We live in a world where it’s possible to question the very existence of God, even the supernatural altogether. Our world also contains many religions that, more often than not, tend to break out along ethnic and cultural boundaries. Most of these religions claim to be the one true way to win the “game” of life — whether that’s through reaching enlightenment, receiving salvation, etc.
So for the sake of argument, let’s say that there really is a God, and he’s given us one of these religions that we’re supposed to follow. As most of these religions teach, picking the wrong belief system will result in horrible punishment that is likely to last an eternity. I already see lots of problems with this scenario, but let’s ignore those for the moment.
How are we supposed to know which religion is the true one?
We’re not born with the luxury of knowing about all these religions from a young age. Instead, each of us is raised to believe that one of the options (or none of them) is the truth, so it’s not until we’re adults that we really begin to learn more about the wider world. And at that point, we have a lot of preconceived notions to overcome. But luckily, these religions usually teach that God is a benevolent being that wants every single one of us to find the path to him, so we can reasonably expect that he’ll help us find a way to him.
The most direct way to communicate something to someone is to speak to them directly. So God could choose that method to let us know what he expects of us. If you’re into video games, this is similar to the tutorial dialogs that pop up in your game to let you know the rules. It’s a helpful tool. You can still press whatever buttons you like, but at least you’ll know what’s expected.
Of course, God doesn’t do that for us. Fair enough — what’s another method he could use? Ah, he could send us some kind of “cosmic email” — writing in the sky, or something like that. You know, something that would be nigh impossible for another person to fake. The message would be accompanied by the kind of sign that would give us assurance we’re dealing with the divine. The burning bush, Gideon’s fleece, Paul’s episode on the road to Damascus, etc.
But if God does this kind of thing today, he’s not ubiquitous with it. I’ve never received a sign like that, nor have most people that I’ve ever known. I guess that’s his prerogative, but it does make one question the Bible’s passages that say God is impartial. But I’m starting to digress…
So maybe God could send us some trusted messenger. It would need to be someone that I know well, so I could really trust what they’re saying. But again, I’ve never gotten such a message, and I also know that even well meaning people can sometimes be delusional. I’m not sure I want to risk my soul on such a message delivery system.
So God could send a messenger imbued with divine powers, someone that could work miracles that could only come from God. I would listen to an individual who could do the kinds of miracles that the Bible describes, but I’ve never seen anyone do them.
However, the Bible is a religious text that claims God did use this method a long time ago. Isn’t that just as good as witnessing the miracles for myself? Not for me. Thomas Paine said that once you tell a divine revelation to someone else, it ceases to be revelation and becomes mere hearsay. I have to agree. For me to accept the word of a religious text, the text would have to be incredibly amazing. The writers would have to demonstrate knowledge of things that they couldn’t possibly have known about ahead of time. When events are recounted in multiple places within the text, they must be without error or contradiction. When science is recounted, it must be without error — not simply a regurgitation of what was already known at the time. Its morals must be without reproach. If it gives prophecies, they must be without error.
If those standards seem too high, then maybe you aren’t truly considering what’s at stake. The soul of everyone who has ever lived hinges on the judgments of this God. Each and every soul should be just as precious to him as the souls of your own children are to you. Would you leave the fate of their souls up to chance, or would you do everything within your power to save them from eternal torture (or punishment, or annihilation — whatever your particular flavor teaches)? If you saw a windowless van pull up to your child and watched the driver coax them to come closer, would you stand back to see how your child reacts, or would you run to them as fast as you could, calling them back all the while? You don’t have to answer, because I know what you would do — you’d do what any decent human would do. Why doesn’t God do the same for us? If I’m currently bound for Hell, and I’m influencing my innocent children to eventually follow in my footsteps, why doesn’t God intervene to help us?
And before you say he does just that through scripture, the Bible fails every one of the criteria I listed out. In fact, I’m not aware of any religious text that comes close to meeting those standards. If we accept that God is loving, merciful, and just, then it does not follow that he would be the author of the Bible. I’d be happy to cite specific examples of the Bible’s failings, but I’ve written way too much already. Luckily, I have links to those examples on my home page.
