Spirituality, Religion, Atheism and Naturalism Part 2

Here is part two of an analysis of another blog, located here, and what I think I can learn from his story, what I accept of his ideas, and where I differ.


While at Berkeley my atheism context was further molded. No longer surrounded by Catholics, I met a lot of interesting people there with a wide variety of belief systems. I quickly made a lot of new friends who were very intelligent, and some were open to discussing the nature of reality. I think my Catholic upbringing was like a coiled spring — as soon as I left behind the environment that kept the spring coiled, I immediately shot to the other end of the spectrum. But I went way too far with it. I not only shed my old religious beliefs, but along with it went my whole concept of morality.

This paragraph is one of the reasons I respect this blogger. He is able to admit, as many aren't (and I know from other posts what he believes now), that he shot to the other end of the spectrum.' In his case, he cites morality, and in other cases I see, it's a devotion to naturalism that goes from healthy and scientific to ideological and scientistic. 

As he admits in the paragraph above, his entire concept of morality vanished. It didn't have to, but in his case, it did. And he goes on to describe in detail his newfound addiction to shoplifting, drinking, drugs, and his time in jail that changes his outlook on life. Upon leaving jail, he is a blank slate, for the most part. 

I knew I had a lot of personal rebuilding to do, but I also knew that I couldn’t go backwards. The morals and beliefs by which I was raised were broken, but living without a sense of conscience clearly wasn’t an option. Was a belief in God required to live by a code of ethics? I became aware that despite how negative my experiences seemed, they forever changed me in a good way too. By going through those experiences, I had unlocked access to a part of myself that was previously dormant — my courage.

He goes on to talk about his years in college, and how, with his new outlook on life, his hunger, he gets amazing grades in college, all the while taking an obscene number (31) of credits a semester. 

This experience gave me a deeper appreciation of the power of context. I would not have even attempted such a thing as a Catholic. I would never have set the goals I did. I’m not sure anyone can truly understand how different reality seems from the perspective of different contexts if you’ve never switched contexts. If you subscribe to a disempowering context, you may be absolutely crippled in your ability to effectively tackle certain challenges no matter how hard you try (if you even try at all).

A great point made here is that it's difficult to understand different contexts if one hasn't switched contexts at all. It aligns with something I feel, and that is, some of the most insightful material is from people who have been in a naturalistic worldview, only to switch to a theistic worldview (C.S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Edward Feser, Jime's blog, etc). I'm sure it works the other way too, and in fact, if many atheists are from religious households, than I imagine it would.

Over the next decade I experimented with agnosticism, various new-agey belief systems, Buddhism, objectivism, and more. I even tried Scientology for a few months just to see what it was like. I wanted to assimilate a variety of different contexts, experience them from the inside, and then back off and compare their strengths and weaknesses. This produced a lot of instability in my life but also tremendous growth.

The last sentence is key. By allowing oneself to doubt, to question, it enables the growth that can be very fulfilling. It ties back into experiencing different contexts. While I would say that I, more-or-less, lived like an atheist for a while, reading atheist material, atheist opinions and stories, I feel I have experienced that worldview as well to a certain extent.

Our beliefs act as lenses. These lenses can help us see things we can’t otherwise see, but they can also block us from seeing parts of reality. I see a huge part of personal development as the study of these lenses — these belief systems. There are an infinite number of lenses, so the quest never ends, but the more lenses you examine personally, the more you understand about the nature of reality and your role within it.

Fantastic.

However, here is where it gets a bit sloppy, and where I have to disagree with conclusion.

As a result of this introspection, I was able to shed certain beliefs and strengthen others. Some beliefs I found consistently disempowering, meaning that if I adopted them, I would be denying myself access to valuable potential. These included the belief in heaven/hell and the belief in a higher power. That second one may seem surprising, but I opted to let it go because I consistently found it less empowering than a belief in a lower power. An example of a higher power would be a consciously aware God or gods such as found in Christianity or Greek mythology. 

My overall religion has effectively become a religion of personal growth. Every year I continue to tweak my beliefs to try to bring them into closer alignment with my best understanding of how reality actually works. The better we understand reality, the more potential we unlock. Just as understanding a new law of physics can allow us to do things we could never previously do, beliefs about reality work the same way. If you’re stuck with a belief in a flat earth, it’s going to limit your potential actions and results. Similarly, if your religious beliefs are too great a mismatch for actual reality, you’ll be doomed to spend your life only tapping a fraction of your true potential. In my “religion,” knowingly leaving my potential untapped is sinful. Personal optimization is deeply embedded into my sense of morality. Not growing is morally wrong to me — it runs contrary to my understanding of the purpose of life.

In the first paragraph, the author talks about how he would choose his beliefs on whether or not he found them empowering in his life, which he also sums up in the first sentance of paragraph two. Choosing one's beliefs for pragmatic reasons is certainly no new concept, but it is one that I can't agree should be a driving force. One is free to choose their beliefs based on what they believe constitutes personal growth, but there is an obvious disconnect between pragmatic beliefs and truth. He mentions how he tweaks his beliefs to how he best understands reality to work, but the two will only work if the truth, in fact, leads to personal growth. If it does, than his search is actually for the truth, not beliefs that lead to empowerment. If this connection is made, I will be on board, because I (at least try) to orient my quest around what best explains reality, and what I believe to be true, and if the truth doesn't lead to 'empowerment,' then so be it. But if one orients their quest around empowering beliefs, I see no reason why true beliefs would not be discarded for false ones. If you find belief in heaven and hell disempowering, and chose not to accept them, so be it, but this has no bearing on whether or not they exist or not. 

