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 
Thanks Eric. I regret that my comments contributed to the more personal accusations levied against you, so I apologize in kind. I agree that some of the research is likely being dismissed and\or ignored without having been adequately engaged, but I hope that you can also see how some of the presentation may have contributed to that perception, even if it wasn’t deliberate. All sides have a learning opportunity here.
LikeLike
Powellpowers, good to hear from you.
Hopefully this explanation will work. I used patriarchy as an example of self-relevance to the issue of creating problems that need not exist. I doubt we have the same definition for patriarchy based on your response.
Consider a metaphor. Suppose I want to build a house. I rent a large excavator and dig a 30 foot hole and fill it in with concrete when I could have just used some 6 foot piers at load-bearing locations. I created a problem that did not need to exist! So I raise to everyone here, myself included, how many of these do we have in our worldviews? Because it seems to me convenient that anyone can have a royal flush in their worldview.
LikeLike
Charles,
While you haven’t been commenting here long, the vast majority of what you’ve been saying is just preaching. You keep quoting long sections of the Bible and just asserting that what is says is true, as though that’s going to mean anything to atheists. Since you claim to have been one yourself for so long, I’d think you’d realize that your approach is worse than useless — it’s a waste of time.
Notice the other comments here. They involve detailed questioning of the Bible’s claims and discussion about whether or not they can be trusted or are accurate. This is how we discover whether or not the Bible should be listened to.
Instead, you’re simply quoting passages that tell us what Christianity wants us to do. Well, so what? Most of us here aren’t Christians. It would be like me quoting sections of the Girl Scouts of America’s handbook to you, as though that’s going to mean anything to you. Demonstrate why we should care what the Bible says. If you can get us on the same page, then we’ll gladly transition to discussing what the Christian god wants us to do. Until then, please stop proselytizing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@UnklE, Dave, and Charles
Maybe some nomenclature would help. There seems to be 4 options:
1) Exclusivism – only faithful Christians will be saved
2) Inclusivism – faithful Christians plus “those who respond to what light they have” as CS Lewis expressed
3) Pluralism – there are many paths of salvation, pick a religion and be faithful
4) Universalism – in the end everyone will repent and be saved
If we are talking about biblical, I think 1) and 2) are top contenders, 3) is outright rejected and 4) is highly improbable given teaching on hell. Erik seems to lean towards 2) if I understand him correctly. Charles seems to lean towards 1).
Dave stated, “I would contend that an omnibenevolent God would not leave something like this to happenstance.”
Supporters of exclusivism (option 1) agree. Here is their thinking: God knows exactly who will be evangelized and respond affirmatively in history. This is God’s foreknowledge. Not only this, God also knows who would have responded affirmatively in optimal circumstances in history. This is God’s “middle knowledge” aka Molinism. As such, individuals whom God knows would have rejected the gospel in optimal circumstances can be put anywhere and anytime in history.
-Brandon
LikeLike
Hi Dave, I appreciate the opportunity to pursue this matter.
Firstly, let me say that you have made an argument, so it is up to you to demonstrate that each premise is true, or at least probably true. My task isn’t to prove at least one is probably untrue (though I think that is the case), but to offer you questions that you need a strong response to, otherwise you haven’t demonstrated that the premises are probably true. I don’t think you have yet done that.
“So in this case you’re suggesting that the requirement for this person is to “choose godly values”, whatever those might be, and that some people might obtain those without knowing it? I would contend that an omnibenevolent God would not leave something like this to happenstance.”
I think you are still thinking in terms of knowledge and rational demonstration, but these aren’t the only way God might communicate with us. For example, most people have a conscience, and many of the moral values in our consciences are common around the world. That is one way God has given us his requirements. Christians believe the Holy Spirit does the same to everyone. Most people have heard of at least one religion with beliefs that reinforce these things. And studies show a surprising number of people have experienced something they believe was God, in a healing, a sense of peace, a vision, a mystical experience, etc. I have made a study of these things and can amplify if you want. Then these is the witness of the universe, summed up in the cosmological and teleological arguments. These all are hints and clues that cumulate to a strong case to anyone who considers them all.