It’s God’s overwhelming hiddenness that sounds the death knell on religion for me. As Delos McKown has said:
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Finding Truth 
Charles,
Quoting scripture as if you are waving a magic wand is not an adult response. Put your thinking cap on and come up with a sensible rebuttal. Quit talking about your invisible friends – we know better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, it’s Pontiac, but nice answer! 😉
I see a little better what you meant now. Sometimes in my posts, I tend to get carried away thinking about the god of Christianity, and my statements seem to encompass the entire god concept. In this post, I’m really thinking of the gods of revealed religions. These are the gods that require things of people, so they should offer substantial evidence if they want us to believe in / worship / serve them. That’s why I don’t see the first cause or fine tuning arguments as being especially relevant to these specific gods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think so, too! 🙂
Perhaps. That’s definitely something I need to watch for. I think one of the differences between us is that I view non-belief as the default position. Not necessarily the position that there’s no god, but just an “I don’t know” position. So I’m not really trying to dismiss any issues that you bring up; I’m just okay not having a strong opinion about them. To me, the first 3 aren’t so outside the norm that they make me think it requires anything beyond the natural. And really, I feel that way about the 4th, too. I don’t know what preceded the Big Bang, but I strongly suspect it’s natural. I have a hard time envisioning a mind that doesn’t rely on physical processes.
I’ll consider that. I really will. Thanks, and best wishes to you, too!
LikeLike
unkleE, why do you think it’s “negative” when something can’t be explained? If you were to take that approach, everything about your god is negative because none of it can be explained — at least not to someone who doesn’t believe.
Personally, I feel that answering the four questions accomplishes nothing, but I’ll do so to humor you.
1. Why do you think so many people believe in God if there is none?
Why do so many people believe in Santa Claus if there is none?
2. Why do neurological and psychological studies show … etc., etc.?
Neuronotes (Victoria) has posted (and can produce, I’m sure) numerous studies that contradict your sources.Who are we to believe?
3. Why do literally hundreds of millions of people believe they have been healed after praying to the christian God?
They “believe” because this is what they have been conditioned to do over years and years of church teaching. When push comes to shove, praying to the christian god for healing accomplishes nothing. Ask any amputee.
How did it happen that a universe exists without cause …
Who cares? I certainly don’t. I simply accept the way things are and enjoy them.
You commented to Nate: “Your argument is based on your guess at what God is doing ….” What are YOU doing except guessing what “God” is doing in any given circumstance?
To actually believe in a supernatural being that dwells somewhere in the great beyond is, to me, incomprehensible. Think about it. There is absolutely NOTHING to prove this entity exists EXCEPT though your own personal “faith” that it does.
BTW, as a reminder … I’m not a full-blooded atheist. I do believe in something (explained in my book), but it is most definitely not a “being.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Nate. When I read the title of the post I thought for sure this was going to be a plug for Sean Carroll’s new book, “The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself”. I’ve just started reading it.
What you describe in your post is a big problem for any belief which claims there is a mind that exists and wants us all to somehow interact with it. As I’ve said many times, when I was a believer I truly believed an ultimate creator God existed that I could interact with, but prayer was completely like talking to a wall.
I’ve never thought to question the existence of my family, friends, co-workers, or managers. There is no way on earth I would even dream of claiming that they didn’t exist, no matter how much they may annoy me. There are countless ways in which I know that these people exist and it is truly like night and day when compared to the idea of the existence of a God. In fact, I even love the idea of an omni-benevolent God who would be interested in me (one of the things that kept me going as a believer for 5 years), so my experience goes counter to my desires.
If I was the only person on earth like this then I’d definitely question myself, but there are so many others who have the same experience. There are even entire cultures in the far east where millions of people live their lives without even the slightest thought of an ultimate God existing. And as you say, while many do claim belief in God, a lot of them do so in a very abstract way. My neighbor for instance puts it this way – “I think there probably is some kind of higher power, but I can see how people could doubt it”.
