By Mano Singham
Charles Darwin was encouraged by his father, a successful doctor, to study medicine and was duly sent off in 1825 to the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, a leading place for such studies at that time. But Darwin found that he hated the study of medicine, especially the horrors of surgery in those pre-anesthesia days. When his father realized that this was not the field for him, he suggested in 1828 that he matriculate at Cambridge University, get a degree, and then become a clergyman. To get into Oxford or Cambridge University at that time one had to be a member of the Church of England (i.e., an Anglican), the rule being abolished by an act of parliament only later in 1871. Although Darwin had been baptized in the Church of England, his family tradition was nonconformist Unitarians and his father and grandfather were freethinkers.
Darwin felt that he should make a good faith attempt to see if he could honestly accept the doctrines of the Anglican church. In his autobiography Darwin says that he "had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand and what is in fact unintelligible." (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Nora Barlow (ed), p. 49, my italics.)
I think that the key phrase here is "persuaded myself." I think most religious people deep down suspect that their belief in a god makes no sense, or at least know that they really don't understand the things they are being asked to believe, but they are willing to persuade themselves, as Darwin did, to go along with the charade. The key question is "Why?" Why go to all that trouble to overrule an instinctive skepticism that arises from their natural logic and reasoning powers? Why does it never strike them, as it never struck Darwin until he was much older, how illogical it is to say that they believe in what they cannot understand and what is in fact unintelligible?
But there were limits to even Darwin's youthful credulity. Even when he was a believer in the literal truth of the Bible, Darwin could not bring himself to actually rejoice in the contradictions, to make the ridiculous claim that some apologists do, that because the doctrines of religion seem nonsensical, that accepting them is somehow a sign of intellectual superiority, that it indicates that one somehow understands and appreciates deep mysteries. As he said, "I might have said with entire truth that I had no wish to dispute any dogma; but I never was such a fool as to feel and say "credo quia incredibile." ["I believe because it is incredible."] (Barlow, p. 49)
As we all know, Darwin ended up being an unbeliever. He shied away from the label of atheist and called himself an agnostic, the former term being a little too strong for someone who hated confrontations, though it is hard to tell the difference in his case since he said quite clearly in his autobiography that although his disbelief crept over him at a very slow rate, it "was at last complete" and that he "never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." (Barlow, p. 72)
It seems pretty clear that most adults have no actual reasons to believe in god. They have not in their lives seen god or heard god or witnessed any acts that can be unequivocally ascribed to god. Those who claim to have witnessed miracles tend to ignore plausible alternative explanations. But they lack Darwin's instinct to follow his thinking to its logical conclusion that there is no god.
Those who actually claim to have seen god or had god speak to them are presumed to be delusional and in need of psychiatric help or frauds of the sort who try to sell pieces of toast with Jesus's image on it on eBay. The latest story that I heard of was someone who claimed that a rock fall suddenly revealed a 'hand of god' in a rock formation behind his home and he (naturally) has put it up for sale on eBay.
So why do people believe in god? This really consists of two related questions: Why did such beliefs arise in the first place? And why do those beliefs persist in the absence of any evidence in support of them?
I'll examine these questions in the next post in this series.
This series is archived here.
Some doubts
'As we all know, Darwin ended up being an unbeliever. He shied away from the label of atheist and called himself an agnostic'
Possibly because he REALLY WAS an agonistic? You don't seem to consider that possibility in your post. Why not? Because evolution, which Darwin discovered, excludes God? Not every scientist thinks so, Steven Jay Gould being an example. Yes, you could decide that Gould was lying/trying to fit in, but these are only contrived conspiracy theories, created to avoid accepting that an intelligent person could fail to agree with you.
'It seems pretty clear that most adults have no actual reasons to believe in god. They have not in their lives seen god or heard god or witnessed any acts that can be unequivocally ascribed to god.'
This is a highly interpretative statement, far from self-evident. Whether what we are seeing is God or not hinges entirely on God's actual existence, because God is, by definition, omnipresent. If an omnipresent God exists, then everything we see is part of God. If not, then nothing we see is part of God. These are the only two options, just as existence and non-existence are the only two options. Thus, to base one's atheism on the notion that we are not all seeing God is circular; it stands in need of external justification.
Further, I'd say this statement expresses a crude epistemology. Compare the following:
"It seems pretty clear that most adults have no actual reasons to believe in (gravity). They have not in their lives seen (gravity) or heard (gravity) or witnessed any acts that can be unequivocally ascribed to (gravity)."
