Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax...

[chaletian]

So, at the moment, I’m reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and this has led me to think about, well, OK, myself (no use departing from tradition, after all) in terms of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

I was sort of brought up as a Christian. Which means to say, my parents were married in a C of E church, as were most of my other relatives, as far as I’m aware (I have no idea if my parents believe in God; I have never asked them about it (it would be rude, after all *g*, and it’s not something we talk about). I was christened. I don’t know if my schools were non-denominational in theory, but throughout my entire school career, from the ages of 5 to 17, I went to a recognizably Christian assembly every day, sang Christian hymns, and said Christian prayers. I went to boarding school for a while at the beginning of senior school, and attended church (Methodist, in this case) every Sunday, with evening prayers on Thursday. I was confirmed when I was 11 or 12, after attending confirmation classes led by our school chaplain (ah, Mr Topping, he was a card…).

I don’t know if I ever actually believed in God. Obviously, my memory of childhood is sketchy at best, but I don’t remember any moment where I specifically thought ‘I believe in God.’ I think it is true to say that I don’t ever remember believing in God, and despite my confirmation, I don’t think I gave it any thought at all as a child. As soon as I recall giving it any thought, I knew I didn’t believe it. I have been an atheist (for definite, that I can remember) from the age of about 13, and probably younger.

I believe in evolution, and have done as far back as I can remember (again, not really saying a great deal). That is, I don’t *believe*. Rationally speaking, it seems the most likely explanation for how the world arrived in the place it did. Should it ever be disproven, and a more likely explanation offered, I should (probably reluctantly; I don’t do change well) have to go with that new explanation. We don’t know everything in the world. Maybe we can’t know everything (like one of those eternal one-over-infinity maths problems, where you never quite reach a finite answer). But we can theorise, and approach the questions surrounding our existence as scientifically and rationally as possible.

I think the concept of the existence of God is ludicrous. There is no evidence for God’s existence, ever. I know, you’re not supposed to need proof. You just need faith. But how ridiculous is that? Here’s a thing. You can’t proof it exists. But if you really, really believe hard enough, then that’s fine. It exists. What, is God Tinkerbell? The world is just… the world. It is part of a solar system, which is part of a galaxy, which is part of the universe. How did it start? I haven’t the foggiest. It’s always possible that God did indeed leap forth and create the whole thing, but that seems as unlikely as any other explanation. How did life begin on earth? Don’t know that either. But once again, God probably ranks pretty low as the originator on a scale of possibility. Maybe God does exist after all, but it seems, as the years clock on, increasingly unlikely. Through millennia of gradual change, the world came to be the one we know, and that’s all there is to say about (well, from my generally uneducated point of view; I’m sure the scientific community can go on for a bit longer on the subject).

I know that, officially, the Anglican church and, I think, the Catholic church have discounted creationism as an actual theory of the beginning of the world. But there are still an alarming number of people who seem to believe that all of science is wrong, and God created man as it is now (more or less), presumably in the midst of creating trees and mountains and light and dark and jam and trousers etc etc etc (but not, you know, gays or anything… *g*). This is one of the reasons why I think religion is dangerous, because it leads people to believe that abandoning rational thought is fine and dandy. So what if there’s evidence that man has been bopping around on this earth for quite a long time, and the earth itself has been there for considerably longer? Fuck it! God created it all in an afternoon less than 10,000 years ago. As you do. And yes, of course I know this doesn’t apply to everyone who’s religious, and believing in God *obviously* doesn’t mean that you’re daft, and equally not-believing doesn’t make you better than people who do.

But I still think disbelief is a more rational way forward (with, always, the potential for a mind change should God suddenly descend and make his presence known, because as with so many things in life, we can’t know 100% for sure either way).

Comments

[r-scribbles.livejournal.com]

Pretty much matches my own attitude to my Atheism/Humanism, although I'm not a huge fan of The God Delusion, since Dawkins takes it as read that he's right too much, which is part of my problem with Religion.

i was Baptised Catholic although my parents were never particularly religious - it was a sop to my Mum's very Catholic family and we had to pretend Mum took us to church regularly, which was daft, and went to a Catholic secondary school, which was where I lost what Faith I ever had. How any Deity could be as hateful, petty and pig headed as those in my Cahtolic community claimed he was was beyond me, and the general lesson 'don't think about it, just believe, that's what makes you a good Christian' made no sense to me whatsoever - I was taught to question everything, especially stuff that made no sense to me.