So I don’t think there is happenstance much – we all have enough light to respond or not, albeit differently.
“Let’s change the word impossible to unreasonable. #3: It is unreasonable to expect someone to love and follow someone else without being aware that they exist.”
Again, I think you are thinking too linearly and too much like a renaissance naturalist westerner. (Understandable, but there is other wisdom.) My exemplar is Jesus. You know the stories as well as I do. The historical evidence is accepted by almost all secular historians. I submit there is enough there for anyone to say “I like what this guy is about. If He is real, I’ll choose to follow him.”
Now with the greatest respect to you and Travis and Nate, who I respect very much, you all, if I understand your history, have moved away from belief in Jesus. (I reckon your problems were probably the church or the Old Testament more than Jesus, but you can correct me on that.) My question to all of you would be – if you accepted the broad historical accuracy of the gospels (I’m not talking about inerrancy or anything), would you think Jesus was worth following as an exemplar? If you wouldn’t, then it isn’t primarily historical evidence that you need but to be convinced that Jesus is worth following.
These comments are all tentative. depending on your histories which I don’t know well. But it seems to me that God could reasonably judge you as not responding to Jesus – certainly he said that to people at the time. I hope I don’t sound harsh, because it grieves me to write this, but that is how I see the answer to your question.
“In this case you’re suggesting that the requirement is to “honestly search for truth”. Again, how would anyone know to do this and in which way would they go about doing it?”
Fair question. I think we can leave it to God to know if we’ve done it or not, but the other part is trickier. I wonder whether we could answer if I asked how would anyone go about choosing a life partner? Most of us do it, more than half are successful at it, but there’s no rules, I don’t think. So I think here.
I think intention is important, so you asking these questions is very positive. I think questioning assumptions, looking at evidence, etc are all important. But probably most of all is asking God, if he’s there, to show us.
“Nate already pointed out the limits of being omnibenevolent. Also, no one is saying this God needs to force us to choose, he should just let us know that a choice exists (especially if we are expected to make a choice).”
I think one way or another he does, but it may not be in ways we recognise. And like I said before, knowing about the choice in some ways alters the choice. Who exceeds the speed limit if they know there’s a police radar trap coming up? So I think we are given enough – certainly you and I know enough – though I agree that I have trouble understanding some things. Like, does a baby that dies 5 minutes after birth have any choice? I have no answers to that.
“I am not aware of a deity, named God, that actually exists. I am, however, aware of a plethora of man-made writings on the subject.”
I think this is technical. You know that a God is alleged to exist and you know about Jesus in history. I suggest God may judge you according to what you do with that info, how much you seek him, but I’m not trying to second guess how he would assess that.
Finally, I must say, I am obviously not God, and I am just trying make sense of everything, the same as you. I’m not vain enough to think that everything I have written here is true. But I think (1) it seems to accord with scripture the universe, and (2) it throws your argument into doubt.
So I’m not trying to prove God here, just indicate why I think the arguments you and Nate have put forward are not as convincing as you think, and that there are also counter arguments of a similar form. Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Travis, I truly appreciate your generosity and thoughtfulness. Thanks. I don’t believe you contributed to anything bad, I think your contribution has been positive, but I appreciate your kind words. I can accept that my presentation may not have been the best. But I try to be brief and accurate. If it wasn’t said well enough, then I’m certainly sorry.
I have gone back over Newberg’s writings, I have taken many quotes, and I don’t think I misrepresented anything. I can only summarise briefly here, but I intend to blog all this in more detail. So in this long comment, I want to cover three things, which are not only addressed to you:
