I had dinner with my wife at the home of a married couple we're friends with tonight. I relate a ton with the husband. We met by fluke at a retreat in the early stages of my doubt. Having never met him before, I ended up finding out that he was a doubter, too! It was actually pretty amazing. We talked for quite some time afterward and I related with him quite a bit, especially since no one had yet even come close to identifying with my doubts and difficulties. Mostly I'd felt like others thought something was wrong with me or that I was somehow broken. We did have a somewhat different approach; he believes despite his doubts, while because of my doubts, I do not believe. We're both studying a reasonable amount in this area and are not certain.
Anyway, after dinner we got into a healthy discussion of our current pros/cons for belief/non-belief (it's been about 4 months since we last caught up). We went back and forth quite a bit about all kinds of topics like the fall, morality, the origins of life, whether the gospels are reliable/accurate, what belief really is (if it's chosen or involuntary), whether god could do any better at revealing himself, and so on. We covered quite a bit of ground over about 1-1.5hrs of discussion.
As perhaps is not surprising, neither of us were really convinced by each other's arguments. They went, approximately, like this:
- Him: how does atheism/naturalism explain x?
--- Me: I don't know, but it doesn't need to explain it at the moment, nor does not knowing establish god's existence via lack of explanation
- Me: I find x highly problematic or improbable (insert fall, resurrection, immaterial mind/soul, etc.)
--- Him: you don't have to believe x literally; (or) what about near death experiences?; (or) the resurrection is the most attested event in history and solidly backed by the gospels as evidence; (or) how do you explain the desire to be better than ourselves, our moral compass, appreciation for beauty/art?, etc.
I'm sure you all are aware of how these conversations go...
Getting to the meat... I've been undergoing my quest for god for about 8 months now and I find this conversation extremely typical; typical of what happens if you read two smart apologists on opposing sides of an issue, typical of debates, typical of blog comments... just typical all around. Both sides present what they find convincing themselves, and each opposing side says, "No thanks. I've considered that. Have you noticed the flaw with it here? Or have you read so-and-so's rebuttal? Now that's taken care of, consider my apologetic here..." and both sides continue on like this.
I'm no better and I think my friend would agree that we both are reasonably intelligent and yet neither of us found the other very convincing. In fact, we both probably walked away thinking our own arguments were stronger.
What really happened, though? What really happened, if I'm honest with myself, is that we just regurgitated arguments that have already existed in some form for hundreds of years if not longer. We simply presented what we've run arcross in our research as groundbreaking and convincing to ourselves, failing to really see that 1) it's already been thought/discussed, 2) it's probably already been seen by the other in some form, and 3) millions have held their beliefs in spite of (or because of) said argument/evidence.
Both sides can't be right, which brings me to the motivator to figure out who's wrong: pain, suffering, and overall muck.
I've literally found it awful on all kinds of levels that after living a life fully for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, I would suddenly encounter convincing evidence that it might have all been a lie. I never saw it coming. I didn't ask for it. I wasn't living in sin as to deserve something like this. I went down to FL to visit my parents, prayed my rosary during plane takeoffs, and even had my mini Bible with me for prayer on the plane... yet I came back from FL an extremely doubt-plagued quasi-Christian. For whatever reason, my "dogmatic shell" was cracked and I was able to question for the first time... ever. I think this occurrence is significant and don't actually think that most believers are even able to consider that their beliefs might be wrong. I don't fault them for that, either. I am not convinced it's a conscious choice. With the "shell" intact, the idea that Christianity could be false does not even enter the realm of possibilities. Atheists could very well be in the same boat if they have no justification for their stance. I do consider anyone who has "switched sides" to be less suspect. Maybe that's unjustified, but, for example, anyone who tells me that they believe(d) in Christianity and can demonstrate familiarity with philosophical, scientific, and historical objections as well as their responses has my immediate recognition as being above average.
In any case, eight months later I'm pretty much where I was shortly after FL, though quite a bit more knowledgeable. Currently I simply don't find the case for Christianity strong in light of the inconsistencies/improbabilities I see. I find that my choices are between:
- Non-belief/atheism/agnosticism in which I simply have to bite the bullet and admit that I don't know a lot of shit (e.g. origins of life, consciousness, and morality)
- Christianity in which I have to believe many things that I currently find extremely unlikely along with things that think I'll never be able to defend conclusively. Thus I'll be forced to say, "That's just what I believe" or "It's just a mystery" or whatever else along these lines.
