I don't believe in god
Aziz P
not the God who is a hypothesis, or the God who is a gene, or the God who is a hole, or any of the other Gods that those who freely choose disbelief continually insist is equivalent to the God in which I have, simply, faith.
I don't want to prove God. I don't need to prove God. However, many anti-theists (a distinct subset of atheists as a whole) seem to want to, and need to, disprove God. But all of these boil down to utilitarian descriptions of God - a functional God, one whose existence is defined by human semantic constructs such as Occam's Razor, or limited by human concepts of logic and reason (proof of negatives, the immovable stone, etc), or by linear time and space (creation and causation), or even by morality (why won't god heal amputees?). I agree; none of those gods exist, and I don't believe in any of them.
There is no god. Save Allah!
(cross-posted at City of Brass)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Stupid Athiests!
- Faith or Proof
- I don't believe in god
- anti-theists behaving badly
- A Question For The Atheists
There is in fact a cosmology to which I subscribe, in which teh concept of Allah has its context, but that isnt something I am ever likely to discuss openly.
If you have specific questions about god, and my belief, then i will try to answer from my understanding. But you are asking me to define god? that's unpossible.
Any God small enough to satisfy my insistence that I be able to explain him ain't much of a God to me.
And any man who insists that he's big enough to explain either that God don't exist because he says so, or that God must be what they imagine based on what they can conceive, simply don't know much about man, or his enormously puny limitations.
I'm honestly confused. I'm not trying to bash your religious beliefs.
Jack:
"And any man who insists that he's big enough to explain either that God don't exist because he says so, or that God must be what they imagine based on what they can conceive, simply don't know much about man, or his enormously puny limitations."
I know that man believed the earth is flat, because it was obvious. That the sun revolved around the earth, because he could see it rise every morning and set every evening. Yeah, those are great examples of man's "puny limitations", and so far I think God is also a great example of it.
"of must be what they imagine based on what they can conceive"
Perhaps the God as described in the Bible counts as a definition? Or does the Bible not count because it's the word of man, not that of God?
It sounds to me that both of you embrace that warm fuzzy feeling inside of you, which tells you that God exists, because you can feel it to be true. I have no problem with that. However, that same warm feeling also told me the earth is flat. It also tells me quantum mechanics is wrong. It also tells me that a bowling ball and a basketball will not hit the ground at the same time if I drop one from each hand. In other words, that warm fuzzy feeling has a track record of failure, so I (personally) don't trust it.
God doesnt inspire a warm fuzzy feeling in me. It inspires something called taqwa. It's a term very badly translated as "awe". The true richness of the concept of taqwa escapes my ability to explain in detail here.
So you posted a front page article which said that you don't believe in the Gods as defined by others, however you do believe in Allah, but now you refuse to define Allah?
that would be a factual summary, yes. Why is this confusing? I'm saying that God is defined accoreding to X, Y and Z by certain people, and none of those definitions meet my understanding of Allah. That doesnt mean I can give you a pithy summary of that understanding. In fact, there have been entire volumes of philosophy by great thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam devoted to the very question at hand, and all the facile definitions I rejected in my post tend to skip right over that weighty legacy as if it were nonexistent, which is also why I take none of them seriously.
No, it's that God as described in the Bible isn't a complete definition either. It's simply the description within the limitations of human understanding.
It's somewhat like why we still use the solar-system model of the atom until you take your high school physics course. It's not the actual construction of the atom, but it gets the point within the limitations of the conceptual framework of the students.
The Bible isn't the actual "Definition" of God, it just gets the point across within the limitations of human understanding.
And any man who insists that he's big enough to explain either that God don't exist because he says so, or that God must be what they imagine based on what they can conceive, simply don't know much about man, or his enormously puny limitations.
Now now, let's not start trying to push our spiritual beliefs onto each other. I'm happy to leave you to your own spiritual beliefs without condemning you as superstitious or uneducated or whatever. Can't you return the courtesy?
Now that's one of the best analogies I've heard about God in a long time.
I wonder if agnostics believe they will learn the answers when they die or they won't because they'll cease to exist. I kinda subscribe to that reasoning.