1. A summary of Newberg on these topics.
2. A defence of the accuracy of my previous comments and a look at why they were misunderstood.
3. A peace proposal.
1. In How God changes your brain Newberg outlines some of his findings (all the quotes are taken from his own summary of the book):
(a) Religions evolved to help humans resolve difficulties. They still work to do that. “Religion makes us more ‘human’ …. The old reptilian part of our brain selfishly fought for survival. while newer, more fragile parts struggled to form cooperative alliances with others.” (p18)
(b) All sorts of religious and spiritual practices contribute very positively to how religion benefits us. Four stand out to me – meditation (or prayer or mindfulness), faith (in the general sense we have discussed as well as the religious sense), contemplation of God, and other religious rituals. “the brain has two primary functions that can be considered from either a biological or evolutionary perspective. These two functions are self-maintenance and self-transcendence. The brain performs both of these functions throughout our lives. It turns out that religion also performs these two same functions. So, from the brain’s perspective, religion is a wonderful tool because religion helps the brain perform its primary functions. Unless the human brain undergoes some fundamental change in its function, religion and God will be here for a very long time.+”
Newberg’s website
(c) Now other secular practices can be substituted for religious ones, and they still work. Meditation can be non-religious. Faith can be in science or human nature. Contemplation can be of the universe or science generally. Non-believers can participate in religious rituals. All of this is true. But it also remains true that religion is the main way these things occur in our world. “Spiritual practices, even when stripped of religious beliefs, enhance the neural functioning of the brain in ways that improve physical and emotional health. …. the health benefits associated with meditation and religious ritual cannot be denied.” (p6,8)
(d) There are negative aspects to some religions, but they are not caused by religion per se, but by authoritarianism, which can equally affect non-religious people and groups. “The problem isn’t religion. The problem is authoritarianism, coupled with the desire to angrily impose one’s idealistic beliefs on others. One should also remember that during the twentieth century, tens of millions of people were killed by nonreligious and antireligious regimes, while far fewer have been killed in the name of an authoritarian God.” (p11)
(e) All this tells us something about human beings. “We realize that we can’t just look at people as biological. That seems to be the prevailing perspective on the medicine side. And more and more people are realizing that we are not just biological beings, but we are psychological, and social, and spiritual.” (Newberg quote)
2. So was I quoting fairly?
I invite anyone who questions these quotes to check out the references. In particular, look up his book on Amazon, “Look Inside” and read the first chapter, which is his summary of the whole book.
Then check out what I said previously, and you’ll find I covered all these points, even if only briefly – I made clear that secular practices worked well, but religion was the most common source of these practices. (For example, Ken referred to one page on my blog which shows I made the qualifications, but there is another page, Why your brain needs God where I gave the full quote on Faith, including the secular qualification, showing that I wasn’t trying to hide this.)
So it is true that religious belief and practices, especially meditation and contemplation, are very beneficial to the brain. It is also true that secular equivalents can be found. But it is also true that the most common way these practices are used is in religion.
I can’t see anything relevant that I didn’t at least mention. And remember, I didn’t make an argument based on all this, I just asked some questions.
So why was I so easily misunderstood?
I think there are several contributing causes.
(a) The internet breeds wrong ideas as well as right ones. Most people, especially most non-believers, know the claims Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and others have made about the harm done by religion, and many people believe them. But Newberg several times points out that they based their views on no data, and that the scientific data shows they were wrong. “Recently there has been a spate of antireligious books …. that argue that religious beliefs are personally and societally dangerous. But the research …. strongly suggests otherwise. Nor do we believe that these authors represent the views of the vast majority of scientists or atheists. …. the lack of empirical evidence that these writers have cited that even mildly suggests that religion is hazardous to your health. The psychological, sociological and neuroscientific data simply disagree.” (p6) Of course there are exceptions, but they are not the majority. It is time for people who want to be scientific to give up this myth.
(b) Once a viewpoint is held, it can be easy to resist changing. Newberg again: “The brain is a stubborn organ. Once its primary set of beliefs has been established, the brain finds it difficult to integrate opposing ideas and beliefs. This has profound consequences for individuals and society and helps to explain why some people cannot abandon destructive beliefs, be they religious, political or psychological.” (‘Born to believe’) So it is tempting to resist this new knowledge.
