Home // Posts tagged "god"

All I Lack is God

10 December, 2013 2 comments

There’s a false dichotomy often thrown up by apologists for religion: those of us who champion the virtue of rationality are labelled as “materialists”, who ignore humanity’s spiritual needs, leading necessarily to an empty and joyless existence. Set against us materialists are the world’s various religions, concerned utterly with spiritual experience (so they claim) and hence necessary to counter this soulless materialism.

In this post I will argue that religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for real spiritual well-being, that rationality and “materialism” can do at least as good a job (and possibly get in the way somewhat less), and that therefore religion has nothing left to offer.

Spirituality

The universe is clearly a material thing (with apologies to various airy-fairy philosophers; for my purpose, I can see, hear, touch, taste and smell the world, so it exists :P ) governed by material laws of nature. Scientific enquiry over many years has made incredible strides in understanding this material world, but there’s a lot we don’t yet know.

And a lot of people who don’t even know (or even actively deny) what is known.

We come then to the notion of spirituality: the idea or feeling that “there is more in Heaven and Earth…”. The feeling that we are more than simply cause and effect. It touches on notions of free will, aesthetics, love, wonder, creativity and so on, and lands, I think, squarely on the concepts of meaning and purpose.

Religious bigots like George Pell condemn atheists as coarse, uncaring, lacking purpose, and fearing the future. (Interesting here is Sigmund Freud’s statement that religion will never die as people are too fearful of death.) [if I remember to, I'll come back and edit this with the actual quote when I find it]

Unsurprisingly I refudiate ;) this. First I will discuss why I think religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for a full spiritual life, and then turn to looking at the way that rationality can in fact be so.

Soulless Religion

Given that religion’s (stated) raison d’être is spiritual life, where in the hells do I get off on saying it doesn’t address spirituality? Because its vision is so stultifyingly narrow – that moreso than the demonstrable fact it’s, well, wrong.

Religion tells you the meaning of your existence. It tells you how to behave, and even how to think. It reduces all the wonder in the world to a plaything of a godling’s construction (heh – my iPhone wanted to change godling to gosling :P ).

They teach fear: of unbelievers, of evil, the devil, god himself – even of the world, it seems to me. At least Christianity, if not other religions as well, diminishes the world by giving us complete dominion over it. It tells us there is nothing (except god) that is greater than us. Whence real spirituality when the world is beneath us, and all that us above us is god, and all the works of our lives are purely to glorify god? It seems to me this diminishes the real value of the universe around us, and of everything we think, feel, experience, and do.

To me that is completely lacking in soul, or spiritual virtue.

Materialist Spirituality

Clearly we are not simply coldly rational robots. Not only are we not all that good at being rational, we find pleasure and fulfilment in things that we don’t think about in a rational fashion. I choose that wording deliberately: I don’t think these things are irrational, simply because we don’t behave rationally around them. Love, for instance: few of us choose our mate rationally, but the existence of the feelings that lead to this pair-bonding is perfectly rationally explicable. Likewise having children – moreso in fact. They’re expensive, aggravating, stop you sleeping for evermore, messy, destructive …. But awwwwwwwwwwww what about one of those? :P We don’t choose to have children on rational grounds, but the urge to procreate, again, is clearly able to be understood rationally; if that urge weren’t there, we wouldn’t be here. The more an organism procreates, the more its genetic material continues, the more successful it is in evolutionary terms. Likewise, pairbonding would have conferred evolutionary advantage, so love can be understood as something that makes rational sense, even though we don’t engage in a rational process.

I accept that not everything we do is determined by conscious, logical, rational thought. However, that doesn’t mean it is irrational; these things can be understood rationally. It’s similar in a way to my notion of ethical behaviour: we don’t in the course of everyday life debate philosophically about every course of action; we simply act in accordance with our character. However, the nature of our ethical character and consequent decisions can be understood philosophically – and that understanding can help us to develop further as ethical beings.

Similarly, while we don’t necessarily engage in rational debate about everything we do, rational thought and investigation can help us – individually and as a species – to grow. To understand and engage with the universe, and especially this Earth, better.

It can help us feel connected.

What could be more wonderful, beautiful, and yes: even spiritual and mystical, than the (true) concept that we are star-stuff? That we are made from elements forged in stars and blasted out by supernovae, come together to be us. That when we die these elements will become part of other things, animals, even people. The fact that this is demonstrably true makes it even more beautiful, to my mind.

