Why do some people find it hard to believe in God?

[MosEisley]

I believe in God.

However, I am attending an adult confirmation class and we have been asked to consider why some people do not believe in God. DH and I came up with:

• there is no absolute proof of God's existence
• they are rebelling against a strict organised religion that they can't accept as literallly true

If you know someone who doesn't believe in God, why don't they?

Little buggers those genes, the plain old genes ALWAYS have to make the tea for the selfish ones

Yup yup, I agree so far, esp. with your point, Grimma. I think you misunderstand my reading of Dawkins! (Or my reading of Augustine, or both!) So go on, take me through your logic. Why is it nonsense to say that the selfish gene is v. akin to Augustine's concept of original sin?

Notflufy, just seen your other post - you mention 'will' (do you mean 'conscious will'?) and 'atonement.' Let's put those words on hold for a moment, because they aren't what I am talking about at all. I think that what you are saying and what I am saying are actually the same thing! (which was my point exactly...)

I've no idea of what your reading of Augustine or Dawkins is... I can't see how they are akin at all TBH. One is a theory about how an (unproved) concept called Original Sin arose - one of those areas of unecessary religious complexity which atheists can cheerfully say doesn't exist. (so a bit nonsensical to discuss). The other 'selfish gene' is an rather unfortunate anthropomorphistic description of how the propagation of genetic information appears to work.

..er so take me through your logic why "'what he(dawkins) calls 'the selfish gene' is exactly what Augustine calls 'original sin' " - your idea, you defend it!

Okay! So, as I understand it, Dawkins talks about how organisms are bent on (sorry, not being a scientist I'm not sure of the terminology) having the maximum chance of having its genes passed on - humanity is a 'survival machine'. Okay - so far so good?

But...what this means is that survival is inevitably the expense of other - different plants compete for the soil's nutrients, weaker creatures die while stronger ones live. This being programmed to (?) survival is inevitably violent, in that it means the suffering of others - not that the stronger creatures are nasty as such, they are just bent on / programmed to survive and therefore it's out of their control. Altruism happens, yes, but within a larger framework of competition for survival., and thus unconcious violence.

So, in Christianity, this urge / whatever for survival is met head-on in Christ. Christianity is basically a martyr religion. Jesus is the ultimate martyr who meets the violence of the Roman Empire with volunary self-sacrifice. The words 'I am a Christian' were a death sentence in the pre-Constantinian era. Yes, it's softened over the ages, and yes, Christians aren't very good at living up to this not fluffy at all religion.

Sin is defined as living for oneself, and this self-centred living may appear altristic, but is based on a competition for survival, a competition we can't escape from, which is why some people end up more victim than sinner.

So when Jesus dies voluntarily, he not only challenges this, but as (as we Christians believe) God in human substance, he changes the nature of things so that all creation may start to be restored and freed from the competition struggle to survive. The lion will lie down with the lamb...

So what we see now (in this scheme) is a world still fighting for survival - which is why the Christian doctrine of eschatology (belief in ultimate restoration) is so important. In the meantime, Christians are called to 'take up their cross daily' and be what the NT calls a 'firstfruits' of the world to come. I could say much more about this!

There - that was quite long! And took blimmin' ages, as my computer is running very slowly!

Um well now I've some idea of your reading (think you've not quite got the dawkins part TBH) but apart from that I'd reiterate what I said at 13:57:42
. Sorry.

Okay, explain Dawkins!

As I'm not an evolutionary biologist and its a heck of a long time since I read the selfish gene, I doubt I can do that justice.

So why do you think I've got him wrong?

I don't remember so much harping on about 'violence'. But that could be my memory. IMO the connection you're making is tenuous and without the 'violence' can't really see one at all.

No no, the violence bit is what I infer as the ineviable consequence of what Dawkind describes.

Is it really that tenuous, to say that survival is at the expense of the other? I see it all around me in the natural world (and don't even get me started on the 'survival at the expense of the other' attitude that pervades postgraduate study........!)

I think as a brief overview of what Dawkins was saying about the selfish gene you've got it about right to be honest.

Where it falls apart is in trying to draw parallels between a universal facet of life as we know it (competition for resources, the view that organisms can be seen as vehicles for the continuation of genes) and a piece of religious mythology that is a purely human-oriented concept.

Jesus was supposedly here to offer everlasting life to humans. He preached to humans. He baptised humans. He didn't preach to sheep in anything but a figurative sense. So there is a mismatch between this very human-centred character of original sin and the universal applicability of selfish genes.

Also you have taken a very specific meaning of sin that seems chosen purely to bolster this specific argument. I'm not an expert on Augustine's view of original sin but I thought it was more about about prideful disobedience against God's law. Adam and Eve deliberately chose to disobey God's word and that was why their sin was worthy of such severe punishment.

