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 
Hi Keith, thanks for further comment. I think there is a little misunderstanding on both sides here, so maybe we can sort that out.
“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.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying that physical events are all causal and thus predetermined, and that a God couldn’t sit outside physical creation and have an impact on it? Or have I missed your point?
“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.”
I’m not sure what you mean here either. Yes, there is a fine-tuning argument. It is built on the consensus of science, based on published papers and the stated conclusions of cosmologists, and it uses a logically valid argument with strong premises. We could talk about that if you wanted.
But I wasn’t making an argument, I was asking a question. Perhaps you would like to share your answer to the question?
“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).”
So does this mean you have no explanation of these phenomena, or does it mean that you think they all have natural explanations (in which case, what is the natural explanation?), or something else?
“The argumentum ad populum, may simply be ignored ’cause: non-valid.”
Again, I wasn’t making an argument, but asking a question. (And if I was making an argument, I wouldn’t be making an argument that popularity = truth!) So again, what explanation do you think is right?
Thanks.
LikeLike
“You know, UnkleE, you may just be onto something. “
Hi Carmen,
Thanks for that response. I’m not a very discerning person, but sometimes, just sometimes, I can sniff out irony. And maybe I detected a faint smell of irony! 🙂
But I guess it means you are not offering evidence against the papers I referenced. So perhaps I can ask you the same question, if you wish to discuss further: What do you think is the explanation for these apparent facts?
LikeLike
“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.”
Hi Travis. I must plead “not guilty”! You may have missed that I qualified my reference to Newberg with this statement: “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 I wasn’t misleading at all. What I said was quite factual. Religious faith WAS “one of the main things” they considered, as you can tell if you read more of their stuff.
But moving past that accusation, you are at least offering an answer to my question, for you say “it’s clear that religion is a vehicle rather than a driver”.
Can I then ask you to justify this statement please (from evidence)?
It seems to me that there are several possibilities here: Are religious belief and a non-religious faith co-drivers? Does religious belief add more than non-religious faith does? Is non-religious faith the same as religious faith and practice? Does religious practice have no effect?
I think there are answers in the literature to some of those questions. And I wonder if you may have jumped to a conclusion without considering those possibilities.
This is the reason why I keep asking the questions – because I think it is easy to give quick apparently plausible answers that don’t actually stand up to the evidence. You usually have a thoughtful approach to these things, so I’m interested in your response. Thanks.
LikeLike
“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?”
Hi Nan, this is a very strange comment to me. Are you saying that if someone expresses a view that makes it pointless to discuss with them?
1. That’s what these comments are for. We each express views and reasons, and others express similar or differing views.
2. You yourself have expressed equally strong opinions right on tis post, for example:
“everything about your god is negative because none of it can be explained”
“When push comes to shove, praying to the christian god for healing accomplishes nothing.”
“There is absolutely NOTHING to prove this entity exists EXCEPT though your own personal “faith” that it does.”
“Most definitely sounds like a cop-out to me.”
But surely those statements don’t mean that there is no point in anyone discussing with you???
3. I have been a regular visitor to Nate’s blog for years now. I recognise that many people here don’t like what I say and disagree with me. I don’t generally initiate conversations with anyone else but Nate (with occasional exceptions), but many people initiate conversation with me, either by addressing me personally or directly quoting, and disagreeing with, something I have written. You did that in this case.
No-one forced you to do that. There is no requirement that either of us continue the discussion once you started it. But do you not see that to initiate discussion with me and then withdraw when I start referencing papers and asking questions may appear to some people that you are holding your opinions despite the evidence rather than because of the evidence? Especially since you and others criticised Charles for doing exactly that?
I am being frank with you. I don’t enjoy the argument and the accusations and the tension that comes because I comment here. But as long as Nate allows me to comment and is interested in discussing with me, I will probably continue. I ignore quite a lot of nasty comments and don’t respond to much of what is said. It isn’t pleasant, but I try to always be courteous and avoid personal accusations. I don’t suppose I succeed always, but I genuinely try.
I would like to be friends with everyone. I would like to be friends with you. But if you challenge me, I will often respond. But I generally won’t initiate that.
So let’s by all means close this discussion. Let’s avoid discussion in the future if that is your wish. You actually suggested that to me once before, and I complied, but then you kept making comments about what I said.
I’m writing all this to try to make peace and suggest a better way forwards. May I suggest you don’t write about what I have said unless you are willing to back it up? I think that would bring greater peace to both of us. What do you say?
LikeLike
I’m sorry Nate, but I must have left out a closing italics tag – can you add it in for clarity please?
