You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Religion' tag.
Many people find the idea of God ridiculous and have sought to explain why people believe such “strange things”. In the past Sigmund Freud and Ludwig Feuerbach theorized that religion is some sort of remnant from primitive culture which was due to fade away as man became enlightened. Today such theories have been discredited by anthropologists who analysed the methods and evidence then employed and found them wanting. Aside from this man has been “enlightened” for more than a century now and religion is showing no signs of disappearing.
Contemporary atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet have therefore attempted to describe and explain belief in God as some sort of “mental illness”, a “meme” which has been contracted similar to a disease or otherwise explain using naturalistic mechanisms why believers are poor, er, souls, to be pitied because they cannot do any better. Such thinkers believe that religion can be biologised and thus discredited. So what do believers have to say about this?
An initial, not-so-obvious failure with this line of attack is that you can’t discredit an idea by showing why people believe it. When you prove that kids believe certain things only because their parents tell them you have not proved that these things are in fact untrue. What you have done is show that their belief is not rational – i.e. that it lacks valid reasons: age of claimant (parent) is not considered compelling reason in scientific arenas. This may cast doubt on the beliefs but unless the actual belief is examined it cannot be discounted.
Aside from this there is the more interesting backlash for atheists and naturalists in general. If a belief or idea is invalidated because of it’s having arisen by natural causes, which beliefs or ideas are valid? The answer is of course “none” because they all arose that way (in the naturalists view).
Atheism and naturalism in general has severe problems with explaining rational thought. If my thoughts and yours are just the product of chemical and electrical impulses in our pulpy brains why should we trust them? A neuron misfires and I could be believing nonsense! Alas, all is nonsense in a world which lacks an Ultimate Rational Agent (URA). Naturalism offers no basis for rational thought indeed there is no place for rationality on the naturalist view: if atoms are not rational then objects made (by irrational processes) of atoms cannot be rational. One way out of this uncomfortable corner is to say that certain organisations of matter constitute rationality. Sounds great but this is to smuggle in an external standard by which rationality can be judged. Why is this pile of carbon irrational but this pile of carbon (man) rational? By the naturalist view the idea of rationalism is a non-entity which cannot be verified without appeal to an external standard (our URA).
Aside from the speculation of popular contemporary writers we have little evidence that people believe in God based on some genetic configuration. Believers often come from unbelieving families or live in cultures which believe completely differently or are even hostile towards believers. It is true that belief is often “inherited” in the sense that children inherit certain values from their parents by seeing them lived. Most people however call this “education” and not “genetic inheritance” as it arises after conception at which point a child’s DNA is separate and independent of its parents. One-armed war veterans do not beget one-armed children ;-)
If, at some time in the future, investigators would discover a gene which “enabled” belief in God I would indeed become thoughtful. Are all my thoughts controlled by my genes? I find the possibility fantastic (in the wild, improbable sense) because there simply aren’t enough genes to control the myriad of beliefs people have. Is there a gene which makes people believe in “green monkey-aliens named Sebastian who live on planet ZuTo on Richard Dawkins’ left shoe on Tuesday afternoons”? Of course not – beliefs arise during our lifetimes. If I am wrong on this then all belief and rational thought becomes invalid. Our beliefs are not “reasoned” but “imposed” by irrational forces. All belief systems, atheism included would be in ruins.
Postscript
22 September 2008: According to Philosopher Alvin Plantinga and many evolutionists – Naturalistic process like evolution cannot be guaranteed to produce true beliefs because true beliefs do not necessarily confer survivability. This means that, for the naturalist, our beliefs are here because they help us survive and not because they are true – veracity is a side-effect. Our rationality has evolved to help us survive and not to help us discover uncomfortable truths and thus we have no basis for assuming our reason is helping us decide truth rather than decide safe.
It has been said that there are as many religions, as many gods, as there are people. Obviously atheists and other non-religious folk would disagree but the point is plain:
- There are lots of religions
- Even within religions, conceptions of God differ
We thus ask ourselves: why should this be and what does it mean. I see 3 clear reasons why religious concepts abound:
-
Religions are complex ideas
-
Religions are descriptive
-
Religions describe the intangible
Religions are complex ideas
Unlike simple concepts like arithmetic we cannot describe a religion’s premise in one sentence and devise an experiment to test it.
Religions are descriptive
Religions are rarely hypothetical theories but descriptions of God and the supernatural. Humans hardly ever agree on descriptions of things. Try describing your best friend Peter to someone and see how another person would describe them – there will be some overlap (he is a 27 year old Male) but not 100% consensus. There may even be disagreement and contradiction (IS Peter a funny guy?).
Religions describe the intangible
Religions deal mainly with subjects which cannot be contained in a laboratory and tested. We’re dealing with the meaning and purpose of life, the nature of humanity, the afterlife, morality and the nature of God. We can’t test these things once and for all and resolve differing views.
Thus, because religions are complex, descriptive and (mostly) unverifiable we can expect many differing views. (Atheists and agnostics would prefer we be silent on such issues and are irritated that religions proclaim with certainty what is, in the agnostics eyes, pure speculation.)
What Does All This Mean?
Now, what shall we conclude concerning the multiplicity of religions:
- All are equally true (Pluralism)
- All are equally false (Classic Atheism)
- All are equally indeterminate (Agnosticism)
- Each should be analysed logically and evidentially
My (potentially unpopular) answer would be 4: we need to look at religions individually. Only laziness or ignorance could answer otherwise. It may not be easy but all other answers have serious problems:
- The religions cannot all be true because they contradict each other. Christianity says that Jesus was crucified and Islam denies this. Buddhism says (in effect) that God does not exist or is impersonal, Islam says he is One and impersonal and Christianity says he is personal and triune (three persons, one being). They can’t all be right.
