I have lately been contemplating a question about God and God's existence. I have not been contemplating whether or not God exists, but rather whether or not it matters if God exists. This train of though has been fueled by my constant interaction with Agnostics/Atheists as well as reflections on Pascal, Feuerbach, Heidegger and Dostoevsky.
To begin with, one must first understand how exactly this question is different than "Does God exist?" For starters, this question is not changed by the actual answer to that question, but the answer that we personally give this question does affect whether or not we think that it matters. Secondly, this question is a much more advanced one than the previous, and if one contemplates the latter rather than the former, he will achieve a greater understanding of not only human nature, but also the mechanics of religion, philosophy, and especially ethics.
To answer the question, we must ask what many cultured critics of our time have come near, but few have ever really grasped. We must ask the merits of the current system of beliefs across the globe and what would be the alternate (ie, if religions and philosophies of today were non-existent, what would be the effect?). Many critics proclaim boldly that religion is a blight and that humanity would be much better without it. Many state that religions provide faulty ethics and a faulty reasoning for accomplishing ethics. Many attribute the majority of conflicts to religious differences. So, to ask whether it matters if there is a God is to directly focus on these accusations and the overall consequences of siding one way or another.
Let us first remember that religions have been around for a very long time. Where there have not been "religions," there have been philosophies. This is still true today. The men and women who decry organized religion often ally themselves with some form of a philosophy, though we often don't recognize it since they are not preaching in the agora. Thus, they are still holding onto a set of beliefs. However, rather than asserting divine knowledge they assert some other principle, logic, for example, or scientific discovery, or simple observation or something else. Often, these people fail in similar ways to the fundamentalists and extremists of religion, and don't quite follow the tenets of their beliefs, but this will be addressed later.
As far as ethics go, one has to realize that our sense of ethics is, very much, derived from our culture and our religions and philosophies. In fact, to attack religion full on for it's ethics causes a logical contradiction. For most people who condemn the ethics of religions must take a morally relativistic stance, considering by their own words they don't stand behind a specific creed or guided set of principles, yet in this same stance, they cannot take a position against such sets of principles without betraying the single ethical idea of relativism, namely that nothing is wrong. However, it is also the case that to attack religion for its use of eschatology as a way to moderate ethics is also to take a stance more on religion's turf than one realizes. For the idea that "virtue ought to be done for the sake of virtue" is an Aristotelian idea, an idea which in the West was translated by one St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, universities and students. Even its promulgation today was a result of Catholic scholars in the early twentieth century returning to Thomistic Philosophy. Thus, even in condemning religion for eschatology, critics must borrow from religion to do this.
To think of all conflicts as arising from religion is plain ignorant. I have stated my reasons for thinking this way before, and to save space, I will simply state that many conflicts, especially wars in the previous 300 years, have had no religious component whatsoever, and those which did, were wars that were specifically twisted in order to appeal to the religious of an area. Wars have been fought for millenia.
So now that I've addressed several criticisms against the idea of the existence of God, or at least religion, I shall try to answer the main question of this post. It seems to me that it does not matter whether or not God exists. For if God truly does exist, then a lot of people have been right about a lot of different things. However, if God does not truly exist, then our sense of ethics, our ideas of compassion, etc, are pointless and nullified since it all amounts to nothing in the end, yet it still provides those who live religious lives a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Nietzsche said that Christian ethics were made up and derived, but he admired how effectively they worked, even so much that "the great politicians of Germany, brutes and terrible men, call themselves Christian." Feurbach himself saw that Christianity, though he had no faith in it, provided a means for relieving alienation that people feel, a way to feel real love and give us an ultimate example in Jesus for us to follow. Heidegger saw the lack of faith that humanity was experiencing and the consequent loss of humanity and famously said (as I have quoted multiple times) "Only a god can save us."
Though Pascal often gets a bad reputation from cultured critics, and is highly misinterpreted even among theists, his so-called "wager" lays out a fairly summary argument for the case. If there is a God, then righteous and virtuous behavior (and most certainly belief) can only do one good in the hereafter. If there is no God, and we cease to exist with death, then Christian living can do no harm to us.
Of course, Pascal was a notorious Jansenist who believed God would be angry at sinners. The average Christian, and especially Catholic, of today would not share the same sentiments as Blaise Pascal. Furthermore, the issue is even further complicated with globalization and the knowledge of other religions and their doctrines, practices and ethics. This, however, is a much different question from whether or not God exists, as well as whether it matters. The reality is that living a life that is truly in line with what one's faith teaches them is not only good in the sense of Christian and most modern understanding of good, but is also the easiest way to promote peace and unity.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Only a God Can Save us
The famous (though controversial) German atheist philosopher Martin Heidegger once said, with regards to the human condition and the reality of alienation, "Only a god can save us." From a Christian standpoint, this statement seems ironic. An integral part of Christian belief is the doctrine that Jesus is God Incarnate, and that through Jesus we are saved, thus, God has saved us. However, Heidegger was an atheist. This rouses (in my mind at least) interesting questions about atheism and the true condition of humanity.
