How to believe in God (Stephen Clark | The Guardian)

[struggle4progress]

... I am exasperated by people who treat God as if He were Superyeti, a creature that might or might not exist, might or might not be worshipful ... There is clearly no way of proving that there is no such entity, or that there never will be, but its existence need have no more religious significance than any of the superior beings encountered in Star Trek. If it claimed "divine status," most mainstream monotheists would reckon it deranged ...

... secular moderns usually construct stories about humankind's gradual release from superstition and oppression, by science and liberal democracy. Oddly, this grand myth is a version of the founding idea of the mainstream Abrahamic religions! Abraham left behind the cult and culture of his ancestors, summoned – as he supposed – by a voice that demanded something more of him and his people than "religion" ...

... to "believe in God" for the Abrahamic tradition is to believe in the possibility of Justice, of Freedom from oppression: "what does the Lord require of you", said the prophet Micah, "but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Believing in God is believing that the orphan and the widow will be, must be vindicated. The first Abrahamic monotheists, like the first Christians, were in a real sense atheists: that is, they denied that the spirits evoked in most religious ceremonial deserved our worship, denied that kings and emperors were divine, and chose to remodel their personal and communal lives in the light of the demand for Justice. It was also important to acknowledge their own sins, their own walking aside from the Way. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves": all of us have behaved very badly sometimes ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/28/religion-philosophy-god-belief

[laconicsax]

1. So apparently only Fundamentalist Christians and "militant" atheists think the existence question is

valid.

Tell me, how many of the billions of theists in the world would you suppose actually think that it's important that their gods exist?

If you read this article or any other woolly-headed apophatic writings (e.g. Karen Armstrong), you'd get the impression that the overwhelming majority of believers don't just not care whether their gods exist, they think the question of existence isn't legitimate.

:eyes:

As laconicspouse mentioned, while reading over my shoulder, this whole article is basically a 'lite' version of Pascal's Wager--belief in God is superior to non-belief just because it is. Too bad for Stephen Clark, the same problem with Pascal's Wager holds true for Clark's Wager. There's no reason to believe in his god over any other god, and the number of possible gods to believe in is potentially infinite, so you have an infinitesimal chance of picking the right one. Saying that the question of existence is unimportant, so it doesn't matter which one you pick implies that not picking any god to worship is just as good a choice, undermining the whole point of the argument.

There's the common response that they're all different versions of the same god, but that's not only a positive statement of existence that can't be supported by anything concrete, but it's extremely arrogant to say "these people may think that they all worship different gods, but I alone know better." Along similar lines, the frequent 'god as an expression of the inexpressible' dilutes the whole concept of a deity to the point where there's no point in believing in 'it.'

What a painfully stupid article. Thanks for posting. I suspect that, like Karen Armstrong, Stephen Clark is an atheist so desperate to cling to his belief that he doesn't realize it yet.

[struggle4progress]

2. The "existence" question is uninteresting, because there is no way

to say anything logically defensible about it, one way or the other: it merely leads to a cul-de-sac of inconclusive jabber, which displaces more productive conversation

The "existentialist" approach, however, leads to the critical insight that everyone is able to choose where to put an essential emphasis in life: to unmask the "false" and to attend to the "real." The article points at one important strand of the Jewish religious tradition, which regards "just and genuine interpersonal relations" as the essential ground of human being. But, to speak frankly, history often offers little comfort to anyone who hopes for human liberation in just and genuine interpersonal relations -- anyone, who expects that state of affairs will occur, might equally well hope for other less implausible things, (say) the coming of the messiah or eternal life

The false idols are with us always; nowadays, as ever, they often need not even masquerade as religion. The task of clearing away the false idols away, however, so that humans not seek useless shelter in them, may not itself be such a laudable task unless better shelter can be provided: it is as if one set out to raze the slums, without any plan for providing alternate housing for the residents