Given this... how would you proceed? I think I can only side with non-belief at the present moment. But there's obviously many who believe because they think there's a slew of rational evidence supporting their position and very little supporting non-belief (naturalism, atheism, whatever).
We're obviously in some type of stalemate. No one seems to be winning. Where is this going? What will be the resolution? No one is really coming up with any new arguments, but probably just regurgitating what they've read elsewhere and think is strong (myself included), and yet each side finds them falling on deaf ears.
In other words, both sides think they're right and both sides think they have the majority of evidence and argument on their side. What in the world are we going to do about this?
I've tried debates, blogs, books, thinking, praying, journaling, and so on. I have found all routes frustrating. Smart people abound, blogs abound, debates are short and both sides can sound very convincing though mutually exclusive, prayer has not worked but apparently there's good reasons for that, and so on. Since all mediums seem to be a huge assortment of ping-pong matches in which evidence and arguments are slammed back and forth with big paddles... what is the path forward to agreement? Someone is wrong and we need to find out who ASAP.
What are suggestions for how to actually go about this? Sponsor a week-long conference where all the big-heads get together and lay everything out on the table? A ridiculously cited, direct statement/rebuttal blog posting with the top 10 intellectuals on either side of the debate? A 5 year long mini-series where each of the various criteria for belief/non-belief are evaluated step-by-step? Heck, a 5 year long mini-series just on one topic like whether argument X succeeds?
If nothing else, I at least think taking a deep breath and admitting, "This is an extremely murky water I'm swimming in; those seeing different things than me might not be intentionally X ( X = hackneyed theist/atheist)," might at least make this journey more enjoyable even if it contributes nothing to productivity or fruitfulness. I simply want to be aligned with reality. I'd like to actually make progress, not spin my wheels in name-calling. I'd like to make this about simply finding out what's real. I don't care who's deluded, an idiot, stubborn, hard-of-heart, or whatever else...
Our focus should be on what describes the world most accurately, not on psycho-analyses of our opponents, predicting their level of education, or any other garden-variety internet attacks. Let's drop the baggage in hopes that we can reach a verdict faster.
I'm curious to hear from those who read this:
- Am I silly? Will we ever reach a solid conclusion about this or should I let it go?
- What are your top suggestions for systematically establishing who is right and who is wrong?
- What progress are we really making if it's evident that nothing really seems convincing except for the "home team's" own evidence/arguments?
- What even forms belief? Is belief formed and then retroactively supported by evidence or does evidence allow or lead one to believe?
28 comments:
Since the way forward implies a great number of years, I would actually dare the rudeness of suggesting to you to take at least a few hours of your life before deciding anything. That'd be all..
Hendy,
Lvka is right, don't expect quick and speedy resolution. Full disclosure--I am a believer, barely. Answering your questions:
- Are you silly? Absolutely not. However, I do not believe there will ever be an end to the theist/atheist conflict. Perhaps the truth is out there, but as long as we are human, our emotions will get in the way, and derail our search. If you are silly, we all are. I'm not saying let it go, but don't expect much of anyone to come to any agreement with you... it's just the way life works, I've found.
- Establishing right/wrong: I'm not sure anyone can do this objectively and systematically. We sure do love our objectivism. But I'm convinced that's one of the great lies of the Age of Reason and Reformed Christianity. We humans are not objective, it's not how we're wired. Does that mean we can't find truth? No, I think we can, but what "truth" looks like all of a sudden is different, and isn't found in legal, literal readings of passages and well-controlled experiments and calculations. For many that's unacceptable, I understand that.
- What progress are we really making...? I think the progress is personal and individual, diffusing between person to person as we interact. If being "right and correct" is the goal... well, you see the current results. If developing relationships and understandings and sharing information for each other's mutual benefit is the goal (i.e. making our communities and society better), it's a slow trickle, but it's happening, every day.
- What even forms belief? I tend to think (I didn't always) that we believe what we do and go looking for justification for it. Belief is NOT objective. That isn't necessarily wrong, but religions for the history of the world have used belief to separate and exclude people. No mutual benefit there. The trick is to take different beliefs and, perhaps in spite of the differences, put people together to help each other in life.
