Where Is Your God?

1. Michael Said,

   Hmm, to be honest I don’t see how it follows that if a god is all knowing then it is impossible for a finite being to know at least something about it, such as what it would do to you after you die. The actual issue is that religionists think there are two realities, a lesser natural world and a more important supernatural world where god lives and people can go to when they die. Now, if god is supernatural, and we are natural, then how on Earth can anyone claim knowledge of any traits of a supernatural being? We can’t even speak intelligibly about a supernatural being because all our concepts are derived from the natural world, and as such our concepts wouldn’t be able to deal with the supernatural. Even such unnatural concepts as god, heaven, and angels that we do have can only be expressed as the NOT natural, the SUPER natural, the NOT Earthly, etc. Observe how anthropomorphic many of our god myths are. The idea that god created man in his own image, the Greek gods of Olympus, etc. Even non-anthropomorphic gods like what the Egyptians used to worship were related to animals and creatures from the Earth.

   If you are interested in the philosophy of Atheism, the book “Atheism: The Case Against God” is an excellent choice. It was written by George H. Smith and makes a lot of interesting points. (Frankly I find it far more valuable than much of the literature being circulated by the new Atheists.) Most interesting to me was his observation that religionists and skeptics are intellectually in the same boat. Both deny the efficacy of reason to find the answers to our most important questions, the only difference is that skeptics offer nothing as the alternative, but religionists offer faith as a substitute.

2. Brandon Said,

   I think you missed my point. What I’m saying is pretty basic. That Christians will never say it’s a remote possibility that they might be wrong. That the bible may not be 100% accurate. That if you said god was real, for argument’s sake, you would have to admit that it’s at least possible that you might not get exactly what you expected after you die. Because the only being that would be certain would be god and to say that you are certain you know his will and intentions would be akin to saying you had infinite knowledge yourself.

3. Michael Said,

   I don’t think I really missed the point. You criticize Christianity because they claim to be 100% certain when they could be wrong. Now, I don’t dispute that Christianity has no justification to claim certainty, what I dispute is the idea that certainty requires omnicience. To try and hold certainty to the standard of infinite knowledge is improper, because impossible standards are meaningless.

   The problem with skepticism is that it makes the claim that you cannot be certain that you are right, while forgetting that it implies that you cannot be certain you are wrong. After all, discovering something to be false is itself a discovery of knowledge. Skepticism is inherently nonsensical in this way, because it obliterates the validity of knowledge while itself posing as knowledge. When a rational person reaches a conclusion, he does so by using all the relevant evidence available to him. He has reasons for believing as he does. However, when the skeptic declares that he cannot justify his certainty, he uses the generalization that people make mistakes all the time, rather than point out any specific flaws in his arguement. Just as a person, to be taken seriously, should give specific reasons to justify his belief, so also should a skeptic give specific reasons, relevant to the topic, about why that person’s beliefs are wrong. You cannot take a shortcut and simply declare someone is unjustified in believing as he does simply because humans are fallable.

   So, to get back to the original topic, does this mean that we should give Christians specific reasons why their beliefs are unjustified? No. Remember, the above relates to people who practice reason. When faith is involved, it is a whole different ballgame. Faith is the rejection of using the facts of reality to justify one’s belief. Basically, they believe god exists “just because,” through feeling and whim, rather than through rational inquiry. The problem is that they simply assert their religious beliefs are true, without proving why. They should be taken no more seriously than the skeptic who asserts you cannot be certain of your conclusion without telling you the reasons why your conclusion is wrong.

4. Brandon Said,

   Interesting reply. I will get back to a broader point and say that yes I have to give reasons why their beliefs are unjustified. Not to attack the most fundamental of my opposition but to assist the colloquial “fence sitters” in taking that final leap into reason. If you remember Michael, I was a Christian for quite awhile and it is hearing arguments against the supernatural that helped me become the atheist I am today.

   In any case, thank you for the well thought out post.

5. Michael Said,

   Well, most people, even nominal Christians, still retain some allegiance to rationality. To the fundamentalist fanatic though, who has completely rejected reason, you do not need to give him reasons why his belief is false. He has given up reason, and as such efforts are futile. Though if there are other fence-sitters nearby it may be useful to try and debate him, to at least sow some seeds of doubt in them.

6. Dave Said,

   Awesome conversation! I starting to like this site a lot.

7. Ryan Said,

   Perhaps normal Christians retain some allegiance to rationality in their daily lives, but they do sacrifice that when it comes to their faith. The very essence of faith is belief without critical thought. There is a lesser version of reason, I suppose, such as “Gee I wonder why the universe is so massive and infinite. Oh, I know, it must be because God wanted to give us something pretty to look at! Problem solved!” (Similar logic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU )

   It is sound logic and sound reason, however it is blind to any outside or contradicting logic. That’s why the Christian science museum or whatever has displays of men riding dinosaurs. I mean, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, right? So, if we have dinosaurs and humans, well obviously god’s creations would own them as pets. I wouldn’t call that rationality, I believe it’s called in the symbolic logic circles “stroking ones self”.

Add A Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.