This is more complicated when one considers the subjective nature of 'personal growth.' My idea of personal growth is determined by my worldview, not the other way around. But this does not seem to be the way he navigates his life, and I find that to be backwards. He seems to be saying he accepts beliefs based on whether he sees growth, but what constitutes growth unless it is rooted in his/her worldview? My idea of growth is very spiritual, because I believe spirituality to be an incredibly real, and tangible thing. But if you deny this, then personal growth could be wealth, or fame, or relationships. I find the way he arrives at his conclusion to be muddy at best, backwards at worst. 

Actions, not words, reveal beliefs. If you want to understand what you truly believe, observe your actions. This may take some courage to do, but if you follow the trail of your actions, it will lead you to a more congruent belief system. And once there you can begin consciously moving towards new beliefs that empower you, while your actions and beliefs remain congruent along the way. 

Good point, one where Christians should perhaps take the hit. If one accepts God with his words but denies him with every breath he takes, what does that make him? To me, it brings up images of the pharisees. I've always had problems with believing that 'faith' not 'works' leads to salvation. But what is faith without the action that shows faith is genuine? 

It might seem questionable why I like this blog, at all, since he seems to have very different beliefs than I do. Furthermore, I haven't talked at all about the distinction between spirituality and religion. Well, I'll just say he has a section on 'Spirituality' which has over 100 posts, most of them since the entry I have recapped in this post, as well as in part one. He seems to have found truth, or empowerment, in spirituality, and he talks in many entries about his certainty in life after death, and his mediumship experiences. I have done little as way of research in mediumship, but I fully believe it's possible, especially with the case for the afterlife as strong as it is. This shift leads me to believe that an honest truth seeker (and apparently one interested in empowerment, as a driving factor) can land on spirituality as truth. He also epitomizes many of my feelings about seeking the truth, even if I find his methodology questionable. He has another post on ten reasons why not to join a religion, so while he seems to still be strongly against organized religion, I think it's obvious why, given his mindset, he feels so against it (also, from reading this entry, it's mostly weak rationale, falsehoods, and unsophisticated theology - I'll comment on this entry in another post). 

I think this story shows a lot of key points. It shows how many atheists are formed, and the rationale behind the decision. It shows what truth-seeking can lead to (doubt), and how it can eventually lead to growth. While I value growth, as he does, it takes a backseat to truth, mainly because growth is dependent upon what I perceive the truth to be. If I don't have those standards in place, I can never assess my growth in the first place. But overall, I admire his journey, and I enjoy many of his statements about beliefs, which I couldn't have said better myself.

Spirituality, Religion, Atheism and Naturalism Part 1

Recently, I've been doing some thinking about the relationship between spirituality and religion. If you were to draw a Venn Diagram with 'Religion' in one circle and 'Spirituality' in the other, at what points would the two meet? Where would they differ? Is religion just spirituality institutionalized? Or are they all just false?

The more I learn, about myself, how I believe the world to be like, how I believe God to be like, the more I find myself drifitng away from organized religion, and I find myself more drawn towards labeling myself as 'Spiritual.' Throughout my searching, my belief in the supernatural, whether it be God, the spirit, or the afterlife, have all been strengthened immensly. However, I've also found myself less drawn to the church for Sunday morning worship.

I most certainly have no animus towards religion, and I find much spiritual growth from reading the Bible, and I find a lot of historicity in  Jesus Christ - and on that last point I would differ from many people, like the example blog I'll bring up. Perhaps, in short, I can say it best that I find some of the doctrine emphasized in the church to be wrong, or at the very least overemphasized, and have disagreements about some of religions side-effects.

In some ways, it reminds me several articles I read months ago. A quote by Stephen Prothero, from God is Not Great, says:

"If you let the concept of God float a little bit, almost everybody is theist."

The above could be taken in several ways, but one way to look at this is the notion that religion seems to have a claim on what characteristics 'God' holds, and perhaps more importantly, in what ways he should be worshiped. It also makes me think of Anne Rice, who, fed up with her congregation, announced she was through with Christianity, but still regards her relationship with Christ as the most important aspect of her life. It makes one wonder - what constitutes being a Christian? 

I want to analyze a blog I stumbled across today, one that is apparently pretty well-known, and look at this man's story, as well as another post or two from his blog. He brings up a lot of good points, some that I think religion should accept in stride. He also has other thoughts, that i'll try to point out, where I think he is simply mistaken. In seeking the truth, one should be open to hearing the views of others. If one is grounded in their worldview, then analyzing others should be a beneficial exercise. So here we go, and if you want to look at the full text, here is the mans overall bio. He starts out his blog talking about worldviews, and then moves into the specifics of his life, and then the implications.

I will title this part of the summary: The Birth of an Atheist

What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Is there a God or isn’t there, and if there is a God, what is its nature? Of all the world’s religions, which one is the most correct? Is there an afterlife? Are we primarily physical beings or spiritual beings?

The way we answer these questions will provide the ultimate context for everything else we do with our lives. If we place any value on our lives at all, we must give some consideration to these questions.

I couldn't agree more. I urge my volleyball group to ask the tough questions, and to seek the truth, and try and ask the tough questions. It goes back to philosophy, which gives one the tools to attempt to tackle these difficult questions, and look at areas where others have tried as well.

The next part of the story is very significant, as it can epitomize how many atheists are formed.

