I think the natural position or default position to take, is that there is a God. If not, then explain why most societies developed that way. Whether polytheism or Monotheism, people by default seem to believe or need that there is a God.Here's the way I see it.
People have a natural desire to understand the world around them. Kids are constantly asking "Why?" We want to understand why things happen and how the universe works. The thing is we don't require a fool-proof answer. If an explanation seems to fit, and we are open to the idea, we have the capacity to believe it. Magic shows are fun because we are able to believe what we see even if it doesn't fit with our understanding of the universe.
We also have a habit of anthropomorphizing everything. For example: :)
Perhaps early man was trying to understand the weather, attributed a personality to it, and the idea of god grew from there.
I think people look for cause and effect by default, but that doesn't make their conclusions correct.
22 comments:
see also Emile Durkheim- The elementry forms of religious life
It's the sociology of why people have religion. Here's a summary: http://durkheim.itgo.com/religion.html
At the risk of being redundant I'll once again list the quote by Einstein:
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Sitting in Biochemistry class over a quarter of a century ago, I was struck by the interplay of chemical processes needed for even the simplest form of life.
It is like an elegant and complex house of cards with each complex process interacting and dependent upon others. Removing a single card would cause the entire structure to collapse.
I had a moment (epiphany/awakening etc) and knew that this grand interplay of complex processes and structures could not have occured by chance. I knew that G-d had to exist to intelligently direct and create these processes
Although I am mathematically sophisticated enough to understand that probabilities dictate that in an infinte or near infinite universe these things are bound to occur, I am still waiting for the monkeys to type Hamlet. Or even a coherent word. The last time I checked they were still smearing feces on the keyboard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3013959.stm
The decision for faith is a nonlogical one and can only be made as the zen buddhists note in a moment of enlightenment. How you get to that moment is up to you. Where you go form that moment is also up to you.
BTW I was brought up MO strayed far away, returned to the right because of my amazing "shiksa" wife who decided to convert on her own - first reform then orthodox.
I am now returning to balance - mo without BS. Bein adam l'chaveiro being of primary import.
I keep kosher but won't judge your degree or even decision for kashrut.
Every Jew is a Jew and every human being was created in G-d's image
Doctor Dave,
> the interplay of chemical processes needed for even the simplest form of life... is like an elegant and complex house of cards with each complex process interacting and dependent upon others. Removing a single card would cause the entire structure to collapse.
You are absolutely correct. In cases where removing a single card (a mutation of the DNA code) can collapse the entire structure (produces a negative phenotype) natural selection will dictate if the new process will be incorporated or be rejected. Many supporters of ID gloss over the fact that evolution produces many useless mutations that do not survive. Evolution is a brutal, messy process.
You might be interested in reading The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean Carroll. He does a great job of explaining how evolution works at the genetic level.
>I am now returning to balance - mo without BS. Bein adam l'chaveiro being of primary import.
On "Bein adam l'chaveiro being of primary import" I completely agree.
the thing is though that practically speaking it doesn't really make a difference, any way you look at it.
You don’t need to buy a book. I’ve explained evolution.
Bottom line: it’s just atheistic propaganda.
LNM,
The following link (note: pdf file) offers a fantastic, spelled-out version of your concise explanation.
http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf
>I think people look for cause and effect by default, but that doesn't make their conclusions correct.
Please don't take what I said, out of context.
I didn't say that it's the "truth". I said, that unlike your statement that you only believe in God because of your upbringing, I am saying that it is a reasonable presumption given the human condition. You might have reached that conclusion on your own even without your parents upbringning.
"People have a natural desire to understand the world around them. Kids are constantly asking "Why?" We want to understand why things happen and how the universe works. The thing is we don't require a fool-proof answer. If an explanation seems to fit, and we are open to the idea, we have the capacity to believe it. Magic shows are fun because we are able to believe what we see even if it doesn't fit with our understanding of the universe.
We also have a habit of anthropomorphizing everything. For example: :)
Perhaps early man was trying to understand the weather, attributed a personality to it, and the idea of god grew from there.
I think people look for cause and effect by default, but that doesn't make their conclusions correct."
That every people should have had that idea makes your hypothesis to weak.
Simple life really an Oxymoron.
Baal Habos,
My goal wasn't to take your words out of context. I was using your comment as a jumping off point for my post. I hope you aren't offended.
In your original post you also added:
>That is not to say that the default intuitive position is correct.
But I think that does put the onus on the atheistic position.
I disagree with the argument that you have to start with the default intuitive position. In order to honestly investigate an issue I think you have start with the facts. One's intuition may get you thinking about an issue but I don't think it should dictate the debate.
> I said, that unlike your statement that you only believe in God because of your upbringing, I am saying that it is a reasonable presumption given the human condition. You might have reached that conclusion on your own even without your parents upbringning.
If given access to the explanations available to man today I doubt I would have concluded that god exists. However, had I been born 3,000+ years ago I might have concluded there are one, or many, gods.
can you prove the sky is blue, is based on the assumed agreement that there is a sky...
People come to believe in religion any which way they want to. If you were born in Pakistan there would be a good chance that you would be a Muslim to some degree. If born in India maybe you would be a Hindu. We all believe whatever we want to believe. Some people are stamp collectors. They go crazy over a new issue stamp, but for God's sake it's only a piece of papaer yet they go crazy to get it. Avi
LakewoodShmuck,
>can you prove the sky is blue, is based on the assumed agreement that there is a sky...
No, it's based on the fact that there are molecules in the atmosphere that scatter light coming from the sun. Not that the sky is always blue. At sunset the sky is all kinds of colors and at night it has no color at all.
