Douglas Adams (more info) has been one of my favorite writers for years, but, until I read “The Salmon of Doubt”, a collection of essays and articles collected after his death, I only had had contact with his fiction work. But a particular entry in “Salmon” changed my life.
That entry is here, it was an interview Adams did for the American Atheist magazine.
I had a Christian education (Catholic, in fact), and, until I was about 26 or so, I really believed in it. Why? I tended to be rational in most of my life, but there was a part of it about which I apparently refused to think. It’s as if it was something so fragile, that I didn’t let anything near it - like reason or logic - , because I was afraid it would collapse, that I would “lose” it. If faith couldn’t withstand logic, then I wouldn’t let logic come anywhere near it. Why did I want to keep it? In part, I guess, because I loved the person (now deceased) who was responsible for my belief, and I wanted to respect her memory. And maybe I also felt alone - the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God was something that would keep me company. And there was, too, the promise of “eternal justice” - that the injustices we suffered on Earth were only temporary, that eventually there would be justice, and the good would be rewarded, and the evil would be punished. I wanted it to be true, so much… therefore, I believed it.
Until I read that interview. It certainly got me thinking. And, in a way, Adams had gone through similar experiences, so I could relate. He put into words what I had only felt - that faith and religion, in me, only “survived” because I had a defense mechanism - I refused to think about it, like I thought about anything in the “real world”. But if faith and religion can’t survive a “closer look”… why is that, and, most importantly, what does that tell us about them?
That they are a lie.
Afterwards, I thought a lot about it - what I should have done during all the years before. Is there a God? I don’t think so; reality and the universe can be perfectly explained without one (Occam’s razor), and a God creating the universe in 6 days is no more believable than an Invisible Pink Unicorn or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. But assuming that there is a God… then where is he? Why is there so much suffering? Why do people pray, if it doesn’t work (any scientific test shows it, and there have been some)? Why would a god create a world, then hide all traces of doing it, then stay completely invisible except for some ridiculously minor appearances to a person or two, every couple of centuries? Why would God hide, then damn to eternal suffering everyone who didn’t believe in him?
And the existance of a god is certainly something extraordinary. That, to a scientist, requires extraordinary proof. Where is it? And no, ancient books are not proof. Many people believing in him are not proof either.
I realized that I had been guilty, through most of my life, of two of the worst forms of irrationality: wishful thinking, and refusing to think about something. I had been dishonest with myself. I had put something “above” reality, about the truth. And that is wrong.
But it’s better to open one’s eyes later than never to do it at all.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
In response to your “why is he hiding” sentiment, many ’scientific christians’ interpret Genesis in the following way. Each “day” for God is something akin to 65 million years. Creating the universe and sending the burning gasses out into the universe: 65 million years. Solidifying some of that gas into planets: 65 million years. Etc. Therefore, the sixth day (creating life/man) was the 65 million years encompassing the dinosaur age and the time up to the death of Jesus. Now, then, is the seventh day, where God is resting. So, according to these people, God isn’t dead, he’s merely sleeping. They also point out the many sightings of Jesus and Mary (but not God) as proof that the home office is doing the best they can during his nap.
However, it’s all crap, of course.
–’scientific christians’, in this context, are the christians who use scientific principles to rebut arguments against them, but will abandon science entirely when it would serve to destroy their beliefs.
I agree 100%. They use “science” only when it fits their purposes - if it doesn’t, scientists are “closed-minded” and “don’t want to listen to new ideas”.
I had never heard that “1 day = 65 million years” argument, though. You learn something every day.
You know what, even though I disagree with you on this, I really like the way you post and I added you to my blogroll. If you look at my own blog you’ll see it’s the very contrast of this one, I do believe in spirituality and the such, and my site is as minimalistic as yours, yet with inverted colors
So it’s really fun to have found your blog, and I’ll read it more often.
To Dan > Nice explaination
-Mark.
As for “helping the helpless” and so on… why would (s)he care? Why can’t it be ours to decide?
