Posted on 01/25/2006 11:00:41 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
For a long time now, secularists have been trying to come up with reasons why people believe in God. If you take a strictly naturalistic view of the world, after all, it can be pretty difficult to understand how anyone would put their faith in an invisible supernatural being. And yet, generation after generation continues to hold to do just that. It’s a question that has puzzled and fascinated some of the most prominent minds of our time.
Now there’s an intriguing new explanation for religious faith. Paul Bloom, a Yale professor of psychology and linguistics, argues in the Atlantic Monthly that belief in God is a biological accident.
Basically, Bloom’s theory goes like this: Human beings are naturally dualistic. Studies show that from a very young age, we can tell the difference between the physical world and the psychological world. That is, we understand that rocks and trees do not have thoughts and feelings, but that humans do. Our brains use one system to understand the physical world, and another to understand the psychological world.
As Bloom sees it, “Both these systems are biological adaptations that give human beings a badly needed head start in dealing with objects and people. But these systems go awry in two important ways that are the foundations of religion. First, we perceive the world of objects as essentially separate from the world of minds, making it possible for us to envision soulless bodies and bodiless souls.” And Bloom continues, “This helps explain why we believe in gods and an afterlife. Second, as we will see, our system of social understanding overshoots, inferring goals and desires where none exist. This makes us animists and creationists.”
In other words, we humans look at inanimate objects and tend to see evidence of design and purpose in them—evidence that Bloom says just isn’t there. Essentially, we are using the wrong part of our brain to interpret them. And we make the same mistake when we assume that human bodies have souls that live on after death. Because we have powers of reasoning, thinking, and feeling, we naturally tend to think of ourselves as something more than just bodies. But, Bloom says, it is all the result of a mistaken way of thinking—as I said, he calls it a biological accident.
Well, all this may impress some scholars, but I think there are a few big holes in his argument. For example, I would submit to Professor Bloom that even if human brains have a tendency to infer design, that is not evidence that design does not exist. Maybe we infer it because it is so. It would be a biological accident only if you accept Bloom’s premise that the universe is a closed system with no possibility of supernatural intervention. And Bloom, like many scientists, does not attempt to prove this very important point—he just takes it for granted, just like evolutionists do, which makes science hostage to their philosophy.
So Bloom’s scientific studies, carefully conducted as they seem to be, prove only what he wants them to prove if one starts from a materialist point of view—the same materialist point of view that has tried and failed to disprove religion for so many years. When it comes to tempting “new” theories to explain away religion, it looks like there really is nothing new under the sun after all.
If you can.
Why do you object to Ted Kennedy walking around free? After all, there is no superstitious Creator in your world view to issue an arbitrary decree defining murder as "wrong." So you are left with nothing but an objective hang-up, unless you want to fall back into the old "social contract" myth or imply that a non-created and random universe is creating its own "meaning."
The whole point of morality, whether the prohibition of murder or the regulations for correctly performing an animal sacrifice, is to submit to and obey the Divine will. What, there's some other reason?
It has been my understanding that most believers in the Big Bang do not claim that there was something before that "banged," but rather that in one instand there was absolutely nothing but in the next was suddenly the seed of the universe.
Now a chain of universes that keep exploding into new ones makes a certain amount of sense. That the universe is infinite and has no beginning also makes a certain amount of sense. However, the implication that first there was nothing, then everything, and that this event was caused by its result (ie, was a phenomenon of nature, even though nature did not exist until after the event) is truly bizarre.
But you still have no valid reason to make value judgements on Mohammed for raping children. Why is that any more immoral than a war between different anthills?
I'll come back to you shortly, muir, but I just wanted to say that ZC is making a great point here, and post 82 is darn good stuff in general.
I have never been able to elicit an explanation from any atheist or agnostic as to why whe "should" or "shouldn't" do anything, whether solve societal problems or spread our wings and learn about everything or reject falsehood in favor of the truths of science. In the absence of a Creator G-d truth simply would have no moral superiority to falsehood nor would any metaphysical obligation exist for accepting it.
This groundless ethical vision of the atheist/agnostics is so much a part of them they can't even notice it. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and man gotta be moral. They will occasionally invoke a "social contract" but they don't really believe in it, first, because it's a self-evident societal myth and second, because a social contract would not produce an objective moral code, and atheist/agnostics believe in the objectivity of morality just as much as anyone else.
