Our inquiry into the status of religious belief has very much arrived in the present, with our reflections on 9/11 and its aftermath, and discussion of the book by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. We find ourselves in a strange time: the public discourse about religion is often radically polarized, and this discourse certainly manifests a deeply divided culture. On one side we have the "New Atheists," who are churning out bestsellers. On the other, there is the massive "faith-based" community (as opposed to "reality-based," an infamous distinction that emerged from the Bush White House), who couldn't be more diametrically opposed. And then there is a significant, confused in-between: permanent and temporary agnostics, present day ambivalentists, and seekers picking and choosing what they need to get by from religion and elsewhere. It's a strange time.
This state of affairs was the matrix for the theme, Faith and Doubt. And it led me to pose the guiding questions of this course, which I'll pose again, for anyone to comment on: Does religious belief remain a valid, well founded, and perhaps necessary aspect of human experience? Or have the events of the last century (or the last decade) shattered its possibility beyond repair?
Looking back at the comments from this semester, there have already been so many eloquent attempts to address these questions, in specific contexts, on this blog. Now feel free to step back and say what you will...
I was thinking about the dichotomy between faith (or love) and reason in class today. In my other religion class we talked about the mystics' definition of 'spiritual poverty', and the idea that knowledge (or reason) might in fact widen the gap between the believer and God. I remain sceptical about the feasibility of justifying God's existence through reason, much as I agree that it is at least an important attempt (didn't Kant say that it's necessary to deny knowledge to make room for faith as well?). I get especially nervous when one tries to equate the existence of human morality to the existence of God. This problem is perhaps exacerbated when one accuses the Other of being immoral/amoral simply because of a lack of religious faith (or a different one). Dawkins' "The God Delusion" drips with sarcasm, but it nevertheless brings to attention some inherent contradictions and dangers that religious faith can bring about. Undeniably I enjoy the trademark British sarcasm which is especially evident in Dawkins (sorry for stereotyping), but he does provoke religious people to at least consider other opinions, and ultimately invites all of us to reevaluate our personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteKant also made the claim that a "good will" is achieved by pure reason and is not bogged down by incentive, experience, or emotion. It seems to me Kant was an advocate for reason. One question that is confusing though, why would this "god" fellow endow these creatures with reason if he didnt want this to aid in the discovery of his existence? And if reason was given to humans by this supreme being than why would reason not be able to surmise the existence of "god"? Is god producing damaged goods for an ulterior motive?
ReplyDeleteDespite my extremely emotional reaction to the video we watched about 9/11, I couldn't help but doubt the woman who claimed to have seen an angel. I know that sounds incredibly insensetive but I couldn't imagine such a thing happening in realistic terms. I still can't believe the way that most of the people who lost someone to the towers (who wee interviewed) claimed that their relationship with God had only been strengthened by God's decision to take away their son or daughter.
ReplyDeleteI realized how much people who have been through such a tramatic experience need reason more than ever. They need reassurance that their own children had a reason for leaving and that God would provide them with a better life in heaven. Reason seemed like an absolute necessity to these parents. They couldn't possibly be told thta the deaths were simply random and had nothing do with a divine plan.
Still I know that personally I could never turn to God at this time, even if I did believe in him. I don't think I would ever be able to come to terms with the fact that the God I was worshipping was the same God who was responsible for the killing of such innocent people. I know the idea of God is one that doesn't offer me comfort so much as makes me question others around me. (I'm sorry I didn't mean that in an offensive way)
I actually think its extremely fascinating to see the different views of God from varying believers versus those who don't believe at all.
I agree with Bella -- and personally the most fascinating part of this course is to read about the varying views and religious beliefs of people who attempt to work through the question of religious faith through reason, from C.S. Lewis to Richard Dawkins. Having been raised in a completely different environment, I come to the study of monotheistic religions with more of a genuine curiosity and intense fascination than a need to reconcile with the attributes of a perfect Creator and the existence of evil in this world. I also agree with Bella that people need reassurances when tragedies/horrible events happen. Although, I do wonder if convincing oneself that God takes away a loved one for a reason is more of an emotional reaction than a "reason-based" attempt to prove the existence of God. Perhaps ultimately believers just have to sense (and trust) the presence of God, just like how the woman in the video sensed (and saw?) the angel?