Sure, you or I won’t be around to see what happens after we die, but that simply makes the world, and our time on it, that much more beautiful and precious. it’s like freesias, cherry blossom, and jacarandas: they flower so beautifully, and so very briefly. Somehow the fact it’s so brief adds to the beauty.

Conclusion

Do I need to state it? Anyone reading my blog knows what I think anyway. ;) this universe in which we find ourselves is incredibly beautiful, strange, and terrible. Understanding it rationally, far from diminishing that spiritual sense, can enhance it. Reducing it to the whim of a petty jealous narcissistic deity robs it of something very deep and important.

I have meaning; I have purpose; I have love. I have joy, beauty and wonder. All I lack is God.

And I do not miss Him.

Sin, Responsibility, and the Immorality of the Resurrection Myth

3 December, 2013 Reply

First, a disclaimer: I am about as far from a bible scholar as one could be and still think about religious matters. It is only recently, and with great reluctance, that I downloaded the King James onto my iPhone. The closest I’ve got to reading the bible in the past was when I had it in one hand looking up bible verses referred to in the book occupying my other hand: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (and now I’m not sure which of them is the more fantastical or less worthy of belief).

That lack of biblical literacy was made quite plain to me in reading and thinking this week on the Christian myth of the Resurrection (Christopher Hitchens mentions it in God is Not Great – which book is most definitely great). All I knew or thought before was along the lines of: “Jesus really pissed off the Romans, so they crucified him, but then the bible says he rose from the dead so he must be the son of god. The end.” I had never read or thought about the deeper meanings or moral implications.

I didn’t realise that this myth was tied in with the bizarre and offensive notion that we are all, through no fault of our own, born stained by “Original Sin”; that god sent his son, who was really himself, to earth, in order that he be brutally tortured and murdered (sacrificed, though he of course didn’t really die, making it not much of a sacrifice), in order that we be granted absolution for our sins: he would take from us our responsibility for our misdeeds – and the supposed transgression of Adam, who surely was simply following his god-given nature. And bloody hell: we’re all born in sin because the first man yearned after knowledge? To my mind Christianity hit the [FAIL] button right there.

In any case, it’s worth quoting Hitchens’ summary paragraph:

“I am told of a human sacrifice that took place two thousand years ago, without my wishing it and in circumstances so ghastly that, had I been present and in possession of any influence, I would have been duty-bound to try and stop it. In consequence of this murder, my own manifold sins are forgiven me, and I may hope to enjoy everlasting life.”

Hitchens rightly asks how moral such a scenario can be. It is nothing but scapegoating, with Jesus as the goat, and us all as the “fear-ridden peasants of antiquity”. As he points out, a person can perhaps arrange to take the blame and even punishment for another’s misdeeds, but not the responsibility. My deeds are to the credit or debit of no-one’s moral ledger but my own. They can never be taken by another – whether human or godling.

For anyone, or any organisation, to offer to do so is simply immoral. Our deeds are our own, and to believe that a human sacrifice – that incidentally wasn’t a human, nor a sacrifice – millennia ago, in which we had no part, could possibly be seen to alter that is to me quite a revolting concept.

I do not hide from any of my “sins” (“sin” itself being I think a morally useless concept), nor seek to expiate them by thanking god for an ancient murder. Nor do I abase myself before my supposed creator praising or thanking him for the good that I do. I accept both. They are part of who I am and who I become. They are not things to be bought and sold by the blood of man or god.

Meaning and Purpose: God or Me?

5 November, 2013 Reply

Friday Filisophy has had a bit of an unplanned hiatus, which I shall begin to rectify, at least a little, today. I think, read, and watch a fair bit relating at least tangentially to meaning: the meaning and purpose of our lives. In a way that’s the biggest question for every one of us; without a sense of meaning and purpose we can feel empty and lost.

People seem to have always sought meaning, in various ways. One way has been – and is – through religion. Needless to say, I don’t believe that’s the only, the best, or even a good way of finding meaning and purpose, but millions upon millions appear to.