For the first half of my life, until the age of 17, I was Catholic/Christian, baptized and confirmed. I went through eight years of Catholic grammar school followed by four years of Catholic high school. I was a boy scout for several years and earned the Ad Altare Dei award. I prayed every day and accepted all that I was taught as true. I went to Church every Sunday with my family. All of my friends and family were Christian, so I knew nothing of other belief systems. My father was an altar boy when he was young, and his brother (my uncle) is a Catholic priest. One of my cousins is a member of Campus Crusade for Christ. In high school I went to optional religious retreats and did community service, both at a convalescent home and at a preschool for children with disabilities. I expected to be Catholic for life.

It's important to note that he was brought up very religious, and, I can only assume, fundamentalist leaning. His family sounds about as religious as they come, and his upbringing sets the stage for the retreat his life takes.

But near the end of my junior year of high school, I went through an experience that I’d have to describe as an awakening. It was as if a new part of my brain suddenly switched on, popping me into a higher state of awareness. Perhaps it was just a side effect of the maturation process. I began to openly question the beliefs that had been conditioned into me since childhood. Blind acceptance of what I was taught wasn’t enough for me anymore. I wanted to go behind the scenes, uproot any incongruencies, and see if these beliefs actually made sense to me. I started raising a lot of questions but found few people would honestly discuss them. Most simply dismissed me or became defensive. But I was intensely curious, not hostile about it. My family was closed to discussing the whole thing.

A very natural reaction to growing up. At some point, mans rationality continues to grow to the point where 'blind acceptance' or 'following the herd' is not good enough. If one is raised in a strict religious household, then, as Eric Reitan points out on his blog, it is much easier to go from one God to no God, then it is to go from one God to a more pluralistic sense of religious purpose. Often, atheism is a knee-jerk reaction to this 'maturation' that takes place in the teenage years.

I was disappointed though. What I found was that regardless of their education and their much greater life experience, very few of my friends and teachers ever bothered to question their beliefs openly. And that really gave me a huge shot of doubt. I thought, “If everyone is just accepting all of this blindly and no one is even questioning it, why should I believe it?” Over a period of months the doubt only grew stronger, and I transferred more of my faith from my Catholic upbringing to my own intelligence and senses. Eventually I just dropped the whole context entirely, and in the absence of any other viable contexts to choose from, I became an atheist.

It is very sad indeed when churchgoers either shy away from defense of their faith, or lack the knowledge of why they believe what it is they believe entirely. Obviously, as I've found out, some of the most intelligent, and this is important, intellectually honest, people I've read are theists, so I most certainly do not accept that the belief in God is unfounded, as our blogger seems to imply at this point. But as you can see, if people are not around a youngster who questions their faith to help them understand it better, or if, in my opinion, he is brought up in too fundamentalist of a household, the reaction is often atheism.

It reminds me of C.S. Lewis, who, when he converted to atheism as a teenager, remembers being mad at God that he didn't actually exist.

Having shed all my old beliefs, I felt like my brain had gotten an intelligence upgrade. 

And here, stated baldly, we see something that permeates atheism itself. That is, of course, a sense of superiority over the 'dumb, religious believers,' who don't know why they do what they do.

My family was not happy about all this, especially when my subscription to American Atheist magazine started coming in the mail (I got good at intercepting the mail early). But I was doing so well in school that it was hard for them to complain, and they didn’t want to openly address any of my questions, even though I’d have been happy to do so. They did force me to keep going to church though, which I tolerated for a while because I knew I’d be moving out in a year anyway. But eventually I started sitting in a different part of the church and would sneak out the back and go for a walk and return just before it ended. But one time the mass ended earlier than expected, and I got back too late. My family was already at the car and saw me walking down the street. Whoops! They drove off without me. But instead of walking the two miles home, I stayed out the entire day and didn't return until midnight. Aside from weddings and funerals, that was the last time I ever went to church.

He also goes on to talk about how he became much better at school when he dropped his religious beliefs. He started to get amazing grades, and from this we can see another theme in this man, and that is the affirmation that the beliefs one holds will directly effect the outcome, and, 'successfulness' of your life. I put 'successfulness' in quotes not only because it's not a word, according to spell-check, but because 'successfulness' is obviously so subjective that it's almost laughable.

The main purpose of this background though, is to see how, and I believe this is the typical case, an atheist is formed. Also note this - does he at any point give a rational argument for why atheism is correct? No - it's just assumed that because he finds religious doctrine silly, then there is no God. There are more steps than that in the thought process, but nowhere in his testimony does he give a reason for his disbelief, other than the fact that he did better in school when he stopped believing in God, and because those around him had no answers. 

But this is just silly, in my opinion. I doubt my parents could have rattled off reason upon reason to believe in God, but I figured this might be the case, and I went out and found literature, found resources, found other believers that did do a significant deal of searching. To take a sample size of several, and draw a worldview based on that is rather weak, so I would assert that his initial justification for atheism is at the best, very weak. As far as his better grades, I'm sure one could delve deeper into this, but at face value, it's obvious that in no way does 'better grades' or a 'feeling of intelligence' mean you have discovered truth. But this leads us to a deeper distinction, and that is whether 'empowerment' can entail 'truth' and vice versa, and if his understanding that beliefs that empower are keepers is justified.

