This is part 1 of a fictional dialogue between two friends: a Christian and an atheist. I’ve written this to provide answers to those Christians who I know personally and who wonder about my position with regards to my unbelief in god(s). I don’t speak for all atheists, so corrections to what I've written are welcome. Sam is a fictional character. Thank you to Cori who provided ideas for this dialogue as well as constructive criticism. Enjoy!
Kevin: Hello Sam. How are you doing? Why do you look so down?
Sam: Hi Kevin. I just came back from a church meeting. We had a discussion about atheists and atheism. I can’t understand why so many people don’t accept the fact of God’s love, and why they have such anger towards God. I feel such an incredible burden for those people.
Kevin: Sam, I know we’ve only known each other for a few weeks, and we’ve hit it off really well over this time. But, I don’t know how to break this to you … I am an atheist.
(a moment’s silence)
Sam: An atheist? But how can that be? You are such a nice guy!
Kevin: Well, I try to be (laughs). Look, its okay. Despite the much maligned label, I’m not a Christian bashing kind of person. I’m your normal, average guy. I just lack belief in God’s existence, that’s all.
Sam: I’m sorry, but I’m completely surprised. I never knew that about you. I assumed that you were going to your own church. Wow! I can’t say I’ve ever met a self declared atheist before. I’ve got so many questions to ask you, if you don’t mind.
Kevin: Sure, I don't mind at all.
Sam: If you’re an atheist, why do you say that God doesn’t exist, and why are you so angry at God?
Kevin: These are good questions! Firstly, I don’t make the claim that God doesn’t exist. Secondly, I’m not angry at God at all; I mean, how can I be angry at something I don’t believe exists?
Sam: Let me get this straight: you lack belief that God exists, but at the same time you are not claiming that he does not exist? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Kevin: At face value it does seem confusing. But look, I think that to effectively answer all your questions, we have to start at the beginning. We have to ask: what is atheism?
Sam: Rejection of God and his love?
Kevin: That is an interesting definition, but it is not the one that I subscribe to. Do you know what the word “theist” means?
Sam: A theist is a person who has some belief in a god. I am a theist, for example.
Kevin: Yes, you are. So are Muslims, Hindus and any other individual who believes in some supernatural deity. Well, the “a-“ prefix in the word atheism simply means “non-“ or “not”. Simply put, an atheist is “not a theist”. In its basic form, atheism is not a belief; it is an absence of belief. It is an absence of belief in the existence a supernatural deity or deities. That is all.
Sam: I see.
Kevin: The word atheist has become falsely associated with immorality and arrogance. Despite what many may claim, I believe atheism says nothing about the personality, moral status, political affiliation or character of a specific person. It simply refers to their lack of belief in gods.
Sam: This is fascinating! I’ve got so many questions to ask. If you don’t believe in God, what moral system do you use? How can you find meaning in life? What do you believe will happen to you when you die? Why don’t you believe in God?
Kevin: Gosh, those are good questions! I’ll have to answer them one at a time. It’s going to be a long night, though. Coffee?
Sam: Please!
To be continued. . .
Welcome! This blog covers my thoughts and struggles as an ex-Christian. If you like, read my introductory post. I've also written two "concluding" posts on why I no longer post here that often. Feel free to comment!
30 comments:
This is great & I look forward to the continuing story. Kudo's to you & Cori.
An Atheist hmmm - If I ask my friends atheist tends to be a catch all lazy term they use for really seeing if God exists or not or exploring their spirituality.
I would associate it in general with people who are not interested in God, but most wouldn't see it as a belief, more a statement.
Hi Kevin,
I'm glad you put this out there. Seems to be alot of discussion on this topic in my blog as of late. So many beleivers question the moral system of the atheist...I'm working on some posts to answer the many questions that have been asked of me. I'm glad you are out there helping to explain in your articulate, mature and non-argumentative fashion.
Surely the moral system of an athiest is to do what they please but that of course will be subconciously influenced by context and culture. Chances are if you live in an historically christian nation your choices are going to reflect that culture in some way.
Hi all, I am new and just stumbled across this interesting blog. I appreciate your attitude and cordiality Kevin.
When it comes to atheism and morality, I don't think the central question is whether or not an atheist can be a morally good person. Certainly an atheist can live morally. The central question is rather: what grounds an atheist's morality? In other words, what reasons can an atheist give for why people ought to live a certain way as opposed to another way (if moral relativism is rejected)? I have yet to hear a plausible non-relativistic moral theory from an atheistic standpoint, but perhaps someone here can provide one. Thanks again.
You are so much nicer than I. If I was writing this dialogue it would be something like "I don't live in a deluded fantasy world full of unicorns and fairies like you do".
It's very lucky that we can have an adult discussion about such things then. Welcome Kyaroko.