I don't think that having Faith is neccesarily a bad thing, but I think it should be private and definately seperate from the state and education.

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

*g* He is quite self-satisfied on the subject.

If people want to believe in God, then whatever, but I don't see why anyone else should be expected to take it seriously.

It's the 'just believing' thing that I really hate. I don't see why we should have to 'just believe' anything. The fact that millions of people have believed something for thousands of years doesn't mean it's *right*. It just means it's really deeply embedded in our cultural history.

[bluebellbicycle.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way as you do about the concept of God vs science. BUT (and I haven't read Dawkins so don't know if he addresses it) I do think it's important to acknowledge the power of belief and thought in itself. You can call this either psychology or the power of positive thinking or the many-gathered-in-prayer syndrome; call it what you like but science has shown that it exists*, it has an impact on the fabric of reality.
*have actually read stuff on this, thanks to physicist SLOC, can call up citations if neces. :)

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

I don't doubt that faith can *in itself* effect, for example, a patient's recovery. But surely that is merely a psychological issue? It doesn't prove the existence of a supernatural deity, merely that for some people, the simple act of believing in a supernatural deity can make a difference to them. It doesn't make it true.

[bluebellbicycle.livejournal.com]

The importance of a supernatural deity in my argument is providing a very necessary focus-point. Blind faith doesn't have the effect that a concentrated effortful faith does, and the idea of God in whatever form you like, provides an easy target really for focussing on. God is a useful tool in this sense. It doesn't make the existence of God true, but it does make the possibility of his existence have an effect on reality.

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

But as you've said, all the psychological benefits of believing in God don't make it *true*. Just because having faith in God, even having to struggle with that faith and finding it all the more meaningful, does not prove his existence. Are there benefits to believing in God? Yep, sure. It's comfort. It's believing someone cares. It's believing your existence has meaning. It's believing there's a *point*. But you might as easily believe in the Greek pantheon of gods, or, I don't know, *whatever*. The fact that believing can be good for you doesn't prove that the object of that belief exists.

And I'm not sure that, logically, "the possibility of his existence" can have an effect on reality. If that were so, the possibility of his existence would have an effect on *everyone's* reality, surely? I think what you mean is that the *belief* in the possibility (or even certainty) of his existence has an effect on reality, which brings you back to it being a psychological issue that has no bearing one way or another on the *actual* existence or otherwise of God.

[bluebellbicycle.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do keep to the point the whole time that there is no proof that God exists. What I'm trying to say I suppose is that in many (most?) ways, it *doesn't matter* whether or not there is, in fact, a fat bearded man in the sky. Just the idea that there might be, is enough for people to reap the benefits of religion and/or communal psychological direction (I don't really think there's a difference between those two). The fact is that in our part of the world, a Christian God is the one that most people imagine about. If we were having this conversation in another part of the world, my point would be exactly the same, except substituting the word Buddha, or whatever, for 'God'.

I think that the positive-communal-thinking-thing has an effect on reality, including those who aren't participating in it. It isn't just a comfort thing in that sense.

Is this guy focussed (as you seem to be?) purely on the Christian idea of God? Or is he talking about supernatural beings in general. Or gods through history?

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

Supernatural deities in general though with emphasis on Christianity, Judaism and Islam (being the main one, personal god religions). I'm fixating on Christianity because it's basically the only one I know about, though I suspect in terms of simple faith etc, my opinions go for all of them.

As to whether it *matters*... oh boy, I think it matters. Back in the day, if you professed not to believe in God (or, because few people did that, believed in something that was a bit different to other people) you might get KILLED. In some places in the world that still happens today. George W believes that God wanted him to invade Iraq. Fundamentalists of all religions are willing to kill other people because they believe their faith is the right one. How can the existence or non-existence of God not *matter*? I'm not saying that if there were no religion, the world would be a happy and loving place, because I don't think it would (and, in fact, I think many so-called religious wars in centuries gone by have had very little to do with religion and very much more to do with power and land and wealth). But I do think that religion is one thing that's really helped scupper the possibility of world peace. Rather ironically.