First, let it be noted that atheism is never simply atheism. Agnosticism can be true agnosticism, but atheism is almost always a rejection of a specific idea of God. One reads in Feurbach, for example, a different idea of atheism than one reads in Nietzsche. Both were compatriots and contemporaries, but Feurbach was raised in a Catholic household while Nietzsche was raised Lutheran. Thus, when they write texts that are profoundly atheistic in nature, one notes a sort of Lutheran or Catholic mentality, whichever the case may be. Thus it is that when a person decides for his or herself that there is no "God" they are almost always rejecting the version of "God" that some religion or another has pitched to them. Often times, the alternative to atheism is not agnosticism but conversion to a different faith. It's very easy for one to say, "I don't believe that there could be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who resembles a big white man with a big white beard" and either convert or reject theism altogether. Agnosticism, then, is what results when one decides he doesn't have enough information to make a call either way.
This is historically true and we can observe it all the way back to Socrates. Socrates is accused of being an atheist by the Athenians, but Socrates points out that he frequently mentions the "demigod" who directed him. Christians were charged as atheists by emperors such as Nero and Calligula, and now are regarded as the opposite. Heretics in the Church, including the Arians and Manichees have been regarded as atheists as well. Atheism is always contextually based.
The second thing is the state of the human condition. Heidegger was referring, in part, to the advent of new technology and how it's alienating us from ourselves. The piece I quoted from was written in 1969, after the first lunar landing. He was still years away from such technology as the internet and cell phones, and he was worried that we were becoming too alienated.
To show how much of an issue technology really is, one can note that there is much controversy surrounding the internet and it's many corrupt uses. I noted in a piece earlier that due to the anonymous nature of the internet, people have shown a very dark side of their nature. Without going into the nature of many of the different evils abundant, let it suffice to say that in my own opinion the internet has more on it of lesser value than of greater. I know this statement seems a bit of a nonsequitur because I am posting it on the internet, but the fact is that there is some advantage to this technology. Correspondence occurs faster, information can be quicker obtained, and people can exchange ideas better than ever before. However, when weighed against the evils, I am not confident that the goods outweigh. I, like Heidegger, am a bit reluctant to trust that all technology is a betterment for our race.
Take for a second example, the cell phone. While it is useful in contacting people who are not around, it can cause problems when one is interacting face-to-face with someone else. How often do people answer their phones in public, or talk about personal or private matters while walking down the street, with several different people in earshot?
But I digress. The point is that human beings are becoming more and more alienated from each other. Yes, we live in larger cities than ever before, but people are spending more and more time alone and less time with other people. One thing that I think all people, atheist and theist alike, can agree on is that interaction with our fellow human beings is by and large a good thing.
When we get to know other people, we see the human--not the "other"--but the person. We see that other people are like we are. We see that just because somebody is not the same ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation or religious creed does not mean that she does not feel the same feelings, think with the same method or have similar aspirations. Everybody wants to be happy. Everybody wants to take care of those they love. Everybody wants to have what they need to live. However, we often go about these things in different ways--ways that lead us to conflict and to de-humanizing people.
Thus, Heidegger thinks that there needs to be some kind of binding force, a god, if you will, who will bring people together. This god will transcend the differences of peoples and overcome what we think separates us.
This is where Heidegger's statement becomes ironic, for in the message of Jesus we see this. Jesus taught all people. He spread the word to sinner and saint alike. He commanded us to do likewise, to welcome the stranger and feed and take care of the hungry and sick. His words "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me," "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and "The second commandment is likewise, you shall love your neighbor as yourself" all show us the way to overcome alienation. One doesn't need to convert the world to his religion to be redeemed with humanity. One doesn't need to convert to another's philosophy either for her to be brought to completion. All we need to do is follow those simple tenets. And then, wouldn't a God have saved us?
First, let it be noted that atheism is never simply atheism. Agnosticism can be true agnosticism, but atheism is almost always a rejection of a specific idea of God. One reads in Feurbach, for example, a different idea of atheism than one reads in Nietzsche. Both were compatriots and contemporaries, but Feurbach was raised in a Catholic household while Nietzsche was raised Lutheran. Thus, when they write texts that are profoundly atheistic in nature, one notes a sort of Lutheran or Catholic mentality, whichever the case may be. Thus it is that when a person decides for his or herself that there is no "God" they are almost always rejecting the version of "God" that some religion or another has pitched to them. Often times, the alternative to atheism is not agnosticism but conversion to a different faith. It's very easy for one to say, "I don't believe that there could be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who resembles a big white man with a big white beard" and either convert or reject theism altogether. Agnosticism, then, is what results when one decides he doesn't have enough information to make a call either way.
This is historically true and we can observe it all the way back to Socrates. Socrates is accused of being an atheist by the Athenians, but Socrates points out that he frequently mentions the "demigod" who directed him. Christians were charged as atheists by emperors such as Nero and Calligula, and now are regarded as the opposite. Heretics in the Church, including the Arians and Manichees have been regarded as atheists as well. Atheism is always contextually based.
The second thing is the state of the human condition. Heidegger was referring, in part, to the advent of new technology and how it's alienating us from ourselves. The piece I quoted from was written in 1969, after the first lunar landing. He was still years away from such technology as the internet and cell phones, and he was worried that we were becoming too alienated.