I guess I'm a soft atheist who leans towards being a deist if required to chose, but I'm still somewhat agnostic and figure I'll learn the truth when I die, or I won't because I won't be around to think about it, even in spiritual form. So I guess I'm that one definition that Arnold had where one 'simply doesn't care about thoughts of God.'
So tell me, believers, about the following scenario:
A person is raised on an island after a shipwreck, has no contact with the outside world, therefore is unable to learn the teachings of [insert favorite religion here], but deep down inside they chose to be a good person by their actions. They may sometimes have horrible thoughts, but their actions are quite good if we compared them to others in the civilized world. Asssume there's a dozen other people on the island, all of them kids who survived a shipwreck. None of them have any knowledge of the outside world either.
So, according to your religion, how will this person be judged when their time is up? If they didn't reject [your religion] because they knew nothing about it, how can they be damned? If they were of Jewish blood, but didn't know it, would they be treated well by G-d? How about by Allah?
There is no Bible, Torah, Koran, B?? Ghita, ancient greek stories, etc, on this island. Heck, God is probably responsible for them being on this island in the first place.
This person knows there IS a God because deep down inside they feel it. Plus when that animal was about to eat them, they prayed to God and the animal went away. Therefore this person is a believer, and acts morally, but still has to kill animals so they don't starve.
How will he be judged?
The disproof lies in the utter lack of evidence that god exists, coupled with the theists' complete inability to prove his existence.
I am an atheist because the god believers have never met their burden of proving his existence.
As to the heights your island person could theoretically reach, see here.
As to his limitations, see here
Regarding the first link, an interested study must see this comment thread while paying close attention to the dispute I had with Mckiernan regarding its meaning.
What are they for anyways:)
I don't believe in chicken, ham, pork, or venison.
No siree. I don't believe in any of those things.
I really especially hate anti-Carnists. They're the worst, not to be confused with acarnists, who are okay.
I believe in Kobe Beef.
Very well. The person doesn't even have to be 'good', precisely. Religions are a kind of ...calcified understanding of God - the point is the understanding itself, not one's 'standing' in a church. Sorta like saying Aziz's taqwa is more important than his Koran, but I don't know if he'd agree with that.
The animals are God's creatures, and there's plenty of fruits and vegetables to eat.
I read thu your links, quickly, and I think your answer is law 3, where Abraham meditates to find the truth... So my guy on the island would be doing the same thing, arrive at the same conclusions, and be given a place in heaven...? And the issue of what religion is correct is irrelevant so long as the island guy believes there is only one God...? Or would his place in heaven be given because of his actions; his good treatment of the others on the island?
So if I reject all the religions I know about, claim that I doubt God exists, but my actions are good, would the God of Christianity still provide me a place in heaven? Or is there no agreed upon actual answer to that? I can imagine that children have asked this a million times through history, so I'm sure the scholars have addressed it.
And what if I think heaven is boring and I want to be reborn, is that allowed? Or do I only have to be a Hindu to pull that one off
I meant exactly and only what I said in my comment.
Please, if you will, examine it closely. I said nothing of heaven or judgment. I said much more than that.
A central Torah teaching is that here-this world-is where it's at. It's this world that Torah enjoins us to make a home for G-d.
One day when, when you have time, see this post by AlexH, see all the objections in the comment thread and see his careful response to them in the concluding comment of the thread. And think about it. And one day, think about it again.
That's all God needed to say about Himself. Simple is good.
I meant his comment of 3:14pm
CAJosh -
No. Your question was actually kind of humorous, though. ;^D
If you've rejected all religions, why would 'the God of Christianity' care anything about you? If I've said that religions are 'calcified', why would there be a 'God of Christianity'?
Ever think that a God for X religion is kinda small for a God? Look higher, and you'll start to see room for a God of Humanity. Then look a little higher and you're getting warmer...
Because he is loving and forgiving, at least when he's not being a vengeful and cruel bastard. Plus I don't have a problem with a majority of Christ's teachings.
So all the religions are just paths to the same unknowable un-understandable God? Thus in a way they're all wrong. So my rejection of them all is valid! And since I DO have a definition of God, unlike others here, then I'm on the right track... So I should be a deist who admits he's an agnostic when really pressed on the issue.
