This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
A contemplative reader says he heard a good sermon at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Sioux Falls last Sunday. The headliner: Ronald Knapp, minister emeritus of First Unitarian Church of Omaha, who told the congregants why he is an atheist.
My correspondent forwards a 2007 PDF edition of Reverend (?) Knapp's sermon:
If we can - if the human race can - find a way to say “no, no, no" to the conventional faiths, and to the conventional gods, we can then say "yes, yes, yes," in reverence and awe, to a natural world as we now know it, a world where all human beings are members of one family, a world where all living things are interrelated, if we can - if the human race can - say “no, no, no" to the conventional faiths, and the conventional gods, we can say “yes, yes, yes" to an unfolding universe from which we have come and to which we shall return, a universe of oneness [Ronald Knapp, "Why I Am an Atheist," sermon, First Unitarian Church of Sioux City, 2007.09.16].
Curious: Does a pastor get to say things like that and still keep his ordained title?I would think if I regularly published articles about the Democratic Party's divisive and destructive effect on Western civilization, I'd have trouble keeping my post as Lake County Dems treasurer.
I do find the idea of a pastor delivering such a sermon an interesting exercise in intellectual openness and curiosity. I would think at the very least that conversation over coffee afterward was livelier than usual.
But church, as I understand it from my outsider's position, isn't about good conversation. You can certainly have good conversation at church, but church is about getting the Good News, and the Good News is the God News. You go to a church service to acknowledge and worship the Deity. A church can certainly host a speaker or a panel discussion on atheism or Judaism or Islam, but that's not a worship service. That's... something else.
Knapp describes himself as an "evangelical atheist." He separates "evangel" from sacred use and appropriates it for his own calling to spread the "glad tidings" of his naturalist, humanist message. Here Knapp chooses a different path from mine. I'm an atheist, but I don't evangelize. I resolved early on in my adult atheism not to invest much energy in encouraging people to abandon their faith and join me in a universe composed exclusively of atoms and natural forces. I decided I could make more productive use of my finite time and energy exhorting my neighbors to at least exercise their Christian principles consistently rather than trying to pry them away from those principles. (My call to Christian consistency is also much more fun.)
I say this not by way of criticism of the apostate Knapp. I welcome and admire fellow non-believers who are willing to present their non-belief openly and intelligently amidst the great Christian masses of the prairie. But Knapp raises an important question: Do we atheists really have an obligation to convert religionists to our non-faith?
No.
ReplyDelete"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-House
A couple of comments:
ReplyDeleteObligation in this context is defined as "A social, legal, or moral requirement, duty, contract, or promise that compels someone to follow or avoid a particular course of action."
Because my understanding of an atheist is one who believes there is no higher power which compels anything but hte individual himself is soveriegn, Cory only you can obligate yourself.
Now with regard to Ronald Knapp, his "religion" is less "atheistic" as it is pagan ("a world where all human beings are members of one family, a world where all living things are interrelated"-Ronald Knapp) or pantheism with reverence/worshipping of nature.
Paganism is a religion which revolves around a reverence/worship of nature as a god or gods. To the extent this god is intelligent is related to its "order" or "natural order." It doesn't "think" or have "will" as we apply it to God, the gods of Roman/Greek mythology, or even the Karma of buddhism.
Regarding your comment about him presenting his views "intelligently", I would characterize it as emotionally and selective.
He says since there so many "definitions of God" he goes on to assert it as a proof there is no God. While there might be many uses out there, the definition used by Catholics, Orthodox, Reformation Protestants, most non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslim's is hardly distinguishable. A.W. Tozer's book "Knowledge of the Holy" describes this universal understanding of God used by the aforementioned religions. Knapp's confusion on who God is to the religious only proves he doesn't understand those who believe in God. Not very intelligent in my mind if he wants to talk about God and religion. Most atheists are smarter than this.
Second, he likes to reference early Einstein who was agnostic (not atheist) but fails to acknowledge Einstein's "travels" led him to become a definite theist who saw God in an orthodox Jewish context.
