Please turn the page, or click the digital exit door, if you came here for words about politics. I am not in the mood. My faith is calling.
I am sad today. Last week I tracked down an old blogging acquaintance; this blogger had closed shop a while ago and I was just checking in to see if anything had changed at that quiet URL. No, the blog was still closed, but there was an announcement: the blogger had become an atheist, a soft atheist. There was a lengthy confessional posted about the loss of evangelical Christian faith; there were some links directing readers to a new start at a new site, and to discussions elsewhere.
I am not simply sad because of one person. I am simply sad because I think atheism is far more pervasive than most Christians understand -- and that the church is filled with people one minute away from rejecting the faith they zealously proclaim.
This is not a polemic I am writing. I could, of course, slide right into one. I could point out how absurd some atheists sound; I could point to that whole set of "leading atheists" who reject the possibility (or the concept) of an "uncaused God"; that such folks are wildly absurd for the simple reason that in one breath they reject an uncaused God and the next celebrate the glories of an uncaused universe. God is summarily rejected because His origin is inexplicable, while the universe is embraced as the totality of Being even though its origin is also inexplicable (and then adored because it is "all a mystery").
People have their reasons for believing what they do. I know. But I react negatively to those who assert they are deep when they are really rather shallow. I react strongly to people who think they are critical thinkers when they are really only critical people. I react strongly to atheists who believe themselves the guardians of reason and denounce theists as reason's enemies. Indeed, I react strongly, negatively, to conceit, arrogance; the presumption of knowledge, wisdom, or insight.
I am not even remotely suggesting my friend falls into any of these categories; I would be wrong to imply such a thing. But I am quite certain that some of those who counseled my friend, at least after the fact, were indeed people oozing with a sardonic conceit. The comments at my friend's blog prove this.
I am also sad about other things, particularly about the church. I feel like, in many ways, the church itself does not really believe what it proclaims; Catholic or Protestant, it seems that Christians don't really believe anymore. This, of course, is irrational of me, I know. Nevertheless, it sometimes feels as if we're all atheists now.
When I have a serious issue in my life, a demanding need, to whom am I most often counseled to ask for help? The state.
When I approach a church with a pressing need, to whom am I often directed? The state.
If I have need of clothing, food, shelter; if I have addictions or wounds profound, where do I turn? Rarely, if ever, the church, except for short-term help.
If my house is on fire, who helps me? The state.
If I need nursing care for my elderly parent, where do I find that help? Who is ready, who is set up, to offer such help? The state, ditto.
If I've lost my job, or I need health care coverage, do I turn to my church? Does my church hire me when I am without work? Does my church give me Medicare, or unemployment insurance?
I know there are many churches that do great works. But my observation is that churches are only equipped to provide short-term care. In fact, my deep conviction is that American Christians are so involved in pursuit of their own happy lives, they've freely relinquished to the state those things the church had provided for centuries.
__________________
I read a while back that Catholic churches were reconsidering how to offer Holy Communion in light of the H1N1 outbreak. It seems there was much concern that the Lord's Cup -- the Lord's real blood -- might transmit the flu virus from one communicant to the next. Isn't this an admission that the Lord's Cup is not one whit sacred? Think, really, of what this suggests!
Forgive my disjointed observations. But there is something seriously amiss in much of what is offered as Christianity. I make no special claims; I have no answers. I am merely venting my own frustrations.
__________________
__________________
It's Super Bowl Sunday. Better leave church early: I've something special to prepare.
17 comments:
Even saints seem to question their faith from time to time. Mother Teresa is the en vogue example, but the tradition goes all the way back to early church fathers.
Christianity is not easy. I cannot judge its worth as a source of salvation as I cannot attest whether its claims are accurate, but it does not lie when it states that the path is narrow. The words of Saint Augustine come to mind: "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."
Maybe Christianity was never meant to sweep the world by storm. I know this seems preposterous to anyone with an Evangelical mindset, but Christianity is a niche faith which advocates a difficult ascetic life. Most Christians are simply horrible parodies.
