I recently went to a philosophy conference on Friedrich Nietzsche up at Salt Lake Community College. A professor of mine was the keynote speaker, and Jessica and I rode up with him to hear him speak. After his lecture, we went into a session about Nietzsche and the philosophy of religion to hear some student papers. The papers were OK, I guess, but one stood out in particular. The last speaker gave a talk entitled, "God is not dead, but dying," a play on Nietzsche's famous comment that "God is dead...and we have killed him" (the Gay Science).
From the introduction of his talk, I found that I disagreed with nearly every sentence the presenter read. He argued, following Nietzsche, that religion was a dying phenomenon. Science, time and time again, he argued, disproves religious beliefs and assumptions. Religion is displaced by science. For example, science proves evolution is true, yet Christians still hold to creationism and intelligent design without any support or merit. He continued by arguing that the Bible is a twisted figment of some ancient imaginations. Religion is just an irrational and false remnant of our ignorant past, a bane to true progress, and a disease of the modern world. Since the upswing of science in modern times, we now (or should) realize that religion is useless, a false system, a damaging system, and a dangerous one. Religion is throwing its final punches in a long fight with science, but soon science will prevail. In addition, the presenter argued that religious morality has been undermined. We don't need these imposing demands that constrict our choices. We have real freedom, we are not controlled by anyone; religion and God can't enslave us anymore. How dare religion impede the freedom of the individual by demanding belief, morality, and other such crocks. We have moved into the modern age--these ridiculous things are no longer necessary. In accordance with these self-evident truths, the gov. should actively pursue a policy of "freedom from religion" to rid public life of this backward system. In fact, the gov. is already doing that, and the presenter prophesied that it would not be long before all religious sentiments were dead and useless. As a modern society, we have no more use for God.
After he finished, I sat there mulling over all of the ridiculous things he said. For one, I could not believe, again, that so many people believe these obvious caricatures and extremely weak arguments. This type of atheism is closer to fundamentalism than rationality. Not only that, but I was extremely surprised that his paper got accepted to be presented at a philosophy conference. It made shallow and artificial arguments against an extremely complex issue.
I really wanted to speak up and defend religion against this shallow attack, and I wish I had, but I could never decide where to begin. I was literally dumbfounded by this paper: I didn't know which part to discuss first because I could not decide which of his many assertions I should respond to. I had problems with his ideas about freedom, morality, history, reason, science, religion, and religion's interaction with science. I had major qualms with his arguments about how to interpret the Constitution, his predictions for the future, and pretty much everything he said. His prediction struck me as a bit odd as well: God was just about to disappear from modern life because science has made him irrelevant. But Nietzsche argued that "God was dead" over a hundred years ago. That prediction, or assessment, was totally off. Why believe this one?
His paper is in no way reflective of all atheist arguments: there are some extremely smart atheists who make solid arguments. But that isn't the issue I want to discuss. Instead of responding to all of his comments here, which would take a long time, I want to focus on one question: is God a hypothesis? Can science disprove the God-hypothesis?
A number of books, such as Victor Stenger's, argue this very issue. According to Stenger, God is a failed hypothesis, proven false by science. Stenger's argument is very similar to the types of assumptions made by this presenter. According to many atheists, God is a scientific hypothesis made by religious people to explain natural phenomena. We believe because we think that the evidence, or the natural world, needs God as an explanation. In other words, many atheists take religion to be a scientific theory: we observe the world and postulate God as the explanation for many different events because he seems to be the best candidate.
In short, is God a scientific hypothesis? Not really. I do not mean to suggest that therefore God has nothing to do with science or the reverse. What I am saying is that atheists, and many believers, do not understand religion at all.
I believe that God created the world. Why do I believe that? It's not really a scientific hypothesis, not at its core. I have not done a thorough survey of the geological, evolutionary, and physical history of our world/universe. I am not postulating God as the most obvious explanation to cover all of the facts. Nonetheless, I do not believe that science disproves God's role in creation, but that is not the point.
The point is this: God is not a scientific hypothesis, at least not in the most authentic aspect of religious life. Religious people do not believe in an explaining hypothesis. We believe in a personal God, one who reveals himself to us, who calls us, and we respond to his call. We believe in God because of our experiences with him, our intimate knowledge of him, and our relationship to him and his children. That is our justification for believing in God. That is religion. As a result of this relationship, we trust that God created the world because he told us he did in the holy scriptures. So then what about all this business of science always disproving religion? What can science disprove? Science disproved the belief that evolution never happened. OK, great. Now what? My relationship with God was never predicated on the falsehood of evolution. Sure, evolution can inform my understanding of the world, of God, and even throw in a few confusions and difficulties. But can science disprove religion?