ReplyDeleteIm really hooked on the feminist issue in regards to religion. I've studied feminist theory before in Psyche and Society with Manolo Guzman. I really like this quote:
ReplyDelete"This world is basically feminine, you know. It's what allows survival. Not "survival of the fittest"- thats just a male concept. Survival is all about nurturing, loving, sustaining - the feminine aspects. Without them where would we be? Our earlt history was predominantly one that honored these qualities; like your Iroquois, women decided all the important issues. My culture here worshiped the goddess, as did people all over the world - all over Mother Earth - until recent history, a few thousand years ago, perhaps a couple of thousand years befoe Christ."
This is the introduction quote to the book "The Goddess in Every Girl". The quote is by Viejo Ita, a Mayan Wise Man.
I agree with Angela in that what i loved most about this class was the opportunity to read various beleifs and accounts of people's experiences. What interests me most is accounts of peoples experiences through life and how that altered the later part of their life, if it did. i beleive that religion does remain a valid aspect today. as some people in class mentioned, when tragedy occurs, people begin to look for religion. Also i agree with Angela that when one turns to God it seems to be an emotional reaction first and foremost, but i also beleive that part of that response is to beleif and faith.
ReplyDeleteMy friend often tells me a story about his friend Tania who lives in Lebanon on a daily basis she would walk to school past dead bodies, heads rolling down streets. She wouldn't even argue the existence of God because to her a "God" could not exist. She had seen real horrors that we in America have never witnessed. 9/11 was our first glimpse at horrors. It's very easy for us to sit in a nice classroom, safe in NYC and talk about a God who takes care of us. We are taken care of. Until we see real terrors I think our perception of God is skewed.
ReplyDeleteI think it is true that people today will rarely see an actual angel or vision from God. I think people do frequently turn to religion in hard times, but this is not what makes it true; it is just a need to feel comforted, and many people who do not believe in God do this. I think, however, that someone should believe in God because they have reason to believe he is real, and that the Bible is true. It really is a tragedy, like Dawkins said, for a scientist to decide that based on their research the Bible is wrong and to still believe. This faith will not be very strong, and will not be an incentive to change your life for God because you won't even be able to say why you believe in it. One should have faith because it has been proven to them that it is true.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Angela said about morality and God, I think someone like C.S. Lewis is arguing that to be passionate about evils in the world, you must have some standard that you're holding it up to, otherwise you are no more justified to say its wrong than the wrond-doer is to say it's right. He says that this moral code is the ten commandments from the Bible, and that they withstand time and place. This does not mean that every society gets them all right, but that we see evidence of how part of human nature is to have some understanding of these laws and incorporate them into our society, because we were made in God's image. However, people are also inately sinful so some people or societies may be entirely based on that and rebel against all of the need for God that is within us. Also to point out once again in response to Bella- when people who know God and his Word turn to him, they also know that he is not responsible for the deaths of people in horrible attacks, but that the sinful nature of humam beings is, and we suffer through with God to make the most of this broken world through him.
It is undoubtedly important "to be passionate about evils in the world" (Nancy), lest we fall into cultural relativism. But as we discussed in class today, there are also other ways to justify the existence of human morality, such as the "Darwinian" benefits, or simply a more humanistic approach.
ReplyDeleteI do wish to clarify, though, that I am in no way attempting to deny the existence of God (I have become extremely confused about religious beliefs since I started majoring in Religious Studies). However, I do believe that there is an inherent danger in equating human morality to God's existence. I love this quote from Dawkins: “if you agree that, in the absence of God, you would ‘commit robbery, rape, and murder’, you reveal yourself as an immoral person ... If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good". Something we should probably think about.
Again, I am not trying to refute the value of belief as a basis for morality for those who, like Lewis, practice objective morality and find strength in grounding this morality in sincere belief. We just have to keep in mind that such an equation might also inspire unnecessary hypocrisy, hatred, and violence, within a religious community.
Angela - I am so glad you brought up that quote because it struck me as well. I actually brought it up today in an arguement with my boyfriend. I think it also relates to our discussion in class today (or yesterday I'm not sure) about the contradiction of religious leaders using such violent language and even killing the doctor who performed abortions. Do they still consider themselves moral?
ReplyDeleteI also have to admit that I am often offended when people claim that if someone is not religious they are automatically not moral. I'm not sure what I believe in but I definitely lean more towards doubting an existence, at least they way it is defined by the 3 western religions. But I still consider myself a moral person. I try very hard to be a good person. I know the argument against that: God gave me universal morals.
This has little to do with the current discussion but..
