Doco notes yet to be continued another night. In the mean-time:
A few weeks ago a work mate of mine started reading a book by Richard Dawkins called 'The God Delusion.' I had heard of Dawkins before, both having read one of his articles on genes and hearing of him as a prominent scholarly figure with aetheist beliefs ad writings. His reputation, the title of the book, the contents pages and the opinion of my work mate all confirmed that I had to buy this book in order to understand where aestheists are coming from.
The topic is of immense interest for me for 2 main reasons. A) I have aetheist and fallen-away Christian relatives/ in-law who passionately disbelieve in Christianity. And B) The majority of humans (to the best of my knowledge,) do not believe in a God and I'd quite like to know where they're coming from. There has to be a good reason for it. Also, no search for truth could be complete without balanced research. At present, the sources of interest are 1) What Chrisitians/ the Bible says; and b) what non-Christian, particularly atheists, say.
So far I've only read his first preface. The preface is basically him responding to a series common criticism he's received because of and/or about his book. Already I've noticed 2 things. 1) That he makes some really interesting points. And 2) That he has some misconceptions about Christians.
The first interesting point he makes is that 'There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents (p18.)' He reason that it's a common scholarly view that children are too young to develop a religious opinion. That somewhat makes sense as a) religion is pretty heavy and hard to get your head around; and b) Children are fairly trusting - especially at a young age - and will often accept what they're taught at face value. I see what he's getting at - that children brought up as Christians are a) conditioned to believe their 'religion' and develop their values from their childhood; and b) are therefore so firmly grounded in the only thing they've ever known and held dear that they never really get the chance explore 'religion' in all its enormity and controversy before committing to a belief. In essence, that children will 'be' whatever there parents raise them to be.
Now, from the perspective of a Christian parent, and if the Bible is true, then this is in fact a good thing that children are being brought into a relationship with God right away, developing 'godly' lifestyles etc, etc. At the same time, even I'd agree that the one negative thing that comes of it for some people (be it true or not,) is that it leads to a close-mindedness - where they're unable to momentarily step outside their up-bringing and objectively examine the arguments for and against the Bible, God, Chrisitianity - re-evaluating their initial unquestioned childhood beliefs. I think it's a healthy thing to do when your mind is mature enough for it, as then the decision you ultimately make is something you've decided completely for yourself - not as a conditioned creature.
So many more points to cover, but bed-time again.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Search for Truth Continues
Last time I wrote hear I'd decided that my search for truth should just continue as an internal thing I do by myself - keep private, etc, etc. But during that period of silence I received a few emails from fairly random people who had stumbled upon my blog and actually found it interesting. Also, I hadn't done much truth seeking. For these reasons I've decided to re-continue this blog with the goals of :
a) forcing myself to summarise and verbalise my findings/ responses to them;
b) opening up a forum of thought where others can challenge or respond to the research I do or my response to them; and
c) the original intention of hoping this helps others find truth if in fact I do find it :)
Before I begin I just wanted to establish some ground 'rules.' I'm working 3 days a week and studying full-time for at least another 15 months, so this isn't going to be a fast pace journey. I only get 4 weeks off from study a yr, and those will be my most active times - this week being one of them. I'd still like to make a post at least every week if possible, but during crunch times that may not happen. Cool?
Then let's begin. Ok, so yesterday I watched episode 1 of the BBC's "The Aetheism Tapes", in which Jonathon Miller interviews anti-theism philosopher Colin McGinn. One of the sources my brother Attila threw my way.
My general attitude to philosophy is that it's quite interesting, but can't ever really prove or disprove anything. What it can do is highlight the strengths or weaknesses of ideas or beliefs; and here McGinn uses philosophical thought to show how illogical he thinks it is to believe in God.
The first thing McGinn mentions is that he is an ant-theist because he believes that 'religion' is harmful and therefore shouldn't exist. He doesn't delve very deeply into the matter, and what he does say I'll mention in a later point. Perhaps he is also looking to things like 'holy wars' for his reasoning? I'd be keen to hear exactly where anti-theists are coming from.
Another less significant point he brought up was that he thinks having a God is more oppressive than not having one as you're constantly being watched - 'Big Brother' style I suppose. I don't read much into this idea because a) it seems like an opinion; and b) it really depends on the nature of the God watching you. A loving parent's gaze is positive, while a cruel dictator's isn't...We'll leave it at that.
Now to the 1st meat of his interview. He essentially thinks that there is no good reason to believe in God. His points are that:
a) There is no solid 'observed' evidence directly proving there is a God; and
b) that there is no fact about the world that can't be explained without God.
He doesn't really go much deeper than that. I think his points are interesting, because it's a kind of a grey area in research (to the best of my knowledge.) The Bible, for the God of Christianity, is the only source which is 'direct' evidence for his existence. The historicity of the Bible is something scholars are divided over - and it's something I definitely need to look deeper into. There are only a few alternate documents I've heard of, such as the writings of early historian, Josephus, (and even these documents have been questioned for authenticity by some scholars;) and these are mostly in relation to mentioning the historical person of Jesus or Christianity movement. So I suppose I can understand where McGinn is coming from given the iffiness of the sources. And I guess he's thinking goes along the lines of 'he needs something better than questionable texts to prove there is a God.'
