Why do some people find it hard to believe in God? Part 2

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

Good morning!

BobbinRobin, do you see my logical problem with Dawkins and the Judeo-Christian tradition? I accept that he grew up within that, but...put as simply as possible, a God who is a 'scientific hypothesis' cannot logically be the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition who is, by definition, beyond science. I have read some of GD now and am honestly baffled that he doesn't even mention the idea of transcendence, or consider how the idea of a transcendent God shapes what can be said about God...do you see what I mean? This is a logical problem.

Talking of Dawkins.....did I read ch. 4 (Why there is almost cetainly no God) right? Does he basicaly say that there is almost certainly no God because we now know about natural selection? Or is there more to it than that? He talks about divine simplicity / complexity which is fair enough...but his core argument seems to be 'who made God, then?' Which, again, does not engage even slightly with the Judeo-Christian core beliefs re. transcendence, time / eternty etc...is anyone interested in talking about this?... because I'd really like to know if I have misread it, or what. And as he says at the end of that chapter that his it is the core argument of the book and that everything else he goes on to say will flow from that source, I'd like to get my head around it properly before I move on.

Anyway....Grimma, re. following the herd / God revealing Godself though people - well, that goes back to this idea of a 'master discourse.' If you take humanism as your 'master discourse' then your explanation makes sense, but if you believe in a transcendent God in whose image humans are made, then mine does . Do you see what I mean? That's why this whole 'master discourse' thing matters so much.

Exex - your qu re. ppl who are not Christians - if you believe (as I do) that all ppl are made in the image of God, that is not only unproblematic but obvoius!

Have a good day, everyone!

Grimma and Himalaya, I think that this is a good philosophical starting point re. 'scientism / scintific materialism / empiricism:' St Wiki of Pedia

Grimma - yup, I agree with Dennet - it seems like a 'shutup'/ 'dont think too hard' here sign dressed up as philosophy.

It goes alongside the other shutup signs 'that's rude', 'its disrespectful' 'it's adolescent', 'what do you know about theology' etc.. signs that religions erect around the logical black holes in belief both in public debate and in the minds of believers and kids brought up with religion.

On one hand people say science/rationality cannot refute religion as god is unknowable by any normal means. Then they say you (one/ Dawkins etc...) can't hold a serious conversation about the existance of god(s) unless we read theology. But it's never explained why theologians have claim to special knowledge of the unknowable.

You can make up anything and define it to be 'beyond science'. Whether that's 'logical' or not it doesn't really get you anywhere useful.

Anyway....Grimma, re. following the herd / God revealing Godself though people - well, that goes back to this idea of a 'master discourse.' If you take humanism as your 'master discourse' then your explanation makes sense, but if you believe in a transcendent God in whose image humans are made, then mine does . Do you see what I mean? That's why this whole 'master discourse' thing matters so much.

The thing is - your explanation makes sense only to believers. My explanation makes sense to me now but would also have made sense to me when I was a believer.

"consider how the idea of a transcendent God shapes what can be said about God"

That's the point surely - if God is transcendent, then you can say anything - and by logical extension nothing - about what god is, god does, god will do etc. So to pontificate about God is ultimately pointless.

I'm off to play in the snow. It's made out of frozen water and it's amazing

I take your point Grimma, but if the core definition of God within the Judeo-Christian tradition is that God is transcendent, then to talk about a God who is not transcendent means that this god cannot be the God of the J-C tradition. Do you see the thinking?

Quick thought-experiment: one of the core definitions of pies within the pork pie tradition is that they are filled with pork, then to talk about a vegetarian pork pie means that this pie cannot be sold as a 'pork pie.' (Imagine the outcry......!) (although it'd be worse the other way round, if a 'veggie pie' was found to be made of pork....')

Do you see that this isn't just me being arbirary and obstinate but is essential if our talk about 'God' is to be in any recognisable way the God of the J-C trad?