LikeLike
unkleE — One more time. You wrote that you “don’t think non-believers have a satisfactory explanation.” I’m a non-believer. Thus, you don’t think I have a satisfactory explanation. So why should I bother continuing any sort of discussion with you since you yourself have said that I don’t have a satisfactory explanation?
It has nothing to do with evidence. It’s entirely based on the words you wrote.
Nate, I’m really sorry to be taking up your blog space on this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Nan, I’m sorry if I have distressed you in any way. Let me ask you one simple question.
Do you think I have a satisfactory explanation for the matters we have been discussing?
LikeLiked by 2 people
My, you must type fast. Me, not so much, so I’ll try to keep it concise.
I did take your questions as rhetorical, simply because you have equivocated in that regard in your responses to others.
Beliefs like the ones you ask about seem to arise from a combination of attribution of agency, and social pressure over time. The same, deep-seated psychological force which prompts a bird to shy away from a plate with eyes painted on it (sorry EAAN), plus the mental propensities which make the argument from popular assent effective (whether it is stated overtly or covertly).
You do have me wrong. I’ll try another tack, but it may be difficult. My bad.
When you propose things like miracles or fine tuning as arguments for something outside of the physical realm, I am proposing that you run into a problem akin to the interaction problem with substance dualism in the philosophy of mind. If I take Nate’s argument in the post correctly, it is quite similar.
The properties directly attributed to the ostensible agent are physical properties. In fact, they are properties which constitute our notion of physicality – agency itself is one!
When you say, “Yes, but I’m talking about the iceberg beneath the phenomenal surface,” what is that? How is it connected to the parts which are showing, while remaining a separate kind of stuff? (Those are rhetorical questions.)
It would seem to require some non-phenomenal explanation – unless you are happy with gods like horus, who are big, strong, smart people running the show from afar.
How do you formulate an entirely non-phenomenal explanation? (My turn on the interrogative/rhetorical combo) People have been trying since Descartes without much headway.
As for fine tuning, if you have really read much about it, you should know that it is far from a closed case, Paul Davies’ declarations notwithstanding.
Besides, it relies at base on a coherence theory of truth and a naïve realist interpretation of theoretical physics. Happy to talk about those problems if you wish.
LikeLike
“It’s God’s overwhelming hiddenness that sounds the death knell on religion for me.”
Nate, not sure if you’ve looked at some of the different formulations of the argument from non-belief, but this concise version from Theodore Drange is pretty solid in my opinion and also easy to grasp:
1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God wants everyone to believe in him.
4. Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
5. Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
6. Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
7. However, atheists manifestly exist.
8. Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.
Since most Christians would not want to object to #1 or #2 that forces them to take up some kind of position which negates #3. They might say that #3 is of lower importance on God’s list of priorities and that something like free will takes precedence. The problem I see here is that they would have to show how knowledge of God’s existence would take away our free will. I don’t see why that would be the case. Not to mention that most Christians already believe that God has revealed himself to others in the past, like the disciples, and it was okay for them.
I see this as a real problem for Christianity since there are several passages in the Bible that support #3.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave the Bible in places suggests that people can only come to ‘God’ if ‘God’ elects/chooses/draws them. It also says that everyone ‘God’ draws will come. Indeed it says that ‘God’ decided who to ‘elect’ before the foundation of the earth.
Using this logic then it is ‘God’ who decides which people are saved and by derivation decides who will not be saved.
Further if there is a Hell, then the same ‘God; decided before the foundation of the earth who would be tortured for all eternity for the sn of being born.
Apologists try to explain this ugly piece of theology by suggesting that everyone deserves eternal torture and it is the love and mercy of ‘God’ that anyone is spared this.
Seem pretty repugnant to me.
It was only as I studied Christian theology in depth that I can to see it was riddled with logical inconsistency.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I love all your responses. I fell like the apostle Paul listening to all the people of his time. I didn’t say Christ, because he was and is, the only begotten son of God. Peter’s traffic signal example as a response to God answering prayers was Hilariously Funny. I mean really funny. Thank you Peter. You know that about 50 years ago I was a scoffer. A real hard core atheist. I would deliberately ask people if they believed in God so I could start an argument with them. I was very scientific in all my thinking. I had a college teacher in freshman English ask us(the class) to make up a story about this or that and turn it in at the end of the week. I didn’t believe in fiction at that time and when she told us to write a paper about our lives, if we could change something about it so that it would come out better, I wrote something like “I don’t want to change anything about my life. I was pertly happy with the way I had turned out.” She sent me to the ASU psychiatric facility and I had a talk with a man about 45 years old (probably the same age as my english teacher) and told him that I was a behavioral psychologist and I didn’t want write any fictional stuff and he agreed with me.