The best example of this humanistic ethics-and-meaning-for-their-own-sake mentality is the original Star Trek series, which was thoroughly humanistic. In ST Kirk often gave speeches about Man's Gradual Rise From Savagery and how Moses, J*sus, and the United States Constitution were all significant points on this journey. But he never explained why this moral ascent was objectively mandatory or desirable. "We're the descendants of savages with thousands of years of blood on our hands, but we're not going to kill--today!" But why shouldn't we?
The atheist/agnostic's self-existent objective morality is more nonsensical, more groundless, and less logical than his self-existent universe.
Of course I do, it is objectively wrong to impose upon another. This knowledge is based upon my sense of ethics. My ethics are not enforced by a fear of some supernatural power greater than me but rather from my simple desire to be ethical. It is aesthetically pleasing to me in a philosophical sense. My ethics arose from centuries of progress sometimes contributed to by religions, sometimes contributed to by philosophical observations on natural law and sometimes added to by civil law based upon what is fair and just. The concepts of fairness and justice exist quite apart from religion.
The fact that ethics owes a debt to (some) religions is similar to astronomy owing a debt to the superstition of astrology and chemistry owing a debt to the nonsense of alchemy. I am not personally persuaded by any religion and I have not enough faith to be an atheist. I recognize the contribution of religion whenever I see Renaissance art or hear the best part of classical music but I am not bound by any reliance on the supernatural.
I'm not sure how moral a person is who obeys the law and behaves ethically simply because he wants to avoid punishment either civil or divine.
When did I do that? I simply have been pointing out that nothing in the observable universe is necessarily evidence of a divine creator. I have not asserted that there is no creator, simply no proof of one.
Please point out any name calling I have done. Then, please read back over my response and then tell me honestly that ALL of my responses can be fairly characterized as you have above. When you are ready to respond honestly and maturely, I will be happy to discuss this with you further.
Ummm, the word "naturalistic" as Colson uses it refers to a philosophic view of materialism, that this universe is "all that there is or ever will be" (to quote former naturalist/materialist/secularist/evolutionist/atheist, Carl Sagan--"former" because he's dead now).
Chuck Colson's column here fully agrees with Romans 1 (after all he is a strong evangelical bible-believing Christian). This view of the universe (that nature is all there is...hence "naturalism") helps atheists rationalize their rejection of God (I firmly believe people tend to choose what to believe...then find reasons to support that choice), but of course it doesn't hold water.
Romans 1 and Colson's points here are entirely in harmony--Colson is not in any way excusing those who hold to "naturalism" as a philosophy. All he's trying to do is explain how atheists attempt to rationalize away Christian belief.
Colson is using the word "naturalistic" in the philosophic (usually British) sense, not in terms of "somone who studies nature" rather "someone who thinks nature is all there is..." (i.e.- an atheist materialist). See my post #88.
C. S. Lewis used this term this way too. Of course no Christian can, in that sense be a "naturalist." Romans 1 of course argues that EVERYONE who looks at nature sees design, and is therefore without excuse for not worshipping the Designer.
Ancient pagans attributed design to their pantheon of gods...modern pagans (materialists) attribute design to the gods of mindless chance and progress which is secular evolution.
The "supposed complexities" being logical is what renders the attempt to say there is a God faulty. Thus, logic precludes God. Or so you assert.
Your accusation that my arguments were logically inconsistent is sleight-of-hand name-calling. While you didn't pin a particular epithet on it, it is nevertheless dismissive.
Then, please read back over my response and then tell me honestly that ALL of my responses can be fairly characterized as you have above.
I didn't say all your responses could be so characterized. I said that you had reduced all the objections against you via said methods. If you're going to pretend to argue logically, first you'll need to learn how to read accurately.
When you are ready to respond honestly and maturely, I will be happy to discuss this with you further.
And when you are ready to present a logical rebuttal instead of smug intimations of immaturity and dishonesty, I will be glad to join you.
"Your accusation that my arguments were logically inconsistent is sleight-of-hand name-calling. While you didn't pin a particular epithet on it, it is nevertheless dismissive."
In all seriousness, both of these responses are just way over the top for a loooong reach. You read into what I say, things I never said or implied and you try to hold me accountable for the flaws in things you said, that I never said. Really, is that all you have?
Would you care to parse this sentence and show me where I read something that isn't there?
Back to the core of the dissent ...
A mechanistic/random cosmology suffers from all the same shortcomings as a creationist cosmology. But the mechanistic theory adds an element of randomness that is an additional layer of logical complexity. Under the Law of Parsimony, that means it is less likely than a creationist model.
Sure, creationism opens up a plethora of questions as to the nature of the Creator, many of which cannot be answered. But at some point, both mechanism and creationism require an ascent into Faith, since neither suffices to empirically demonstrate First Causes.
