garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (11/19/83)
On why there must be a god (actually, on why people believe or
disbelieve in God.
First, I wish to clarify something. When you asked "Why must there
be a God?" I felt the only way to answer it in a meaningful way
was to assume that you meant, "Why do people believe in God?"
Why must there be a Rich Rosen? I dunno; there just is. Why do
I think that there is a Rich Rosen? 'Cause I keep seeing articles
with that name. It is possible that there is no such person, but
I think the explanation for all these articles that there is such
a person is better than the one that says someone is using that
name as a pseudonym (which is a reasonable explanation).
I listed five reasons why people believe in God. My responses
to Rich Rosen's responses are organized accordingly, though I
haven't quoted myself this time.
----------------------------------------------------------
1. Authority.
RLR:
Believing in something simply because an "authority" tells you to?
GMS:
As I said, everything you believe ultimately rests on authority.
RLR:
A few questions to ask: What qualifies a person as an authority?
(He/she knows a lot about the bible, therefore he/she should know
if god exists or not.)
GMS:
A very good question, and hard to answer. Does a degree in physics
(or biology, or math, or computer science, or...) qualify a person
to answer the question of the existence of God? If someone with
specifically religious training is not so qualified, then still
less is someone with no such training.
RLR:
What are the potential reasons that someone in a position of
religious authority might want you to believe this?
GMS:
There are three potential reasons why someone (in a position of
authority or not) might want me to believe in God:
1. For his/her benefit.
2. For my benefit.
3. He or she thinks it's true. (Never thought of that one, did you?)
These are the same potential reasons why someone might want me not
to disbelieve in God.
-----------------------------------------------------
2. Testimony.
RLR:
It is true that many people with a strong belief in god have
led happier and better lives as a result. It is that *belief*,
the feeling that there is something good watching over, that
reinforces such positive thinking.
GMS:
It is your opinion, based on an a priori assumption (that there is
no god), that it is the *belief* that is the explanation.
RLR:
A belief in one's self can do the job just as well (and on a more
mature level) than belief in externals.
GMS:
Why do you call belief in God immature? That assumes first that
such a belief is erroneous, and second, that the believer knows,
or ought to know, that such a belief is erroneous. Again, you
base your statements on the a priori assumption that there is no
God, and thus you are begging your original question.
RLR:
The same effect can be found in sun worshippers, (where a belief
that the sun is "watching over" you promotes a positive life)
but us modern folk KNOW that the sun isn't god, right? This
effect can also be attained by worshipping teddy bears and the
tooth fairy. The need to have such externals to believe in
is, to me, a sign of immaturity, akin to the belief that there
must be a god because...
GMS:
You have studied the psychological effects of sun worship and Teddy
Bear worship and tooth fairy worship, have you? Belief in an
omnipotent creator is hardly on a level with worshipping a stuffed
toy.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Search for meaning.
RLR:
It is wrong for me to say that no one should believe in god.
Some people need this belief system or else they will feel
either helpless or purposeless, and I think it does help for
some people. However, I also feel that such a belief is
childish, in that it is based on a picture of the world that
you *want* to see and not the way evidence shows it to be.
Again, belief in one's self and in humanity would do just as
well (if not better, because it eliminates the need to
externalize one's dependencies). But, promotion of the belief
that garys expounds here, that human life is meaningless without
god, is repugnant, and smacks of mindlessness. And to preach
such a doctrine to others is to degrade and (potentially)
subjugate them. My life, and the lives of many others, are very
meaningful without any god, thank you.
GMS:
Please don't be condescending. If there is no god, it is RIGHT for
you to say so, and it is RIGHT to attempt to persuade others to
agree. In one paragraph you manage to call me 'helpless', 'childish',
'repugnant', 'mindless', and 'degrading', and to accuse me of
attempting to subjugate others. Not to mention deluded or dishonest.
Or both. Why isn't it equally likely that your belief that there is
no god is base on a picture of the world that you *want* to see?
When I say that my life would be meaningless without God, I mean in
the long run. I.e., what difference will what I do now make in a
hundred years? It is probable that no one alive as little as two
hundred years from now will know I ever lived. If this life is all
there is, then what I do now will certainly not matter to me in a
relativley short period. That is what I meant by believing my life
to be meaningful. What difference will what YOU do NOW make TO YOU
in a hundred years?
---------------------------------------------------------
4. Sufficient cause.
RLR:
This is based on the notion that "if we can't explain it,
it's unexplainable", which somehow again leads to "there
must be a god". This is another example of the anthropocentric
point of view, that if humankind doesn't understand something,
it is un-understandable. This anthropocentrism manifests itself,
interestingly enough, in Judaeo-Christian thought (odd, wouldn't
you think?), when it puts forth things like "god created the
earth as the focal point of the universe, and created man as its
ruling species". This says a lot more about "man" than about
"god", as I stated in my earlier article.
GMS:
I don't recall ever saying that "if we can't explain something,
it's unexplainable." Your entire paragraph is unrelated to what
I was trying to say. Let me put my position differently:
Assumption: The universe did not create itself.
Conclusion: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created.
Observation: Evidence suggests that the universe has a finite age, be
it ever so large.
Conclusion: The universe was created.
RLR:
My personal belief is that the universe is "explainable"
and "understandable" in its entirety from a physicalist
point of view, but that we may never have the knowledge
or vantage point to do so.
GMS:
"Such faith I have not seen in all Israel!" Your personal belief
is a statement of faith in 'physicalism,' whatever that is. It
is completely untestable; therefore it requires faith to accept.
It certainly appears that the only reason you hold such a belief
is that that is what you *want* the universe to be like.
--------------------------------------------------------------
5. Conscience.
RLR:
I fail to see why this is so. Maybe it's obvious to you, but if
I were you I'd think twice about anything I thought was "obvious".
GMS:
When did I say it was obvious? I recall stating that the arguments
I was presenting were summarized, but I never claimed that any of them
were "obvious." I agree about "obviousness;" have you thought twice
about your assumption that there is no god? You seem to think it is
obvious.
RLR:
Again, I think the notion of "one person's rights end where
imposition on another person begins", which I feel to be a
fundamental facet of humanist (or whatever) thought, sums it up.
Apparently, so did Jesus, when he summed it all up in different
words ("Do unto others...").
GMS:
Are you saying that the golden rule is the only thing he ever
taught? On another occassion, someone asked Jesus what the
greatest commandment was. His answer was not the golden rule.
His answer was "Love the Lord your God with all your heart,
mind, and strength. And the second is like it: Love your
neighbor as yourself." (Not an exact quote, but close enough).
RLR:
I would think the notion of an organized religion the way
Christianity is today (perhaps un-organized religion is a
better phrase), where imposition of beliefs and laws from
a book is the rule, would have Jesus spinning in his grave.
GMS:
I agree that what is generally called Christianity today would
have Jesus spinning in his grave, if he were still in it. The
fact that "imposition of beliefs" is inescapable has been
addressed (and is still being discussed) by others. Likewise,
"laws from a book" just means that the "laws" were written down.
They didn't "come from" a book; they were "put into" a book.
RLR:
(Maybe that's why god had him resurrected, to prevent his
burning a hole in the ground :-) Again the concept of a deity
being the only explainable source of a good-evil concept is
refuted in my earlier article.
GMS:
OK, it isn't the only explanation for the origin of a good-evil
concept. But I think it is the best explanation.
Gary Samuelson