It does concern me somewhat that so often the Christian view seems to be that you can't be a decent, moral person without having God in your life. If you're only decent and moral because you're trying to please God, surely that's more cause for concern than simply being a decent moral person because it's in your nature to do so?
I don't consider myself an atheist as such, although I no longer subscribe to any religion. But I certainly don't attribute my morals to a god... they're an intrinsic part of who I am, irrelevant to the existence or not of an ultimate deity.
Hi Skywolf, you bring up some interesting points, but here are some things to consider. What does it mean that your morals are "an intrinsic part of who I am?" Do you believe your morals to be objective - applicable to everyone? If they are objective, what grounds their existence? If not objective, why should other people hold to your morals? Is your nature more "moral" than other peoples' nature? I do not intend this as a personal attack, just some ideas to ponder.
Often I think that people mistake the issue as being whether or not an atheist can live life with morals, or whether an atheist can "see" whether something is right or wrong. But this is not the real issue. The issue is how objective moral values can exist in a world that consists of physical objects (atoms, molecules, complex organisms) alone. It has been a very difficult task for atheists to find a solid ground for objective morals, and this is still a major philosophical project. Many atheists just give in and embrace moral relativism, or you could call it moral creationism (individuals and/or societies create their own values and live by them).
But many see that moral relativism has a fatal flaw, that being that it does not leave room for us to criticize the morals of Nazi Germany for example, or the Aztec human sacrifices, or Christian fundamentalism for that matter.
On a more personal note, I think each person needs to ask him/herself, "Just what does it mean for me to be a decent, moral person? Am I as good a person as I can be? Are there parts of my character that need to be changed? Do I have some character flaws?" I think if we are honest with ourselves we would recognize the flaws in our moral character. If we are REALLY honest we would see an ugly selfishness within that pops up more often than we like, and we long to get rid of this. There is always room for growth. So how do we grow? Should we try to grow? Why?
My take on the Christian position is that Jesus came to show us how we can be free of the ugliness and imperfection we see within ourselves. This freedom comes as a result of realizing that God loves and values us unconditionally, no matter how selfish and flawed and incomplete we are. This humbles us, to know that God loves us no matter what. We don't need to try and please him. He already is pleased with us. But it is precisely this unconditional love from God that puts a fire in our heart to love him in return, to follow him, to do things that he likes, because we simply want to bring him joy. We will fail, we will still do things that he doesn't like, but unconditional love means that nothing we do will cause God to love us any less.
This is my view of the Christian position in brief. I am sorry that some of you have encountered Christians who have not exhibited goodness in their views and behavior. I believe that Jesus himself made popular the term "hypocrite", which referred to a stage actor, and Jesus used it to describe many religious people of his day. Jesus does not like hypocrisy either, but the curious thing is that he still loves hypocrites. Do we?
Sorry for the length of this post.
What does it mean that your morals are "an intrinsic part of who I am?" Do you believe your morals to be objective - applicable to everyone? If they are objective, what grounds their existence? If not objective, why should other people hold to your morals? Is your nature more "moral" than other peoples' nature?
Hi Mike,
You make some interesting points too. Certainly food for thought. When I say that my morals are intrinsic to who I am, I mean that I would be a different person without them. The fact that I am clearly me makes my moral views some of the foundations of my personality and the way in which I see the world. That isn't to say that my morals should be everyone else's. I don't think you can force your ethical views onto another person anyway - but I think that perhaps there are basic moral constants that are generally adhered to. Few people would argue the fact that torturing a child for fun, to use an extreme example, is in any way acceptable.
I don't think I've ever sat down and worked out precisely what my exact moral code is. I don't suppose many people actually do that. Moral fibre often seems to be almost instinctive, like knowing the difference between right and wrong. I suppose that's what I mean by saying that those values are simply a part of who I am. I guess there are certain morals that most people stick to, and I do believe there are some that should be universally applicable. But I also know that I have certain ethical principles that not everyone else sticks to, and even though I disagree with their opposing views, I would not presume to tell them that they're wrong, or that they should adopt my moral code in such instances. I personally believe that all life is to be respected, for example, even as I know that there are people who wouldn't think twice about killing a non-dangerous spider that strayed into their house, simply because they don't want it there. That view is not my own, but I wouldn't say that my view has to apply to everyone. Again, it's part of what makes me me - and isn't our individuality what makes us interesting?
As for what grounds the existence of certain objective morals (such as not torturing innocent people for enjoyment), I'm probably the wrong person to ask, as I'm not personally an atheist. I'm not actually sure what direct influence the existence of God has to such objectivity (as I said, I'd find it disappointing if people only stick to their ethical views for fear of upsetting God), but I do believe we have souls, and I do believe the universe consists of more than just atoms and molecules dancing around each other. I can see why believing that we're nothing more than mortal matter would have an effect on the reasoning behind people's morals. But I don't believe this myself, and I suppose that worldview does affect my ethical practices. I believe we have a spiritual responsibility to each other and the world around us... I guess that's the simplest way I can put it.