To show how much of an issue technology really is, one can note that there is much controversy surrounding the internet and it's many corrupt uses. I noted in a piece earlier that due to the anonymous nature of the internet, people have shown a very dark side of their nature. Without going into the nature of many of the different evils abundant, let it suffice to say that in my own opinion the internet has more on it of lesser value than of greater. I know this statement seems a bit of a nonsequitur because I am posting it on the internet, but the fact is that there is some advantage to this technology. Correspondence occurs faster, information can be quicker obtained, and people can exchange ideas better than ever before. However, when weighed against the evils, I am not confident that the goods outweigh. I, like Heidegger, am a bit reluctant to trust that all technology is a betterment for our race.
Take for a second example, the cell phone. While it is useful in contacting people who are not around, it can cause problems when one is interacting face-to-face with someone else. How often do people answer their phones in public, or talk about personal or private matters while walking down the street, with several different people in earshot?
But I digress. The point is that human beings are becoming more and more alienated from each other. Yes, we live in larger cities than ever before, but people are spending more and more time alone and less time with other people. One thing that I think all people, atheist and theist alike, can agree on is that interaction with our fellow human beings is by and large a good thing.
When we get to know other people, we see the human--not the "other"--but the person. We see that other people are like we are. We see that just because somebody is not the same ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation or religious creed does not mean that she does not feel the same feelings, think with the same method or have similar aspirations. Everybody wants to be happy. Everybody wants to take care of those they love. Everybody wants to have what they need to live. However, we often go about these things in different ways--ways that lead us to conflict and to de-humanizing people.
Thus, Heidegger thinks that there needs to be some kind of binding force, a god, if you will, who will bring people together. This god will transcend the differences of peoples and overcome what we think separates us.
This is where Heidegger's statement becomes ironic, for in the message of Jesus we see this. Jesus taught all people. He spread the word to sinner and saint alike. He commanded us to do likewise, to welcome the stranger and feed and take care of the hungry and sick. His words "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me," "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and "The second commandment is likewise, you shall love your neighbor as yourself" all show us the way to overcome alienation. One doesn't need to convert the world to his religion to be redeemed with humanity. One doesn't need to convert to another's philosophy either for her to be brought to completion. All we need to do is follow those simple tenets. And then, wouldn't a God have saved us?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Intelligent debate
Though I claim to be no expert, I have recently concluded that there is a rather high percentage of internet users have no sense of reality.
Firstly, it seems that there is an abnormally high rate of atheism on the web. Not to say that all atheists are idiots, but there is most certainly a difference between informed atheism and ignorant atheism. There are plenty of atheists who stand behind Richard Dawkins without ever reading his The God Delusion or being aware of the real issues behind atheism. Scientific evidence or theories are touted as definitively disproving God. Theists are ridiculed and harassed to no end.
However, one must also understand that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. As of yet, God's existence has been solely relegated to the realms of philosophy and theology. There are evolutionary biologists with strong convictions in God. Likewise, many astro-physicists and various other scientists are known to have theological beliefs. At the same time, not all those who we would consider to be simpletons or of little intelligence are theists or even Christians. Barring the blatant example of many of the internet "trolls," atheists can be found in even the most backwater hollows and uneducated villages. Thus, atheism and theism cannot be strictly assigned to those we view as "educated" or "uneducated" without revealing a bias within ourselves that denotes simple prejudice and ignores reality.
Regarding the high occurrence of i-atheists--what causes this, I wonder? It seems that polls suggest that most of the country identifies with being theist, Christian, in fact. If this is the case, why does the bulk of internet literature provide a very antichristian message? Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of people we find on the internet.
So I come to my second point. It seems that the internet, or at least much of the posted stuff on the internet is relegated by the base and grossly immoral. When pedophilia, cancer and the Holocaust can be used as objects of comedy, one must seriously question the ethics of those making such jokes and those laughing at the same jokes.
Given real world situations, these jokes would find themselves limited to very few instance of acceptance, all of which involve the immature and the unrefined. This is where the internet shows reveals a dark secret: identity thereon is by and large anonymous. One can easily access the internet under any given guise he chooses for himself and can access it in any given place. There are no real world repercussions, provided that actual information is not supplied. Thus, the geeky kid who sits quietly in class can become a god among his peers without them knowing who he is.
I feel that this tells us something very shocking about human nature. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, as I've hinted at, some of the most heinous and ethically wrong things have been posted and made fun of. There is no taboo on the web. Thus we are given a pure glimpse into the nature of human beings. This is a discussion for another day, but the question arises as to whether or not humans are good simply because of social pressures or whether the social situation determines ethics.
This leads to a third point. The internet is the medium of the up-and-coming generation. Our parents and grandparents live by the ethical standards of their generations. Rarely do you find a middle-aged or senior person who is as proficient at navigating the internet as their younger counterparts. Thus, we see that the children of today are being raised in a dual setting: one in which they are given a basic set of morals, customs and beliefs and another wherein those are attacked and mocked. We see the youth of today being taught by their peers at 50mbps that the entire system of morals and ethics they've been raised with are decrepit and outdated.
Thus we are beginning to see what seems to be the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy that "the hearts of the children of men will wax cold," or even Nietzsche's prediction that "the peasant shall dance with satyr-like gyrations." What was heralded as wrong or taboo is swiftly being undone in such a way that the ethics of the old world might very well be on the brink of being completely abandoned.
I abandon my point, however. I would like to emphasize that the internet is rapidly producing some of the most unscrupulous and unintelligible rubbish ever to be seen in history. My fear is that the ability to engage in intelligent, rational conversation is being lost as memes, lolcats, and unintelligible webcomics and blogs take over the entirety of people's lives. Perhaps the solution, then is to try to engage those who post in forums to use real language and debate with logical discussion.
