Everyone Believes in God
Posted by Christopher WoodJun 11
Everyone believes in God. How’s that for a controversial statement? As I set out to write this article I can’t escape the feeling that I’m poking a stick in a hornet’s nest; this is a very touchy subject where emotions run high for both the religiously devout and the atheist alike. My assertion that the religious and the irreligious have far more in common than either realize is sure to provoke a strong response; nevertheless, it’s true.
I have stated before that all human beings are essentially religious creatures. Today, we’ll tackle the sensitive issue of divine faith, and the common human need to find meaning in our thoughts and actions. The easiest way to to begin our discussion is to approach this issue is from the atheist’s viewpoint.
If God is, in fact, a figment of human imagination, the fascinating question we must ask ourselves is why our species originally adopted this delusion. One of the obvious answers is to explain the unexplainable. Ancient man saw the sun rise and set and couldn’t explain it – so he decided that God must carry the sun on his back. Periods of feast or famine were blamed on the pleasure or anger of the gods. As mankind tried to understand the world, unexplainable phenomena were assigned supernatural explanations.
Many point to the Renaissance as the period when this began to change. Brilliant minds such as Copernicus, Galileo and even Newton helped us to understand the connection between the earth and the heavens in scientific, mathematical terms. Science has since played such a large role in the evolution of human technology that we no longer look to God to answer our remaining questions about the physical universe; we believe that the answers can and will be discovered through science. Nevertheless, for all the answers science has given us there is one question it has never really answered: morally speaking, what is right and what is wrong?
Ask any religiously devote Christian why he or she believes that something is either good or evil – in many cases the response you’ll get is, “Because God (or the Bible) says so.” To anyone who does not share these religious convictions this answer is easily ridiculed. Yet, ask an atheist why he or she believes that certain things are either right or wrong and the answer will ultimately sound as shallow. Horrendous human acts such as murder, rape, or child abusive are universally condemned as evil – but try to answer the question of why. Consider murder: what makes murder wrong? Death is a natural part of life, and in nature the strong hold dominion over the weak – besides, what makes human life so valuable anyway? Some may try to offer elaborate explanations, but each of these can be defeated by continually probing with, “but why is that important?” Eventually, anyone who is continually pressed with such an inquiry will throw up his or her hands in frustration and exclaim, “It just is!” When you arrive at the “just is” you come face to face with the god you worship.
It is important to note that when I say everyone believes in God, I don’t mean to suggest that everyone believes in traditional ideas about God. The deity you worship needn’t be a robed figure sitting atop a throne, or even a conscious entity. For some, God is simply the concept of “common sense” they refer to when explaining the obvious “rightness” or “wrongness” of a particular act or idea. For both the religiously devote and atheist alike, God serves as the answer to important moral questions – the source of things we believe which lie just beyond the reach of reason. I may not be able to explain exactly why murder is wrong, but I believe that it is. Though not readily apparent in our perceived reality, I believe that this truth extends from some unseen realm where it is as constant as the law of gravity. It is this devotion to principles which cannot be logically proven that I would define as the very nature of worship itself.
I would further suggest that God is not merely the source of all moral truth, but of all divinity as well. As a parent, I am amazed by the love I have for my children. Nevertheless, science alone would indicate that this bond is nothing more than a series of genetically programmed neural impulses. To believe that there is something significant about these emotions – to assign any value to them – I must look beyond logic or the things I can prove. To justify my belief in the divine nature of love I must again journey to that realm beyond reason’s reach. Divinity must originate from a source unburdened by the limitations of our physical universe – I can’t think of a better definition of God than this.
As absurd as some religious doctrines may appear (does anyone still believe that the Earth is being carried on the back of a turtle?), they pale in comparison to the overwhelming absurdity in which we all partake – the belief that human life has any meaning what-so-ever in a mundane universe which offers no supporting evidence for that assumption. Ultimately, all human beings are creatures of faith. We believe in things we cannot prove; indeed, this faith is the cornerstone for nearly every conscious action we take. Thus, the barriers between the religiously devote and the atheist begin to break down. While our belief systems may differ, it seems that our basic operating software remains the same. The debates about the value of one theology versus another aren’t likely to end anytime soon, but understanding our common need for meaning can provide us with greater sensitivity and tolerance for one another – and the gods we worship.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
7 comments
Comment by Brent Rasmussen on June 12, 2008 at 9:09 am
I disagree. By defining the word “god” to encompass traditional supernatural white-bearded angry magical man in the sky – as well as concepts such as “common sense”, you have just rendered the word into complete and utter nonsense.