Finally, reading Knapp from top to bottom, he doesn't make a case on why he believes there is no God but instead says he just does and he thinks that should be good enough and we should convince others he is right. In other words, Knapp has become his own god and he thinks he should be ours too. Sorry, Cory. Mr. Knapp isn't that smart nor that omniscient.
Tony,
I love that quote. It says more about the atheist than it does about the religious. It says "I find your religion unreasonable so I don't have to listen to you." Not very intelligent and way to self-centered.
Troy-
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your interpretation of the quote. To me, it points out the key difference between religious and non-religious people.
Every religion requires faith. Faith is the belief in something without proof. Religious people are WILLING to believe in something without proof.
Reasoning is the drawing of conclusions from proof. Religious people draw conclusions WITHOUT proof. They are not reasonable.
Now, whether being reasonable is a good or bad trait is up to the individual. Faith has been valued.
I have no idea where you get your last part "so I don't have to listen to you". Reasonable people do listen, but they dismiss any nonsense that is floated without proof.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteFaith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.
I have faith my wife loves me. I have faith my tires won't blow out when I drive down the highway. I have faith the hunter with me in the field won't point the gun at me and shoot me. None of which I can "prove."
Nonbelievers can't prove there isn't a God either as you can't "prove a negative." Using your logic, believers and nonbelievers are both "unreasonable."
Deductive reasoning requires "proof" to be valid. But inductive reasoning is taking all available information and coming to a conclusion based on that information. While I can't deduct by my wife's actions she loves me (she might be doing it only because she believes her action is ultimately good for her), I can induce she loves me.
If you live in a world that only deductive reasoning is legitimate, you live in a small world. And, it is this smallness on where I get the last part.
At the end of his life, Einstein induced there is a God. Call him unreasonable if you want. I find his conclusion consistent with my induction.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." (Albert Einstein)
Because Einstein was narrow (not in a bad way) with regard to only thinking about science and not philosophy, he had little understanding of how the God he imagined was a personal God (concerned about us mere humans) which impacted his concept of God. He struggled with "good and evil" in the world. But, in the end, he accepted the mystery of it which is quite close to a Jewish/Catholic understanding of suffering, good and evil.
But there is better examples than Einstein in science who also found it reasonable to believe there is a God.
Francis Bacon developed the scientific method (deductive reasoning for understanding nature) and advocated inductive method for finding truth in philosophy. I think (not sure) he was the one who said "theology is the melding of deductive and inductive reasoning" or "the melding of science and philosophy." Something like that.
Sir Isaac Newton was both one of the greatest scientists and mathmeticians in history but also devoutly religious.
Galileo scientific credentials are unquestioned and he never renounced his faith despite his personal persecution by the Church. In fact, when under house arrest he asked for regular visitation by a Priest and near daily reception of the Eucharist.
D'Vinci, Pascal, Copernicus, DeCartes, Mendel, Bruno, Pasteur, Kelvin, Fleming, Milne, Whittaker, Lemaitre, Dobzanzky, Pollard, ver der Ziel, and Smalley are just a few of the great scientific minds in history who were devoutly Christian or Jewish.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteTony, there are two logic arguments for you to consider for reasonableness.
First, Pascal's wager. In short, if there is no God, the believer and the unbeliever both end up as a pile of dust. But, if there is a God, the believer gains everything while the unbeliever loses everything. Which is most reasonable?
Second Occam's Razor. In short, this is the simplest explanation is the best. The reality of our existence as we know it requires an infinite number of coincidences or a Creator. Just a few changes in any one of the "laws of nature" (i.e gravitation, laws of chemistry, physics, biology) and there is no life, much less earth, planets, sun, etc.
Betting on an infinite number of coincidences will make you broke in Vegas unless the odds are in your favor. And, considering Pascal's wager, betting on the coincidences where you win nothing isn't very reasonable.
Now back to the beginning. Many of the list of great scientists on my list had faith before they developed their science. But a great many reasoned themselves to belief in God, including Einstein. Just recently a famous nuclear physicist died who spent his last years talking about how he reasoned himself to faith. I wish I could remember his name.
While none of this is likely to be convincing to you there is a God, I hope it causes you to reconsider your original statement religious people are unreasonable. Failure to reconsider belies a great deal of hubris. More importantly, it makes you what you are asserting against people of faith-unreasonable.