I would argue that belief in God is a piece of philosophy rather like belief in gravity. No events can be unambigiously interpreted, as most scientists know. When Newton 'discovered' Gravity, his interpretation of planets in orbit and objects falling was based on a number of pieces of philosophy, such as Occam's Razor, monism and holism. No explanation can be 'unequivocally ascribed'. Your reasons for being sceptical about God seem too crude, for they should logically make you sceptical about most of science, too.
That Reply is a Turd
"It seems pretty clear that most adults have no actual reasons to believe in (gravity). They have not in their lives seen (gravity) or heard (gravity) or witnessed any acts that can be unequivocally ascribed to (gravity)."
That one doesn't work, duh, I'll leave you to figure that one out for yourself.
Whether what we are seeing is God or not hinges entirely on God's actual existence
You're most likely just interpreting what you see as God, Angels, Zeus, and the Devil. Some people call it a hallucinatory experience, much like daydreaming or sleeping is. I'll leave you with this quote from the article:
"Those who claim to have witnessed miracles tend to ignore plausible alternative explanations."
Hardly the rational response I was hoping for
Hardly the 'rational' response I was hoping for. Contrary to what you assume, I am not interpreting what I see as 'God, Angels, Zeus and the Devil'. I believe in so such things, and this is irrelevant to my point anyway. Are you claiming to be able to read my mind? It certainly sounds like it. I was suggesting that saying that we are not seeing God begs the question of God's existence because God is, by definition, omnipresent, but your post doesn't even try to engage with this. Of course my reasoning could be flawed, but I think I deserve a better response than the one you gave. Your subject header of 'That reply is a turd' hardly smacks of intellectual rigour, either. Nonetheless, I'll try to respond that what substance there was in your words.
My main argument, as you rightly identify, was that the reasons provided for being sceptical about God in the original post applied as aptly to Gravity as they do to God. Could that analogy be false? Of course it could - I am suspicious of analogies myself. I entered it into my post hoping that it might get a rational response, but simply saying that 'that one doesn't work' and that you'll 'leave me to figure that one out for myself' doesn't even pretend to help. Where is the analysis? If I could see the supposed flaws in this reasoning myself I would never have proposed it in the first place. I submitted my ideas to this site hoping that you, and others, could help me through rational debate, sharing your ideas through reason. After all, isn't that what being a rational thinker is all about? Why should I have to 'figure it out for myself' when you could explain the flaws in my ideas? Or can't you actually identify any?
I must admit, I don't understand why your response is so hostile. After all, I am only thinking sceptically, something that atheists normally approve of, or so I thought. My reasoning could easily be mistaken, but the only thing that beats reasoning is better reasoning. Calling my thoughts 'a turd' and claiming that I believe in Zeus doesn't qualify.
Sorry There
"It seems pretty clear that most adults have no actual reasons to believe in (gravity). They have not in their lives seen (gravity) or heard (gravity) or witnessed any acts that can be unequivocally ascribed to (gravity)."
Everybody that weighs more than a flagellum has seen and experienced acts of gravitation before, and that includes most flagellums too (pendulum swinging action during sex, gravitation is an inevitability). Your analogy doesn't quite work since the same thing can't be said about God or all the other supernatural characters that the ancients dreamed up.
Good, but I think you've missed some of my point
I never denied that we experience a sensation of weight or that we fall off cliffs. In this sense, the evidence for gravity is incontrovertible. However, this doesn't tackle my original point in full. I suggested that belief in gravity was interpretative to a degree that we don't normally recognize. Why, for instance, should we believe in one 'Gravity' rather than many lesser 'gravities'? Because it is simpler; we are appealing to Occam's Razor and monism. Why should it be a universal force rather than only in the places we have witnessed falling? Because holism suggests that this is the best answer. Why shouldn't we think that falling is just an inexplicable coincidence? Because it wouldn't be a rationalistic answer.
My point here is not that we shouldn't believe in Gravity - I do because I am holistic, monistic, rationalistic and scientific. It is that evidence 'FOR gravity' is only evidence for anything once it has been interpreted through a philosophical framework. Sensations of weight are incontrovertible; the Theory of Gravity is not because it is an interpretation. To relate back to the original argument, the notion that there are no events that require God as an explanation presumably relies on a similar philosophical framework. That was the value of the analogy. Thus, the claim that 'there is no evidence for God' is interpretative in a similar way to the claim that 'there is evidence for a universal, invisible force that attracts matter to matter according to an inverse square law'. As I said originally, the evidence is NEVER able to be 'unequivically ascribed' to anything. That is why I claimed that the original post argued for a crude epistemology, because it implies that there is no such thing as philosophy or interpretation. Both, it turns out, are essential to good science because they help us to tell what 'good' science is in the first place.