I wouldn't presume to declare my nature more or less moral than another person's. My morals are absolutely right for me - I couldn't declare that they're completely right for someone else. But obviously there are extreme examples which are hard to deny. I think I'm probably a more moral person than Hitler was, for example. But I'm sure he wasn't completely devoid of moral fibre. He probably loved his mum. He probably took care of his pets. He just placed his moral priorities in a different order to that of most ethically-minded people, and ended up viewed as a horribly immoral person due to his hideous acts.
I agree that we all have flaws in our moral character. I also agree that we should try to be honest with ourselves in order to recognise those flaws and change them. There is always room to grow and change. I consider life to be a series of lessons... what's the point if you don't learn from them?
Hi Skywolf,
Your candor is admirable. Thanks.
I think your view that people do good in order to avoid upsetting God needs to be reexamined. Certainly some people (including many self-proclaimed Christians) operate that way, living in constant fear of God's anger if they do something bad. But this really is not the Christian view.
Jesus spent much of his time hanging out with people who had made a mess out of their lives, people who had made really bad choices, and Jesus told them, "Hey, God thinks you're wonderful. He loves you no matter what." Jesus communicated this most powerfully by actually spending quality time with them, treating them as friends, while everyone else in society shunned them. And it was this unique love of Jesus that transformed their heart and lit a fire in their soul that led them to give their whole lives in passionate love for him.
God's unique love is the driving force behind Christian ethics. Not fear. There is no fear in the Christian life, because there is nothing we can do to cause him to love us any less. The Christian is free to question God, doubt him, complain about what he is doing, to be as honest with him as possible, without fear that he is going to send a plague to smite him/her. 40% of the Psalms are complaints to God.
Does God love those who do not love him? Absolutely. But he's not going to force himself into their lives if they don't want him there. A man might love a woman with everything he's got, but if she does not want anything to do with him, he is not justified to kidnap her and keep her as his slave against her will. He would be a crminal. And so would God if he forced people to live with him against their will.
What do you think Kevin?
Mike
I appreciate your thoughts too, Mike. :)
I don't actually think that the majority of Christians live moral lives for fear of God's wrath... I just think that the view Kevin mentioned, that atheists are, by nature, immoral, fuels an unhealthy view that theists are only moral because God tells them they should be. I know of many Christians who wouldn't dream of taking this view, but often there seems to be an underlying implication that this may be happening.
My Christian background certainly told me that God would love me no matter what I did; that his love is unconditional and pure regardless of human fallibility. But my own personal background also taught me that, despite this love for all of humanity, God fully intended to send huge numbers of people to Hell. I know this view only becomes extreme in certain denominations of the church, but my own upbringing certainly emphasised it. So, even though I believed God loved me, I also believed that he would send me to a place of eternal suffering if I didn't follow him. This contradiction now astounds me. So I would argue that there is definitely fear in the Christian life - not in all sectors of Christian life, by any means, but in certain sectors, there is a taught fear that runs very deep.
The whole area of morality is also something that I’ve been working through since I left the faith, and although I think I’ve made some progress, I can’t claim that I’ve reached a place of absolute certainty with the whole issue. So in this regard I’m in the same boat as Skywolf. But the following is a summary of some of my thoughts.
Why do I still adhere to conventional morals? I think that the reason can be divided in two parts. The first part has to do with my own actions that have an affect on me personally. I can eat healthy, exercise, or work to strengthen my relationship with my wife. Or, I can abuse drugs, get totally drunk every night, or sleep around on a regular basis. Some might think that because I’m an atheist I will engage in all sorts of immoral behaviour. But I don’t. And the question is: why don’t I?
Well, I don’t engage in this kind of immoral behaviour simply because it is not reasonable. I can see the results of drug abuse, the pain and hardship that it causes. I value my body and I don’t like pain – so the reasonable thing to do is not to abuse drugs. I’ve seen how infidelity has caused families to break apart; so I don’t sleep around because I value the relationship I have with my wife. In other words, I don’t do certain things because – although they might provide some form of instant gratification – those actions will eventually destroy those things that I value.
The problem with this idea? Well, something that seems ‘reasonable’ to me might not seem ‘reasonable’ to someone else. And someone else’s value system might be totally different to mine. I’m still working through this issue.
The second part of my reason for living ‘morally’ has to do with my role in society and my interaction with other people. But I think I will stop here. I don’t want to give too much away of what I’m planning to write in the Christian-atheist dialogue on morality ;-)
Thank you Mike, Skywolf and others for your excellent comments on this post. It has spurred thinking – and that is always a good thing.