The problem one always bumps into in written conversations like these is that so much of what needs to be covered CAN'T be covered because it is is ineffable.
ReplyDeleteThat's why we have mathematics, oratory, art, music, dance, body language and yes, religion, ritual, etc.
I read just the other day that only something like 4 or 5% of all human communication is linguistic.
This is, of course, particularly distressing, especially for us mediocre writers (and readers.)
There... how's that for taking a long time to say basically nothing, Troy?
Om.
p.s. ...okay... here's the same idea
written another way:
"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."
—Tao Te Ching #1
"...let there be light" — Genesis
I'm told physicists find a strange concordance of Tao #1 to Quantum reality. But hey, what the hell do they know?
ReplyDelete;^)
Someone far smarter than ip said, "Theology is argument unbounded by the facts."
ReplyDeleteEarth is all that matters fellers.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. The Tao describes one searching for meaning and understanding. Love how he describes "God" as one who can't be named as it puts a limit on the infinite and parallels God's and Christ's simply saying "I AM Who AM" as there name is for us who are of "little mind" (ala Einstein)My response:
Mathew 7:7-8 ""Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
And in answer to the Tao who were searching, Paul brought to the Greeks the God they seek. (Acts 17: 22-24)
"Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: "You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.
For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you."
Seeking Truth and Understanding is good. What I don't get is "I know enough, I've found enough."
Sidenote: Got your email and consider it a "Godcidence." Since I am just a Pooh" (person of small mind) I can't handle two novenas and started this morning a novena to St. Anne (Mother of Mary and Grandmother of Jesus). Got a little grandparent to grandparent thing going on right now. :) Every few weeks, I get around to praying for you buddy. Love ya.
There was a great discussion on NPR about the coevolution of man and god. Of course, ip sees humanity as the swimming hominid.
ReplyDeleteI love watching smart people converse. I'll jump in later when I have a moment... but please continue!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Troy. I need all the help I can get, buddy.
ReplyDeleteTroy-
ReplyDeleteI'm going to start off by first addressing part 2 of your post.
Regarding Pascal's Wager, I propose that there are in fact several gods. Perhaps some of them are Norse in nature. One definitely is made of Spaghetti. If you don't believe in each and every one of them, the ones you don't believe in will drag you off to some place terrible for all eternity. And properly worshiping all of them requires a lot of time to avoid the terrible place. Are you going to believe in all of them?
Regarding Occam's Razor, first, if the rules of existence changed things would still exist, just in a different form. And honestly, we have no idea what kind of new physics would present themselves. You're trying to extrapolate rules that are beyond our capacity to measure. Second, God is the most complex answer to any question. It would be something that exists outside our existence. We can't possibly understand how such a thing could exist. At least with a series of coincidences we can understand the physics. Occam's razor is really only applicable to systems with rules that are well understood.
Now, back to the first part of your post.
ReplyDeleteI love your definition of faith. It invokes belief. But let's pull out the rest of that definition from the dictionary you copied it from:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Faith is believing without proof. I get it. So later on when you say that I can't "disprove god" does that mean you will believe in anything that I tell you that you can't disprove? Really?
If you take that stance you must believe in everything without discrimination. If I told you that god wanted you to give me all of your money, would you do it?
Can you prove that god didn't tell me that you are suppose to give me all of your money?
Of course not. That is logical hogwash. The only way to build up a world view is to start with NOTHING and only accept things for which there is proof.
Regarding your Einstein quotes, did I somehow invoke him as evidence for atheism? Also, why did you invoke the other scientists that were believers? Is your position that since some people who did science back in the day were believers that that is proof of a god?
I reject the conclusion that since someone believes in something I should believe in it as well. If you are versed in their arguments for a god, present them.
All arguments about faith and religion aside, the notion of a pastor who calls himself an atheist strikes me as bizarre and ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWhy go to a church to hear about atheism? I could just as well hang out at a saloon and drink alcohol-free tequila while puffing on a smoke-free cigar.
Allow me to offer this as a companion to
ReplyDeleteTroy and Tony's excellent discussion.
