Why I have stopped participating in religous blog discussions

To those of you who have been used in the past to my comments on various blogs for which religious belief is at the heart, I have decided that it serves so little purpose as to be a waste of time.  Most of the mainstream blogs are close knit communities of likeminded belevers, who use these blogs to reassure themselves of their faith.  They usually only welcome 'civilised' non-believers as guests in order to reinforce their own sense of belonging - It's harder to remain cohesive unless there are 'outsiders' to fend off. 

Too many times when atheists have commented and produced strong arguments against what they see as illogical or unsustainable views, the faithful band together and become ever more illogical and fervent in defending the undefendable.

However, my participation has resulted in some helpful  (to me) outcomes;

• I am even better informed about religious belief in general, and the various forms of Christianity in particular.
• I think I have a clearer understanding of what it is that makes many people more prone to belief in supernatural cause/influence/purpose
• I have gained a greater understanding and acceptance of what it is to be a Humanist
• I am convinced that there is no higher purpose to life.  This is all there is. And it no longer troubles me

Mistakes were made (but not by me)

I've just started reading a rather interesting book with the above title (by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson).  If the introduction is anything to go by this will be most enlightening. 

A quote from the introduction:

None of us can live without making blunders.  But we do have the ability to say: "This is not working out here. This is not making sense."  To err is human, but humans then have a choice between covering up or fessing up. The choice we make is crucial to what we do next.  We are forever being told that we should learn from our mistakes, but how can we learn unless at first we admit that we made any?  To do that, we have to recognise the siren song of self-justification. 

We each invest hugely in our core beliefs.  If our core belief includes religious doctrine we surely must find it even tougher to admit we are wrong, for we risk the whole edifice tumbling around us as a result.  I guess I feel grateful that I don't have that pressure to constantly self-justify.  If something I have believed for a long time proves to be wrong it is much easier for me to change my belief.

Is that why many of those who are members of one or other organised religion spend so much time validating and justifying their beliefs, and condemning those who do not share their (unprovable) faith?

There is no God?

Recently I've been thinking again about ways that Humanists and Believers can accommodate each others' views, and live side by side, disagreeing but respecting their differing view on the fundamental reasons for our existence.

For a long time I've tried to accommodate the views of believers, based on that aphorism that I can no more disprove the existence of God than a believer can prove God's existence.  I thought I understood religion and chose to reject it on the probability of evidence, and because I found rational explanations so convincing.  But recently I've been trying to really understand religious motivation in a lot more depth, half hoping that I might find something there that would provide a better reason for intelligent believers to believe. 

I have to say that I have failed to find anything.  On the contrary, religion seems all the more ridiculous the more I study it. I presume religion is still ingrained into the human psyche as a by-product of the evolutionary need to find meaning in everything.  I suppose that if one makes that leap of faith and accepts religion as being valid and wants it to be a core part of ones life, then it is relatively easy to find 'truths' that reinforce and augment that desire.  One has only to read many of the blogs that deeply devout people write to witness how they convince themselves at every stage that they are doing the right thing, often relying on hugely partial 'evidence' and ignoring or explaining away that which does not fit their chosen narrative. 

Is that aphorism really valid at all though?  Is belief in a supernatural entity just an idea on a spectrum somewhere between belief in the celestial tea pot and belief in the laws of physics?  And isn't it really quite a long way towards the celestial tea pot?  If so, then am I acting morally in doing nothing to try to stop people leading their whole lives believing, and sometimes ruining them as a result?

To a believer this may sound extremely arrogant.  I would prefer to think that it was an honest statement of how I feel about this.  As ever, my thoughts are very much work in progress.  I record them for future reference.  I wonder how I will feel about this in 6 months time.

"...A God who is but a reflection of human frailty"

An interesting quote I came across, attributed to Albert Einstein, in a column for the New York Times Nov 9, 1930:: “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.”

I've always found the worship of God a strange thing to do.  I did not choose to be created, and I have only very limited control over my destiny.  Why would God expect my praise for His creation? Why would he want it?

Nietsche was right. There is no God.