Hi again to Skywolf and Kevin,
It is truly a joy to discuss these things in a warm and reasonable tone isn't it? Thanks you two.
Skywolf writes:
"My Christian background certainly told me that God would love me no matter what I did; that his love is unconditional and pure regardless of human fallibility. But my own personal background also taught me that, despite this love for all of humanity, God fully intended to send huge numbers of people to Hell. I know this view only becomes extreme in certain denominations of the church, but my own upbringing certainly emphasised it. So, even though I believed God loved me, I also believed that he would send me to a place of eternal suffering if I didn't follow him. This contradiction now astounds me."
The idea that God "sends" people to hell needs to be looked at again. I don't see it that way. I believe that people actually choose to be in hell rather than heaven. Yes, I know that sounds strange, and it needs explanation.
Picture it this way. God is offering his love to each person. It's unconditional. It's an eternal offer. What does God want from us? Love. REAL love, not duty, not forced servitude, not flattery. God just simply wants us to want him. If we don't want him, well, he's not going to force us to be with him. Picture heaven as God's house, God's community, where people love him and enjoy his company forever. If you don't want this, if God is unappealing to you, than he is not going to kidnap you kicking and screaming and force you to be there. Hell is populated by people who don't want God, and it's described as a horrible place "with weeping and gnashing of teeth" because life apart from God is inevitably miserable.
You may argue that life now without him is not that bad. But remember that your life now is not completely apart from God. God's goodness permeates this world in all kinds of ways, but in hell this will not be the case. But consider this: It is entirely possible that people in hell would actually rather be there than to be with God, because God is unappealing to them. They don't believe that God is good. People often choose misery over bliss because they don't believe that the alternative choice will actually be bliss. Take the drug addict for example.
A fascinating book that makes the same argument I am making here is "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis. It is a fictional story about a group of people in hell who get a chance to visit heaven for one day. Most of the people who visit are repulsed by heaven. They don't like it. They would rather live in hell. One of these people is a biblical scholar who leads a Bible study in hell! I was gripped by this story that I read it all in one day. It's a short book.
Now you may ask, "Why would God create people knowing that they will not want him and reside in hell forever?" If you want to discuss this question I would be glad to discuss it with you.
Mike
I would certainly ask that question. But I would also question the very existence of Hell in terms of a loving God. As you say, perhaps people do make the choices that eventually lead them to Heaven or Hell as opposed to God directly 'sending' them there, but to me, that's a simple matter of phrasing. Christians believe that we are given free will by God... in that case, yes, he must give us the choice to be with him or not. But I would question why an eternally loving, forgiving God would create a place of eternal suffering in the first place?
Let's say you have a child, whom you love unconditionally. You have created a beautiful home in which that child can live with you, in peace, safety, and love forever. But, for some reason, you have also created a place of pain and terror, to which that child will have to go if he chooses not to live in your beautiful home with you. Firstly, I would suggest that you are blackmailing your child into living with you, making it so certain that he will suffer unimaginable pain for the rest of his life if he doesn't accept you.
But the child wishes to explore his own mind. He doesn't want to live with you. He would prefer to take his chances with the eternal suffering on the other side of your front door. He rejects your love and sanctitude, and even rejects you. This may hurt you, but you still love him. You love him more than anything that has ever been. You'd die for him. And yet, you would still let him walk out the door of your home of light, love, and safety, straight in to a maw of pain and suffering? Surely, if you have a child who you would do anything for, you would do everything in your power to prevent him going to that awful place. You'd lock him in his room. You'd restrain him if necessary. You'd know that no matter what restraints you put on him, even to the point of removing his free will, it would still be infinitely preferable to a life of excruciating torture.
Parents of determined drug addicts have done more for their children. Why would God not do the same for his?
...I apologise for getting so off the original topic here! But yes, it is so great to be able to discuss these things in a sensible, rational way.
wow.... and kevin hasn't even addressed the question of morality in his dialogue.....
I noticed a few years back that all of stipulations in the bible regarding morality had a lot to do with what was beneficial, or reasonable, as kevin put it, to society. God said "don't kill, don't steal....etc " and low and behold, killing and stealing are antisocial behaviours that are a detriment to society. I have yet to find a satisfying scripture that tells me not to do drugs, but it's generally understood that christians condemn that behaviour. Why? because it's counterproductive to a healthy life. This led me to separate my view of morality from my view of God. Though I may believe in God, I think that "He" simply wants us to live healthy, beneficial lives and gives us some logical suggestions in order to do that.
as for hell, I'm with skywolf.... I think. My rejection of hell has made the rest of my belief in God make a lot more sense. Not only that, but I don't find adequate biblical evidence to support the "conventional" idea of what hell is.