This is a far cry from finding the magic "truth". And so what if you do? Does it affect how you treat others or live among society? If that effect isn't for the better, I have to wonder what good "truth" is. I had to give up the quest for the answer and the need to convince others of it. I had to accept the variations and move on to living with people.
I don't know, however. I could be wrong. But that would put me in good company, because so is everyone else. :-)
I hope this helps.
@Lvka:
Cool. Well now that I've spent more than two hours on this...
Out of curiosity, have you converted/reverted or chosen your overall belief (x -> Christianity, not Christianity y -> Christianity z) as a result of prolonged surveying of the evidence or did you happen to gain belief at an early age? Perhaps I'd rather spend my life living according what is the case rather than in limbo land...
@Justin:
Thanks for the comments.
- Re. emotions clouding things: I'm tempted to agree except for the fact that emotions don't matter when considering many other decisions. Under what circumstances do you think that feelings matter more than evidence? Just in obscure and uncertain situations? No one's feelings about the shape of the earth seem to matter very much, for example. I see the point but just challenge it a bit.
- Regarding where the truth will be found, I have not heard a good series of points presented as to what exactly the rules of the game actually are.
No matter what approach one seems to take, the rules seem to shift such that one's never, apparently, playing by them. This keeps things from simply looking at the facts and I find that more arguing occurs over the rules of the game than actual content but I could be wrong!
- You're probably right about progress. Slow and personal. Though I still think the goal should be to actually find the answer.
- I would agree that we can relate, get along, and help each other in spite of differing beliefs. I have, however, found it unbelievably difficult to do so in my current surroundings (100% believers). I would suggest that the kumbaya view of universal getting-alongness is perhaps as wishful as my desire for us to solve thing already. Religion is incredibly divisive, no matter how much we want it to be otherwise.
Lastly, your post is quite gentle, understanding, etc. and I'm appreciative. I challenge exactly how it holds up in the world, however. I don't think the stance to be "let's give up convincing one another and coexist" but rather that those who choose non-belief are in risk of eternal peril, have such and such reasons why the really disbelieve (wink, wink), and so on.
That was a large part of our Holy Spirit debate... was it justified to call a non-believer hard of heart without any actual reference to said non-believer's own stance on the matter?
I find other areas like this (inconclusive, non-proven, etc.) to fall into the realm of preference rather than having the emotional, moral, and eternal saturation that this area does. If it really isn't clear... why are both sides so sure that it is and, thus, the opposing side is ______ (fill in insult)?
Hendy,
I hope it's not bad form to quote myself. I had the same type of struggle as you are having. Many of us have it at some point. Here's what I learned: "For me, writing the arguments was the best way forward. Reading about them, thinking about them, considering them, expressing them in my own way, refining them, and working (with) them as much as possible. These processes ultimately led me to reject the struggle to maintain and cultivate religion's artificial worldview. By trying to make religion my own, I claimed myself.
Today, I know people who want to have a better faith, who wrestle with doubt. Unless they ask me to, I won't intervene in their personal explorations, but I hope they come to see that there is no better faith and there is no struggle."
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/06/religious-life-looking-back-at-one-of.html
Good luck.
Hendy,
I'll clarify a few things, but I think you and I understand each other.
Under what circumstances do you think that feelings matter more than evidence? My point is not that emotions matter more than evidence, but that when evidence is lacking, we are left with little more than emotions to base our decisions on. That's when the discussions get ugly. I would argue that emotion plays a great deal in the arguments over the shape of the earth, *in spite of the evidence*, for some people at least. Facts be damned. Right or wrong, no one wins that argument.
You are completely right about the "rules of the game". And that adds to my point about objectivism vs. subjectivism. More often than not, in my experience, if it will "win" the argument, I'll change the rules in my favor. Facts and rationality be damned. Fairness too, for that matter.
I agree that I am perhaps naive and wishful in what I have given here. But, I have no delusions that religionists will ever have the kumbayah moment--they stand to lose too much. The rest of us, though, stand to gain much by resisting the urge to be "right", and instead, sharing a good conversation over beer and wings; or by helping each other when one loses their job in this economy.
