…And Man Created God

The dogmatic supposition that God is invented by man to explain where rain comes from, to justify and hold power over others, or to escape harsh realities, is not relevant to whether religious language belongs in public discourse.

Thomas Jefferson for example said famously and effectively: "I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of men".

The hearer can readily ascertain that Jefferson's statement does not depend upon the actual existence of an "altar", or of the afterlife (eternity). Literal theological belief is not necessary to the political effectiveness of the statement.

In fact, it is clear that Jefferson's use of religious language does not have a specifically religious or theological intention at all - its competence is all political. Indeed, Jefferson can easily be interpreted as vowing his irreconcilable abhorrence against the imposition of an orthodox conception of God, or of truth, law or authority in any form, unless it is with the approval of his conscience.

This illustrates why religious language is arguably, inevitably the language best suited for expressing the most universally shared political principles. For example, we have "In God we Trust" on our currency - what does this mean? Again, this is not a theological statement, but a political one.

Certainly it invokes our heritage as a vaguely religious people by referring to God with a kind of unitarian non-specificity. But more to its point, the slogan expresses positively our principles of liberty which we otherwise could only express negatively. This is not merely poetic. It is a direct statement of what we believe about how "we" stand under any earthly authority. We are not the slaves of those who rule us, or worshipers of mammon.

Again and again you will find that religious language is useful to express civic principles in a rich and evocative way, without requiring actual theological belief, orthodox or otherwise.

Spinoza, Rousseau, Robespierre, Lock, Madison and other secularist heroes all invoke God, justice, providence, values, truth, rights, etc., with political rather than theological meaning.

The point is this: if the unorthodox will use religious language to speak allegorically of political realities, don't you see that the orthodox will also speak in political parables, so that their political beliefs can be understood without requiring you to believe theologically?

Thanks for the great response and frankly, I don't disagree with you. But I don't think invoking god means an argument, by itself, is religious in nature.

Your example from Jefferson doesn't refute the point I am trying to make because Jefferson is not relying on religous belief to justify a political argument. His statement is a statement against tyranny using an oath "on the altar of God" to reinforce the point. If, on the other hand, he had said that he is against tyranny because his god told him so, my argument would remain the same.

I am not against religious speech. I am not against theological statements. I am not against invoking god or religion in daily discourse (by the orthodox or the unorthodox). I am not one of those secularists who think "In God We Trust" or "Under God" are religious statements. Those are not the statements I refer to when I ask that we remove religous language from political discourse.

I simply believe that political arguments should avoid religious justification whenever possible because, to reach the widest possible audience, it's necessary to use reason and evidence to justify a position. Don't, for example, tell me that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Instead, provide evidence that traditional marriage is preferred because children benefit from having both a mother and a father.

Conservatism is the best political ideology, and reason and evidence prove this out time and time again. I think the religious and secular can agree on this point.

-tsc

Your blog seems reasonably intelligent.(given that I'm the smartest person I know, take that as a compliment!)

A question for you:


What is the difference between the "Big Bang" and "Let there be Light"?

Thanks for stopping by, BadCandie. I have no idea what the difference is between the big bang and "let there be light."

For all I know, there is no difference and one is the religious explanation for the natural event. I'd have to ask how "let there be light" came into human mythology since presumably there were no humans around at the time of the big bang.

It may also be a simple coincidence and one may have nothing to do with the other. For example, do you assume that the big bang would emit light?

Anyway, do you have a particular reason for asking your question? Would you like to add some context?

-tsc

I don't think it is possible to contemplate the existence of the universe and human intelligence without accepting certain preconditions as matters of faith.

Infinity is beyond human comprehension. If there is no God, we must believe that the universe arose from nothing at all. This takes a huge leap of faith.

You state:

God is an explanation for the unexplainable.

You could have said: Life makes sense only if God exists.


I prefer the second!


You state:

God is a useful tool to those who seek to obtain or hold power.


Ideology is a powerful motivator. However, this fact is irrelevant to the existence of God or the legitimacy of communism, capitalism, etc.


You state:

God provides a point of reference when we seek comfort.

This is true. However, it is not true that prayer distances one from daily life. In fact, prayer is used to improve daily life by helping us to more fully understand our role in this world.





You ask:

I'd have to ask how "let there be light" came into human mythology since presumably there were no humans around at the time of the big bang.


I would answer that it came from God, who was around at the time of the big bang, and therefore, it is noty mythology.

And for the record, there is no question that the big bang emitted light.

One more thought.

I believe we are created by an intelligent being. I also believe that this being wanted us to have free will. If God made his existence too obvious, we could not have free will.




Best Regards,

Kyle

I'll take the last point first, using the classic argument between athiests and religious folk: If God was here to make us, where did God come from? You have to have a first cause.