To deal more directly with my doubts, then, what is the 'similar philosophical framework' that atheism relies on to say that there is no evidence that we should interpret as evidence for God? From what I have heard, I think that it is the age-old distinction between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural'. Again and again in discussions about God the idea that God is 'supernatural' comes into play, employed by both sides with equal vigor. Look around on this very site and you'll probably find the same thing. We shouldn't believe in the 'supernatural', we are told. Science excludes the 'supernatural'. People who believe in the 'supernatural' are not being rational, supposedly.
Given how important this idea is to so many arguments, it requires our sceptical attention all the more. If we are to gague the effectiveness of this philosophy (and I do think it is philosophy, not science) we must understand it. Thus, we are led to ask - 'what does the word "supernatural" mean, and how does that meaning help us generate the conclusions we want?'. What is it about the 'supernatural', for instance, that means we should be especially sceptical of it, or that science excludes it?
This is where my doubts grew. Reading the article 'against the supernatural as a profound idea' on this very site finally convinced me that the notion of the 'supernatural' was empty, and therefore so were any arguments that required it. If what I've said so far seems unlikely, I ask that you read the article yourself and see what you think. Yes, this means that theistic arguments that try to defend belief in God on the basis of the 'supernatural' don't work, but then nor do atheistic arguments that we should single the 'supernatural' out for especial scepticism. If the notion of the 'supernatural' is empty, the effect is devastating. That is why I offer these doubts.
Why Not Worship A 'Natural' God?
There is plenty of evidence for, say, the existance of gravity. In fact, none of us would be here if it weren't for gravitation exherting it's mighty force upon our massive bodies. Why not worship gravity then? We all know the great and powerful things that gravity does, after all, since we experience it every second of the day.
Or even better is to worship electricity. We have all been amazed about the great miraculous things that electricity does for us. I couldn't be typing this message to you without the beautiful wonders of electricity and the transisters that make it all possible. Because we know that electricity loves us so much, it does almost unlimited things for us all the time, right? Need I explain what electricity can do unto you if you don't obey the manufacturer's warning label? It can taze you, dead, in no time if you operate on your computer without first unplugging it from the all powerful 120/208 Vrms AC 20 ampere rated wall socket. After all, our dumbass ancestors, the same ones whom wrote the Bible would have worshipped such an impressive display of "magic".
I'll even take the time to compare electricity with your stupid supernatural god. Try as your god might, with all his willpower, he will never be able to pull the CPU plug out of my wall socket. Too late, this message got to you before your god could do anything about it because your god is imaginary.
Also, I don't worship natural things, I actually was just joking there.
Gravity is neither 'natural' nor 'supernatural'
"Why worship a ‘natural’ God?... Why not worship Gravity then?"
Your reply implies that you either don't understand or don't agree with my entire conclusion. God cannot be described as either 'natural' OR 'supernatural' and neither can Gravity - both terms are meaningless because they depend on the same empty contrast. When the contrast between two categories collapses, neither 'wins' because there is no game to 'win' anymore. Do you agree? If not, why not? You don't seem to be directly engaging with what I am saying.
To appreciate the point, try looking at the table you presumably have in front of you. What is it? Even the claim that 'it is a table' isn't self-evident. There is no label on it, written in English, saying 'table' after all, and even if there was, what difference would it make? Other beliefs about it like 'it is a material object' or 'it isn't supernatural' are even more interpretative, depending on increasingly complex philosophy to extract. Having analysed the notion, I now believe that that the table is neither 'natural' nor 'supernatural'; it is just THERE. It exists. What insights do I miss out on if I refuse to buy into the 'natural/supernatural' divide? I can only await reasoning that might bring me back into the fold.
I also don't understand the relevance of your reply. You seem to think that I was suggesting we should worship Gravity - I don't. I was trying to explain why I have become sceptical about much atheist philosophy. (And much of it IS philosophy, not science). The belief that 'there is no evidence for God because there are no events that require God as an explanation' was my target, and I tried to identify the philosophical supports it has. As far as I can see, your reply addresses none of my major arguments. Let me try to summarize my ideas to get some focus:
- All statements are interpretative to various degrees, depending on philosophy like monism, holism, materialism, idealism, Occam's Razor, and others.
- These philosophies cannot themselves be scientific because they are prerequisites for science in the first place; science is never the sole source of a belief, no matter how 'scientific' it may seem. Conclusions are not simply based on 'facts', but interpretations of information. These interpretations can, however, be more or less rational.
- The belief that 'there is no evidence for God' requires various philosophical underpinnings just like any other (e.g. the 'natural/supernatural' divide or materialism).