Again, I think the fundamental error made by atheists, and too often by those who defend religion, is to argue that religion is just some scientific hypothesis. To argue in this framework, religious people normally argue that science doesn't really show or does show that God exists. I think there is a place for these arguments, but they have to be an introduction to the main argument: I do not believe in God because of "natural" evidence. I did not start observing the world and then suddenly conclude, "Yes, God is the best explanation; I guess I'll believe." Scientific observations can be thought-provoking; maybe they can even get me to ask whether there is a God or start believing that there is one. But this is only a very small first step.The God I believe in is the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon; the God who reveals himself to me. He is not the God that I infer.
Reason can suggest God's existence, defend God's existence, but reason alone is not religion. The point of religion is to put you into contact with God, not simply to believe that he exists. I want all people to trust God, to know God, not just believe that-God.
Consider this thought experiment. Let us assume that God is just a hypothesis made by religious people to explain the world. Further, let's assume that we have a knock-down, infallible proof for God's existence. This proof is so strong that only the most unreasonable people will not accept it. All of a sudden, nearly everyone, atheists included, believe that God exists. Well, if God were a hypothesis, this would be the great desire of all religious people. If God were a hypothesis, then this proof would make us all believers. But is this what religion claims? Is this the faith spoken of in the Bible or the Book of Mormon? No. Even if everyone believed God to be a true hypothesis, that alone would do little to create the faith spoken of in the scriptures. Faith is not some intellectual assent to a proposition trying to account for the world. Faith is a loving relationship with God, an inter-personal knowledge, a relationship of trust and responsibility. That is the point of religion. That type of faith cannot come from reason alone. Faith, at its most basic level, is a trusting relationship with Deity. That is what religion is all about. If that is religion, then God is no hypothesis.
Does this suggest that religion is irrational? I can't see how. Is my relationship to my wife irrational? I have a relationship of love, trust, and responsibility to her that isn't really based off reason. I do not follow her around observing her behavior and then drawing conclusions--that's not love (if you're doing it right). The ultimate point is this: religion is about a personal relationship, not necessarily an intellectual one. Reason, scholarship, and knowledge are all important and I would say fundamental to religion, but they are not its origin nor its end.
So to my non-religious friends: I invite you to know God, not just know about him. God is not just another hypothesis, he is a person. He is your and my Father. Religion is not the ultimate exercise of reason, it is the response to a revelation from a revealing God. God is not the logical conclusion of pure unaided reason, the great "therefore" of the perfect argument. Instead, He is the great "I am" of the scriptures. That is the God I love and worship.
From the introduction of his talk, I found that I disagreed with nearly every sentence the presenter read. He argued, following Nietzsche, that religion was a dying phenomenon. Science, time and time again, he argued, disproves religious beliefs and assumptions. Religion is displaced by science. For example, science proves evolution is true, yet Christians still hold to creationism and intelligent design without any support or merit. He continued by arguing that the Bible is a twisted figment of some ancient imaginations. Religion is just an irrational and false remnant of our ignorant past, a bane to true progress, and a disease of the modern world. Since the upswing of science in modern times, we now (or should) realize that religion is useless, a false system, a damaging system, and a dangerous one. Religion is throwing its final punches in a long fight with science, but soon science will prevail. In addition, the presenter argued that religious morality has been undermined. We don't need these imposing demands that constrict our choices. We have real freedom, we are not controlled by anyone; religion and God can't enslave us anymore. How dare religion impede the freedom of the individual by demanding belief, morality, and other such crocks. We have moved into the modern age--these ridiculous things are no longer necessary. In accordance with these self-evident truths, the gov. should actively pursue a policy of "freedom from religion" to rid public life of this backward system. In fact, the gov. is already doing that, and the presenter prophesied that it would not be long before all religious sentiments were dead and useless. As a modern society, we have no more use for God.
After he finished, I sat there mulling over all of the ridiculous things he said. For one, I could not believe, again, that so many people believe these obvious caricatures and extremely weak arguments. This type of atheism is closer to fundamentalism than rationality. Not only that, but I was extremely surprised that his paper got accepted to be presented at a philosophy conference. It made shallow and artificial arguments against an extremely complex issue.
I really wanted to speak up and defend religion against this shallow attack, and I wish I had, but I could never decide where to begin. I was literally dumbfounded by this paper: I didn't know which part to discuss first because I could not decide which of his many assertions I should respond to. I had problems with his ideas about freedom, morality, history, reason, science, religion, and religion's interaction with science. I had major qualms with his arguments about how to interpret the Constitution, his predictions for the future, and pretty much everything he said. His prediction struck me as a bit odd as well: God was just about to disappear from modern life because science has made him irrelevant. But Nietzsche argued that "God was dead" over a hundred years ago. That prediction, or assessment, was totally off. Why believe this one?