If (s)he DID create our whole universe (and it is a hell of a riddle HOW it happened), why should (s)he have to “manage” it?
Why do people assume God/Allah/etc. is an adult?
Why couldn’t (s)he be a child that created existence on a whim?
Why does (s)he HAVE to leave traces? If (s)he is as “almighty” as (s)he is, then (s)he CERTAINLY could erase his tracks, right?
Pardon me if this sounds like religious hogwash, but I seriously can’t believe in any scientific evidence of the (un)efficiency of prayer. Can luck be tested? I think they’re on the same level as intelligence or love: try as you can to measure it, you’ll never be able to (IQ tests are very nice, but do they measure social or technical intelligence? It’d be the same as saying a blacksmith is more stupid than a physics scholar. These measures “scholarly” intelligence). Yes, I really dislike hearing/reading “I Love you a lot” (Love, in my opinion, is absolute: you love, or you don’t), but I digress. Maybe that can be another topic of discussion?
The truth is out there, but I don’t think anyone will ever find it.
It’d be the fulfillment of existence: to know it all.
What would possibly come after it?
You know everything there is to know!
EXTREME boredom or death would follow, I think.
It’s like perfection: it’s good to try to achieve it, it’d suck to actually get there!
Kanzentai apparently came closest to my point of view when “s(he)” wrote “If (s)he DID create our whole universe . . . why should (s)he have to ‘manage’ it?”
I long ago realized that Christianity (and all the others) were just pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking but who can logically deny the incredible complexity of this world and of its inhabitants — something beyond mere evolution (and then there was the question of how evolution got started). I found a reasonable answer to the riddle from the Deist belief system, i.e., a God-like power created our world and then put it on ‘automatic pilot.’
I realize that I’m a couple months late with this comment but thought I’d add it as ‘food for thought’ (or, considering the date, perhaps a late Thanksgiving dessert).
Rgds,
HarveyG
Hey, I actually wrote back then what I hoped to write right now
But I’ll add some more tidbits to the soup:
Why should s(he) care?
If (s)he does exist and did create cults to worship him/herself, why should they get “rewards” for their “effort”? What if it’s just his/her idea of fun?
What if (insert almighty deity’s name here) is nothing but a sadistic, cruel bastard/bitch who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what’s happening in a tiny little blue sphere on the outer rim of the gazillionth galaxy?
Who are we to assume that of all the googolplexes of planets that exist in this or in any other universe, ours should be the one picked by the programming team to create a patch for!?
I don’t know if there are gods or anything like them, I may never know. Mankind may never know.
Thanks for sharing. I’m working on telling my “how I lost my faith” story. I still have to write up the meat of it (only written and posted the background of it at this point) but part of that story is what you articulated: I had to allow myself to apply the same mental rigor to my belief system that I applied in every other aspect of my life. Once I made that allowance, everything fell into place, but it took a long time to get there.
“But if faith and religion can’t survive a “closer look”… why is that, and, most importantly, what does that tell us about them? That they are a lie.”
Respectfully, it could also tell you that you (again) saw what you wanted to see; I don’t see any evidence in your report here that you took the question at all seriously. That’s not to say that you might not be right, but what you presented wasn’t “logic”, it was a description of how your attitude towards the question changed.
Ask yourself this: Do you belief in a purely naturalistic, material universe, that can be completely described by the laws of physics? Or, do you believe that there’s a supernatural dimension to the universe, that’s beyond the world that physicists can describe?
If the universe were completely governed by the laws of physics, then your “free will” would be an illusion. Your every thought, feeling and action would be predetermined. The idea that you somehow had any control over your life would be a lie, because the idea that you had any ability to truly choose between any two alternative actions would be an illusion. Thus, we would all, truly, be no different than robots - really complex robots, perhaps, but still just automatons.
The existence of “free will”, therefore, would necessarily mean that there is a dimension of existence that goes beyond the material world described by the laws of physics. And, it means that activity in that dimension (the action of your free will) can influence the way the material world develops. And, if you, via your free will, can control your own actions from one moment to the next, how can you exclude the possibility that there isn’t some purely supernatural being that can control the way the universe develops on an even bigger scale?