No bobbin, not pointless at all - becaues one of the othre fcore beliefs about God in the J-C trad is that God is a God who chooses to reveal God's nature to people - so we can know God, insofar as God reveals Godself (trying to aviod male/ female personal pronoun here - not easy!) Which is, most fully, in the person of Jesus, who is 'God with a face.' Because God is transcendent, the only means of knowing God must be originated by God. 'We love, because he first loved us...'

(Anyone who knows a bit about theology might see here how influenced I am by Karl Barth!)

Still making sarnies... What's the difference between transcendent and unknowable by normal means - or are they the same?

I see the thinking, but it gets you nowhere. So, may as well start with something that is actually doable. You can define your JC god as 'transcendent' and we won't try to poke that with our puny scientific sticks. But you also define this god as one who interacts with the material world - any such supposed interactions are amenable to scientific scrutiny.

To take your pie analogy - you've got a pie, and you say its a 'pork pie' and the filling is pork. But here's the snag - if its transcendental pork then we can't tell if its really pork or not. We can only look at the crust. Might be pork, might be veg, might just be an empty shell.

"one of the othre fcore beliefs about God in the J-C trad is that God is a God who chooses to reveal God's nature to people - so we can know God, insofar as God reveals Godself"

But if by definition we can know nothing about what the trancendent God IS, whatever is the point of trying to pinpoint how god manifests itself in everyday life?

Yes you can refer endlessly to the bible, but at the end of the day god didn't write it (although you can of course choose to believe he somehow did... but then you're back to relying on faith alone and nothing else).

I might believe that a transcendent Alice 'wrote' Alice in Wonderland - no one can prove that she didn't, but that fact alone doesn't give my theory any credibility.

Grimma, what do you mean when you say that God's supposed interactions must be subject to scientific scrutiny?

I think that in the RC church, any claims of, e.g., miraculous healings have to be verified by a medical doctor. Do you mean things like that?

I think the problem with your statement there, is that it still seems to imply that the god involved needs to play by the rules of science. Which means that science is in the judge of the god - whereas the J-C God is judge of all...so any god who has to play by the rules of the material cosmos must be an idol. Do you see what I mean?

As to your point re. the pie ('life is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get!' - I think it goes back to that thing of 'taste and see that the Lord is good.' No, you can't tell what a pie is by just looking at it - you need to pick it up and open it up, and because lots of things look similar, actually taste it. So you can't 'prove' God in a paperback book or on the screen of MN, because it's only by 'tasting and seeing' that a person can know God.

Bobbin - we can know God where God has made Godself knowable - in the person of Jesus, in the Bible, in the church. It's not this black and white either-or thing where the Bible was written either by God or by humans - it's that, God speaks to people and through people (maybe because, as the thing in the material universe that most closely resembles God, the human being is still the best measure of God).

Of course you can posit a god who doesn't play by the rules. And we can continue not to believe it exists if there's no evidence and no rational reason for doing so. Empasse.

I rather thought I'd get that 'taste and see' line - and again, you're back to the subjective experience of what goes on in your own head.

"God speaks to people and through people (maybe because, as the thing in the material universe that most closely resembles God, the human being is still the best measure of God)."

But again, this 'God speaking through people' thing - its interpretation is entirely a man-made construct, it just can't be anything else.

And where do you draw the line with 'god's message' - there are any number of nutters doing things like giving away their life savings to a dodgy preacher, or even committing murder because 'Jesus told them to'. Who's to say where god's message starts and ends? You're back to having to rely on the entirely subjective opinions of human beings.