Firstly, it seems that there is an abnormally high rate of atheism on the web. Not to say that all atheists are idiots, but there is most certainly a difference between informed atheism and ignorant atheism. There are plenty of atheists who stand behind Richard Dawkins without ever reading his The God Delusion or being aware of the real issues behind atheism. Scientific evidence or theories are touted as definitively disproving God. Theists are ridiculed and harassed to no end.
However, one must also understand that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. As of yet, God's existence has been solely relegated to the realms of philosophy and theology. There are evolutionary biologists with strong convictions in God. Likewise, many astro-physicists and various other scientists are known to have theological beliefs. At the same time, not all those who we would consider to be simpletons or of little intelligence are theists or even Christians. Barring the blatant example of many of the internet "trolls," atheists can be found in even the most backwater hollows and uneducated villages. Thus, atheism and theism cannot be strictly assigned to those we view as "educated" or "uneducated" without revealing a bias within ourselves that denotes simple prejudice and ignores reality.
Regarding the high occurrence of i-atheists--what causes this, I wonder? It seems that polls suggest that most of the country identifies with being theist, Christian, in fact. If this is the case, why does the bulk of internet literature provide a very antichristian message? Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of people we find on the internet.
So I come to my second point. It seems that the internet, or at least much of the posted stuff on the internet is relegated by the base and grossly immoral. When pedophilia, cancer and the Holocaust can be used as objects of comedy, one must seriously question the ethics of those making such jokes and those laughing at the same jokes.
Given real world situations, these jokes would find themselves limited to very few instance of acceptance, all of which involve the immature and the unrefined. This is where the internet shows reveals a dark secret: identity thereon is by and large anonymous. One can easily access the internet under any given guise he chooses for himself and can access it in any given place. There are no real world repercussions, provided that actual information is not supplied. Thus, the geeky kid who sits quietly in class can become a god among his peers without them knowing who he is.
I feel that this tells us something very shocking about human nature. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, as I've hinted at, some of the most heinous and ethically wrong things have been posted and made fun of. There is no taboo on the web. Thus we are given a pure glimpse into the nature of human beings. This is a discussion for another day, but the question arises as to whether or not humans are good simply because of social pressures or whether the social situation determines ethics.
This leads to a third point. The internet is the medium of the up-and-coming generation. Our parents and grandparents live by the ethical standards of their generations. Rarely do you find a middle-aged or senior person who is as proficient at navigating the internet as their younger counterparts. Thus, we see that the children of today are being raised in a dual setting: one in which they are given a basic set of morals, customs and beliefs and another wherein those are attacked and mocked. We see the youth of today being taught by their peers at 50mbps that the entire system of morals and ethics they've been raised with are decrepit and outdated.
Thus we are beginning to see what seems to be the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy that "the hearts of the children of men will wax cold," or even Nietzsche's prediction that "the peasant shall dance with satyr-like gyrations." What was heralded as wrong or taboo is swiftly being undone in such a way that the ethics of the old world might very well be on the brink of being completely abandoned.
I abandon my point, however. I would like to emphasize that the internet is rapidly producing some of the most unscrupulous and unintelligible rubbish ever to be seen in history. My fear is that the ability to engage in intelligent, rational conversation is being lost as memes, lolcats, and unintelligible webcomics and blogs take over the entirety of people's lives. Perhaps the solution, then is to try to engage those who post in forums to use real language and debate with logical discussion.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
religio fidesque populis
The true Christian faces an unfair attack. Firstly, he must deal with the harrassment from the pugnacious non-believer. This includes not merely atheists and agnostics, but also those from other faiths as well. This isn't to say all people who are not Christian are bellacose, but there are those who attack Christianity from an outside perspective. Secondly, the Christian must also face the infidelity and persecution from other so-called Christians.
I shall address the issue of the so-called Christian first. Kierkegaard pointed out that not everyone who was under the banner of "Christianity" really followed Christ. For this purpose, SK preferred to refer to the Christian world, specifically Christian Europe, as Christendom.
I agree with this idea. Christianity has become too much of a world power. Granted, the Papal States are now reduced to simply the Vatican, but in America you can only get so far without claiming Christianity. Granted, Europe has lost it's Christian fervor, but here in the states, the name of the game is Evangelism and a great power lies behind it. However, the issue is not Christianity having a growing number of followers. On the contrary, the issue is Christianity relaxing the definition of what it means to be Christian. It is, however, the issue of abandoning basic Christian principles such as humility, charity, and patience while still claiming our actions to be the will of God. No person can take us seriously while we declare our selfish and destructive behaviors to be those of good Christians.
On the other hand are the non-believers. The true Christian faces ridicule from them precisely because of those so-called believers, Christendom. A person of good faith with works to support it and a true understanding of Christ's message is not the same as the person who attacks biological study on the basis of a message that doesn't align with the Genesis account of the beginning of the world. If we are truly working as Christ's messengers, then what atheists say should not become an issue for us to crucify them.