I challenge exactly how it holds up in the world, however. I think it holds up in the world only as well as there are those who hold it up. Being polite to my atheist neighbor as a mask to cover my deep belief that he's hellbound is not what I'm talking about. The fruit of that hypocrisy eventually ripens, as you have recognized.
On both parties' side I think there has to be a recognition of fallibility and uncertainty. Only from a common starting point can we then examine evidence (if there is any) and/or work out our emotions to find the answer. If one tries to start from the higher ground, all bets are off, and the insults fly. Unfortunately, I think striving to be the alpha-dog is the default for most people. We crave certainty. When things are unclear, we don't know what to do and we revert back to what we know--winning and being certain. To me it makes perfect sense since I don't believe humans were born rational. Rational thought and objective discussion are learned, and learning takes hard work most people aren't willing to endure. It's easier to condemn everyone not like me and move on with my day.
Interesting discussion here.
Here's where I come at this...
I was raised in a family that respected science, but also believed in God and the supernatural. When I grew up, I realized that the case for the existence of God was far, FAR weaker than I was raised to believe. Maybe that's the situation with you.
But it did stun me, in a way, just how weak a case it was... when it was taught to me as being as lock-solid-fact as the earth orbiting the sun.
I'll put away the actual arguments for God. For the sake of my post I'll stipulate that there may be some (though I don't personally hold those views).
But the fact that even though there ARE arguments for God, they were way, way weaker than I expected them to be... that was pretty stunning for me... and an indication for me that "Religion" was not a philosophically healthy field of study. If mathematics was the second-cheapest department at a university in the pre-computer days (all they ever needed was pencils, papers and erasers), then surely theology was the cheapest (no erasers!). It seemed to me that religion was one endeavor of human thought that made definite claims about the nature of the universe we find ourselves in... but unlike biology, astronomy, engineering, etc.... never ever proved anything wrong. Never discarded any old theories.
And how does one make any progress in a field that can never disprove any claims at all? How does one find truth using a tool that cannot detect the false?
Using religion to determine any aspect of reality in the universe would be like using modern dance to determine the molar mass of hydrogen, or painting to compute the circumference of the Earth.
This isn't to discount painting or dance. But to realize that these may be expressions of human culture, they aren't a decision-making tool about life. Nor are they a science, engineering or socialogical toolset.
Religion is a technology that doesn't do what it claims to do: provide a life-framework, teach the difference between right and wrong, explain our place in the universe...
It can, however, create a community and a culture. I believe it to be flawed in the communities and cultures it creates because it still believes that it has a better, more useful ethical authority, and it seems to cause groups to act one way to the in-group but a different way to the out-group. Anyway, those go on my laundry-list of complaints about how organized religions behave in our culture,,, that's a side-topic. But I think this can be laid at the feet of the religious decision-making process, which I think is fundamentally flawed and therefore creates bad fruit.
So that left me with thinking that while there may be a God, religion itself as a tool for finding that out would be useless or nearly so.
I have described faith as the Magic 8 Ball with only one answer ("you are right! Keep believing!). Not a very good tool to tell truth from falsehood.
Once I determined that the case for God was weak, and the tools of religion for telling truth from falsehood were weak, I revisited Religion as a human-made artifact. Seen as that, I noted that it was in the interest of Religion to make sure that those brought up in the religion aren't particularly skilled at rational thinking.
Not to say your friend or you are irrational. Just to say, the more irrational the foundations of a religion, the more it potentially benefits from installing blinders on the young. Those "blinders" can be as simple as enforcing taboos against talking to those outside the faith, challenging, questioning, doubting... etc.
Fear of hell is a blinder. Fear of doubt, disapproval with expressing doubt, etc...
Those are toxic to the search for truth.
Seeing that, I realized why I was brought up with the mistaken idea that the evidence for God was stronger than it was: my parents weren't very good at rational inquiry. By cultural norms, their upbringing was deficient in that area.
@Justin:
Holy cow. What a response. I couldn't agree more with what you said. I would add that I find this a tad different than some of the discussions we had even within the last month. I really enjoyed the response -- can't say that enough!
I think both sides are often guilty of the same faults and really liked the note about trying to not approach the debate from "the high ground." I also really liked how you put our shared responsibility to bring to fruition an environment that allows for open discussion rather than throat slitting!
Mmmm. Beer and wings.
