Another long-winded reply which is probably wrong…
I didn’t want to risk the chance of another verbose reply causing my comment box to crash and burn or anything, so here it is.
Well, for my part, I’ll admit to getting defensive. I react better to discussions couched in terms of personal experience than absolute statements of truth. Ultimately, none of us knows very much in absolute terms. If you wish to talk about personal experience, I’m happy to do so. I don’t do conceptual clashes over “truth” and whether God “exists” (At least I’m trying to cut back.) I’m more interested in what people *do* than what they *think*.
That’s OK, I get defensive too at times. I try my best not to, but it’s impossible to completely objectify and emotionally disentangle yourself from a fundamental personal conviction. That’s what being human is all about, I presume. But when I tear away all the indignation and baffling extremist pseudo-counter-arguments which surround my non-theism, reanalyse all the arguments and all the evidence, I’m left with a straightforward fact: I am simply not convinced. So why are you and a vast majority of the world different from me?? And don’t mistake that sentence to imply that everyone else in the world shouldn’t be different from me, I just want to know why, what kernel of thought precedes a life consisting of a theistic mindframe? I’m not going to go to Dawkins’ extreme and describe religion as a virus (even though he makes some interesting comparative arguments, I find his writing rather inflammatory at times, which is understandable when viewed in the context that he’s trying to sell books and I’m not), but can’t you understand how it frustrates me no end to be met with defensive rhetoric, indignation or stony silence when I air these questions? Don’t you understand, I’m not putting you down, I JUST WANT TO KNOW. (I don’t mean you specifically, I’m speaking rhetorically). Incidentally, that “actions more important than thoughts” policy is more reminiscent of Hindu than Catholicism, but I don’t wish to generalise.
Here are a couple of scenarios which I’ve come up with to explain the continuing popularity of theism.
1. POOR EDUCATION (hear me out): In the past, theism was a useful tool to keep the uneducated masses in order by constantly preaching to them the importance of moral conduct under threat of eternal punishment by a vengeful God, and alternatively eternal reward from a loving God. It’s much easier to convince an unintelligent and/or uneducated individual of the existence in the improbable than it is to convince an intelligent and/or educated individual. Back in those days, the Church was seen as the measure of all things, and was held in reverence by the masses who believed that the priests were profoundly wise as to the ways of the world, and hence could be trusted without question. However today, in our relatively literate and educated Western societies, religion still persists, and the laws of the land are no longer in the hands of the Church, but of the State which, by the very definition of Democracy, must be kept mutually exclusive from religious matters. Furthermore, theism is quite extensively prominent throughout all sections of society, with no observable link to educational standards. Hypothesis rejected.
2. INDOCTRINATION: Everyone knows how easily influenced young children are. When I was a youngster, I too believed in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, and all that other crap, inspired, as I’ve since realised, by corporations to prop up sales consistently throughout the financial year. Using this as an allegory, it’s easy to convince children that the staggering complexity of the world which they have yet to fully comprehend can be easily explained away using the god-concept which, in conjunction with the “Believe Or Burn For All Eternity” principle, applied to a captive audience, is a highly effective tool of indoctrination. It’s no secret that the offspring of, say, a devout Christian Fundamentalist, will almost invariably also become devout Christian Fundamentalists, since that’s simply how they were raised. Hypothesis upheld for further analysis.
3. NIHILISM: I must believe in God, irrespective of any lack of evidence, for if there is no God, then there is no afterlife, no meaning of life, no compulsion to live morally, and we might as well all kill ourselves now, because life is hard and, in the end, there is no reward. Right? Do I need evidence to convince you that this is the conviction of, at least, the vast majority of theistic individuals? I propose that this principle is self-evident until proven otherwise, and will label it an axiom. However, I can topple this mighty pillar by simply saying: Wrong. If I held this profoundly depressing and anarchic view, I’d either be religious, heavily sedated or dead. Since you say you’re familiar with mathematics, I will also assume that you are familiar a fundamental axiom which underpins set theory. If one element of a set disproves the theory which establishes the conditions for that set, then either a) the element is not part of the set, or b) the theory is erroneous. Since I am, by definition, part of that set, then b must be the case. Hey, maybe some atheists are manic-depressive nihilists who find nothing useful in life and choose to kill themselves, that’s their concern. I’m no saint (not even saints are saints), but I don’t abstain from killing, maiming, lying and stealing because of what some old book says, or because I fear divine retribution, or even tangible legal retribution, but because I simply know that it’s the wrong thing to do. I wrote a whole thing on morals without theism a few posts down, so I won’t go into specifics. All I can do is submit myself as the embodiment of the evidence which proves this theistic view wrong. I know for a fact that there are many others similar to me, but only one exception is required to disprove a theory.
Are you part of one or more of those scenarios? Are there more? Probably, but I’m tired and I can’t think of any right now. I’d like to know what you think.