(c) How many people went back to the data and looked at what Newberg has written? If non-believers criticise christians for not caring about evidence, shouldn’t they care about it themselves? Instead, the whole idea of scientific study of religion was mocked, and several people accused me of dishonesty without showing any indication they had read Newberg for themselves. Why was this? Why engage in a discussion if you refuse to look at the evidence?
3. Having been very frank about all this, I want to now try to rebuild. And to make peace.
I dislike confrontation. I would much rather discuss amicably, as I can with Nate (the reason I still comment here), Travis and Dave. I appreciate their courtesy and friendliness. I want to be friends with everyone, as I said to Nan.
So why not? Confrontation does no-one any good. Newberg says that negative emotions, like in negative religion, but just as true about negative atheism, harm the brain, and leads to worse health and lower life expectancy. So it doesn’t do any of my critics any good. It also doesn’t do their “cause” any good either. Making insulting personal comments only shows those reading but not commenting that the person is speaking from emotion or dogma rather than facts.
I would dearly love to start again. I would be very happy to leave all this stuff behind and all of us move to constructive a friendly discussion that benefits us all. How about it?
LikeLike
@naivethinker
“I doubt we have the same definition for patriarchy based on your response.”
Perhaps, and perhaps I am assuming that would agree with me that patriarchy (at least my definition) would be something you are against.
Unfortunately I’m remain dim on your definition of patriarchy. I get your analogy about solving a problem that you yourself created, and I’m assuming that you are saying that there is nothing wrong with patriarchy and it’s just a matter of perspective.
Sure, I can get by that if I do understand your meaning of the word patriarchy, and your rationale of upholding this sort of family system. At the risk of sounding like a male chauvinist, between my wife and myself, my wife looks to me to make the final decision in almost everything. This makes her comfortable relying on me (and perhaps blame me when things turn south, but it hasn’t really happened yet), and when it’s the other way round, when I’m unsure what to do and look to her for guidance, she is visibly distraught and uncomfortable being the person making the call.
Is this patriarchy? Perhaps. Is this a result of her being indoctrinated that only men should make the decision? Perhaps (she is born in a rather conservative christian family. Her dad is an elder of a church that says drums are evil, so go figure. Oh and women should never teach men). But fact is she is comfortable with how we operate right now, and I have very little incentive to tell her to step up. Would she be better off if I so called “liberate her” from living under my decisions? I’m not sure to be honest.
I would say the circumstances might be rather similar to the examples i quoted earlier: muslim women saying they are comfortable and they prefer to wear burqa and only expose their eyes. And they get really stressed and distraught when we tell them having freedom is “right way” to go.
So yes, us telling muslim women that they are being oppressed. I would say there is some element of us creating a problem where there isn’t. But where do we draw the line? On the other extreme scale we have masochist that enjoy people torturing them, and they are distress when they are treated like normal human being. On the other femi-nazis are saying we need to liberate them, with good reasons too. What is the right thing to do?
In any case, perhaps it’s my comprehension skill, I failed to grasp in your past 2 posts what is the version of patriarchy you adhere to. Perhaps it’s in a long past post that I have missed, and for that I apologize.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi UnkleE,
“most people have a conscience, and many of the moral values in our consciences are common around the world. That is one way God has given us his requirements.”
Once again, I am going to contend that we have no way of knowing this is a requirement without being made aware that it is a requirement. It appears to me that our “conscience” is largely a product of our culture, our ability to empathize and how we are raised. It also appears that some people are born without an ability to empathize which has a great effect on their “conscience”.
Unless you object I am going to sidestep the Jesus topic for now since we’ve discussed that in the past. I’d like to try and narrow our conversation down to what I see as an important point: You think that knowledge of a choice will somehow affect the outcome of the choice and I think that knowledge of a choice is a prerequisite for being able to make the choice. In your speed limit example, we already have the knowledge of what speed limits are and how we are supposed to obey them. This was made clear to us from the proper authorities (the DMV here in the USA).
Imagine if various speed limit signs were being posted in hand-writing by whomever felt like it and no one really agreed on which ones to use or whether they were even necessary. We could even imagine that some of the signs were posted by people who believe invisible speed demons will condemn your soul if you don’t obey their particular sign.