Your definition literally makes “god” a nonsensical word. It becomes so stretched out of shape that it could mean *anything*.
So, while I do indeed see the thrust of your post here – the fact that human beings stubbornly continue to act like human beings regardless of the presence or absence of god-belief – I disagree with the way you seek to support it. That is to say by redefining the word “god” into nonsense.
Your post title is *only* controversial if you use the traditional definition of the word “god”. However, your nonsensical re-definition turns the controversial title into a very mild one instead. I actually agree with you there. Atheists and theists are all still human beings. We have, as you say, the same “basic operating software”. So it is not very surprising to see us generally act the same as our fellow humans do.
Just my two cents.
Comment by Christopher Wood on June 12, 2008 at 10:59 am
Brent:
Thank you for your two cents! The purpose of this blog is to encourage thought and debate, and to give me a chance to share some of my ideas with others. I’d like address one of your critiques about this article – the assertion that I’m stretching the concept of “god” to a nonsensical level.
I’ve seen a number of debates between atheists and the religiously devote. Generally, these begin with an argument about whether or not it is silly to believe in (as you stated) a “white-bearded angry magical man in sky”. But look closer – the real argument has less to do with God’s existence and more to do with the concepts of right and wrong advocated by this faith. Typically speaking, the real debate is focused on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, or human sexuality. When differences of moral opinion are absent, arguments about God’s existence quickly fizzle out (or fail to start).
Obviously, the easiest way to dispute a religion-based moral paradigm is to challenge the validity of its source (hence the argument of God’s existence). Yet, is there any scientifically provable, undisputable source of philosophical truth? Regardless of whether a person chooses to personify this source, all of us draw conclusions about human behavior that are based on beliefs we cannot prove. With this in mind, is there really a difference between a bearded deity and common sense? Both serve as justification for the “rightness” or “wrongness” of our actions. What is worship if not obedience to principles issued from an unimpeachable source?
The purpose of this argument is not to defend religion and attack atheists (or vice versa). Arguments between these opposing belief systems are a natural and healthy part of our evolution. I simply find it ironic how alike these two sides often are! Understanding this similarity may help to eliminate some of the rancor that accompanies these debates – then again, maybe not. If nothing else, it’s interesting to point out.
Comment by Brent Rasmussen on June 12, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Hi Christopher,
I agree, it is very interesting!
That’s a very good point. Maybe turning the word “god” into nonsense is the way to go with this. You have to admit that it really does carry a lot of baggage (the word, I mean.)
I am absolutely unsure as to what you mean here. I think that you are asking me whether or not I believe that human morality springs from some real, natural, materialistic source, as opposed to some claimed supernatural source.
First of all, let’s define our terms, shall we? I personally dislike conversations where the participants are using the same words, but assigning different meanings to them – thereby “talking past” one another. Don’t you?
So, with that point firmly fixed in mind, I notice that you used the phrase “scientifically provable”.
I can only assume that you mean this in a colloquial fashion. This is because in the process of science nothing can ever be “proved”. It is literally impossible. Nope – not even the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that gravity causes things to fall to the earth can be “proved” in a scientific sense. Proof only applies to mathematics and liquor. What we have here in the real world is evidence. All things are provisional, but some things – like gravity or evolution – have mountains of evidence supporting them, and can therefore be described as “truth” colloquially, or “so well supported by evidence that a rational person could not call it false” if you’d like to pick nits.
I disagree. In the case of human ethics and morality, there is ample evidence to suggest that they evolved along with our biological systems. Morality predates religion, and can be seen in some social animals like chimpanzees and dolphins. This is not “belief in something that cannot be proved (or that has no evidence to support it)”, but rather a well-supported theory that all human societies and individuals subscribe to, to one degree or another. The specifics do not always match – of course – but it is a fact that human beings have a morality that most often agrees with itself on the broad points (do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, etc.,) over the spectrum of very, very different human societies.
That is pretty dang cool, when you think about it.
Heh. Well, I would argue that one is the purest fantasy, and the other is misleading to a great degree. A bearded deity father-figure passing judgment on our every thought and action is frankly ridiculous, and “common sense”, as Samuel Clemens once said, isn’t.
It is my opinion that “rightness” and “wrongness” are a function of our consciousness. What I mean by that is that soon after us humans became conscious – self aware – we became able to grasp the concept of “other minds”. This allowed us to formulate the very practical “golden rule”, which is most commonly stated as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We were all-of-a-sudden able to empathize with those other minds, and put ourselves in their shoes and think to ourselves, “Well, I wouldn’t enjoy being hit in the face with a rock for no good reason, so I don’t think I’ll hit Thag in the face with this rock. It would be ‘wrong’ to hit another person in the face with a rock.”