Tbh Grimma, I honestly can't see the validity of applying scientific mehodology to all knowledge - I really, really can't - any more than I could justify saying that because saucepans are useful and good, all food preparation must be done in saucepans. Or because poetry is so beautiful, all communication should be in rhyming couplets. I used to know a barber who could only do flat-tops (this was back in the 80s!) and the idea that science is all kind of reminds me of him - we can only use this one methodology, and if you don't want a flat-top, well, you're an irrational idiot.... (You must admit how much self-congratulation goes on in the writings of Dawkins, and how many insults are made of believers, as if we are all just too thick to get it)

Re. 'taste and see' - well, subjective maybe, but it comes back to that thing of 'you can read recipe books with which are beautifully illustrated and clearly explained, but if you never actually cook anything from it, can you really know what the writer is talking about?' This is only a problem if you only accept 'objective', pure, pristine 'scientific' knowledge as the only valid knowlede there is - but as I've said above, I honestly, can't for the life of me see why that should be so. You can try and persuade me otherwise if you like!

Of course, many scientists are honest enough to admit that all scientific methodology is founded on a subjective thought of some sort - it's not pure or pristine at all, any more than history-writing or psychoanalysis are - 'no man is an island' and we are all deeply affected by trends in thought that we might not even conciously know about. WHat you have said on this thread is what goes on inside your head...(I wouldn't place a value-judgement on that statement, btw, but it is important to recognise that I am no more formed by what goes inside my head than you are by what goes on in yours...as is true of everyone....)

Bobbin, for me, that's where the Christian tradition through the ages comes in. I could say that I've been inspired by God to walk out on my family and set up a commune in California, (in RL I'd take them with me - the idea appeals! ) - I might even validate this plan by referring to one of the verses which talks about leaving your fmaily to be a disciple. Of course, I'd have to read those verses in isolation to the rest of the Bible, with no reference to how the church has read and understood it down the ages, and I certainly couldn't read any historical-sociological analysis of those words, because that'd scupper me straight away!

... but at some stage I'd hope I'd remember my wedding vows, which are deeply steeped in the Christian idea of marriage. Or think about things in a more robust, wide-ranging, less selective way. The Christian tradition would put me right, in other words.

Oh, and just to add - Bobbin, IMO (and IME) crackpots who do think they're inspired by God to do bonkers / dangerous / horrible stuff are nearly always, nearly completely illiterate of the Christian tradition. They might be able to quote single verses out of the Bible as proof-texts, but not to carefully weigh those words in the light of the whole tradition (which they nearly always don't know anything of at all).

"... but at some stage I'd hope I'd remember my wedding vows, which are deeply steeped in the Christian idea of marriage. Or think about things in a more robust, wide-ranging, less selective way. The Christian tradition would put me right, in other words."

But that doesn't always happen, does it? The people who do bad things because they deeply believe that Jesus told them to do it don't/can't always change or put things right. They may have truly believed they were doing god's will with every fibre of their being - tasted the recipe if you like, but they would still be wrong, wouldn't they?

But realistically, how many people who call themselves Christians have carefully studied and weighed up all aspects of the bible? Are those who haven't not true Christians then?

Bobbin, let's be honest here and say that the mavericks are a tiny, tiny percentage of beilevers - and you get mavericks in all areas of life (even science!)

As to ppl not knowing their tradition - well, this is my opinion entirely, and many Christians would disagree - but I think that the liturgy (the words we use for worship) are hugely important because they form us, week in, week out (assuming you go to church regularly) in what it means to be Christian. Eg, we say the confession together - which means admitting that we are sinful, we mess up 'in though tand word and deed - through negligence, thrugh weakness, through our own deliberate fault.' We admit that those things are inside us, and we choose to turn away from them. And we 'share the peace' - we deiberately choose to put aside differences or hurts so that we can come together to God. I know lots of Christians do all of this unthinkingly - but lots more do think deeply about what the liturgy means and how it shapes us. And it's in that context that we her the bible read, and talked about.

So in that way, going to church should be enough to shape people's faith - it's not that they need to know every last little detail about the Bilbe (although I think that some in the church should!)

"Bobbin, let's be honest here and say that the mavericks are a tiny, tiny percentage of beilevers - and you get mavericks in all areas of life (even science!)"

Maybe people who murder or commit violence in the name of God are a tiny minority, but what about people who use their belief in Christianity to justify bigotry and hatred towards non-believers, or those of different faiths? Did you read that article linked to yesterday about attitudes to atheists in America? Although I'd agree with you (I'm guessing) that the attitudes they demonstrate aren't 'Christian', the uncomfortable truth is that they are Christians and there are lots of them.

