I am gong to describe an imaginary person who I will call Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray is a scientist and believes in the utility of the scientific method to ascertain facts and truth.
Mr. Gray only believes that a thing is true if its existence can be testable utilizing the tools of science which are the devices that augment the human senses.
Mr. Gray can describe the workings of matter and energy with this methodology and conclude that only matter and energy is needed to describe the totality of existence and the working of all observable phenomenons. Mr. Gray does not believe in what can not be tested and therefore does not believe in God. Mr. Gray is certain that God does not exist as a part of the workings of this universe.
Mr. Gray does recognize that many humans believe in the existence of God, but for Mr. Gray, a belief is not a fact until and unless it can be tested. The existence of the entity called ‘God’ can not be tested and this ends the matter for Mr. Gray.
Ahhh, but what if one could demonstrate that the belief in God can improve a human’s life, make him healthier; make him more ethical, or some other demonstrable effect? Does this not prove the existence of God?
Mr. Gray answers no, it does not. Mr. Gray points to the provable and demonstrable placebo response or placebo effect.
“A placebo is a medicine or preparation which has no inherent pertinent pharmacologic activity but which is effective only by virtue of the factor of suggestion attendant upon its administration. The substance may be ingested, injected, inserted, inhaled or applied.” “The term placebo effect (as distinct from the more correct term placebo response) was introduced by T. C. Graves in 1920 "because it is the subject that has the subject-centred response. It is not the administered substance that generates the observed effect." [From Wikipedia.]
Mr. Gray would assert that it has been shown by numerous medical trials that the placebo substance – sugar water, can induce a wide range of healing and beneficial transformation in human test patients. The placebo only stimulates the taker of the substance into activating the inherent healing powers of the body – the substance itself can not actual do the healing and did not directly in a cause and effect chemical manner produce the healing benefits. In other words if the same person knowingly takes the sugar water pill the healing would not take place. Thus, for Mr. Gray, the belief in God is a placebo effect. It can be shown to have results and benefits but the belief is like unknowingly taking the sugar water thinking it is some form of medicine – it is the faith that induces the mind/body to react in a certain beneficial way.
Now, I do not like Mr. Gray’s world view, but I acknowledge it is defensible and the only world view that is so. In Mr. Gray’s world religious beliefs are wishful thinking, fantasy, or delusions.
On the other end of the continuum is the view of the world of the religious believer. The Christian, Jewish, or Moslem believer each see a world in which God exists and their own religion bests or solely describes the nature of God and all the truth about God. Each of those True Believers describes a world that contradicts the other two believers view and sets of beliefs. But none of the Believers world view is provable, since none can prove that God exists and that only their own scriptures is the sole and exclusive compendium of truth about God.
In all debates between the Believers and Mr. Gray, Mr. Gray wins – since the Believers can not prove the existence of God.
Now, I do not completely agree with Mr. Gray. I do believe in the existence of the Divine. Just not the God as described by any of the three sacred scriptures of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
My goal is to describe a world where the Divine is demonstrable; a view of the world that lies somewhere between Mr. Gray’s and those of the True Believers of Judaism, Christianity or Islam on the continuum of possible human descriptions of the cosmos.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
Might start here...as there is only ego that prevents the scientist to co-opt God.
American Scientific Affiliation - A Fellowship of Christian Scientists
Science in Christian Perspective
A recent study done found that those that tithe and give (some above their means, feel more of a sense of peace and prosperity. Hardly scientific, maybe more of a placebo effect, because they BELIEVE they should be blessed because it is a PROMISE of God)?
A Rood Awakening
Now, I too find the god described by the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions a little too human to be a believable diety, but the word "god" is hopelessly vague, and we glimpse only a miniscule segment of what there is to know. Any scientist who says there is *not* a god isn't behaving very scientist-like, at least according to my understanding of science.
Your whole faith-basis is, of course 'non-provable'.
2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith and not by sight.)
Heb 11:1 Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 1899 Douay Rheims Bible
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Modern KJV
So, you are preaching entirely to your own choir! Demand proof or evidence before faith is self-defeating in KNOWING God, therefore, you will NEVER KNOW.
my "Mr. Gray" is based on what I read about from many scientists. Such as Richard
Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, to name two scientists who've published on the topic of science and religion.
I beleive that you are correct that one must have faith in the Christian God before one can ever come to know anything about that version of God.
What I am striving for is a system of beleif that does not solely require faith. A system of beleif which describes the Divine in a way that goes beyond the limitations of any one particular cultural perspective.