I can’t argue with someone who has had some special experiences (I wouldn’t blame them for believing), but the monotheistic worldviews just seem so far from reality because of all this. I could see how some more liberal modifications (e.g. Spinoza’s) of these worldviews could make more sense, but the more traditional versions just seem broken.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect Charles has one of these, it really helps to clarify when God says no:
LikeLiked by 6 people
LOL!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate, is your cat named after a potato, a native American tribe, a car, or was it a fortuitous random selection of letters?? 🙂
“These are the gods that require things of people, so they should offer substantial evidence if they want us to believe in / worship / serve them.”
I think this is probably the key point for me in our discussions over the years. That sentence is a proposition, of the form If A then B. But I don’t think you have offered any reason to believe such a syllogism, nor do I think you have shown why you dismiss other options. Let me illustrate.
Your implicit argument seems to be:
1. God expects certain quite defined things of us – what we should do or believe.
2. Our problem is that we lack knowledge of those things.
3. Therefore if he exists, we should expect he would give us that knowledge quite clearly.
Now I would be interested if you could correct or confirm that basic argument, then offer reasons to believe each premise. I offer a couple of comments.
If God was as definite as you say, that would be very unfair. Some people don’t have access to the required knowledge, or don’t have the cognitive faculties to grasp it, or don’t have the time to pursue it. So they would miss out, which goes against justice and love. So it is a poor proposition to posit for a supposedly loving God. It makes it out as if life is some sort of science exam, and if we read the right textbooks, study hard, and pass the exam, we’re in!
I recognise this may be the sort of christianity that you have observed, but it is also a belief you have rejected. So I think you might well consider other options.
For example, perhaps God is interested in the sort of people we are, the sort of people who think or behave in certain ways, according to the light we have been given, without being threatened or directed and examined. This would fit with Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 25 that the sheep & goats are decided by behaviour towards those in need. I don’t personally think that is the whole story, but I think it is closer than the assumption you have made. And good-hearted people don’t need to be told what is right, they generally know it.
Or perhaps God is just looking for people who will receive his love, people who are willing to open themselves to good and to him and his grace whole-heartedly. Perhaps he “judges” us according to very personal assessments, not some bunch of rules or criteria or commands. And so he doesn’t need to be nearly as specific as you say.
I think both of these contain truth, and I think other options are possible within christian belief as well as outside it, but that is enough for now.
So I disagree profoundly with your implied syllogism, but I wonder how your argument goes if you cannot justify this part of it. Thanks again.
LikeLike
That was hilarious Peter…er… 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I recognise this may be the sort of christianity that you have observed, but it is also a belief you have rejected. So I think you might well consider other options.”
unkleE, the conversation between you and Nate appears to be about invention. Nate and people like him have stopped trying to invent things they now think logically don’t exist. You on the other hand appear to keep trying .
I think this might well be an option to consider IMHO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Nan, we have been at odds in the past, which I am sorry about, so I don’t want to say anything that will cause a problem this time. I will try to answer your questions, and leave it to you to decide if you want to take things further.
“unkleE, why do you think it’s “negative” when something can’t be explained?”
It’s negative in the context of deciding between two hypotheses. My job used to be managing water quality programs to determine the causes of water quality problems in rivers. We would have certain data indicating a problem, and certain identified possible sources. So we had several hypotheses and we would set up statistical analyses to see which hypothesis best explained the data. If a hypothesis couldn’t explain the data, then it was a poor hypothesis.
It’s the same here. If the null hypothesis (there is no God) cannot explain a number of significant facts, then that is a negative hypothesis. I am saying that is the case, Nate is saying that it is not the case.
“Personally, I feel that answering the four questions accomplishes nothing, but I’ll do so to humor you.”
Thanks for wanting to humour me, but it didn’t work out, I’m sorry. I think you haven’t answered some questions, or answered them contrary to the data, or answered them so briefly that the truth of your answers cannot be tested. Here’s a brief comment on each.
“Why do so many people believe in Santa Claus if there is none?”
Obviously this is no answer at all. My question wasn’t rhetorical, or intended as an argument in itself. It was genuinely asking how you would explain these things. I am saying when looked at in detail, I don’t think non-believers have a satisfactory explanation – it only appears that way on a cursory look.
