It is a cheap sentiment of the New Atheism that one might discuss “god” like one would discuss fairies; just mere figments of imagination, characters in a novel, maybe, but without there being any a priori methods of discerning their reality. Consider Luke’s words here, which I will submit as representative of this sentiment;
Bare atheism – the mere denial of theism – is a small and rather insignificant position, like the denial of the existence of fairies.
First, disbelief in the existence of God is quite a serious thing. Whether one believes in God, or disbelieves in God, opens or closes all other possibilities, such as immortality, morals, meaning, unequivocal happiness, salvation, etc. Of course some atheists will disagree about the possibility of immortality, morals, meaning, and etc, but only through a misunderstanding of those terms (i.e. “living a life in this world that doesn’t necessarily end ≠ immortality”), a lack of motivation to fulfill those categories, or the insufficiency of matter to fulfill immaterial desires. Whether or not God exists is the supreme question; for Nietzsche the choice is between God and the void, for Sartre it is between God and the nothingness, for Lovecraft it is between God and the absurd gods of the cosmos.
Belief, or disbelief, in fairies doesn’t have such a reckoning. If fairies did, or didn’t exist, it would be hard to see what principles of life become open or closed.
Second, God and fairies are quite distinct things (to put it crudely). A fairy is but an object; a temporal, contingent creature. God, on the other hand, cannot be likened to a mere object, as if He existed somewhere out there in the cosmos like a dinnerware set would. God is rather more like a principle-object; not just an object like an apple, or just a principle like logic, but the dynamic fount of existence. His existence can be proved not from empirical observation (as would a fairy), but from the reflective analysis of the principles of the world, such as the necessary inability of potential infinities to become actual infinities, the necessity of termination, the necessity of necessity, the necessity of origin, etc. No proof of God posits His existence like some sort of scientific explanation; this goes about it entirely the wrong way.
Third, there are certain things of which the denial of their reality is given a name; moral realism vs. moral nihilism, mereological realism vs. mereological nihilism, eliminative materialism vs. idealism vs. supernaturalism. If I were a moral nihilist, nobody would be apt to compare my rejection of the existence of morality to my rejection of fairies. In fact, such a comparison could only be seen as crude, as the lack of fairies doesn’t hold as great a gravity as the lack of morality.
You have noticed one thing, belief in God is demanded. If it weren’t, that God would have likely died out as soon as we realized that the earth is not flat.
It is very convenient that there is this all powerful, all knowing being, that only wants to help us, but only helps us when it’s convenient, and only as often as pure chance would allow. On top of that, if you believe you get rewarded, but if you don’t believe, even if that’s merely because you see no evidence, you get to be tortured forever after you die.
The credulous will buy into it straight off. They will teach it to their children when they are young and haven’t learned how to distinguish reality from fantasy. Those children will then grow up thinking that the default position is to believe. If anyone questions, many times, the threat of hell helps bring them back into the fold.
The whole system is a lesson in brainwashing technique, and is likely studied by the world’s secret agencies as a method to force people to believe in all sorts of nonsense.
As for God not being a being like a fairy, that does seem to be how he was in the Old Testament. He walked around the earth and spoke to people. He even mooned Moses. The idea of spirits not being solid wasn’t supportable. In fact, spirits were regularly having sex with humans.
I do agree that there is a difference between the idea of God, and fairies, and that difference is that there is no huge group of followers of fairies that will try to brainwash you into believing in them. There is no book saying that fairies will keep your soul in existence after you die, and they will torture it forever. Fairies are supposed to be able to be seen, so when you don’t see them, it causes reasonable doubt. God has evolved over time, because of the lack of people witnessing him, to be a being that not only isn’t physical and living on this earth, to one that not only doesn’t live on earth, or in the solar system, or even the galaxy. It has become necessary to pug God totally outside of “space and time”, which to me is tantamount to saying that God doesn’t exist.
Needless to say, the fact that the story told makes all sorts of grand claims, the reality experienced tells a totally different story.
I’ve read your blog… so amusing… why do you tackle things in such an unprepared manner, like the one regarding omnipotence… perhaps you should read how Aquinas defines omnipotence (hint hint) or the erronius idea you state that ‘being outsiede of time means being unable to act’ (several phisicists, in particular Cosmologists will in fact disagree with you on this I assure you).
Why intelligent people believe in God you ask… and why do stupid people believe in atheism then? :P
You say:
“It has become necessary to pug God totally outside of “space and time”, which to me is tantamount to saying that God doesn’t exist.”
Haha such ideas were thought and taught when we still knew very little about cosmology, actually, and come not only from ‘revelation’ but also from LOGIC.
To think that we thought God as ‘outside time and space’ because we learnt more about the universe is absurd simply from and historical point of view.
“The whole system is a lesson in brainwashing technique, and is likely studied by the world’s secret agencies as a method to force people to believe in all sorts of nonsense.”
Unfortunately for you this argument is severely broken as many people come to faith in their adulthood, often from atheist or agnosti backgrounds as well.
“I do agree that there is a difference between the idea of God, and fairies, and that difference is that there is no huge group of followers of fairies that will try to brainwash you into believing in them.”
I might ask: are you sure YOU are not the one brainwashed?
Your arguments are ‘stock’ of the New Atheism current, with little rhyme and reason.
Perhaps it is not the faithful who have been brainwashed, but the faithless.
It’s all good that you read things on my blog, but far from refuting anything I have said, you merely claim they have been refuted. That’s rather lazy of you.
As for me being brainwashed, that is rather difficult, unless you can say that I was brainwashed by the religion to be an atheist.
I never spoke to a single atheist until about 3 years ago, yet I have been an atheist for about 10 years. I didn’t go to atheist websites, I didn’t see atheist messages. I came to not believing totally on my own.