This reminds me of Hinduism's concept of 'The Absolute'. It can not be understood, and the best description is that 'it does not function'. It is above God. And the hindu's guessed the age of the universe correctly, so they score points for that. So the absolute caused the big bang, which was the birth of God. (?)
Reincarnation sounds fun. But the Hindu's view it as a curse. I guess after living a million lives it just might be. I'd like to be reborn as a killer whale. That'd be fun, especially if I can eat some people. Then I'd like to be a Klingon and die with honor in a glorious battle. Being a star that goes supernova and seeds a new solar system would be cool too.
I think you might be getting the point.
Now now, I'm not sure Chris is.
I think I'd test that hypothesis before I'd trust my feelings.
You say you like Hinduism, something I know a little bit about. Ask a few real ones what they think about the mind?
Then you might understand what Aziz was shootin at.
He's saying, and I don't wanna put words in his mouth exactly, if you can think it, then you can think it.
But you can't think God.
If you could you already would have, but you can't, and you're not going to. You can think about God, or not, but you're not gonna think God, and you're not gonna un-think God either. I don't care what you believe. Or what you unbelieve. Or what I believe, or unbelieve, for that matter.
That ain't a feeling, it's a fact.
See, modern man likes to think he's really, really smart (that nobody has ever been as smart or sophisticated or as brilliant or ingenious or rational or as wise or just plain wonderful as he), and maybe he can be some of the time. He certainly worries an awful lot about how smart others think he is, and maybe sometimes that's okay, and maybe that's just mostly juvenile and a whole lotta avidya (I'll throw in for the latter, but that's just me). But one thing man ain't never gonna be, and that's God-smart.
If you get that you do, and if you don't you don't. But either way, you ain't never gonna get there with your mind. And I'm not gonna use mine to explain it to you. Or to anyone else.
I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to God you don't get to be that smart. Nobody does.
And when you think you are, you ain't.
Believe what you want. Think what you want.
But remember too, that's just words.
And you ain't gonna find the truth there either.
Or you already would have.
lets note for starters that the message of the big three religions occurred at an epoch of time in which the scenario above is just a hypothetical. There is no human tribe beyond the reach of the Message - which in its base form I would simply characterize as "There is One God". That s the Abrahamic Axiom.
And, as a matter of faith, I have been taught that the Abrahamic Axiom is attainable via the formulation of human reason and intellect alone. Even for your deserted island dweller.
That does not mean that Island Boy can deduce that there are 30 required fasts or circumision or the Trinity doctrine. But the fundamental Abrahamic Axiom is absolute, and within the grasp of god-given intellect of all human creatures.
In fact, I am cheating here since I asked pretty much teh exact same question of my (ahem) mullahs and I was told the above.
and yes they pretty much have the key to heaven too. Maybe not at the level of those who have accepted the final revelations, but they get in the door.
The triumph of desire to believe over the requirement for evidence.
Also, apparently, a requirement for entry into Heaven.
So, Heaven is populated with happy ignoramuses, Hell with miserable reason-fiends.
Choices. Choices.
Naftali's posts about Abraham seem to me to be more to the point. G-d presumably would expect these folks on the island to deduce His existence, and the basic laws of what He wants us to do (and to avoid), on their own, much like Abraham did while living in an idolatrous society. (While previewing this, I see that Aziz made pretty much the same point in his comment of 10:58.)
If they are non-Jews, that certainly should be (according to Jewish thought) all that's expected of them: enough to get them their place in heaven, since they will have observed the seven Noahide laws (okay, they don't know that these were given to Noah, but that's neither here nor there) because (by their logical deduction) G-d said so; that makes them what Jewish tradition calls "chassidei umos ha-olam" - righteous gentiles.
If they are Jews, they would be in the category called in Jewish law "tinok shenishba" - a child taken captive (who grew up without knowledge of Jewish law). Such a person, of course, can't be held responsible for failing to observe Torah law, and is exempt from punishment (human or divine) on that score. On the other hand, they are lacking the spiritual benefits that they would have received from such observance. (To use a biological analogy: their diet is lacking certain essential vitamins. You wouldn't say that a person who doesn't have enough vitamin C is "punished" with scurvy, but rather that the lack of the vitamin prevents their tissues from regenerating properly. Similarly, a Jewish soul needs positive mitzvos as an essential element for its development.)
