This morning on radio 4, Jonathan Sachs the chief rabbi referred to Stephen Hawking’s recent pronouncement that the universe requires no creator. He pointed out a key difference between science and religion, that the first is about explanation, the second, meaning. A pertinent point. I’ve read so often, including from one of my most loyal readers, that such and such shows ‘no god is required’ - aware that somehow the point is being missed. The human heart does yearn for meaning, on a cosmic scale – eternity is ‘written in our hearts’. And is this not where God meets us, through the gift of faith and spiritual practice (understood not as naïve credulity as the atheists insist, but as a route to a kind of knowledge, spiritual knowledge, inaccessible in other ways.
And just to balance things with a question of my own about Christianity… I spotted in third way magazine an ad for a book called something like ‘Did Paul get Jesus right?’ Paul evidently did have a dramatic experience out of which flowered his whole theology about Jesus. But the question does arise, why was so much entrusted to one man? It contrasts with one of the bible’s ‘selling points’, its diversity of authorship. It is quite easy to see how some view Paul’s writings as the ideas of ‘a religious genius’ rather than the thoughts of God. That’s not to say I suddenly think it’s all not true. But it’s one to explore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
13 comments:
I find when people don't believe in God it's not merely a matter of logic but a desire for independence. I think it's a choice we make and we look for the evidence accordingly. But I don't believe in God because someone proved it to me but because God Himself reveals who He is to me presonally. But it took that initial desire to believe...
Lisa,
" find when people don't believe in God it's not merely a matter of logic but a desire for independence."
This sweeping statement is simply not true and certainly does not reflect my own experience. Many try to cling on to faith even though they are loosing believe because I simply cant accept any of the arguments for her existence - not because I want independence.
Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like regurgitated party dogma about what believers are supposed to think about non believers.
Feel free to ask me questions.
Also, I'd like you to try and not believe and see how far you get - likewise, I cannot choose to believe, and I dont see why anyone would want to choose one way or the other with out a reason to do so.
If god reveals personally to people, why does he reveal to some that gays are an abomination and reveal to others that gays are OK?
Are you not creating god with the characteristics you want her to have?
"He pointed out a key difference between science and religion, that the first is about explanation, the second, meaning.
Well, what makes religion about meaning? Just saying that religion is about meaning does not make it so. Can you back that up? This is another reason why I say there is no evidence for god.
This cartoon brilliantly shows the futility of religious claims about meaning
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/09/03/
(why so many different answers. How do you test them?)
Why is science not about meaning?
Sachs (and others) seem to think they can define what god is or is not. None of this means god exists or indeed has any property ascribed to him. Sachs is in essence guilty of the crime of the strawman he talks against.
What evidence is there that god is any of these things?
I look forward to you providing firm and demonstrable answers to change my view on god
Regarding Paul, there is a case that he didn't exist and that works attributed to him are the writings of several authors. I was going to pull you up for calling him a genius, but you actually called him a religious genius, thus negating the term :-)
Personally, I must be truly imoral if I don't think misogyny and homophobia are virtues.
Does it not strike you as strange that through out the bible, god only talks through peplpe of power? Why does god not talk to everyone the way he spoke to the prophets? Even "Paul" concedes that would be evidence to the non believer.
Instead, these days, god speaks to Davide Ike, Peter Sutcliffe ad George Dubya. Can you see why I am sceptical?
Last one for now.
I god did not (or is not needed) to create the universe, then just what use is he exactly? What are the implications for genesis? Science has rubbed the lie of creationism so far into the dirt that all that is left is the diry, festering greasy stains of propaganda and lies. However, it still has implications for the line "god created" even in a non literal interpretation.
Anyway, would you accept Hawking's view if presented with evidence, or would you automatically seek to deny it?
I hope to have an open mind about whether he has shown god is not required - will you?
Even if I dont buy his argument, the argument for god's existence in this context is a god of the gaps fallacy
maybe it's a sweeping statement but it is based on my experience. Party dogma?? That's kind of funny. I don't really do party dogma, and I do talk to unbelievers. I've found it's usually not as simple as lack of evidence but is deeply emotional and personal and based on a lot of disappointment. And even looking back on my on journey...I'm beyond choosing, but i was there long ago. Took a while to experience God but I had to make the choice to seek Him and that is a choice I had to make...it's the choice we all have to make to find God.