But the Bible states that “there is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 16:25. And Peter in the Bible stated 2Peter 3:3 ¶ “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:”
People today don’t believe in Noah and the flood. But I live in Arizona, and back in the late 60s and early 70s I was a real mineral collector. And we would go up into mountains about 5.000 feet above sea level and find all kind of fossils of plants and animals that lived under the sea.
And Jesus said in Matthew 22:14, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” I have much more to say but I will keep it for another time.
LikeLike
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
(talkorigins.org)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sorry Nate. I didn’t place quotes before or after but did list the source.
LikeLike
BTW Peter, God “foreknew” our free choice and then decided to choose us to be saved. God doesn’t make anyone love him that doesn’t want to. God knows what he’s doing. We just don’t understand that he wants us to get saved but its our free choice. And if he had to show us every thing about himself, where would faith and hope come in?
LikeLike
God didn’t just say it rained of forty days, but that the depths of seas broke open. “Genesis 8:2 “The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;” And the Bible states that every thing was under water at that time.
LikeLike
But, you see, Charles. Most atheists do not believe the bible. So offering information from that source proves nothing.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Some of the details of the Noah story seem mythical, so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular “The Epic of Gilgamesh.” These ancient narratives were already being passed down from one generation to the next, centuries before Noah appeared in the Bible.
The earlier Mesopotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending a flood to wipe out humans,” said biblical archaeologist Eric Cline. “There’s one man they choose to survive. He builds a boat and brings on animals and lands on a mountain and lives happily ever after? I would argue that it’s the same story.”
(http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you ever seen a volcano erupting. Tons of hydrogen gas being released and burned by lightning and turning into water. And the flood just wasn’t a little shower but huge storms with gigantic amounts of water being poured out from the sky.
LikeLike
The first genocide. . . 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
“My, you must type fast. Me, not so much, so I’ll try to keep it concise.”
Hi Keith, no I’m a two-finger typist, but I am retired and it was a lazy Sunday morning.
“Beliefs like the ones you ask about seem to arise from a combination of attribution of agency, and social pressure over time. The same, deep-seated psychological force which prompts a bird to shy away from a plate with eyes painted on it (sorry EAAN), plus the mental propensities which make the argument from popular assent effective (whether it is stated overtly or covertly).”
I understand your point about attribution of agency – it is one of the reasons why researchers like Justin Barrett say belief in God is very natural to young children. But I don’t see how popular assent works when people convert against the tide, which happens a lot. So are you saying just those two causes are sufficient to explain sophisticated believers like CS Lewis, WL Craig, John Lennox, etc?
“When you propose things like miracles or fine tuning as arguments for something outside of the physical realm, I am proposing that you run into a problem akin to the interaction problem with substance dualism in the philosophy of mind. ……
How do you formulate an entirely non-phenomenal explanation? (My turn on the interrogative/rhetorical combo) People have been trying since Descartes without much headway.”
But your formulation of the “problem” surely gives away the answer! There is a problem of explaining mind-body interactions but there is no problem that we have minds (consciousness, etc) separate from our brains (neurones, etc). Billions of people have lived their lives conscious, making choices, etc, without ever worrying about the “problem”. So the fact that you and I can’t explain scientifically HOW God interacts with the physical world doesn’t stop that being a quite reasonably possibility – in fact probability of the God of christianity exists. If we can’t explain the mind even though we experience it every day, how could we expect to explain God??
“As for fine tuning, if you have really read much about it, you should know that it is far from a closed case, Paul Davies’ declarations notwithstanding.
Besides, it relies at base on a coherence theory of truth and a naïve realist interpretation of theoretical physics.”
I don’t know anything about “a coherence theory of truth and a naïve realist interpretation of theoretical physics”, and I don’t suppose most cosmologists, or anyone else except a few philosophers do either – but it hasn’t stopped people discovering quantum physics, background microwave radiation, DNA, etc, or putting men on the moon, doing gene manipulation, etc, either. Or us having this discussion. So I think we can proceed without worrying too much about them, unless you want to explain how this case is different?
Like I said, we must distinguish two aspects of fine-tuning. The science is pretty much decided – check out this peer-reviewed paper by a research cosmologist which gives the facts (skip the maths and just read the text unless you are a mathematician or cosmologist), based on references to about 200 papers, and quotes from about 20 of the world’s leading cosmologists.
The arguments are about the explanation for those scientific facts, and philosophy that flows from them. So again, I’ll ask a question – what do you think is the explanation of the facts Barnes outlines?