- The religions cannot all be false because the evidence for the theism as opposed to atheism is overwhelming (admittedly not all religions are theistic). I am not aware of any new evidence in favour of the no-God hypothesis except that it’s trendy and considered “intellectual” to be an atheist. To KNOW that there is no God you’d have to know everything about everything. The folks who say all religions are false cannot have analysed all religions due to the sheer number. The “all are false” conclusion is rash, arrogant and ignorant.
- The agnostic stance is untenable in my opinion because it results not from careful consideration but from ignorance and laziness. It also seems illogical to say “I KNOW that WE CANNOT (or do not) know”.
I believe we can and should consider each religion on it’s merits, group similar ones to keep the workload down and use common sense to find likely candidates. We should not let the multiplicity of ideas force us to assume all are right or wrong just as we should not assume the millions of numbers mean that 1 + 1 cannot be solved. Some things, like reality, are either true or false and not a matter of taste.
Related Posts
Perry Marshall has a new email series going at coffeehousetheology.com. It’s based around 7 perceived lies promulgated by insitutional religion:
-
If you live a moral life, deny yourself pleasure, follow the prescribed rituals and give us enough money, you’ll have a decent shot at being accepted by God.
-
God is huge and unapproachable, and He wants you to labor, struggle and live in guilt.
-
You are not smart enough or good enough to think for yourself. We will do your thinking for you.
-
Women are spiritually inferior and must submit to the authority of men.
-
There is no single truth. Everyone needs to explore and find a truth that works for them.
-
The Bible is out of date, inaccurate and over-rated. People in the 21st century are way too smart for that.
-
If God was really powerful and good, he wouldn’t allow so much evil and suffering to go on.
I can confirm that items 1 to 4 are preached in all the Catholic Churches I’ve ever been to over 20 years. Item 5 “there is no single truth” seems to be more the post modern pluralism which is very politically correct but I’ve not seen this preached in any church except in some ecumenical services and articles where Muslims and Catholics pray to a generic “God”.
Items 6 and 7 seem to come directly from postmodern atheism – not sure where Marshall get’s the idea that that’s organised religion…
Item 6 is widely believed but rarely by people who have actually read the Bible. 99% of people who don’t believe the Bible, scoff at it because it’s hip and modern to do so, not because they’ve actually researched it. It’s funny, but those who research it end up Christians! ;-)
Item 7 is, in my opinion the hardest question Christians face: The Problem of Evil.
Christianity is called religion which may give us the impression that it’s just another (boring) product on the shelf of discarded ideas belonging to a simpler, less informed age. Even a quick glance at one of the Gospels dispels this notion. Christianity is unique, personal, spiritual, and more real and transformative than anything else we can experience in this life.
Christianity is Personal
Christianity is not about principles, practices or philosophy although some have thought so and tried to make it that. Christianity is about a person: Christ – understand Him and you’ve understood Christianity. Know him and you know God. Accept his Gift and you’ve got what he came from God to give: God Himself.
Christianity is Unique
Herein lies the uniqueness of Christianity – the message IS the messenger. People think Christianity is just another thought system but it’s not even a thought system. You don’t change a few beliefs and thoughts and suddenly become a Christian – you ask, seek, knock and then open a door to meet a person who gives you a whole new life – a whole new you!
Christ is the Point
Whilst other religious leaders went on about rules and regulations, Jesus was always talking about himself – sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes not so subtle as is the case with the “I am” statements. If you think he was just a teacher then his short public ministry and premature death were indeed tragedies. But he didn’t think so: he knew he had come to die so that all might live – his death was the climax, the whole point, his resurrection was a grand vindication – God saying: “I stand behind this man”.
Christianity is NOT a Religion
There are loads of churches and religions based on the concept of Christ and most of them are organisations contrary to the spiritual organism Jesus had in mind. He was anti-religion and anti-legalism in his lifetime and many churches are up for the Pharisee-treatment when he gets back.
To show the difference between christian religion and real Christianity: imagine disbelieving in Brad Pitt versus, knowing of Brad Pitt, versus really knowing him personally. That’s the difference between atheism (disbelieving in Jesus), christian religion (knowing of Jesus) and Christianity (knowing Jesus).
Joining the Christian Club?
Many people believe they are Christian’s by birth or baptism. You might even imagine it’s easy to become a Christian: just believe Jesus is God’s son and start going to Church but, in the word’s of Keith Green:
Walking into a church makes you a Christian like walking into a McDonald’s makes you a hamburger.
Don’t get me wrong: a good church is a good place to start but people who only know of Jesus can’t help you past propositions about him to the glorious and transformative process of “meeting the man Himself”.
There is a widely circulated myth that religion is the root of all, or most, evil which will not withstand any sort of scrutiny. No serious historian would consider this a valid thesis any more simply because the great horrors of the 20th century were perpetrated by non-religious regimes; indeed, regimes with anti-religious ideologies such as those of Stalin and Mao. The reality is that atheist regimes have already overtaken pre-modern ones in terms of body count. That does not stop atheist rhetoricians from using this handy misrepresentation of religion and perpeturating a myth into post-modern culture.
What is true however that pre-modern cultures were more “religious” than modern ones in that religion simply differed from culture to culture but was never absent. The 20th century was a great experiment which removed religion from large states and ironically proved that the common denominator was not religion but (worldy) power combined with man’s inherent (moral) weakness.
The question of religion’s worth is in reality an emotional issue. Most people have negative experiences with churches and authority and understandably want to avoid those again. What a joy it is to be a follower of Christ (himself anti-religion), unbound by human institutions and codes, free to live life to the full (John 10:10)!