Skywolf and Ursa have raised some important problems with the traditional view of hell. My biggest problem with hell – as far as I understand the traditional view of salvation – is the gross injustice underlining the whole idea. Hell is an unlimited punishment for a limited crime. And what is the crime? It is not murder, rape, dishonesty or any other kind of evil. The crime is simply the victimless action of unbelief. A serial killer, who has caused much pain and suffering, can get into heaven if he believes and accepts Jesus’ love. A good, honest hardworking atheist – who contributes positively to society – is destined for hell simply because she does not believe in the claims of Christianity. To me, the whole traditional concept of divine punishment seems ridiculously excessive.
Hi all,
Good discussion. You brought up some good points to consider. Here is my thinking in response...
Skywolf's analogy of the child living in a parent's home. Good, challenging analogy. You said that a parent who loves his (I'll just use "his" for simplicity sake) child will do anything for the child, even die for him. This is precisely what the Christian believes God did for us. Jesus endured unimaginable suffering (the "Passion" shows this well) in order to capture our heart, show us what it means to reject our own Creator (Let's at least pursue the seriousness of this offense), and woo us back into God's loving arms. God did do everything he could - without overriding our free will. Just think, once free will is taken away, so is love. God knew what the risk was, but he chose to have real love rather than robots. This is the price.
Kevin, you wrote: "Hell is an unlimited punishment for a limited crime. And what is the crime? It is not murder, rape, dishonesty or any other kind of evil. The crime is simply the victimless action of unbelief." I don't think you have a firm grip on the nature of the crime. It is not just sheer unbeief in the existence of God. From God's perspective - and let's just suppose for a moment that God does exist - from God's perspective you are turning your back on his love. Consider Skywolf's analogy. God loves you more than you could ever know, and he wants so desperately for you to live with him and enjoy his company forever... and you say, "No thanks." You say, "Not enough evidence. I'm not convinced." I think God might disagree. I think God might reply, "Not enough evidence? My child... There must be some other reason you don't want to be with me."
Now I know that you honestly and sincerely do not believe that there is enough evidence, and/or that there is good counter-evidence. But just consider hypothetically, what if God really does exist? What if Jesus really did die and rise again? Preposterous, I know some of you say. But let's pretend. From God's perspective, he has given sufficient evidence, and whoever rejects this evidence must have their reasons...
People like to talk about motives for believing things. We have all heard arguments that Christians believe in God because of the need for a father figure, or that fundamentalist Christians reject evolution because they're afraid of the implications... And then Christians lob back arguments like "athiests don't believe in God because they hated their earthly father" or "atheists don't want to believe in God because they want to live according to their own rules." This back and forth attack on our motives usually doesn't get anywhere does it. It's a stalemate... However, we all must introspect and examine our motives for believing and not believing. There is no purely objective human being capable of making 100% accurate judgments on everything. We all must come face to face with our own heart as best as we can so that we can make as accurate a judgment as possible. I must do it. You must do it. The fundamentalist must do it. The agnostic must do it. And this is an ongoing project throughout our lives.
One last thing. I think people assume that hell will be a place where people DON'T want to be... What if people actually prefer it to heaven? What if God would open heaven's doors anytime for anyone in hell... But they refuse? Isn't this possible? Consider the choices people make in our world now, refusing peace for war, refusing sobriety for the "buzz", refusing their family for a more independent lifestyle...
Thanks again for discussing this with me.
Sorry but I have a few more (brief - thank God!) thoughts...
Hell is not really a place that God created. It's more of a state of heart. It is an inevitable condition given free will. I really think we need to take free will seriously. Thinking again about Skywolf's analogy, the child who wants to get out is basically saying, "I don't want to be with you! Let me go!" And according to Skywolf, God would have to say, "No, I will not let you." The child keeps pushing, "Let me go! Let me go!" And God finally says, "Nope, and I'm going to now have to remove your free will in order to make you stay." But this removal of the will is essentially a destruction of the person. It's turning the person "off." It's pulling the plug. Hell is a state of heart where God says, "Okay, I'll leave you alone." And remember, it's entirely possible that the offer to live with God is always there.
GK Chesterton said, "I will not complain because there are no two ways to enter Heaven, I will thank God that there is at least one."
I agree with Mike's point, Hell is not a punishment for good people who do a few things wrong. Hell is a choice for people who do not want God.
Let's look at Heaven. No one actually deserves Heaven. Christ went through Hell, experiencing separation from God, so that we do not have to. Now, that's not fair.
If you turn from God, who or what do you turn to? I disagree that atheism is the absence of a belief; it is the rejection of belief.