There are many values preached in Christianity that are universal virtues, but it is an imperfect ideal in the eyes of many who both bother to learn what the faith entails and have the luxury of time to question those beliefs. I don't wish to focus on it, but there is also a degree of ostracism within some Christian communities. Add to this the fact that religion fills far more basic needs than mere ethics (community, financial support, etc) and one may see that there has been a vested interest in pretending for some time now.
I think a secular source of support is necessary. It would be unfair of me to characterize churches as despicable tax dodgers who prey on the poor and destitute, so I would ask you to question whether you should characterize "the state" as anything but the entity which represents the democratic voice of our country.
In a country as selfish as this, where the only thing we produce anymore is debt, I think it is absolutely foolhardy to believe people are generous and will give freely and privately without taxation. Having about 80% of the population verbally claim to be Christian sure hasn't helped.
I've discovered over the years that those who purportedly "lose" their faith have based their faith not on the person/deity of Jesus Christ but rather on someone else, i.e. parents, pastor, priest or whomever. Of course, whoever their Christian idol is will turn out to have feet of clay and the apostate's reaction is to reject Christ.
That said, your point about the drift of denominations away from doctrinal truth (see, e.g. the Anglican community) leads people to conclude that there is neither anything distinctive about Christianity nor any consequences for those who are not. After all, if God loves us all and is merely Santa Claus playing lip service to being naughty or nice, but handing out presents to everyone regardless, then why be a Christian at all? It's more fun to play golf on Sunday.
Stated differently, in our attempts to make Christ's message palatable to all, we've made it so bland that it is passed over (no pun) in favor something more dynamic.
Cheers, my friend.
Ginx,
Yours strikes me as an absurd claim:
"I know this seems preposterous to anyone with an Evangelical mindset, but Christianity is a niche faith which advocates a difficult ascetic life."
Indeed, Christianity, the world's dominant religion, is anything but niche insofar as religion is concerned. There are billions of adherents; Islam has until recently only had about half as many. Granted, these numbers are fluid and open to interpretation, but it is patently absurd to describe Christianity as "niche." Perhaps you mean to say that it SHOULD have been a niche faith.
It is also absurd to describe Christianity as particularly astringent or ascetic. It isn't. Anyone familiar with the sundry feast days of the Catholic Church -- and the many societies that are indeed Catholic -- knows well the sort of celebration of the body Christianity espouses: Christianity is, if it is anything, the ONLY religion that is thoroughly fixed on incarnation. It celebrates the flesh; it is dynamically materialistic in its orthodoxies. That a few neo-Platonists (sorry, RS), gnostics and other anti-materialists have influenced Christianity is indeed true, but it is NOT true that asceticism is deemed orthodox.
Essentially, if there is something that SEEMS ascetic in Christian thought, it is the admonishment to make choices that will keep one's soul and body free. Free of guilt, addiction; free of poison, decline, bitterness, envy; free of the acid that is sin. There is liberation in the Christian message, the liberation of the BODY. If Christ set you free, then you are free indeed. The goal is to remain free.
Just as homosexuality was practiced universally in ancient Greece but only draws a small minority interest in our culture, Christianity is not for everyone. Yes, it is open to anyone, and Christians often believe everyone should be Christian, but let's face it... 99% of people can't hack it as a Christian.
The Dualism you speak of is merely a part of it. Denying oneself worldly pleasures is one aspect people have trouble with, but how many Christians do all that Jesus instructed? Most Christians I see drives nice cars and own many things, and materialistic worship of Mammon is no less grave a sin than homosexuality or other "depravities," according to Christ.
"...my deep conviction is that American Christians are so involved in pursuit of their own happy lives, they've freely relinquished to the state those things the church had provided for centuries."
I have seen significant generosity within the congregation I call home. Yet this accusation bothers me too, especially when I think about all the happy things I pursue for myself.
It's very hard to think clearly about priorities like this. I pray that God in his grace gives us the wisdom to live more wisely and generously each day.
