I remain a Christian simply because I haven't found more compelling (to me) truth-claims that answer specific questions that I have. Materialism simply avoids these questions or says they are nonsense. (Possible) Other religions have some interesting ideas, and I think ultimately the Answers we seek are simply over our collective heads anyway. I have the feeling that all religions are merely symbols for things that we 4-dimensional beings can't comprehend. Maybe some symbols are closer than others. But since religion deals with that which is by definition transcendent, our comprehension will necessarily be imperfect. So I'm ok with not having crystal clear Truth in a religion simply because religion deals with things that science can't touch. Origin, meaning or purpose, are not things that science can speak to. Religion is the human endeavor to do so, even though it's far from perfect.
You can take that assertion to mean, “All religions are nonsense.” Or “All religions are equally right, or equally wrong.” Or “Some are closer to Truth than others.” Or “Some are closer on some issues and further away from Truth on other issues.” Or “One religion is all-True and every other religion is all false.” I’m going through the pains of laying this all out so no one assumes my assertion is endorsing any one of those statements. The idea that our religious symbols point to a reality that we can’t truly apprehend is, I think, something most serious religious people would agree with if pressed. The point I’m trying to establish is that religion is an inexact science. (Or “field of inquiry” if that makes you more comfortable.) And it MUST be inexact, for two reasons. First, as stated, if answers to God and purpose exist, they are not within our normal senses, but reside within our conceptual and emotional spheres of experience. And second: the evidence for God or purpose is not subject to testing in a laboratory with controlled experiments. 
I think the materialist’s dissatisfaction with religion stems from an inappropriate expectation that our Western Christian enlightenment cultural heritage has burdened us with. That is: the melding of scientific process with religious assertions. It’s impossible to test and falsify most religious claims, (Except for declarations of specific contemporary miracles.) But materialist’s are correct that religion offers us unfalsifiable claims such as the existence of God or a specific historic event. There is more than one possible reason for this. One possibility is that there are no Truths to be found in religion. (A typical atheist charge.) Another is that the Truth is simply too complex or 'other' for any human system to articulate. You cannot falsify that which you cannot articulate. Just as you can’t test scientific propositions if those propositions remain in the metaphorical or analogy phase. So while religion does not offer us the comparative certainty that science offers, it may still be a frontier in Truth-searching none-the-less.
Religion provides less-certain answers that can only be held to self-consistency standards. Most of the religions that offered nature phenomena explanations have gone extinct as we’ve discovered their postulations to be wrong. Goodbye Thor and Zeus. But there are still potential answers to the bigger questions of origin and purpose that simply cannot be ‘discovered’ by any means other than the speculative institution we call religion.
Each religion offers specific answers that can be held up to nature, examined by the imaginative mind, and examined for logical consistency. (Note I’m ignoring the whole emotional dimension of intuition, faith, and revelation.) I’m a Christian not because I find Christianity to be The Truth, but because I find that with some modification it provides a very good theory for the origin/purpose questions, while remaining true to what we observe in nature and our fellow man. I hope that it is a True theory. And I will not deny my emotional attachment to this system of thought that brings me peace and hope. But ultimately I am not relying on existential warm fuzzies to determine what I want to believe. It is not a specific system that I desire, but what that system points to. If there seems to be evidence concluding that my chosen system is untrue I would abandon it as an emotional crutch. I desire Truth over comfort.
Like the theory of evolution, there has been much speculation, dead-ends, and false assumptions interwoven with a larger arch of truth. Evolution as a phenomenon is not disproven by these accidents. A mislabeled skull, a poorly dated rock, a misinterpreted strata or a fraudulent skeleton do not invalidate the theory as a whole. Even major challenges like irreducible complexity can’t disprove the theory since the objection is based on a lack of specific mechanisms for independent development that coincidentally end up integrating with other systems to create more complex ones. That mechanism may be some unknown natural phenomena, or some miraculous intervention from God, but the point is that there is such a huge amount of explanatory power and evidence supporting the theory of evolution that it’s ok to work with it despite the holes. So it is with Christianity. I find some interpretations and emphases within my religious tradition to be wrong, and that’s ok. I find some doctrines such as eternal torment, literal six-day creation and substitutionary atonement to be at odds with a larger picture that does stay logically consistent and speaks to the origin/purpose questions we all have. Can it be proven? Of course not! It’s a theory. All religions are. Just because many religious adherents claim them to be absolute Truth that does not change the reality of the situation.