This is the great problem with atheism. It affirms the negative in the absolute (contradiction), arguing there is no God. But, what is there? I believe the article you posted, What an Atheist ought to stand for, nicked the surface of the problem, but Richard Carrier only identifies the problem. He recognized that atheists are clear in what they are against, but unclear in what they support. Unfortunately, he then procedes to argue, quite irrationally, that atheists stand for doubt. So, you stand for being against.
I have indeed heard it theorised that Hell is not a physical place at all, but more of a state of mind that can exist in the absence of God. This, I can accept more readily than the idea of an actual place where the soul goes when it dies, as opposed to reaching Heaven. But most Christians I have come across do believe in Hell as an actual place - as the opposite of Heaven. If you believe that Hell isn't actually a place created by God, but a 'state of heart', then what makes Heaven any different? Or perhaps it doesn't. I still love the idea of Heaven (who wouldn't?), but I'm not sure I can accept it as an actual physical place of pure joy and perfection, with everything you love around you for all of eternity. Perhaps Heaven, too, is more of a state of mind that can be eventually attained? And if it's possible to find oneself in Hell and yet still have the option to accept God and therefore reach Heaven, what is the point behind the Christian ideas of salvation and evangelism?
I think I agree with Tichius that atheism is not the absence of belief. If you believe that there is no God, then that's a belief, surely? But as for it being the rejection of belief, I'm not so sure. Although I've heard it from many atheists, I've never quite understood the connection between not believing in God and therefore not believing in anything else either. I can understand the atheist's position that God doesn't exist. I don't follow it, because I still feel that there's something bigger than us out there, even if I can't identify it. But I do have difficulty with the belief that life is no more than animated matter, and once a living thing dies, it completely ceases to exist.
My best friend considers herself an atheist. She doesn't believe in God. But she believes in a lot of other things. She doesn't automatically reject the idea of an eternal soul because she rejects the idea of a supreme being. So why is there this assumption that atheists reject all beliefs just because they reject one?
Hi Lui,
In reading a previous post you wrote about consciousness, I believe you said that consciousness poses a problem for materialism.
If you read the latest literature about consciousness from the top philosophers of mind, such as Jaegwon Kim, Colin McGinn, John Searle, Paul Churchland - all of whom are materialists and thus atheists - none of them has anywhere near a plausible account of the existence of consciousness. Some like Kim basically say that consciousness doesn't exist. Some like McGinn say that our brains do not allow us to discover how the brain produces consciousness, and so it will always remain a mystery. Some like Searle say that there is no problem, just believe that the brain produces consciousness and get on with other things. I do not see how any of these accounts provide a better explanation of consciousness than does substance dualism - or more popularly, "the soul".
The evidence for "no soul" boils down to showing how certain mental events can be correlated to certain brain activity in certain parts of the brain. This part of the brain is involved with these kinds of mental events and this part for those and so on. Now it is very important to note that these are simply correlations. When this thought happens, this brain event happens. That's fine, but how is a brain event (neurons firing) the same exact thing as my thought about a cat for example? They have different properties. Colin McGinn points out this problem in his book "The Mysterious Flame" with a humorous story about aliens who cannot understand how humans think with a brain made of meat. "Thinking meat! Impossible!" The aliens proclaim.
Mere correlation does not entail identity. We know that the brain and our mental events are obviously connected somehow, but this does not rule out substance dualism by any means. It might rule out "ghost in a box" forms of dualism, but there are other forms out there like Thomistic dualism. Just some food for thought.
Hi Lui,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. The findings on the correlations between the brain and mental events that you mentioned are still mere correlations - this happens when this happens - and we still have no idea how meat can produce consciousness, if in fact it even does produce it. I don't think the analogy of the machine/computer eliminates the problem, precisely because machines are not conscious. We can conceive of Zombies moving around and talking and doing things, and yet they are not conscious. I suggest looking into the issue of "qualia" in the field of consciousness. Colin McGinn's book "The Mysterious Flame" discusses this well. Qualia refer to the properties of mental states that describe "what it is like" to have a mental state. E.g., what it is like to see red - this cannot be reduced to an array of neurons firing. This is where the problem really comes to a head for the materialist.
Perhaps the most convincing argument for the soul is first-person awareness of oneself. Introspection. You may believe that we can be deceived by our brain to think that we have a soul... but this deception scenario gets really sticky when you start wondering, "What (or who?) is doing the deceiving? How can meat falsely create a 'Me'" I just think that it's more likely that there is a person there that I am "seeing."
Is it possible that we reject the soul because we are afraid of the implications?
Kevin, please feel free to tell me if there is an unspoken "limit" or boundary to posts here. I realize I have written a lot.
Hi Mike
Keep on typing! There is no limit to the number of comments that can be posted by any person. One of the reasons why I began this blog was to create a place where individuals of different beliefs (atheists, theists, agnostics, etc) could enter into respectful dialogue over those questions that humankind has been asking for thousands of years. I've found the discussion on this post absolutely fascinating, and much of what you have written (as well as Tichius, eddie, lui, SuperSkpetic, skywolf and others) on various posts has given me much to think about.