- Therefore, the conclusion that 'there is no evidence for God' needs additional support to be fully rational and convincing to a genuinely sceptical enquirer.
Note that I am NOT saying that no beliefs are rational or that there are no 'good' interpretations. I am saying that these interpretations need to be justified in far deeper terms than we are used to recognizing. Belief in Gravity is indeed rational because we can identify rational philosophies that support it. Can the same be said for atheism?
You also seem to have started claiming that I am a theist again, mentioning my 'stupid supernatural God' despite the fact that I've claimed that I believe in neither God nor the meaningfulness of the word 'supernatural'. What evidence have you for this claim? It seems to fly in the face of everything I've said so far. You seem to have reverted to trying to read my mind again. As things stand, I would classify myself as a 'sceptic' if you insist on a classification. I am sceptical of theism, but why shouldn't I be sceptical of atheism too?
Your reply even seems to be getting a little frantic, relying more and more on what you admit is 'joking' rather than analysis, along with baseless accusations of theism and adherence to the Bible. Care to engage with my ideas instead?
I Can't Help You Then
Gravitation is a natural phenomina. God is a supernatural one, and I don't believe in supernatural things. If God, however, is natural then I'm not worshippping him because that would be as dumb as worshipping gravitation or electricity. The thing is that people shouldn't be worshipping anything they can manipulate and utilize, which is basically all natural phenomina, and they also shouldn't be worshipping anything they don't have proof for which is basically all supernatural phenomina.
Darwin and gravity
Arthur,
Thanks for your comment.
The question of Darwin's agnosticism/atheism is one that I have dealt with before and can be seen here.
As to your other point, all scientific theories (including gravity) are generalizations that extend far beyond the limited data set that were originally involved in their creation. So why do we believe these theories although, as you point out, we cannot "see" gravity?
The reason is that they postulate mechanisms that can be used to make very precise predictions that can be systematically investigated. And as long as no serious and systematic contradictions turn up, we accept the theories as valid.
Theories of god offer no such mechanisms or detailed predictions.
Mano Singham
You got me at omnipresent
I believe Epicurus put it best dear believer:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
some "dumb thoughts" indeed. I don't think inserting gravity into that quote really makes your point warranted. Gravity may have been philosophical centuries ago, though I doubt in the sense you think; however, it is pretty evident "gravity" exists. It is not a subject of dispute - that is does or does not exist. It is not a piece of objective literature to "interpret" as you like. If I lift this laptop up off the table it is on and then release it from my hands I KNOW it will fall, accelerating to the hard surface below. I can experience gravity by pushing myself against it in the form of a jump. Can I say the same about god? Can I invoke "god's" will at my beck and call? "god blow me up". "god strike the writer of that ludicrous reply down." See nothing happened. that was more for a laugh that a valid point, though I think it touches on the fact that god is not a testable, observable law/force etc etc. Comparing it 'gravity' is rather unintelligible...
philosophy
Arthur I think your problem is you obviously know much about philosophy and historical works, and these are useful to dissect ofcourse, but you are hinging yourself on points that are aside from god and nature etc etc. I think most people know what we mean by supernatural. To say god cannot be described as supernatural or natural is your own assumption. Natural occurrences are quite apparent. Gravity is a natural occurrence. Do I need to summon up the definitions of each word? when we say something is natural - we are explaining it is a phenomena of the material, physical world. Supernatural, in the most accepted definition, refers to those phenomena outside of the material, physical world. This where I don't understand you. "God" in all senses of the word, falls into the category of supernatural, no matter how you put it. If we take the bible, god is supposedly always there, is everywhere at once, all powerful, and all loving (though even this is rather contradicted throughout that mock novel). Now I know what you were saying, "isn't gravity exactly the same type of thing?" It is timeless and everywhere, to a point. It is not all powerful. You can go against gravity, that is why you feel it. One can easily "beat" or equal gravity - ie: flying, or magnetic flotation. It is not uniform either - it's weight differs throughout our planet, and throughout or solar system - throughout the known universe. On the moon, it is weaker than the gravity we feel here on earth. Once again I come back to the notion of testing and observing. This is why it is considered natural. We observe it all the time, we feel it, we test it, and we alter it ( as in fight it with other forces). The physical material world is something we can measure, test, and experience/observe. "God" on the other hand, if we follow the principles laid out in the bible, falls short on all these criteria. Thus, it is a phenomena of the supernatural. Again, as the original post explained, there is not way to "disprove" god, but surely it is quite acceptable to label such a thing as a supernatural power, just like, psychics, dowsing, Chris Angel, etc etc. Which ofcourse, when scrutinized by the normal criteria of experiment, also, fall flat. Ofcourse, you can choose a different definition of god, like the god that Mano explains is the most logical - "Deigod". But then, why even bother? Such a presence does not change your existence at all, and aside from it's role in the "very" beginning, everything else we see has would have proceeded without interference as it has - as it should.