Frankly, I think Troy might find the math part far more entertaining than I do, but here it is anyway.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/simplex.html
Sorry Tony. I've not had enough conversations with you to speculate as to how you will respond to the Gödel article.
I will add that I think Einstein was a "monist" as opposed to a "dualist." He said as much, and was philosophically aligned with Baruch Spinoza.
In my mind, that doesn't make him either athiest or agnostic, but I suppose, bottom line, that's what this discussion is really all about, isn't it.
I do agree with you, Tony, about Pascal's wager. There are so many "God concepts" out there now than there were at the time of Pascal that I doubt even Pascal himself would take his own bet in today's theological melieu...
Or if he did, it would probably look more like some kind of "derivative" spiritual instrument. (Just kidding, Troy.)
Besides, what if the opposite is true? What if God rewards honest attempted reasoning and punishes blind and/or feigned faith? Either way, I've always been a terrible gambler.
As for Occam's razor, it's just a rule of thumb. It would be a lot simpler if the sun went around the earth like the moon does and if all the stars were the same distance away, but you know what, it doesn't and they don't. Sorry William.
It is what it is, Troy. You know? (Yes, I think you do, actually.)
Thanks for allowing my intrusion, fellas.
Carry on, please.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteBy definition for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God possesses what I call the "alls and omnis". While a Catholic, I don't see the mileiu Bill references but a whole lot of people at various stages of understanding of God. As I said before (and was said in the Tao), just the naming of God is a limitation of the I AM.
The multiple gods you describe (norse and spaghetti) is more like super beings who are inter-dependent. While interesting in concept, even in our small limited minds, logically it doesn't explain the answers to existence and isn't very sound conceptually from an intellectual point of view or consistent theology. This is why the Roman and Greek "theology" isn't even considered theology but mythology.
While you are conceptually correct regarding something different with regard to physics etc. would have a different result, as a scientist all evidence is there would not be life. For instance, slightly more gravitational pull between matter and the universe would have already collapsed upon itself. Slightly less and there would be no environment stable for long enough period to have allowed the evolution of life.
The laws of physics and science tell us one thing: Without a Creator, the fact we exist is an infinite number of very exact coincidences where the slightest variation would have one rational result: non-existence. You are in a minority even of atheist scientists who assert life would be possible with the slightest variation.
That said, your concept something else would exist under different laws no more supports their not being a Creator as there being one.
All I'm trying to refute is your original comment that faith and belief is unreasonable. Greater minds than yours (and mine) have concluded it reasonable.
Your intransigence that it is unreasonable or "nonsense" because it doesn't pass your empirical demand for only deductive reasoning is unreasonable as it is what is called "severe skepticism" which is unpractical and belies an attitude one knows all that is to be known.
Intellectually there is a place for what is called "practical skepticism" which allows one to look first for that which can be supported by deductive reasoning. But because of our limits, to rely only on deductive reasoning is unreasonable. Because of our limits, we have to concede we can't and don't know everything so it is reasonable to reach conclusions inductively (leaves open the possibility the position might be proven untrue with additional information).
But because you can't prove there isn't a God, the rejection of God is beyond your knowledge for you to be certain (reasonably).
Tony, you might be right. But too much of my experience and inductive reasoning indicates to this mind (equally limited to yours) God exists. My problem isn't with the intellectual reasoning but my challenges submitting to that what I find reasonable: A soveriegn Creator God.
More to come
Part 2
ReplyDeleteNow this all said, as I said earlier "Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing." Inductively in your life you place faith in alot of things you can't prove (including your belief there is no God).
My question to you: While you might find your faith more reasonable than mine, is it really reasonable to be "severely skeptical" that my faith is unquestionably unreasonable?
Tony, faith has many definitions. For a believer it is the one I used. For me, I might not be able to offer you sufficient proof (as you seem to demand only deductive proof sufficient) but I have sufficient inductive proof.
The second one doesn't apply as inductively I have sufficient proof and material evidence. The fact you don't have the same information and experience for proof doesn't make you wrong or me right. My information and experience might be incomplete causing me to reach a wrong conclusion. Similarly, your lack of information and experience (or openness) might be causing you to reach a wrong conclusion.
But, again, my inductive proof is logical and based on material evidence. Your demand only deductive proof doesnt' refute the potential for inductive reasoning to be right.