Book Review: The Last Superstition by Edward Feser Part 1

Being a mere layman when it comes to philosophy, I had to read Feser's book twice in order to grasp  it's concepts, even though, i'm sure, just about anyone in philosophy would tell you it's philosophical concepts are simple. In The Last Superstition, Feser isn't content to present arguments for the existence of God like they are typically done these days. Instead, Feser is basically saying "lets back up a little bit," and examine how we got here. It doesn't take much research to realize that secularization is spreading. In England, the percentage of Christians has tanked over the past decade, while the number of non-believers has rose significantly. Feser's point is not in the significance of debates such as Intelligent Design vs Darwinians, which he believes is missing the point, but rather to backtrack to how secularization even started - and why he thinks the abandonment of Aristotelian Metaphysics has been "...the greatest mistake in the history of Western thought." 


The Last Superstition has a large scope, starting from pre-Socratic Greek thought, and moving to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle themselves. He then fast-forwards to the middle ages, with the completion of Aristotelian thought by Thomas Aquinas, and Aquinas's famous "Five Ways" to God. He then moves towards modern thought, in thinkers like Kant, Decartes, and Bacon. While not all of these people had bad intentions, the abandonment of Aristotelian metaphysics lead to bizarre and unnecessary conclusion, according to Feser, and the culmination of this bizarre thought can be thoroughly realized with the post-modern philosophy of the mind and the denial of free will by means of eliminative materialism. 


All the while, Feser's tone is one of absolute disbelief to the ignorance being spewed in the academia around him. He comments extensively on the works of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens - noting how ignorant they are not just of philosophical matters, but of theology in general. I haven't read any of the work by these four, but I have seen debates they took place in, and typically they seem to be ranting, but not actually producing much as as far as reasons for what they believe, other than an obvious disdain for religion. Feser feels the secularist movement, then, is not actually based on solid, positive arguments, but rather a disdain for religion, as well as smear-attack driven propaganda. Feser combats this nonacademic approach by taking every chance he can to smear them back - and while I enjoyed it, and felt it was in large part warranted, at some points I felt it was over-the-top.


Summary:


Like I mentioned in the paragraphs above, Feser starts out his book talking about the secularist movement, and how it is it's own 'religion.' They have a belief system that holds that religion is not just wrong, but harmful to society. It usually holds that 'science' and 'reason' are there staples, but only insofar as they agree with there preconceived notions of the world. Usually, the New Atheist will set up a straw man of what 'faith' actually means, and do his best to tear that apart. The New Atheist will typically misrepresent the arguments for God's existence, thus making it an easy victory for him, in order to more quickly return to his religion-bashing rants. If it isn't clear by the end of the first chapter, titled "Bad Religion," Feser really doesn't like these guys.


Chapter Two starts with pre-Socratic thought, and culminates in the explanation of Aristotle's metaphysics. He begins by making the distinction between realism, nominalism, and conceptualism by first helping us understand Plato's 'Theory of Forms.'


To use the example of a triangle, we have all seen countless triangles, some drawn in chalk, some in pencil, etched in sand, and some digitally. Furthermore, some will have squiggly lines, some have corners that don't match up, etc. All of these triangles are associated with the concept of 'triangularity' even though none of them, no matter how carefully drawn, are ever actually a perfect triangle, even if the errors are not noticeable to the human eye. According to Plato's theory, once we grasp this idea, we understand that the concept of 'triangularity,' and its necessary features (such as angles that add up 180 degrees), and unnecessary features (color, size, obtuse, acute, etc.), we can see that the concept of triangulation in no way depends on the existence of triangles in the material world. Triangles go into and out of existence all the time, and even if we managed to erase every triangle from the world, the angles of a triangle would still be 180 degrees, and the Pythagorean Theorem would still be true even if there was nobody around to form  a triangle and measure the angles. Thus, according to Plato, we can see that the concept of triangularity is not something physical, nor is something only in the human mind, but rather a 'third realm' or the realm of 'Forms.'


According to Plato, all things, such as the Form of 'Man' or 'Dog' or 'Square' are concepts that have necessary attributes, and persons in this world are merely participating in them. For example, you and I are participating in the 'Form' of 'Man' right now, which has the essential feature of 'Rationality.' Furthermore, the concept by which we judge the participation of elements in the material world against the pure 'Form,' such as being more good or less good, in how it is participating, is called the 'Form of the Good,' and is, according to Plato, the highest of the 'Forms,' and the source of all other Forms. 


Feser goes on to say that Aristotle probably thought Plato was going nuts, but admittedly, had touched on something important, namely, the concept of universals. Plato's 'Theory of Forms,' though extreme, is a form of realism, which believes that objective universals exist. This is as opposed to nominalism, which denies universals exist, and conceptualism, which takes a middle ground and says universals exist, but only in the mind. 


Nominalism runs into difficulties when we speak of things like geometry, which deals with perfect lines, circles, etc. The concept of a circle is something that is objective, and like we saw earlier, circles were circles long before any mind began to conceive of them. However, no material thing has the perfection that geometrical objects have, therefore, geometrical objections refer to universals neither dependent on the mind or physical realm. Feser goes into around ten objections to nominalism and conceptualism, concluding by noting that opponents of realism notoriously have a difficult time defending there views, and it seems realism should win out if it wasn't for the religious implications that realism has. After his discussion on the concept of realism, Feser moves onto Aristotle's Metaphysics, which seeks to ground Plato's realism into something more moderate.
  