“Neuronotes (Victoria) has posted (and can produce, I’m sure) numerous studies that contradict your sources.Who are we to believe?”
Obviously we believe the sum of the evidence. But what is that? If you believe it, do you not have it at hand to share it? I am saying that the sum of evidence says what I have said, and I am willing to debate that. I’m NOT saying there is no contrary evidence. But I am saying that researchers in the science of religious belief say that many sceptics mis-state the evidence. So let’s see Victoria’s evidence, I’ll offer some of my own, and see what the truth is if we can.
“They “believe” because this is what they have been conditioned to do over years and years of church teaching. When push comes to shove, praying to the christian god for healing accomplishes nothing.”
There are two things I can see that are wrong with this explanation. (1) Where’s your evidence? Where are the comprehensive studies that show this? (2) A large number of new converts globally are being made in non-christian cultures, e.g. in China. This explanation definitely doesn’t apply to most of them. This is what I meant – simple quick explanations often don’t cut it when examined.
“Who cares? I certainly don’t. I simply accept the way things are and enjoy them.”
You have demonstrated my point. Your hypothesis cannot, or at least does not, explain this important phenomenon. That means your hypothesis is less believable, until and if you can offer a better explanation.
“You commented to Nate: “Your argument is based on your guess at what God is doing ….” What are YOU doing except guessing what “God” is doing in any given circumstance?”
That isn’t the case. I am arguing that my hypothesis explain a lot more than the null hypothesis does. That makes it a better hypothesis, until and if you can explain these things according to your hypothesis.
So that’s how I see things. I would really be interested t see you set out the hypothesis you are arguing for (you have done that in a few words, but it would be helpful to enlarge on that a little) then have another go at answering the four questions based on real scientific data.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Ken, you and I are old “friends” and old sparring partners. I think that last comment of yours is avoiding the substantial questions and simply making irrelevant personal assertions that you have no way of knowing are true or not. I think you can do better than that, and I don’t think such comments are worthy of reply. Best wishes to you.
LikeLike
See? We will never see eye-to-eye– “I don’t think non-believers have a satisfactory explanation”. Essentially what you’re saying is no matter what I or any “non-believer” offers, it will never be enough to change your outlook on “God.” Thus, from my perspective, it’s an effort in futility for me to spend the time and effort to further discuss these matters with you.
Thus, I will leave it to Nate and others to grapple with you. Have fun!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hi Nan, as I said, I am happy for you to decide not to continue the conversation. But the reason you give isn’t fair. I think I am right (or I would change), you think you are right (or presumably you would change). So if it is futile to discuss with me, then it must be equally futile to discuss with you
You challenged me to justify my view. I am willing to do that. All I was asking was that you do the same. But I am happy to not do that if you don’t wish to. But if that is the case, it may be better to stop challenging me. 🙂
LikeLike
Nan,
I can’t figure out why unkleE uses the term ‘real scientific data’ when having a conversation about – to use Tildeb’s term – oogity boogity. In his mind, it’s as real as you and me. He really should be talking to Charles; they have far more in common.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Haha Carmen! How are things in the slowly warming north? I’m sure you meant that as a challenge. So let’s call it the “oogity boogity challenge”, and I’ll offer a little of the science I am referring to.
1. Connor Wood is studying for a PhD in the science of religion, and writes on the Science on Religion blog maintained by Boston University Graduate School’s doctoral program in Religion and Science. He is not a religious believer, and all his posts quote relevant scientific studies. Here are a couple of references from his posts:
“properly scientific perspectives on religion do not support the claim that it’s “nonsense” with no benefits. They don’t support the truth of religious claims, either. But at this point, the data that religion has social and individual benefits is so overwhelming that saying that religion has no benefits is active science denial.” (Comments aren’t for atheist evangelism)
“But religion did have an influence, and in contradiction to the claims made by writers such as Sam Harris, the influence was very reliably in the direction of protecting against criminality and antisocial behavior.” (Is religion good or bad for the world?)
I could reference many more.