His paper is in no way reflective of all atheist arguments: there are some extremely smart atheists who make solid arguments. But that isn't the issue I want to discuss. Instead of responding to all of his comments here, which would take a long time, I want to focus on one question: is God a hypothesis? Can science disprove the God-hypothesis?
A number of books, such as Victor Stenger's, argue this very issue. According to Stenger, God is a failed hypothesis, proven false by science. Stenger's argument is very similar to the types of assumptions made by this presenter. According to many atheists, God is a scientific hypothesis made by religious people to explain natural phenomena. We believe because we think that the evidence, or the natural world, needs God as an explanation. In other words, many atheists take religion to be a scientific theory: we observe the world and postulate God as the explanation for many different events because he seems to be the best candidate.
In short, is God a scientific hypothesis? Not really. I do not mean to suggest that therefore God has nothing to do with science or the reverse. What I am saying is that atheists, and many believers, do not understand religion at all.
I believe that God created the world. Why do I believe that? It's not really a scientific hypothesis, not at its core. I have not done a thorough survey of the geological, evolutionary, and physical history of our world/universe. I am not postulating God as the most obvious explanation to cover all of the facts. Nonetheless, I do not believe that science disproves God's role in creation, but that is not the point.
The point is this: God is not a scientific hypothesis, at least not in the most authentic aspect of religious life. Religious people do not believe in an explaining hypothesis. We believe in a personal God, one who reveals himself to us, who calls us, and we respond to his call. We believe in God because of our experiences with him, our intimate knowledge of him, and our relationship to him and his children. That is our justification for believing in God. That is religion. As a result of this relationship, we trust that God created the world because he told us he did in the holy scriptures. So then what about all this business of science always disproving religion? What can science disprove? Science disproved the belief that evolution never happened. OK, great. Now what? My relationship with God was never predicated on the falsehood of evolution. Sure, evolution can inform my understanding of the world, of God, and even throw in a few confusions and difficulties. But can science disprove religion?
Again, I think the fundamental error made by atheists, and too often by those who defend religion, is to argue that religion is just some scientific hypothesis. To argue in this framework, religious people normally argue that science doesn't really show or does show that God exists. I think there is a place for these arguments, but they have to be an introduction to the main argument: I do not believe in God because of "natural" evidence. I did not start observing the world and then suddenly conclude, "Yes, God is the best explanation; I guess I'll believe." Scientific observations can be thought-provoking; maybe they can even get me to ask whether there is a God or start believing that there is one. But this is only a very small first step.The God I believe in is the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon; the God who reveals himself to me. He is not the God that I infer.
Reason can suggest God's existence, defend God's existence, but reason alone is not religion. The point of religion is to put you into contact with God, not simply to believe that he exists. I want all people to trust God, to know God, not just believe that-God.
Consider this thought experiment. Let us assume that God is just a hypothesis made by religious people to explain the world. Further, let's assume that we have a knock-down, infallible proof for God's existence. This proof is so strong that only the most unreasonable people will not accept it. All of a sudden, nearly everyone, atheists included, believe that God exists. Well, if God were a hypothesis, this would be the great desire of all religious people. If God were a hypothesis, then this proof would make us all believers. But is this what religion claims? Is this the faith spoken of in the Bible or the Book of Mormon? No. Even if everyone believed God to be a true hypothesis, that alone would do little to create the faith spoken of in the scriptures. Faith is not some intellectual assent to a proposition trying to account for the world. Faith is a loving relationship with God, an inter-personal knowledge, a relationship of trust and responsibility. That is the point of religion. That type of faith cannot come from reason alone. Faith, at its most basic level, is a trusting relationship with Deity. That is what religion is all about. If that is religion, then God is no hypothesis.
Does this suggest that religion is irrational? I can't see how. Is my relationship to my wife irrational? I have a relationship of love, trust, and responsibility to her that isn't really based off reason. I do not follow her around observing her behavior and then drawing conclusions--that's not love (if you're doing it right). The ultimate point is this: religion is about a personal relationship, not necessarily an intellectual one. Reason, scholarship, and knowledge are all important and I would say fundamental to religion, but they are not its origin nor its end.
So to my non-religious friends: I invite you to know God, not just know about him. God is not just another hypothesis, he is a person. He is your and my Father. Religion is not the ultimate exercise of reason, it is the response to a revelation from a revealing God. God is not the logical conclusion of pure unaided reason, the great "therefore" of the perfect argument. Instead, He is the great "I am" of the scriptures. That is the God I love and worship.