Aristotle's four causes are (if we take, say, a human heart)


Formal: the form, structure, or pattern that matter exhibits. (this is where the discussion of universals is significant. Since it seems universals exist, then everything will exhibit this formal cause, or participation in some universal.) In the case of a heart - the formal cause will be its organization into atria, ventricles, etc.
Material: The heart is a muscle made out of tissue
Efficient: This would be the biological processes that determined that a heart would be constructed instead of a brain or kidney
Final: It serves the function of pumping blood


The problem, says Feser, is that contemporary thought has abandoned the notion of final and formal causes, in his opinion due to a complete misunderstanding. For Aristotle and Aquinas, the final cause was the 'cause of causes,' and represented a sense of goal-directedness. It's easier to see in biological functions, but he felt it also applied to all of nature, as a planet has the 'goal,' in a sense, of orbiting the sun. This is not be misconstrued as saying the planet wills itself consciously to orbit the sun. In fact, applying final causes is the most crucial thing to Aristotle's theory. It's easy to see in bodily organs, as these organs perform their activities, or 'goals,' without any consciousness. DNA serves a goal, namely, being a code of sorts, but it is in no way conscious of the goal it is serving. The material cause of a thing is the potentiality for it's change (I skipped Feser's explanation of actuality and potentiality, but this goes back to that. Plus - the concepts of actuality and potentiality are somewhat trivial). However, the material cause only has potentiality for some other function, namely it's final cause. It's silly to refer to some potentiality without giving the final cause the potentiality refers to as well. 


I don't know much about philosophy at this point, but from what I understand, Hume refers to causes as events, while to Aristotle they were things. Take the example of a brick being thrown at a window. If we are to use events, we woulds say that the brick being thrown at the window caused event two, or the window breaking. But if we form it like this, the two events are disconnected, and logically, anything could happen between the brick being thrown and the window shattering. To Aristotle, it's things that have causes. Namely, the brick making contact with the window, pushing it to the breaking point, and the window giving way and shattering is the cause and effect. It's a simultaneous process - one that can be traced back in a hierarchical way.


In Chapter Three, Feser begins his discussion of Scholastic thinkers, namely, Thomas Aquinas, who completes Aristotle's line of thinking. He also makes the necessary distinction between metaphysical arguments, which use obvious things happening around us to make other conclusions about the way the world works, to 'God of the Gaps' arguments, where God is postulated as an entity to fill in the 'Gaps' of scientific understanding. I agree with Feser that atheists, especially those in science like Dawkins and Stenger, feel that God is merely a scientific hypothesis, and that the amount of unknowns is steadily shrinking, inevitably leading to a time when God is no longer needed. This means that, as is typically seen, any naturalistic explanation, however bizarre or irrational it sounds, will suffice instead. Furthermore, metaphysical arguments are not something that can be 'tested' or 'explained' in the way that these other, scientific, arguments can. 


Feser also wants to point out that 'faith,' as defined by the "New Atheists" is not the faith that anyone who is a religious believer has in mind, whether they define it explicitly or not. To me, faith is believing beyond what the evidence around seems to allude at - namely, for me, that this world is not all there is, and there is a higher calling and greater story being told then any of us can comprehend (amongst many other reasons). Atheists seem bent on attacking this crude anthropomorphic conception of God, that any sophisticated believer, and certainly not the great thinkers of the Scholastic era, would have attributed to God. Also, and this is a side-note to what Feser discussed in his book, is the concept of prayer that I hold is in no way like the concept of 'prayer' atheists hold. Atheists seem bent on 'testing' prayer as if it were a scientific hypothesis, seeing just how effective it is in transforming the material lives of people around us. I would be more than happy to agree that a God that intervenes to grant health, finances, and happiness apart from Him does not exist - but not for the same reason they may think. Perhaps I'll talk in another post about what I think prayer really should be about ('bread' not being 'physical bread' but 'spiritual bread'), but suffice to say for now, I can say with a good deal of confidence that the 'God' that atheists attack is not the same God that most believers actually believe in. 


Feser then elaborates on Aquinas's 'Five Ways,' and objections to them. He starts with an argument from Augustine, which rests on the premise that universals exist, such as the concept of triangularity. This concept cannot be mental, since it existed before any other human, finite mind came into existence. Furthermore, it cannot be physical, since even if every triangle ceased to exist, the concept of 'triangularity' would still be true. Thus, concludes Augustine, these concepts, or universals, can only exist in an eternal mind, namely God. Aquinas himself doesn't endorse this argument, but I still hear this type of thinking, and it can be related to the concept of 'Where do the laws of nature come from?'


Aquinas's 'The Unmoved Mover' is based on the metaphysical concept of change, and draws a conclusion that whenever change occurs, there must be a finite end to this sequence of instantaneous transfers from potentiality to actuality, ending in an 'Unmoved Mover.' Take, for example, the image of a potter forming a clay pot. The cause of the pot taking a particular shape is instantaneously caused by the potters hand being in place to form it. But the potentiality of the potters hand holding that position is actualized by the nervous system, and then to neurons in the brain, and then other neurons, and then molecular structure, atomic structure, the weak and strong, and gravitational forces, etc. 


There is an important distinction to make, because many atheists take the concept of 'The Unmoved Mover' to mean that the universe must have had a beginning at some point in the past. But what Aquinas is talking about is an essentially ordered sequence, as opposed to an accidental sequence. It can be said that the potter was caused to make the pot by him wanting to make a vase, and he wanted to make the vase because a family member wanted it, and a family member wanted it...This is an accidentally ordered sequence, which would relate to events happening throughout time, which would not have to necessitate the next member of the sequence. However, in the case of the instantaneous causes and effects taking place as the potter holds his hand steady, this sequence is an essentially ordered sequence. (I think of it as the potters hand is being held steady by an instantaneous set of hierarchical causes and effects, whereas there is also a series of causes and effects that brought him to that specific moment in time where he is in fact forming the pot).