NateVW,
Thanks so much for your candid comment. Indeed, we do see a lot of good and generous work done in many congregations, and yet we must admit that the sort of services the church provides is really rather limited. I am not saying I've an answer, but it seems that the church -- compared to the state and broader culture -- increasingly has less and less to give.
I recently heard Dallas Willard speak about the preaching in the American Protestant church. He notes that historically preaching was really about the transmission of knowledge -- truth -- and yet now we are seeing preachers act mostly as motivators and encouragers. I haven't enough time to yet fully reflect on what Mr. Willard opined, but I think his comments are on to something, something germane to our topic here.
But there is a mathmatical formula for an uncaused universe which fits with our findings in physics and cosmology. You can write it out long hand! Because it's based off real evidence.
Two things and uncaused God lack is a theory and evidence to support it.
Just saying.
And agnosticism is a natural state of the human mind before indoctrination. But it seems you might be hung up on one form of atheism. Atheists themselves can be a variety of things, and like theists, we have varying beliefs and differences of opinion.
Not all atheists are the same. For example, I too am a Christian turned Atheist. But some atheists are just naturally inclined to disbelieve that which is not proportionate to the evidence, as Hume would state. They don't have religion, and assuredly, they don't see a need for it.
Atheist may or may not be vocal about their position, but it's always good to gain a new perspective is it not?
I mean, it couldn't hurt. Unless you actually believe in hell. Then it might hurt. Such irony in that, a little bit depressing, but then maybe Mark Twain's comment that heaven is for the climate and hell is for society will cheer you up.
Cheers!
Dear Tristan,
So, we can come up with a formula that demonstrates the generation of the cosmos? Funny. I've never seen it.
But let us assume you're right. Fine. Not long ago many thinkers would have averred that no such formula was possible. In fact, I am even ready to suggest beyond mere origins that there is no such formula proving that the universe ACTUALLY exists: there is no scientific finding anyone can point to that PROVES the existence of the cosmos. Hence, per your own argument, the universe does not exist.
But let me backtrack: there was a time many doubted there could be a formula explaining the origin of things. Now, according to you, this formula is at hand. I ask: Could the formula proving God's existence be at hand? Why, pray tell, has science a priori dispensed with the idea God is provable? And please, if you will: Show me the scientific study that proves that proving God's existence is impossible?
Lastly, do you remember the scene in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Hans Solo lands his Millennium Falcon inside an asteroid? Do you remember the cave in which he lands, that it was really the body cavity of a huge monster? Maybe you don't. What I am asking you really is this: How do you know the universe is not God? Or, for example, how do you know God is not the sun? Of course, you could say that the sun is nothing but a giant helium fusion reactor. But how do you know God is not a giant helium fusion reactor?
Peace.
To anyone else interested in this thread:
Tristan Vick makes an interesting point. He has argued that the origin of the cosmos -- something that is uncaused -- is still mathematically explicable. This, he believes, is sufficient evidence to remove a creative God from the equation: Stuff happens, and when it happens, it happens in this form.
When I was a freshman in college, I attended a debate at MIT between a wildly popular professor and guest lecturer Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith. Professor Wilder-Smith, who only held three doctorates, challenged the conventional wisdom of his time: He argued something like this:
"No one has any idea whatsoever what random or chaos actually mean. We cannot recreate either, as our very involvement -- creating randomness or chaos -- taints the experiment in very much the way Heisenberg told us it would. To talk about spontaneous generation, like the creation of all of Shakespeare's works by monkeys randomly hitting typewriters, is just absurd. Why? Because "monkeys," "typewriters," "letters," "words": all of these are organized and organizing concepts. What we are talking about is infinity AND chaos: we are talking about an infinite number of monkeys (already problematic) typing an infinite number of keys that are not organized on anything like a keyboard (there can be no keyboard). Even if we try to create the primordial stew in a blender, we are doing two things: we are COMBINING, and we are BLENDING. A blender is NOT random: it is a construct, already confined by pre-constructed parameters. Nor can anyone EVER find the recipe for the primordial stew, combine the elements, and toss them into the oven and say this is how things were created, simply because a recipe, the act of combining and the oven all represent order and concept. In short, there is no originating of anything without concept: we cannot conceive it, we cannot know it. Concept is necessary as a pre-condition for anything that comes into being."