Regarding your other comments and questions, I will not accept whatever you say that I can't disprove and I'm not asking that of you. I'm just trying to refute your contention believers are unreasonable. We have reasons that are just as intellectually valid as yours (even if we disagree).
And, I list all those people of faith who were great scientists only to point out great intellectual minds (some of the greatest in fact) found faith to be reasonable. And to assert your demand for only deductive proof is unreasonable as you don't demand it for everything in your own life.
I only invoked Einstein as Knapp invoked Einstein (Cory's original impetus for this thread).
As a blog is insufficient for me (and would be insulting to those men of faith I listed) to try to describe how they came find faith reasonable (and many wrote books on it), I always find it ironic that those who claim to be the most "reasonable" have read so little (if anything) from great scientists on why they held faith in God. I've read Dawkins "God Delusion" and Hitchens "Portable Atheist." While not agreeing with them and finding Dawkins not very deep, I did find Hitchens thought provoking.
While I haven't read it (and hear it is rather deep), Whittaker's "Space and Spirit. Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of God" is supposed to be good. Similarly Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Institute) wrote "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Easier reads that I have read are "Case for a Creator" and "Case for Christ" by Strobel. But, for you Tony, maybe his book "Case for Faith" might be illuminating for you. :)
Finally, I'm not trying to convert you. In fact, I am not a loud or aggressive evangelist. I try to live by the following principles on this matter.
Spread the Gospel always. Use words only when necessary. (St. Francis).
I don't convert. The Holy Spirit converts. I just hope to converse when and how the Holy Spirit wants me to.
PI pray I say the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason. I'm on God's agenda and not mine.
My entry into this discussion was because Cory said Knapp made a strong intellectual case for atheism. I happened to disagree as I've read stronger cases.
My discussion with you is motivated because I disagreed with your premise people of faith are devoid of reason.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteNow this all said, as I said earlier "Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing." Inductively in your life you place faith in alot of things you can't prove (including your belief there is no God).
My question to you: While you might find your faith more reasonable than mine, is it really reasonable to be "severely skeptical" that my faith is unquestionably unreasonable?
Tony, faith has many definitions. For a believer it is the one I used. For me, I might not be able to offer you sufficient proof (as you seem to demand only deductive proof sufficient) but I have sufficient inductive proof.
The second one doesn't apply as inductively I have sufficient proof and material evidence. The fact you don't have the same information and experience for proof doesn't make you wrong or me right. My information and experience might be incomplete causing me to reach a wrong conclusion. Similarly, your lack of information and experience (or openness) might be causing you to reach a wrong conclusion.
But, again, my inductive proof is logical and based on material evidence. Your demand only deductive proof doesnt' refute the potential for inductive reasoning to be right.
Regarding your other comments and questions, I will not accept whatever you say that I can't disprove and I'm not asking that of you. I'm just trying to refute your contention believers are unreasonable. We have reasons that are just as intellectually valid as yours (even if we disagree).
And, I list all those people of faith who were great scientists only to point out great intellectual minds (some of the greatest in fact) found faith to be reasonable. And to assert your demand for only deductive proof is unreasonable as you don't demand it for everything in your own life.
I only invoked Einstein as Knapp invoked Einstein (Cory's original impetus for this thread).
As a blog is insufficient for me (and would be insulting to those men of faith I listed) to try to describe how they came find faith reasonable (and many wrote books on it), I always find it ironic that those who claim to be the most "reasonable" have read so little (if anything) from great scientists on why they held faith in God. I've read Dawkins "God Delusion" and Hitchens "Portable Atheist." While not agreeing with them and finding Dawkins not very deep, I did find Hitchens thought provoking.
While I haven't read it (and hear it is rather deep), Whittaker's "Space and Spirit. Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of God" is supposed to be good. Similarly Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Institute) wrote "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Easier reads that I have read are "Case for a Creator" and "Case for Christ" by Strobel. But, for you Tony, maybe his book "Case for Faith" might be illuminating for you. :)
Finally, I'm not trying to convert you. In fact, I am not a loud or aggressive evangelist. I try to live by the following principles on this matter.