We can think of this series as a transfer, on Aristotle's system, from actuality to potentiality. The potentiality of the the pot being formed is actualized by the hand of the potter. The potentiality of the potters hand staying in place is actualized by the firing of neurons. This series can continue on and on only until we reach something that is pure actuality, or what Aquinas attributes to God. This 'actuality' must be unmovable, because if it was movable, it would exhibit some sense of potentiality, that which could be actualized by another. 


For Aquinas, his next 'way' is called 'The Unmoved Mover,' and again, doesn't deal with any beginning of the universe, but rather what sustains the universe here and now. Feser first helps us distinguish between essence and existence. There can be an essence of a thing, but that does not entail it's existence (unicorns, Bruce Wayne). This leads us to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which goes 'whatever comes into existence, or more generally whatever must have existence added to its essence in order for it to be real, must be caused by another.' This leads us to the universe as a whole - there must be something that adds existence to the essence of the universe. 


A key point to make is 'why couldn't the universe itself be the necessary thing?' But the key to this is realizing Aristotle's metaphysics, and realizing that each essentially ordered series must terminate in an Unmoved Mover, an Uncaused Cause. Since the universe contains this type of potentiality, and is undergoing change, it can't itself be that necessary object. Like Feser points out, this leads us to some notion of Divine Simplicity, or the notion that God must be simple, in that, he must not be composed of parts, but rather just is. Furthermore, Feser goes on to demonstrate how many, if not all, the properties we attribute to God can be deduced logically from this type of analysis - showing that the oft parroted 'that doesn't show God is omniscient or omnipotent or anything like the Christian God' is really just a sign that they haven't done their reading.

Book Review: "There is a God"

Summary:


 In 2004, Antony Flew, longtime atheist  philosopher of religion, announced in what was going to be a debate against a theist, that he had changed his mind - and he now believes that there is a God. The book first talks about Flew's past, and what caused him to become an atheist in the first place. He discusses his atheist works, and why he has changed his mind about the things he has written. He has always held that "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads," coined by Socrates, to be his motto, and he feels that the evidence now available by science points towards a creator. 


Flew comments that he received a lot of heat from his fellow atheists after his conversion, many of which stated publicly that the conversion had to do with being 'senile' or 'afraid of death' (Flew is over 80 years old), or that he wasn't up to date with the latest abiogenesis research. Flew, however, doesn't believe any of these are accurate. He still doesn't believe there is an immortal soul (which is odd, because I think a lot of the best evidence is for an immortal soul). He also holds that no abiogenesis will ever figure out the mystery of life. He elaborates later in his book, explaining that there is more than just the biological factor of life first forming, but rather how consciousness can be developed through naturalistic mechanisms at all, as well as the concept of 'self' or 'I.' As far as being 'senile,' as Richard Dawkins says, I can attest to the fact that his mind seemed to be working just fine in the writing of this book. 


I found Flew's works during his atheist years to be much more impressive than that done by today's "New Atheist" movement. Atheism, in general, does not have many positive arguments for it, or namely, arguments that show God's characteristics to be incoherent, or impossible given what we know about the world. Typically, atheism is believing the arguments for theism just are not good enough, or fail in some way. From my observation, Flew did things that the "New Atheists" are not doing, namely, put the ball in the theists court. One of Flew's contentions is that the attributes of God need to be defined in a coherent way before any debate on his existence could begin. He also argued extensively that the burden of proof lies in the theist's court, and that atheism should be the default position taken until convinced otherwise. I haven't read Flew's work myself, but it seems he did more than the New Atheist writers do by actually placing the theist on his heels, defending his concept of God, instead of simply denying that the arguments for God are good enough. 


Flew also spends a good deal of time talking about science and it's relation to God. He talks about the misrepresentation of Einstein, and how Einstein wanted first and foremost to discover the "Mind of God" with his work. Subsequent scientists, like Max Plank, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac have also felt that examining nature allows one to understand the Mind of God. Even Charles Darwin is quoted as saying he deserves to be called a theist (It makes me think of a bumper sticker used by evolutionists that has the word 'Darwin' inside of the fish used as the symbol of the Christian Church. If you're following Darwin, and Darwin followed God, what does this mean about you?) He believes the conflict between science and religion is not actually a conflict, but as Max Plank says, a fight against "skepticism, dogmatism, and unbelief..."


To summarize the factors that brought Flew to belief in God:


1.) How is that we have a set of laws that drives feature-less gases to life, consciousness and intelligence?
2.) Where do the laws of physics come from?
3.) Fine-tuning argument
4.) How did life go live?
5.) Cosmological Argument


(1), (2), (3) Flew feels that the laws of the universe are too fine-tuned to be just taken for granted, and he doesn't feel any objections fully take a 'design' factor out of the equation. First, science rests on the fact that induction is possible, or that we will repeatedly observe the same results - when there isn't any reason why this would have to be the case. Paul Davis makes two points about this, saying:


- A theory of everything (something proposed to account for the stability of the laws of nature, relating them all to one another) which would show that this is the only logically consistent world is 'demonstrability wrong.'
- Some maintain the laws of physics are 'our laws' and not natures. Davis says this is 'arrant nonsense,' these laws really exist, and scientists uncover the laws, not invent them. 