Or something like that.
What Mr. Tristan Vick has done is suggested that existence formed around something conceptual -- some mathematical formula that is intelligible. This, at least prima facie, presupposes the existence of concept, or mathematics: the possibility of order was already inherent in the chaos. Where did this possibility come from in pure chaos? Remember, in pure chaos, in true randomness, there can be NO ORDER, or even potential for it.
So what I am ultimately saying is that Mr. Vick's assertion that there is a mathematical formula explaining the origin of an uncaused universe is dubious at best. It is a faith-based assertion, ultimately and demonstrably. We will never know the origin of the universe with anything approaching certainty for the simple reason that, because we are in and part of the universe, we will never be in a position to make the cosmos -- and ALL that is in it -- an object of our consciousness or our study. We CAN'T know, because our knowing taints what is known; we influence everything we touch, and we cannot, ever, stand outside of our universe to look at ourselves and that universe.
How then, do we know anything?
Peace.
"So, we can come up with a formula that demonstrates the generation of the cosmos? Funny. I've never seen it."
Well, I wasn't exactly clear on what I was referring to. There are several competing theories which map out how the universe may have began. You have Lee Smolin's black hole theory, you have Stephen Hawking's universe tunneling theory, you have Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's Cyclic model, and so on.
All of these do map out the generation of the universe mathematically based on the evidence we have. And according to the evidence we have so far, they all suggest the universe came from nothing. The next step is to test them.
"But let us assume you're right. Fine. Not long ago many thinkers would have averred that no such formula was possible."
True. We didn't know all that much long ago. The last several decades is where most of our cosmological data has been collected. Before that we didn't have the means, now we do. And we're getting better at science as technology improves to equip us with the tools necessary for discovery, such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
"In fact, I am even ready to suggest beyond mere origins that there is no such formula proving that the universe ACTUALLY exists: there is no scientific finding anyone can point to that PROVES the existence of the cosmos."
Except for the formulas found in the prior theories I have referred you to. And these theories may be wrong; I'm fully aware of this possibility. My question is, how do we test your God theory? Should be easy... seeing as how there is just sooo much evidence for it. *wink wink nod nod.
"Hence, per your own argument, the universe does not exist."
Incorrect, that's a logical fallacy. As I stated, there are theories and models which map everything out mathematically. But I think you might have the wrong conception of science here... the theories don't just invent what they want to be the answer, they're based off of actual observations, and they are designed to describe how the universe works.
As far as the leading professionals can tell, the universe is telling us she functions as we would expect from a universe with zero energy which came from nothing. That's what the data is telling us.
So the models and theories then try
to make sense of that data and lay it all out so we can see the bigger picture. It's a long drawn out investigation, for sure. But it's also exciting!
"I ask: Could the formula proving God's existence be at hand? Why, pray tell, has science a priori dispensed with the idea God is provable?"
Because the data precludes any possible existence of an assumed creator. If there is nothing that could have created the universe, then what use for a creator?
Victor Stenger talks about the peculiar laws of physics in more detail in "The Comprehensible Cosmos."
http://www.amazon.com/Comprehensible-Cosmos-Where-Laws-Physics/dp/1591024242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268126590&sr=8-1
"And please, if you will: Show me the scientific study that proves that proving God's existence is impossible?"
I wouldn't assume there was such a theory. I mean, you’re starting with the conclusion and then trying to find the theory to fit it, instead of starting with the evidence thereby making a theory to reach a conclusion. Or let's put it the other way, what scientist would bother with trying to disprove something that doesn't likely exist to begin with? I get what you’re saying though, it’s very William Lain Craig, but it’s discernibly wrong.