I appreciate all the discussion, and I’m sure many other readers share the same sentiment.
As long as it is respectful, and as long as it is on topic, write as much as you like.
By the way, forgive me if I don't respond to every discussion, or if I take a bit of time to respond to specific questions - I have limited internet access at the moment.
Hi Lui,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I really do believe that given a very significant amount of evidence for God's existence, that this makes the case for the soul very strong amongst the alternatives. And when I say evidence for God's existence, I do not mean deductive proofs that leave no room for doubt, but I mean evidences where we make an inference to the best explantion. I say this because most of the so-called "debunking" of arguments for God's existence treat them as deductive proofs, and people think that just providing a seemingly plausible alternative worldview is adequate to destroy these theistic arguments. But if we treat theistic arguments as inferences to the best explanation, and if we look at the cumulative case as a whole, it is a very strong case IMO.
You mentioned genetics (DNA) in your discussion of Darwin. DNA strands are, in reality, codes, or information - a MASSIVE amount of information - and I think we all know that minds produce codes. We can't sweep this under the conceptual rug of natural selection. Natural selection just does not have the conceptual resources to account for information in a purely physical world.
A lot of hoopla is made out of "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, and often rightfully so, but I often encounter "naturalism-of-the-gaps" arguments too, especially when it comes to consciousness.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Hi Lui,
Why don't we take a few steps back, and ask ourselves, "What exactly is natural selection?" What is driving it? What is behind it? If, as you say, we ought to think that genes are not for the organism but the organism for genes, what is driving genes to "want" to replicate themselves? Can we just say that genes are "survival machines" and be done thinking about it? Just label the gene "selfish" and be done with it? But WHY do they want to survive? Are they programmed to have this survival drive, and if so, for what purpose? Is mere "survival" an adequate purpose to account for the existential questions humans have? Should we just stop asking these questions and say, "It just happens." Is this the same thing as saying, "It's magic"? How about the very basic question... "Why are these molecules MOVING and DOING things like they KNOW exactly what they are doing... Is it just magic?" No, it's biology you say. It's evolution. It's natural selection... Do these concepts provide us with any more than the idea of magic when it comes to these questions? This is what I mean when I say that natural selection does not have the conceptual resources to deal with these questions. Natural selection must be able to provide answers to teleological (purpose) questions in order to have adequate explanatory power. Natural selection can only take us so far. I think we need to go farther.
You bring up "junk DNA" and "messy" genetics, but I am not arguing that the design is perfect. This is a common counter-argument to design (i.e., point out imperfections in biology), but it is a straw man. We're not saying the design is perfect. We're just saying, "Hey look, there's information here (and a LOT of it). What's the best explanation? Well, an intelligent mind seems to be the best explanation." And the messiness of it actually fits into the Christian worldview quite nicely, because the Christian believes that the physical world was thrown for a loop because of humanity's rebellion against God - "creation was subjected to frustration" and longs to "be set free from its slavery to corruption" as Paul says in Romans 8:19. As in chaos theory, one little miscue affected everything else, like dominoes. The world exists as this strange conglomeration of marvelous beauty/order and horrible "messiness"/disorder - like a beautiful painting that someone has sprayed graffiti on. Do you see something like this when you see the world? Do you ever wonder why the world is like this? Just curious.
Hi Lui,
Well, I appreciate your biology lessons on evolution/natural selection, but I think we are approaching these problems from two different disciplines - I from philosophy and you from biology. These discipines must work together, but it seems to me like you are confining yourself to the realm of biology without addressing deeper, metaphysical questions. There is philosophy OF science... Science must rely on philosophy in order to provide complete explanations.
I don't know if you are aware of the doubts from many (if not most) evolutionary biologists about natural selection as the catch-all solution to all our biological quandries. There is much infighting as to whether natural selection alone can account for everything. I believe you hinted at this as well. I am not saying that natural selection does not occur, but what I am saying is that it is not enough. It seems to me that natural selection does its wonders with the pieces already in place. But where did these pieces come from? And why? Dennett and Dawkins have not had the last word on this issue, so it is not adequate to quote them and move on.
I suppose my fundamental intuition on this is whether or not atoms and molecules and electrons etc. can produce teleology all by themselves. Aren't we dealing with just physical, mindless, "stuff"? Often it seems when we describe the evolutionary process we borrow from the metaphysical resources of design and mind. Can we say that physical stuff has "goals" and "purposes" and "information"? This is a philosophical question, not biological.
Here is something interesting to think about. A theist can also be an evolutionist. But can an atheist be a creationist? Apparently not. Evolution is the only game in town for the atheist, which means that it must be defended at all costs.