This isn’t supposed to be a proof of anything, but I think it’s a strong argument for the reasonableness of belief in a supernatural world. I think it’s much more reasonable to believe in the supernatural than to deny belief in free will.
The problem is that religion is actually three things: 1) myths about why things are the way they are 2) rules about how we should live our lives and 3) part of a culture. #3 means that all three get propagated to each new generation, even when #1 and #2 are wrong. #1 can be totally discarded. There is a benefit to #2 (acting ethically) but I believe it’s possible to have a rational basis for ethical behavior, instead of using religion. This also has the benefit that obviously outdated rules (food rules, societal taboos) can be discarded, instead of being propagated forever.
I have a similar story for how I became an atheist. I was an agnostic when I started college, but I took many philosophy courses, and these pretty much revealed the degree to which people have been engaged in wishful thinking around religion for the last 2000 years.
Ah… basically just like my experience. I had many of the same thoughts you had before becoming an Atheist at the age of 18. But you added some additional questions that bring into doubt the existence of a god. That over-quoted … quote of religion being “the opium of the masses” is unfortunately very true. It has been used since its very beginning to control the people by fear and guilt. I rephrased this as “religion is the perfect shepherd for the sheeple”.
I grew up a Protestant Christian. I’ll never forget the day I refused to go to church with the family. My parents blew their tops. I told them it would be fake of me to church if I don’t WANT to go! For them it was more important that we all go together ‘for the sake of it’ and be seen by everybody that know them! This is the main reason I became disillusioned with Christianity (dogma) and then god: The hypocrisy present in many of the religions and their practitioners (esp. Christianity).
The same people who got pissed out of their skulls the previous night and swear like sailors (like I do) are the same ones sitting piously in the front of church the next day. The excuse these people will always use is that they are not perfect and that god forgives. Quite a nice loophole if you ask me. Basically these people ‘believe’ for the ‘what-if’ that there actually is a god.
But I am hammering on religion and more particularly dogma. On that point; your statement about ‘wishfull thinking’ and ‘refusal to think about things’ also very true… Or as one voice sample from a This Morn O’ Mina song goes : “Knowledge is the enemy of faith”. I like to rephrase this as: “Faith is the enemy of knowledge and free thought.”. Look at the role of faith / religion in destroying human knowledge during the centuries: The crusades and the burning of books written by the ‘heathen’ arabs… Man; and they wonder why we had the dark ages… Look at the banning of mind altering substances, long used in many native cultures, by the Christian-dominated governments because they did not want people to obtain insights that are different from their limited insights.
Look at the role of religion (Muslims esp.) in oppressing women, denying women the right to further their education.
As for a god, the burden of proof is on the believers. The inability to prove the non-existence of something does not imply it exists.
Welcome, you are now part of one of the most despised and feared minorities in the world!
Catholic Scientist, you just assumed your own premise. You argue that “if the universe were completely governed by the laws of physics, then your ‘free will’ would be an illusion.” (Which is not true, but we’ll let that go.) Then in the next paragraph, you start with “The existence of ‘free will,’ therefore…”
You just assumed that free will exists. What proof do you have? We assume that we have it, but by your own initial statement, you point out that we can’t tell if we’re actually free or acting in a preordained manner. We can’t know what the truth is from the inside of the box. Believing otherwise is simply that: belief.
“The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel covers this discussion area quite well. As the author is a lawyer, it’s all quite logical and carefully considered.
I haven’t assumed anything. I was trying to point out that, /if/ you accept the reality of free will, then you are implicitly accepting that the universe must be something greater than the material world, governed by the laws of physics. It seems to me that to deny the reality of a supernatural dimension is necessarily to deny the reality of free will. Whether you think it’s reasonable to deny your own experience of free will is up to you. To be an intellectually honest atheist, however, I think you need to face this question and its consequences.