You claim people can't evolve from nothing, but where did God come from. I know, I know, He has always been here, but that's not a logical refutation of the argument, just a statement of faith. If I can't come from nothing, neither can God, so what is the first cause?

-----

Now, from the top. "Infinity is beyond human comprehension." Says who? Look, the fact that we have a word for infinity, and we can define it, proves we can comprehend it. Your statement contradicts itself logically.

-----

You say, "if there is no God, we must believe that the universe arose from nothing at all." Actually, no we don't. For example, perhaps the matter that makes up the universe has always been here. In that case, it's possivle that the matter contracted into a dense mass that exploded (big bang) and expanded into the universe we now know. To me that seems like a simpler explanation than "God was here first," and it doesn't take a big leap of faith on my part because how the universe began doesn't impact my life. Whhy does it impact yours?

-----

"Life makes sense only if God exists." Good for you. I don't need a fatherly apparition to give my life meaning. I've found meaning in my family, in my chosen profession, and in my daily experiences. It's possible to have a purpose and make sense of life without God.

Frankly, even YOU have made sense of life without God. Fact: there is no God. And yet you have made sense of life by having faith in a God that doesn't exist. Thus, it's possible to make sense of life if God doesn't exist. In your case, you just have to believe to make sense, but your belief doesn't actually mean that God exists.

"Ideology is a powerful motivator..." I know it's irrelevant to whether or not God exists. That's my point. I was saying that human beings have a motivation to believe in God, or at least to profess a belief in God. Power is one of those motivators.

-----

"Prayer doesn't distance us from daily life." You're denying reality. The purpose and process of prayer is to separate yourself, and focus on Godly things. By definition, that involves separating from daily life IN ORDER TO focus on Godly things.

If you're just arguing for argument's sake, this won't be as much fun. You don't have to argue every point I make -- it's okay to agree sometimes.

-----

Let me reiterate the point of my original post: there are a lot of reasons that humans believe in gods, but that belief doesn't mean God exists. You do nothing to convince me when you make statements of faith, because as a human, you're predisposed to have faith.

How do you know God was here first to generate a big bang? You don't. You can have faith, but that doesn't make it true. I don't make any claim to knowing how the universe started, I simply take it for what it is. I recognize that if there's a God, he doesn't get involved in my life, so I might as well assume he doesn't exist.

I have to generate my own reason for living. For people who can't do the same, perhaps a belief in a non-existent God is okay. It's not okay for me.

-----

This is fun, keep 'em coming. Try to work a little more logic into your arguments.

-tsc

((Part I
I'll take the last point first, using the classic argument between athiests and religious folk: If God was here to make us, where did God come from? You have to have a first cause.

)))

No, I don't. An eternal God explains this adequately. I have a logical case even IF it is a statement of faith. You have a statement of faith with NO logical case.

((Now, from the top. "Infinity is beyond human comprehension." Says who? Look, the fact that we have a word for infinity, and we can define it, proves we can comprehend it. Your statement contradicts itself logically.
))

Fair enough. How about this for a clarification: We can comprehend the concept of infinity, but can't truly understand how something can always have existed.

((You say, "if there is no God, we must believe that the universe arose from nothing at all." Actually, no we don't. For example, perhaps the matter that makes up the universe has always been here.))

That's an evasion. Where did the matter come from? I'll repeat my earlier statement:

You have a statement of faith with NO logical case.

((it's possivle that the matter contracted into a dense mass that exploded (big bang) and expanded into the universe we now know. To me that seems like a simpler explanation than "God was here first," and it doesn't take a big leap of faith on my part because how the universe began doesn't impact my life. Whhy does it impact yours?)))

To you, it might seem simpler to believe that the universe, love, intelligence, and religion arose without any first cause. To me, that does not make sense.

God impacts my life. God is real to me. When I seek God and try to comprehend his instructions for living I am more at peace. While it might be difficult for me to prove this to you, it doesn't make it any less real.

I probably can't prove that our universe likely consists of 11 dimensions, but that doesn't change reality.

((It's possible to have a purpose and make sense of life without God.
)))

I believe God designed us with a need for him.

Have you ever prayed? If so, why?

((Fact: there is no God.))

Even you know that you can't make that claim.

You are stating an opinion based on faith, nothing more.

(("Prayer doesn't distance us from daily life." You're denying reality. The purpose and process of prayer is to separate yourself, and focus on Godly things. By definition, that involves separating from daily life IN ORDER TO focus on Godly things.
))

Your point is invalid for those who believe that life should CONSIST OF a focus on Godly things. We(those of us who pray) don't want these things to be separate from our daily lives.

I accept the REALITY that when I pray Godly things are more prominent in my daily life.

((If you're just arguing for argument's sake, this won't be as much fun. You don't have to argue every point I make -- it's okay to agree sometimes.
))

I gave you a point earlier. Here, however, you are clearly wrong, as I'm sure you will now concede!