As for his second point, in the light of straight science, yes there probably are few phenomena that can't be explained at all in scientific terms. But his words imply a supernatural take on things and seems to misunderstand the role of God. From the Christian perspective, the Bible is more about why, not how. In which being able to explain something does not automatically evaporate the need for a God. I once read that if there's a God, he's a God of order, and that he laid down the foundational 'rules' of the universe - i.e. the laws of science. It's like saying, if I understand how this game works, then noone designed and built it. The point goes nowhere.
Also, from both another book I've started but not completed, Lee Strobel's 'The Case for a Creator,' and from some stuff I learnt at uni, I've heard some statistics about the universe and how the chances of things turning out as they did - conditions suitable life - where so slim - that had any single element been only a few degrees off we would never have come to be. There are other similar arguments from science that point to a God. So the argument works both ways. McGinn would have to flesh that one out a bit.
Next up, McGinn put forward some reason not to believe. First he mentioned the 'Ontological argument' from the 15th century. That the definition of God entails that he exists; is existence is apparently an attribute of perfection. His point was that this argument doesn't really make much sense. And I quite agree. It does seem like a rather pointless argument that gets you nowhere but going around in circles. I do not think that's a good reason to disbelieve though. It's just a reason to dismiss this argument as being unhelpful. Also, it's an argument independent of the Christian God of the Bible, so really has no impact as to the question of his existence.
To be continued another night. Gotta go to sleep now :)
a) forcing myself to summarise and verbalise my findings/ responses to them;
b) opening up a forum of thought where others can challenge or respond to the research I do or my response to them; and
c) the original intention of hoping this helps others find truth if in fact I do find it :)
Before I begin I just wanted to establish some ground 'rules.' I'm working 3 days a week and studying full-time for at least another 15 months, so this isn't going to be a fast pace journey. I only get 4 weeks off from study a yr, and those will be my most active times - this week being one of them. I'd still like to make a post at least every week if possible, but during crunch times that may not happen. Cool?
Then let's begin. Ok, so yesterday I watched episode 1 of the BBC's "The Aetheism Tapes", in which Jonathon Miller interviews anti-theism philosopher Colin McGinn. One of the sources my brother Attila threw my way.
My general attitude to philosophy is that it's quite interesting, but can't ever really prove or disprove anything. What it can do is highlight the strengths or weaknesses of ideas or beliefs; and here McGinn uses philosophical thought to show how illogical he thinks it is to believe in God.
The first thing McGinn mentions is that he is an ant-theist because he believes that 'religion' is harmful and therefore shouldn't exist. He doesn't delve very deeply into the matter, and what he does say I'll mention in a later point. Perhaps he is also looking to things like 'holy wars' for his reasoning? I'd be keen to hear exactly where anti-theists are coming from.
Another less significant point he brought up was that he thinks having a God is more oppressive than not having one as you're constantly being watched - 'Big Brother' style I suppose. I don't read much into this idea because a) it seems like an opinion; and b) it really depends on the nature of the God watching you. A loving parent's gaze is positive, while a cruel dictator's isn't...We'll leave it at that.
Now to the 1st meat of his interview. He essentially thinks that there is no good reason to believe in God. His points are that:
a) There is no solid 'observed' evidence directly proving there is a God; and
b) that there is no fact about the world that can't be explained without God.
He doesn't really go much deeper than that. I think his points are interesting, because it's a kind of a grey area in research (to the best of my knowledge.) The Bible, for the God of Christianity, is the only source which is 'direct' evidence for his existence. The historicity of the Bible is something scholars are divided over - and it's something I definitely need to look deeper into. There are only a few alternate documents I've heard of, such as the writings of early historian, Josephus, (and even these documents have been questioned for authenticity by some scholars;) and these are mostly in relation to mentioning the historical person of Jesus or Christianity movement. So I suppose I can understand where McGinn is coming from given the iffiness of the sources. And I guess he's thinking goes along the lines of 'he needs something better than questionable texts to prove there is a God.'
As for his second point, in the light of straight science, yes there probably are few phenomena that can't be explained at all in scientific terms. But his words imply a supernatural take on things and seems to misunderstand the role of God. From the Christian perspective, the Bible is more about why, not how. In which being able to explain something does not automatically evaporate the need for a God. I once read that if there's a God, he's a God of order, and that he laid down the foundational 'rules' of the universe - i.e. the laws of science. It's like saying, if I understand how this game works, then noone designed and built it. The point goes nowhere.
Also, from both another book I've started but not completed, Lee Strobel's 'The Case for a Creator,' and from some stuff I learnt at uni, I've heard some statistics about the universe and how the chances of things turning out as they did - conditions suitable life - where so slim - that had any single element been only a few degrees off we would never have come to be. There are other similar arguments from science that point to a God. So the argument works both ways. McGinn would have to flesh that one out a bit.
Next up, McGinn put forward some reason not to believe. First he mentioned the 'Ontological argument' from the 15th century. That the definition of God entails that he exists; is existence is apparently an attribute of perfection. His point was that this argument doesn't really make much sense. And I quite agree. It does seem like a rather pointless argument that gets you nowhere but going around in circles. I do not think that's a good reason to disbelieve though. It's just a reason to dismiss this argument as being unhelpful. Also, it's an argument independent of the Christian God of the Bible, so really has no impact as to the question of his existence.
To be continued another night. Gotta go to sleep now :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