A Divine that will not be so anthropromorphic, and will be more like the descriptions of the world's mystics than the God described in the bible.
Gary. I wish you well in your search. I don't see such a faith as being enormously popular but if you are happy with it ...
His "Mere Christianity" is one of the best available.
Gary: I do not believe you will be open to your "burning bush" experience until your deathbed (if granted that last opportunity). It might be a few last intense moments for ones like you...If you can not see the HIS Magistracy and Grace and Love in the wonderment that surrounds you, well enjoy the gods of science and the worship at their alter.
"You gotta SERVE somebody!" - B. Dylan
Some of you have pointed out that there is no proof either way, but that point is irrelevant. If you have ever had any serious though about how debates form or analysis are made you would already know that on does not require proof on both sides of a debate. The First step in any debate is to establish the goal and the burden of proof. If we do not set up a goal the debate has no meaning and if there is no side that has the burden of proof then the debate becomes curricular (i.e. the debate never progresses and only goes in a loop) just like this one.
People who argue against god/God often come to that conclusion, because they believe that the believer has the burden of proof to show them that god/God exists. Since this is impossible (or at least for now depending on your views) the believer only has belief or faith and truly that is all that is needed for believers. Sometimes, possible more often then no a believer then thinks they are pretty clever and say hey you can't disprove god/God so there. The conversation continues both making points and counter points some are good and well thought out others make you wonder if they are even listing to what they are saying. In then end you know what happens? Nothing, why nothing? Because both place the burden of proof upon each other and since there is no proof either way no conclusions are made and you are right back at square one. Also the atheist might come into the conversation to defend him/herself or to convert you
So the next time you what to have a debate with someone about anything think of one the goal and two who has the burden of proof. And the next time you enter a debate about god/God's existent just remember that faith is a personal issue and that if words alone change someone's belief they probably did not believe it in the first place.
I have considered those religions and have seen their short comings, my own faith has taken me elsewhere.
It is closest to the description in the Tao Te Ching and in the writting of the mystics. So, I don't have to wait for any event - it already took place.
Rick F's points are inciteful and worth pondering.
I do believe that learning more about placebos , and faith and the wondrous interactions between thought and physical health need to be explored. Mr. Gray could become for us a very worthy vehicle to seek out and make more well known the present and future(?) of our sciences. If G_D made ALL and IS ONE in a meaningful sense, the explorations of future CULTURAL needs will become ever more efficacious if we entwine into ancient ideas and beliefs, the revealed contents of what personkind has found in the past bunch of milennia! New and Old REVELATIONS working together to create ever greater WISDOM for us WORLD's PEOPLE!
Thanks for the introduction of Mr. Gray for the illumination of us all. The characteristics of our 'new player' may be a fine metaphoric example of how to proceed to join modern views to possibly archaic ones and to get on with thoughts about the 'very alive' possibilities we have in our futures: if our WORLD is smart enough and becomes a survivor of the present collection of operative absurdities in our non-civilized world!
Dick
I have read a little concerning Shintoism and Jainism. I read and studied Confuscianism when I first studied Taoism.
My idea of of the Divine is vague and nebulous due to the influences of the mystic writtings, Taoism and science that I am continually studying.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the true tao.
The name that can be named is not the True Name."
Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, verses 1 & 2 of Chapter 1.
My father believed much as Mr. Gray did; my husband, a psychologist, deplores the mechanistic world of scientific materialism and its beliefs.
I believe that it is so important to believe in ....well, something that will move us, help us, inform our existence, that it will heal us, make us well, help us do good, and so on.
Whatever we call that belief - God, Christ, one and the same or two separate - or simply spiritual belief is VERY important.
I do NOT believe actually that Mr. Gray's position proves anything, since Mr. Gray himself is stating a belief. Atheists are just as devout and rigid and religious about their belief as are the most rigid of some religious believers.
All people have faith. It takes just at much faith to disbelieve in the existence of God as it does to believe in God. Of course one comes with joy and the other often comes with much angst!
If I discover after leaving this physical existence that my faith in God has been nothing more than the workings of my imagination and the "placebo effect", I will not feel silly. I will have lived a fulfilled life believing in something greater than myself, loving my neighbor as I love myself, serving others, feeding the hungry, praying for the motherless, supporting the weak, clothing the naked, bathing in the divine presence.
If I find that all of this was the working of my own human mind -- I have lost NOTHING!!! -- far from it -- I have gained so much more!!!
There are times when intellect and the pursuit of proof can become a hindrance and a curse!