ReplyDeleteAs I was finishing off my final paper, there was a connection that clicked in my mind that was waiting to click for some time. As I was reading The God Delusion, there was someone that Dawkins reminded me of, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Finally, BAM, it hit me. Richard Dawkins reminds me so Sarah Palin. I don't mean visually, or in speech, but in essence, and the way in which both tend to leave impressions on people.
There was tons of controversy surrounding Sarah Palin's nomination as republican vice presidential candidate. There were many that thought that she would make a great VP, and there were others who saw her for what she really was: full of air.
I think Dawkins has the same impact. He either grabs a lot of people who unfortunately grew up with a weak religious background, that go back and forth between varying secular conservative/liberal debates which typically just spin people in circles, or people who are searching for anything to explain histories events in a way that makes "sense."
There is no solid ground for Dawkins to stand on that could convince a believer into questioning his or her faith. The same can be said for Sarah Palin. The odds of her convincing a hardcore liberal to vote for her with her lack of vocabulary and political experience was unlikely.
Who did she sway? Primarily the many under-educated Americans who want to feel they're a part of something wholesome.
Dawkins will only sway those who have salient weakness in their understanding of both the major world religions as well as evolutionary science. Darwin would probably kick Dawkins in the teeth for making his life's work seem like the absurd anecdote to the notion that something bigger than man exists.
It's been a great semester everyone!
How did this religious studies blog just become a forum for pushing political agendas? While we are bringing up beliefs that are totally unrelated to the discussion of faith and doubt let me say that I think waffles are superior to the pancake. How could anyone have a different opinion than mine? I mean not only does the waffle have a superior shape (the square, undoubtedly the best shape..in the world)they also have a superior ability in retaining syrup. There are many that think that pancakes would make a good BF (or breakfast food, to the "lay person")and then there are others who see pancakes for what they really are: full of flour. You may find yourself asking, who would be so thick to prefer pancakes? Primarily the many uneducated Americans (poor souls if only they knew what they were missing) who want to feel they're part of something wholesome. Pancakes primarily grab a lot of people who unfortunately grew up with a weak waffle background. I personally feel sorry for anyone who is "feeble minded" enough to believe that pancakes are better than waffles.
ReplyDeleteHaha interesting comparison, Cailin, though I disagree. I think Dawkins, unlike Sarah Palin, has a lot to offer. His intent is to stir the pot, get people to ask questions. He knows it's unrealistic to hope for full reversals of belief. But, actually, throughout the book he includes several letters from former believers who he did, in fact, "convert". So when you say "there is no solid ground for Dawkins to stand on that could convince a believer into questioning his or her faith", I am afraid you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I am not entirely swayed by Dawkins' principle argument against God's existence. He calls upon evolution to explain how we progress from the less complex to more complex, and how if God existed he would have had to have been more complex than the thing he was creating. But I wonder, isn't that the point? If God did exist I assume he would not be susceptible to the rules of evolution. He would be grander and more powerful than anything; it wouldn't have to make sense that a highly complex being was necessary for creating the infinitely less complex.
As a side note, it was brought up in class that Dawkins has been accused of not reading or knowing enough about the religions he discusses. My initial instinct was to jump to his defense because I can sympathize. I guess, for a nonbeliever, it's hard to get motivated to examine texts you think are false. But then I realized it's much better to be informed, to educate yourself about anything you're seeking to discuss or argue against. Your audience will find you more credible. And in the end, if believers are willing to read The God Delusion, I should be willing to delve into the Bible.
Either way I think The God Delusion is an interesting read. I read it over the summer and would recommend it to anyone, regardless of their beliefs.
I agree with Nancy. When you have a really good personal relationship with God , you understand that he is not responsible for stealing your child or loved one away. There are so many people with this close connection with God, there would be no way to say that religion is invalid. Like we saw in the documentary, a lot of people became closer to God knowing that their son or daughter was with him, and to me that makes sense. Initially the loss would overwhelm you but that is not reason to blame God, and realizing that they were with him would be incredibly comforting contrary to the other notion that they are just gone and have not enjoyed any afterlife. How sad.