I am curious what your response would be to this comment I made yesterday:
“Let’s say, for a moment, that Allah is real and that he was expecting you to perform the five pillars of Islam. How could you possibly make a choice to perform them or not in your current situation? Wouldn’t you first need to know that Allah was real and expecting it of you?”
LikeLike
Eric,
There’s an interesting topic for discussion here, but don’t think there’s much value in rehashing previous comments and continuing to discuss “quote etiquette” so, as you suggested, let’s start fresh and get down to brass tacks.
I perceive that you asked question #2 in your original comment because you believe that the ‘benefits of religion’ research points to an aspect of the world that is more probable on theism than atheism. I’ll take a wild stab and guess that this is because you think it improbable (or at least significantly less probable) that an unguided evolutionary process would result in human brains which benefit from religiously motivated attitudes and behaviors, compared to what might be expected from theistically guided evolution.
If this doesn’t align with your reasoning behind your original question, then please correct and clarify.
LikeLike
@Powellpowers
Women in the Middle East do face oppression. An oft cited example is women cannot drive vehicles in Saudi Arabia. How this relates to patriarchy will depend on how we define patriarchy, so I’ll type up some of my thoughts here.
I should mention there are multiple views on patriarchy in the Christian community. One view substantially agrees with feminists and sets patriarchy in opposition to egalitarianism as injustice to justice. Supporters include evangelical theologian John Stackhouse, Jr. Stackhouse argues that God tolerates and sometimes accommodates patriarchy but points us (especially in the New Testament) towards egalitarianism.
My view is that patriarchy and egalitarianism are a false dichotomy. Instead, patriarchy is a description of how several ancient societies organized to face the challenges of survival, including existential threats, and to best reproduce. Think of it in terms of evolution like survival of the fittest. Matriarchal societies did not succeed. In this way, patriarchy is not inherently evil, rather it is a description. On a smaller level, I would say yes, your marriage based on what you said seems to be patriarchal by this definition, but I trust that you are not oppressive and selflessness guides your family decisions.
Now suppose a hypothetical ancient society was patriarchal and also believed that women to be inferior and even legislated misogyny. I would classify this as an oppressive patriarchal society. In the Roman Empire men had the right to basically cheat on their wives and this was not reciprocated. Roman men had the right to order their wives to abort unborn children which was a very dangerous procedure. Female infanticide was rampant; we have unearthed ancient sewers clogged with female infant bones. Sociologist Rodney Stark proposes that the female surplus of ancient Christians is a major factor in their outgrowing the Pagans and eventually becoming the dominant religion.
In contrast to an oppressive patriarchy, I think an ideal (covenant-abiding) ancient Israel would not be oppressive to women. Maybe the best counterargument would be the Levitical priesthood as restricted to men. However, it might have been given by God on the basis of some deeply held cultural convention. Perhaps it was like the situation with your wife where she wants delegate some responsibility to you, but on a societal level. Either way with the New Covenant, we know this divine law was not meant to be permanent. The point would argue that a convention like using male pronouns and genealogies is not inherently oppressive or evil.
LikeLike
@anaivethinker
Thanks for the clarification.
I think we are mostly on the same track, just that perhaps my justification would be using the innate difference between men and women via evolution, while yours would be based on god divined assignment (which could still be nature, just that it’s god’s given nature if we accept that god created us/nature).
The only issue I have is, how then do we differentiate oppressiveness vs natural healthy patriarchy? I mean at the extreme ends it is easy to spot, but I do think that just like racism, moderate sexism is hard to detect and eliminate.
Or perhaps there is no need to eliminate since it is not causing any problem just like you alluded to in your previous post.
Oh well, just musing on my end haha. Thank you for humoring me.
LikeLike
Hi Dave,
I think we are thinking in really different ways, so I want to focus most on describing those differences (less on arguing why I think the way I do).