Spread the Gospel always. Use words only when necessary. (St. Francis).
I don't convert. The Holy Spirit converts. I just hope to converse when and how the Holy Spirit wants me to.
PI pray I say the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason. I'm on God's agenda and not mine.
My entry into this discussion was because Cory said Knapp made a strong intellectual case for atheism. I happened to disagree as I've read stronger cases.
My discussion with you is motivated because I disagreed with your premise people of faith are devoid of reason.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI get what you are saying about Einstein (monist vs. dualist) but I don't think we have any written evidence he had clearly worked this out. I do think he was coming to faith via monism though.
I disagree with you on Pascal taking his wager. The wager wasn't designed to define God or theology but to cause one to open the door and seek God.
I do agree God is merciful with regard to honest reasoning. In fact, for all of us, I hope He applies Divine Mercy to me and not Divine Justice. Otherwise, I'm probably gonna be in Hell.
I also agree God is not impressed with feigned faith. But what is faux faith is between each person and God. This I will not judge (esp. since I fear the standard applying to this sinner).
Blind faith is a difficult matter. On one hand, our intellect is a gift from God and not using it is essentially a rejection of that gift. But, when I read St. Therese of Lisieux or Catherine of Siena, I see not a rejection of intellect but a faith (trust) so immensely large it overwhelms their intellect. These women are called Doctors of the Church because their theology was so deep and intellectual. But at the same time, their lives were deeply faithful and submissive (blindly faithful!).
Which leads me back again to Galileo who I find inspiring in so many ways. Here was a guy persecuted by the Church (more for his insolance and arrogance regarding his science rather than his science). Hey we are all sinners and for most smart people Pride is their biggest challenge.
He reached certain revolutionary scientific positions, ridiculed the Pope for not giving sanction ot his science, was placed under house arrest, and yet made living a Catholic life (recieving the sacraments, having a Priest come and offer Mass in his home, using his free time more to develop his personal faith than defend his science, and never questioning his belief in the Pope's Christ-ordained authority on matters of Faith and Morals) his greatest priority.
I wonder if I had been subjected to the temporal punishment he was if I would be able to maintain my Faith. In fact, I fear my weakness.
(OOPS, this is part 1 and is supposed to be before Part 2. Thank God (yes Tony, thank Him for everything) I could go back in Explorer and get to what I had wrote. :)
ReplyDeleteTony,
By definition for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God possesses what I call the "alls and omnis". While a Catholic, I don't see the mileiu Bill references but a whole lot of people at various stages of understanding of God. As I said before (and was said in the Tao), just the naming of God is a limitation of the I AM.
The multiple gods you describe (norse and spaghetti) is more like super beings who are inter-dependent. While interesting in concept, even in our small limited minds, logically it doesn't explain the answers to existence and isn't very sound conceptually from an intellectual point of view or consistent theology. This is why the Roman and Greek "theology" isn't even considered theology but mythology.
While you are conceptually correct regarding something different with regard to physics etc. would have a different result, as a scientist all evidence is there would not be life. For instance, slightly more gravitational pull between matter and the universe would have already collapsed upon itself. Slightly less and there would be no environment stable for long enough period to have allowed the evolution of life.
The laws of physics and science tell us one thing: Without a Creator, the fact we exist is an infinite number of very exact coincidences where the slightest variation would have one rational result: non-existence. You are in a minority even of atheist scientists who assert life would be possible with the slightest variation.
That said, your concept something else would exist under different laws no more supports their not being a Creator as there being one.
All I'm trying to refute is your original comment that faith and belief is unreasonable. Greater minds than yours (and mine) have concluded it reasonable.
Your intransigence that it is unreasonable or "nonsense" because it doesn't pass your empirical demand for only deductive reasoning is unreasonable as it is what is called "severe skepticism" which is unpractical and belies an attitude one knows all that is to be known.
Intellectually there is a place for what is called "practical skepticism" which allows one to look first for that which can be supported by deductive reasoning. But because of our limits, to rely only on deductive reasoning is unreasonable. Because of our limits, we have to concede we can't and don't know everything so it is reasonable to reach conclusions inductively (leaves open the possibility the position might be proven untrue with additional information).