Science just takes the evidence we have and creates a theory to attempt to make the best possible prediction which describes that event or events. Evidence for God is just lacking, so far we have no available theories.
"How do you know the universe is not God?"
Well that's a Deist question. I'm simply rejecting the personal God of the Bible. Hypothetically the universe could be a living organism, deity-like in essence (perhaps even exhibiting consciousness), but we have yet to discover any evidence for it. So until that time, I remain skeptical.
But my rejection is specific, not generic, which may be where you're getting hung up. I am saying it is not rational to expect to find a personal God which fits a very specific description when there is no evidence for that particular deity. Which we should know more about since the details of said God has (presumably) been divinely dictated to man by God himself. Therefore, I can be fairly certain that such a being is falsified by the evidence we do have--and will continue to dwindle as further evidence amasses until the very description of such a personal God rings as untrue as Vishnu, Xenu, Apollo and the like.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Dear Tristan,
Thanks for commenting.
You wrote:
All of these [theories] do map out the generation of the universe mathematically based on the evidence we have. And according to the evidence we have so far, they all suggest the universe came from nothing.
I think you need to explore what it means when a theory suggests "the universe came from nothing." You've already argued that God is untestable and un-falsifiable, hence, this seems to put the full stop to what a theory about the origin of the universe can include. "Nothing," in cosmological theories, simply refers not to NOTHING as an ontological entity or absence, but as an epistemological one: we can't know anything prior to the first moment of cosmological history. We can theoretically argue to the first motion within the cosmos, but that's it: we can't, nor will we ever, get outside to fully observe the "Big Reaction." And there is no experimenting for this; the collider you mention will not yield what you think it might, precisely because a collider is an organizing system, intelligently designed by humans: We are WILLING something, namely, the collision of particles. And thus we are spoiling the data, corrupting the evidence: we are involved, like gods. In short, you make an absurd claim that the theories for the creation of the cosmos are testable or falsifiable. No, they are not. Besides, what is your control group going to be?
Relatedly, Christianity essentially agrees with you about the universe beginning in nothingness: it's the Judeo-Christian view that God created ex nihilo -- from nothing.
Also, there is NOTHING fallacious about what I wrote to you, Tristan. You do not like the implications of your own argument; I have shown that you have argued yourself into a position that is undeniable: you can't prove the existence of the universe per your own epistemological criteria. Please, prove to me the universe exists; please, cite for me the scientific studies that PROVE -- not theorize -- that the universe IS. And please don't tell me that the act of theorizing, or my doubts, prove that the universe must exist. I am asking that you show me following scientific methodologies: show me scientifically -- using the scientific method -- that the universe exists. And while you're doing that, use the scientific method to prove to me that the scientific method is the summum bonum of knowledge.
Wait, I will even make it easier: prove your own existence to me.
Perhaps you've not read my essay, "The Existence Of God: A Letter To Christopher Hitchens," which begins to touch on what I am suggesting to you about existence. It is really a perfect place to start. If you have not read it, you are missing out on something very key.
(Continued below)
Also, you are making one serious blunder: NOWHERE, in our discussion, have I argued for the existence of God. I have not posited Him as a first cause; I've not said one thing about Him being an ontological necessity. However, YOU have said I have; you've posited Him for me, as you wrote:
...you’re starting with the conclusion and then trying to find the theory to fit it, instead of starting with the evidence thereby making a theory to reach a conclusion.
Notice I've not done any such thing. However, it could be argued that this is precisely what you -- and all cosmologists -- are doing: You start with the conclusion, which is the PRESUMED existence of the universe and argue back toward a theory that explains the jumble of data (infinitesimally small in relation to all that is) to your satisfaction.
As for my question -- "How do you know the universe is not God?" -- it is not, as you say, a Deist's question. It is a pantheist's question. Regardless, you've not answered it.
