I have to say that I have delved into this discussion today and gotten a ridiculously small amount of work done. But, such is a luxury of running your own business.
The point I'd like to bring up (I'd really like to post it at some point rather than have it on a comment page) is about Richard Dawkins' series called "The Root of All Evil?". I've compiled a good handful of responses to this presentation, but I'll bring up just one here, and that has to do with the very title of the videos (you can see them if you Google "the God Delusion"). By invoking the word "evil" Dawkins opens up an interesting can, in my opinion. I looked up the word in the American Heritage Dictionary and it does not have an exclusive spiritual bent to it. It does describe it as meaning, generally, bad. However, I feel, though I cannot prove this, that in our modern context, even globally, most people would either overtly claim some spiritual aspect of "badness" in their personal definition of evil, and if not overtly than they would not deny it if you gave a definition that included the spiritual aspect. Now, as the atheistic gospel authors, Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, might claim, there may be genes present in unintelligent humans that predispose them to a belief in the supernatural/spiritual realm. So, potentially, I'm talking out of my own genetic inadequacies. But, for what it's worth, spiritual activity has not been discussed here. Invoking the name of Jesus Christ for healing or exorcism or comfort works (I can give you personal accounts if you would like, though I am hesitant because I believe revelation is sometimes a private thing). The problem here is that this is only defensible scientifically in a marginal sense. For example, people who attend religious congregations on a regular basis tend to live longer (and happier, I believe?) than those who do not. There is research to show also that prayer in general (meaning not necessarily to one specific God, but for other people) by people who don't even know one who is sick has been demonstrated to increase the likelihood that the sick will get well, or better.
While it is clear we are inseparable from the animal kingdom in nearly every way, can't we say conclusively that the capacity of the human mind, and the capability of its individuals and communities to affect change in the world far (I can't think of a better word!) exceeds that of any other species on the planet? I think, then, the argument by the so-called four horsemen, or maybe just a few of them, would be that all of the denigration we humans have managed to carry out on the natural world is a direct result of the lessers-of-us' predisposition to believe in a God whose existence we cannot prove, or at least as a result of being angry with other people who do not believe the same.
I think the notion that there is no spiritual realm is the most dangerous of them all. To me, it's a bit silly, as has already been concluded on this blog from time to time, to try and prove something which cannot be proven or try to convince someone with reason that does not translate well to the other's perspective.
Paul, I believe the one thing that still remains in your framework as a possible reason to believe the Gospel (the good news of Christ and his promises kept) is fundamentally the only thing that really matters: the upside-down nature of the Kingdom which, as Robb has conveyed, puts the worthless shoulder to shoulder with the "worthy", as every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. The thing about this is that it is extremely exclusive of any other conceivable pathway to God (whether your God is God or Reason). It says that Jesus is the only way to the Truth, the point that we will know everything we long to know, as God does. But what is truly remarkable about this is that no one, actually, is excluded who will claim Jesus' promise for themselves. That's right where humility is foundational.
Back to the spiritual. I believe that battle is waging. And I believe that reason (or some version of it) is fighting to disconnect us with the spiritual realm and, therefore, a deeper and stronger connection with each other and (I believe) our Creator. And I have evidence, if you'll believe it, that that is the case. And Jesus' name and the mention of his blood are the only things that protect us from the temptation to believe in a reasonable world.
8 comments:
Paul- I will respond to the previous comment here if that is okay. I think the root of wars, and hatred is pride. The thought that in some way I am better then you, I deserve this or I will take this. What I love about the bible is that is uses truth to humble not to seize power. It clearly shows that we are all fools. That is why we should turn the other cheek is we all deserve judgement. I think the illusion that we are much better then we think we are is a root of much of the wrongs of the world that you describe Paul not revelation. I will concede that peoples pride makes them take even God revealed word and twist is so they can gain economic or political advantage and this is what I call heresy. It should always be used to make us kneel not seize to serve not be served, to care for the outcast.
