Many people have not believed in a god at all times in history, and whether they have or not is of little significance. Other things are of much greater importance. "God" is after all a word and so of far more significance is what this word signifies to them when we say that they do or do not believe that what it represents exists. Thus in some ways this comparison of "those that do" and "those that don't" is a somewhat meaningless comparison.
This juxtapostion with science and the theory of evolution is also very "interesting". Those who actually work in real science rather than merely paying lip service to it (whether to claim it proves their god or gods exist or do not exist) have a dedication to discovering the truth about things. That is something I certainly think is more important than this "God" pretend-issue. I certainly know that people other than scientists can also have a dedication to discovering the truth about things, however those that put themselves in opposition to science cause me to seriously doubt whether this is true in their case. For in their case, I suspect that what they are doing is fighting for their "truth" -- willfully trying to impose what they have accepted or decided is the truth on the world rather than honestly or humbly seeking to discover the truth. But the same is quite often true of those that uphold science as a source of truth, for paying lipservice to science, they often see it as a means to push what they have accepted or decided is the truth on others. Thus a far more significant distinction than that between "those that do believe in God" and "those that don't believe in God" is between the seekers after truth and the pushers of truth.
I suspect that one of the main differences between many of "those that do" and "those that don't" is whether the truth and the search for truth has any part of the meaning they give to this word "God". Many differ in they type of experiences they have had with "believers in God", such as whether the believers in God that they have encountered were "seekers" or "pushers". Another big part of this question, however, is methodology. How do we discover the truth? Experiment and observation? Reading old texts? Prayer? Staring at ones belly button and proper breathing? Babbling over drinks in a bar? Debating with others over the internet? Using your imagination? Working in a creative endeavor like art, writing a book or making a movie?
Well the effectiveness of a methodology depends very much on what one is seeking the truth about. For all that people of today have become enamoured of science because of its effectiveness in discovering the truth, the fact is, and I tell you this as scientist myself, the method of modern science is based on premises and assumptions which the scientists themselves can clearly see limit the kind of things that it can discover the truth about. One of the most fundamental priciples of modern science is an objectivity that is obtained by making itself oberserver independent by requiring that its data be obtainable by anyone following a certain proceedure. This is one of its most important techniques for getting past the beliefs and assumptions of individuals to the actual truth about things. However this method has a fundamental flaw in that it makes itself blind to any aspect of reality where the observer necessarily has an impact on what he observes -- such is most clearly the case when the subject of discussion is the observer himself and the nature of his own existence.
The point here is that we use different methodologies because we are interested in different things, and it is my conclusion, from my observation of the discussion between people that a vast portion of the differences between peoples beliefs about things is a difference in the sort of things they are interested in. I have seen so many arguments/debates on the internet where when you look at it carefully they are mostly just ignoring each other in order to continue talking about what they are most interested in.
Now for myself. I am a Christian as well as a scientist, but not only was I not raised a Christian but I was a scientist before I was a Christian. This made me rather immune to all the anti-scientific trends within religion, because it could never have been a choice for me between science and religion. The question was always one of whether there was any value for religion or a belief in God when the value and truth of science is a given. Modern science has become a fundamental part of my perceptual process by which I see the universe which I inhabit for what it is and so I could no sooner disregard or reject it than I could choose not to see or hear.
But perhaps you can see why the important question for me was never "whether God exists" but "what is God", because it made no sense to ask whether something exists when you do not know what it is. Or more importantly, the idea that people spent so much time talking about something that did not exist seemed a bit absurd to me. The question was thus always one of understanding what they were talking about. Is God a myth, a person, a fairy tale, the creator, a story book character, a ruler, a delusion, a parent, or what? I had no answer to this handed to me on a platter, certainly no answer that was very coherent, and definitely not an answer which I found acceptable.
I remember comparing the ideas of many different religions on the topic. But what finally gave the word meaning to me was a decision that a "faith in God" was somehow equivalent to a faith that life was worth living. What this means is, that you cannot have a faith in God without a faith that life is worth living and more importantly that if you have a faith that life is worth living, then in some sense, no matter what words you might use for it, or what you might call the object of your faith, you essentially have a faith in God.
You see part of the problem is that the word "God" has a history of use and abuse and thus this gives rise to situations where an individual may be forced to repudiate "God" with all the life-denying baggage it has been loaded down with in their life, in order that they can make a real and effective affirmation of life - but a true affirmation of life is an affirmation of the true God, for as I have now come to believe, life is God's creation and you might say His "obsession". It is for life that God created the physical universe and it is for life that God has always worked and acted, encouraging living things to reach out for the potentiality that is within them and for life in general to reach out for the infinite potential that it is ultimately capable of.
And so what are my conclusions now about what God is? Is God a myth? yes. Is God a person? yes. Is God a fairy tale? yes. Is God the creator? yes. Is God a story book character? yes. Is God a ruler? yes. Is God a delusion? yes. Is God a parent? A big yes. Yes for some people God is a delusion and a part of their psychopathology. Yes God is a fairy tale to the simple minded of both the believers and the non-believers. But for me God is the creator and parent of life, for life is by its very nature is not something that a moral (or rational) being would create as a tool (because living things do not make good tools), but would only create life with the interests of a parent as an end in itself. Thus I have come to see God as the infinite being whose perfection and lack of limitation provides Him with only one rational motivation and that is to give of His abundance to others in perfect self-less love.