I think of God like he is a person, with all the mercurial qualities that real people have, plus of course, being way beyond my understanding. So I think he responds to different people differently, he behaves in ways that are consistent to him but may seem inconsistent to us. He is often surprising, just as real people are. And because he is so very much “above” us, we often can only speak of him by analogy.
It seems to me that you are approaching these questions about God more like he is the subject of a philosophical syllogism or a science experiment to which these will be on understandable conclusion. (I am not being rude, just trying to define differences.)
So I think my more fluid approach may be a little frustrating to you, and I’m sorry about that, but it must inevitably be that way.
So when I suggested 5 possible ways God might reveal truth or himself to us, I didn’t mean them as alternatives, but as all possible in different situations. Likewise, when you ask about my view that “knowledge of a choice will somehow affect the outcome of the choice” vs your view that “knowledge of a choice is a prerequisite for being able to make the choice”, I think both of those statements are true in different circumstances.
So it is not that I think knowledge isn’t good, it is that I think it will be necessary in some cases (e.g. for a person seeking the truth and very open-minded), helpful in some cases but not determinative (e.g. for a person not seeking truth and not open-minded), and not very necessary in others (e.g. for people in non-christian cultures who will be judged by their response to their conscience, as Romans 2 says).
Now I can see from your perspective that what you write here is true, but I’m hoping you can see why I have maintained differently from my perspective. None of which determines which is actually true. But the point is that to make an argument, you need to be able to address all these different possibilities, not just assume your approach.
“Let’s say, for a moment, that Allah is real and that he was expecting you to perform the five pillars of Islam. How could you possibly make a choice to perform them or not in your current situation? Wouldn’t you first need to know that Allah was real and expecting it of you?”
Yes, of course. That would be the first case I outlined above. But what if Allah was merciful and knew I hadn’t had the opportunity to know those pillars, but had nevertheless lived a caring moral life that actually fulfilled several of those 5 pillars, and so accepted me anyway (which would be the third of my cases)?
LikeLike
“I perceive that you asked question #2 in your original comment because you believe that the ‘benefits of religion’ research points to an aspect of the world that is more probable on theism than atheism. ….. If this doesn’t align with your reasoning behind your original question, then please correct and clarify.”
Hi Travis,
I honestly don’t think I had thought it out quite that clearly. I don’t think I am clear myself about the implications of Newberg’s research yet. That was one reason why I asked the questions. I wanted to see how Nate explained those things.
But you are right that I do think it is at least possible that the evidence might point this way, if considered in conjunction with other facts. At the very least, the evidence seems quite consistent with theism.
I was reacting to Nate’s argument that facts he found difficult to explain if theism was true led to the conclusion that theism wasn’t true. Well I think atheism finds many facts about neuroscience and psychology difficult to explain, so I thought I’d try to show that difficulty works both ways.
In a way I succeeded in an unexpected manner. I think most people here sensed an agenda greater than I had, and so few chose to engage with Newberg’s writings, which may have illustrated something different but still interesting.
LikeLike
If you substitute ‘racism’ for ‘patriarchy’, you may begin to answer the question what’s wrong with it.
LikeLike
There are a few reasons why I didn’t engage with that point.
1) This point primarily speaks to utility — it’s apparently beneficial to have faith. Well, that may be true, but the utility of a belief doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on the truth of that belief. Kids might behave better if they believe Santa is watching, but that doesn’t mean he is.
2) As you said in your original comment, these findings didn’t depend solely on religious belief. People with positive outlooks or with strong convictions about a particular thing did well, too.
3) If we still maintain that religious belief is useful and important based on findings like these, they still don’t point us to any particular god. As I understand it, it’s not like only adherents to a particular denomination did well — the results were good across sectarian divides. To me, this says much more about the power of positive thinking and belief in general — traits that don’t depend on a god at all. But even if there was a god behind it, it doesn’t seem to be the god of any particular religion.
Personally, I don’t believe there are any gods at all. I believe we live in a naturalistic universe. However, I’m not dogmatic about that belief. I could easily be wrong — maybe some mysterious cosmic being is the root of all things. So I rarely argue for complete naturalism.
