you be happy with a description of God as a positive placebo in this latter sense? In other words, as a system of thought, which affirmed through repeated us in a community of like minded, employing techniques like litany to re-enforce, etc.
Tee Hee... just woken up so I'll find out what load of stuff I said in a woozy haze yesterday. I think he would be happy with it but not like to admit it :) Alan emailed me this link to email to you Ron, (dunno why he can't post it himself), haven't read it cos it is sooo many words. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/28/religion-philosophy-god-belief
In my blog post I said that I don't believe that you can describe God - so no I wouldn't be happy with that as a description!
However, as you can see from the article that Lesley posted there are many ways of working out what this means in practice, of which yours is another.
Paul Tillich (quotes) tries to define God as do many other modern theologians in ways that do not succumb to simple answers.
Hi Alan,
"So put yourself in my shoes, imagine for a minute that it is true"
What I meant by this is imagine that there is a God but not one that can be objectively verified.. what tools would Ron use to articulate this that are not hands-wavy and woolley. As a scientist, I can see that some of the things I say are frustrating.. if one of my PhD students had told me that fatigue cracks bifurcate because they lonely in the middle of their lives then I would do my nut.
Wow.. didn't expect an apology :) although I am not sure my beliefs are really as far from your expectations as you think - I don't have creation as a core belief because it seems to have little relevance to loving God and loving others.
I think I understand what both of us believe better through this, so that is progress. I'll try to summarise:
There are a load of things that religion does to people that is bad that makes both of us angry.
There is a desire that both of us have for the world to be a place that is good/better (and we seem to broadly have a common understanding of what that might look like).
We both think that meditating on good things is good.. I might call that prayer and worship.
We both think that Jesus had some good and wise stuff to say, and so did some other great thinkers.
You would probably be happy if I called 'good' or perhaps 'love' God, and was minister who encouraged good and love and offered space for those debates.
The sticking point is really the sense of 'other' that I have and that I believe is beyond ourselves. I don't know that there is much point in discussing the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus..
"I feel religion is on a different basis than science - more based on wisdom and philosophy and morality."
I can see your difficulty with this and the possibility of descending into bollocks.. but perhaps the reality is that we have to take that risk and discuss it on this platform because there is no other?
Perhaps you can take me through your thought processes in terms of finding it not true..
So you want me to describe some tools that are not hand wavy and woolly to describe something that cannot be objectively verified. I'm not sure that there are any. That is why it comes down to faith.
:) Hi Alan
No - I want Ron to.
Post a Comment