“So why let a theory shape your psyche and affect your decisions?!” Simply because we don’t have a choice in the matter. The materialists let their theory of non-origin/purpose/God shape their psyche and affect their decisions and they have exactly the same amount of proof that a religious person does that their theory is correct. (Zero) Everyone operates based on unproven assumptions. It’s just an unavoidable fact of life.
I’m not advocating the notion that religious ideas are as sound for creating policy and motivating actions as scientific ideas. I’m saying that there are deeper questions and answers that animate a particular aspect of human thinking regardless of your opinion of God or religion. If, as a materialist, you think religion is simply a process of pulling answers out of the ass and slapping some stamp of authority on them, you better examine your own process for addressing these deep questions. It doesn’t matter if you think them unimportant or try to ignore them. They remain. Your answers to them will shape your actions and attitudes. Freud himself –the man who called religion wish fulfillment- said that the existence of God was THE most important question that there is. (Armand Nicholi: The Question of God) Why? Because of the fact that before science, before religion, before society… a person fashions their heart according to how they answer this question.
Then there is the ‘purpose’ question. Every human finds some kind of answer to this whether it’s found in religion, community, family or self-created. And the answer any individual chooses is… are you ready for this?... Unfalsifiable. And that unfalsifiable theory about purpose drives every human to do what they do. To think what they think. To seriously consider some data and disregard other data. The theist may disregard some ideas such as evolution. The atheist may disregard some ideas such as the existence of a soul. Both ideas are damned important and have many ramifications if true. To say one is more important than the other is to show some huge bias. 
Oh, I know one can point to physical evidence that evolution occurs, but cannot point to physical evidence that souls exists. The relevant question is whether or not that inability actually affects the state of reality. It does not. Souls exist or they do not. Our ability to find evidence does not change that. Some atheists will then say that belief in things that don’t have falsifiable evidence is literally insane. That is the whole thrust of the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody. This is simply a straw man. The existence of a God or gods and purpose that is derived from said entities can take any form, from chariots in the skies to talking trees, to angels, demons and such. These are all proposed explanations for certain phenomena. If the phenomena is shown to be explained in another way those entities fade from the public consciousness as anything real. But my point is that materialists don’t base their decisions on “science”, as though that is a monolithic ‘thing’ that one can base anything on. They base their decisions on the same thing that religious people do: their intuition and opinions about unfalsifiable assertions.
To me, this is the hilarious irony of the angry atheist mocking the religious zealot’s misplaced motivations. The atheist is making up their own sense of purpose rather than accepting one handed down from a traditional source, and that’s all well and good. But it’s laughable that they consider their newly self-derived purpose to be superior to any other. Superior in what way? To what end? Those ways and ends are pulled out of their asses! Is the continuance of the human race the ultimate end? Well why? There is no good reason for this preference. It’s just another random choice in a random universe. A materialist will say that they work for the continuance of humanity because they love their children. Again, the sanctity of human life is unfalsifiable. It’s a preference. (One I am happy to agree with them on!) Any motivation that a materialist produces is just as likely or unlikely to be “true” as that of a religious person. There is no logic, reason, or “science” to back up your hopes, loves and dreams. Behind faith and reason lies the heart. The desires, emotions, and longings that push our minds down certain roads while avoiding others.