2. The latter post by Wood references this study: Would the World Be Better Off Without Religion? A Skeptic’s Guide to the Debate in the Skeptical Inquirer. In it, two atheists do a comprehensive literature search of scientific papers on the effects of religion, and they conclude:
“Contrary to the forceful assertions of some prominent atheist authors (e.g., Dawkins 2006; Dennett 2006), however, the data consistently point to a negative association between religiosity and criminal behavior and a positive association between religiosity and prosocial behavior. Both relations are modest in magnitude and ambiguous with respect to causation. At the same time, they cannot be ignored by partisans on either side of the discussion.”
3. I have assembled as many papers as I can find that have studied the effects of religious faith or practice on wellbeing. It turns out there are about 35 studies there reporting the positive effects I am mentioning.
4. The effects are so clear that neuroscientist Andrew Newberg (one of the leaders in the scientific study of religion, and, again, not a christian) can say:
” our brain-scan research, which we document in our new book, “How God Changes Your Brain,” led us to the conclusion that faith is the most important thing a person needs to maintain a neurologically healthy brain. Indeed, we believe that faith is more essential than exercise, especially in light of the cumulative research showing how doubt and pessimism can shorten your life by years.” (a href=”http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2009/03/27/faith-is-essential-for-your-brain/1746″>Why your brain needs God
Now it isn’t only religious faith that can have that effect, but religious faith is obviously one of the main things they are considering.
So there’s a chunk of the evidence, there is much more. Two cautions:
1. I am NOT saying that these studies prove God exists. They simply say that religious belief and practice more often than not has good effects on the person. Thus it is wrong to say otherwise without compelling evidence. So I have simply been asking for explanations of these facts from a sceptical viewpoint. I’m not saying there are not explanations, I am just asking for them.
2. It will not be enough to quote a paper or two to the contrary. There is no doubt that some types of religious belief can lead to bad effects in some people. To counter this evidence requires the evidence of many, many papers.
So that’s my first argument in the oogity boogity challenge. Now I await your response, to see who is really speaking oogity boogity and who is not. Thanks, and best wishes to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Theist,
I have an amazing opportunity to share with you. I have been told of a kind, compassionate person who wants to be friends with you. His name is Tajik (pronounced Tah-Shzeek) and all those who know him speak very highly of him. He would be a great friend for life as he is a great listener and gives excellent advise. He has generously provided an email address that you can reach him at, tajik99@gmail.com. There’s just one oddity. He requires that any new friends must send him emails once a day for ten years before he will start to reply. After ten years he will not only start to reply, but will also come and meet with you in person and become a great friend for life. Do not hesitate to start emailing him right away, telling him everything and anything you can think of.
Come again? You’d like to know if Tajik is a real person or not? No, no, that would spoil everything. Knowing whether he was real or not would rob you of the choice to become friends with him. Please don’t try to understand Tajik’s oddities, he is by far one of the most brilliant individuals on the planet and knows what he is doing.
P.S. Pass this on to ten friends and Tajik will make contact one year sooner.
— more serious tone —
Dear Theist,
This is not a question of how the universe came to exist or what lies beyond the event horizon. This is about a claim you make that a cosmic being is seeking to have a relationship with every single one of us. Hopefully you can understand our concerns, especially in light of the problem of divine hiddenness. It is not about our pride or our lack of understanding standing in the way of this relationship. It is simply a matter of doubt. Nobody wants to waste time talking to someone who may not exist and I’m fairly certain you are not going to run off and start typing out your first email to Tajik.
P.S.S. This comment is not actually directed at anyone and I have not read all of the comments. I’m just having trouble sleeping and felt like commenting today – thanks!
LikeLiked by 3 people
unkleE, this is the reply I expected you to make. 🙂
We are getting to know each other too well. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like to keep the customers satisfied! 🙂
LikeLike
Well E, if you reject an apophatic approach, then I think you are stuck with what we have come to call natural phenomena. The causal analogy doesn’t help you – you are talking about actual causal events, which appear to be closed. In that case, god is standing in the circle, as it were. Fine tuning (an epistemologically unsound claim anyway), certainly does not help. If the universe were tuned for life and consciousness in particular, it was tuned in accord with something and a tuning process occurred. Once you have those real claims, you have bounded identities, time, relative locations – physical properties.