LikeLike
There is a problem of explaining mind-body interactions but there is no problem that we have minds (consciousness, etc) separate from our brains.
It is because of continuing to spout disingenuous statements like this – even after I spent thousands upon thousands of words explaining to you in detail why this claim is utter nonsense – that makes any honest exchanges with you impossible. You just wave away anything that doesn’t support your bias and go right on pretending your claims have ‘scientific’ validity. They don’t. UnkleE. The are failed hypotheses.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“I see this as a real problem for Christianity since there are several passages in the Bible that support #3.”
Hi Dave, I couldn’t resist responding to this, as it is something I think is fundamental, and have discussed several times with Nate. I think there are several glaring problems with that argument, so I can only think that you and Drange have a quite different view of christianity to me (and I think to most christians).
I can best illustrate the problems, I think, with a hypothetical. There are two parents, both university mathematicians, and they have a son at high school who is also competent at maths, but lazy and unmotivated. He brings home an important assignment but has decided not to bother doing it. So let’s apply your and Drange’s argument ….
1. The parents know plenty enough maths..
2. The parents have the power to do the assignment for their son.
3. The parents want their son to pass.
4. Since they are knowledgable, they know exactly how to compete the assignment so their son passes.
5. Since they have the ability, they are capable of performing this task.
6. Since they want their son to pass, they want to perform this task.
7. However, they don’t complete the assignment and their son fails.
8. Therefore, the parents described by the first three conditions do not exist.
Now it is not a perfect analogy (no analogy is), but it uses the same form of argument. And it arrives at a nonsensical conclusion. So what is wrong, and what does this point to in Drange’s argument that is wrong? I think there are several things.
1. The parents don’t do the assignment because that would be cheating. Christians don’t all think the same about the role of moral behaviour in christianity, but Jesus’ parable of sheep & goats (Matthew 25:31-46) shows that it is important. But moral behaviour is by definition not forced, otherwise it is just behaviour that looks moral but proceeds out of compulsion, not ethics. And we know that the best way to learn what someone is like is to observe them when they don’t know they are being watched. This is the basis of fairy tales about the prince who disguises himself to see if the pretty but poor servant girl really loves him or just loves the idea of being a princess. So if God has some expectation about our ethical behaviour, the argument doesn’t account for this.
2. The argument seems to assume that the issue is one of knowledge, and more knowledge would solve the problem. But the parents know that it isn’t knowledge that their son needs. Likewise in the christian context, I think that is manifestly untrue that knowledge is the key issue, and it is certainly not what christians generally think (most think it is will). The argument might apply to christians who think that specific knowledge of Jesus is required to be “saved”, and lack of knowledge damns people, but I don’t think that, and the Bible suggests differently. People will be judged according to the light they have been given, so knowledge is never going to be the key issue.
3. The parents know that their son’s problem is motivation, or will. He has the ability, he just needs to make the right choice. Likewise christians (except for a few extreme Calvinists) believe human choice is the most important factor. God can do all he likes, but people make choices, and we are free to choose against him.
So the real problem with the argument is not #3 as you suggest, but #6. God wants people to believe, but he wants them to believe when they are not being observed, he knows knowledge is only a secondary issue compared with the importance of will and choice. Now if you amend the argument to include these factors it falls to the ground as far as I can see.
And it falls because it doesn’t account for the importance of choice & will, and an overemphasis on knowledge, all things that the majority of christians would agree with, I think.
The obvious response from your side (I’m sure this is part of what Nate would say) is that you personally need more knowledge to make the choice. My answer to that is (1) perhaps you are looking for the wrong sort of knowledge using the wrong assumptions, and the reasons for that might be good or not, (2) we don’t know what opportunities and revelation God is willing to give you if you are willing, and (3) we don’t know how God will judge your intentions in the end.
I think it is a good argument to discuss, for it brings out some interesting points. I’d be interested in your comments, especially if you think the argument can be renovated to fit in these things. Thanks.
LikeLike
Eric,
I may have failed to fully appreciate your qualifier, but I think this actually highlights a problem: if the FaithStreet article is defining faith in a way that does not require religion then that quote is not an appropriate citation in defense of the proposition that religious faith uniquely produces neurological advantages (i.e., advantages which are otherwise unattainable). Perhaps that is not what you intended to propose, but I submit that it is the proposition which is most readily inferred from your application of that quote. Why else would you use it to explain an issue that you suggest needs to be addressed by unbelievers?
