Gosh darn it

Still haven’t order parts. Anyways, wrote out a very long explanation of what I’ve come up with so far in my struggle with religious thought. I’ll just copy-paste my latest correspondence with my Uncle (with some minor additions).

—

So, the fundamental question is whether God exists, and why do I think so (or not)?

In response to your first question, I have no answer; I cannot count myself as a Christian, because I can’t say, in good faith, that Jesus was God; however, I can’t say take the atheist position that God simply does not exist (since it requires about the same measure of faith, in a way, to say with certainty that God does not exist). The agnostic position, where people say it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, is also a bit too certain: perhaps you could say I’m a meta-agnostic, where I don’t know if it is possible to know whether God exists (you could also call me human).

For the second part of the question, for easy reference, I’m splitting up arguments into two parts, excluding only those that are espcially terrible. Also, I’m including a relevant counter-argument for each argument (although it might not be the best counter I have).

PRO-GOD

Lewis, from Shared Cultural Morality
In at least one book of his (perhaps the problem of pain?), Lewis cites the similarities in morality that undergrids any culture, which in turn points to a certain inherent morality present in all humans: this points to a ‘moral law’, which strongly suggests, if not the Christian God, then some god. Counters can be made from sociology, where the human race as a whole originated from a spot, and society retains the morality to keep it upright (instead of being inherent in individuals, ‘written on their hearts’).

Lewis, from Miracles
From his book Miracles, Lewis argues from causality that if our ultimate origins are not rational, then there is no reason to believe that we ourselves are rational, and therefore it is meaningless to say anything, including ‘Our origins are in the big bang, and nothing else’. The only way to retain a basis for our own reason is by accepting that we originate from something rational, or a god. Counters can be made that one can be a naturalist (rejecting the supernatural) and also reject determinism as something inherent in the universe, one crux that Lewis depends on. Also, it is hard to say whether or not particles can be rational (a question on the nature of rationality).

Archaeological
The Gospels, as a whole, showed up around 200 years after the events in Jesus’ lifetime (fragments did start appearing around a 100 years after the event). This is an extremely short time in archaeology; other copies are accepted as near originals, despite being made almost a thousand years from about the time the original was written. Also, the dead sea scrolls verify the authenticity of the Old Testament, and remains of Biblical cities have been found. An obvious counter can be made: whereas no one bases a life and death decisions on the writings of Homer, one stakes an infinite amount of joy or torment on the writings of a book (fully) recovered 200 years after the fact.

ID (Intelligent Design)
Basic watch-maker argument. This one doesn’t matter quite as much to me, at least when I was in the church: if evolution was true, then it was a God controlled evolution, and God’s will be done. In the end, I spent a great deal of time with this, and I just don’t care what the ID side says anymore.

POST-GOD

Occam’s Razor
Originally used to boost faith in God, Occam (a priest or monk) said that ‘one should not multiply entities unnecessarily’ (something like that) or, essentially, take the simplest route possible (once you allowed one subjunctive, you would invite the whole family). Since nothing in the world necessitates God (obviously, tangible miracles were not a big part of Occam’s day-to-day), we can consider God as unnecessary baggage (then, it requires *more* faith to believe in Him). Since it’s more of a principle, I’ll leave this one alone.

Scientific Worldview
Nietzche – God is Dead, meaning that the world didn’t need God anymore; he isn’t necessary for our day to day function. It’s fairly straightforward. Counter depends on whether or not ID turns out to be true or not, although you could make an argument from decadence (we need religion to keep us socially in line, although this is a terrible line of reasoning, a subversion of religion into a means to a less-glorious end).

Problem of Evil
Evil is in the world: since God is omnipresent, all-powerful, and all-good, he cannot allow suffering in his world to happen. Countering immediately can take an appeal to the difference in nature between God and his humans, where our own petty morality/reasoning does not comprehend His (Counter-countering can come from accepting Lewis’ argument from Miracles: if God is the basis for our reason, shouldn’t we at least be able to begin to understand him? Counter-counter-counter in short: not really). Also, the best-of-all-possible-worlds can be invoked, where what we think would be the happiest world for us (no suffering) would not really be the best-of-all-possible-worlds, and instead there must be at least a modicum of suffering (or a huge dollop, as we see it in our world) to season life (to use a terrible culinary metaphor).

Hypocrisy (kind of)
Molesting priests are a case in point: also, the pastors that were dropping from scandals recently, and the insignificant difference between how non-Christians and Christians (at least in America) act. If someone is seeking change, something real, then Christianity seems to be lacking. One could immediately (and cold heartedly) counter that a whole lot of people are going to hell. Another line is through human nature: everyone fails, it’s just the grace of God that seperates Christians from the non (sola gratia, if one is into that. Or confession, if one is into that).

Supposed contradictions of the Bible
A big contradiction is the switch between personalities in the cranky Old Testament God, versus the compassionate New Testament God. Counter: God *does* have many faces/emotions, and he may have been trying to make a point in the Old Testament that would not have been taken as seriously otherwise (that we’re screwed up, and he’s a rightgeous God). I can’t find any other contradictions that can’t be explained (albeit, it would help to be ‘inside’ Christianity, but they can be at least tenuously explained).

LEMMAS (various points that I would like to comment on)

Absolute Truth
‘Truth is relative’ is self-defeating. However, it’s very self-defeating nature can work for it, since it is essentially the same thing as claiming ‘most truth is relative’. Defining truth, then, becomes the main task.

Congruence of Religions (obvious, but for clarity and completeness)
All religions cannot be the same: a simple comparison between two religions (the right ones, anyways) shows that the fundamentals of each are not compatible with the other. Ex. Christianity – Way to God is through Jesus; Islam – Way to God is through the 5 Pillars (among other things (for both)).

Prophecies of Jesus
When one doesn’t take the veracity of the New Testament for granted, nothing about ‘Jesus fulfilling this or that prophecy’ carries weight. Same line of reasoning goes for the resurrection as proof for the veracity of Christianity.

Matyrdom
Well, people die for God. Counter: people die for many things.

Faith is required for merely living
You can’t be certain that the exterior world exists, so you need to have faith (unless you accept Descarte’s second postulate (his first being I think, therefore I am), which I don’t). Therefore, faith is not nearly so much the boogeyman as athiests make it out to be. Counter: faith in, say, a plank of wood to not plunge you 30 stories to your death, is quite different from
faith that you won’t get sent to some other God’s hell (This also ties into Pascal’s Wager, below).

Pascal’s Wager
The if you are a believer, you have an infinite gain if your religion turns out to be true, and a small ‘loss’ if false. If you are a non-believer, you have an infinite loss if religion turns out to be true, and only a small gain if false. Counter: introducing other religions just screws everything up. Plus, this is a terrible reason to believe in a religion.

So, that’s all I have to say for now. There is somewhat of a slant to the opposition to God, but that might be expected. If you have arguments that carry water, please put them in the comments, and thanks for reading.