I really don't think the scientific method is a subjective thought, is it? Or do you mean simply that it is a human construct and therefore has a subjective foundation?

Of course, the hypotheses that the method is used to test are frequently highly subjective. But I don't think that matters, exactly, because what matters is whether you can find measurable proof, or not. And then you can talk about whether your measurable proof is repeatable, or whether you really measured it effectively, or whether you have actually found anything worth finding. It should really be only a starting point.

Applying the scientific method to God's existence, however, is explicitly ruled out by Deuteronomy/Luke ch 4 I guess. Which does make me feel a bit 'He would say that, wouldn't he'. It certainly means that there is a spiritual exit strategy whenever God does appear to fail a scientific test. I see the point that applying the method to Him rules out transcendence. I'm just not quite sure what we lose if we don't have transcendence.

If a majority of people who see visions turn out to have a specific form of 'epilepsy' or 'mental illness', does that matter? To me it does, rather, living as I do with someone who has schizophrenia and whose visions can be highly inconvenient for me. But that's only a label - no doubt he would rather be seen as a visionary, and that might be a more helpful life role for him.

If the linguistics of speaking in tongues is studied (which is has been, I read a very good Christian article about it) and it is shown that nobody in those studies ever used vowel sounds that were not in a language they already knew, does that matter? The author discussed this and said that he believed those speaking in tongues were in an open spiritual state which had benefits for them and their church community. Essentially, 'whether it's true or not, it's still helpful'.

I tried to attend church for three years in the 'whether it's true or not, it's helpful' frame of mind, but I found in the end that I simply could not stand up and say the Nicene Creed every week in that scenario. Whatever Dawkins says (he's quite nice about theologically sophisticated Anglicanism in GD I think), and whatever Rowan Williams says about 'that's not what Christians really believe' and whatever furious articles appear by clergy saying how OUTRAGEOUS it is that people think Christians believe in an afterlife.... if you go to a bog-standard parish church and listen to the sermons every week, you are supposed to join in with the Nicene Creed and you are highly likely to hear statements such as 'Unless you believe every word of the Christmas story, there is no point in you being here.' (direct quote). Impasse.

Oooh, what a thoughtful post, Joan. I can't respond right now, but will. (I am lucky enough that I do go to a theologiclaly sophisticated parish church which would never dream of saying 'unless you believe every word of the Christmas story, there is no point in you being here.' They'd rather cut their own toes off . In fact, I've never known a church with that attitude. Sorry your experience has been so crap.

Bobbin - just to add before I go for now - yes, Christianity is used to prop up all sorts of hatreds, bigotries etc. But at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the liturgy sees us rigth if we approach it properly - by its insistence on humility, forgiveness, peace etc. I know this might sound idealistic. I'd also say that nothing can be invalidated by the abuse of it - so domestic violence doesn't make marriage / longterm faithful partnership a bad thing - i think I said last night, whatever is closest to us is in danger of being distorted or abused.

But however sophisticated your church, you're still supposed to say the Nicene Creed! - which you said yourself was the bedrock of your theology (I think - sorry if I've not got that right). I've probably clocked up 16 years of fairly regular churchgoing through my life, mostly Anglican, some Methodist, a bit of Soc of Friends, plus a couple of years at synagogue, and have been led by some truly remarkable members, ministers and rabbis - at college I often felt the sermon was more sophisticated than most of my supervisions, though that may have been because it was at 8am when my brain is not fully functioning as a rule. I've also sat through many sermons at the level of the 'no point' quote. If all these people are inspired by God, why is the quality so radically different?

If God exists, then Christians believe the Bible is some of the evidence that proves it. And yet the Bible appears to be radioactively difficult to handle and liable to go off 'ping' in the Wrong Hands. All of this gets a lot simpler if I just believe that it's down to the humans.