I am reminded of Islam from about 1000 to 1200. Muslim scholars endeavored to be scientifically minded and our own modern "scientific method" was devised by Muslim scientists. However, they didn't question their faith, no matter what results were found. A Muslim whose scientific data seemed to contradict his faith would normally choose one of the following options: either he was wrong about his experiment and misinterpreted the data, or he misunderstood his own faith. Never did they assume that their faith was completely incorrect. Nor did they ever question the empirical evidence before them. What they faced was a synthesis of science and faith, one that theologians and philosophers have been attempting to continue, but also one where the screams of the confused masses are heard loud and clear over the whispers of those who would seek to ease the tension.
Perhaps truly where Christianity started to go wrong was where every religion has. Historically speaking, religions tend to be ok until they become nationalized. Islamic theocracies tend to exhibit policies that are justified only because one امام (Emam) interpreted the اهدث (ahdith) and the قورأن (Qur'an) a certain way. Hindus in India exhibit violence because they are the national religion. Christianity went sour when Constantine made it the official religion of the empire. All of a sudden, what had been a way of life for those who truly believed in the teachings of Christ, now became a civil advantage to those in the Roman empire. A Christian, or at least someone who claimed to be such, had a measurable advantage over a pagan or a Jew. For Christianity in the rest of the world at the time, there were no such disadvantages. Thus, in the Middle East, Christians were a non-violent people, who still resembled their predecessors while those in Europe became increasingly more self-serving.
The same can be said for even sects of Christianity. A Lutheran in Germany had an advantage over a Catholic, to the point of blood, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In Northern Ireland today, a people who are officially protestant (the Northern Irish) are up against a people who had traditionally stayed Catholic (the Irish in general). And voters were surprised in 1960 when a Catholic was elected into the highest seat of power in a predominately Protestant nation.
But this even transcend the border of simple faith traditions. Nations that are officially atheist demonstrate this same kind of forced bullying with their ideals. The former Soviet Union took over many territories and nations that had been Christian and outlawed religion and atheist China went to arms against peace-loving, Buddhist Tibet. So we see that even the ban of religion is itself a national religion.
But the Christian man must overcome all this. He must truly be the Christian. He must not only be a martyr, but also an apologist. As Simone Weil said of her life, he must stand at the crossroads. He must be willing to bridge the gap that the human race is tearing into itself.
As men and women of faith, we ought to know that science cannot disprove our God. We cannot prove Him, but we cannot either disprove Him. Furthermore, we ought to know that because of this, we should net let our faith be shaken by this. We must stand firm in our faith, but must also be able to withstand the buffets of those who stand against our faith and those who parade about and make a mockery of it. The tragedy is that we are the minority trying to stand out against a majority that claims our name and another large group that associates us together. It is our duty to reach out to the world and show love and wisdom in our faith and lives.
I shall address the issue of the so-called Christian first. Kierkegaard pointed out that not everyone who was under the banner of "Christianity" really followed Christ. For this purpose, SK preferred to refer to the Christian world, specifically Christian Europe, as Christendom.
I agree with this idea. Christianity has become too much of a world power. Granted, the Papal States are now reduced to simply the Vatican, but in America you can only get so far without claiming Christianity. Granted, Europe has lost it's Christian fervor, but here in the states, the name of the game is Evangelism and a great power lies behind it. However, the issue is not Christianity having a growing number of followers. On the contrary, the issue is Christianity relaxing the definition of what it means to be Christian. It is, however, the issue of abandoning basic Christian principles such as humility, charity, and patience while still claiming our actions to be the will of God. No person can take us seriously while we declare our selfish and destructive behaviors to be those of good Christians.
On the other hand are the non-believers. The true Christian faces ridicule from them precisely because of those so-called believers, Christendom. A person of good faith with works to support it and a true understanding of Christ's message is not the same as the person who attacks biological study on the basis of a message that doesn't align with the Genesis account of the beginning of the world. If we are truly working as Christ's messengers, then what atheists say should not become an issue for us to crucify them.
I am reminded of Islam from about 1000 to 1200. Muslim scholars endeavored to be scientifically minded and our own modern "scientific method" was devised by Muslim scientists. However, they didn't question their faith, no matter what results were found. A Muslim whose scientific data seemed to contradict his faith would normally choose one of the following options: either he was wrong about his experiment and misinterpreted the data, or he misunderstood his own faith. Never did they assume that their faith was completely incorrect. Nor did they ever question the empirical evidence before them. What they faced was a synthesis of science and faith, one that theologians and philosophers have been attempting to continue, but also one where the screams of the confused masses are heard loud and clear over the whispers of those who would seek to ease the tension.
Perhaps truly where Christianity started to go wrong was where every religion has. Historically speaking, religions tend to be ok until they become nationalized. Islamic theocracies tend to exhibit policies that are justified only because one امام (Emam) interpreted the اهدث (ahdith) and the قورأن (Qur'an) a certain way. Hindus in India exhibit violence because they are the national religion. Christianity went sour when Constantine made it the official religion of the empire. All of a sudden, what had been a way of life for those who truly believed in the teachings of Christ, now became a civil advantage to those in the Roman empire. A Christian, or at least someone who claimed to be such, had a measurable advantage over a pagan or a Jew. For Christianity in the rest of the world at the time, there were no such disadvantages. Thus, in the Middle East, Christians were a non-violent people, who still resembled their predecessors while those in Europe became increasingly more self-serving.