That was the beginning of morality. All that came after was refinement of the basic point.
Worship is blind, unthinking devotion to an un-evidenced, invisible magical man in the sky. Worship is turning your rational brain to the OFF position, and then bragging about it. Worship is the opposite of being awake and aware. Worship is a way to claw your way up to a greater social status within your tribe.
What it is not is “obedience to principles issued from an unimpeachable source” – for the simple fact that there is no such thing as an unimpeachable source.
I agree. Except that atheism is not a “belief system”. Neither is theism. The word “atheism” indicates the absence of god-belief within a human being, and the word “theism” indicates the presence of god-belief within a human being.
That’s all. Nothing more.
These things that we are arguing about – these points of view – they come from us individually, our upbringing, our education, and our experiences. They do not in any way come from the presence or absence of god-belief. The presence or absence of god-belief may inform or color our beliefs, but they are not the source of them. Mere presence or absence cannot be the source of anything.
I agree! The tagline on my website is “I’m not angry, I just don’t agree with you.” I utilize my human ability to put myself into another’s shoes for a bit, then analyze why I think the way that I do. It is never simply a kneejerk reaction with me.
Well, almost never.
Comment by Christopher Wood on June 13, 2008 at 1:38 am
Brent:
This is turning into quite the conversation! It’s funny that I’ll probably end up writing more in these comments than I did in the article itself.
I fear we may be getting a little of track, so let me see if I can bring us back on course. It seems that you might be misinterpreting my article as a defense of a particular religious interpretation of God. While I may be using the term God in the singular proper (most often associated with Judeo Christianity or Islam), my intention is to encompass any divine source from which a person claims to acquire moral truth. Regardless of any belief a person may have about creation, judgment, etc., it is ideas of right and wrong – morality and ethics – which truly impact our lives on a practical level. Most believer/non-believer arguments seem to focus on the credibility of God’s supernatural qualities rather than addressing the issues that really matter.
If I understand where you’re going with this, you believe that faith in a “bearded deity” is ridiculous; hence, any moral opinion ascribed to this source must likewise be ridiculous. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you (feel free to correct me if this is the case), but otherwise this assertion is pointless (i.e. the ridiculous nature of theism is completely innocuous). If I am interpreting you correctly, consider the following: a particular religion might lead a person to adopt moral principles you find abhorrent; nevertheless, a person can often adopt such ideas through mechanisms that have nothing to do with organized faith. Ultimately it is not the source, but the quality of the ideas with which we should be concerned.
With this in mind, is it really the idea of God with which you take exception? Or is it the ideas about morality that are often ascribed to God’s will? If it is the latter, what method do you propose for determining which moral judgments are correct, and which are incorrect?
I absolutely agree! You are correct in my colloquial (and frankly flippant) reference to an absolute standard of proof (I discuss this concept at length in many of my articles). This is near the center of the argument I’m trying to make. Absurdity is not to be found in the source we turn to for moral truth (whether an invisible-man-in-the-sky or otherwise), but in the assumption that human life and action have any value. Despite the ridiculous nature of assigning meaning to our actions, it is nonetheless and essential part of our identity as human beings. We are all creatures of faith, believing in things we cannot prove. One cannot criticize another simply on basis of his/her belief in a divine source of truth (such as God) without a fair measure of hypocrisy.
I think that you and I agree about a lot more than either of us might expect. Nevertheless, this is one statement I have to call you on. Certainly, there are many who fit your description above; nevertheless, I think it is a mistake to categorically declare everyone who believes in that “invisible, magical man” as blind, unaware, or mentally asleep. Above all else, this is probably the real reason I wrote this article. If we are to raise the dialogue about morality and ethics to an intelligent level, we must get beyond the notion that belief, or non-belief, in a particular God or gods somehow endows one with a magical “trump card”. Many of the atheists I know are thoughtful, intelligent people (like yourself) – others, not so much. The same can be said for many who harbor religious conviction. I would tread very lightly before embracing a strong prejudice toward either group, or you risk becoming many of the things I’m sure you hate.
There’s a lot more I’d like to say, but it’s late and I need to hit the “pause” button to get some sleep. I’m enjoying this discussion, and appreciate your motto, “I’m not angry, I just don’t agree with you.” I’ve taken quick look at your website and will probably browse it more thoroughly when I have a moment. I hope you’ll be back to continue our conversation.
Comment by Brent Rasmussen on June 13, 2008 at 8:41 am
Hi Christopher,
Thank you for the thoughtful replies!