Dawkins' concept of the selfish gene models it as an inherent and autonomic part of living organisms operating at the sub-cellular level albeit with influence over higher behaviours. A yeast cell will compete against other yeast cells for resources with no pride or wilful disobedience of anything. It's just yeast.

The natural world also has cooperative and symbiotic systems. The competition only arises because of limited resources. There's nothing wrong with it. 'Violence' seems to me an inappropriate term.

Perhaps I need Augustine explaining because from the (little) I know I didn't infer anything about 'struggle to survive' in relation to Original Sin.

Oh, but Heresiarch, your critique there is predicated on the assertion that Christianity is a human-created myth. So unless we start by talking about the relationship between religion and 'life as we know it', we'll get nowhere. Your argument seems to be that there is no such relationship, mine is that there is one, that religion emerges out of life as know it, speaks to life as we know it and transforms life as we know it.

And yes, you're right that sin is depicted variously within the Christian tradition. The thing about yeast cells is fascinating and serves to illustrate what I mean - that sin is beyond human control, we can't not be part of it - in the Confessions, the classic text, Augustine steals some pears that he doesn't even want, without knowing why he did it - it is 'sin for sin's sake'. So he goes on to say that humans are bound inevitably to sin, because like the yeast, they are simply doing what they are bound to do. Choice doesn't really come into it - his great opponent, Pelagius, argued that it is theoretically possible not to sin - Augustine said he was wrong, that it is impossible to escape the web of sin by our own efforts, it is simply and purely the grace of God that cuts us free.

No, my critique is predicated on original sin as an Augustinian concept being something that only applies to humans whereas the consequences of the selfish gene model applies to everything that has ever lived.

It was humans who sinned in the Garden of Eden, not the rabbits or the deer. Jesus baptised humans, not sparrows. Jesus preached to humans, not sheep (except in the purely figurative sense ). Christianity is about the relationship between humans and God/Jesus, it's not about yeast or whelks.

That's what I meant by a mismatch. Only humans can sin but everything has selfish genes. Therefore they are not concepts that can be matched up.

But heresiarch (cool name!) , Christian theology is a theology that embraces all creatures and all life, not just humans. The lion will lie with the lamb! But humans have a special role as the 'firstfruits of all creation.' So yes it is about yeast and whelks! I wouldn't trust a religion that is only bothered about humans. (I am involved in some Christian enviornmental stuff, and have friends who are v. deep into it).

"The lion will lie with the lamb" isn't supposed to be taken literally. It's a metaphor.

I'm not sure your non-humancentric theology is widely shared. The change of interpretation from man's 'dominion' to 'stewardship' over the rest of the earth is relatively recent (where it's adopted at all).

Exactly! A metaphor for the restoration of all the world!

I'm not sure if I'm misreading, I'm getting a bit confused with the comparisons being made with the woo.

Let me clarify, natural selection occurs at the level of the gene, not us. The 'selfish' gene will not only be violent (if indeed that can be applied to a gene) but will do ANYTHING to ensure it's survival into the next generation. Using altruism as the example, it is in the gene's best interest that parents show altruism to their children, that way there is a better chance of that gene's survival in those very children. The gene coded for altruism therefore has trumped the gene coded for selfishness with regard to parents as the offspring of selfish parents has a much smaller chance of survival. But it all needs to be thought of at the level of the gene, it has no 'knowledge' of us, or the plant, or the monkey it is part of, it is acting (in as far as it can act) in it's own best interests, hence the 'selfish' tag.

"'firstfruits of all creation.'"

What does that even mean?

The restoration of the world to what state? Prelapsarian bliss? Doesn't work too well for those of us who don't believe in the Fall, you know!

Aren't people confusing a belief in the generic scientist with actual scientists? I mean some scientists appear to come up with things that other scientists do not believe, as in their conclusions are read differently, for example, climate change. Then people say they are not "real" scientists etc. But is anyone a "real" scientist or are they merely "that scientist I like to believe in because they come to conclusions I agree with"? People have a belief in a scientific lack of bias and methodology because in practise people are just people.

Well Grimma, I think it's restoration not to prelapsarian bliss, but to a more perfect state than that (I get that from what 1 Corinthians). I see the 'fall' as a profound metaphor for the imperfection of the world. Christian hope is a lot to do with the hope that the world will be changed - on the whole, many churches downplay this asppect of theology but I believe in it very strongly! To me, without that hope, the Christian faith doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Notfluffy, great detail there! Same with what Augustine said about sin - he said that we think we are acting in our best interests, but we're still trapped in that being compelled to sin without knowing why or even wanting to do - it is who we are as humans at the most basic, 'nuclear' if you like, level.

Firstfruits = literally the first fruits of the harvest, the first apple of autumn . Metaphorically within the Bible (both OT & NT), it means the thing that gives you hope of what is to come - so CHriistians ought to be the people who give the world hope of what is to come (I know we're rubbish at it - I am sorry).