Then you must also agree that the position of "belief" in God also proves nothing, therefore (like I have stated before) this debate/argument/good conversation becomes circular.
I have belief in quotes because of the many different beliefs.
I also have another thing to add, something that I believe (no pun intended) is that many theists mistake belief in no God for belief in morals, code of conduct, or any similar systems of ethics. And truly what matters most is not what one believes in , but what they do about it.
For example a theist goes to their place of worship everyday, he studies the text and converses with others about its meaning. He then goes home, sleeps wakes up works then goes back again.
An athiest goes to volunteer at a place where they help the homeless by preparing them for job interviews, budgetting, and how to find a place to live. He then goes home, sleeps wakes up , works then goes back again.
The point being once again its not what you believe, but you you do that counts. And no I'm not saying spending time reflectting on your beliefs is bad it is just that also act upon you beliefs, because when it comes down to it thats all that matters.
Sorry if I went to far on a tangent.
Mr Gray's atheist stance - is a beleif...even when he can test to determine the workings of matter/enegry - all of the many fields of science, and derive public presentable results of those test. Hence meeting the definition of Objective Truth. When those results demonstrate the workings of no consious inteligence behind them - such as the hypothetical entity of the Biblical God, this demonstrates nothing? Interesting.
So, Rick, Mary and kathryn all consider Mr. Gray's underlying premise: the unwillingness to beleive in an entity that can not be test, as a matter of faith?
"Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood." [from Wikipedia]
"When those results demonstrate the workings of no consious inteligence behind them"
Herein lies the problem; results of scientific observation demonstrate no such thing. Vast questions and mysteries remain. We can name many of the "things" and effects observed, but that is not the same as understanding them. We have named several "forces", and forms of "stuff" we get glimpses of with our elaborate sensory extending devises, and can vaguely grasp how they may interact, and may be quite correct in much of what we describe, but that is a far cry from demonstrating the "workings of no consious inteligence behind them".
If we apply Occam's razor equitably, we must also "shave off" undefined complex past sequences of events which speculatively might explain what we now observe.
If I come upon a house, I might speculate a complex series of events which would account for its obvious order and functionality which excludes conscious intelligence behind them. This of course does not mean the house came about in such a happenstance fashion. We don't do this precisely because we know there is conscious intelligence in the universe which is quite capable of creating such orderly conglomerations of materials. Naming the materials, and some of the forces at work holding them together at various scales, does nothing whatsoever to eliminate the possibility that conscious intelligence was at work in constructing the house.
We can name the materials and forces we see evidence of in a living thing, but we are not in so doing explaining life. We cannot make life, and we as intelligent beings have tried everything we can very studiously imagine, to do so. We may speculate highly complex sequences of events not requiring input of conscious intelligence, but such are themselves merely fantasy contrivances, poorly defined and thus far incapable of rendering any success at all in terms of actually allowing us to create living material of any kind. Even if we start with materials and forces we can see are inherent in living systems, yet have no rational explanation for how such components themselves came to be.
We know consciousness exists, but here we have not even a clue as to what it is or how it came about. Our best speculations are not even worthy of mention, let alone "scientific" explanations for this blatantly obvious form of extraordinary order and functionality.
Occam's razor cuts both ways, and simply waiving a magic wand at these truly mysterious phenomenon, and naming it "science", does nothing to discount the possibility that conscious intelligence is responsible for their existence. Your "faith" in a fantasy future scientist's ability to spin elaborate tales of hypothetical strings of past events requires a zealotry that is profoundly antithetical to your professed rationalism. It's downright fanatic worship of a god you call science, and its high priests, which themselves often deny that what they are witnessing could conceivably be a happenstance universe. And introducing some vague "force" which magically operates without conscious intelligence to bring such immense order about, is nothing short of pure wishful thinking.
John wrote" Even if we start with materials and forces we can see are inherent in living systems, yet have no rational explanation for how such components themselves came to be."
I think many scientists would disagree with your characteriztion of their findings. They seem to prove to the community of scientists that they in fact do have rational explanations for how living systems came to be and how they work.
I've read a far amount on the subject and they do have a clue and their speculations are worthy of mention - it just seem you don't like them- they fail to impress you.
consciousness is directly tied with to the workings of the body and the complex redundancies, intricacies and recursiveness of the nervous system of the brain.
It seems it that what satisfies the scientist who devise the theories and who don't bleive in God - just don't satisfy you. Well that sounds more like your problem than theirs.
Perhaps your own pre-conceptions created the sense of disatisfaction.