So this type of thinking can go in two paths:


- What upholds the laws of nature?
- Why do we have laws of nature that are 'fine-tuned' towards life?


When I first heard the fine-tuning argument, I originally thought it was great. I then slowly moved away from it, as I didn't want to place any faith in a "God of the Gaps" argument. The thing to remember about this argument is that if the universe happened by blind chance, then it would not have 'catered' to life in any way. There is no 'right answer' for a randomly spawning universe, and even if the laws are interconnected in some way, it would not have to cater and facilitate towards life. So even if the laws are interconnected, somehow, I can't see how that would necessitate it catering towards life. 


The multiverse option, which I've talked about before, is excessive. I think the question that sums it up is asking a proponent of it - how many universes are there? The answer is 'a lot.' Why is it a lot? Because it needs to balance the odds. That's really the only purpose behind the multiverse theory -  to get rid of a need for design. 


(A thought - what would happen if multiple universes were discovered, but they all we're life-permitting?)


(4) Life, unlike non-living things, has an inherent goal, a purpose (This type of thinking is similar to Aristotle with final and formal causes, which I'm reading about now in another book). There are many issues about life, from the concept of self, the mind-body problem, how the first replication of life could occur, why things evolve towards more complex systems, origin of the code that is DNA, how sexual reproduction could have itself evolved. It seems, if I understand Flew correctly, the overwhelming number of issues, some seeminly solvable, some more unreasonable, led flew to the feeling that, as he says, "the only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such 'end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind."


(5) Flew notes that he always felt at some point, people need to take things as a brute fact. For theists - God is that brute fact. For atheists, the Big Bang, or the universe in general is the ultimate brute fact. However, Flew feels that the Big Bang changes how cosmological arguments are done. Flew feels that no matter how you describe the universe, whether it existed forever, or originating from a point outside of space-time, or else in space but not in time, or having a total energy of zero - theists still will always be able to ask 'why is there something rather than nothing?' As Richard Swineburne summarizes, 'it is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused. Flew feels that this, more vague way of stating things, is the correct way to form a cosmological argument. 


Flew ends his book saying that discoveries in science have led him to believe in the existence of an intelligent Mind. Flew ends, saying:


"Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, "Can you hear me now?"


My Take:


For Flew, science, the very thing that atheism clings to, in hopes that it will one day rid mankind's need for the Divine, inevitably led Flew to a belief in God. I think Flew's story is very motivational, and it's a great story to read for those struggling with faith, and even for those who are strong in their faith (and by 'faith' I mean Aquinas's usage of the word, not the 'New Atheist' usage of the word, of course). Man is very reluctant to admit they made a mistake in their judgement, and the hold of an ideology, for whichever team one plays for, is always a threat. That's why it's impressive when people who have obtained so much knowledge are able to overcome any pride involved, and admit the evidence now leads elsewhere. 

Is Doubt a Good Thing?

I want to write this post as a warning to myself: If someone seems all to sure of their position, take it with a grain of salt. My thirteen posts prior to this one are very one-sided, far from being fair in terms of presenting both sides equally. Hopefully I can take a more balanced approach in future posts. Philosophy of any kind should be a communal quest towards truth, not a bashing of differing viewpoints.


Can one be an intellectually honest atheist? Of course. Atheism, at least the kind that is contemplative (as opposed to those who are atheist because they want it to be true. Or for pragmatic reasons) will be atheist because they find the arguments for theism less than convincing. I am a theist because I find the arguments for theism to be convincing to me. Or perhaps it's that I cannot accept what the alternative entails from a metaphysical perspective. But I need to be open to those who hear the same arguments I hear, see the things I see, and don't feel the same way. Surely there are atheists who ask if a theist can be intellectually honest in the same way I pose the question to the opposite party.


This seems to relate, however vaguely, to the concept of 'burden of proof.' Concerning the existence of God, is the burden of proof on the theist or the atheist? It's an interesting question in a way, because both alternatives seem odd at first glance - and it's almost surprising there is no middle ground (one can be agnostic, of course, but that doesn't mean that agnosticism could be true. Either God exists, or he doesn't). If God exists, then this world would presumably be his creation. But yet one has to understand the difficulty in even imagining such a being as God, and keep oneself in check from believing something comforting simply because it's comforting. To put it better - the believer will be skeptical that he is not tricking himself - because sometimes it seems too good to be true. If God doesn't exist, then everything has happened by blind, mechanical chance, and everything that this entails. The atheist, however, has to rely on other means to explain phenomena in the world - which in the most dogmatic cases resorts to ignoring valuable lines of evidence against his or her worldview. If any of this has to do with burden of proof, i'm not sure, but I do believe the burden is on the theist. In other words - one should not believe in a deity because he has not heard evidence to the contrary. In even other words - one should not default to theism, even though many (most?) do.


If someone is too sure of their atheism, I will question whether they have adequately and honestly dealt with all arguments, as well as reconciled empirical phenomena to a naturalistic (if they hold this) viewpoint. If someone is too sure of his theism - I will wonder if he experiences doubt. If he says he does not, and never has, then he most likely has never questioned his childhood upbringing. I will wonder whether he doesn't find his vantage point too good to be true. It's important to remember that people much more clever and much more well-read have followed the same path of doubt and questioning, and have, and will, continue to come down on opposite ends of the spectrum.


Perhaps the best opinions to consider are those who have gone back and forth at some point in their lives - people who have let the evidence sway them from their ideologies, in one way or another. In the end, however, the choice has to be yours. I do hope, however, that whatever people choose it will show an impact on their way of live. Belief, or lack of belief in a divine entity, is no small thing, and it should show itself in one's life.