ReplyDeleteAs for Dawkins... well, like everyone has said.. he should read more. As boring as the texts may be for him, he needs to understand them first. The way he takes bits and pieces of the bible and portrays God as this awful ruthless character is truly absurd. Millions of people are part of the christian faith, and a ton of those people are incredibly well educated.. I feel like if the God in the bible were inherently evil the following would be miniscule. It is obvious in the scriptures that God is all knowing all powerful and all good. Dawkins is a silly bitter guy.. who can't stand up to Bill O'reilly :]
I agree that most of what we read of Dawkins did not entirely convince me of his point. But I didn't read his whole book. I feel it's impossible for us to judge his points and say he doesn't accomplish what he means to without reading every page of that book.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, yes the same argument can be turned around on Dawkins. His belief that he doesn't have to read each of the religions Holy Book in order to criticize them, is not completely correct. He needs to be knowledgeable on the subject in order to criticize it.
I really appreciated hearing everyone's final paper topics. It honestly helped me format a few more things in my head before I started the paper.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said I wished the class went a little bit longer, I said it because I felt as if I didnt get to talk to as many people in the class as I had hoped. As I mentioned in class yesterday, I feel as if Religion is a never ending cycle and it is up to the individual to choose what cycle and where it takes them. I hope to see some of you in other classes!
I think that many non-religious people are moral, but I think that when they say God does not exist they are contradicting themselves and do not realize where there morals come from. I think it possible to act in a way that supports the existence of God, without acknowledging his existence and maybe not even wanting him to exist. I have known some very strong atheists who are very active in fighting human rights crimes, and I would say they are very "moral" but that this sense of what is wrong does come from God, and they just do not acknowledge that fact. After all, if God is real, he will be there whether we want him to be or not. Without God and his overseeing standard of what is right and wrong, I think we would all be capable of some terrible things, but honestly I don't think this is even a sensible hypthetical situation, because it is being made in God's image which gives of the feeling of what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, I think our sinful nature would allow all of us to be capable of more than we know, and more than we would want to admit. This is what C.S. Lewis meant by why accepting Jesus is painful at first: you realize you are more sinful than you ever dared admit, but that you are more loved than you could ever imagine.
I really encourage everyone to check out a service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Sundays at Hunter at 10:30 and 6:00. (there are also three other services at other locations). The pastor has written a few books, one of which really addresses a lot of the issues we've talked about in class, and articulates the Christian view much better than I ever could, so here's the website about that book, which is called The Reason for God. underneath is also the church website. (the book is great because no matter what your opinions on faith, it just gives you something to think about in a very organized way, and will clear up any misconceptions or misunderstandings of the Christian faith).
http://www.thereasonforgod.com
http://www.redeemer.com
A reoccuring theme I noticed in all of the texts we read this semester is that religious faith provides comfort in times if distress and answers in times of questioning. Although none of the texts convinced me that that God was real or God was not real , I was convinced that the thought of God and the concept of religion is needed to comfort people and provide answers for them. What I am more intrested in now , however, is figuring out why some people rely on religion and why some seem fine without it. I guess that varies with the individual and possiably their upbringing.
ReplyDeleteThe course intorudced me to a lot of diffrent viewpoints and cleared up many questions I had about this matters such as why and where did the prejudice against Jews orginated. I also enjoyed learning about the various faiths of the other students. Very insightful and enjoyable!
If you feel that the existence of God is the only reason people behave morally than you have a pretty poor opinion of human beings. Being made in God's "image" could not be the sole reason for these feelings of right and wrong. Why are there so many different variations, in peoples eyes, of concepts like "right" and "wrong"? God must have a pretty terrible case of multiple personality disorder if we were made in his "image". By crediting God for the reason why human beings behave morally it completely nullifies the individuals upbringing and the parents role in it. And by that same logic wouldn't the fact that there are "EVIL" people in the world discredit God's "work"? If God is the only reason why you act in accordance with your idea of morality than I'd hate to see what kind of person you would turn in to if you ever lost your faith
ReplyDeleteAt the end of this class, I kind of feel like I want to continue taking the class to further my understanding of my own faith and figure out where I truly stand. For me, there is still so much to be figured out and so much to think about. The excellent discussions we had were extremely beneficial to me. They gave me insight that I certainly could not have come up with on my own and helped me in my understanding of the nature of faith and doubt. Still, I don't know where I stand. Sometimes it seems like human suffering is too much for God to be a benevolent god or to even exist at all, and other times it seems like there is no way that God couldn't exist. Could morality exist without a creator? Can the evil in this world be accounted for if God created all people? I know I will continue to revisit these questions over and over again, but I'm not sure that I will ever come to a complete answer. Thus is the nature of faith and doubt, I suppose. You can't have one without the other.
ReplyDelete