7 comments:
I am Christian but I do not believe in the meglomaniac god that would create human being for the purpose to worship him, and this is only one of the peculiar Christian ideas of God that I do not believe in. I call this one the jealous god obsessed with His right to our worship, who created all the heavens and everything on earth in order to glorify Himself. Apparently our purpose is to make Him look good and so not only is worshiping other things is a big no no, but we are really supposed to love and think of Him first and before anything else, all day long everyday.
But I also don't believe in the purist god who cannot associate with evil of any kind and to him human beings are so completely corrupt that everything we do is evil and worthless in His eyes, and thus every thing that seems beautiful, joyful, or creative to us is completely sinful and prideful, and so in order to be acceptable to God we must crush every thought, laugh, or smile of our own so that we will be humble before the Lord.
I repudiate the hard hearted god who finds it very difficult to forgive us because any offense against Him, even the smallest bad thought, is an infinite offense deserving eternal torment in a place like our worst nightmares called hell, and so we can only be forgiven if a perfect and divine being lays down his life in a blood sacrifice for our sake.
I despise the controling god who demands our obedience to every idiotic law that He cares to make and who condemned the first human ancestors for daring to seek the knowledge required to distinguish right from wrong. This must be why the God in the Old Testament commanded people to commit genocide or to sacrifice the one child that they loved because He didn't think we ought to think for ourselves about what is right and wrong.
I denounce the wrathful god to whom we are nothing but clay pots to do with as he pleases, according to which it is not for us to complain if He takes is anger out on us and sends us to Hell. Apparently we deserve whatever we get and so I guess it is His right to destroy and torment whomever He chooses. Perhaps this is to make the rest of us that much more grateful that it wasn't us.
I don't accept the manipulative god who sets before you this "choice": 1) to believe what the Christians tell you to believe and do what the Christians tell you to do so that you will be resurrected to live in eternal happiness, OR 2) to be tortured with unimaginable pain for an eternity. Apparently for those who believe in this god, a cowardly fear of him is the same as righteousness.
I will give no obedience to the sadistic god that will resurrect the suicide from the dead and to add insult to injury will proceed to torture this poor person for an eternity on top of that. He will do the same to anyone with a bad thought but somehow what he does to the suicide seems particularly cruel and unnecessary to me. Why can't He just leave them alone?
So since I do not believe in any of these common Christian ideas of God, then why is it that I call myself Christian? It is because the God I do believe is a very very uniquely Christian idea of God too. This is humble God, who is gentle and lowly in heart, who not caring anything about being God, set aside all His power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant, and after growing up perfectly blameless to show how we should live, He was mocked and whipped before being excecuted on a cross. This He did this in order for us to get past all the lies and misunderstandings, to show how much He loves us and thus to heal our relationship with the infinite God in whom we can find eternal life.
I have no doubt that many Christians will have found my previous post offensive and others will wonder how I can call myself Christian or say that I believe theBible is the word of God when I reject all of these ideas of God that can be found in the Bible itself. And so I have written the following to explain how all these ideas about God in the Bible can be understood correctly.
If it means anything to say that God is jealous, it has nothing to with any need of His but only to do with His concern for our well being that we should not prostitute ourselves by seeking that which is worth so much less and making ourselves so much less than what we can be. We can be like gods creating beauty, love and joy and there is no reason to sell out our integrity and self-respect for things that are ultimately meaningless.
If it means anything to say that God is pure, it does not mean that evil and sin is any threat to Him or that these can keep Him away from us, but only that evil and sin does things to us, destroying our free will and our ability to see Him or to feel His love for us.
God certainly does not find it hard to forgive, BUT every parent quickly learns that giving forgiveness unconditionally all the time is one of the worst things you can do for your children. It is a parent's job to teach their children that their actions have consequences, so as a wise parent, God is careful to offer forgiveness in a way that requires us to learn what we must.
If it means anything to say that God is in control or sovereign, it has nothing to do with any need to control others. God delights in our free will above everything else and for this He created the universe, but like every parent He will most certainly exert some control over events where we cannot in order to protect, encourage and instruct us. He will use manipulation where it is in our best interests to distract us from what is harmful and to encourage us to do what is good.
If it means anything to say that God is wrathful, it is because God loves every one of us and His heart goes out to the abused and mistreated and to them He promises justice. But whereas justice is often rather difficult for us to find because nothing we do to evil men seems to make it better, God really has the perfect justice in store for them, so that we will be satisfied.
God certainly sets before us a choice between life and death, by teaching us what is required for us to live. But the purpose of this is not one of threats and promises to manipulate us but to lay out the facts so that we can make an informed choice to avoid the habits which lead to self-destruction and to live our lives to the fullest. The proper fear of God is only to realize that He cannot be manipulated to bend reality to fit our own childish demands, but that we can only have things on His terms according His correct understanding of reality.