One other comment. You never hear someone say I became an atheist and then I was able to stop drinking or doing drugs or looking at pornography or stop hating people that were a different color skin them me. However, this is common when people meet God.
Never is a dangerous word, Robb.
Bradley- that is a good point. Unwise choice of words Robb
To the first point, I will just say that a certain paradox seems to be at play between humility and claiming knowledge based on revelation to be the right knowledge, not to mention the right revelation. Some claim this paradox is what makes it so believable, but for me this is what makes it an impossibility.
You are right that you have not heard these claims from atheists. Just as you don't here people typically claim bad things in the name of atheism. Part of this is due to the fact that atheism is really not something of substance that you would attach something but rather a value ascribed to nothingness. I think this just goes to further support the argument that the moral argument against atheism is not a good one. Further, if anything you would say that a person of this sort supports or embraces nature and its functioning. A person who makes this claim may ascribe their success in rising above addiction to an understanding of nature, as I myself claim.
Bradley,
I could be wrong, but I think this is a literary play on words. Don't you think? It is a strategy often used; to take the words of those one is critiquing and using those words to make a point. I don't think this is exposing Dawkin's being a spiritual person without realizing it.
Paul,
Yes, I don't feel that he's a closet spiritual person. I do, however, believe that he is inconveniently alluding to very compelling part of the conversation--the realm of spiritual goings on--that he, considering his clear stance on the subject, would do better not to invoke. It would be interesting to talk about spiritual possession--or indwelling as it is sometimes called--whether it be by one's own, the Holy Spirit, a demon, or other, and the complex nature of oral or documented accounts of how one becomes indwelt by one or another of such spirits. I guess since this type of story--which is, of course, how history has been recorded, one story at a time from several (representative or otherwise) different perspectives, whether told or written--is subject to the scrutiny of the witness to such events, it is therefore not a scientific analysis. But while an event such as an exorcism or a faith healing is not repeatable in a laboratory sense--you cannot create predict or make assumptions about when the happen--they are, in fact, recurring, in a general sense. This is where the value of someone's testimony, or account of events, is lost. This is where trust is lost. Where I can't believe a word you say unless I've got a written account of it, and even then it is subject to even further scrutiny. I feel this is a tremendous dilution of an often rich engagement of relationship. While their is remarkable beauty in the cascades of biochemical reactions that take place in order for me to "simply" enter this text on a computer, to diminish (yes, I could have used the word, elevate) me to such eviscerates any sort of meaning, any social, emotional, or spiritual connection. It seems to me that it renders this very conversation as thoroughly obsolete, yet we continue to stride on in pursuit of conclusions that mean something. Where does this framework for "nothingness" end? What about my wife and kids and family? Isn't the very temptation to reduce (again, I recognize the descending tone) my life to meaningless chemical and physical interactions actually refusing to entertain the possibility of something metaphysical, supernatural, relational in the deepest sense? Seems rather against the spirit of the scientific pursuit...continuing to open and unluck new doors which deepen our understanding of the world? Living into possibility, it seems to me, is the ultimate human privilege. Not that other animals can't hope and learn and entertain possibility, but clearly humans have, to "some" degree, a different set of capabilities. Eliminating the possibility of a Kingdom coming, such as Jesus catalyzed, is to me the ultimate in despair. I've spent an inordinate amount of time in despair in my life, and refusing to acknowledge that there is (or might be) a God very nearby whom I can engage with and draw from, and who directs and affects happenings in a spiritual realm for the sake of his creation, limits the possibilities for my life, particularly for connection to and hope in "extra"-natural engagement with other people and the world. I actually think that Dawkins et al are missing out on richer struggles and joys of human fellowship and the subsequent depth of understanding the world, which is clearly their ultimate goal.
Many of the points you raise are great fodder for this discussion. I have a few points to address the points you are making.