OK, so it's an attention grabbing headline.  But having just re-read some of Nietsche's writings I am even more impressed by his ideas, which were truly innovative when he wrote them. 
For many this is a bleak conclusion, and they find it very hard to believe that there really is fundamentally nothing more to life than to reproduce and die.
But this need not be such a bleak conclusion if one accepts life for what it is, and models one's way of life on that premise.  It is possible to lead a full and satisfying life under this truth. 
Religion is so deeply ingrained into our culture that it is not something which it is either necessary nor desirable to try to oust immediately.  There will always be some who need the security of religious belief, and who will never be convinced of the alternative, which is arguably intellectually more challenging. 
However, religious extremism remains one of the major problems facing humankind.  And supplanting one  religion with another religion does not solve the problem.  There will always be those who seek violence, and whilst there are religions there will always be those who use it as the irrational justification for their acts.  Humanism does not breed suicide bombers...
I seem to be going though a phase when I feel particularly negatively towards religion.  I think it has outlived its usefulness, and I'm frustrated that people are so deeply indoctrinated that any amount of contrary evidence is dismissed, at the same time that any amount of supportive heresay and unreliable witness reports are unquestioningly accepted.  Far too frequently believers put up their own 'straw men' to discredit a non-religious view - often 'staw men' that fundamentaly misunderstand or misinterpret what Atheists actually believe.  I admit that many non-believers make no real effort to understand religion in any great depth, but it's my experience that the more conscientious atheists frequently tend to understand the religion of those with whom they argue to a greater depth than those who defend their religion.
What to do about all this though?  Hmm...

Ok, so God did it - but which God?

So often one seems to come across debates between a non believer on one side, and a believer in the dominant God of that particular culture, on the other side.  The alternatives frequently appear to be 'No God' or 'This God'.

But isn't that missing out a vital step?  If I'm to believe that the the natural Universe was indeed created by a deity, how can I be sure that it was, for example, the Christian deity rather than the God of a number of other competing religions?

To be honest, the fact that there are many so many people who equally fervently believe that 'their' God is the true God, leaves me wondering how many people of the hghest integrity must, by definition, be utterly deluded.  Pity those poor wretches who may devote their whole life to their chosen religion, and maybe even die for it, when their belief is nothing but a delusion.


How can one tell who is deluded?  There are no proofs or logical explanations for any of these competing deities, and much of the 'evidence' would not last 5 minutes if subjected to impartial scientific scrutiny...

I remain perplexed by people's wholly illogical behaviour.

Catholics and Natural Law

What is "Natural Law"?  Look it up in Wikipedia and you would be forgiven for believing that it can mean almost whatever the user wants it to mean. 

Catholics appear to define natural law as the rule of conduct which is prescribed to mankind by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed mankind.  Recently I've come across the expression several times in discussion with Catholics, who declare it as a kind of self-evident trump card.  As in "homosexuality is wrong - It's against natural law".  When looking natural law up at a website calling itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" I was surprised to be given as an example of natural law that in certain circumstances Polygamy can be lawful but that polyandry can never be lawful, presumably because of something written by a misogynist in the Old Testament.

I find myself wondering how laws which to a modern reader often appear bizarre, and are prescribed by a supernatural being, can possibly warrant the title of "natural".  Moreover, not even Catholic scholars through the ages can agree on the detail. Is it perhaps time to drop this rather unhelpful expression?

Quantum Weirdness

An article in the current edition of New Scientist (08May2010 - "Weirdest of the weird"), reminded me of the extraordinarily brain stretching concepts involved with quantum physics - Concepts that turn so many of our cherished views on the how and the what of our existence on their heads.  Almost whatever physical law you take, quantum physics runs a steamroller right through it. 

When I was a boy I used to make my brain hurt by trying to imagine infinite space and time.  Now my headache is quantum physics.  Sadly I don't think I have the mental capacity to understand significant parts of the science, no matter how hard I try, but it's immensely satisfying when I find I have finally understood another element.

Another thing that strikes me is how much more utterly amazing and weird this is compared to any concept encompassed by the main World religions, which seem so very mundane by comparison - products of people who fashioned their Gods within the limited constraints of their understanding.  Quantum physics just does not fit into any model which includes God as currently described. It is all together more extraordinary.  That's not to say there is no God.  Maybe we just have not yet discovered or understood the "reality" that this God might be.  The God described by Christians, Muslims and others is just too "human".

Old Arguments in New Clothes

I have been reading a long philosophical article by Professor Ernan McMullin, titled catchily: "Cosmic Purpose and the Contingency of Human Evolution".   Over 37 closely argued pages he expounds his thesis, and backs it up with 11 pages of references.  It is basically an examination of the argument for and against God as the creator.