Thanks for such a thoughtful response; I mean that. I think just writing this post and thinking about it some more has helped me be more at peace with resting in the mucky water that it is rather than hating it for being confusing and frustrating. I want to know but just might never be satisfied... bummer.
@Anon:
Thanks for the comments! I really enjoyed your input and find the comparison of religion to art or dance quite an interesting one. It's also interesting pondering your comments about communities. I think this is probably a widely erratic phenomenon. The one I'm involved in is incredibly strong and even from a doubting standpoint... pretty much flawless. I can't think of a better network of people, and I mean that. It'd be hard to explain exactly how it works; perhaps I'll write about it in a post sometime.
In any case, I find the non-falsifiability frustrating as well, hence this post ;) It's extremely hard wanting to find the truth with the dynamic that exists given the attempt to validate or disprove an invisible, hidden, being!
Hi Hendy, I found your blog through Debunking Christianity and I thought I’d give my two cents.
Am I silly? Will we ever reach a solid conclusion about this or should I let it go?
Not at all. Humans have been searching for answers to these questions for thousands of years and regarding some we are just beginning to understand them, like the brain and consciousness for example. As far as reaching a solid conclusion, I don’t know if that’s entirely possible. All you can do is follow the evidence where it leads and base your beliefs upon what the facts tell you at that moment and that’s all. It seems like a lot of people want answers right now and so, I believe, they cling to religion because at least it gives them some kind of answer, even though that answer might be the wrong one. Of course, it is possible we may reach a solid conclusion at some future time but who knows for sure.
What are your top suggestions for systematically establishing who is right and who is wrong?
Personally, I feel that those who have the evidence on their side and adhere to the most logical position are most likely the right ones. Another thing, and this is one of the main things that swayed me, was the fact that when you look at many of the arguments of the intelligent design proponents and many theists, many of them have a habit of distorting or outright lying about the scientific evidence that is available about evolution or other subjects like cosmology. If a person or group has to distort or lie about something chances are they're wrong and don't want to admit it.
The best way is simply to look at the evidence each side presents and decide which seems the most convincing to you.
What progress are we really making if it's evident that nothing really seems convincing except for the "home team's" own evidence/arguments?
Good question. I obviously believe firmly that I’m correct and many theists will insist they are right. Well, in that situation I’d ask myself which position has the most evidence going for it. And it seems to me to be the atheists’ and materialists’ who have the evidence.
I’ve found with several years of debate that most often theists get pinned in a corner after a few rounds of debate and they’re unable to answer some of my objections; facts that refute their claims. My side has the facts and they have no answer, therefore, I believe the reasonable conclusion is that I’m correct.
Obviously there are some unknowns that neither side has a for sure answer to, but to use that to argue for a god or the existence of an immaterial realm is jumping to conclusions. Again, we must wait for more evidence before we can make a more secure judgment.
It’s all about the evidence. Those are my thoughts about that.
What even forms belief? Is belief formed and then retroactively supported by evidence or does evidence allow or lead one to believe?
Well, the most logical option would be the second one: evidence informs belief. If one did the opposite then one tends to only pay attention to things that support that belief and not listen to contrary evidence.
I hope this helps at least a little bit. I didn’t read all of the responses so if I repeated anything I apologize.
Take care and good luck.
P.S. What books have you read and on what subjects? I have a large library of books on a variety of subjects so if you’d like any recommendations please don’t hesitate to ask. I’ve got books by both non-believers and theists, though I have many more by scientists and non-believers.
I'm the unsigned poster above. Your blog has a 4096 character limit. I was eventually coming around to my main point. The point I eventually was going to get to was that this question has no end to the debate.
The continuing debate about creationism vs evolution shows that even when we actually have conslusive facts, they are useless in settling the debate. I don't expect the god debate will ever be settled. And I think this is partially because of the things I said before about religion not being exactly a university of rationalism.
But I do think that perhaps rushing to settle the question may be an artifact of your religious upbringing. It's as if you've got a checkbox that needs checking: atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, other... As if there was Somebody looking over your shoulder wanting to know your religious affiliation.
Well, there isn't. (at least I don't think so. And if there is, I expect He has plenty of time to be patient.)
When you get up in the morning each day you could ask yourself what you believe. Today I'm an atheist. That might change tomorrow.