1. On the point of Dawkin's being better off not to invoke this side of the issue. I have watched Dawkin's speak in a panel discussion in which he described how he ardently opposed the use of this title for the video series. I am not sure why he did not have the upper hand, but I find this interesting. Perhaps he agrees with you on this point.
2.On one hand you state that you can't verify something is occurring since it relies solely on an individual's report, but on the other hand you state that the recurrence occurs in the general sense. I am not sure how these two statements can be mentioned side by side. How can anyone be expected to buy into something that is so elusive. Even believers in God struggle with these claims. What often times happens is people begin wonder, "why don't I have these spiritual experiences". What follows may be some people saying you must not be a real believer because you don't have x,y, and z experience.
Having said this, nobody denies that some people have these experiences. The difference is in the attribution of the cause or explanation of the experience. Shall we explain unknown or uncomfortable behaviors/feelings with the spiritual realm or will assume that potentially it is physical in nature and might be understood in the future? The later of these two seems to offer more hope to me personally as the physical explanations have increased over time; whereas the first attribution seems relatively unchanged in its effectiveness over time.
Mentally ill people with hallucinations used to be considered possessed, by some at least. We now have a better understanding of dysfuctional dopamine/serotonin receptors and levels. Often times, this knowledge together with knowledge about social behavior and behavior modification can help to quell or dissipate these relatively rare imbalances in nature. Does this always work? Of course not. Does this mean it isn't real, of course not. Does it mean our understanding is still subpar, of course. The sad part may be that people who are stuck in the spiritual side of things as explanations are resistant to scientific strategies and beat themselves to a psychologically bloody pulp trying to figure out what is wrong with them spiritually that they just can't get over spiritual war within; maybe they do go to the exorcist for their problems and it doesn't work. What are they told? Well, maybe you just don't have enough faith for this to work.
3. From what I read, your basic premise is that in order for something to have meaning or quality it needs something bigger in quality behind it. This premise is based on a substantive claim and that is what I question. This is something I have never understood. Why can't something be valuable for what it is. Why is it that some bigger cause has to be in place. Where do you draw the line here? Doesn't this mean one can't enjoy belief in God without believing he had something bigger behind him. This is leads to one tortoise stacked upon another ad infinitum (Hindu reference).
When I view a piece of art, I can look at it and find value in it. I don't have to rely on the fact that someone else provided it for me. In fact, some art doesn't even resemble something of human creation. Often times, pure randomness yields patterns that have value that resonate with my experience. Also, the value of that experience may be entirely different for me than the next person. The fact that someone else finds a different value or quality within does not cancel out the quality of my experience. The argument will inevitably be made here that what is it that makes something resonate with my experience and what is special about your experience that it is worth resonating with. My short answer on which I cannot write in depth now, is the biological wiring for safety/control.
4. In my talk of nothingness, I simply meant that a person must use something of substance when describing something. My suggestion was to use materialist, humanist, naturalist, etc. I am not sure how you jumped to the things you were talking about there. My point was simply one of semantics.
5. On your last point of human privilege. I will say this. It does seem remarkable, our capacities that is. Almost as remarkable as that between a tape worm and the squirrel in my back yard. I don't see how these relatively remarkable events speak to anything other than this is what you would expect when moving up through progressively more complex organisms. No, I don't see this as depressing. Why should I, because someone else says I should or because I have been raised to believe that nothing I do can have meaning unless I somehow see myself as more special than other organisms here on earth, namely through a creator?
Might it be that we are so conditioned to seeing purpose and hope in our lives through the existence of God that we suffer to remove ourselves from this. Think about other behaviors you or others have that don't center around God but impact how they act or view the world. It seems nearly impossible to convince ourselves or others that we should change that lens through which we act, view life, and others even when blatantly harmful to the self. This is how behavior works, and I posit the possibility that finding value only through the context of God is similar if not the same.
I know I didn't address every aspect of your comment, but this alone took me a while:-) Okay, I have to study now, my 15 minute break grew quickly to 1 hour and 10 minutes.
Post a Comment