What G-d would actually do in that case is something beyond our ken. Kabbalistic sources do speak of souls being sent down to earth again ("reincarnated") - not as a punishment, as in the Hindu view Josh mentioned, but as another chance to make up what they missed the last time around - so that might be one possibility.
It generates a lot of serious thinking about Him.
Or Her, or It, or Them, or Nothing, or Infinity…...
Very good points. My take is that if the religious answers were absolute and proven, life would not be as fun. If you KNEW as a proven fact that heaven exists, and there are certain steps to get there, then would you care if you died tomorrow or made the mortgage payment? So the need for the uncertainty is part of what makes life worth living. Why read a mystery novel if you know the answer? Thus the requirement for faith. Thus separation of faith and empirical evidence as 2 distinct categories. Thus religion and science mix as well as oil and water.
Aziz:
Thanks for the clarification. So I can conclude that it's actions that count much more so than beliefs. Or at least for the island guy. Maybe not for me with access to the internet and the ability to be a religious scholar, since I chose not to.
To take the topic in a different direction: I'm not sure anybody freely chooses disbelief. You either believe or you do not. I don't know if it's genetic or what, but I certainly didn't CHOOSE to not believe in God. Frankly, I wish I did -- It seems to give a lot of people comfort.
I simply find it impossible to believe. It'd be like asking me to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
I certainly can't argue with you there, as I have had that same exact experience.
And so I won't.
I personally don't see science and faith, or let me put it this way, science and God as in any way incompatible.
But I don't see science proving God and I don't much see God as caring that it don't.
Yeah, but I know the answer in a general way, and I still don't know how he did it.
Course, he's a lot smarter than I am. And a helluvah lot trickier. Thank God for that.
Well, I'm hitting the hay.
My mind hurts.
Lator gators.
I personally think belief in God is something provided by evolution, because it makes people and tribes work together better, thus it's a survival trait. What I think you're talking about it that deep battle between the left side of the brain (logic) and the right side of the brain (feeling/emotion).
For me it would just feel better accepting God, but the left side of my mind won't allow it. And the left side of my mind has a proven track record that I trust. Thus I think it's harder to be an atheist than it is to be a theist.
On the meyers briggs personality index I'm an INTJ, and we're about 2% of the population. So I'm not surprised why I think what I think. And I'm not surprised most people believe in god. Heck, you can't have a football team of all quarterbacks. Gotta have a few leaders and a lot of followers. And humans succeed because of teamwork. Thus a few folks need to be at the top of the pyramid, and the rest need to follow, to certain degrees. So humanity survived, and succeeded to the point of overpopulating the earth, partly due to religious beliefs, because it enhanced teamwork.
Anybody know what Pope John Paul II was on the meyers briggs index? I'd just LOVE to know.
BTW, I think you are 100% correct.
Faith is God, God is Faith. No more explanation needed.
Atheism is a mental failing.
I am asserting this merely for the record. I will not attempt to prove it.
Make of that what you will.
Probably because you'd fail, especially if you attempted to use logic as the means to accomplish your proof. Your beliefs about atheism are based upon faith, I'd be amused with an attempt to utilize science to prove your faith.
I'm just asserting this for the record.
Believe it or not, there are actually entire books written on the evolutionary aspects of religion. I'm finishing up one of these, and the point that most impressed me was that religious belief is a hard-to-fake commitment to a socially bonding belief system. In other words, the reason for all those rituals is to give everybody an opportunity, on a regular basis, to participate in the rituals that affirm their commitment to the religious system. It's easy to fake such a commitment once or twice, but going to church every single week and singing those dreadful songs requires commitment that nobody can fake for long. Thus, religion serves as a means for each member of the community to declare publicly, "I'm a believer! I'm a true-blue part of this community! I belong!" It feels good for the believer to feel like a part of a larger community, and everybody feels safer knowing that everybody else is committed to the same moral teachings. This, by the way, is the basis for the common belief that non-believers lack moral standards: "If he's not part of our belief system, he must be immoral."
The author believes that religious belief systems are intrinsically counterintuitive; on this point I disagree with him. My own suspicion here is that religious belief systems are derived from the intersection of two of the most important mental modules: the social reasoning module and the natural history module. As such, they are not at all counterintuitive but in fact fit right into the mental makeup of homo sapiens. As somebody has already said, humans are built to believe in gods.