An atheist does not have better credentials for prescribing action than a religious person. Both could be right or wrong. This does not mean that a political leader ought to start a war because “God told me to.” Or that scientific evidence should be ignored in policy making. But when it comes to living one’s life according to some system, a materialist can’t be more rational in choosing a godless system than a religious person is in choosing a spiritual system. There is no scientific evidence for the nonexistence of God. Unless that system is shown to be wrong with evidence or self-contradiction, it can’t be more or less valid than materialism. Remember, religion is man’s attempt to apprehend things that are by their very nature impossible to articulate without symbols. It’s possible that there is nothing there to apprehend or symbolize. But there’s no way to prove that or even to determine its likelihood. Thus declaring a system that doesn’t even try to account for a spiritual dimension to be superior is simply stating a preference, not a fact, and certainly not backed up by science.
There are all sorts of unfalsifiable things we arrange our lives around and base our decisions on. Our love of family, community, political ideals… all the real stuff of daily living. No one is considered foolish for dedicating their lives to these things that could turn out to be illusions. Your political party could have ideals based on inaccurate assumptions. Your local baseball team might suck and be full of horrible people. Your spouse might cheat and leave you. And my God might not exist. So what? There’s life to live and decisions to be made! We just gotta go with what convinces us. And what convinces us changes with time and experience. Liberals get older and wiser and become conservative. Conservatives get older and wiser and become liberals. Christian children can become atheists in college and return to their faith later in life. And visa-versa. Since there is no clear path that the majority take to reach some obvious Truth, you can’t point to a single answer and say; “A-ha! So THAT’S what mature, smart, good-looking people believe!” The ideas that compel us change as our values change. And values are unfalsifiable. Personally, I value the guesses that mankind has made about God and purpose. I value them because I think the answers are important.
When one jettisons religion from their life it’s not as though the questions it answers lay dormant. You can repress the instinct for a developed narrative that explains your purpose all you want, but it will still manifest. Rather than a sudden personal salvation and future eternal life, an atheist will weave their story into the evolutionary tapestry of history. They see themselves as part of the maturing essence of human society, leading it away from the hell of ignorance and superstition, towards a salvation of knowledge and technology. Some even interject alien life forms leading the way as some sort of angels or Christ-figures. Personally, I don’t find any more evidence for this narrative than I do for the Christian one. It’s all conjecture based on emotions and particular interpretations of historic claims. Does the atheist motivation make more rational sense than the Christian’s? Can their hopes be falsified? Proven in a court of law? Dissected and examined on the altar of science?
The whole question comes to this: Do you build your life on a theory that explains purpose with the help of thousands of years of speculation on the subject, or do you build your life on a theory of purpose that lets you make it up yourself? And is one more rational than the other? I say if a specific theory is crazy, then yeah, it’s more rational to go with another or make one up yourself. Atheists claim that ALL religious theories are crazy. But it is not more rational to assume that there cannot be a ‘spiritual’ dimension, a God, miracles, etc. It’s simply a preference for how they want reality to be. And while materialism has some great theories about how morality, spiritual urges, and such evolved, it has no answer for the origin of everything. If I’m going to pick a theory that attempts to explain the world, I prefer one that actually proposes answers to everything, not just leave stuff out because it’s unimaginable, or impossible to fully articulate. A partial answer is better than no answer.
Would anyone accept a scientific theory that explained half a phenomenon but simply ignored the other half, dismissing it as unimportant or nonsense? Life, as a phenomenon presents us with a range of data and sensory impressions. It begs the question of origin. Our minds hound us with emotions and intuition about concepts like love, morality, beauty, the sanctity of life, etc. One can take all this input and put it through a materialist sieve, throwing out everything that doesn’t fit ones preconceptions. Or one can accept the holistic range of data and attempt to formulate a theory that accounts for all of these phenomena including the validity of our intuitive assertions that puts ontological weight on them. I think the latter is the less biased approach.