The same can be said for even sects of Christianity. A Lutheran in Germany had an advantage over a Catholic, to the point of blood, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In Northern Ireland today, a people who are officially protestant (the Northern Irish) are up against a people who had traditionally stayed Catholic (the Irish in general). And voters were surprised in 1960 when a Catholic was elected into the highest seat of power in a predominately Protestant nation.
But this even transcend the border of simple faith traditions. Nations that are officially atheist demonstrate this same kind of forced bullying with their ideals. The former Soviet Union took over many territories and nations that had been Christian and outlawed religion and atheist China went to arms against peace-loving, Buddhist Tibet. So we see that even the ban of religion is itself a national religion.
But the Christian man must overcome all this. He must truly be the Christian. He must not only be a martyr, but also an apologist. As Simone Weil said of her life, he must stand at the crossroads. He must be willing to bridge the gap that the human race is tearing into itself.
As men and women of faith, we ought to know that science cannot disprove our God. We cannot prove Him, but we cannot either disprove Him. Furthermore, we ought to know that because of this, we should net let our faith be shaken by this. We must stand firm in our faith, but must also be able to withstand the buffets of those who stand against our faith and those who parade about and make a mockery of it. The tragedy is that we are the minority trying to stand out against a majority that claims our name and another large group that associates us together. It is our duty to reach out to the world and show love and wisdom in our faith and lives.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Atheism from the perspective of a theist
In my experience, true, abject atheism is hard to come by. The reason being is probably because we live in such as theistic world that fully being able to deny any God existing has some kind of logical contradiction associated with it.
This isn't always the case, but I will try to explain it as well as I can. Pascal (whom I've already written about) stated that only the truly irrational deny any existence of a God, because in this existence they are inevitably damning themselves to either non-existence after life (if they are correct), or to eternal damnation. In Pascal's mind, the rational person will either believe in a God, or, failing to have enough faith for that, will at least seek some kind of God, not being content with the idea that there is no God and not being content with not knowing (an agnostic who stopped searching for God would be irrational).
And, in fact, in the world of philosophy, when atheism became a real factor, it was represented by Nietzsche, whose denial of God was so complete that he even completely denied the ethics of believers as having any real value to them.
But we have lost that sense today. We live in a morally relativistic world where we often forget that many of the basic fundamentals we follows (those not found in the universal law that all humans follow) are the result of our Christian heritage. But Nietzsche understood this. Furthermore, he understood that a lot of these basic guidelines we follow are the only things restricting us from being utterly and completely base and selfish. He understood that all humans have the "will to power" which he hypothesized governs our lives.
So, for Nietzsche, the fear of an imaginary God was a silly one, and the inhibitions that normally prevent us from trampling everyone in order to further our own desires was a silly list of pointless rules.
However, in today's world, the atheist finds himself often following these rules. Upon questioning, I find that I rarely get a coherent response as to why we, as selfishly driven humans, would ever sacrifice anything great for little or nothing (like the martyrs for example). Of course, the promise of a glorious afterlife seems to be the basic reason for a lot of people's ethical choices. In fact, I would go so far as to say most of Christendom follows many of their principles for that reason. Likewise, many other basic components of decency are lost because of their lack of emphasis in Christendom.
However, the one thing I am most perplexed about is how someone can fully deny the existence of a god. I understand that one can not believe in God, just as someone else can. However, while God is not provable, at the same time, God is not disprovable. I can claim to feel God's presence, or have a mystical experience, or see miracles or appeal to the order of the universe and our bodies, and someone else can just as easily call my experiences psychological, the miracles to be chance events and the order to not be order, but just the result of a chaotic explosion billions of years ago. However, in these refutations, my opponent has never shown how his thoughts prove no God. After all, God could have caused the big bang, evolution, chance events that continue to happen today and could have altered my psychological state to experience His presence.
So in my thinking, it makes more sense to state that one is an agnostic. It is clearly easier to say that one does not think that there is a God because he has never seen proof enough than for someone to claim that there is no God because he has apparently come by some knowledge that clearly demonstrates that there can be no God.
And so I rest with my first statement: atheism, as atheism is irrational. However, I must also add that dogmatic belief as unquestioned adherence to an unexamined tradition is also irrational.
This isn't always the case, but I will try to explain it as well as I can. Pascal (whom I've already written about) stated that only the truly irrational deny any existence of a God, because in this existence they are inevitably damning themselves to either non-existence after life (if they are correct), or to eternal damnation. In Pascal's mind, the rational person will either believe in a God, or, failing to have enough faith for that, will at least seek some kind of God, not being content with the idea that there is no God and not being content with not knowing (an agnostic who stopped searching for God would be irrational).
And, in fact, in the world of philosophy, when atheism became a real factor, it was represented by Nietzsche, whose denial of God was so complete that he even completely denied the ethics of believers as having any real value to them.
But we have lost that sense today. We live in a morally relativistic world where we often forget that many of the basic fundamentals we follows (those not found in the universal law that all humans follow) are the result of our Christian heritage. But Nietzsche understood this. Furthermore, he understood that a lot of these basic guidelines we follow are the only things restricting us from being utterly and completely base and selfish. He understood that all humans have the "will to power" which he hypothesized governs our lives.
So, for Nietzsche, the fear of an imaginary God was a silly one, and the inhibitions that normally prevent us from trampling everyone in order to further our own desires was a silly list of pointless rules.