But because you can't prove there isn't a God, the rejection of God is beyond your knowledge for you to be certain (reasonably).
Tony, you might be right. But too much of my experience and inductive reasoning indicates to this mind (equally limited to yours) God exists. My problem isn't with the intellectual reasoning but my challenges submitting to that what I find reasonable: A soveriegn Creator God.
More to come
Atheism requires more faith that reasoned Christianity or probabilistic Christianity. Agnosticism is a MUCH better position philosophically than Atheism - it is the blindest of blind faith. http://www.mercy-church.org/wordpress/?p=3073
ReplyDelete-shel
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI just looked at your Godel's Theorem reference (as soon as I saw it, I recognized your pimping of Tony and I in it). Talk about a blast from the past. My Calc II professer almost 30 years ago spent a week in class making us work on it.
I don't remember everything about it but what I remember does have some relevance to this discussion.
If I begin with an assumption/premise which is false (Tony or my position works), it is possible to build a complex formula to give the logical "proof" it is false. But I can use the same formula beginning with the premise it is true and give the logical "proof" it is true.
Thus, since Tony holds the premise God doesn't exist, Tony can use Godel's theorem to "prove" God doesn't exist. However, since I hold the premise God exists, I can use Godel's Theorem to prove God exists.
Under Godel's Theorem, logic is limited to the reliability of its underlying premise. While even what we consider scientific "Law" is really just a "proven" theory based on what we know and subject to change with more information, this exposes Tony's "severe skepticism" as having weakness as even deductive reasoning has some underlying premises which might be false.
Which logically and intellectually takes all of us back to Einstein's quote which I cut this snippet:
"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. . . .The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is."
For me, this speaks to magnificence and glory of God to whom I'm immensely grateful. For Tony, it speaks to the immenseness of the coincidences for which he has noone to thank. ;)
So maybe, at minimum, what Tony and both should agree on we are just like Pooh:
“Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known.”
or
“I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me.”
Love this discussion. Thanks for it, gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteTroy, for now, having covered so much, only one thing comes to mind to lay counter to your argument that there must be a creator because the universe is so finely tuned to accommodate us. If you think about it, it will come to you like a bolt out of the blue...of COURSE it is! It's the ONLY ONE that could have US IN IT!
The fact that we're here has only to do with the conditions that allow it. I think Stephen Hawking and others call this the "anthropic principle."
It's not very satisfying at first, I admit, but the more you think about it, the more of a no-brainer it becomes.
(word verification: "yodeh")
Bill,
ReplyDeleteYou are right. It goes to my tongue in cheek comment. For Tony, it speaks to the immenseness of the coincidences for which he has noone to thank. ;)
I don't think it is "proof" but only with regards to reaching the conclusion using Occam's Razor:
An infinite number of perfect coincidences or a God with perfect power. Which is simpler to explain our existence?
All I'm trying to argue is having Faith is logical and reasonable or at least as reasonable as rejecting God. I don't presume to have the words or wisdom or ability to convert anyone.
Whoops! A small correction: Troy says he entered this discussion "because Cory said Knapp made a strong intellectual case for atheism." I went so far as to say Knapp presented his argument "openly and intelligently." But I do not consider his sermon a "strong intellectual case for atheism."
ReplyDeleteAll the "coincidences" of cosmic variables to make me, Troy, and blogs possible do indeed challenge everyday experience and logic. However, I have yet to see a convincing comparative quantification of the likelihood of the ex nihilo appearance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being inclined to create anything like me, Troy, and blogs.
Pastor Shel provides a very interesting read. However, I fear his author is after a different kind of atheist, the "aggressive atheist" who feels obliged to destroy other belief systems. Maybe my non-evangelical bent is a cop-out... but I still think agnosticism is a greater cop-out. I can entertain all sorts of doubts in the dark of night, but at daybreak I need to decide whether I'm getting out of bed... and whether I'm getting down on my knees to pray. It doesn't seem sufficient to say, "I don't know." To get things done, to participate in society, I have to say, "I don't know, but...."