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

Don't know if he addresses it either - quite early on still. *g* No doubt I will keep everyone updated...

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

Ah, but a belief in God is technically as rational as no belief in God, because there is no proof either way. Obviously, I believe in God, just as you don't, but again, I think everyone has the right to make up their own minds.

Blind faith troubles me. Lots. Not least as I think faith needs to be active & to be questioning to really be faith. I'm not saying constantly questioning, but as you grow and evolve and change, your understanding of your relationship with God should change too.

Rampant atheism (i.e. where people denounce anyone who believes in God as a credulous idiot) bothers me too. It just seems mean & nasty. And indeed a bit foolish, frankly...

Also, we actually have proof of nothing. Everything in life is based on a series of beliefs. We believe ourselves to exist, we believe things to have set states of being, we believe in a ridiculous amount of social constructs, we believe there are things like race & gender, when in fact we can't definitively prove there are, because it's all based on things-humans-have-made-up. The whole thing is really a fiction & we just don't-can't know...

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's quite the same thing, though. Yes, we might have 'made up' social structures, but in many cases I think they have been based on observable differences between groups of humans, that we have then labelled, and those labels have grown more and more important until they are how we define ourselves. And they may have started out as fairly arbitrary but by their nature they become important. There are anatomical, physiological differences between male and female, which have then been genderised (don't think that's a word - never mind), and become man and woman, with different social rules. Just because we as humans invented the distinction doesn't mean that we may or may not exist. By this parallel, believing is enough to make true, which kind of implies that people needed to believe before God could be made true.

And to be honest, I don't think that belief in God is as rational as no belief in God. Because that implies, in the absence of any proof either way, that one is prepared to believe in the existence of absolutely anything to the same extent that one is prepared to believe that it might not exist. Unicorns. Vampires. Super-intelligent shades of the colour blue. And I think probable disbelief (always with the option of being wrong) until one is given some indication that this may-or-may-not *does* exist, is more rational than assuming all the may-or-may-nots *do* exist until proved to the contrary. Since it's rather difficult to prove conclusively the non-existence of something, and presumably easier to prove that something *does* exist, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who claim it exists?

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I don't mean to trivialise one's belief in God by comparing it to unicorns. Well, maybe I do a bit, maybe that's exactly what I'm saying. But unicorns don't exactly have the cultural significance of God, which makes it rather a different thing. Anyway, don't mean to be mean. But I do believe what I wrote.

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

Since it's rather difficult to prove conclusively the non-existence of something, and presumably easier to prove that something *does* exist, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who claim it exists?

Not when it's something this big...

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

Why? How come God gets an exemption from the normal rules of enquiry?

May I ask (sorry, I hate sounding all confrontational, I don't mean to be!) whether you think there is proof of God's existence, or if there *isn't* proof of his existence, and one just has to believe in it?

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

Well, it's like asking someone to prove the universe really is infinite. If there is a God, God = an infinite being & you can't really prove infinity...

I am not actually sure what I think about proof God exists. I understand some things as being evidence of His existence, but at the same time, I am not sure they are quite proof exactly, because they're not readily quantifiable, or because they could be explained by something else...

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

But we can prove that the universe exists, even if we can't prove that it's infinite. So if God = an infinite being, one might not be able to prove the 'infinite' part, but there's still the 'being' part...

See, on the whole proof part, where there is no objective proof, it seems to me that the dialogue on God's existence must be analogous to this:

A: I believe that an invisible creature lives in my garden.
B: Fair enough. Can you prove it?
A: No. Can you disprove it?
B: Well, not really.
A: I see. Well, in that case, I think we'd better believe in the invisible creature.
B: But... there's nothing to suggest there's an invisible creature *there*. I mean, has it *done* anything?
A: *shrugs* Well, that plant pot fell over.
B: That could have been anything! The wind, a cat in the garden, an inherent instability in the plant pot...
A: ...*or* an invisible creature.