However, in today's world, the atheist finds himself often following these rules. Upon questioning, I find that I rarely get a coherent response as to why we, as selfishly driven humans, would ever sacrifice anything great for little or nothing (like the martyrs for example). Of course, the promise of a glorious afterlife seems to be the basic reason for a lot of people's ethical choices. In fact, I would go so far as to say most of Christendom follows many of their principles for that reason. Likewise, many other basic components of decency are lost because of their lack of emphasis in Christendom.
However, the one thing I am most perplexed about is how someone can fully deny the existence of a god. I understand that one can not believe in God, just as someone else can. However, while God is not provable, at the same time, God is not disprovable. I can claim to feel God's presence, or have a mystical experience, or see miracles or appeal to the order of the universe and our bodies, and someone else can just as easily call my experiences psychological, the miracles to be chance events and the order to not be order, but just the result of a chaotic explosion billions of years ago. However, in these refutations, my opponent has never shown how his thoughts prove no God. After all, God could have caused the big bang, evolution, chance events that continue to happen today and could have altered my psychological state to experience His presence.
So in my thinking, it makes more sense to state that one is an agnostic. It is clearly easier to say that one does not think that there is a God because he has never seen proof enough than for someone to claim that there is no God because he has apparently come by some knowledge that clearly demonstrates that there can be no God.
And so I rest with my first statement: atheism, as atheism is irrational. However, I must also add that dogmatic belief as unquestioned adherence to an unexamined tradition is also irrational.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Deus humanibus creatur
Ecumenism in an extremely broad sense has been on my mind lately. Not strictly the ecumenism sought after by Zinzendorf and Vatican II, but the ecumenism that Thomas Merton seemed to be pursuing toward the end of his life--the ecumenism that transcends religious boundaries, not simply denominational ones.
I've heard on multiple occasions the phrase, "God did not create man, man created God." On the surface, atheists tend to think that this witty phrase demonstrates a defendable argument. However, I think that this notion shows us something about ourselves, and our natural tendency to believe.
I think about this because for all of written time mankind has believed in supernatural forces. The oldest texts scholars have found are religious texts. The ancient Mesopotamians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Germans, Persians, Indians, Native Americans, Incans, Aztecs, Mayans, Olmecs, Chinese, Arabs, Babylonians, Canaanites, Irish, Norse, etc all have texts or records that tell about their gods. Even today, out of the five biggest religions in the world, only one is not yet two thousand years old (Islam wasn't founded until the sixth century).
So why is it that all men, at all times have had beliefs in some super-powerful figure? Oft times, even those not in mainstream religions have their supernatural beliefs, such as Socrates' spiritual messenger, and today's superheroes.
Some people have noted that oft times the gods of yesteryear are related to elemental forces. Zeus, Thor, and Jupiter, for example, are all the god of thunder. Hel, Hades, Pluto, and Osiris are all gods of the underworld. Demeter is the goddess of the seasons. Frey is the god of fertility. Apollo and Ra are the god of the sun. Tyr is the god of victory. Neptune, Aegis, Poseidon are gods of the sea. Some gods even take on the role of certain occupations. Balder is the poet. Hermes is the messenger. Vulcan is the smith.
This of course tells us something about the human condition. Humans are superstitious. Even today, with all the explanations science gives us, we get spooked easily walking through a cemetary at night, become wary when we see "a bad omen" and think that some outside condition, such as a certain clothing article, is the cause of our ability to win at some sport.
But why are humans eternally superstitious? In the twentieth century, the former Soviet Union officially banned all religion because religions tell their members to pledge allegiance to God above the state. By removing religion from the people, the state effectively made themselves a religion. Propaganda about the motherland and new ethics were given to the people. All the facets of life that a faith system would normally provide, such as direction and community, were attempted to be replaced by the state.
But even for the atheist, there seems to be a greater power. Sometimes it is simply relegated as biology, instinct, chemistry, conditioning or other things. However, we seem to all feel as if there is something more at work than what we want to admit. Some call it fate, others providence. Some call it pure dumb luck and others call it chance. None of us feel as if we are in complete control. We all feel as if there is something bigger to which we must answer.
This is, in fact, one of the basic tenets of the Alcoholics Anonymous program. AA does not discrimate against atheists, but as part of the program, the alcoholics must answer to some kind of a higher power. That higher power need not necessarily be a god, or some super elemental force, but there needs to be one. It can, in fact, be something like one's children, spouse, employer, mentor, or anybody else. The fact of it is, though, they must report to somebody.
So it seems that the main thing that can be derived from this is that human beings inevitably find themselves dependent on somebody or soemthing. We rely, and put faith in something bigger than us.
To some, this demonstrates a kind of primitive, instinctual mentality that human beings have not fully grown out of. To me, this demonstrates a quirky fact about our nature that suggests to me that seems unexplainable unless it was purposefully left their by our creator.
I've heard on multiple occasions the phrase, "God did not create man, man created God." On the surface, atheists tend to think that this witty phrase demonstrates a defendable argument. However, I think that this notion shows us something about ourselves, and our natural tendency to believe.
I think about this because for all of written time mankind has believed in supernatural forces. The oldest texts scholars have found are religious texts. The ancient Mesopotamians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Germans, Persians, Indians, Native Americans, Incans, Aztecs, Mayans, Olmecs, Chinese, Arabs, Babylonians, Canaanites, Irish, Norse, etc all have texts or records that tell about their gods. Even today, out of the five biggest religions in the world, only one is not yet two thousand years old (Islam wasn't founded until the sixth century).