I thought what I might do today is present summaries of a couple of different notions of how we came to be and what that says about our purpose, and the meaning of our lives. In the interest of not being a dick, I shall present them without comment (save for the inevitable difference in tone that will no doubt creep into each summary). ;)

First:

In the beginning there was a magic all-powerful and all-knowing dude who created the entire universe – including you and me – from nothing. Despite being unimaginably powerful and removed from us by a gulf more vast than separates us from single-celled organisms, this being for some reason needs and demands your worship and love, and if he doesn’t get it, will cast you into an eternity of dreadful torment when you die. The purpose of your life then is explicitly to worship and glorify this being; everything you do should be in his name and for his glory.

Second:

You and I are star-stuff made flesh. In Carl Sagan’s words: “… a way for the universe to look at itself”. We are the results of billions of years of chance, combining elements forged in stars and supernovae, come together briefly to make you, me, everyone we love (and everyone we waste time hating). We are here in this configuration for about 0.00058% of the time the universe has existed. So far. Then the star-stuff that makes us will return to the universe to form part of someone or something else. Our very transience is what leads to our purpose: to make it count. The meaning of our lives is no more nor less than what we make it during our fraction of a cosmic second on this earth.

Friday drivel: god, atheism, faith and theology

2 July, 2013 2 comments

This morning my train entered a reception hole, I had no data connection, so no twitter with which to twit. Consequently I figured I might as well subject you to my meandering waffle. :P With some more added this afternoon, herewith a Friday blither ;)

I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of god, and religion, and religious people, and the pope/Catholic Church’s continued execrable actions in putting the Church above people, and atheism, and billboards, and websites, and mocking… and so on.

My conclusion? Humans are bloody ridiculous creatures. ;) In no particular order though, I’ll set down some of my musings – with or without points/conclusions. ;)

Mocking

It’s easy to mock religion – it has so many obvious targets painted on – but sadly it’s all too easy to move into mocking religious people. Most people who believe in god, or Allah, or buddah, or who/whatever are no more defined by their religion than I am by my lack of religious belief. They and their religion are not the same thing, so even if one intends to mock a religion, or a religious institution, or a particular figure in that institution, allowing it to become mocking of the people who believe in that religion is not just unkind, but intellectually lazy or dishonest. One should identify one’s target and not just attack anything/anyone connected with it.

Next point: is mocking useful or acceptable at all? I would say it depends on your goal. Mocking for the sake of it is probably just hurtful, and unlikely to actually achieve anything. Maybe that’s what separates it from satire, which can be very biting (and yes: mocking) but there’s a point. Tim minchin’s “Pope Song” is a great (albeit extremely confronting) example of the latter. All the offensive language and mocking is in service to a great point at the end, where he challenges the listener to really examine their own thought processes and consider whether his “filthy fucking language and fucking disrespect” upsets them more than the (alleged, but pretty damn clear) actions of Pope Benedict – now, and as Cardinal Ratzinger.

I submit that this clearly-defined aim turns it from pointless mockery to very worthwhile comment.

Billboards

There are billboards going up in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch (I do like the irony) saying things like “In the beginning Man created God” and the line used in the UK: “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life”. There’s a similar billboard set to create some angst in the US (I forget where exactly).

I’ve just joined a website called Think Atheist. This is populated by “noisy atheists” talking about atheism (and science and other cool stuff). In a way it feels kind of weird to think of groups of atheists, because there’s really nothing that’s shared, simply by virtue if being atheist. A lack of something (belief) isn’t a thing or a quality to share. So I find it slightly odd. Maybe it’s a safe place to let out frustrated mocking impulses, with an audience who will appreciate it rather than switch off and be offended.

I guess since I grew up indoctrination-free I don’t really “get” the depth of feeling of many other atheists. I honestly didn’t realise until into adulthood that religious belief was widespread and not just confined to a small number of whackaloons. :P Ok that’s partially because I’m dense ;) but I knew there was a bible and Christian belief in close to the same way I knew about the Norse gods: pre-scientific explanations of the world. I thought that was the way it was – and that the majority of people thought the same way. For a long time I didn’t realise it was actually the other way around. Consequently I guess I still haven’t shaken that mindset, and so don’t feel quite the same urge to seek solidarity.

Though it certainly is nice to know there are people I don’t have to worry about offending if I blither on atheistically about something ;)

Like now …

Faith

With apologies to Mark Knopfler, faith is useless, theology’s worse ;) I find faith an odd thing, but can accept it a whole lot more than theology.

Example of faith:

Christian: God is real

Atheist: there’s no evidence for the existence of God

Christian: God is real

Atheist: there are mountains of evidence that refute the statements in the Bible

Christian: God is real

Athesit: butbutbut! Logical inconsistencies, contradiction, frankly evil stuff in the Bible!!!11!!!1!

