An October 12, 2003 Wall Street Journal piece written by Dinesh D’Souza entitled “Not So Bright” is very interesting to me. As I see it, the article gives an opening to those who believe in God. It’s true that the author is controversial, but for that matter, so is Bart Ehrman! You can search the WSJ, or this link may help:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I you are interested and can’t access the article, I can email it to you if given your email contact.
Rick
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I think the limits on human reason and science that Kant talks about make sense. I think it is arrogant to believe that there is only one limit to what we can know, and that limit is reality, or how we perceive it.
I think the article gives a foothold, an opening, to those who want to believe in God. It makes me more skeptical of the agnostic/atheist position. For me, it opens up the playing field.
My response is a bit rushed, but I wanted to get back to you sooner rather than later. I can certainly chat with you more about it. I wish this broad topic got more attention on the blog and discussion area.
Agreed. So let me be explicit in my biases. I am an unbeliever, or more accurately, an ex-believer, having been raised in the church, and having left it in my thirties. I am open to the idea that there might be some fundamental organizing principle at work in the universe, but it would seem to be impersonal, not caring for the fate of individual persons. As a consequence I have always been fascinated by eastern views of “ultimate reality” but of course it still needs to be demonstrated that there is some compelling reason to think any of this might be true.
At this point I just don’t see any reason to think such a thing that can be described as a god exists.
Sure, science has limitations but the utility of science is that it incorporates its limitations into its methodology. Science doesn’t prove anything. It falsifies. Science eliminates all the bad explanations and builds models based on what’s left Science doesn’t deal with “Truth” or claim to be final. It gives us an image of what we think is going on at the present moment, always subject to disconfirmation or revision as we increase our knowledge through observation and experiment.
Admittedly many of its defenders treat science as an unimpeachable authority and scientists as a secular priesthood mediating access to the mysteries of nature. A religion substitute! But a profound misunderstanding. The first concept that scientific method ditches is certainty.
The question to be asked about faith is…, faith in what? If you affirm faith as a valid way of knowing then what cannot be believed on faith? How do you ever know you’re wrong?
I think that our human limitations–perceiving things only through our five senses–limits our ability to see any reality beyond what is evident through those observations. It has been said that anything observable is changed by the person observing it. I don’t think science is exempt from this.
Whatever “ultimate reality” is, I have no conviction that science can get us there. We practice science through our senses, which are limited by their nature. I think Kant’s argument is a strong one.
I think it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, just as it takes a lot of faith to be a believer. Each of us must make the “leap of faith.” So a question can be stated: What faith does one want to have?
Thanks for the response.
Yes humans have limitations. We can’t fly but we invent machines that can. We can only see within a narrow spectrum of wavelengths but we invent cameras that can see in the infrared and the ultraviolet. We have limited life spans so we invent media that allow us to pass our cultural artifacts to later generations. The history of humanity is the story of humans transcending their limitations not accepting them.
Science doesn’t much concern itself with “ultimate reality”. I’m not even sure what that would even mean. Will we someday reach a point beyond which we cannot penetrate? Probably but we won’t know that until we get there.
No, atheism requires no faith. Because it is not as assertion, it’s a denial. I don’t believe in god because I haven’t seen any evidence that he exists. But then I don’t think you should believe anything without evidence.
“What faith does one want to have?” So your belief is nothing but wishful thinking?
I believe that atheism is as much an assertion as a denial. An assertion that God does not exist. I denial that God exists. I don’t really think you have addressed the core assertions of the D’Souza article. It seems to me that you just flatly disagree with the article, which of course is your prerogative. The last paragraph of the article invites atheists to state their arguments.
I respect your view; it’s clear we disagree, but that’s the nature of these discussions. I guess that my main point is that given the huge limitations on human reason and perception, it is surprising to me that anyone can be so certain as to be an atheist. To me, you have to have a great deal of faith to have this belief.
So, if you envision an 81/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper and argue that human perception/knowledge is only a dot on the paper, how can you be so certain that God does not exist? I hate to use the word arrogance, because I don’t mean to cast your views in so harsh a light, but it is the only word that comes to mind.