Since religious language is a way in which some people discuss what is important to them, informative and sympathetic atheistic readings of religious traditions are possible: the reader merely needs a kindly and respectful regard for ordinary humans who try to express their hope for a better state of affairs in the world; such kindliness and respect is not incompatible from rationalism or empiricism; it is simply distinct from both rationalism and empiricism

Now the LORD appeared to Abraham on the plain of Mamre, as he sat in his tent opening that hot day. And lifting up his eyes, he saw three stranger and ran to meet them ... and said, ... wash your feet, and rest under the tree, and I will bring bread, and comfort your hearts

To argue "existence" questions pales, compared to this vision of Abraham's, that real worship consists of offering hospitality to strangers wandering in the desert

[darkstar3]

4. So much wrong with what you've said...

I'll start with 2 things:

1. If the question of "God's" existence (whatever God may be) is irrelevant, then the language of religion becomes incredibly imprecise. Furthermore, if the question of existence is uninteresting, then what about the questions of "why are we here" or "what happens afterward"? No matter the religion, the tenets of that religion, the beliefs that create the structure, are all intertwined in a complex weave. If you remove a central thread from that weave, the pattern collapses.

I.E., if it doesn't matter whether God exists, why does any other religious tenet matter?

2. Your comparison of religion to slums is sorely lacking, chiefly because of your replacement (alternate housing) canard. What function does religion provide that can't be easily found elsewhere if people are simply motivated to look?

[ZombieHorde]

7. "real worship consists of offering hospitality to strangers wandering in the desert"

Real worship? As opposed to actors pretending to worship in a play? What is real worship? How does one determine what real worship is compared to worship which is not real?

"The false idols..."

How does one determine the difference between an idol which is false and an idol which is not false?

[darkstar3]

9. And there's more that's wrong.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[trotsky]

12. I'm just going to declare the question of the existence of false idols uninteresting.

There. Problem solved.

[trotsky]

11. Well of course modern, sophisticated theologians declare the existence question uninteresting.

After several thousand years of trying, they can't answer it in any other way but to ignore it!

[classysassy]

3. Faith

believing without seeing.Non believers must really live a fearful life.Seek the truth an d it will set you free of your doubt.

[darkstar3]

5. OK,

so you've engaged in projection/assumption and baseless assertion...

Why must non-believers live a fearful life? That makes no sense. If I don't believe in things unseen, then I don't believe in ghosts, demons, or other myriad things that so many superstitious people worry about and fear.

And how can you prove that you have found the truth?

[ZombieHorde]

8. How should I determine what is truth and what is not truth? nt

[trotsky]

10. I don't see any unicorns. Should I believe in them?

More importantly, why don't you?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

17. Fearful of what?

If we're fearful of the god we don't believe in, are we really non-believers? Conversely, if we're truly non-believers, then why would we have a need to fear something in which we lack belief?

[Cleobulus]

40. I prefer to live in doubt than to be certain in a belief that can't be proven.

I would HATE to believe I have all the answers, or even the key to the answers of the universe in my hands. Where would curiosity fit into this equation, where is the value of life on Earth in this type of worldview?

[Goblinmonger]

50. You probably don't even get how rude that is.

You probably just shook your head at the first group to tell you that and thought they proved your point.

[ironbark]

6. "Until justice rolls down like waters

and righteousness like a mighty stream”

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. And washing away all those icky non-believers?

I'm confused as to the direction of your post. :shrug:

[ironbark]

24. Um….No…Where did that come from?

How do you extrapolate “those icky non-believers” from what I posted?

The “direction” of my post was straight towards the OP-
"what does the Lord require of you", said the prophet Micah, "but to do justly, and to love mercy,…”

"Until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream”

And to that, from the direction of extreme left field, you pull “icky non-believers” ????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4hFwJm41h4

[darkstar3]

29. Maybe it's your recent posting history.

:shrug: Think about it...

[ironbark]

34. Having never referred to or suggested anything like “icky non believers”

the “thinking about it” doesn’t take long.

Nor does consideration of the possibility of either of you providing cite/substantiation/ example of my saying anything like “icky non believers”.

You will however find my abundant cited references to the specific behaviours of- falsification, fabrication, baseless allegation and refusal to substantiate.
It’s pretty constant icky behaviour but those exposed employing it seem happy to cut, ignore and carry on doing so.

Producing a post in which I refer to “icky non believers” would crush my argument.
Failing to do so provides one more example of “icky behaviour”.

;-)

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

13. Francis understood this.

Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.

[struggle4progress]

16. Hmmm. That quote is a perfect retort as I sit here composing my long paragraphs

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

20. Which part of the gospel?

The violence?
The anti-family rhetoric?
The fact that Jesus only came to Earth for the "chosen people"?

I ask because when most people use that quote, they mean "love thy neighbor", which is actually a very small part of the synoptic gospels.

[rug]

22. The part grasped by people who are not intellectually enslaved by literalism.

[laconicsax]

23. Define your terms.

Namely "enslaved." How much is meant to be taken literally and how do you know this? What makes your interpretation correct and others incorrect?

[ironbark]

26. The “interpretation” of symbolism/literalism is determined

on much the same basis as we interpret humour.

Or sarcasm.

It is a reading and a knowing, not a certainty of “knowing”, and there are no “percentages” to go by…nor, in conversation or scripture, are there animated emoticons to flag intent.

"enslaved" to literalism would be those who cannot or will not comprehend or consider any reading other than literal.

When he/she advises you that they are “Broken hearted and adrift on a sea of misery”…contacting a doctor and Search and Rescue is one option………….but probably not the best.

[darkstar3]

28. The problem with your assertion is that

humor and sarcasm are interpreted on a personal level and there is no correct interpretation to be found. Tell that to a religious adherent who bases their belief on the Bible/Qu'ran/etc. All of them THINK they have the right interpretation, and they will take up their gourd and follow him.

[ironbark]

31. When a joke is told and the audience laughs

the “correct interpretation” (it’s funny) is found.

Is the audience laughing at precisely what the joke teller intended?
No one ever knows. It’s all subjective. So is the determination of symbolic/literal meaning….it’s a subjective outcome.

“Tell that to a religious adherent who bases their belief on the Bible/Qu'ran/etc. All of them THINK they have the right interpretation, and they will take up their gourd and follow him.”

So what? They can THINK anything for any reason….doesn’t change the fact that their thinking reflects subjective not objective reality.
Thus there is no “problem” with the assertion- interpretation of humour, sarcasm, symbolism/ literalism are all subjective.
Unless you wish to consider the effects of Autism?

[darkstar3]

33. That's actually the point I was making.

If you think it's subjective (and reading IS subjective) then what you must realize is that most religious adherents don't agree with you. They believe that their interpretation is right, not just for themselves, but for everyone. This is evidenced even with liberal believers who push a metaphorical reading of their favorite religious texts. It's THEIR metaphorical version that is right, and no one else's.

[ironbark]

37. What I "must realize"?...No...only rational arguement would necessitate such compulsion

and all you have offered thus far is bold baseless assertion-

"...most religious adherents don't agree with you."

LOL.
Show me the survey results Sherlock ;-)

"They believe that their interpretation is right,..."

Your looping. They can believe what they like...their belief is based on subjective reading.

Do you wish to argue that there is an objective reading of scripture that is either literal or metaphor?

"not just for themselves, but for everyone."

Again. Show me the survey results Sherlock

"This is evidenced even with liberal believers who push a metaphorical reading of their favorite religious texts"

From thier subjective reading and understanding.

Do you wish to argue that there is an objective reading of scripture that is either literal or metaphor?

[darkstar3]

42. You are either deliberately missing my point,

or you are having trouble reading what I've written. Either way, I will repeat myself no further. Go back and read it again until you get it, or don't, I care not.

[ironbark]

46. Your only point is the insistence

that both those who read literally and those who read as metaphor both believe they are right.

A hearty "so what" has already been given and the obvious has already been stated- the decision to read literally or metaphorically is >subjective<.

Try, just once, answering a pertinent question and see your pov/argument dissolve-

Do you wish to argue that there is an objective reading of scripture that is either literal or metaphor?

[darkstar3]

53. Try, just once,

actually reading what I've posted instead of parsing it for more ammo in your sophomoric and pointless games.

[Silent3]

52. So is the Bible one big joke? :)

Smart ass answer aside, if you're trying to draw a parallel between a sense of humor and something that might perhaps be called a "sense of scripture", I'd say that's a pretty poor parallel.

I won't bother elaborating further on the above since, knowing your posting history, this could well be the point where you'll want to jump up and down about how I'm the one saying above, not you, and of course, then offer nothing further about what you really were saying.

[laconicsax]

30. Did you sign in under the wrong username?

[ironbark]

32. Did you miss the fact it's an open forum? n/t

[laconicsax]

41. No, I just find it interesting that you have detailed knowledge of someone else's mind.

I asked rug what he meant and you stepped in to explain what he meant.

How do you know that your definitions are the same as rug's? If you don't, why did you feel compelled to answer for him? Open forum doesn't mean that anyone reading *should* respond, just that anyone *can* respond if they want. I'd like to know what motivated you to step in and answer for someone else.

You may notice that I am asking you a direct question that technically, only you should be able to answer. Rug can answer if he likes, but I'd ask him to explain how he knows your internal motivation.

[ironbark]

45. Never claimed to be speaking on another’s behalf.

I spoke to the issue, point and question…just as all contributors are entitled to do.

Pretending that I have “detailed knowledge of someone else's mind” serves only as a lame device of distraction from the issue addressed.
So desperate is the attempt to distract from the issue that you repeat four times the falsehood that I am answering on rugs behalf.
If your baseless assertion and distraction had >any< merit you would cite and substantiate….but there is nothing to support your claim.

“Open forum doesn't mean that anyone reading *should* respond, just that anyone *can* respond if they want”

That’s right. I can respond, I wanted to respond, I did respond to the point/issue.
And now your ignoring the point/issue and desperately taking issue with the fact that I responded.

Now why would that be?

;-)

[laconicsax]

54. Except the question was directly to someone else about their meaning.

I asked rug what he meant by "enslaved to literalism" and you have now spent time and effort explaining the thoughts in someone else's head. How do you know what you claim to know? I have my suspicions about how, but I'd like to hear your explanation.

That rug hasn't responded doesn't really mean much, since he tends to avoid answering questions like the one I asked.

[uberllama42]

55. "he tends to avoid answering questions like the one I asked."

You noticed that too, huh?

[laconicsax]

56. I can read, can't I?

I think that's all it takes to notice.

[ironbark]

25. :-).n/t

[darkstar3]

27. Ah, so if we all read it YOUR way everything would be just hunkey-dorey?

Talk about intellectual enslavement...

ETA: You didn't even come remotely close to answering my question.

[rug]

38. Why yes, darkstar, that's literally what I wrote. How intuitive of you.

[ironbark]

39. I must be intellectually enslaved by metaphor…I literally can’t see it.

;-)

[darkstar3]

43. It's so funny that you think you're clever.

Meanwhile, you haven't come close to answering the original question. Do you have the ability to do that?

[Silent3]

44. No, he does not have that ability.

I figure as long as people are answering for other people, I might as well help out. :)

[ironbark]

47. Are you familiar with the notion/principle of reciprocity?

“The social norm of reciprocity is the expectation that people will respond to each other in similar ways… responding to gifts and kindnesses from others with similar benevolence of their own…”

If some one spends weeks/months responding to each and every point, issue and question put before them by another the principle of reciprocity entails that at some point the other will, even if only in part, reciprocate. Occasionally address a specific point, once in a while answer a pertinent question, or once, just once, provide cite, quote, substantiation for an allegation or assertion.

When such reciprocity is absent, and when its absence has been pointed out and ignored, then reciprocity often runs to the negative-

“…..and responding to harmful, hurtful acts from others with either indifference or some form of retaliation.” Wiki

Those who cannot conceptualize or practice reciprocity are those who suffer clinical narcissism…..or some more serious disorder.