On the other hand, I’m much more confident that the gods of religions (Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, etc) are all man-made. When we have these kinds of discussions, I feel like the arguments most theists turn to are arguments for the prime-mover kind of god. But that’s not the god they believe in. I’d rather see them explain why their particular god exists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eric,
There was a typo in your comment, let me fix that for you:
…because it is an extremely complex, elusive, dynamic, immature and diverse area of study. Qualifiers aside, would you propose that the current state of neuroscience and psychology is probably more consistent with theism than atheism?
I agree, but keep in mind that the perception of an agenda may not have been completely unjustified (but let’s not go there again). Regardless, it does seem a bit odd to me that these findings are sometimes uncritically dismissed as unscientific. From a naturalistic perspective, religion is a ubiquitous byproduct of the evolution of the human psyche. As such, it might be surprising if it wasn’t in some sense advantageous. The unwillingness to grant anything positive to religion conflicts to some degree with the view that religion has naturalistic origins. It reminds me a bit of a post I recently encountered which aimed to clarify the purpose behind Neitzsche’s famous “God is dead” passage. To quote the summary:
The secular movement would do well to take heed of both Neitzsche and neurotheology.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe religion had a great and significant purpose in human societal evolution and maybe that purpose is now gone. Maybe besides being gone, it is now the thing that is holding is back from further progression.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“From a naturalistic perspective, religion is a ubiquitous byproduct of the evolution of the human psyche. As such, it might be surprising if it wasn’t in some sense advantageous”
A placebo for the mind possibly ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve said this before, but I don’t think that an idea of god is inherent, but rather humans are inherently inquisitive and we want answers.
I think it began with questions like, “where did we come from,” “where did the sun come from,” “what are the stars,” etc. with many of these questions not having readily available answers or the means to answer them, so “god(s)” became a quick answer that satisfied the questions well enough for mankind to move along.
Making sense of god(s) led to religion.
Some religions portrayed a benevolent father/mother god that wanted what was best for us, and this no doubt let to certain courage or positive outlooks while going through hardships and various trials. But like nate pointed out, a positive outlook by atheists also benefit from those positive, yet ungodly outlooks.
Making sense of religion leads us to atheism… or at least out of religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe, but it’s interesting to note that the placebo effect can be very real. Sometimes we treat placebo as a synonym for “self deception”, but that isn’t accurate. The placebo is usually a stimulus into a casual chain that produces real results. So religion may be meeting a real need. It will be key to the success of a secular society to (a) determine whether that’s true, and (b) if so, to accurately understand the niche that religion fills and identify how to successfully navigate that before uncritically ridding ourselves of a working solution. The work that Newberg and others are doing is a step in that direction.
LikeLike
RE: “the universe exists and is ‘fine-tuned’“:
LikeLiked by 1 person
it would be very interesting ig they could discover a meaningful difference between religions, denominations, and even belief vs non-belief in regard to these studies.
Without that, it seems a bit pointless in the way of assigning any real significance to theism over atheism
LikeLike
” if so, to accurately understand the niche that religion fills and identify how to successfully navigate that before uncritically ridding ourselves of a working solution”
I get that and appreciate it. I’m not out to rid religion as a solution per se. I think it needs to be fine tuned however so that we don’t have people using their religious experience to do harm to others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi UnkleE,
Thanks for laying out the differences as you see them in both of our perspectives. For the record, I do not find you rude or frustrating.
“Yes, of course. That would be the first case I outlined above. But what if Allah was merciful and knew I hadn’t had the opportunity to know those pillars, but had nevertheless lived a caring moral life that actually fulfilled several of those 5 pillars, and so accepted me anyway (which would be the third of my cases)?”
I was assuming that you had come across these five pillars at some point in your life. In which case you were given some amount of “light” as you call it and might somehow be more culpable. Was that your implication when you wrote: “God (I think) judges according to the light we have been given. If that is so, you don’t need to worry about not knowing, you only have to worry if you have responded to the light you have been given. (Which of course, in your case, if christianity is true, is considerable.)”