Unfortunately, wishing it to be the case does not make it so. I can not view theism as a "mental failing" because I honestly believe that -- sociologically -- it has done a great deal of good (as well as evil, of course).
But I'm pleased that the God you have conjured up has given you the wisdom to judge the rest of us and our, um, failings.
When you say "to prove it", I immediately assumed it's going to be via logic. If the method of proof is via religion, then I must admit I didn't even consider that route.
But you wouldn't be able to prove to somebody that 2+2=4 if that person doesn't believe in numbers. :-)
Chris:
Fascinating stuff.
And for all the religious folks here:
I arrived at my religious beliefs via many years of occasional thought about the subject. I have not just outright rejected religion because it was easier than thinking about it, or because it's trendy, or by any other means that was essentially laziness or closed mindedness. I have no respect for atheists who can't name reasons why they arrived at their conclusion. And I respect the time taken by the believers to answer my questions. Hopefully you don't consider the time you took to talk with me a waste.
Hm... That supposes there's some sort of process one needs to go through to become a non-believer. That did not happen for me. I simply... cannot believe. As a child, my parents caught hell for trying to drag me to church. Not because I was lazy, but because -- even as a 10 year-old -- for me these people we're talking nonsense.
It's not so much that God cannot logically exist, it's that there is no proof. I require proof. That's the sort of thinker I am. Not much I can do about that.
From the wording of your first paragraph, I assumed that you had some reason not to except logic as a proof, as you categorically claimed I could not prove it "especially" by those means. When you concluded saying that you would be amused if I tried to prove it scientifically (I took it to mean empirically), I understood you to be laying down your definition of acceptable proof.
At any rate, much writings about the logical proof(s) for G-d (defined as "creator") is available in books and on the web.
Many alleged refutations are also available. I assert that a careful study of the issue leads one to conclude in favor of the proof, while you, I take it, assert the opposite. One of us is wrong.
I needed to make my statement for the record, because too many believers have ceded the mental high ground to the 'intellectual' consensus that tends to side with your view on the logic dialectic.
The believers should know that some of us are no less confident in the rectitude of 'our side' of the dialectic than are those who are in tow with the modern consensus.
I will not attempt to prove it here, since although most readers do not have what it takes to really deal with this philosophical give and take, all of them think they do. So even if I do succeed, there are bound to be those who will conclude wrongly, but confidently, that I failed. And those people might well attribute that perceived failure to the arguments themselves, and thus grow farther from G-d because of me(G-d forbid).
At any rate, if your mind is made up on the logic approach, I suggest you take a look at the argument I linked to in my comment at 9:58pm. It's less heavy and even more compelling.
"I assert that a careful study of the issue leads one to conclude in favor of the proof, while you, I take it, assert the opposite. One of us is wrong. "
Off of the top of my head, I'd say any proof would first require a definition of what God is, so that in itself would be a huge battle. If faith is defined as belief without proof, then I just can't imagine how logic could be utilized for this. But it would be interesting, at least.
I'd actually only make a case that the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, according to holy texts, does not exist. But a God as defined as 'the creator of the universe, the author of laws of physics, etc' well, that is something I just don't see being provable one way or the other with logic. My case would be argued against the first god(s) by using inconsistency. In science, if a theory is shown to be internally inconsistent, it's usually discarded. So I'd assume logic would hold religion to the same requirement, thus my case should be won by showing internal inconsistency. However, religion certainly wouldn't hold religion to that requirement.
Jesse:
"for me these people we're talking nonsense."
Understood, but if you had a worthless science teacher, that should not by itself prove to you that science is nonsense. For me, this is a subject I kept revisiting as I grew up. Like I'm doing now, talking with these people. It's just genuinely interesting.
"I require proof."
So do I. Maybe I'll get the proof when I die. I must admit that there are times in life where you must make a leap of faith. So I don't totally dismiss faith because of a lack of proof. I dismiss it because of a lack of usefulness in most situations. I think faith is a last resort when your options are limited. Hmmm.. I bet I'll wish I wrote this comment differently after I post it... Oh well. Time to go to bed.
Do you require proof in all things? Do you not allow yourself to have any faith at all?
