People really, really hate God
I went through my monthly blog-reading routine by scrolling through one of my favourite atheist websites, Unreasonable Faith (its included on my reading list, I’m lazy to hyperlink it). This time though, I actually replied to one of his posts about some Senator making a “stupid” comment, where I was immediately ganged by four or five counter-replies.
What struck me was this: from the replies of some of these people, it wasn’t just a matter of disbelief. It was a brooding, seething hatred of God, Christianity, and religion — seen in the way they insult Jesus, tease the wisdom of God, and carciature Christian behaviour. I may be skeptical about something, but it doesn’t mean I have to hate it… But not so, for some of these people. I don’t even think someone like Karl Popper or Bertrand Russell shared some of the hatred of these folks.
Tim Seow recommended the Tim Keller book (I’m starting to see some connection here), Belief in an Age of Skepticism. I have to read this. TS mentioned how one of the main ideas in the book is how the rejection of Christ and GOD is often more of an emotional more than an intellectual one, at least much more than many people claim it to be. I’m starting to see how true this is, more and more.
Well, it requires emotional conviction to believe that a particular system of logic results in true conclusions. The point is that all systems of reasoning are incomplete; hence, the atheist or rationalist can only believe that what he thinks is true is true if he feels it is so.
This is why people get so incensed by Christianity. They know that there is no way to prove their competing system is better without invoking their own rules, thus making it circular reasoning and depriving it of any claim to objectivity.
Christians, on the other hand, are much sloppier on average, because it requires less intellectual effort to believe in Christianity. I know this for a fact because the Bible says so. *grin* Remember? It’s in the first three chapters of I Corinthians.
Oh my yes. Atheists react violently to the idea of being accountable to their Creator. The athesit slogan “No F*cking Masters” says it all.
I believe there are two kinds of atheists in this world: the justified and the unjustified. Unjustified atheism would include the examples you just mentioned; people with a deep grudge against God, people who “hate” because it is cool, essentially people who resolutely deny the existence of a supreme being without even contemplating or reflecting on their actions. To this group of people, my experience (though limited it may be) tells me that the most we can do is to ask and pray that they may be spiritually awakened.
All other atheists preach what I call a justified atheism. These people, after a period of contemplation (within both their conscious and unconscious state of mind), categorically deny God, arriving at the conclusion that putting your faith in something physically intangible is absolutely irrational. There is a certain amount of truth up to this point, but I feel that these people may have reached a conclusion too early. What they miss out is that in a world of uncertainty, belief in God is actually logical. Perhaps there are some who acknowledge this fact, but will only accept God on condition that it is both rational and logical. Unfortunately rationality and logic and never be congruent with one another by the very definition of faith itself. In such a scenario, it is easy to let one’s human ego get the better of one, since one has already reached truth earlier, without realizing that there is greater truth out there. It is at this juncture where Bertrand Russell, for all his intelligence, has fallen victim to his own mind and stubborn nature. Going back to my previous point, since we have already established that when it comes to God, we cannot make a choice that is both logical and rational, may I humbly ask if you are an atheist out their to critically examine the possibility of a next best alternative and its formal implications. I will pray for you at the same time.
Hey chue,
This reply is centred largely on semantics. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Firstly, I view rationality (in a general sense) as an ability to use logic, which in turn is used in the framing of decisions.
Perceiving things from only the ‘justified’ atheist’s standpoint, the eventual choice to believe in God is a decision. In order to reach that decision, he/she demands some form of tangible evidence for the purpose of further logical reasoning, and that of validation.
Through this entire process, rationality (again, in general) is in fact at work, because logical reasoning is taking place in order to reach a point of decision (effectuated by logical thought when one goes, “there is evidence, this is right, thus my decision is made,” for example). Hence also, logic, to me, is in essence a concept involving objectivity.
Next: on the concept of Operational Rationality. In humans, this refers to the use of logic in order to reach conclusions which serve personal needs.
In a world of uncertainty, regarding things supernatural, for many of us there is a human need to cling on to something certain. Hence, such rationality tells us to believe in a God even though the tangible evidence is practically non-existent.
In saying the above, allow me to return to your train of thought as how I view it:
1.“Putting your faith in something physically intangible is absolutely” ILLOGICAL, because here there is a need for concrete evidence and thus objective judgement.
2. However, since we human beings live “in a world of uncertainty”, it is only RATIONAL (not logical, as you mentioned) to believe in the uncertain (i.e. God or things spiritual), just as much as we believe in the certain (things not spiritual, whose existence are ascertained by tangibility). It is ILLOGICAL to believe in the uncertain because there simply is no evidence for its existence; if not, it surely would become a certainty!
Hence, on this subject, I DO agree with you that logic and rationality will never be singing the same tune, therefore efforts to find the two striding hand-in-hand will prove to be futile.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment, and probably also because IS pretty deep as Alastair put it and I lack that intellect to understand its depth, thus I could be way off the tangent here. Maybe it is also because there wasn’t a provision of proper definitions (i.e. ‘rationality’ and ‘logic’) for the layman (i.e. myself), so explaining the confusion I’m facing.
Finally, to add on to your comment if I may, the existence of God is uncertain, respective to the fact that He isn’t a tangible entity and therefore similar evidence to prove His existence cannot be found. Having said that, a belief in God (something uncertain) does not necessarily mean it is true. The uncertain remains as it is – uncertain. But here’s where Faith makes its grand entrance.
Also, to quickly mention it, does a belief in something entirely rest on the existence of evidence?
