In a recent interview, someone asked me, “If you think you’ve discovered the truth that there is no personal god, then how do you view the beliefs of Christians and other people of faith?”
I still think truth is objective. Either there is a personal god or there isn’t. Either I’m right or I’m not. Either religious ceremonies are sublime rituals that get us closer to our creator or ridiculous exercises devised by man to make us feel not so alone in this vast universe.
When I’m in my full-fledged atheist/deist mode, I have to admit that I can view people of faith as grown-up children who still believe in Santa Claus. In this space, the rituals of religion seem bizarre and a little hokey.
But most of the time, I’m not confident enough in my atheist/deist mindset to view people of faith as misled children who’ve grabbed on to an alternative to reality that cushions the hard truth that we are a) on our own and b) don’t have eternity to fall back on. I wish I had that confidence, just as I wish I had that confidence as a Christian.
For now, I can only say how I feel about my own journey. When I gain more insight, maybe I’ll be more strident in my views. But currently, I can only say how I feel about the authenticity of faith. I know too many people who are way smarter than me who are believers. It will take some time before I can take them on.
The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the god question is unprovable. And humility will serve me well.
The Latest on Faith and Doubt
2 responses so far ↓
1 Tim Stroud // May 13, 2009 at 1:19 am
Don’t “take on” people, “take on” ideas.
Or you might get physically injured.
Unprovable, therefore no certainty. Where there is no certainty, be humble.
Showing humility is also a very attractive talent by itself. The humble are our friends. They do not confront us, or conflict with us.
Someone who has certainty may still exhibit humility. (Huh? What?)
The religious need not prove their god. They are certain in their faith. Faith is not science. Faith is not established in a courtroom.
Faith, by it’s very nature, does not need what many call “proof”.
Do you have a desire for certainty? Certainty of faith can fill that desire. Since the religious have certainty of faith they need not be humble.
But if they are humble then they are our friends.
If you require proof that there is no god, proof of a negative, then it seems that you are at self-imposed disadvantage in any debate. (Well, that sounds like a loser.)
Your debate opponent may have a great faith and therefore a great certainty. Perhaps your debate opponent does not require proof because faith does not require proof. Your debate opponent may, by indirect methods, require you, an advocate of proof, to prove a thing which, by your own admission, cannot be proven.
And perhaps they may exhibit that thing which you know serves you well - humility. (Wait a second! I’m the uncertain one! I get humility, not you!)
We discuss in order to enlighten and for ourselves to be enlightened. We debate in order to persuade. Humility persuades. And can be used by both sides of a debate.
2 ronmorrison // May 13, 2009 at 2:25 am
STOP!!!
I certainly can appreciate your (all of our) interest in friendly - non confrontational - methods of debate and persuasion. There’s no argument that not being argumentative serves the greater cause of a particular discussion or transfer of ideas. Certainly I can appreciate humility in others and in myself.
Let us be clear - there is no humility in stating the fact that the Theory of Gravity will pull an object towards earth - rather it is irresponsible and potentially harmful to “passively suggest” that gravity might do so. Gravity is perhaps best understood in the light of physics … so too is the human presence, evolution, and existence.
As a people we are far too late in declaring the nonsensical essence of religion. It is time - for all the worlds’ sake that we (you and I) be assertive: say what needs to be said. That’s it. Without an intent to harm. Without an intent to persuade, simply to educate and move on.
Here’s an example. Imagine for a moment that you were transported back in time to approximately 220BC with all the knowledge that you have now. Would you allow the early astronomer Eratosthenes of Cryene to contemplate the earths’ roundness? Would you “humbly” allow the peoples of that time to “hang on” to the “belief” that the world was flat and by so doing allow them to continue to act and behave in accordance with their belief? No you would not. You would declare what you know and moreover you would work to prove and disallow for their continued behavior relative to their beliefs regardless of how it made them feel.
William you’ve done a wonderful service to mankind in your book. Stay the course. Like me, like many non-believers and like many begrudgingly-religious people, you are certain that there is not a god, a type of god, a collection of gods, or any other supernatural force other than the collective forces of nature and time which said collection could be described as supernatural. Remember even when we talk about not knowing specifically what happened in the galaxies billions of years ago that “years ago” or time dimensions - like religion - are also constructs of man.
Stop dancing around the subject. The sooner we move from the notion of “belief” as something tangible and personal the sooner we’ll solve the vast majority of the worlds challenges.
Humility - regarding religion - is a nice tool for human interaction. Ignorance - regarding religion - has proven to be devastating to the human walk. When someone asks you if there is a god simply tell the truth - the truth that you know. No there isn’t. It’s as simple as that.
You must log in to post a comment.