[Silent3]

48. If I have a point I want to prove...

...I find it far more useful (and personally satisfying) to answer as best as I can no matter what someone else is doing. I enjoy demonstrating that I have more substance to offer than someone I'm arguing with.

I might eventually reach a point where I have to give up, when discussion gets too annoying or too much a waste of time, but even then I'll usually state the reasons why I've given up at that point. You seem to be proposing that the natural, most fair and reasonable response to someone else not giving you what you think are sufficient answers is to start giving equally useless responses, playing some sort of stupid game of waiting for someone to catch on to the (very debatable, thus hardly clear) notion that you think you're providing as little information and substance as the other guy.

Yeah, that'll show 'em!

Seems to me a convenient excuse to hide behind when you don't actually have good answers yourself.

[ironbark]

49. Why offer-“You seem to be proposing” when the ‘proposal’ is all yours?

Can you find the words, phrases, concepts in 47#
that match up with, translate as or can reasonably be extrapolated to equate to >your< proposal in 48#?-

“You seem to be proposing…”

Go for it…join the dots and clarify the connect… because the following straw man is yours, all yours-
“.. that the natural, most fair and reasonable response to someone else not giving you what you think are sufficient answers is to start giving equally useless responses, playing some sort of stupid game of waiting for someone to catch on to the (very debatable, thus hardly clear) notion that you think you're providing as little information and substance as the other guy.”

Never said or suggested any of what you propose.

Leaves me wondering why it is so common and consistent to be dealing with someone else’s re write and disingenuous extrapolation rather than what was actually said.

[Silent3]

51. Why offer?

I made a comment about people not giving answers.

You made a comment about reciprocity.

If you don't give much more than that, you leave the door open for people to try to figure out what exactly the connection is supposed to be between not giving answers and reciprocity. That someone isn't giving answers because they don't think they're getting reciprocity is, in my opinion, a fairly reasonable way to interpret that sequence of posts.

And I did say "You seem to be proposing..." precisely to indicate that I could only guess at what you meant.

If you want people to understand you better, communicate better.

[Silent3]

14. "If we are to trust in the possibility of Justice...

...must we not also believe that there really is such a thing, and that it will indeed prevail? Must we not, in fact, believe that God, the Spirit of Justice, does indeed exist, and that He will repay?"

The mere possibility of justice (without the capital "J" at least) is just that, a possibility, not a matter of faith. One can certainly work toward maximizing justice (however one might personally define justice) without casting that effort in terms of the divine, without the need for a belief in the supernatural.

The idea that there is guaranteed Justice, however, a definitive guarantee that our universe is constructed such that "everything works out in the end", might as well be the idea of a "Superyeti". I don't see how trying to raise the matter of the existence of God on to some supposedly higher plane by making it about ideals rather than personified beings changes the issue very much, not when at the very end of the article the author makes it clear he's not just talking about an ideal of justice as a conceptual object, but rather as an article of faith about how the universe actually works.

Much like any other discussion about the existence of God, there's the usual trouble of making it clear what it is you're talking about existing or not: what is "justice" (or "Justice")? While there are many cultural commonalities about the idea of justice, there are strong disagreements as well.

Once one settles on a meaning of "justice" to evaluate, one has just as much right to challenge a claim that this particular brand of justice exists and is acted upon as some sort of cosmic guarantee with a demand for evidence for that claim.

[struggle4progress]

15. Considered as abstract ideal, "just interpersonal relationships" are simply another false idol:

it is not the ideal that is to be elevated but the actual relationships-as-lived

Similarly, the mere "possibility of just interpersonal relationships" is a false idol: the "possibility" or "impossibility" alone are words devoid of an interest

The ontological questions, whether "Justice" exists or whether it can somehow "guaranteed", are idols

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. A false idol based on who's interpretation?

Who gets to define what is or is not a false idol?

[Silent3]

21. You must have a funny meaning for the word "idol"...

...because I can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say, especially if it's meant in contrast or opposition to what I wrote.