And I know that sounds flippant, but seriously, that's how it seems from my point of view. I don't *understand* faith.

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

Which is fair enough, and I do get what you mean.

For me I suppose it's to do with having a kind of inner certainty, that I can't really explain. It's to do with feeling connected in a way I can't really understand or articulate, to a being far beyond anything on this Earth. I can't reason it out, I can't give some kind of proof, it's just how I feel.

I suppose it's because I think all this is more than just a conincidence & because I believe in some of the things like visions & miracles. They might be something else, yes, but I don't think they are.

So yes, to an extent, my faith is something I've effectively created and shaped myself. And I don't really understand the concept of faith myself sometimes. *sighs*

[bluebellbicycle.livejournal.com]

I don't think that *everything* in life is a series of beliefs. There is quite a large gap between explaining social constructs (there *are* reasons for most - any society needs rules to govern people's interaction with each other), race and gender (there are quite obvious differences between people of different genders - are you talking about social constructs here?); and adopting a creation-of-the-world belief from the other side of the globe, adding in liturgy and bureaucracy over a couple of millennia and then calling it God. Don't get me wrong - I'm not belittling Christians here, but I don't think the logic of explaining God is at all comparable to the logic of explaining the examples you gave.

[nicolap.livejournal.com]

Just out of interest, how do you square this with the Guide promise?

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

By interpreting 'my God' as a kind of universal morality or, at any rate, as social norms of behaviour within my cultural background that transcend my own personal morality. It was a bit of a nightmare! I'm actually intending to write to G.UK and asking them explicitly whether they think an atheist can make the promise.

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

I can tell you now the answer is a "no". (Cos it's one of the party lines I do know & cos it's the answer I've heard people have had to give...)

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

Well, that's a bit unfortunate, all things considered. Because I really, really am an atheist (notwithstanding the fact that I am quite happy to believe that God *might* exist, and I will be proven wrong), and I don't think atheism is a moral vacuum, a mere negative to religion, that should be excluded from something like Guiding. So je pense I will write to them about that, instead. And if they think that atheism is completely incompatible with being a member of Guiding, then I suspect I may have to resign, or whatever it is one does. (Hmm. Yes. OK. You would indeed think that I would have noticed this earlier... I was having fun (mostly). And it made me forget yonder principles. And I was quite happy to smudge it and hope for the best.)

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

From my point of view, that would be awfully sad...

See, I honestly do think that being willing to accept that you might be wrong = doing your best to love God.

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

But I think accepting the logical possibility that God might exist is completely different to doing my best to love God. I mean, it's not something I'm striving towards. And I don't want to have to promise to do my best to love something I don't personally think exists. Do you see what I mean? If Guiding is a religious organisation (and I don't mean Christian, just religious generally, which if it wants its members to do their best to love some form of supernatural deity, howsoever that manifests itself, I think it must be), then I don't think that's an organisation for me. Which, I know, is coming a bit late in the day as a realisation, and is a bit me on my high horse making a bit of an exhibition of myself, but it's not grandstanding, it's what I believe. Poo.

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

For all you're not pushing to change how you feel, it doesn't mean that you're not doing your best. If the only thing you can say about God is that there might be such a thing, that is your best stab at loving God...

The thing is that most people seem inclined to just gloss over the God stuff. I suspect the Love God bit may yet be changed, as well, but I don't know.

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

Mm, but I don't accept loving God as *any* kind of aim to have in my life. If the aim in Guiding is for spiritual growth (I think it is - I was just on the website, but I've already forgotten what it said on account of brain like sieve), then I'm scuppered anyway because I don't believe in any kind of spiritualism, really. Not involving a higher power, anyway.

The God thing, it's like a mathematical problem where x (in this case the answer to life, the universe and everything) might equal a, b or c. I don't feel any more strongly towards a (God) than I do towards b or c - I can't claim that I'm doing my best to hope that a wins when the chips are down and the evidence comes rolling in. (I think I just murdered that metaphor. Helas.) It really, really is different. I simply don't belong in a religious organisation, and if Guiding is happy for people to mangle its promise and not *really* mean the God part, I think it *should* change it, because as it stands at the moment its spiel about including all girls and young women can't be true.