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by “divine”? When you say “any divine source”, I cannot see that as pertaining to someone like myself in which god-belief is absent. The word is primarily defined as “from God”, after all. Secondarily as “to conjecture or guess”.
There is no other definition for the word.
So, if an atheist like myself claims that I am moral, am I claiming “moral truth” from a “divine source”?
No, not at all.
It is my opinion that morality, as I attempted to explain previously, is an evolved characteristic of an animal that possesses a conscious, self-aware brain. Like human beings do, as well as do some species of aquatic mammals and primates, to a lesser degree. Morality and ethics help our species to survive by allowing us to live together in large societies.
No, not at all. The moral opinions may well be correct. (Don’t murder, don’t rape, don’t steal). However, attributing them to a divine source is ridiculous.
.
Theism, as I stated previously, cannot be “ridiculous”, or anything else. Because it is merely a description, a word that describes a human being in which god-belief is present.
It would be like calling someone who isn’t bald “ridiculous” – because they have hair. Hair is present, so they are “ridiculous”? It doesn’t make any sense!
I agree with this. Moral concepts either work, or they don’t work. Their quality is determined by their actual usage within the context of a human society. The ones that do not work so well, are discarded by the society over the course of many years. The ones that do work are retained.
It’s really not that tough an idea to grasp.
However, claiming that these concepts that we use as a human society sprang forth, fully-formed from the brow of Zeus as complete, infallible moral precepts is simply not rational. It does not invalidate the morals themselves, however.
Religions claim ownership of moral concepts that have existed since the dawn of man – since before there were even such things as religions.
Bingo!
The method that has been in existence since we first became self-aware, of course. Selection. Survival.
The fact that one moral concept works and is retained by human society, and that one does not and is discarded, over many, many generations, is plain. Clearly the ones that work are “correct”, and the ones that don’t are “incorrect”.
No absolutes, sorry. It’s all just a gigantic, millennium-long game of trial and error. The fact that we still exist as a species means that we’re doing something right.
Ah, but there is faith and then there is faith. James Randi, in his classic work The Faith Healers, discusses three types:
So, believing that the light will turn green, or that the sun will rise tomorrow, is not “faith” to the same degree as someone who believes that Jesus will return with a flaming sword and start slaughtering unbelievers. Sure, we cannot “prove” to any degree that either is absolutely true. However, one has the benefit of mountains of evidence, and one does not. That is why it is so important to understand the why we should not use the word “proof” – unless we use it in a very precise manner – not colloquially. It is constantly misinterpreted and used to make unequal things (like traffic lights turning green and Jesus with a flaming sword) sound> equal – when they clearly are NOT equal.
Good point, Christopher. I need to watch myself for this tendency to stereotype all religious believers. It is clearly not true.
Thanks. I used to do this quite a bit (this type of discussion, I mean,) but as you know it can be massively time-consuming. And, as I got older, I just couldn’t summon the energy to pursue these types of discussions with any regularity. Heh. These subjects are undeniably interesting to talk about, but at the end of the conversation it is a sure bet that neither of us will change our minds in any significant way.
So, I stay cordial as best that I can. Less grief and stress that way.
Best to you, sir, and I am looking forward to your next reply.
Comment by Christopher Wood on June 14, 2008 at 1:30 am
Brent:
You’re welcome! It’s rare to have an intelligent discussion about topics that typically carry a lot of emotional baggage; nevertheless, I think conversations like this are a great way to entertain new ideas, or tie up the “loose-ends” in our own beliefs.
Good point. I need to be careful about how I use these terms. My purpose in focusing on the moral arguments between atheists and theists is not based upon the mistaken assumption that either represents a clearly defined moral paradigm – rather, it is based on my own, personal observation that debates about God’s existence are usually a MacGuffin for deeper arguments about moral values (this is usually the substantial disagreement that atheists and theists have with one another). Your point here is taken, and appreciated.
I worry that we might be sliding past one another a little when it comes to a discussion about the evolution of morality. My article isn’t really an assertion about how morality evolved – or even if organized religion should be credited with all moral belief. Rather, I’m focusing on the conflict between people who harbor different viewpoints about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a particular action – and the similarities they exhibit.
I don’t really disagree with this. I would simply point out that before a particular moral concept obtains historical legitimacy its value is generally argued on the basis of abstract ideals. These arguments lay the foundation for the concept’s assimilation into society. These arguments are what I find most interesting.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but I don’t see the conflict with the above ideas and my article. Very interesting though. I guess your assertion is that not all faith is equal – fair enough; however, without knowing exactly what experiences or personal observations have led a person to his/her belief system, I would be careful about automatically labeling it as Type I, II or III.