I am not advocating that a religious concept that denies or contradicts a scientific precept should be used by anyone for anything. Such as literal six-day creationism or appeasing rain gods. A materialist will jump in here and say: “God is a contradiction of science!” But the existence of God is not a scientific concept, it’s a philosophic/religious concept. Science cannot prove or disprove it. Science has nothing to say about the concept unless a god is posited that has demonstrable qualities in nature. Science has done humanity a great good by winnowing down the options for what a God or gods are. In that way, the field of science has been a great asset in the religious quest for Truth. I welcome all logical assaults on any religion. “Logical” being the key word here, as opposed to emotional or biased. The more the heard of possible gods are culled, the better we will be able to define and thus “know” God. Now we know God is not a bearded giant on top of a mountain. Thanks science! Now we know God is not driving a chariot across the sky. Thanks science! Keep it up!
The popular materialist narrative pits science against religion in an Armageddon of ideas; a fight to the death. Reason and logic versus ignorance and superstition. I won’t deny that many have used religion as an excuse to persecute and slow scientific progress. But the whole battle is really a silly fabrication based on a flawed philosophy that views the spheres of science and religion as fundamentally opposed. They are not opposed. It’s people that oppose each other. And they will find whatever pretense is at hand to wage their wars. Both science and religion are quests for answers to the phenomena that we perceive. Science helps religion by shooting down wrong theories. And religion should help science by reminding us that the particular questions they answer are not the questions that matter the most to us humans. Faith, at its best, organizes our values in ways that benefit all. Religion may be a bunch of educated guesses, but due to the subject matter, it’s the best we humans can do. So when it comes down to what is directing out decision-making faculties, it’s not science versus religion. It’s one guess (There’s a God) versus another guess. (There is no God.)
So as a guy who understands and sympathizes with the materialist impulse, I ultimately reject it for two reasons. It makes a claim to Knowledge about something that can’t be Known. And it does not respect all fields of inquiry. And I do.
Comments
If God is something that can't be known... how do you know?
Enjoy your double standard.
"Religion may be a bunch of educated guesses, but due to the subject matter, it’s the best we humans can do." No, it's not. Not by a long shot. Philosophy and neurology, and critical examination of the human mind (to name just a few) are absolutely superior to any "best guess", whether religious or otherwise. Just because something is unknown, does not make that thing UNKNOWABLE. (Life's origin, for example). Although I disagree with your simplification that we are pitting one guess against another, even if I grant you that point, it doesn't create equivalency between the two guesses. If I roll a die, and guess that I will roll a 3, that's a valid guess. If instead I guess that I will roll a 67, that's no longer within the realm of possibility. God is for atheists, 67. RE:Purpose - Why is that such an important question to you? Isn't living your life and enjoying it, enough? That's all atheism really is - living our brief life simply because that life is worth living.
It seems like you're covering two sides of he same coin... one view is to label all of creation as "God" and another is to call all of creation "Atheism". Both views are applying one grand label to the whole concept.
I guess you're trying to say that the difference is that God is somehow slightly knowable (through mediums like emotions, though I think you need to re-examine what those really are with a bit more clarity), whereas a materialist just gives up on the whole idea. But as Matthew says above, perhaps a materialist is just a bit more pragmatic about creation and sees God in everything, and because of that they can just eliminate the idea of God altogether for the sake of simplicity.
And since you included an illustration of Buddha, look into how they view the idea of creation... it's very much in alignment with modern quantum physics.
You're getting sloppy with your labels about heavy subjects and I think you need to take a more careful approach to your generalization
If Christ is not risen from the dead, we are of all men most miserable.
It's interesting how you mock the atheist by saying their "beliefs" are "pulled out of their asses", yet your whole article never offers any fact that religion points to a capital-T truth with some sort of proof. Religion is the very definition of "pulling something out of my ass".
You accept God because you like that idea better then there being no god.... that's faith and that's fine. But I think you confuse hundreds of generations of Culture, Tradition and Tribalism for Truth.
"I desire Truth over comfort."... yet everything you describe is exactly the opposite. It seems the atheist ascribes to that statement more than you.
The general idea that man would be in a world of hurt without God, therefor He must exist is a nice idea, but it isn't Truth... but it is an individual truth with a small "t" and that's perfectly fine.