There is indeed an eternal hell, but it is not a creation of God or His punishment of those He dislikes, but something we create for ourselves and the consequences of using our free will to choose what is worthless and self-destructive. This choice is not something that can be avoided because we are eternal beings and the hope of the suicide to escape his problems is a false hope. The real problems are inside himself and that is one thing he can never escape from.
How do I know all this? Well because it is the humble God, who is gentle and lowly in heart, revealed in the life and death of Jesus that explains all this to me. God's infinite nature may be incomprehensible, but God is not complex like human beings in the sense that He is conflicted, with love and hatred at war in Him battling for control. He is absolutely pure in His love and everything He does is for the sake of those whom He loves. And so it is by this love that we can know Him, and actually know Him better than we know each other or ourselves.
I don't fully believe in this. But I like it... I like it a lot!
In fact, if I was asked to recommend to somebody either your belief system or mine, I think I'd recommend yours, almost unabashedly.
As usual, thank you for writing :-)
I am often asked why I believe in God? So I add on a comment addressing that question in more detail.
As a scientist I have become well aware of how its methodology plays a part in the totality of human life and I find this conclusion unavoidable, that life cannot be confined to this perspective of objective observation that is the essence of science. Life requires subjective participation. Living things make choices about how they live their lives and these choices are a fundamental part of what/who they are. Their very existence is a matter of asserting themselves over and against the environment in which they live as they take the substance of that environment and incorporate it into their own structure.
But just because they are not only free to make choices but must make choices, does not mean that all the choices they can make are equal. In many many ways they just do the same things in different ways because the basic requirements of life are generally pretty much the same. Though perhaps their will always be an element of subjectivity in the judgment, there are nevertheless substantial differences in the elements of freedom and ability that are afforded by some choices over others. I think it is comparable to the differences between living organisms and we can take for example the contrast between the bird and the worm. Both have found their own way to live, but I think that most people would have little difficulty in saying which they would rather be. Thus we make the choices for our own lives that best empower us in life.
So personally confronted by the questions of religion, I see no point in making any pretense to objective observation because my life is not science. Science is just one activity in my life and I see no reason to CONFINE my life or my mind within it, no more than I see any reason to confine my mind to the dictates of any other authority. Thus I felt quite free to explore the religions of the world and make my own choices about whether there was anything to be found in it that I could see any value in.
I suppose that what I first saw of value in religion was the promise (regardless of whether it could actually make good on that promise or not) of some means to assert control or choice over what kind of person I was becoming, because I began to see that it wasn't purely a matter of choice -- their were limitations of awareness and habit which are inherited. That aspect of religion is, at least, what you could say held my attention and gave me cause to seek if something of value could be found in it.
But a principle concept in many religions seemed to be this thing called "God". What did it mean? Could I find any meaning at all in this concept? I found the beginning of meaning in the idea when decided that a faith in God was somehow equivalent to a faith that life was worth living, for it seemed to me that this faith that life was worth living was the most fundamental faith that we could have, and this faith in God that religious people had seemed to play this role in their lives. Therefore the significant question for me was whether this theistic form of this most fundamental faith of human existence had any advantages? Did the concept of God and what concept of God in particular would lend strength and substance to the bare and formless faith that life was worth living?
to continue...
It eventually seemed to me that the bigger the God the more capable it was in this role -- the more substance it gave to this basic faith, thus it should be of little surprise that my concept of God has become one of infinite being that therefore lacks no aspect of any particular being and thus includes the aspect of personhood. But perhaps the more important determination was in regards to the nature of the relationship that this being had to us, and the choice that seemed best facilitate this role as part of this basic human faith, was the most intimate relationship of all -- that of a parent. This also would lend the most substance to that other promise of religion that attracted me to it, for in this role of parent, God would be an alternative source of the awareness and habits, the inheritance of which I had perceived as limiting my own freedom to be person I chose to be.
I perceived in my studies of physics a design that gave it a sensibility that frankly escaped most physicists. For the physicist, the dictates of quantum physics seemed so bizarre as to be at odds with reason itself, but I perceived that in the context of a creator with a specific purpose to create something apart from Himself for the purpose of a relationship, there was in this a design that actually made sense. Thus I came to the conclusion that the universe was designed for the specific purpose to give rise to the self-organizing phenomenon of life in an open system where under well defined restrictions there could be an interaction with entities existing outside the system.
Yes this is all a purely subjective perception and I wouldn’t dream of giving it any kind scientific status, but I had already concluded that it was delusional to adopt a pretense of deciding questions about the nature of reality from purely objective considerations. Instead, in agreement with existentialist thinking, it was the pragmatic considerations of the requirements of living ones life (such as a faith that life was worth living) which really signified.
I like what you said "The point here is that we use different methodologies because we are interested in different things"
I've found that out to be very true in my conversations with other Christians about evolution. Most Christians who have a problem with evolutionary theory are not interested in the science that goes into finding evidence for the theory. They are more interested in relating to God and experiencing God than they are about the scientific method.
Post a Comment