(Cue Jack Paar's re-entry. Focus holographic image. Hold and sustain . . . NOW!!!) :
Sorry, that's just me being an idiot. Anyway . . . to the matter at hand . . .
There's a daily devotional I've been reading called, Praying With St. Mark's Gospel. Yesterday's entry talked about the Sadducees' unbelief in a resurrection. Its author, Fr. George William Rutler, made what I thought to be an insightful point about their questioning of Jesus on the matter. To wit:
While they would have been reasonable in saying that they saw no evidence of life after death, they were unreasonable in denying resurrection simply because they had no evidence. They exalted their opinion to the rank of a truth. By so doing they assumed that truth is only opinion. Faith roots us in something more, not less, substantial than opinion . . . The Sadducees thought they “knew it all” because they did not know how small what they “knew” was, and how vast “all” is. That was simply because they had a limited definition of “it.”
This is perfectly analogous to and can be applied to atheism. I've long maintained that atheism is an intellectually unsustainable concept. Like the Sadducees in Fr. Rutler's observation, atheists are perfectly reasonable is saying that they see no evidence for God. Merely holding that opinion makes one an agnostic. But to claim that there is NO God is to make a negative claim that, by definition, can't be proven.
Many of us have heard of the “dark matter” that scientists in recent years have theorized makes up something like ninety percent of all matter in the universe. It can't be seen or observed in any manner yet known to science. But a lot of very smart thinkers in the world of cosmology have stated – by methods that are well beyond your humble narrator's capacity to fathom – that the existence of dark matter has been established (as far as theories go.) And I, for one, tend to trust scientists and their claims.
How do the skeptical establish that dark matter doesn't exist? People may have reasons not to trust science (and frankly I don't trust those people); they may well believe in science but say that the whole dark matter thing is balderdash and I'm content to let them think what they want to about it. But how can one empirically prove that dark matter doesn't exist? They can't. They may not like the idea, it may make them uncomfortable because of various prejudices associated with their religious beliefs, etc., but like the atheist's denial of the existence of God, it's an unprovable negative statement.
One can summon nearly infinite reasons for thinking that there's no God – wars, human misery, the worldly domination of the violent and prejudiced, and so on. But none of that establishes empirically the nonexistence of God. (And to be fair – outside of some demonstrable existence of the miraculous, neither can believers empirically prove that God does exist. The atheist, of course, will deny the possibility of that demonstrable existence.)
So regardless of any intellectual muscle that atheists like Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, the late, great Christopher Hitchens, et al, bring to the table, the essential thing that they can't bring is empirical proof. Like the Sadducees of Jesus' day, they have no intellectual leg to stand on.
As for the belief in God that I hold, I can't prove to the unbeliever that God does exist. But when it comes time to breathe my last (something everyone knows will also occur for them one day) at least I'll have a lifeboat to reach for. Unless there's a God who'll rescue him despite his unbelief, the atheist is just plain screwed. I'm content to take my chances and am grateful that that chance – however fleeting or illusory some may say it is – exists.
How about leprechauns, gnomes, and pixies? May I rationally deny their existence or am I limited to saying that I see no evidence of their existence? It seems to me that at some point one is justified in saying that a thing doesn't exist based on lack of evidence.
ReplyDeleteFor me it comes down to whether the hypothesis has any potential explanatory power. As I cannot imagine any circumstances under which the leprechaun hypothesis would do anything to make any sense of the world, I am comfortable denying the existence of leprechauns. However, I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist because I do see the potential of the God hypothesis to answer questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't see sufficient evidence of God but I'm not ready to foreclose the possibility.
Vinny: Thanks for your response. I've only just inconsistently dabbled in this blogging thing, and frankly, I thought that the exercise was pretty much just me shouting in an echo chamber. Good to know someone is actually listening and has bothered to take the time to shout back.
DeleteI tried to post this response but found out it exceeded the allowable number of characters. I'll try cutting it in two. Wish me luck.
You make a good point about leprechauns, etc., and an interesting one at that. I mean that with the sincerity which any serious exploration of life and culture demands. I hope you don't read it as some sort of left-handed compliment, as it were. While I don't know you from Adam, I get the distinct impression that yours is a thoughtful and valuable mind of the sort that we need in these kinds of discussions.
While I strongly doubt the existence of leprechauns, the ancients who came up with such ideas were working from much more primitive and flimsy information than we're fortunate to have in the 21st century. So I think we should be charitable in our judgment of them.
More serious myths were of the sort that the famous Christian theologian C.S. Lewis cited. The one I recall most readily (and which occurred often and across spans of time and geography that preclude their having been made in collusion with one another) are ones that were devoted to what one might call "harvest gods." These disparate myths saw the hand of the infinite in plant life. Only by dying (i.e. sacrificing its life) could a seed beget new life. Furthermore, the plant that a seed would bring forth was utterly and, one might even say, dimensionally different from the seed that produced it. As different as Christians believe they are from the beings they hope to become.
Another great thinker about myths that I greatly admire is the late Joseph Campbell. He was the other person who provided me with much of my scant source material on the subject. Campbell was the one who really introduced me to the notion of what I call "harvest gods." Mostly from a fascinating series of interviews that Bill Moyers hosted and which I saw on PBS some years ago.