If you really need a label, you could call yourself a seeker of truth.
But you dont have to settle on anything. 'nobody's keeping score but you.
Embrace the journey,
-Siamang
I followed the link from DC to here. I'm glad I found this post of yours. I can identify with your struggle to find the truth in the midst of "murky waters." I like your use of the word "stalemate." That's how I often feel after reading both sides of an issue, whether it be about the resurrection, the origin of morality, or fine-tuning of the universe.
You are certainly not silly. It's a breath of fresh air every time I come across someone who is honestly searching for answers about who we are and how we got here. I don't know if I'll come to a final answer myself. I was raised an evangelical Christian and have been in the midst of a faith crisis for 1.5 years. I would like to think as humanity evolves, we come to a greater understanding of ourselves and our universe. I hate to sound like a geek, but when I make statements like this I envision aa Star Trek sort of scenario. I, like you, really want some answers. NOW! But, I do think the process of searching and seeking bears fruit of its own, not in finding answers, but in learning more about ourself, developing humility about our own knowledge as well as increasing empathy for others who are searching. We may learn to appreciate a great deal more in this life from our openness to it and to others around us. (At least, this is what I tell myself when I'm fed up with searching.)
As far as "systematically establishing who is right and who is wrong," I'm not sure I have a system. I mainly try to keep myself balanced by reading both sides of an issue and trying to be as critical of arguments for one side as for another.
I will say that I appreciate those in the blogosphere who willingly have the same conversations over, and over, and over again. It may be old to them, but new to me. I benefit from "lurking" on sites as I try to form my own opinion. It's a process we all have to go through. No one can take our journey for us. It's not the most efficient use of anyone's time, though, is it?
Regarding your questions about how beliefs are formed, I've been thinking about that a fair amount. I don't think we should underestimate the importance of psychological factors in the God debate. I wrote a bit about my struggle with this just yesterday at my blog. There's probably a continual feedback loop between belief and evidence. It's hard to say which comes first, but they both certainly influence the other. At least we're able to reflect on our cognitive biases and emotions that may impact the ability with which we view evidence.
Siamang, I like your idea of calling oneself, " a seeker of truth." I was reflecting on the fact that no label seems to fit me exactly any more, but that one will do nicely!
@ArizonaAtheist:
I found your blog and added it to google reader. My response:
I agree that I want the decision to be made via evidence. I saw some posts on your blog about "evidence against the supernatural" which I would like to read.
Regarding the books on my list, check the link to the right called "Truth Seeker Challenge." That's my current list and I'm blogging my way through in an effort to be detailed.
Thanks for your comments. I'd be interested in hearing:
1) a general summary of what causes you to say that the evidence is skewed toward atheism/naturalism (or links to posts with this)
2) what books you might recommend (either skeptical or apologetic) after viewing my list
@Siamang:
Sorry, the 4096 limit is universal to all blogger blogs.
I loved the checkbox analogy and see the truth in it. I want my label set in stone and figured out. I think the ones looking over the shoulder are probably the believers in my current circle, but it could also be the world. I think I perhaps give too much importance to this "label" and think about this as defining me so much that wherever I go I want to be ready with my label and supporting reasons "just in case" it comes up.
I'm obsessed with this question right now and perhaps I project that everyone else is, too. Thus I may place too much importance on figuring this all out now... Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@DoOrDoNot:
I read our link and loved it. I am about half way as far as you but completely related when you said that you are getting tired. I don't know how hard you've pushed it, but I've pushed it hard. Reading till all hours of the night, listening to debates every day to and from work, reading everything I can. Thinking about this stuff ceaselessly... It's crazy and consuming.
Funny side comment: I'll talk to some believers and even when I went to confession once before a retreat just in case it was sin keeping me from believing... and have been asked what the "fruits" of my doubt are as a way to try and get me to choose belief. I respond that it's a completely unfair question as I'm miserable because I'm not satisfied, not because I currently don't believe! Anyway, I just find that interesting that what I think is a pretty understandable state gets turned into a "sign" that my unbelief is bearing bad fruit...
I probably just need to get comfortable with not knowing, which is odd as I'm comfortable with this in the "component questions" like what caused the universe, how life began, what the "mind" is, and so on... but now with the whole question.