LikeLike
Good grief, Travis.
You state, ” From a naturalistic perspective, religion is a ubiquitous byproduct of the evolution of the human psyche. As such, it might be surprising if it wasn’t in some sense advantageous. The unwillingness to grant anything positive to religion conflicts to some degree with the view that religion has naturalistic origins.”
Umm, no. No. NO!
This kind of crap claim is what’s ubiquitous and it’s wrong. Factually wrong. It’s a gross distortion of our understanding of how and why the brain applies AGENCY. Not Oogity Boogity!. AGENCY. There’s a really important difference.
Religion is not a ubiquitous byproduct of evolution. If it were, there would be one religion that emerges from our shared biology. There isn’t. That’s a clue…
Spirituality is not a ubiquitous byproduct of evolution. If it were, there would be one spirituality that emerges from our shared biology. There isn’t. Another clue missed…
So what does ‘religion’ mean in this neurological sense? Well, this is where honest neuroscientists move away from theology altogether (because it’s unhelpful and leads exactly nowhere) and leave it in its archaic and superstitious past where it properly belongs. What we’re talking about in neuroscience has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘religion’ or ‘spirituality’ and everything to do with brain function.
What is often stolen from neurology and reclassified – as a mewling kowtow to the religious – is this distortion, as if ‘religion’ and/or ‘spirituality’ is really equivalent and synonymous with the biological impetus for our species to award AGENCY to unknown phenomena.
It’s not. At all.
This assumption for awarding AGENCY is not ‘religion’. It’s not ‘spirituality.’ By no stretch of the imagination can this award be considered either… unless you think it is a ‘religious or ‘spiritual’ encounter when your toast burns and you swear at it or your car doesn’t and you appeal to it to behave. You take it personally when this stuff happens, as if the machine possessed AGENCY. It’s why we talk to our computers and cell phones and other inanimate objects and urge them to do as we wish. We AWARD agency so that we have the biological means- the ability for our brain – to ‘put ourselves in the phenomena’s place’ and, by doing so, try to gain a first person understanding of INTENTION and MOTIVE from a third person perspective.
That’s not religion. That’s not spirituality. That’s awarding AGENCY.
We know perfectly well that the car’s engine isn’t filled with little malicious spirits and invisible magical critters. The awarding has nothing to do with the OBJECT being personified. It has nothing to do with believing in some divine and creative Oogity Boogity! exercising POOF!ism as if this were an evolutionary benefit as so many ill-informed people twist this data into suggesting. This is not the case. What is the case is the biological and shared brain function of awarding agency.
This is the biological reward: assuming the rustling int he grass is an agency with intention to harm us. That assumption is not a religious one. It s not a spiritual encounter. It is strictly a fast way for us to assign an advantageous response in that we can be wrong 99 times out of 100 and live to reproduce compared to the person who assumes it’s only the purposeless and unguided wind and be right 99 times out 100 whose bones make a tasty treat for the stalking lion’s or tiger’s offspring.
The ability to use our brains and imagine putting ourselves in the position of others has a HUGE evolutionary advantage in social function and mating. If you don;t know this, you probably haven’t successfully mated.
Again, this is not about religion. It’s not about spirituality. It’s about reproduction. It’s about getting laid. Those who continue to claim this ability to award agency as if evidence for a biological basis for ‘religion’ and/or ‘spirituality’ are using such nebulous terms to disguise the paucity of knowledge behind it yet handy for appealing to believers that their superstitious beliefs are not just reasonable but natural. This is a tremendous distortion.
The position that making superstitious claims about hidden causal agencies are somehow compatible with the method of science and equivalently comport to inquiring about reality is nothing more than osculating the rump of faith. The methods themselves are in constant conflict and the explanatory model each produces repeatedly and to ill-effect are unquestionably incompatible. When it comes to describing reality and how it operates, only one of these methods doesn’t belong here. Let me help: it’s the one that assumes Oogity Boogity! is a reasonable and equivalent explanatory model, that there really are malicious spirits inhabiting your coffee maker.
LikeLiked by 1 person