As for personal experience, I used the term “science worshipper” because I used to be one. I saw Science as the arbiter of all truth worth knowing, thought that everything else either “just is” or was chaos. How I got from there, through mathematics, to “cafeteria Buddhist/Catholic with Hindu tendencies” is a very long, very personal story.
I did sit down and write a long post addressing your points. And then deleted it. I didn’t see the use in arguing over who’s “right” as such efforts are usually a waste of time. I do have some consturctive answers — ones that work in my life — if you’ve a true desire to hear them. I have no interest in proselytizing. Of course, you can put me into any basket you like.
I never (intentionally) set out to spark a “you’re right and I’m wrong” thing which, in the case of subjective topics like musical tastes or religion, is just about the most bigoted and banal thing I can think of. All I posited was the reason why I felt there were weaknesses in your views, with the hope that you would enlighten me as to how you thought I was misguided or mistaken.
Absolute Truth, to me, is tantamount to Infinite Truth; that is an infinite knowledge of an infinite number of things from an infinite number of perspectives. Of course, such an ideal is impractical to the point of meaninglessness in reality. I’ve often viewed Human Truth, that is, the sum total of knowledge aquired purely by a posteriori analysis of evidence, as a function asymptotic to the line of Absolute Truth, but I’m going off on a tangent (no pun intended). All I am stating is that I am unconvinced by your arguments (or, thus far, the lack thereof). Since you are a fellow intelligent human being with similar access to the finite body of human knowledge, and with no discernable debilitating psychological problems, I wanted to glean the underlying factor which causes us to so sharply delineate on this issue.
I’ll say you are wrong to assume my veiws are not due to some rigorous skepticism. That’s all I’ll say there.
PLEASE be specific on this point, or direct me to where you have been in the past! This is the whole crux of the matter, don’t you see? =(
And yes, I’d like to hear about your journey of belief.
Well, since I don’t have any belief, that’s a rather loaded sentence, but I’ll let it go. 
Actually, I’ve written about this before, so I’ll just paraphrase. Basically, I was a good little Christian scripture student in kindergarten, front row centre and always participating. By the time first grade came around, I found myself unable to get over that very first stumbling block of the presumption that the Bible verses the teacher was reading out was actually the “word of god”. I voiced my concern, automatically assuming that the teacher would thank me for the pertinent question and reveal the simple, watertight reasoning which would extinguish any doubts, but none was forthcoming (I vaguely recall something about “Because it is the Bible”, an answer I was unsatisfied with, which led to some bastardisation of what I now know of as the anthropic/first cause principles, regarding the invitation to draw an elephant out of thin air). Disillusioned and thoroughly unconvinced, I left after that class and never went back. There was obviously some more stuff over the next 14 years, but I’m too tired to go into it in depth right now, and since I’m not familiar with the specifics of your belief, I’m not sure how much of it would be relevant to the discussion. I know you’re not a “bread and butter” Christian because you’ve described the god you imagine as a “She”. So, your turn.
Oh, fiddle… I can’t resist leaving at least one “constructive answer” despite my resolve not to… Axioms. Axioms are sometimes self-evident, but not always. Axioms are *chosen* on purpose to create a formal system that serves a utilitarian purpose. The history and foundations of mathematics is full of examples about this or that axiom being chosen over others to repair or create this or that mathematical system. Axioms are intentionally chosen, although their utility is evaluated. And so back in college, I wondered if a philosophical belief system could be constructed similarly.
Yes, you’re right. I didn’t know how familiar with science, mathematics and logic you were, so I didn’t want to get bogged down in the details. The point is pertinent since relatives are a fundamental principle here, I didn’t mean to patronise you. Axioms such as “no statement can be simultaneously true or false” exist because, if they didn’t, the system upon which the axiom is based (in this case, language) would be extremely confusing, if not entirely meaningless. When an axiom is disproven or ceases to be relevant, it is removed or altered.
And for any more, you’ll need to put in another quarter. Or tell me to go away.
I won’t tell you to go away. If I wasn’t interested in what you had to say, I wouldn’t have responded to your blog in the first place. Perhaps if you’d sunk to “YOUR GOING TO HELL!!!!1!1!!” or spun the same stale, tired old Psalm 14:1, then I’d consider you not particularly worth debating with, but as such this has not transpired. But I’d appreciate it if you addressed some of the points I made in the main post, particularly in the last 2 paragraphs. Doing so wouldn’t constitute a meaningless “I’m right, you’re wrong” rhetoric, but rather demonstrate to me that such arguments are insufficient to raise any serious doubts. You did take these matters into consideration, didn’t you?
“Only if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future; the atavisms in each of us that stand in the way of a friendlier destiny can only thus be rendered ineffective.” – Albert Einstein
Leave a reply to I don’t do conceptual clashes over “truth” and whether God “exists”