In the end, people are seeking truth, and people should not forget that the quest for this truth should allow the evidence to carry them wherever it will.

"Some of Us Just Go One God further"

"Some of us just go one God further" - Richard Dawkins

Do you now? Maverick Philosopher has this to say on this quotation:

"I've seen this quotation attributed to Richard Dawkins. From what I have read of him, it seems like something he would say."

I've seen this a bunch of times actually on various atheist websites. I didn't know until I searched that it was Richard Dawkins. From what I gather, I guess the idea is that Christians wouldn't go around worshiping Ra or Allah or Zeus. The idea is that we're all atheist to all but one God (unless your Hindu, then it's a bunch), so we just go one further than you. You don't believe in Surya, so why believe in the God of Abraham? 

First off, this isn't really an argument against theism, this is more directed at religion. Atheists seem to think that all Gods are on the same level, and that there is no good reason to reject all but one - might as well go all the way and make it a clean sweep. What seems to escape Dawkins is the idea that perhaps 'Ra' or 'Zeus,' while depicting God in weird forms, is still mans search for the divine, some deep seeded desire to know one's maker. That's what it boils down to for me - going that last God, as Dawkins is saying, is removing all aspect of the divine, which is removing something most (not all) religions have in common. The fact that religion has become progressively more monotheistic, more simple and less human in it's idea of God - that's what I see. The statement implies no divine, no mind behind the universe, and man is the ultimate being.

Is this to say I think it's okay to go around calling God 'Ra'? Well, not exactly. If one looks at the progression of religion, I think we are getting closer and closer to God's true nature. To backtrack and start worshiping Mithra is probably something God wouldn't appreciate, especially since he sent his Son for us as an example. Do I think it's a big deal what God is called? Well, by calling him Ra or Zeus, you are associating not just the divine, but also a human image with Him (as well as any other character traits, stories, etc, that may not be appropriate). So while I don't think it's a big deal, I think it's a big deal. 

Like the slow march of evolution, religion, and our concept of God has gotten gradually better and better with time, and to backtrack would be like wanting to go back to being an ape or single-cell organism. We grow up in a specific culture, and will most likely adopt that particular religion as our mechanism for serving God. Does that mean I think all religions have an equal slice of the pie? No, I think some are 'more true' than others, but it certainly doesn't mean that one can wipe out the divine completely just because persons have viewed God differently in the past (see Bertrand Russel - teapot). I think one's focus should be more directed at how our perception has matured with time - not at wiping the slate entirely. 

What's at Stake

"There is also something exceedingly curious about hoping that one turns out to be just a material system, a bit of dust in the wind. "I was so hoping to be proved to be nothing more than a clever land mammal slated for destruction, but, dammit all, there are reasons to think that we are more than animals and have a higher destiny.  That sucks!""

For the atheist, by some happenstance, a universe was born. Whether it has always been, or some far-off science theory not discovered yet, the universe was born for no good reason. The fact that it appears 'fine-tuned,' if it really is all that fine tuned, is just happenstance. Or maybe we're part of some incredible multiverse with universe upon universe, new one's being created all the time, with our universe just a tine speck in all that. No matter how it happened, it's just sheer dumb luck that one planet in a galaxy of billions happened to be life-permitting, much less create life itself. Life continued to evolve and flourish until we have what we see today. Humans are just an accidental side-effect of evolution, and if we ran the whole thing over again, we probably wouldn't even get human beings. We all get a small little time-frame of existence, a time frame where we simply have the illusion of free will, and any real purpose. One day, after we're dead, and our kids are dead, and their kids, nobody will remember our name. And if you are one of the lucky few that does something impacting, it'll all get forgotten in time. One day the human race will die out, the earth will be destroyed, and even our universe will fizzle out to nothingness. 


All the questions we had in our life will be unanswered. All the justice we desired will be completely unfulfilled. We're just a sack of chemicals, and it's all just been a grand illusion. Any intentionality we thought we had was just a joke. We're nothing special, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. All there is out in the universe is pitiless indifference. 


Or, as the theists sees it, we're in God's playground. The universe has been made, designed, hand-crafted by a God who wants us to exist. He has given us moral grounds to say what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' He has given us a mind, something that gives us intentionality, something that allows us to have a purpose above the sack of mean we actually are. This life is just part of the adventure, and after this we get to see our true potential - when our mind is set free of this body. We will one day get to return to "The Source" or "The One," as it is called in many near-death experiences. 


What I can't understand is, why would anyone stick to the top paragraph in the face of evidence? If a theist is presented evidence from the problem of evil, he is allowed his belief in God due to array of theistic arguments for his existence (assuming they convince him). And if he concludes that there is evil in the world, he is left only to assume that they are compatible. Not being able to come up with how this scenario works is not reason to abandon his beliefs, simply to give it more thought. 


But for a naturalist who is presented with the problem of intentionality vs naturalism, even if he is to conclude that there is actually hope one day these two will be reconciled (which I doubt), I find it hard to imagine why this would be a view he would want to stick with. I understand atheists not wanting to believe something that isn't true, we all do. But why deny evidence that goes against a worldview that is so depressing in the first place? Why belligerently defend something that is both depressing and potentially (and in my opinion) wrong? I just don't know - the only conclusion I have is that ideology plays a big part. We want to be right, we don't want to change the way we live. Pride takes hold and it clouds our judgement.