It's like an inductive argument where the case is actually pretty solid, but one keeps asking their self if a black swan might turn up any day now.
This post, particularly Justin's 2nd response above, really gave me a lot more peace about my current stance. This happens to be non-belief in Christianity with a suspicion that no intervening gods exist, As ArizonaAtheist said above regarding method... I've just read, listened, thought, and talked and simply find it more probable than not that Christianity is false. I've been forcing myself to keep reading and thinking in case I'm wrong, but perhaps more to establish that I've done my due diligence to the believers who know me,
I'm after the best explanation of reality. As such, one of my worst fears is actually to be written off by my former circles. I want my research to stand as something other believers should look at and I fear that if I don't amass an unbiased book list to show I've down my work I'll be labeled with the typical convenient tags: he just hates god, he must have never been a real Christian, he has a hidden moral agenda, etc.
Thanks for your thoughts!
I, too, really appreciated Siamang's term, "A Seeker of Truth"...What strikes me about it is that it's both a functional and useful descriptor of the effort at hand. Using an operational description of one's task seems much more useful than simply choosing a label (whatever it is) and attempting to "fit" onself into the definition...Which, to me, raises the questions: Are we defined by our 'labels'? Or are we larger [more complex, comprehensive, etc.] than our 'labels'?
Years ago, I was present during a friend's telephone conversation with her on-and-off boyfriend. After she hung up, I mentioned that the tone of the conversation sounded as if she was rather unhappy with the situation. She made a classic comment: "A bad relationship is better than no relationship at all!"
This (seemingly irrational) viewpoint seems to characterize some of the issues found in this area of inquiry: What SHALL we settle for? Are we so fundamentally flawed (i.e irrational) as to be fundamentally incapable of ascertaining increasing degrees of (experiential) validity in the search for the elusive goal of spiritual experience? Or should we settle for firing volleys of acquired programming at seeming threats to our comfortable worldview?
It seems that a comprehensive heuristic would involve continual refining and exploration of ANY area that seemed potentially valid - regardless of ideology. Ken Wilber seems to have adopted a similar approach approach - looking at commonalities in literature and experience, attempting to establish operational hypotheses having to do with such..."To get to this state, do the following. Then evaluate experiences. Refine, reorient, pursue..."
In any objective examination or practice, it seems that one might adopt a similar approach - unless one is simply attempting to spread one's familiar mental/emotional virus...!
Gurdjieff is reported to have said that the proper task of man is to "Wake Up". "Waking Up" has little do to with ideology, since one might see any particular ideology/belief as simply another lens/prism/filter through which the viewer distorts 'reality': In effect, a trance...
A noble task you've set yourself, Hendy!! May you suceed and share your findings!! We'll be the enriched by your efforts!! Thank you!
Hi Hendy,
That’s a pretty good list. I have most that are listed and two of them, ‘The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology’ and ‘Contending with Christianity's Critics’ I’ve thought about getting. When you’re finished with them could you please tell me your opinion?
Another one, called ‘On Guard’, I belive from William Lane Craig is one I’ve thought about getting.
One thing I see missing are history books. Some discussions hinge upon history, like the argument that atheism caused the persecution of people during the era of Stalin and Lenin, and some, like Richard Dawkins, are not historians and so I’d recommend a few good books on the subject to get the scoop on the views of actual historians of the subject. And I don’t know about you, but I like history so I have several of those themed books. :- )
a general summary of what causes you to say that the evidence is skewed toward atheism/naturalism (or links to posts with this)
The links you mentioned about the supernatural is a good place to start. Along with my posts against the evidence for god: here and here. While not about the supernatural per se they do go into that subject a little bit and provide evidence against the argument about religious experiences, a common argument for the supernatural.
what books you might recommend (either skeptical or apologetic) after viewing my list
I guess it would depend on what you’re interested in. I really enjoyed Hector Avalos’ ‘The End of Biblical Studies’ and ‘Fighting Words.’ The first is about the lack of historical evidence for the bible and jesus. The other is about how religion causes conflict and delves into the arguments about evolution and atheism being the causes of Nazism and Communism. While he isn’t trained in these fields his research seems good, though I don’t agree with everything he says, but most.
I’d also recommend ‘Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking’ by Kida; ‘Born to Believe’ by Newberg and Waldman; ‘The Science of Good and Evil’ and ‘How We Believe’, both by Shermer.