Sorry - will stop going on about it!

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

S'ok - you need to express yourself, otherwise you might explode. And that would be a tragedy.

Incidentally, I have RP that you now hate me & think I am crap. Cos I'm just like that & also the drugs currently make it worse.

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Squash the RP!! Why on earth would I do either? I love you vee much, and am cursing your lack of voice because I haven't been able to *talk* to you recently and I'm not great at yonder communication of randomness and personalness by typey/writey means. Rampant splurgling of my opinions, yes, random chatting, not so much...

[xanantha.livejournal.com]

*looks all relieved*

well I did say it was RP...

am hoping speech therapy referral will a) come through quickly and b) help... then we can once more bibble on merrily about smoking lemmings etc...

[r-scribbles.livejournal.com]

Does this mean a Hindu can't make the promise properly, then? Certainly not a Republican (as an Anti-Monarchist from a young age I always hated the bit about serving the Queen, even when making my Brownie Guide Promise, but felt better about it when seeing it as a promise to serve my country, as represented by that lemon sucking parasite)

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

BMX Bandit!! LOL

Hindus are OK because they've got gods (which are all different faces of the same god, IIRC) - it doesn't matter what god it is. Don't know what the party line is on republicanism. To be honest, while I know lots of members truly believe in the different parts of the promise, I think there are a lot who just parrot it and then get on with the practical business of running a unit or whatever.

[mrs-redboots.livejournal.com]

My problem, as a committed Christian, is that what Dawkins rejects isn't anything that I recognise as Christianity in the first place! I'd reject it, too.....

I had the same problem with the "post-Christian" feminist writers in the late 1980s/early 1990s. What they rejected was simply nothing that I had ever experienced in Christianity!

[auntie-pat.livejournal.com]

I'm going to get a bit personal now. Personal to me I mean. When I lost my job last year it was like a kick in the teeth. A truly horrible experience. Driving home I was asking God 'why?', tears streaming down my face the whole way, in a right state. Between two villages (Hickleton and Marr for those that know the area) the following words came into my head. "When God closes a door he opens a window somewhere esle." I was in no state to be remembering bits from the Bible by myself, I was far too devastated for that. But those words came very clearly to me. From that moment I knew that there was something else for me, and even though there were ups and downs over the next few months, I knew it would be OK. I now have a far better job, in a better college, with more money.
Now I know that a personal testimony like that won't swing someone who doesn't believe, but for me that is proof that God exists. I'm not syaing that I never doubt, that logic circuits never throw up question marks. But this, and other things that have happened to people I know, do convince me.

[euphrosyna]

This is just a random definition question, but is someone an "atheist" if they are willing to admit that the existence of God is a possibility (however remote)? I would have said that an atheist utterly denies the possibility of the existence of a God or God whereas an agnostic would personally disbelieve but would be more open to a possibility. The definitions on answers.com are:

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

They match to my personal definitions, which is why I'm using them here.

I'm not disagreeing with your use of term in describing yourself, as obviously that is your prerogative! I just enjoy words and the different connotations they have for different people so I'm interested to know why you choose "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic".

[euphrosyna]

*g* I have an add-on on Firefox that chooses random icons and that one is truly random. :) But rather fitting considering I'm freezing.

*will stop spamming your LJ now*

[chaletian.livejournal.com]

It's a perfectly valid question. I think I associate agnosticism with more of a might/might not approach. I really, really don't think it's at all likely that God exists, and I think that likelihood shrinks with every advance in our understanding of the world. But the fact remains that we don't know exactly how life began, or how the universe was created, and I'm not quite arrogant enough to suppose that I can say for definite that there is no God involved. But I require proof. I am not willing to take it on faith, no way, no how.

I think it's difficult to be a 'true' atheist without also being fundamentally pigheaded, because there's stuff we don't know. Was Jesus the son of God? My opinion is 'er, no,' but I simply can't discount the possibility because I don't have any proof. I think it's extremely unlikely that a human man was the son of a divine non-corporeal being, but I cannot say for 100% sure. But notwithstanding this gap of certainty, if you like, I still would consider myself an atheist, rather than agnostic.