Campbell talked about how cultures across the centuries in Europe, Africa, India, the ancient Americas, etc., all had remarkably similar harvest god myths. The prevalence of those myths in such disparate times and places led Campbell to devalue the Christian religion (which can also be called a myth in best sense of the term. Just like the "harvest religions" are myths in that same best sense of the term.) Campbell wrote Christianity off as just another of a great many myths.
But Lewis asserted that, in Christ, the myth was actually true. I also believe that. But rather than discount those other myths, Lewis called them "good dreams." In his view (and mine) Man was actually everywhere stumbling upon the truth, albeit in primordial form. You might say that humanity was learning how to ride a metaphorical bike with training wheels. Far from being "savages," the ancients were moving on the right path toward the Truth. Far from being stupid in their primitiveness (I'm not sure that's a real word, but I think you know what I mean) these people were genuinely making valuable sense of their place in the universe. As a Christian, I like to think of them as my elder brothers and sisters in the faith.
What I identify as Campbell's great flaw was that what he identified as debunking Christianity actually supported it. He was, in my view, looking through the telescope backwards.
I know nothing about how leprechauns came to have currency in ancient Ireland, but I'd suppose that the people who first imagined and believed in them, like the harvest devotees, were dreaming good dreams. Many years afterward (I presume -- I really don't know the timeframes involved) the Irish were prepared to widely accept Christianity. I'd also suppose that belief in those leprechauns, harvest gods and whatnot were critcal in that acceptance.
DeleteI'm glad to hear you identify yourself as an agnostic rather than an atheist. Unlike atheism -- which I discount, as noted in my post -- I regard agnosticism as a noble, if by definition, incomplete worldview. If one has no reason to believe in something, it would be disingenous and intellectually dishonest to pretend to do so. As I told a good Christian friend of mine many years ago when he was trying to evangelize me (at that time I was a young agnostic, myself) "What you say sounds good and makes alot of sense, but I just can't believe in what I don't believe in."
The agnostic, by my understanding, essentially says, "I don't know." The atheist, without validity in his thinking, says that he knows what he's can't possibly affirm.
Thanks again, Vinny, for your response. It's gratifying to chew the virtual fat with a stranger. I hope you'll write back that we might talk about other subjects as well (or more on this one.) You may or may not have noticed two other blogs that I have links to here. One is called "Clutterjam." It's what you might call my mainly secular blog. The other, "Ajusted," is that of a good friend of mine. He's a much more dutiful attendant to the craft. I'm merely trying to be.
All my best, sir. I hope you find the answers you're looking for. I sense that you are, in fact, looking. And despite our philosopical and/or theological differences, we're all in this together.
Cheers!
cluttermethis
I think that the propensity to believe in leprechauns and Gods is hardwired into our DNA by evolution. A rabbit reacts to every unexpected sound, even if it is just a randomly breaking branch on a tree, as if it were a predator because running first and asking questions later gives it the best chance of survival. In a similar way, the human mind instinctually sees intentionality in random events. When my Irish ancestors were unable to explain the phenomena they observed in the world around them, it was natural for them to assume that some intentional actor was at work. As man’s knowledge of the world has increased, he has abandoned many myths, but the natural tendency to see intentionality hasn’t disappeared.
DeleteAlthough I consider myself an agnostic, my thinking about most questions regarding the existence of God doesn’t differ from many atheists that I know. I simply haven’t satisfied myself that the no-God hypothesis makes more sense of the world than the God hypothesis. I suspect that if I devoted some serious time and effort to investigating the question, I might decide that I would be justified in affirming the non-existence of God, but life is short and there are other subjects that I am more interested in examining.
I also believe that the propensity to believe in God, gods, harvest gods, leprechauns and the like is hard-wired into us by evolution. It shouldn't surprise you to know that I also see in that hard-wiring a real intentionality – that is, the hand of God. Certainly that's a point on which we differ. And that's fair. As I already said, were you to subscribe to God for no good reason, that would be disingenuous and hardly worthwhile.
DeleteI could tell you that I've had myriad experiences in which I've convincingly known the presence of God, but while such experiences have been absolutely convincing to me, you'd correctly counter that they were and are subjective. That, too, is fair.
One of the characteristics that I find in this God I believe in is mercy – and on many levels. One of those levels, I think, is that God honors the capacity for individuals to think about and explore their surroundings for themselves -- even if this leads to them concluding that he doesn't exist. The greatest gift he gives us is free will. Necessarily, this includes the capacity to love him or hate him – or to not believe in him. It should go without saying that I believe this to be a sad state for someone to find himself in, but without that freedom, what value would sophisticated life really have?
I'm not going to try to convince you of the worthiness of my position. One thing that I've always found distasteful– as an unbeliever and as a believer – is being preached at. The intellectual back and forth is valuable; I find smug and self-satisfied preaching to usually be lacking.
So I'll continue to hold forth here in my little virtual fiefdom. If you're interested enough to comment on any of my thoughts, I'd welcome that. The door is always open and I hope you'll always find yourself welcome. If you choose not to, I respect that, too. But it's been invigorating and enjoyable to talk to you over the last couple of days via the mystery of the ones and ohs.
I don't mean to suggest that I'm putting a close to this particular conversation. If you have anything else to add, please do. But whether you do or not, it's certainly been enjoyable to engage is this little dialogue with you.
Wishing you all the best.
cluttermethis