Little substance in your reply
'Gravitation is a natural phenomina. God is a supernatural one, and I don't believe in supernatural things.'
Throughout my posts, I have challenged the notion of the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural', citing the article 'Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea'. You don't have to look far to find it; it's on this site. Have you looked at it? Probably not, as you are clearly uncomfortable questioning your cherished beliefs about the meaningfulness of the distinction. Disagree? Call my bluff and give me some analysis of the arguments contained in it.
I also don't understand why you keep talking about whether or not we should worship 'natural' things, particularly given that I doubt the very distinction of what is 'natural'. This is a clear example of begging the question, drawing on one of the very concepts being doubted. Perhaps you'd care to explain the relevance?
Your reply, like the ones before it, only manages to say that you disagree with me without explaining why. You can only flatly say that 'Gravitation is a natural phenomina. God is a supernatural one, and I don't believe in supernatural things.' Concise to be sure, but where are the arguments to establish the rationality of these notions? Your title, 'I can't help you then', says a great deal, too. "Are you able to question recieved ideas and disbelieve in the 'natural/supernatural' distinction? Then I'm afraid I 'can't help you', because I don't have any answers to your questions."
More on the 'supernatural'
Thanks for the reply, ApelikeJesus, and although it goes some way to establishing the 'natural/supernatural' distinction as meaningful, there are a few loose ends.
'I think most people know what we mean by supernatural.'
They do, do they? Oh good. Could you explain the notion to me as well? Surely if the notion is meaningful an outsider can be introduced into it. We were not all born understanding these things, after all.
'To say god cannot be described as supernatural or natural is your own assumption.'
Yes, it is. It's an 'assumption' based on looking the words up in the dictionary, reading many pages of analysis, sceptical questioning and observations of arguments. Can the same be said for your 'assumption' that the word 'supernatural' is meaningful?
'Natural occurrences are quite apparent. Gravity is a natural occurrence.'
Is it, now? What features of it make it 'natural', exactly? This is an ostensive definition, the least reliable kind.
'when we say something is natural - we are explaining it is a phenomena of the material, physical world.'
I see, so the 'natural' is the same thing as the 'material' or 'physical', presumably meaning that the 'supernatural' is the same thing as the 'immaterial' or the 'non-physical'. This, however, only trades me one question for another. How do I tell the difference between the 'material' and the 'immaterial'? This is an example of what the article 'Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea' calls 'definition jumping'. If you haven't, I recommend that you read it. It's right here on this site.
'The physical material world is something we can measure, test, and experience/observe.'
That's more like it. It seems that the 'natural' is the observable, and so is the 'material'. In particular, it seems that the 'physical' is the measurable, and, presumably, the contrast dependant. In short, it seems that the 'natural' world is the SCIENTIFIC world. I can see a few problems with this definition, however.
- It makes the word 'supernatural' redundant. If the 'supernatural' only means the immesurable, why not simply say that? It is a far safer word, far less vague and less rife with secondary connotations. The fact that we are having this discussion only highlights how much ambiguity needs to be taken out of it, why not simply abandon it? That is the recommendation at the end of 'Against the Supernatural...', in fact.
- It makes little sense of most everyday use of the word 'Supernatural'. (I'll admit that this isn't a crippling problem.) Poltergeists are meant to be supernatural, for instance, but are also thought of as creating measurable effects by interacting with the 'natural' world. (By interacting with Ouija boards or throwing plates, for instance.) The same goes for many 'supernatural' items, including werewolves, vampires, zombies, magic powers... you get the idea. It also seems that God could be 'natural', at least in principle, too. You mention following 'the principles laid out in the bible' - doesn't the Bible describe 'natural', measurable miracles? I thought miracles were meant to be 'supernatural'?
- It is debatable whether this definition justifies many of the beliefs concerning the 'supernatural'. Is it necessarily irrational to believe in the 'supernatural/unobserved', using this definition? The idea of Brahman, for instance, is of something that cannot be directly observed, cannot be measured, and cannot be contrast dependant, otherwise it would not be Brahman in the first place. I will not claim that it is a 'scientific' notion, because it isn't; it is a philosophical one, and, to my mind, a rational one based on Parmenideanism, holism, monism, and plenty of ideology that underpins science as well. It is not itself a scientific or 'natural' idea, but it is nonetheless a perfect compliment to science, I think.