I’ve actually got a different question: Where did the idea that there is no God come from?
"I disagree with the argument that you have to start with the default intuitive position. In order to honestly investigate an issue I think you have start with the facts. One's intuition may get you thinking about an issue but I don't think it should dictate the debate."
Then how do you debate or establish the facts?
"Lubab No More said...
LakewoodShmuck,
>can you prove the sky is blue, is based on the assumed agreement that there is a sky...
No, it's based on the fact that there are molecules in the atmosphere that scatter light coming from the sun. Not that the sky is always blue. At sunset the sky is all kinds of colors and at night it has no color at all."
Wrong the sky only appears to the human eye as blue. Those other colors are just from the Sun. Things are not a particular color really. We mean to the human eye.
LNM,
"You are absolutely correct. In cases where removing a single card (a mutation of the DNA code) can collapse the entire structure (produces a negative phenotype) natural selection will dictate if the new process will be incorporated or be rejected. Many supporters of ID gloss over the fact that evolution produces many useless mutations that do not survive. Evolution is a brutal, messy process."
Evolution is only a proximate cause...
The fact that the universe exists with such order that permits and encourages the development of such mind-bogglingly sophisticated complexity should, at the least, make you pause and think.
Accident? Really?
It's easy to do some hand waving about evolution when it comes to biochemistry, but if you ever study the way organisms actually work - only terms like awe can suffice.
> I hope you aren't offended.
Of course not.
>In order to honestly investigate an issue I think you have start with the facts. One's intuition may get you thinking about an issue but I don't think it should dictate the debate.
I agree with that. But, where does one's natural hunch lie *before* he begins the search? I don't think that Atheism is the default position, as you seem to imply. Just my opinion.
>If given access to the explanations available to man today I doubt I would have concluded that god exists.
I can see that. But I wasn't talking about conclusions, I was talking about baseline.
Even if one accepts the suggestion that near universal belief in a god among ancient cultures implies that we have a natural affinity to believe in God that doesn't mean the belief should be treated as presumptively true. Rather, the fact that paganism was the universal religion suggests that it is presumptively true that there are multiple gods. Paganism is actually easier to relate to as a "natural" belief system and, while it is less intellectually elegant (Occam's razor and all that), it is actually more persuasive than the theory of a single god who suffers from schizophrenia. Hey, it never occurred to me before but it even explains the multiple authors of the Torah. J and E really are gods! (How do you think they got their names?) I'm going to start a new religion.
Mikeskeptic. Agreed; either way, I don't think the presumtive, better word than default, position is Atheism.
BTW, I sent you an Email a few days ago, I need to know whether you're ignoring me :( or I just have the wrong email.
mikeskeptic said...
Even if one accepts the suggestion that near universal belief in a god among ancient cultures implies that we have a natural affinity to believe in God that doesn't mean the belief should be treated as presumptively true. Rather, the fact that paganism was the universal religion suggests that it is presumptively true that there are multiple gods."
Except that Paganism accepted all National religions as true so your picking it as presumptively true is meaningless. Rather much to your chagrin Judaism which was the first absolute truth postulated is presumptively true and was not denied by the pagans except that the pagans said they're also true.
"Paganism is actually easier to relate to as a "natural" belief system"
How? A single cause makes more sense to the senses. You are violating the spirit of science.
"and, while it is less intellectually elegant (Occam's razor and all that),"
Hence it's not easier to relate to.
"Hey, it never occurred to me before but it even explains the multiple authors of the Torah. J and E really are gods! (How do you think they got their names?) I'm going to start a new religion."
Other gods also had more than one name.
>Rather much to your chagrin Judaism which was the first absolute truth postulated is presumptively true and was not denied by the pagans except that the pagans said they're also true.
You're not making a lot of sense. Pagans believe in multiple gods. Judaism claimed that there is only one God. Since the pagans rejected that, didn't they deny the central tenet of judaism? You could just as easily argue that judaism essentially admitted that the pagans were right, but just quibbled over the details as to how many gods there are.
>A single cause makes more sense to the senses. You are violating the spirit of science.
Read the post again. We're not talking about science, we're talking about instinctive belief.
>Hence it's not easier to relate to.
It solves the problem of theodicy which may be the single most important question of theology. The imaginative authors of the Talmud were totally stumped by this problem. They have God threatening the angels that he will destroy the world if they question Him about His evil treatment of the asara harugei malchus.
"mikeskeptic said...
>Rather much to your chagrin Judaism which was the first absolute truth postulated is presumptively true and was not denied by the pagans except that the pagans said they're also true.
You're not making a lot of sense. Pagans believe in multiple gods. Judaism claimed that there is only one God. Since the pagans rejected that, didn't they deny the central tenet of judaism? You could just as easily argue that judaism essentially admitted that the pagans were right, but just quibbled over the details as to how many gods there are."
You don't understand. The pagans didn't belive in a single reality that made one religion true and all others false. All were true however contradictory provided they were a people's religion. Each people's gods had juisdiction over their own people and were deemed real even if never encountered by all peoples.
">A single cause makes more sense to the senses. You are violating the spirit of science.
Read the post again. We're not talking about science, we're talking about instinctive belief."
What underlies science as its starting point is instinct and from there we many times are forced to depart.
">Hence it's not easier to relate to.
It solves the problem of theodicy which may be the single most important question of theology. The imaginative authors of the Talmud were totally stumped by this problem. They have God threatening the angels that he will destroy the world if they question Him about His evil treatment of the asara harugei malchus."
Pagans had their own afterlives to rectify the inequities of life.
Post a Comment