His conclusion?  If you strip away all the esoteric language he basically says:  "I cannot prove whether God exists, but I assume that he does, and I present here my admittedly unproveable reasons for thinking this.  Some people think that they can prove he does not exist, but they are wrong, and here's why."

In other words we cannot prove either that God exists, or that he does not. 
Haven't we heard that before?  Oh, no more than many thousand times... 
Crikey!  Does this man get paid to do this?

Atheists can't think for themselves

This guy has done a series of videos on Atheism vs. Christianity. Interestingly it's not immediately obvious where he's coming from. Judge for yourself. Actually this is one of the more obvious ones. Have a look at his other videos.  Actually, now I come to think of it, he looks uncannily like one of my previous bosses...

Pastor denies the existence of God

I saw an article on Ekklesia about a Dutch Pastor who has recently been allowed to continue in his ministry by his regional Church body despite making it clear that he did not believe the existence in God.

In 2007, Hendrikse hit the headlines with the publication of his book titled "Believing in a God that does not exist: the manifesto of an atheist pastor" (Geloven in een God die niet bestaat - manifest van een atheïstische dominee). In the book, Hendrikse distinguishes between believing in God, which he affirms, and believing in the existence of God, which he rejects. Instead, he refers to God as, "happening".

The article goes on to state:

Research published in 2006 by the ecumenical broadcaster Ikon and the Free University of Amsterdam found that one in six clergy of the Protestant Church were either not sure about or did not believe in the existence of God.

The survey also found that clergy aged 35 years or younger tended to be the most certain of God’s existence, while clergy aged between 55 and 65 years were the most unsure. "Overall, the survey indicated that the younger generation was more 'pious' than older generations," the research report said.

With acknowledgements to Ecumenical News International.

I've frequently wondered whether it is an urban myth that some priests come out of theological college as non-believers, and yet go on to successful ministries. Where's the integrity? There are plenty of ways to provide spiritual and emotional support to the community without living a lie.

Does God exist - 2 - The Cosmological Argument

Why does anything exist? - why something rather than nothing? The argument is that unless God exists, the question is unanswerable. If the Universe had a beginning, who created the Universe if not God? Human experience informs us that something can't come out of nothing. What we need, it seems, is a cause which itself has no cause; and God fits the bill.

Claims and counterclaims have been made since the idea was first postulated. Bertrand Russell said something simple but profound:

"...the Universe is just there, and that's all".

Why cannot the Universe be infinite, regardless of whether we can comprehend that. We are after all just short lived carbon life forms living precariously on a small planet revolving around an unremarkable star.

We seem to be tantalisingly close to a scientific explanation for the origin of our Universe and the apparent "Big Bang" that started it all. But let's suppose that humankind is not able to fully understand the origin of the Universe, before our brief existence (In Cosmic terms) is snuffed out by our dying Sun. The fact that we do not understand something is not sufficient cause to say "God did it".

Let's imagine that every day my cat sees me taking food from the cupboard to feed him, but is never there when I replenish the cupboard. My cat has no idea why everything always comes from that cupboard or why it is there, but he knows that it does, he knows that it always has done, and has no reason to doubt that it always will. He has no facility to understand the process. But might it not seem reasonable to him that a God lives in the cupboard, a God which always provides, and apparently from nothing? There is a perfectly logical process, but he is mentally unequipped to understand it. As far as he is concerned I am the one who acts as an intercessor (I know how to open a can and he marvels at that!), and therefore perhaps I am the equivalent to his High Priest, if you like.

At a different scale and level of complexity, doesn't the God that humans assume exists fit the same mould? OK, so this is a gross oversimplification, but surely the basic prionciple is the same.

Does God exist? - (1) The Ontological Argument

Christian apologists are fond of "proving" that God exists using logic or philosophical arguments. Are the proofs mere word games, or is there more to them? One of the oldest widely disseminated arguments is the so called "Ontological" argument. In the late 11th Century St Anselm argued that we can deduce the existence of God from the mere idea of God. Just by thinking about what God is we can deduce that He exists. St Anselm's argument was:

By definition God is greater than which none can be conceived.
God can be conceived of as just an idea, or as really existing.
It is greater to exist than not to exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Over time various philosphers have exposed the flaws in this argument.
Initially Anselm's contemporary, the monk Gaunilo, objected that logically one could prove anything exists by this argument. St Anselm's response was that this argument could only be applied to God, because only He could be perfect and unique.