So why is it that all men, at all times have had beliefs in some super-powerful figure? Oft times, even those not in mainstream religions have their supernatural beliefs, such as Socrates' spiritual messenger, and today's superheroes.
Some people have noted that oft times the gods of yesteryear are related to elemental forces. Zeus, Thor, and Jupiter, for example, are all the god of thunder. Hel, Hades, Pluto, and Osiris are all gods of the underworld. Demeter is the goddess of the seasons. Frey is the god of fertility. Apollo and Ra are the god of the sun. Tyr is the god of victory. Neptune, Aegis, Poseidon are gods of the sea. Some gods even take on the role of certain occupations. Balder is the poet. Hermes is the messenger. Vulcan is the smith.
This of course tells us something about the human condition. Humans are superstitious. Even today, with all the explanations science gives us, we get spooked easily walking through a cemetary at night, become wary when we see "a bad omen" and think that some outside condition, such as a certain clothing article, is the cause of our ability to win at some sport.
But why are humans eternally superstitious? In the twentieth century, the former Soviet Union officially banned all religion because religions tell their members to pledge allegiance to God above the state. By removing religion from the people, the state effectively made themselves a religion. Propaganda about the motherland and new ethics were given to the people. All the facets of life that a faith system would normally provide, such as direction and community, were attempted to be replaced by the state.
But even for the atheist, there seems to be a greater power. Sometimes it is simply relegated as biology, instinct, chemistry, conditioning or other things. However, we seem to all feel as if there is something more at work than what we want to admit. Some call it fate, others providence. Some call it pure dumb luck and others call it chance. None of us feel as if we are in complete control. We all feel as if there is something bigger to which we must answer.
This is, in fact, one of the basic tenets of the Alcoholics Anonymous program. AA does not discrimate against atheists, but as part of the program, the alcoholics must answer to some kind of a higher power. That higher power need not necessarily be a god, or some super elemental force, but there needs to be one. It can, in fact, be something like one's children, spouse, employer, mentor, or anybody else. The fact of it is, though, they must report to somebody.
So it seems that the main thing that can be derived from this is that human beings inevitably find themselves dependent on somebody or soemthing. We rely, and put faith in something bigger than us.
To some, this demonstrates a kind of primitive, instinctual mentality that human beings have not fully grown out of. To me, this demonstrates a quirky fact about our nature that suggests to me that seems unexplainable unless it was purposefully left their by our creator.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Being a Christian in today's world
So I've realized that I write a lot about what it means to be Christian and how different it is from what we normally view as Christianity.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Fides et ratio
I stumbled upon the image above one night while procrastinating instead of homeworking. It's a photo-shopped image of one of the "Atheist buses." The actual buses are driving around London preaching to everyone that since there is "probably no god" they should "just enjoy [their] live(s)." Somebody thought it would be funny to make an even stronger comment on religion with photo-shop. I disagreed, and commented my thoughts on the subject and became engaged in a nice little conversation with some anonymous poster.But this is a position I have heard in various forms many times. I have heard many people talk about how dumb religion is, or how bad religion really is for humankind or how many attrocities have been committed by religions.
I would like to reply.
The fact of the matter is that if religion is responsible for a massive amount of bloodshed, science is just as culpable. Science in the twentieth century advanced so that we can now kill unparalleled numbers of people, all with the push of a button. Even the nineteenth century saw a new capability for bloodshed.
Starting in the 1800s Dr. Richard Gatling created the first automatic firearm, and shortly after, Alfred Nobel's work with nitroglycerin, gun cotton and dynamite led him to have such a guilty conscience that he created a peace award to make up for it. World War I brought in the horrors of mechanized warfare, the flame thrower, and, worst of all, the use of poison gases, the use of which prompted a special Geneva treaty against the use of chemical and biological warfare. Then came World War II and the catastrophic destruction wreaked when on August 6, 1945 we dropped the atom bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Of course, following this were nuclear proliferation treaties and various other acts against nuclear war (excepting the invention of Hydrogen bomb and the Cold War). Even after this, we used Agent Orange in Vietnam.
And what of religion in all of this? None of the nations involved in either World War were fighting for religion. But, in Vatican II, nuclear warfare was strictly condemned. The atrocities of the NAZIs have been repeatedly condemned by the Church.
On the other hand, religion has done great things in the last hundred years. Mother Theresa of Calcutta and Dorothy Day fed the hungry. Thomas Merton protested war. Rev Martin Luther King, Jr fought injustice and inequality. Pope John Paul II helped liberate Poland. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested for encouraging students to not fight for the NAZIs.
Granted, there have been attrocities committed by people claiming religion as the cause. But we must really ask ourselves, "Is religion the true motive?" Religion never teaches a man to kill his neighbor, nor does it ever teach him to take advantage or commit any injustice. However, evil men have used the name of religion to confuse others into committing horrible acts. Religious doctrines have never taught people to engage in mindless destruction or merciless violence.
However, against atheism, both Hitler and Stalin directed atheist states. Even more recently, Bosnia, still coming out of its socialistic, atheistic days, engaged in a effort of "ethnic cleansing."
Believers have a long tradition of examples to look up to. Jesus, the Buddha, the saints, the martyrs, and other have provided for us the lifestyles we should follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