Religion, from which Creationism arises in most cases, dispenses with the NEED for empiricism. Faith alone suffices. Not so with science, whose constraints demand a much more rigorous proof. Within the scientific community, no more "proof" of the Big Bang exists than proof that God exists within the religious community. Yet science defeats itself in setting a higher standard for belief, a standard that it cannot meet.
In short, while creationism can rely on faith, science doesn't have that luxury.
By refusing to believe in creationism, you are subscribing to a Random Theory of Origin, a theory that has all the flaws of Creationism, but with a colorful candy coating of absurd randomness. Sure, it's possible. But you can't embrace logic to reject creationism, then reject logic to embrace randomness. At least not and remain intellectually consistent.
At the end of the day, since you have taken the negative position, all I can do is respond with the negation of that negative.
You: "You can't prove there is a God."
Me: "And you can't prove there isn't."
"Why do so many strive towards Nihilism?"
Nihilism is self-destructive. This is to some extent a natural trait. It comes from our corrupted natures that cannot see God nor know God. If we cannot see God nor know him, we reason that God does not exist. Next, we begin to reason that we exist only as figments of some detached mental process. Naturally we all tend to be self-destructive, probably resulting from a very strong desire to preserve our natural self.
When we can get our natural self out of the way, when we can stop excessive reason in our minds, God can and does begin to fill where we are vacating 'self'. That is God's way. Self must die, so that we might live. Then God can reveal Himself to us. We can begin to know God. God Himself fills us and acts through us. God becomes to us what God is - real. At this point we know that God is. We can begin to understand who the name He used out of the burning bush with Moses - 'I AM'. Knowing God no longer requires 'faith'. Depending on God's omnipotent love, poser, presence may require faith, but knowing God is no longer a faith thing - I can say for me, I know God. I have seen God. God is Real. God is in me. He died for me that I might live. That is all now heart knowledge for me. No faith required for that knowing.
Some years ago on a street vendor's cart in London I saw a sign stuck in one of the pears on the cart - "Ripe Pears, No Teeth Required". When God becomes 'ripe' in us, we are like those pears, no teeth required to taste the pears, faith no longer required at that point to know God.
"These bozos can believe whatever they want but boy are they going to be in for the shocker of their post-earthly lives when they get that little tap on the shoulder to come to the Principal's office."
Which is how I view faith. True biblical faith is not an irrational leap, but a careful weighing of the evidence for things like the creation of the universe, the Fall of man, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the need for a Savior, and the resurrection of Christ.
To hypothesize another Creator for the Creator is to multiply entities and, so, violate Occam's razor. Furthermore, it is illogical, since the Creator, by definition, has no need of a Creator.
Excellent, ZC. Very thought-provoking!
I see a lot of comments like this on these threads...threats of Hell and certitude that the believer spouting that malicious nonsense is safe from said punishment.... It always sounds petty, vindictive and born of a wicked malevolence....as if someone not believing in something they don't have evidence of (remember that even if there is an Intelligence behind all creation, it doesn't equate to it being YOUR idea of Intelligence) is a reason for eternal damnation or, really, any judgment at all.
It's blaming someone who could very well be living a decent life for using their mind in a different way than you use yours. That's only a sin to believers who've constructed a God-figure who is hurt by the non-belief or skepticism of others. That's not MY idea of God.
You are correct, believers reject the idea that you can invent your own idea of God. They believe that there is a absolute and objective nature of God, even though they may not be able to articulate all of it (some is the faith part, and it varies from individual to individual depending on what parts of the scriptures he or she understands or doesn't, and must take on faith).
Your idea that a person living a moral life can be justified in God's eyes even though he or she has rejected the very idea of God is incompatible with Christian belief. Salvation to the Christian comes through the grace of God alone, not by works. Works are evidence that the heart has accepted salvation, but are not in themselves a down payment on salvation.
The believer who implies that God will judge us and reject those who steadfastly rebel against his scriptural admonitions may sound judgmental to you, but to a believer they are concerned that the non-believer is missing the point. God forgives, but he also requires a contrite heart and repentant spirit, with acknowlegement that each of us is a sinner and falls short of the perfection desired by God. This is the path to the virtue of humility, and gratitude for the gift of grace, which we cannot deserve by good works.
From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible tells us repeatedly that there is a truth, that Jesus came to speak to those who are capable of discerning the truth, and that he will sort "the wheat from the chaff" - God is love, but some souls will reject the additional demands of virtue as defined by God, not by self.
May I assume your post is agreeing with me? - I rejected the idea of a creator of the Creator. That idea came from muir_redwoods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.