Anyway, tell me what you think! In case you’re wondering, my reply isn’t polemic in nature; I’m just seeking clarification. Maybe you would like to enlighten an ignorant soul here?
BTW, I’m a Christian.
Wow Zy that’s pretty deep, as usual. You should consider writing or like starting your own blog haha
Hi all,
I think Christianity is more than just believing in a one-true God. It is about truth, a system of beliefs, a way to the Saviour.
And as such I believe that the Bible, purported as the bearing the truth, is that which gets most atheists going – seething in hatred, even.
Sometimes it is hard to stomach that wives are instructed to be “submissive to your husbands” (1 Peter 3:1); that Christ dominates man, and man dominates woman; that a husband is the wife’s master.
It is usually more than just believing in a one-true God, which is inconsequential to others at most, but rather about a defined way of living that many cannot accept.
Doctrines of all Faith(s) are based on their Holy Books/Scriptures. For the “non-believers” I say….. try prove them wrong. Wouldn’t this prove that there isn’t a God, an Almighty or maybe false prophets?
I think that one of the main problems in this discussion is the assumption that humans can be rational. We have more than enough evidence that no system of rationalisation can be complete. It’s even worse to say that being rational means being able to use logic; a logic is a system of axioms and rules that is internally self-consistent, but even psychotics can use logic, and self-consistency does not necessarily mean truth.
In fact, I am quite certain that a) God exists, and that b) He must be impossible to prove. We can use a simple logical exercise to show this is true, but it is entertaining to see other people work it out.
Point taken. I retract my argument, proven to be highly flawed; I have wrongly assumed that logic involves the use of tangible evidence to prove the existence of something (or if it is true), or so in order to reach a conclusion and decision. And rationality isn’t the ability to use logic, after all, as you have corrected me.
So then, what do you think is a proper way of defining the terms ‘logical’ and ‘rational’ (if possible), and is it appropriate to say that belief in God is logical/illogical, or rational/irrational?
Anyway, I would love to hear of this logical exercise you’ve mentioned
To autolycus…
thx for helping me to define…. yes… logic deals a lot about consistency of argument, while (may i add) rationality deals more with how a conclusion is reached, ie… how we can detach emotions and other biases / prejudices from our decision making process…
And humans can be rational, when one has to makes decisions from quantitative evidences. Of cos, other than comparing prices (when shopping), a lot of decisions made in life is actually more qualitative than quantitative. Any thing that is qualitative will contain a certain amount of ambiguity, bias, subjectivity.
Now. God is physically intangible. We cannot sensibly perceive him. Therefore, there is no qualitative (and definitely quantitative) evidence to prove the physical existence of god. However, it is possible to prove the existence of the concept of god through induction or deduction as some philosophers have done. Whether we believe this concept to be real or not, depends on faith, which is an emotional in itself, hence, belief in god is irrational.
Now, to show why believe in god is logical. (for JusWoo)
Underlying Assumption: The belief in God implies the existence of some form of afterlife, which itself implies some form of judgement upon death. This judgement can be based on either deeds or belief in god himself….
Now, devise a matrix to see the possible outcomes for judgement based on deeds or belief in god himself…. and you will see that there is no better alternative (or less opportunity costs) than to believe that god exists. (as to which god, philosophy can never provide you with the answer). The matrix also helps to show the logical consistency of the whole exercise…..
To Yeong Wei…
what you have mentioned is just a reflection of societal customs during that historical periods. Actually quite universal across the board. And if you study history closely, we have been alternating between cycles of extreme liberalism and cycles of extreme conservatism.
Chue…
1) Belief in God does not necessarily imply belief in an afterlife; rather it necessarily implies a belief that there are possibilities that cannot be tested by any methodology whatsoever. Since we know this is likely to be true, based on the work of Bertrand Russell, Kurt Gödel and others, therefore it is not irrational to believe in God.
2) But is it rational to believe in God? The point, which you have alluded to, is that Pascal’s Wager is a viable argument. There are a few preconditions for its viability: a) that we do have the volitional ability to believe or not believe, b) that God indeed rewards belief regardless of the method by which it is attained.
3) Let us assume that we have free will with regard to belief (because if we don’t, then it doesn’t matter). In order for this to occur, the certainty of God’s existence must be disestablished. This is because, if God is certain to exist, then it would be irrational (or insane) not to believe, given the choice, since the expectation of yield is infinitely better for those who believe, and that would mean that rational free will would only have one outcome, to believe — which would mean it isn’t truly free. Therefore doubt of God’s existence must exist in order for belief in God to be rational.
4) Since there is undoubtedly grounds for doubt, the only problem is whether God indeed rewards belief if you have reasoned your way into it. In order for sufficient doubt, God must also reward belief that has NOT been the product of reason, or else you would KNOW that Pascal’s Wager is the way to go.
5) So the best option is to adopt the theory of Pascal’s Wager while knowing that it may not be right.
6) What about other faiths? Well, most of the non-monotheistic faiths don’t have such a great difference between the ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ outcomes, so it doesn’t matter. That leaves Judaism and Islam, more or less. If you are a Christian, then you probably meet the requirements for Judaism, and even more interesting, you also meet the requirements for Islam, as a ‘person of the Book’.
Finally, on a different note, I don’t think we alternate between cycles of extreme liberalism and conservatism; after all, they are relative to each other — one is meaningless unless the other exists. Rather, we live through cycles that move between undefined extremes on either side of human experience.