Anyway, I do respect your views and I do enjoy the back and forth. I’m not dogmatic, I’m always just trying to figure things out, as best I can!
The reason I wanted to have a discussion with you and not simply respond to DD’s points is that he is a professional apologist who frequently resorts to disingenuous debating tricks in order to frame the argument in his favor. Shifting the “burden of proof” is one such. But being afflicted with terminal logorrhea I have no problem responding. I have no desire to convert. Merely articulate a position.
Arrogance?
It is somewhat odd for religious believers to claim that they can define what atheists believe better than atheists can themselves. Are atheists not permitted to self-define? Instead of telling atheists what they believe might it not be preferable to ask them what they believe? Would Christians listen to atheists who try to define for them who is a “real” Christian and who is not?
Does Christian belief always entail an absolute certainty? Can’t Christians practice their faith without claiming they have all the answers? Why would it be different for atheists? Can’t we believe something is “probably” true or “most likely” true?
Arrogance?
Christian believers claim to know the mind of god. All we’re doing is asking questions.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** said
OK. So, to me, an atheist who has doubts is an agnostic. (By the way, yes Christians can have faith with doubts, a prominent example being Mother Teresa.)I can understand the agnostic position, but the atheist seems as arrogant to me as the fundamentalists Christian.
Rick I don’t think you do really understand but arguments about labels are red herrings. You must have some reason you find compelling to believe in god. I think the default position is unbelief until you are presented with such compelling reasons. How about it? I’ve told you why I don’t believe. Why do you believe?
I believe there is no way to know whether God exists or not. To me, it comes down to one’s view of life and the universe, and to one’s preference on how to view our existence. I believe that affirming the existence of God and the suppositions that follow is a constructive view of life that is not disproved by science or reason and that is, in fact, allowed by science and reason. I believe that there is so much that is unknown about the universe and life that the capacity for God to exist is real and evident, though unprovable.
On another note, I cannot understand how you can justify a default position of unbelief. Why wouldn’t the default position be “unknown?” That seems more intellectually honest to me.
I prefer to have my ideas comport with reality as closely as possible. This means I believe something only when I have a compelling reason to do so. I can see no compelling reason to believe that a god exists. If it is impossible to know whether or not god exists then why invest any mental or emotional energy in holding on to the concept? The default position of unbelief is how we function in all areas of inquiry outside religion where we seem to cut the Almighty an enormous amount of slack because of the perceived advantages in holding on to such a belief. Better to see the world as it is and learn to accommodate reality with all its opportunities and limitations.
OK, so you believe something only if you have a compelling reason to believe it. So I assume you have a compelling reason not to believe in God.
I don’t have that compelling reason to not believe in God. I’m open minded about the question because I don’t see proof either way.
It seems that we just have a different way of looking at things. Bart Ehrman says he is an agnostic, and that’s a position I can understand. I can’t understand people who are atheists or people who are convinced God exists. I think these two extreme positions fly in the face of reason and science. I believe because it is a leap of faith, not a certainty in my mind.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** said
OK, so you believe something only if you have a compelling reason to believe it. So I assume you have a compelling reason not to believe in God.I don’t have that compelling reason to not believe in God. I’m open minded about the question because I don’t see proof either way.
It seems that we just have a different way of looking at things. Bart Ehrman says he is an agnostic, and that’s a position I can understand. I can’t understand people who are atheists or people who are convinced God exists. I think these two extreme positions fly in the face of reason and science. I believe because it is a leap of faith, not a certainty in my mind.
Rick I’m not sure why you’re having such trouble understanding my position. But if you insist on couching it in these terms, my compelling reason for not believing in god is the lack of a compelling reason to believe in god.
You admit you have no reason to believe in god and yet you are wiling to make a leap of faith. And you accuse me of having a position that flies in the face of reason and science?
Atheism is not about certainty. It’s about lack of belief. I’m saying that the folks who assert that god exists haven’t made their case.
Ok this is the third (or is it the fourth?) time I’ve stated my point of view. If all you’re going to do at this point is tell me again that you know better than me what I actually believe (a common failing amongst believers alas) then you can save your time.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert