By Mano Singham
However sophisticated religious apologists may argue intellectually, they seem to need the same emotional crutch of magical thinking as much as any religious fundamentalist, and desperately want to believe that there is this invisible entity who is looking out for them personally. Religious scientists like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, John Lennox, and John Polkinghorne all start out arguing on a high intellectual plane, but they end up making almost the very same assertions of belief of the average churchgoer in the pew on any given Sunday.
So what do religious people actually believe? There are no simple answers. In his book God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (2007, p. 12), Victor J. Stenger tries to pin down the philosophical foundations of people's belief in god. But I am interested in more practical questions.
The vague "Do you believe in god" type questions that are usually asked of believers are useless because it is not clear what people believe even if they say yes. Is it the deist god Deigod or Gosh or the full-blooded, omnipotent, omniscient, miracle working Supergod or (as is most likely) some personally concocted hybrid?
So here are some questions that would help make the discussions more fruitful. I wish that the polling agencies would ask questions like these as this gives a much better picture of what people actually believe.
- Is god a (a) material or (b) non-material entity? (i.e., is god made up of the same kind of stuff like protons, electrons, etc. with properties like mass, charge, spin, etc. that every other thing in the universe is made up of, or is he made of something that is non-material?)
- Does god exist everywhere in space?
- Is god a sentient being like us, with thoughts and feelings?
- Can god change the past?
- Does god know the future?
- Does god know absolutely everything that happens every moment, including every thought of every being?
- Can god intervene in events whenever and wherever, to violate natural laws and change their course (i.e. perform miracles)?
- Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit that will continue to exist in some form (perhaps reincarnated) even after you are dead?
My experience suggests that most religious people would answer the above questions as follows: 1: (b), 2: yes, 3: yes, 4: no, 5: yes, 6: yes, 7: yes, 8: yes
I also have bonus questions for those who call themselves Christians:
- Do you believe Jesus was totally human when he lived on the Earth, with a fully human body, with no powers or abilities not possessed by any other human?
- Do you believe that Jesus really died on the cross, with his body experiencing the same changes after death that any human body does?
- Do you believe that the same physical body then came back to life?
- If the answer to question #3 is 'yes', where is that physical body now?
- I suspect that most Christians will answer: 1: yes, 2: yes, 3: yes, 4: heaven.
Of course, all these answers lead to all manner of severe contradictions, either because they are internally inconsistent or they violate basic scientific principles. For example, the idea that god took a fully human form in the shape of Jesus is central to Christian dogma. Otherwise what was the point of the whole exercise? But if Jesus is totally human, how could he perform his miracles? It is to evade this type of contradiction that religious language and concepts like 'kenosis' or the doctrine that Jesus is fully god and fully human are introduced, which make no consistent logical sense but can be interpreted in any way that the situation requires.
As for the second question, we know that our bodies undergo irreversible decay rapidly after death, which is why organ removal for donations must be done immediately. So if Jesus was totally human and his body decayed for three days, how did he recover the use of his organs when his body was resurrected?
There really is no way to escape these contradictions without resorting to saying that Jesus is at least on occasion Supergod.
More sophisticated religious believers know this is a problem and will try to avoid answering the questions I posed, likely retreating to an extreme form of religion-speak suggesting that we do not, and perhaps cannot, know the answers to such questions because god is so deeply mysterious that any attempt to understand his nature in any concrete way is doomed to failure. This non-answer enables them to avoid having to publicly acknowledge any contradictions while privately assigning any properties they want to god that gives them emotional satisfaction. Or they will give the answers I provided and wave away any contradictions by invoking the 'mysterious ways clause' that allows god to circumvent any contradictions in ways that we cannot know.
I know that some readers of this blog are religious. I hope they will take a stab at answering those questions so that we can get a grip on what exactly we are talking about.
POST SCRIPT: Hey, I never promised you a rose garden
God makes Jesus an offer that he thinks of refusing.
This series is archived here.































God wouldn't *phoom* if ya put 4000 V....
through it. The concept of God is dead, it's deceased, passed on. Religion is a dead concept. Sometimes talking to theists is a little like that Dead Parrot Sketch.
Religious mumbo-jumbo
I find it annoying when religious people I know attempt to (like you said) use Gosh to fill in the supposed "gaps" that science "can't" answer, and then from there jump straight to "Jesus is my lord and savior" blah blah blah. I was recently debating a particular fellow who is quite scientifically informed, though, his mind is focused on finding god's existence. I was explaining that people like that Arizona congresswoman/or senator (whatever she is) who believe garbage like Young Earth Creationism SHOULD NOT be allowed into positions of power - various reasons apply ofcourse. One of which is what is being taught in schools to young impressionable minds; his retort was "And two lethal substances and a handful of amino acids can be mixed together in an O2 rich environment, get struck by multiple excited electrons, and form a "living" "thing"" - Religious folk have a way of dumbing down what they need to trample on, while obfuscating information that they want to work for their gain. I was wondering if you can provide me with a reasonable response to my "friend's" pitiful attempt at thwarting science and science's view of life. Any ideas? I mentioned extremophiles and their broad range of habitats, but I don't really know much of how life could actually start.