When your parents told you they loved you, did you demand proof?
When you vote, what proof do you have that the person you vote for will do all they say?
Are you unable to trust anyone or anything without proof?
That would be a very sad existence if you really live that way.
On the question of how God will treat those who don't know of him there has been a lot of theological speculation. To the best of my knowledge though, few have has claimed God has directly made any mention of this. One could of course speculate that there isn't really any point in God mentioning this, as the information obviously wouldn't apply to anyone it was mentioned to. People have enough trouble with what does apply to them, there would seem little point in adding that.
The best answer I have seen though is that a person is judged based upon the light that they have been given, which is something only they and God can know. I would suppose that an atheist who has sought the truth and responded the best way that they could would be better off then a professed believer who grudingly tried to do the minimum necessary.
I certainly don't think it was a waste. Your comment:
you wouldn't be able to prove to somebody that 2+2=4 if that person doesn't believe in numbers.
is, in many ways, the precise point I was trying to make.
I also have to respectfully differ from naftali here about atheism being a mental failing - and to whoever it was above who said you don't "choose" atheism. Atheism is a belief, as well - the issue of proof is a red herring (again, refer to C Josh's statement in bold italics above). Saying "I am unable to believe in God" is likewise an evasion, just as empty of meaning as "I am unable to disbelieve in God." It is very easy to disbelieve in God. Belief requires active effort, it's not a default state but one attained via a rational process. Not a proof, but still a rational line of thought all the same.
Faith does not preclude reason. In fact the leap of faith required for god, and for religion as a whole, is very small. It seems like a big leap but it really isn't. But it's still an active state of mind, just as is atheism which purports the opposite. The only truly default state requiring no effort is agnosticism - which is not meant as an insult to agnostics.
I know how to program in a handful of languages, and routinely use some fairly sophisticated programs to generate useful data which sometimes provides insights about how the "real world" operates.
I do not understand how the machine translates English into machine language. This does not keep me from beliving that the thing works, although the machine would probably not be hindered by unbelief.
The world does not hinge on our artifical constructions, science is a systematic attempt to understand the world and virtually always falls short of fully and accurately describing reality, although the failures are usually not obvious for a long time after the theory is accepted as fact.
As an analog this falls short because obviously someone understands the process, but I don't.
"Do you require proof in all things?"
In order to believe the claims made about God, yes, I expect proof, because they are outrageous claims.
"Do you not allow yourself to have any faith at all?"
I have faith in some things, but not in the the Gods of the major religions.
"When your parents told you they loved you, did you demand proof?"
That does not require faith, it requires proof via their actions. And from their actions I received the proof.
"When you vote, what proof do you have that the person you vote for will do all they say?"
I'm voting for Giuliani because he has a proven track record, that gives me faith that he'll do what he says. This is a very small leap of faith to make, unlike believing in the Gods of the major religions. However, he is a politician, thus I expect him to act like one. I would if I was a politician.
"Are you unable to trust anyone or anything without proof?"
Not exactly, but I do demand proof the flying spaghetti monster. I know some of you religious folks only see the FSM as a joke, but it really illustrates the atheist point of view quite well. Exaggerate something and its flaws can become more apparent. I refuse to believe that a loving god would murder so many people via a tsunami. To get me to believe in that type of god requires proof. Just as believing 2+2=5 would require proof.
"That would be a very sad existence if you really live that way."
Not exactly, it makes this life worth living to its fullest. From my perspective, brainwashed religious folks live a very sad existence. Especially the scientologists. Note that I'm not claiming you or the others are seriously brainwashed, but religion certainly has taken advantage of the weak minded. Think of somebody claiming that it's a sad existence to believe there are other planets out there and humanity is not the center of the universe. That person is making a leap of faith, but many years from now if they're proven right, would you still believe their existence is sad? I know this isn't the best example, but it's the best I can do on short notice.
In the first thread (the 'disprove God' thread), we needed a working definition of God because otherwise the conversation wouldn't be meaningful. So we agreed on a definition of God as the creator and prime mover of the universe, who was self-conscious and omniscient (leaving the linguistically problematic omnipotent aside.)
But that isn't the definition of God so much as the function of God. One person explained that we couldn't use omnipotent because then someone could set a glass on the table, point to it and say "How is God omnipotent if he created this glass but can't move it?"