There are limits to logic (pace Gödel). Much comes down to choice: we can plumb only so many mysteries, answer only so many questions, take only so many books down from the shelf in that big library Einstein mentions. The layering of God over the natural world does not answer questions for me any more effectively than a conception of a purely natural world. I could be missing something, but I put the God book back on Einstein's shelf (leaving it there for others to read, with only a few marginal comments and questions like this blog post) and carry on.
Cory,
ReplyDeleteSaying "I don't have enough information to make a choice" may not be a cop out. I might just be humility. Which is a virtue. ;)
But, you are right. It does come down to trust which is a component of Faith. ;)
God Bless You.
If God is there, Troy, I certainly won't mind His/Her/Its blessing. But I keep coming back to the idea that, no matter how humble I am, I still have to decide whether I'm saying prayers or not. I don't think one can live practically as an agnostic.
ReplyDeleteFYI: God did not create the universe, says Hawking:
ReplyDeleteGod did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.
Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
I has Hawking ever rolled with the Unitarians?
ReplyDeleteHawking's point: The laws of nature put everything in motion.
ReplyDeleteWhile he believes the reaction of spontaneous, he posits (and like Einstien determined) no scientific evidence why it either impossible or even unlikely there isn't a "First Cause" Creator who designed the "reaction."
I'm reminded of the story of the scientist who labors for his entire life trying to find the explanation of existence. The story pictures the scientist's efforts being the climbing of the mountain. When he gets to the top, he finds the theologian. :)
But Hawking seems to be taking my position: you can't prove the non-existence of a supernatural being or Creator, but you don't need one to explain what's happening around us.
ReplyDeleteCory,
ReplyDeleteNeed? Doesn't mean intellectually we shouldn't pursue and explanation. Not very intellectual. :)
No less intellectual than that Occam character. If natural phenomena explain us, we don't need to add the supernatural to the explanation. That doesn't preclude us from considering the possibility of a mroe complicated explanation and looking for flaws in the explanation we have. But I have yet to hit a roadblock in dealing with the universe that requires an appeal to the supernatural.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of logic problems with the "first cause" argument, the most cogent being okay, then who caused God? And the reciprocal: if God doesn't need a cause, neither does the universe.
ReplyDeleteAnother is a flaw in the assertion, having to with time.
If space/time began at the beginning of the universe, there was no "time before that."
Bill,
ReplyDeleteAlot smarter people than I have discussed these items:
God is the "uncaused Cause."
Just because God needs no cause, the universe does.
God is before time and outside both time and space. And yes, there was no time before He made the universe.
Pretty basic theology here Bill. Did you mean to throw these softballs up?
Basically to grasp all this, the best book I've ever read on this is "Knowledge of the Holy" by Tozer.
Isn't that dualism, Troy?
ReplyDeleteFrom Carl Gooley in New Jersey:
ReplyDeleteWhat a thoughtful dialog, with respect to one another shown and deserved.
I will add one exception to one of Troy's thoughts about the unreasonable confluence (Occam's Razor) of events that allow creatures (us) to try to understand our universe .
Troy uses the word "infinite" to quantify the number of physical constants that must be as they are to allow us to exist. There are a great many of these factors, but I believe they can be measured at well less than a hundred. Still almost mind-boggling, but just within grasp. An infinite number would lead me, and maybe others, to give up trying to understand.
Very good point, Carl. One interesting thing is that many of us think we have a grasp on what infinite means, or at least have some vague general notion.
ReplyDeleteWe don't. Thanks to recent current political events, we have a relatively good idea about what "20 trillion" might mean, and would probably guess that 20 trillion is closer to infinity than, oh say "5" or "3,762" is.
It's not. Neither is "five billion trillion."
Compared to infinity, any finite number at all is infinitesimally small. For all practical purposes, "3" and 1,000,000,000,000 (a trillion) compared to infinity, would be approximately the same size (if taken as a percentage of the whole, for example).
Another point worth mentioning here is Troy's assertion that everything in the universe has to have a cause. Check me here, but I think there are things in the known universe that don't have a cause, as far as we can tell. Radiation, for example. The physics taxes me beyond my small mind's ability to comprehend it fully, but from what I can get, there isn't any "cause" when it comes to electrons resulting from beta decay, for example. It's basically stuff coming out of nowhere.
ReplyDelete