I was on the internet yesterday and stumbled across this little piece of opinion. And it made me think a little bit. After thinking, I decided to write. But there's a problem- who writes anymore? That is, in the literal archaic sense of the word- why take the time to find a small piece of dead tree, or plastic, and then exert the energy to physically compose your thoughts onto a thin slice of more dead tree? Just type it- it's way faster! So that's what I'm doing.
First of all, I have a problem with that assessment. Not because it is an atheistic item- far from it. I would have just as much problem if someone told me that God exists just because the Bible says so. I get frustrated when people make statements of finality from platforms that do not afford such a solid foundation. I'm more for people that look for multiple sources of information from many different angles and then make an informed decision.
Not that what a person believes is ultimately my business- because it's not. Each person has their own way of life, and their own ideas and thoughts, and on this matter I'm laissez-faire. Force my beliefs on you? No. Not so much. Share ideas and information? I'm all about that. It's how we grow- we share parts of ourselves with others, and they share parts of themselves with us. So we become a part of each person we interact with.
I don't have any qualms with the idea that the burden of proof lies with religion- because, after all, it is making an extraordinary claim. And I don't disagree with the notion that the scientific method cannot be used as a defense of the existence of God. There is just no way that such a study could be done objectively- and no way that such a study could be done period. How would you conduct experiments? Or do observations? So on these points, I don't deny this argument.
Of course....
Then I also would use this argument to contest that love does not exist. Or hate...compassion...basically any human emotion. And this is why I don't think that our little piece of opinion ultimately stands as any sort of real defense. Because you can't use the scientific method on emotions.
What I mean is that our emotions are a complicated thing. Certainly there are physiological expressions- when we hate someone or something, maybe our fists will clench or our faces will tighten up. Fear can make our heart pump faster. There are countless examples- these are just a few. These can be scientifically observed.
But what can't be observed is the cognitive process of those emotions. And the interplay between the physiological and cognitive. And the behaviors that accompany those thoughts and feelings. Trust me- having worked with abused kids the past few years, I can tell you that love can become very twisted and warped from the "norm". Add in a myriad of other factors...and you have a phenomenon that is simply unable to be assessed scientifically.
So systematic and empirical observation is flat out, because I can do all sorts of things that outwardly look like love, and would probably be labeled as love...that really have nothing to do with love. Maybe I clean the house while my wife is at work. Or give her a hug and a kiss when she gets home. Those are behaviors that would be traditionally labeled as loving behaviors.
But how do you know that's love? Maybe I just want something. It could be our routine. Honestly, there could be more love being exhibited from me when I'm yelling at my kids or spanking them than there could be in a kiss to my wife. I'm not saying that's the case...I'm just using that to show that love is, in my opinion, outside of the realm of the scientific method.
Does that mean that emotion doesn't exist? Or that it can't be measured? Of course not. We just measure it differently. We use qualitative types of measures. Asking people how they would define the emotion in their lives. What does this mean to you? How do you show it? What happens when you feel it? It's the same thing with God. I'm not trying to say that God is merely an emotion- that's outside of the realm of depth that I'm looking to get into a half hour before work. I'm saying that there are similarities with the way that people experience God and emotions- so you can't say via the scientific method that one exists but not the other. It's just...different.
Realistically, the objective existence of a God is a moot point. That's not how the concept works. I just feel that to simply brush off their claims and ideas as false just because it doesn't line up with this inappropriate means of measurement...is unreasonable. Can it be proved? No. Does that mean it's not real? No. Food for thought.
Anyhow...I'm anxious to share some thoughts on topics o'controversy. And I'm working on it...in my mind. Hopefully I can get some spare moments of breathing to sort them out and hone them into lethal machines of intrigue. Until then- please sit on the edges of your seats in anticipation!!!
4 comments:
I have to say, I admire your sense of fairness. You seem to tackle this issue with thoughtfullness and a willingness to look at both sides of the issue, which a lot of people aren't. Bravo, sir!
Now here's why you're wrong. :)
Your comparison is both accurate and inaccurate from my perspective. Let's look at the inaccuracy first.
No one claims that love exists as a sentient entity. No one claims that hate intercedes directly in people's lives, or that fear has a plan for us. No one claims that emotions created the world, or that they have a personal relationship with their emotions. People usually don't use emotions to justify atrocities against their fellow humans. But all of these things are claimed about God. There is a definite difference between most people's definition/idea of God and basic human emotions.
On the other hand, I kind of like the comparison. When backed into a corner, a lot of believers fall back on the old chestnut that they "feel God in their hearts," so that they know he is real. Well, that's a lot like an emotion, isn't it? Something you feel. And ultimately, I think that's largely what God is. Something people feel, that they then assign "realness" to. This feeling, like other feelings, is very real. But that doesn't mean that it exists outside someone's brain, any more than love does.
The writer of the piece you referenced negates all of the more esoteric arguments that theists and non-theists tend to fall into, boiling it down to the very definition of the word. Atheism means, simply, without a belief in god. Most Christians would say that they don't believe in Zeus. They have no reason to. The author is saying the same thing about the modern idea of God. There's simply no reason to believe.
First of all, thank you for the compliment! I am a big believer in looking at a situation from multiple angles and different sides. I also like the idea of discussion versus debate. I don't have to be right- I just want to know more. So I very much appreciate your perspective on this issue.
Second of all, I am never wrong. Or is it that I am always wrong? I can never remember.
I think Cupid would contest your notion about love as an entity ;) but on the whole, I think you bring up some good thoughts and ideas.
I do disagree with the idea that there is no reason to believe- like we sort of talked about tonight, I think that because of the way our world is, and how it works, it makes tons of sense (to me) to have faith in something outside of ourselves- the world can be so cruel and harsh that we need a way to make sense of it. I think that the problem becomes the sometimes obnoxious (and othertimes vicious) behavior that people of faith tend to exhibit in the name of their 'god'.
Take people that kill abortion doctors, for example. This is not a rational action, yet people do it because they feel it is the right thing to do. And in fact, abortion is another great example. Is it better to let a baby live, even it is going to be born into an abusive family? Or extreme poverty? What is the more humane act? I realize that we are not necessarily blessed with foresight...but to me it is not a simple, cut and dry manner. Maybe by having an abortion, that child is being saved from a lifetime of abuse, poverty, and hardship. I'm not saying either way what is always right and always wrong- I just think that to apply blanket generalizations to every situation is just not a good thing.
I feel like I'm rambling at this point (and since it's like 12:30 a.m., I am probably not making sense. And I'm rambling. So it's like piles and piles of WTF is he talking about).
Closing thoughts- I think your comment showed your own ability to discuss things in a classy manner. I appreciate it. At the end of the day, I don't know if we'll ever be able to penetrate the defenses of our ideas- they have been built up and reinforced over a lifetime. But if we can continue to come together and share knowledge and thoughts in a non-threatening way, then surely we can grow as human beings. And I think that we can both agree that there are reasons to believe in that.
"it makes tons of sense (to me) to have faith in something outside of ourselves- the world can be so cruel and harsh that we need a way to make sense of it"
I think the danger in this is that it's wishful thinking. It would be great to believe I had an invisible elf on my head that paid for everything, but it's not going to happen.
His name would be Dollary the Elf, though, if there was.
Wishful thinking...or coping mechanism? ;)
And the invisible elf on my head said to tell Dollary 'hi', and he'll see him at the Invisible-Elf-on-the-head Conference.
Post a Comment