I think more religious people (including myself) should stay away from the capital "T"s and be more accepting of the lowercase ones.
One question your article gave me is whether you see God as Something that creates and is separate from His creation, or whether all of creation is God? Perhaps that would be a good next article to explore.
Greg B: “If God is something that can't be known... how do you know?”
I don’t, and I don’t claim to. Check out my previous articles for more on that.
Matthew: “Philosophy and neurology, and critical examination of the human mind (to name just a few) are absolutely superior to any "best guess", whether religious or otherwise.”
Those fields of inquiry are wonderful for illuminating many things. I don’t see how they can give us answers to origin or purpose. Since they cannot, we have another field of inquiry that does propose answers. It is within that specific area that I mean “It’s the best we humans can do.” Naturally, if you a priori disregard the origin question and find self-defined purpose makes you happy, then religion will simply be silly to you. That’s fine.
Matthew: “…absolutely superior...”
So when you say these other fields of inquiry are “absolutely superior” you are implicitly making a claim of materialism. But the entire field of religion is predicated on the philosophical idea that there could be other dimensions of being that we can’t apprehend. If philosophy (I assume you mean materialist philosophy) neurology, etc. are superior for finding Truth, it would only be so if materialism is correct, which is exactly what is in contention here. An argument in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise is circular. To avoid that you would have to first establish that materialism is True.
Matthew: “Just because something is unknown, does not make that thing UNKNOWABLE. (Life's origin, for example).”
I agree with this statement but take exception to your example. Because any origin (I’m speaking more broadly of the origin of all matter/space/time.) that we can discover with our tools would be a matter/space/time explanation. Which simply pushes the question back one step without actually solving anything. All material explanations will necessarily be an infinite regress, a philosophical dilemma that the concept of a God “fixes”.
Matthew: “even if I grant you that point, it doesn't create equivalency between the two guesses. If I roll a die, and guess that I will roll a 3, that's a valid guess. If instead I guess that I will roll a 67, that's no longer within the realm of possibility. God is for atheists, 67
This is a fantastic analogy for the basic difference between a theist and atheist mindset. As a theist I simply don’t accept your premise that the die we are rolling only has six sides. It may appear to our senses to be that way, but every scientist will admit that our senses are flawed and potentially incomplete for understanding our universe. I think the oversimplification occurs on the part of atheists who take our sensory data input to be complete enough to make truth claims regarding reality.
Matthew: “RE:Purpose - Why is that such an important question to you? Isn't living your life and enjoying it, enough? That's all atheism really is - living our brief life simply because that life is worth living.”
It’s important to me because I’m curious. When I combine the mystery of origin with the existential felt need for purpose, it sets a trajectory of investigation that materialist philosophy and science can’t speak to. I am personally unsatisfied by atheist answers… it’s just a personality thing. Or, who knows, maybe it’s just an intelligence or maturity thing and I’ll eventually get smart or mature enough to understand things the way you do. I’m happy for you that those answers satisfy you and bring you a good life, and I have no desire to undermine your beliefs. I’m just sharing my mind on what makes ME tick.
Joe: “It seems like you're covering two sides of the same coin... one view is to label all of creation as "God" and another is to call all of creation "Atheism". Both views are applying one grand label to the whole concept.”
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Joe: “(through mediums like emotions, though I think you need to re-examine what those really are with a bit more clarity)
What emotions really are? I understand the brain-chemistry and synapses and such that are associated with emotions. Is that what you mean?
Joe: “perhaps a materialist is just a bit more pragmatic about creation”
I don’t think accepting infinite regress and the accompanying logical problems are “more pragmatic” than proposing a creating entity.
“Buddha, look into how they view the idea of creation.”
I’ve done my comparative religion classes. I’m familiar with the basics. Also in alignment with quantum physics: “And God said…” ‘Voice’ = waves/vibration.
Joe: “You're getting sloppy with your labels about heavy subjects and I think you need to take a more careful approach to your generalization”
Can you give me a specific example or two?