Christian: God is real

While I do not understand that, and cannot even respect or value its denial of rationality, I can indeed respect its honesty. The person with real faith can accept that the evidence shows us otherwise, but simply maintain his or her faith.

Theologians on the other hand …. they really anger me. What they do is the same as “creation scientists” (I threw up in my mouth a little just from typing that oxymoron): they begin with their conclusion, and all their “thought” is bent simply on justifying that conclusion. While theologians would probably repudiate that statement, I do not see how any rational person could truthfully apply that rationality to a careful study of the Bible (or probably any holy text) and come away still believing in God, other than by blind faith, as I’ve described above. The difference is that they are dishonest about it. They try to cloak their faith in the guise of rationality, but to examine an issue rationally one must be prepared to relinquish even the most dearly-held pre-existing beliefs. They cannot. If they could, then we would not have any more theologians – at least not associated with the Churches, because they’d all become atheists.

Any theologian reading this (hah! like a theologian would be reading my blog. Hah!) might be extremely offended by the assertion I have made about their intellectual endeavours. I would invite them then to explain where I’m wrong, and to demonstrate how they have been willing to let go of the existence of God, but rational study has proven to them that he exists.

In fact, I’d open it up for a guest post on the blog. I’m serious, by the way.

My take on this is that trying to “justify” one’s religious belief, through intellectual endeavour or pseudoscience or whatever, actually speaks volumes about the weakness of that person’s faith. If they truly have faith they would not need to prove or justify it.

So glad…

The Church, the Pope … I don’t know if I should even go there. I am just sooooo glad right now I’m not Catholic. I would be so embarrassed and appalled by the actions and attitudes of my Church. Condemning a legal raid which was carried out as part of a criminal investigation by Belgian police … come on, man! I think they must share PR departments with BP or something. The Church needs to just be sensible about this: make a real and sincere apology, and start co-operating with proper secular authorities, and show what they are doing to ensure this doesn’t keep happening. If they did that, Tim Minchin wouldn’t be writing nasty songs about them :P

And I wouldn’t have the cognitive dissonance engendered by knowing that the vast majority of christian people (like the vast majority of people in general) are good, decent, caring human beings – as are most priests, vicars, whatever – but their Church (capital C) is deceitful and morally bankrupt. And let’s face it, my cognitive dissonance is what’s really important here. ;)

That’s all far too much for a Friday. And you know what? Really it boils down to one primary thing: honesty. Honesty in thinking, honesty in interacting with our fellow human beings, honesty in all aspects of our being. I (honestly) think this world would be a better place for it.

Non-belief needs no justification pt 3: an atheist coda

14 May, 2013 8 comments

A final thought before I leave this for today. There seems to be a differentiation made between “agnostics” and “atheists” – one which can be rather acrimonious, with agnostics being seen as wishy-washy apologists or nice touchy-feely pleasant people, and atheists as understanding the truth and not accepting woolly thought or as mean nasty militant offensive people.

Bollocks.

Seriously it’s always puzzled me. And when someone close to you tells you that they find the “militant atheists” so unpleasant that they’re going to call themselves agnostic instead of atheist, you know there’s something screwy.

Actually though, atheists are agnostics. An agnostic (in a religious sense) accepts that he or she does not know if god exists. An atheist simply doesn’t believe that god exists. To me, that’s essentially the same thing – if the atheist is being intellectually honest.

Basically this (false) dichotomy comes back to the same old crap I’ve been writing about today: equating absence of belief with belief of absence. An atheist is then seen as believing in something – which is just not the case. Talking about “knowing” is philosophically shaky anyway, as it leads to brain melting discussions about whether we can ever really truly know anything at all. Mostly we actually just believe in things – or not. We don’t truly “know” if these things are true or not, but we believe or not, for one reason or another.

So really an agnostic is simply someone who acknowledges that, and I would argue that atheism is simply agnosticism as applied to religion.

Claims that god definitely does not exists – claims to know the non-existence of god – betoken sloppy thinking. With no compelling reason to believe, I’m comfortable with my absence of belief – but do not confuse that with a belief that there is no god. It’s not a belief, a faith, or a dogma or creed.

I simply don’t believe. That’s all.

12 » Last
Statistical data collected by Statpress SEOlution (blogcraft).