But I'm curious about your own experience as you referred to...
Lastly...you brought in the subject of homosexuality. And you talk of revelation people have received. Just because someone says they have revelation doesn't mean they have it ;) The proof is in the pudding...the fruit of a person's life reveal how much they have known God. And I certainly don't have all the revelation! I'm on a journey, too. And yes, sometimes I project on to God what I'd like him/her to be.
I don't really do party dogma
Not even that Jesus came back to life? I often find that christians are told what to believe about non believers - particularly the ones brought up christian. However, I wont tar you all with the same brush.
I've found it's usually not as simple as lack of evidence but is deeply emotional and personal and based on a lot of disappointment.
We clearly come across different non believers. For example, I would say about 80% of people I have workrd with are non believers and that's mainly due to the fact that they dont buy the arguments. I know folk who were not brought up believers who dont buy the arguments, so there is no dissapointment there. Even if there was disappointment, it does not mean that the position is not a rational one - for example, imagine watching a loved one waste away and die in agony, but not before the pain makes them lose their mind. Would you think it was rational to believe that a god who is loving would allow that? (I'm not interested in presuppositional apologetics here as that requires belief to be in place aleady, and makes no sense anyway)
I've found it's usually not as simple as lack of evidence but is deeply emotional and personal and based on a lot of disappointment.
I disagree. Could you choose to seek to find something you dont believe exists - like fairies? If it doesn't pass the first test of being plausible, there is no choice but to reject it. Fairies dont exis, therefore, there is no choice in rejecting them. To do otherwise would just be perverse.
But I'm curious about your own experience as you referred to...
Well, there was a total lack of evidence of a relationship - no guidance, no answered prayer, no nothing - I actively tried to cling to belief despite starting to see through the arguments for god - this caused a great deal of stain, and I'm now disgusted at my lack of intellectual honesty there - if anything, I was trying to believe despite a growing realisation there was no evidence for god. One major reason I dont believe is the fact I went through the gospels (looking for a reason to believe) and I checked all the prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled. I was shocked to find they were all taken out of context and not about jesus at all. This rational approach (not feelings) Killed any lingering faith I had. Try it for yourself (Isaiah7:14) does not prophecise that Jesus will be born of a virgin. It was a message to Ahaz 700 years before and concerned a child who whould need to learn right from wrong. All "prophecies" are just as problematic.
Just because someone says they have revelation doesn't mean they have it ;)
Indeed. But why dont they agree if this subjective approach has any validity?
The proof is in the pudding...the fruit of a person's life reveal how much they have known God.
My problem with this is that it is inconsistent - If you know god through revelation, you will know him. However, you state that a claim of a revelation need not be a revelation. How then can you claim to know anything through revelation?
This is also where projection and confirmation bias come in.
Therefore, like many others, I intellectually reject god hypotheses (which theists can agree amongst themselves on anyway)
Lisa, if you are still interested, you will get a lot of reasons folk stop believing in god http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts
I've read the comments Lisa and Billy, thanks - and even saw the jesus and mo cartoon! not going to stir the hornet's nest further here though...
Billy, I see what you mean I guess these little comments are an inadquate place to explain everything ;) Might be better over a cup of coffee. I will check out the site you sent ;)
It's worth emphasising that the 'arguments' for religion are essentially buttresses for positions necessarily reached by supernatural methods i.e. the gift of faith. As a Christian, I'm of course depressed by the unhinged bollocks served up in Wesley Owen style zoomer scriptura 'apologetics'. I think it's 'The Case for Christ' that (get this) ropes in some mickey mouse bible college psychology 'professor' to claim that Jesus-as-presented-in-the-gospels must be 'sane' as He never displayed any inappropriate emotions! And the trilemma fallacy is still being invoked, not least as part of Alpha's cultish brainwashing. Personally, as a believer in Christ, I do wish that people wouldn't mistake homophobic evangementalist Christianity for the real kind(s)! ;)
Post a Comment