I bit my tongue, but I was thinking: He is moving it. He is moving it around the central axis of the Earth at a rate of over 1,000 miles per hour. He is moving it around the sun at the rate of 67,000 miles per hour. He is moving the electrons in the glass around the nucleii of their atoms. He is moving it when you touch it, and the pulse of your heartbeat echoing in your fingertips shifts it just a tiny fraction of a millimeter, beyond your ability to see, before you lift it off the table.
That's God. The carpet swept out from under the questions we think we know the answers to. But this is also poetry, and has little use in a debate, so I saw no need to bring it up.
Wouldn't this of been an issue put before a Pope, and an answer expected from him? If not, I'd be curious why a Pope would not provide his interpretation / answer. I have a hard time that one like a Pope who make a claim to know the most correct views of God would not provide an answer to how that god would treat somebody who innocently did not know of him. That just feels suspicious.
From my perspective it's suspicious to see you using science to support your evidence of God. If science tried to use religion to accomplish any goals, it would be rejected. And if religion is based upon faith, how can you justify using science to accomplish goals of religion? Is there only a separation when people discuss evolution, or do you have faith in science just as you do in religion?
I don't have "faith" in science. That the earth revolves around the sun at a certain speed has been measured and proven; it's not for me to believe or disbelieve. It's a fact. The only difference between the way you see the world and the way I do is that I think the fact that the earth is whirling around the sun is astonishing, miraculous and evidence of divine will. You don't. We haven't disagreed about the basic laws of physics. We've disagreed about what motivates them.
Instead, why not go for God the Physicist, who merely flicks his finger and declares "Let there be physics!" Then he can sit back with Mrs. God and a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show. "Oops! That Earth thing didn't work out very well, did it? Oh well, there's always the people on Planet Zorgon... maybe they'll do better."
Since God is all-knowing and all-powerful, I suppose there is no real difference to God between the two alternatives you proposed. To God, specifying the initial conditions and the rules should be enough to know and control each subsequent step.
Those of us who pursue religion into adulthood start to see past that. Well, some of us--there are those who keep believing in a gussied-up Zeus their whole lives, and they tend to be the ones who start the wars and bomb the markets.
But the vegetables are also God's creatures (he created them!) and there's plenty of animals to eat.
(Plus there's the slight problem of predators; if it's not wrong for a wolf to eat a rabbit, even though a rabbit is God's creature, why is it wrong for us?
Some possible answers and their objections:
a) People are not like the lower animals and are held to a different standard.
Objection: True, but nowhere do I see the basis for this particular different standard. If we restrict ourselves to Christianity, there's nothing in the Bible about killing animals being wrong; in fact, God rather mandates it for the Jews, to satisfy him.
b) Wolves can't eat vegetables; they naturally eat rabbits.
Objection: True, but humans are naturally omnivores. Check those canines out, at the front of your mouth. They ain't for eatin' carrots, and if God made us with canines, he must be okay with us using them for what they're for, I would think.)
Feel free to be a vegetarian because you think it healthier or morally superior; but trying to say God's on your side is going to require a bit more.
God isn't there to prove himself to you (anyone) on demand.
Demanding such a test and saying "God doesn't exist because he didn't do what I wanted" completely misses the point (and I say this as an atheist!) - though I suggest that "God's moving it because the Earth's in orbit around the sun etc." also misses the point.
Don't need a God to get that orbital mechanics, after all, nor is it obvious that, even if God exists and created everything, that He is "moving" everything that moves. No particular reason His involvement in every bit of matter in the universe is necessary.
"God is everywhere and in all things", while spiritually reasonable, is not a good answer to what isn't a good question, I think.
I don't believe in those gods, either.
Willow, I am not really reacting to your post with this one, even though I linked them by way of continuity of topic. My real aim was to do what the atheists are also trying to do in all fairness - reject the attempt by the more militant of those across the aisle of belief to define my belief for me. I'd love to see an atheist post a similar piece to mine called "I believe in God" (and there the Budybody or the Physicist might well make an appearance).