But it was not until Emmanual Kant in the late 18th Century that the Ontological argument appears to be have been conclusively rebutted. Kant showed that the argument wrongly assumes that existence is a property. According to St Anselm the concept "God" contains contains the idea of existence. So the statement "God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. Therefore he must exist. But Kant claimed that existence does not add anything to, or define, a concept. To say something exists merely means that some object corresponds to the concept. Existence is not the same as a concept. Therefore it is not true that "God exists" must be true.

However, this argument is still used today in various forms, and with further justifications and explanations.

In future posts I'll summarize further arguments. Next will be the "Cosmological Argument"

Is human morality a result of evolution or God given?

I discovered a fascinating study at the "Trends in Cognitive Science" website. The following is an extract. The full report is at the link, including sources. Click on the title above to go to the link.
See also my earlier post: "A monopoly on moral behaviour?"

"...

For some, there is no morality without religion. For others, religion is merely one way of expressing and legitimating one's moral intuitions. Religion can be linked to morality in different ways: moral principles are either decided by gods or by ancestors, or saints and holy individuals provide a model to be followed. Alternatively, gods and ancestors are regarded as interested parties that pay attention to what people do and people thus feel that their moral choices are never merely a private matter.

It is important to distinguish explicitly held religious beliefs and affiliations from religious intuitions. Bering, for example, presents experimental evidence that even non-religious subjects intuitively consider some mental states and processes, such as emotions, more likely to continue after death than others, such as hunger. Bloom argues that all humans are intuitive dualists in the sense that we feel our self to be the owner of the body, but we are not the same as our bodies. Thus, in folk psychology, the death of the body does not mean the cessation of personhood. Furthermore, because human reasoning is characterized by a promiscuous teleology, a capacity that causes us to see meaning and intentionality in everything that happens, we automatically postulate an agent as an explanation of various events; often this is some god -like concept.

Arguably, these tendencies make religious beliefs contagious in the sense that they are easy to spread and propagate because they functionally resonate with many of the basic operations of the mind. Consequently, they are also easy to use in moral reasoning. This does not mean, however, that there is a necessary link between morality and religion. There is evidence that at least some religious concepts and beliefs need certain cultural input in order to become adopted and to persist. The Vezo of Madagascar, for instance, seem to have two conceptions of death. Guided by their everyday experience, they construe death in biological terms as the breakdown of all vital functions, but see it as the beginning of a different form of existence in a ritual context. These two conceptions of death are activated in different contexts, and thus the Vezo do not feel that there is a tension between them.

Thus, although it seems undebatable that religiously colored intuitions can affect moral reasoning, and that religious primes can affect prosocial behavior, these observations do not license the conclusion that the mechanisms are specific to religion, nor that religion provides the central explanatory factor. Even when the intuitive content is interpreted as religious, the mechanisms that support reasoning are more general in scope.

There are endless often pointless web arguments about whether religion is necessary for humans to be moral. But surely that's the wrong question. I think most of us would agree that humans have an innate sense of morality. The really important question is surely whether this is God given. I hold the belief that it is not, but I cannot prove that, any more than someone else can prove that it is.

Things are the way they are because.....

There is an argument put forward by those who believe in divine creation that there has to be an intelligent creator. In essence they argue that if parameters and physical laws which govern the Universe were not precisely as they are, when they could so easily have been different, then we would not exist. Ergo, there must be a intelligent being who created them thus.
If one is already convinced that there is a God then I guess that this argument provides a reassuring riposte to those who point to a scientific explanation.
But is it really so astounding that these paramenters are exactly as they are? Well, yes, but they are, and it is perfectly possible and logical for these conditions to exist without divine intervention. The argument is put forward that the chances of exactly the right conditions for life existing are so incredibly small that it just can't have happened without a guiding hand.
But consider this. If I buy a ticket for the UK national Lottery, the chances of my winning the jackpot are so infinitessimally small, that many people call it a "tax on stupid people", but the fact remains that almost every week one person who buys their ticket in the knowledge that winning is incredibly unlikely, wins that jackpot.
There is a fundamental difference between something being highly improbable and being impossible Our existence may be highly improbable, given the vast range of alternative values that could have existed, but it is not impossible, and it can be deduced and explained using the basic building blocks of the structure of our Universe. There is no need for God.