That carries over to miracles and responses to prayers as well. As Nate points out in the post, if those things happen, then they happen, i.e. they are bound by the conditions of causal explanation, as there is a place and time in which they occur and a relative condition within which they occur. They are then simply bizarre/spectacular (as you point out).
The argumentum ad populum, may simply be ignored ’cause: non-valid.
LikeLike
You know, UnkleE, you may just be onto something. I’m thinking of those subjects of the studies which found that people are happier with religion – I mean, look at some of those fundamentalists. Happy, happy, happy to march indignantly against rights for LGBTQ people and all for denying them equality; I wonder how many of them were ‘randomly selected’??
Then there’s Bruce (Godsmanforever). I’m sure most of the people reading this thread are familiar with HIS happiness – I mean, he prays for everyone and is positively GIDDY in his newfound love and security, now that (his) god has ‘cured’ him of his porn addiction. Never mind the fact that, for quite some time, he participated in the abject denigration of women and girls to achieve sexual satisfaction; that doesn’t matter now ’cause a miracle happened! (I wonder if his will be mentioned in a book someday?)- he’s happy now; no one can deny it!
Then there’s you, UnkleE. I take it you are a relatively happy person but you seem to be committed to visiting atheist’s blogs and arguing that yes, indeed, the imaginary IS real and that there’s a great deal to be gained – personally – by believing in 2000-yr-old myths/fairy tales. Indeed, you even argue from a scientific standpoint that there IS such a thing as magic.
Like I said, you may just be onto something. .. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Eric,
I for one agree that religiousity often contributes to well-being but I would commend you to be a bit more thorough in your quotes. For example, the Newberg article subsequently states:
It’s misleading to leave this out since I think you know as well as I do that this definition of faith does not accord with the definition that nearly everbody would infer in the context of a religious discussion. From this definition it’s clear that religion is a vehicle rather than a driver.
LikeLiked by 5 people
unkleE, I don’t feel I “challenged” you to do anything. I simply asked why you believed it was “negative” when something can’t be explained. You then asked me if I wanted to respond to your 4 questions, which I did. The fact that you didn’t think my answers were comprehensive enough is, in my opinion, immaterial.
Like I indicated in my previous comment, there is no point in continuing with you since you have clearly stated you “don’t think non-believers have a satisfactory explanation.” That pretty well says it all, doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 4 people
“studying for a PhD in the science of religion.”
A doctorate in the scientific study of a subject that has no object. Too damn funny by half.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This has been a fun thread and it has raised a couple questions in my mind.
1. I keep hearing about fine-tuning. Yes, I’m familiar with the argument’s details, like if the Weak Atomic Force were altered by like 0.01% (or some such) then life couldn’t exist, or the universe wouldn’t exist. Yep, the universe is fine-tuned…with, so far, 99% of it uninhabitable. I’m not just talking about oxygen-breathing carbon-based lifeforms; so far we haven’t found anything. I’m sure something is out there (seems mathematically probable considering the size of the universe), but most of what we have found is pretty bleak. The sun will swell up and burn this planet to a cinder before exploding a while later. Not ideal…even our planet is not entirely ideal, considering the intelligence and effort it takes for us to inhabit some areas of it, and the historically low population levels for humans until our tech could conquer those difficulties.
2. Why do so many believe if there isn’t something really there to believe in? Why do people have personal visions of Jesus? Why do people claim healing from prayers directed toward the Christian God? Very good questions–they require an answer! I might have to answer with more questions, though. If there isn’t something really there, why were we all Polytheists for so long? Why did people have visions of Hermes or Nike? How was the Oracle at Delphi so powerful a priestess? She wasn’t Christian or Hebrew, so how could she pronounce prophecies? *Obviously* (wink, wink) she did, otherwise powerful people and nations wouldn’t have followed her if she was making up random false stories.
3. This regards Charles, specifically, for he makes grand claims of answered prayer. How is it you are so much more righteous and in tune with Yahweh/Jesus than *Every Single Amputee* in the history of the Christian faith?
LikeLiked by 2 people