If you’d like to take a peek at my library I have an account with LibraryThing.
@Anon:
Thanks for the comments! I, too, think the answer probably lies in a fluid path rather than obsessing over a label. Writing this and processing comments has helped a great deal with that realization.
@Larry Tanner:
Sorry it took me so long to respond. That was a great read and very interesting. You're quite the diverse individual as well! I think a lot of my struggle has to do with the tensions in my environment. We're social beings and gosh do things get crazy when you suddenly find out you have some serious doubts that cause tremendous misalignment with the majority "flying V" formation...
@AA:
I was interested in Blackwell but somewhere else someone recently posted that it's like $150. I checked Amazon myself and noticed the same! No freaking way. I'll try to remember to let you know about "Contending with..." though. Or just check on my blog every once in a while. I'm hoping to review these books pretty thoroughly. I'm actually going to make the shift to public transpo to work which should give me almost 10hrs a week of reading time. I worry about not being able to keep up on the notes/blogging though. I really like writing, but it takes a long time.
I'll check your links. Thanks.
I've had "End of Biblical Studies" on my list for a while as well. The other books sound great as well. I'd love to read Shermer as I just love listening to him. Him and Carrier are probably some of my favorites to listen to in debates and talks and thus I'm eager to read works by both.
History is a good point. I've traditionally disliked it but I think it's because I'm used to thinking of it from my middle school/HS days and think of it as a memorization game. I'm an engineer and have always preferred learning rules to memorizing facts. With rules, formulas, and understanding of relationships you can do anything. With history, if you don't remember the dates and names... you don't really know it.
I understand that's a poor understanding, but childhood tendencies die hard! My wife and I read the first chapter of Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and that was fantastic so maybe I like it more than I thought! Perhaps it's just the format or teacher that affects my receptivity?
Thanks again for the comments.
@AA:
Shermer's "Why We Believe" got a healthy dose of quite poor reviews. What do you make of them? Surely some are just complainers, but some say "nothing new" as well as that he got his facts wrong. Did you agree with either of those when reading the work?
Hi Hendy,
I understand your feelings about history well. Up until I began to do a lot of reading I didn't care for it, but now I enjoy it. I've some a quarter of Zinn's book you mentioned. From what I read of it so far, it is very good.
As far as Shemer's 'How We Believe' I thought it was pretty good and well written. It had some information that I’ve seen elsewhere but I enjoyed it. I guess you’d have to read it and see for yourself. As far as the facts, nothing jumps out at me, though it's been a while since I read it so maybe I just don't remember.
Woops. That's what happens when I multistask and write more than one thing at a time...I meant I've read a quarter of Zinn's book...
@AA:
Thanks for clarification on Shermer's book. I'm always interested in claims of non-factualness, as skeptics (especially Shermer) tend to be incredibly boastful (indirectly through their work, method, and talks) about their ability to adhere only to well-established facts such as by using something like the Baloney Detection Kit. I look forward to getting to it.
Hendy,
That is a different Justin earlier in the comment thread. None of those comments are from the Justin of The Faith Heuristic.
Hendy,
I appreciate your willingness to seek out the most likely true. I have a suggestion. Go back to when you believed Christianity unquestioningly. Take all of those beliefs and write them or establish them in some way. Make them as close to the beliefs you held as a Christian as possible. Then, use those beliefs to make predictions about how the world should be. Make predictions about as much as possible. How should the world look? How should religion be? Then, look at the real world and see if these predictions come true. After that, do the same with naturalistic beliefs. Use science to confirm or deny every suspicion if possible. Which beliefs make predictions that conform to what we see, naturalism or theism?
@JustinMartyr: agreed. I should have clicked the screen name link and seen that it wasn't from Faith Heuristic...
@Ronnie:
That's a great suggestion. I may do that in more detail in the future. I think I have done a good deal of this indirectly though, which perhaps can be shown by my coined definition for theology that resulted from such an experiment:
"A field of study in which the objective is to convince rational human beings that what they would imagine were an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving being the creator and ruler of the universe... is utterly false and that, in fact, not only does this being exist, but the world in which we live is the only logically possible way he could have done things."
Post a Comment
<i>, <b> | links: <a href=""></a>