Hi Lui,
P.S. I will investigate some of the books you mentioned. Have you looked into any of Demski's writing on information theory? He argues that that the mathematical models (the ones I think you have been alluding to) of the evolutionary process are fine and good as long as they start with some information input. The models themselves do not originate information, they just describe the flow of information. What do you think?
Hi Lui,
I would look into intelligent design. And please do not allow the "creationist" association to get in the way. ID is not "creationism" in disguise... ID is not anti-evolution, it is a challenge to naturalism/atheism. There are ID theorists who are agnostics, Catholics, and almost every religion in the world. And it was ID that convinced atheist Antony Flew to become a deist.
I would ask you to take seriously the possibility that creationists and ID theorists are not the only ones capable of propaganda, distortion, dismissal, being blase about peer review, and basically being biased about the evidence. Consider that the current scientific establishment is dominated by naturalists/materialists. ID is in the minority. The way that evolutionists were treated in the past by the creationist establishment is the exact same way that ID theorists are being treated today. Frankly, I think that it is rather arrogant to believe that the naturalist establishment is handling things with utmost integrity, incapable of being unfair and biased. This is just a naive idealism of human character. I also ask you to reread Dawkins and see if you can see any arrogance. After reading some myself it is evident that he is not a purely objective judge in the realm of ideas, but a prophet for atheism. Sure, there are fundamentalist Christians who are using ID to push their creationist agenda, but aren't there atheists who are dong the same thing with evolution?
Demski and others present hardcore mathematical arguments in the field of information theory that are frankly being largely ignored. I believe because of this "creationist" label that ID has very unfairly gotten from the establishment. And Demski is not against natural selection, he just argues that it is not enough to explain everything. Behe has received much dialogue probably because his idea of irreducible complexity is a bit easier to grasp. But the arguments that ID is presenting are not going away because they are not being seriously challenged. The challenges basically consist of alternative scenarios that are merely speculative without hardcore scientific evidence - "Just-so" stories as they are called. The challenges really look like a defense of naturalism at all costs and not a noble attempt to understand the arguments being made. We ALL must be willing to hold our worldviews with open hands, regardless of whether we LIKE the evidence or not. Theists mst do this when it comes to the evidence for evolution, and atheists and agnostics must do this when it comes to ID.
About philosophy. Lui, philosophy comes prior to science by definition. That's just the way things are. We can't even do science without starting with certain philosophical assumptions, for example, that the universe is governed by unchanging laws across the board, that numbers exist, that we have cognitive access to these laws, that what we observe is really real. Did you know that Isaac Newton did not believe that his formulae for gravity was gravity itself, but he believed that the force of gravity was the Holy Spirit. What is force? What are natural laws? Why are natural laws the mathematical constants that they are? What is matter? Why is matter ordered the way it is and not another way? Where did this all come from?
Lui these questions matter. I think you believe this, but then it seems that you are content with thinking that these questions are irrelevant to reality. But I would say that the fact that we ask these questions, and that we care deeply about these questions, suggests that there are answers to these questions somewhere. It would be an odd world if we found ourselves with desires/questions that had no fulfillment. You and Dawkins and others may be perfectly content with living in a meaningless world, but I would suggest that your presence in these discussions betrays a contentment. You are interested in this stuff. You can explain away this interest as a strange evolutionary bi-product, or you can belive that there are answers for our interests.
You are truly an intelligent, respectable person. You have inspired me to learn more about biology. I hope that you will continue to grow and learn, and pursue these philosophical questions. Read the best from both sides of the issue. Thanks for the mind-stretching dialogue.
Hi Lui,
lol, I can't leave this discussion!
I wanted to address the idea that design would stunt scientific progress, because it's common to say as you did that if we say, "God did it" then there's no more work to be done. But this is so not true. It is well documented that the modern scientific enterprise was driven by people who yearned to understand the order of the universe that they believed God established. Their scientfic quest was driven by a desire to discover "the mind of God" which they believed was so huge that we would always continually be learning more. This is true of design as well, because rather than stopping and saying "Wow, God did it" the ID person is driven to keep exploring the complexity, order, and beauty. And in fact, ID has spurred on an intense investigation into biochemistry, cellular biology, information theory, and everything surrounding the evolutionary process.
Could it be that naturalism stunts scientific progress? How? By saying, "We must find a naturalistic, law-like explanation, and NO OTHER EXPLANATION can be considered." This is truly confining. Not only that, but if your worldview is that this universe really has no meaning, what is the motivation for trying to understand a meaningless universe? If you believe that there is rich, infinitely vast, beautiful meaning in this universe, as the theist does, this seems to me like a much more compelling motivation for scientific research.
Post a Comment