Moving on…
Adding this to your earlier remark about morality as a function of human evolution:
And your statement that:
My question is this – how exactly would this idea be applied in a practical argument between a theist and an atheist as they argue about a specific moral principle? One side claims that a particular action is right or wrong based on their perceived belief about God’s will; the other side then responds, “I’m sorry sir, but I have attained a higher level of biological evolution than you – thus, I am better able to divine the behaviors most likely to help our species thrive in the future?” Arguing evolution and survival as a mechanism for altering moral perception is interesting on a macroscopic, long-term basis – but does a lousy job of vindicating one side over another on a micro, short-term level.
While I don’t disagree with your Darwinistic appraisal of how certain moral philosophies persist while others die off, it’s interesting to consider the mechanism by which these philosophies are originally born. Rather than a sudden, universal shift in the moral paradigm of a particular society, it is often a lone, single voice which arises to challenge entrenched ethical perceptions. These traditional perceptions may have merit based on the observed pros-and-cons of their application in the past; nevertheless, the emergent philosopher argues that he/she has a better way. In the absence of similar historical precedent, the revolutionary can only argue the value of new ideas in the abstract. He/she challenges society to set aside previous understanding and adopt new assumptions. These assumptions must be taken on faith. To presume the authority to demand this type of change one must believe that he/she has somehow discovered a new source of truth (the definition I’m using for “God”), and that time will vindicate its authenticity.
I love this example (it gave me a pretty good chuckle). I originally thought about debating some of the ideas you’re advocating here, but most of what I would say I’ve already said. I was going to use the following addendum to your example to make a point, but I don’t wish to belabor the statements I’ve already made. As such, I include this example – sans commentary – purely for your amusement. I’m sure you’ll see where I was going with this:
“The caveman you mentioned (I’m naming him Gorp) reaches the enlightened, evolved conclusion that it’s wrong to hit fellow caveman Thag in the face with a rock. Thag agrees, and both live in blissful harmony. There’s just one problem – Nog. You see, Nog has discovered that hitting people in the face with rocks is a great way to get what he wants. He insists on staying with the tribe of Gorp and Thag, and is causing a lot of trouble. Gorp eventually decides it’s time to do something about it; Nog must be compelled to change his behavior and punished if he refuses to do so. Thag’s also pretty keen on this idea. Ultimately, Nog’s ideas and desires are crushed by the golden rule philosophy of Gorp and Thag.”
Back to business, it’s probably time to begin wrapping up my remarks here. I have more ideas I’d like to add, but out of respect I hand back the microphone (besides, these conversations tend be a lot more productive with both parties occasionally pause to take a breath
). I apologize that it’s taken me a while to respond but it has been a very busy day. Regardless of its ultimate conclusion I hope you’re finding this discussion as enjoyable as I am. I look forward to your next comments.
Comment by J Wood on June 29, 2008 at 7:57 am
In fact neither side can prove their position completely to the satisfaction of the other.
From the scientific side: there are problems: 1st: science is incomplete. We do not have an understanding or knowledge of all the laws that the universe functions on. In fact our knowledge is still quite primative. Based on this any theory is just that, theory, and one that is both incorrect or incomplete. To say evolution is fact is simply false. It is only theory, one that will be modified as our understanding increases. We have a long way to go.
As one who does hold a doctorate I love science and the pursiut of knowledge. I do not stick my head in the sand and ignor so many things that tell me there is a higher power. The function of the universe and law tell me thier has to to be a higher power.
Religion: quite simple if you believe in the bible and Genesis or the Book of Moses, God tells us that he created all things and uses simbolism to describe the creation. He does not tell us how he did it, only that he did do it. I believe he if he did tell us how quite honestly we would not understand it. I knowedge of law again is to incomplete. We have musch to learn.
Someday I believe we will have a complete understanding and that facts of science and religion will come together and we will go Wow!, that all makes sense now.
I cannot take the time and space to elaborate on all the details of what I think but I know in my heart their is a god. I also believe in the pursiut of science and believe as many of the great scientists who are quoted that the universe all around us show God’s hand in all things. It amazes me when people quote scientists they so often leave out their quotes of a belief in God. I would recommend that anyone who believes scientists do not believe in a God and wants to know more about how science and religion can fit together read Henry Eyring’s “Faith of a Scientist”. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize six times and has worked along side many of the great scientists of our time. His ART theory is the basis for many scientific pursiuts of our day.