Question: “It's interesting how you mock the atheist by saying their "beliefs" are "pulled out of their asses"
I’m sorry if I came across as mocking. That is really not my heart. My point is that all our ideas are guesses. We are all motivated by our opinions on whether or not there is a God, and no matter how you answer that, the answer can only come from some human authority or emotion-based opinion. Science has nothing to say on the subject. Philosophy is obviously split on the issue. Our senses give us contradicting impulses. How is one supposed to obtain certain Knowledge on the subject? The only solution: pull it out of your ass.
Question: “You accept God because you like that idea better then there being no god.... that's faith and that's fine. But I think you confuse hundreds of generations of Culture, Tradition and Tribalism for Truth.”
Nope. As this article and previous ones say: I don’t believe any human can Know Truth. But we sure do strive for it, and I think that’s healthy.
Question: “"I desire Truth over comfort."... yet everything you describe is exactly the opposite. It seems the atheist ascribes to that statement more than you.”
Please be specific. “everything” being opposite doesn’t help me isolate problems in my logic. Also, please tell me how an atheist suffers less comfort for their chosen belief than I do.
Question: “The general idea that man would be in a world of hurt without God, therefor He must exist is a nice idea, but it isn't Truth... but it is an individual truth with a small "t" and that's perfectly fine.”
I don’t accept the utilitarian arguments for God. If a God does not exist there is really no reason to pretend one does for the perceived benefits unless you have no character.
Question: “I think more religious people (including myself) should stay away from the capital "T"s and be more accepting of the lowercase ones.”
If one accepts logic than one has to accept the existence of Truth-with-a-capital-T. I don’t accept the notion of multiple truths. There are only multiple opinions. Some are closer to Truth, and some further. My contention is that no one on this planet can Know-with-a-capital-K where they are on that spectrum. I am convinced that I’m full of frailties, strengths, loves, hates, and other biases that all mean I could be deceived or deluded about any of my beliefs.
But I think I agree with the spirit of your point, that is why I’m not saying I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! I’m simply saying what I personally believe and why. Take it for what it’s worth.
Check out my older articles for more on this subject.
Question: “One question your article gave me is whether you see God as Something that creates and is separate from His creation, or whether all of creation is God? Perhaps that would be a good next article to explore.”
I try not to speak in detail about what I have so little grounds for speaking when it comes to declaratives like this. What I currently find most convincing is something akin to Panentheism. (Not to be confused with Pantheism) From Wikipedia:
Panentheism (from Greek ??? (pân) "all"; ?? (en) "in"; and ???? (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.
Question: “One question your article gave me is whether you see God as Something that creates and is separate from His creation, or whether all of creation is God? Perhaps that would be a good next article to explore.”
I try not to speak in detail about what I have so little grounds for speaking when it comes to declaratives like this. What I currently find most convincing is something akin to Panentheism. (Not to be confused with Pantheism) From Wikipedia:
Panentheism (from Greek ??? (pân) "all"; ?? (en) "in"; and ???? (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.
Yes, our senses are limited to interpreting the world we can apprehend. But that's what we have to work with. We COULD all just be brains in a jar that are imagining a shared reality. No one would be able to prove or disprove such a claim, and it's even relevant if that claim were true, because we have to live in this life that we perceive. I don't think that assuming such claims as default positions is a good place to start though...You use the term materialism in an almost deorgatory manner. But what's the opposite viewpoint: Immaterialism? Anyone is free to believe in the immaterial, but if you do you might just have to accept the criticisms of others who like to know what's real and make our decisions based on those things.
I can't agree with your assumption that the burden of proof lies on secular and rational minds to "prove" that materialism is true. First of all - The burden of proof lies with the claimant :in this case, that God exists as does an immaterial 'world' (forgive me if I've misused that word in this context). Secondly, revisiting a point about perception from my prior post, I don't believe anyone could make a claim that it is "True", except in the sense that it may "seem true". (Samuel Johnson, in defense of the material world, kicked a rock and declared "I refute it thus!". However, even in the absence of materialistic "truth", faith is not the best tool for finding such truth in my estimation, because it leads people down many different paths, all claiming to have the ONE true answer. This is why rational minds pursue and value science as the road to finding truth. It may never get us there, but it gives us the tools we need to test and verify our "guesses" to the best of our ability.