I understand what you’re saying and why you’re an Atheist. I was raised a Mormon but I’ve left that faith. I’ve been a science fan since childhood and I really like all the pieces of life’s puzzle to fit together. With most of the organized religions, that doesn’t happen. You get all these glaring questions similar to the basic one’s you mentioned like “why would God hide?”. The case for the universe having been here a long time looks much stronger than the idea that it was created all at once by an all powerful god. That said, I still consider myself an agnostic because there are still a lot of questions that science hasn’t been able to answer to my satisfaction.
The biggest one is the existence of life. I know the theory that organic molecules bumping together formed the first seed and that natural selection took it from there. I just can’t buy that argument. A single celled animal is a very complex machine. It has to be able to process energy from the environment and have the ability to replicate itself. Additionally, it needs to be able to adapt and change. Those abilities are not simple. Ok, a virus is simpler but they depend on cells to replicate. There was a recent article in Discover that talked about a newly discovered virus that had bacterial traits. They think it may have been the ancestor to all modern life but even that virus was very complex.
If life did happen accidentally, why would it lead to ever more complex forms? Why not just stay in the simplest form? And how does this original organism develop intelligence or the ability to sense and control it’s environment? Why are humans so much smarter than we need to be just to survive?
It seems like a large leap of faith to think that something could accidentally spring into existence with all the above abilities and complexity. To me it makes more sense that life in all it’s complexity and adaptability was designed to be that way by something with a very high level of intelligence. Scientists talk about natures survival drive. They recognize it as the force that drives evolution but never question where it comes from. Even our computer simulations of life have the drive to change and adapt programmed in. Without it, there would be no changes. Why would an original accidental organism care if it survived?
I program computers for a living. To me, life looks like a very complex adaptable program operating in the physical universe on a molecular scale. I can see the result as an evolution but I see intelligence in the design. A design that uses the very principals of evolution to create ever more complex forms. I personally can’t see any logical way for it to happen by chance. If I see a program, I think there must be a programmer somewhere - and a damn good one. Others may disagree but there’s no scientific proof either way so their disagreement will be based on their own faith and how they perceive the world.
Disclaimer:
I believe, or rather, /am convinced of,/ the existance of a loving energy being I choose to call God.
We live in a physical world. As a student of physics, I’m acutely aware of how true this is. We live in such a physical world that it seems that each and every law fits just so, and that even small changes would throw the entire system out of balance.
This, for now, convinces me of the relative uniqueness of such a system - it does not require a designer.
Further, such a tightly fitting system leaves no room for miracles or other deviations.
Such events would basically be a divide by zero in the equations, and result in a very destructive singularity.
Regarding the beginning of life on Earth, to everyone who requires divine will;
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You dont’ have a primordial soup, you don’t know the structure of the first organism and can’t say it’s chance of arisal. We dont’ even know for sure how long liquid water existed on the surface. However, each time we do a calculation, it looks like life arose almost immediately after it was possible, which argues that the number of interactions is huge enough that the small chance of self-organization is irrelevant.
It’s nice to believe in God. I’m sure he likes that. Arguing that he must exist to screw about with physics is the wrong road.
Douglas Adams didn’t make much of an argument. He just said that religion was bunk based on his preconceived notions. Atheism is as much a religion as any other religion. He had to go through the process of converting to it, and now seeks to support it with his arguments. It’s just a paradigm shift. In our finite minds, we have to somehow shape our knowledge so it makes sense. Once the evidence becomes overwhelming that something isn’t true, we shift our paradigm. So, religion in the best case should be that which leads us to higher truths.
The problem religion has is trying to explain an infinite being in finite terms. You can’t use finite arguments against an infinite God. So, God leaves clues and allows us to come to our own conclusions. The whole point of this existence is to use your agency to become what you want to become. If God intervened at every step, there would be no agency. God isn’t dead nor does he slumber. There are myriads of evidences that he is at work. Many people have seen things that emanate from a higher intelligence. If there is an intelligence higher than ours, then the highest we would term God.