I started questioning how my belief was different than those that would fly planes into buildings. How they could apparently believe just as strongly in their belief system as I did in mine, yet our belief systems are incompatible, so they couldn’t both be true.
When you talk to people of different and conflicting faiths, they all have the same kinds of stories about why they believe, so there are only a few conclusions one could come to. Either they are being deceived in a very convincing manner by some force equally as powerful as God, or all belief systems are correct (which can’t be true.) or there is no god. So, in reality there are only two options.
So, how do you distinguish between something your mind is just latching on to because it feels good, but isn’t true and something your mind latches on to because it feels good and is true without having some evidence that is not dependent on your mind.
I found no way to distinguish the difference, so I decided I needed evidence. So far it’s been 10 years and I have not seen one piece of evidence or even argument that indisputably supports the existence of any god. Everything that is explained by god has either a better explanation in nature or at least as good of an explanation.
If nature can explain something, that is a better explanation than ‘magic man done it’, since we have no evidence of things working against the laws of nature, and we have no evidence of any force working with the laws of nature to form things the way they are.
So, there is no way to know that your belief is true where other’s are false without evidence, and there is no evidence that any religion is telling the truth. Without that, it would be a waste of time to follow any religion only to find out in the end you chose poorly and pissed off some other god that would torture you forever.
So, that is the process that got me to where I am. Where is there any brainwashing in that? Nobody led me down that path. I led myself for reasons that I think are obviously rational.
Over your head, Godlessons, like usual. :)
Yes, it’s me that doesn’t get it. It could never be you.
Many atheists and agnostics I’ve met (including myself when I was an agnostic) have idolatrous understandings of “God” and – rightfully – reject those idolatrous understandings and so become – unnecessary – atheists.
Rather than using their often keen intellects to become better theists and challenge the idolatrous notions well-meaning theists sometimes state, sadly many resort to atheism or agnosticism and then materialism which is ultimately meaningless.
So good work here Bryce on laying down the foundations of good theism. Whenever an atheist compared God to fairies, there is clearly idolatry going on. “God” has been reduced to a mere idol of god and then such a strawman is smashed (and rightfully so). The true God as revealed in Jesus must be taken on God’s own terms for an atheist to have a legitimate complaint.
Then such an atheist, condemned by God with a “I have no need of you,” can be justifiably condemned, having rejected the One on the cross with the atheist’s own declaration, “I have no need of you.” Having rejected Jesus, what hope then is there?
REV
While I would agree with Bryce, godlessons, that it appears you have in fact missed the mark of what he was saying (in fact, my post comment on idolatry fits with much of what you stated, your understanding of “God” seems to be an idol, not the God of Jesus)… I’d actually like to take a different approach.
And that is, reading between the lines of what you’ve written here, especially with your frequest use of “brain washing,” that there is serious pain your background. For that you’ve definitely caught my sympathy and whatever you’ve suffered at the hands of sinning theists I deeply grieve. Clearly you’ve experienced something which has caused great dissonance in your mind and life. For that I’m truly saddened.
REV
Sorry I didn’t keep track of the comments here Josh, but the reality is, I know exactly what he was saying. I may have not explained myself very well, but the fact is, God was a physical being in the old testament. That would certainly make God like a fairy in the sense that both can be seen if they exist.
As for me talking about the ‘serious pain’ I experienced, the pain was finding out that I had been lied to all my life. I talk about brainwashing because all prominent religions exemplify every step necessary in brainwashing technique. Do a little research on it and tell me I am wrong. Robert J. Lifton did studies on Korean war vets that had been brainwashed, as well as studies on cults and came up with the very list that religions use. The only thing missing was catching them young and indoctrinating them into religion before they gain the capacity to question what they are told.
The fact is, in contrast to when I was a believer, I have no conflict inside myself anymore. I have no reason to question everything I do and think I am worthless due to arbitrary rules layed out thousands of years ago, as Christianity would have you feel.
I can look at a woman lustfully as is human nature and not feel a single bit of guilt about it. I can do a ton of things that harm nobody yet are proscribed by Christianity arbitrarily.
I have reached a state of general quietude in my life, and I owe that to dropping the idea of a deity that is so insecure as to demand my attention at all. Don’t feel sympathy for me. Save that for those that have yet to drop their chains.
” may have not explained myself very well, but the fact is, God was a physical being in the old testament. That would certainly make God like a fairy in the sense that both can be seen if they exist.”
Not really.
There are often physical methaphores for God… but for the Jews God has always been an incomprehensible being, that is why Moses prohibited to make images of God, unlike the pagans who had a visible and phisical representation of the gods (well ot eve ll pagans, by the way!)
Pehaps YOU should do a little research ;)
“Do a little research on it and tell me I am wrong. Robert J. Lifton did studies on Korean war vets that had been brainwashed, as well as studies on cults and came up with the very list that religions use. ”
You lost faith and got paranoia…
I think you are being lied to NOW.
“The fact is, in contrast to when I was a believer, I have no conflict inside myself anymore. I have no reason to question everything I do and think I am worthless due to arbitrary rules layed out thousands of years ago, as Christianity would have you feel.
…
I have reached a state of general quietude in my life, and I owe that to dropping the idea of a deity that is so insecure as to demand my attention at all. Don’t feel sympathy for me. Save that for those that have yet to drop their chains.”
The same feelings often applied to psichopats.
The ‘Iceman’ who killed for the maffia also felt not giult or restrains when he killed.
I guess he’s even more free than you are then.
Unfortunately conflict is often necessary in us to discriminate between good and bad actions.
Your approach, like your reasoning is a lazy one, that requires little effort and gives nothing back (and I can see clearly that for the funny stuff you write in your blog… are you really a philosophy major or are you just telling stories?)