Lastly, God doesn't "fix" the problem of origin because you run into the same infinite regress problem. The difference being - science may (and that's a big may, I grant you) someday be able to tell us what happened before the big bang (the big crunch is the theory I happen to find particularly cogent personally). The problem with inserting a mystical beginning is that you topple the initial premise that "everything needs a creator". (God created the universe, who created God?) I know the standard answer is "But God is outside of space and time, etc.". But then if you are OK with assuming that God has always existed, what makes it so implausible to assume the universe has always existed, in some form, without the need for any supernatural crutch to hold it up? As Darwin said (although he was speaking purely of evolution) "There is grandeur in this view of life..." - that's precisely the sentiment I feel when thinking of the cosmos and its many natural mysteries, including its origin.
We can cover our tracks with all the fancy source-pulling and authority pointing we want, but it really does boil down to that, which is the point of my article. We are working with emotions and intuition when we answer questions that science can’t speak to. A common mistake I believe atheists make is to assume that their love for science somehow puts it in their corner in this debate. But it’s not. Science doesn’t care about God one way or another. We are just left with our conflicting emotional desires to form our opinion.
“As Darwin said "There is grandeur in this view of life..."”
Without a doubt, God or no, the universe in mind boggling.
“what makes it so implausible to assume the universe has always existed, in some form, without the need for any supernatural crutch to hold it up?”
What makes that implausible is that it just blows my little monkey mind. Every intuition we have tells us that complex things require minds to make them complex. Atoms and the physics that control them are incredibly complex. Chemical reactions more so. DNA exponentially more so. Cells and the machinery in them… Well, I’m sure you know the drill. Those intuitions could be wrong, sure, and ultimately my answer to “Why do you think there’s a God” is “I just do.” Just like your answer to “Why do you think there’s no God” is “I just do.”
“God doesn't "fix" the problem of origin because you run into the same infinite regress problem.”
But don’t you see, infinite regress is ONLY a problem for materialists.
“The problem with inserting a mystical beginning is that you topple the initial premise that "everything needs a creator".”
But that’s not the initial premise. The premise is specifically that effect has a cause. The theory of God is that God is not an effect. (You could also say that every created thing needs a creator, but I think that’s a bit circular as the definition of “created thing” is begging the question.)
“This is why rational minds pursue and value science as the road to finding truth.”
And this I agree with. I simply add that I don’t think one can find holistic truth if one relies only on science as an arbiter for interpreting all of life, especially when it comes to the interpersonal realms. And specifically if one wants answers to origin, God, and purpose. (and by “answers” I don’t mean THE CORRECT answers. I mean educated guesses.)
“but it gives us the tools we need to test and verify our "guesses" to the best of our ability.”
Yes, science is the right tool for our material theories. It is not a rational tool for our philosophical theories. Logic and observations are useful to both, and analogies are very helpful, but limited.
“faith is not the best tool for finding such truth in my estimation, because it leads people down many different paths, all claiming to have the ONE true answer.”
I want to be clear about the context here. For material questions, science is our best tool, hands down. For questions about purpose and God, science is simply not applicable. It is within the context of these specific questions that philosophy/religion comes into play as “the best we’ve got” for finding answers. And as I said in the article, those answers by necessity cannot be certain. I think you are conflating the systematic doctrines and practices of religion with its underlying philosophical motivations. Yes, religious institutions claim to have the ONE true answer. So do most political, business and educational institutions. The multiplicity of claims does not negate the possibility that there could be truth in some of them.
“I can't agree with your assumption that the burden of proof lies on secular and rational minds to "prove" that materialism is true.”