((because as a human, you're predisposed to have faith.
))

Predisposed by whom? or, by what? Why? Says who!!


((How do you know God was here first to generate a big bang? You don't. You can have faith, but that doesn't make it true. I don't make any claim to knowing how the universe started, I simply take it for what it is.))

Wrong. You claim to know as fact that the universe is not the creation of a higher intelligence. While this is undeniably a statement of faith, you have attempted to make it a statement of fact.


I agree that this is fun. You are a fair minded and reasonable foe in this battle over personal understandings of our existence.

God is real in my life. Life is better with God, and I think he planned it that way.


Question: Have you ever, as a purely scientific investigation, sought to truly seek out God for a period of time?

Your accusation is a common one from the religious toward the secular. You think my statements are based on faith as much as yours, but that's a false moral equivalency.

Go back and look at my statements. Do you realize that I have made no claims as to the origins of the universe? I didn't claim that the big bang was fact. You're attributing this to me as a matter of my own faith, but I clearly said I DON'T KNOW.

------

Again, you haven't addressed the issue of first cause. Stating that God has always existed is your matter of faith. Accept that it's a matter of faith and stop arguing that we humans are incapable of somehow understanding the idea of the infinite. We created the concept. You can articulate the concept of an eternal god. Therefore, we can fully understand it. I think this line of argument is dead. You have faith -- great.

-----

I wasn't evading your question. Perhaps matter has always been, just as you say God has always been. Note I use the word "perhaps", which makes it clear that I don't know and therefore am not making a statement of faity, unlike your own statement. If you can accept that God has always been, why would you deny that it's possible for matter to have always existed. Perhaps God used that matter to create the universe we now know.

-----

What I know: the universe arose, I have intelligence, I can love, men have religious belief. I make no claim on the origins of these, or a first cause. I don't know where the universe came from. I don't know if it's always been or if it was created. I can accept the *possibility* that human thought arose as a product of evolution, therefore generating love, intelligence, and religious belief. Note that I assert nothing, unlike you. Why do you feel such a need for certainty?

Now for the good stuff:
"God impacts my life. God is real to me. When I seek God and try to comprehend his instructions for living I am more at peace. God is real in my life. Life is better with God."

Let me restate this in terms that make sense to me AND HAVE NO MATERIAL IMPACT ON YOU IF MY STATEMENTS ARE CORRECT.

You believe God impacts your life. You believe God is real to you. When you seek God... you are more at peace. You believe God is real in your life. You believe life is better with God.

Admit it: your belief is just as good as the reality. If God isn't real (admit the possibility for just a moment), your life and your belief DOESN'T HAVE TO CHANGE. **This is the one point I would ask you to take away from this entire cycle**

What's critical here is that you CAN'T prove it to me, as you say. It's a matter of faith. But you also can't prove it to yourself. The human brain is sophisticated and can delude itself in many ways. I'm not saying you're deluded, but surely you can at least acknowledge that it's possible for the brain to convince itself that a spiritual event has taken place, that God is speaking, or that you feel a sense of peace when you pray.

-----

When I say predisposition, I'm referencing studies on the human mind and culture, and our desire to attribute events to a supernatural power throughout history. Check out Pinker for more info.

Again, I never claimed to know that the universe was not created by a Creator. I don't think it was, but I don't know. I know that if God exists, he doesn't interfere in my reality in any supernatural way; everything can be explained through natural means. If I act as if God doesn't exist, there is no material impact on my life.

If you're going to quote me, make sure you QUOTE me. Read me again and you'll note that I make very few assertions because I know what I don't know.

-----

Lastly, in answer to the new question you raise, I have a very long history with God. Not only was I raised evangelical, I lived the life faithfully for many years. Before entering seminary, I changed direction and have led a much happier life ever since.

Again, I never claimed to know that the universe was not created by a Creator. I don't think it was, but I don't know. I know that if God exists, he doesn't interfere in my reality in any supernatural way; everything can be explained through natural means. If I act as if God doesn't exist, there is no material impact on my life.

If you're going to quote me, make sure you QUOTE me. Read me again and you'll note that I make very few assertions because I know what I don't know.

-----

Lastly, in answer to the new question you raise, I have a very long history with God. Not only was I raised evangelical, I lived the life faithfully for many years. Before entering seminary, I changed direction and have led a much happier life ever since.

((Your accusation is a common one from the religious toward the secular. You think my statements are based on faith as much as yours, but that's a false moral equivalency.

Go back and look at my statements. Do you realize that I have made no claims as to the origins of the universe? )))



You wrote: Fact: there is no God.

This is a statement of faith.



((Admit it: your belief is just as good as the reality. If God isn't real (admit the possibility for just a moment), your life and your belief DOESN'T HAVE TO CHANGE. **This is the one point I would ask you to take away from this entire cycle**))


What a condescending load of crap! Self delusional psychosis is equivalent to a relationship with the creator of the universe!!