Garth: “Atheism is as much a religion as any other religion.”
I do not think so. Merely suspecting or believing that a “higher power” exists is not religion. Merely suspecting or believing that no “higher power” exists is not religion. Atheism is not religion, and one should not confuse God with religion.
The usual reply to that is “atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby”.
Contrary to what some say, you don’t have to take any kind of leap of faith to be an atheist. You just look around, observe and learn, and then consider what is most likely.
I don’t see how there has to be something “supernatural” for it to exist. We have brains. Minds. We think. Is thought a supernatural act? I don’t think so - it comes from our brains. Are feelings supernatural? Nope, it’s our pesky brains again (though not necessarily the same bits), although people tend to say that a blood-pumping organ is actually responsible for them.
“Free will” comes from making choices. We make choices… guess how?
Or do you have some different definition of “free will”?
Such as…?
Dear blogger, you seem to be at a point which I remember very well. Scientism, rationalism, Occam, Darwin, some inevitable Dawkins, may be a touch of Dennett.
I was there twenty years ago. And it is a dead-end street.
God is real. If you think that human suffering is an argument against him, try meditating on the meaning of the cross.
Why is God “real”? Because you believe in him? Because so many people believe in him? Because you want him to exist? Because, when praying, you felt some vague, undefinable feeling?
Because you witnessed a “miracle”, which was not a “real one” such as parting the waters of an ocean, but something trivial like someone changing his or her mind, which could have happened naturally anyway? Because your knowledge of biology is not enough to see how life could have appeared and evolved naturally on Earth?
Or is it because you feel that a world with a God is less scary than a world without one?
How is atheism and reason a dead-end street, by the way? Because it doesn’t fill a need you have? Because to you life doesn’t make sense without some supernatural meaning to it, such as pleasing a higher-than-human father figure? Because you’re afraid of dying and want to believe in an afterlife?
Really, I’m curious as to the answers to these.
Pedro,
I would say a supernatural universe is *more* scary than the clock-work one. I was primarily an atheist because I was comforted by believing in an algorithmic world with some randomness thrown in for fun. An eternal soul, a mysterious deity with personal plans for me - now that is the frightening alternative…
I didn’t say that reason is a dead-end street. This would be rather silly for someone who is a fan of St. Thomas Aquinas. After all, sapientia donum dei. My point was about atheism/scientism/materialism/relativism, short, the new European religion of the educated masses.
Oops - I have to take a break. A lesser deity (my wife) is calling me to lunch…
OK, I am back…
I agree that the “dead-endness” of a philosophy may first seem to be a subjective state of mind. But I think eventually this state comes to dominate and control full societies and cultures, with totally objective results. Here I would like to point to the quality of art and architecture now as compared to the age of faith – but you would probably argue that . So how about the fact that we Europeans seem to be disappearing, demographically speaking?
My problem with atheistic materialism is its superficial and illusory nature packaged in pseudo-scepticism (“opium for the intellectuals”, as someone more eloquent then I am has already remarked). Even if we had a grand-algorithmic-theory-of-everything-using-only-matter, it would still be a tautology. In reality, of course, we are very, very far away even of that. If you think that my opinion as a Christian is biased, you may want to read this (http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib148.html) true classic from the “other” side…
I think god is just I bed time story gone wroung
God exists, and has given endless proofs of his existence in nature and the universe. He cares, sending his son Jesus Christ into the world that by his death on the cross he might redeem us back to himself. God says the “fool says in his heart there is no God”. It is totally illogical to believe that life came about by pure chance. Does he answer prayer? but of course he does, read the account of Elijah in 1 Kings ch 18. read also Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Jhn 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]. Can you know that he is real? you can. by taking him at his word. Read John’s gospel. God bless you.
[quote post="41"]God says the “fool says in his heart there is no God”.[/quote]
Not again!
“God” doesn’t say that. One of the authors of the Bible does. I don’t find him more reliable than the author of the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or Hubbard, or any of the others.