Lastly, I have not read a single sentence by Mr. Craig, so he's no help to me here. I am entirely on my own, though I am not without debt to many intellectual forbears. But I will return to one point. In every instance you have presented here, that scientists and mathematicians are theorizing and justifying their ideas, there is the overwhelming premise of intelligence -- and intelligibility. It can't be reiterated enough: every example you've presented presumes structuring the data according to intelligence. You've presumed that our minds and reality corroborate each other; or that logic and reality correspond in some way. What I am saying is that a theory is just a framework; it's just a fence around as much data as possible. But the very fence-work influences the data; it skewers the results. And the history of science has shown that the fences are always moving; they are always being torn up and moved (see T. S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"). There are intrinsic deficiencies in inductive reasoning (science is inductive, mostly), and thus it cannot know what you seem to be claiming here. Amazingly, you can't help but impose intelligence and order on the cosmos.
Oh, and one more thing: If the universe is explicable mathematically, so are you, as are your thoughts, your emotions, your love, your sense of beauty. You don't exist at all: you're just a number. Welcome to the Matrix. Which pill will you swallow?
There is a spoon.
Bliss!
BG
I noticed some recurring themes in your train of thought and I would like to recommend some light reading of some of my favorite books on consciousness, epistemology of belief, and the psychology of truth.
You may or may not have read some of them, but they helped me to answer some of the things you are grappling with here.
1. Consciousness Explained by Dan Dennett.
2. The Crucible of Consciousness by Zoltan Torey.
3. The Mysterious Flame by Collin McGinn.
4. The Epistemology of Belief by Hamid Vahid.
5. The Physiology of Truth: Neuroscience and Human Knowledge by Jean-Pierre Changeux.
6. Supersense by Bruce M. Hood.
7. The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.
I put James in the list because his work lead to religious psychology. It seems you are interested in the deep philosophical questions, and that's fine, but this will give you a good idea on how we formulate ideas also, and I found them (among others) extremely helpful answering some of the same questions you have posited to me.
Happy researching!
Dear Tristan,
I thank you for the recommendations. I read William James' seminal work, The Variety of Religious Experiences, when I was in college (must reading for my majors). It remains one of my favorite books.
I wish, however, that you had not introduced these texts, as they essentially serve as a red-herring at best and a full-stop at worst. If these books have been instrumental in answering your questions about "first things", about the things I appear to be wrestling with, then why not share those answers here? Your recommendations strike me as a subtle boast: you've read these serious texts and this, apparently, means you've an advantage in the subject matter at hand. Besides, to call James' book "light reading" is utterly condescending, as James' work is not light reading.
Clearly, you've dodged what you pretend are rather easy questions. You completely avoided the link I provided that would have led you to my letter to Christopher Hitchens. Had you read that piece, you would have at least learned the actual question before us; you might even have learned something about epistemology. Instead, you've hidden yourself behind a list of books. That's too bad.
Peace.
BG
I don't need to hide behind a library of books. But I will challenge people to read. And William James is light reading for me. But so is Lawrence Krauss' "Hiding in the Mirror," and I recently started my first go at some H.P Lovecraft and P.G. Wodehouse and am enjoying them both immensely. I am what you might call an avid reader.
And I haven't gotten to your letter to Christopher Hitchens yet simply because, whether you realize it or not, I am busy with work and other things of interest, such as reading books... not hiding behind them. ;)
And those are just some of the selected readings that I have found insights in. Another good list of materials I have composed for a dear old friend who is having trouble within her Christian community can be found here:
http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2009/12/advocatus-atheist-to-rescue-secular.html
They may be relevant or not. But the information is always valuable. And I'd rather have a well informed opinion, and share some books I love, than go around accusing people of dogging the issue at hand. I can assure you, I haven't.
In fact, I have an entire web blog devoted to addressing such issues. Short blurbs on other people's posts are only to gain other perspectives, but as such, I invite you over to my humble website. You may gain a new perspective.
I just finished an interview with the Biblical Historian Robert M. Price.
http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2010/03/biblical-historian-robert-m-price_09.html
Post a Comment