Not even you believe that. If God is real, it matters.


((Again, you haven't addressed the issue of first cause. Stating that God has always existed is your matter of faith. )))

Obviously.

My point was that my faith explains completely the existence of human life and the universe.

Your faith fails this test.

((Lastly, in answer to the new question you raise, I have a very long history with God.))


So you never had a direct experience with the presence of God?

...this is getting a little personal ("self-delusional psychosis") and it may be time to close the thread. Perhaps we could stick to one argument at a time...

Anyway, I wrote "Fact: There is no God." In the context of the rest of the paragraph, it was meant as "Supposition: There is no God." I was trying to get you to take the mental leap to understand my argument, but I guess I should have known better.

When it comes to the existence of God, I don't know. I see no evidence that can't be explained by natural processes, so I don't have to take a leap of faith... the way that you do. Thus, no direct experience with the presence of God. I suppose I've fallen a notch in your eyes.

Telling me that my disbelief is a statement of faith demonstrates your ignorance about what "faith" is. A hypothetical: I state that there is a tea cup orbiting the moon. You don't believe me. By your logic, we are both making statements of faith. In fact, only I am. I'm making a positive assertion (e.g. the presence of the tea cup), not you. You don't have to have faith that my tea cup doesn't exist, but I have to have faith that it does. I honestly don't expect this argument to convince you. You're a little dogmatic.

...everything I've typed above. Sorry if it's so far outside your comprehension, but I'd suggest you make a small attempt to empathize with those you argue with instead of tell them they don't believe their own crap. Who's the one who's being condescending? If you assume I believe everything I write, you might make progress to understanding who I am, and you might be able to improve your ability to persuade.

Anyway, your so called relationship with God, I'd assert, is no different from my non-belief, in daily life. Your acts of belief may change your life, but I doubt that you can claim any supernatural intervention in your own life as a result of your belief. If you can, you'd be the first that I've met. My statement was pretty clear: Life is no different for a non-believer than a believer because God doesn't interfere with the world or our free will. I would expect that even you could agree with that.

On the other hand, your life is different from mine as a result of your belief, but not necessarily a result of the existence of God. It's belief that matters, even if God doesn't actually exist. Again, this is the single point I would ask you to take away. I guess I'm repeating myself.

-----

You continue to ignore the first cause argument, but I expected no less. Since I raised it in my first comment to you, I'd ask you to return to it with a thoughtful response. And faith doesn't explain the origin of the universe. That is the statement of a naive religious believer who doesn't know how to interact with the real world or incorporate science into his/her world view. I doubt you are that naive believer, so perhaps you'll revise your statement.

Keep 'em coming. And try not to make it personal.

-tsc

Please don't take my enthusiasm for bitterness. I'm sure we would get along great in person and that we probably agree 95% of the time on political issues.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of being dogmatic!

You bend over backwards to defend your beliefs.

((Anyway, I wrote "Fact: There is no God." In the context of the rest of the paragraph, it was meant as "Supposition: There is no God." I was trying to get you to take the mental leap to understand my argument, but I guess I should have known better.
)))

There is nothing complicated about your argument, I just find it flawed. Your claim that a belief in a fantasy God is equivalent to a relationship with a true God.

In my opinion, belief in God would not be productive if God did not exist. I would hold substantially different views on a number of different issues if I didn't believe in God.

Because I believe that God created the universe with a purpose in mind, and that I may choose to play a role in the process, I devote considerable time to understanding and fulfilling that role. This would be a waste of time if God doesn't exist.

((Telling me that my disbelief is a statement of faith demonstrates your ignorance about what "faith" is.))

This is a dogmatic statement! Accepted beliefs about matters beyond our current understanding are statements of faith.

If you believe that irreducibly complex biological functions with 20 or more necessary components can come into existence through natural selection, then you are taking on faith that intelligent design played no part.

There is no theory that explains this development.

((everything I've typed above. Sorry if it's so far outside your comprehension,))

Weak.

((On the other hand, your life is different from mine as a result of your belief, but not necessarily a result of the existence of God. It's belief that matters, even if God doesn't actually exist. Again, this is the single point I would ask you to take away. I guess I'm repeating myself.
))

I got it the first time.

I just disagree. If God didn't exist I wouldn't have any need for him. I seek and need him because he exists.

((First Cause:

You claim people can't evolve from nothing, but where did God come from. I know, I know, He has always been here, but that's not a logical refutation of the argument, just a statement of faith.))

I don't deny that it's a statement of faith. However, you do deny that assuming that the universe came into existence without a first cause is a statment of faith.

I believe the existence of a superior intelligence outside of time resolves this question and others. My faith addresses the issue of first cause. Yours doesn't.