I don’t. I’ve stated clearly that no one can prove or disprove materialism or the existence of a spiritual dimension. We have a hard enough time proving scientific theories! Look how much they have evolved over the centuries. So I’m not sitting here saying my ideas are True and yours are False unless proven otherwise. I’m simply critiquing a system of thought for what I perceive to be a big weakness. (Close-mindedness)
“you might just have to accept the criticisms of others who like to know what's real and make our decisions based on those things.”
That is precisely why I hang out in atheist forums and submit my ideas to them. I accept their criticisms and try to keep an open mind to weaknesses in my arguments or person. But I just can’t accept your assertion that you “know what’s real”. I accept that we understand a subset of reality within the range of our senses and I live in that world with you and make most of my decisions in a very materialist manner of common-sense. I’m not attacking that world or that knowledge base. (Besides pointing out that we could be wrong about everything, but I’ve written about that in previous articles.)
“But what's the opposite viewpoint: Immaterialism?”
No. I don’t think there is an “opposite” view to materialism. Even the most ecstatic mystic lost in zen all day has some interaction with the world of our senses. I don’t know of any school of thought that completely denies the material world. Maya/illusion Buddhism and strains of Hinduism propose something close to an opposite to materialism, but it’s still within the context of beings existing in this common world, illusory or not. And I’m not advocating those. I’m simply advocating a philosophy that is open to the idea that there could be realms, worlds, dimensions, or whatever you want to call it, that are beyond our senses and our sense-extending tools and technologies. I don’t feel like that’s irrational or even counter-intuitive. I find an insistence that there can NOT be these things to be irrational.
@ Matthew: I wrote out responses and pasted them into this horrible response system from top to bottom which I hope will make it easier to read…
“You use the term materialism in an almost deorgatory manner.”
I don’t feel derogatory feelings when I say or write it. To me materialism is a curious way of approaching life. It seems close-minded to me, but that would be the extent of my derogatory feelings. I think I understand the emotional/intellectual attraction of the philosophy, but don’t find it a compelling way to holistically approach life. I’m sure that has something to do with my upbringing and personality, etc.
Joshua,
You talk about being a Christian like selecting something from a menu in a restaurant -- because it is attractive and tastes good. Is that the essence of what it means to you? If not, why are you one and what specifically is its impact on you?
Daniel
But this research did bring me to discover other doctrines from various times and places that “solved” the self-contradiction aspects. The circularity is still there, but that is the case with all claimed revelation.
So no, the essence of being a Christian is not about ordering the stuff that is attractive and tastes good to me. It’s about finding a framework for interpreting reality in a way that maintains logic, the goodness of God, a purpose for humans, and a positive way to organize my life and that of my family. As to why I am a Christian, and its impact on me, that is what I’m developing in this and subsequent articles. Stay tuned.
So I know where you are coming from with these questions. I assume you are referring to my picking and choosing of doctrine as “selecting something from a menu”. My motives for this are not as I once assumed them to be: as simply seeking what sounds nice to me so I don’t have to do the hard work of actually following God or His commandment. Instead, my motives are to find a theory that explains our existence without self-contradiction. I could easily be mistaken, but I’ve bashed my brains against the doctrines that caused me trouble for many years, studying them in depth, reading all the best article and arguments for them, because I really, really wanted to maintain my comfortable state wrapped in the authority of my institutional denomination and its particular interpretation of the Bible. Despite my best efforts I simply could not find a way to justify the circularity of these interpretations and the serious ramifications they had in limiting God’s power and goodness.
Daniel: “You talk about being a Christian like selecting something from a menu in a restaurant -- because it is attractive and tastes good. Is that the essence of what it means to you? If not, why are you one and what specifically is its impact on you?:”
Yeah, I’m familiar with the buffet analogy. I wrote lyrics for a Christian metal band I started in High School and one line went: “If you don’t accept the whole, why accept any at all?” (Referring to my modern Christian denomination’s definition of Christianity.) I found people who took parts of Christianity but rejected the system that it was institutionalized into to be foolish, weak-minded folk who weren’t serious about Truth.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!