This brings us to your request for justification of my statement that “it’s clear that religion is a vehicle rather than a driver”. First, note that my statement was intended only in relation to the FaithStreet article, but we can ignore that misunderstanding because I also suspect that it is generally true except where the religious “vehicle” cannot be duplicated within a non-religious worldview (e.g., benefits that might come from belief in an afterlife). I have read some of the research on the benefits of religious belief and practice – probably not as extensively as you have – and my recollection is that these often include an interpretation in which the advantage is theorized to obtain as a result of some attitude or practice that is not necessarily restricted to religion (except where it would be incompatible, as noted above). I am also unaware of any study which demonstrates advantages after explicitly controlling for religion separate from religiously motivated behaviors and attitudes. In fact, I’m not sure whether such a study is even practical due to the difficulty in reliably quantifying things like optimism and forgiveness. Regardless, this is what lies behind my suspicion that most of the benefits of religious belief and practice are otherwise attainable. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Lastly, if we go back to your original comment to Nate, you say that
I would be interested in seeing you defend the bolded statement. It’s one thing to observe that mindfulness / prayer / meditation improves cognition, but it’s a leap from there to the suggestion that believers are then more likely to get the right answers in general. It might be true that believers are more likely to engage in those activities, but there are then other biases which come into play that are diminished for the unbeliever (e.g., pressures toward in-group and doctrinal conformity). A general claim like you made would need to take everything into account.
LikeLike
Hi Travis,
“I submit that it is the proposition which is most readily inferred from your application of that quote. Why else would you use it to explain an issue that you suggest needs to be addressed by unbelievers?”
The context of my comments was Nate’s post, which suggested a bunch of questions and ideas that he felt theism couldn’t explain, and hence it was reasonable to doubt theism. So in response, I asked a few questions of my own, to see if he or others here could answer them based on reasonable evidence. So I didn’t use my observations to frame an argument, just ask some questions.
Furthermore, I didn’t claim too much. As your blockquote shows, I simply said “at least as well and possibly better”. That seems like a pretty modest claim to me.
“Do you have evidence to the contrary?”
This seems to me to be avoiding the issue. You made a very certain statement (“it’s clear that religion is a vehicle rather than a driver”) and you haven’t offered a reason to believe it. I merely offered a “possibly” and yet you are asking me for evidence?
In fact the evidence for “possibly” is quite clear. All sorts of studies show that all sorts of religious or spiritual beliefs or practices confer various benefits. In some cases the studies show that the benefits come from associated factors, such as social groups or a positive attitude, more often (I would say) they don’t define the how – because the studies weren’t designed to do that. (Obviously that would be a next step in research.)
So “possibly” is the very right word, I think. The benefits are there, the causes may be one thing or another. Sometimes the benefits are available to non-believers, sometimes it isn’t clear. That’s “possibly” surely?
And so I think it is reasonable for me to ask how atheists would explain these facts, based on evidence. I don’t think anyone has really done that yet, though at least you have had a go. And so my original point is made (I think). It is easy for Nate to find some difficulties, but just as easy for me to find some counter difficulties.
“I would be interested in seeing you defend the bolded statement. “
I would have thought this was a clear conclusion – if we are mentally healthier, we think better. Here is a quote from Andrew Newberg’s website:
“Beliefs can have different effects on our mind and body. Some beliefs might be called “constructive” because they help us better adapt to our world, make us feel positive about ourselves, and result in overall better physical and mental health. Some beliefs are “destructive” because they induce stress within us, worsen our health, or create antagonism and violent feelings toward others. One of the most important aspects of why beliefs can be constructive or destructive depends on whether they are exclusionary of other perspectives and how strongly they are held. The data indicate that all beliefs have their limitations because the brain has limitations. Thus, constructive beliefs help provide a sense of compassion for everyone else, who are also relying on their own beliefs—beliefs that also have limitations.”
And then there is this quote:
“The main reason God won’t go away is because our brains won’t allow God to leave. Our brains are set up in such a way that God and religion become among the most powerful tools for helping the brain do its thing—self-maintenance and self-transcendence. Unless there is a fundamental change in how our brain works, God will be around for a very long time.”
LikeLike
@unkleE, “Now it is not a perfect analogy (no analogy is), but it uses the same form of argument.”
No it is not a perfect analogy or even close with all due respect unkleE and here is why.
“1. The parents know plenty enough maths..”
Here the son knows his parents are real. The argument by the majority of people in this blog is that God is not real.
“7. However, they don’t complete the assignment and their son fails.”
What is the penalty for failing here ? The penalty for failing to accept a God you don’t believe in is eternity in a lake of fire or whatever unkleE believes in..
This is why I don’t think your analogy is close enough to use as an argument. Where am I wrong ?
LikeLiked by 1 person