Sigi, the problem with your theory (God the Watchmaker) is that it posits God is present sometimes (and therefore, significantly, some places) and not others. That's way too localized for me. If God is present in specific locations and times and not in others, God must have a body or occupy physical space. The book I particularly like says God is closer to you than your jugular vein, which doesn't really jive with the Watchmaker. So I'll maintain my poor but satisfying belief. ;)
I'd have to disagree with you about science not requiring some faith. At least to accept the higher level stuff and its implications.
However, that faith has been earned by an excellent track record. So I see that type of faith as a much smaller leap than blind faith without evidence or a good track record (god).
When I learned that a bowling ball and a basketball will hit the ground at the same time, I had faith that was the truth, even though instinct told me it wasn't. Without doing the actual experiment, I went home and bet my dad money, we did the experiment, and I was $10 richer. True story. I had faith I'd win, even though I didn't see the experiment with my own eyes. I'd call that experience nothing short of a leap of faith, but one based on a good track record.
For me to accept evolution required some faith, plus a lot of study time. Then to accept quantum mechanics, oh god, THAT requires lots of faith. But hey, my computer works, so there's the proof. But wow, is that stuff weird.
Anybody out there a physicist? I'd love to know your opinion about science requiring a little faith and lots of skepticism. Not blind faith without evidence.
Sigivald:
I just threw in the vegetarian thing for fun. Figured it would make the example more interesting. I know a religious woman who thinks eating meat is sinful and unhealthy. (she also smokes cigarettes)
(Actually, we're hard-wired with basic addition; they've demonstrated it in a number of very clever experiments with infants.)
This basic premise allows me to accept QM without any resort to faith. Although I must admit, it's REALLY hard to wrap my brain around it.
CJ, I'm still not sure I'd describe your reaction to the law of gravity as "faith". Did you have faith, or were you simply confident that consistent, replicable experiments had been performed to confirm it? If no such experiments had been performed, and it was simply someone's theory, would you have trusted it, or would you have gone with your intuition (which told you it wasn't true)?
I'm one, my opinion matches Willow's husband's.
Ha ha Mck, there was no before "before" the 'big-bang'(tm). Nothing to think about here. you sound like on of those 'Bible' men. So yesterday!
On a serious note, Mckeirnan is more right than some of his readers will know for a while.
"CJ, I'm still not sure I'd describe your reaction to the law of gravity as "faith".
Maybe faith is the wrong word. I guess confidence would of been better?
" Did you have faith, or were you simply confident that consistent, replicable experiments had been performed to confirm it? "
I just figured that the teacher wouldn't be teaching that if it wasn't true... Or he was trying to trick us and see if anybody would catch it, then point out what mindless sheep we were...
"If no such experiments had been performed, and it was simply someone's theory, would you have trusted it, or would you have gone with your intuition (which told you it wasn't true)?"
I would of gone with my intuition, bet money, and lost.
I'm not a Catholic and my understanding of Catholic Doctrine is rudimentary at best. I'll give a stab at my best understanding of some of the basics of that particular theology.
First, Popes claim ultimate authority to regulate how the Church interacts between man and God. That doesn't preclude God acting in other ways. That doesn't mean that Popes and other Catholic thinkers don't opine on the subject, but they do not claim that their opinions are binding upon God. The Catholic Doctrine of Papal Infalibility, for example, only applies when he is officially speaking as the pastor of all Christians and makes clear that what he is speaking of is binding in that fashion. A Pope who makes theological statements of other types is no more infalible then any other person.
It should be obvious at this point that any doctrine involving those who have never had any chance to believe is probably not subject to Papal Infalibility (although I could be wrong on that, like I said, I am no expect, but I don't know of any such declaration.)
The Catholic Church though has theologically based teachings on this subject though. For example, baptism of desire and the 11.30.2007 9:17am
and the Theory of Limbo. This latter example is particularly interesting in that just this year the Catholic Church made it clear that belief in Limbo was not required of good Catholics. Limbo, as a doctrine, was never proclaimed by Papal Infalibility.
It always strikes me as odd how many atheists are quick to proclaim that a particular theology, usually Christian, is bizzare and illogical without having made any attempt to actually understand what they are critizing (it is at least as odd how few believers understand their theology as well.) Some very smart and dedicated people have been exploring these concepts for centuries. Certainly people have a right to disagree with this deep background, but criticizing it without any understanding seems somewhat weak.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.