Roger Ebert: How I Believe in God - Page 2

I think somehow we got our signals crossed because I agree with you on all of those points. What I'm trying to say is that to me, saying people don't believe in a God because of a lack of faith is just as offensive as if I had said someone believes in God because of a lack of common sense. It's inferring that I only came to that conclusion because I'm missing something, not because I put in any thought or effort arriving at a personal conclusion.

I just don't see that I'm missing anything.

I see what you're saying, but that definition would be based on a misunderstanding of the root of the word, not the negative qualifier (i.e., it would be arguing that a "theist" is someone with faith, which isn't accurate).
Atheism is not a lack of faith, but it is, quite literally, a lack of belief in God. So there's a lack, no matter how you slice it. But that lack is very specific and even value-neutral minus the cultural connotations that have to do with how the word has been used rather than how it's constructed.

What I'm saying is that there's no polite way to define atheism accurately and without negative connotation if you think that a "lack" is automatically a bad thing. I just don't think it is. I lack a third nipple, for instance.

Ideally, "atheism" would just become a value-neutral term. But it will never stop being a lack of something, because that's just how the word is constructed. Does that make sense?

For you to lack a third nipple, all other men would have to have three nipples.

I assure you - I lack a third nipple. I also lack a sports car, though I'm pretty sure that not all other Americans have one. Saying that something "lacks flaws" is also generally assumed to be correct.

Regardless, how do you feel about "disbelief in God"? I think that's probably a more accurate, all-encompassing definition and it still requires a negative.

I don't know, it seems like you're giving a pass to ignorance.

All I'm saying is there's no need to say people are lacking if they don't believe in God.

I don't mind that we define atheists that way, so long as we define theists as people who are lacking a belief in scientific observation, logic, and common sense.

Exactly.

I don't have a lack of faith, I have a surplus of rationality.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind....a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."

Here's a perfect illustration of a problem with both 'reason' and 'faith' as they're adopted by their respective camps.

Neither camp is innocent of the desire to shape the world to their liking - to define things not as they are, but as they're wished to be. Language, behavior and thought are bent to suit the preferences of a personal worldview. Disparate and varied groups are simplified and vilified as one homogenous entity, and the hatred of the 'Other' blinds both camps to their own eagerness in this regard.

Yeah, you guys totally understand how language works. Forgive me for my perceived condescension.

Also, I'd love to know how I'm giving a "pass to ignorance" by interpreting the word "atheism" as "a lack of belief in God" or "disbelief in God." I realize I'm being something of a slave to etymology, grammar, and common sense here, but please go on about ignorance, intelligence, etc.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Pay close attention to the bolded example. Is it saying that "incitement to build a fourth dimension" is some default characteristic from which we feel some utter loss? No, it's simply that it is not possessed - it is lacked. Some have a belief in God. Atheists lack that belief.

Ignorance on here means somebody who disagrees with you.

Good point Custer and one I see all too often. See I'm a believer and by just putting those three words into my post I know some chewers will automatically assume I'm here in this thread to shout them down or push my "fundie" agenda.

Truth is though, being a believer is a personal choice for me and I don't feel others should be forced or coerced into belief as it would be for all the wrong reasons (again, in my opinion.)

I'd also like to say that I have personal friends who think belief in a higher being of any kind is crazy talk and we agree to disagree. They're good people and they leave me alone in my belief's and I leave them alone about theirs. I know other's of my ilk do not see things the way I do and I'm horrified when they go to crazy town trying to "prove" their point.

I guess this ramble is just to back up Custer's point that the "sides" in this ever-existing debate could learn to lighten up and maybe learn something's from one another.

Sorry to derail.

Sure.

ETA: Dave, you're arguing a word and I'm not arguing at all. If it's so difficult to accept that maybe I don't like the phrasing when someone says, "lacks faith" personally, then I don't know what to tell you.

Eric, you asked the question: why is it that atheists are said to be lacking something? Because "atheist" literally means (in not particularly eloquent terms) "a person lacking belief in God".

If you don't want to be characterized by a term that indicates you're lacking something, maybe you should go with "secular humanist," which doesn't require a 1-1 oppositional relationship to be linguistically meaningful. But if you want to be called an atheist, be aware that it's a term with the idea of god or gods at the root, and it establishes its oppositional relationship to that idea by noting a lack. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

And you guys think religious people are the irrational ones?

You seem to be under the impression that lacking is a negative term. To be deficient is neutral, it's a statement of truth, regardless of what your societal brain tells you.

Actually, the pivotal difference between atheists/rationalists/science and theists is that the first group wishes to see the universe defined and understood according to the reality of observable phenomena, and the latter group does not.

You continually make this completely false connection between atheism and reason. Neither trait is a particularly good predictor of the other.

I'm not going to argue that one can be both rational and a theist, because while I believe it's a possibility, you don't, and we've had that argument over and over again; however, one can absolutely be irrational and be an atheist. Atheism does not necessarily lead to the scientific method, even if you seem to think the reverse is true, and a lack of reason or science does not preclude the possibility of atheism. Atheism just requires that you not believe in a god or gods and has absolutely nothing to do with your reasons for reaching that conclusion.

So let's not pretend that atheism = all that's right and good and scientific in the world. That's just stupid.

What was I thinking! It's stupid to think there's a link between scientists/scientific thought and the lack of a belief in unobservable divinities and phenomena. This is why those who work in the sciences or are professors of the sciences are theists, or atheists, in about the same proportion as the general populace. Well, maybe I should double check that last fact.

If you believe in something that cannot be proved, you are rejecting the logic and rationalism upon which the scientific method (and therefore, all modern empirical based sciences) is founded.

Correlation does not equal causation. As I said above, atheism doesn't necessarily suggest superior scientific skills. You can come by atheism by means other than the scientific method (e.g., if you're never introduced to the concept of God, you're a de facto atheist).

There are also plenty of other factors that might play into why scientists tend to be more atheistic than non-scientists than simply "they're really smart." For one thing, there's a cultural loop. Because science privileges observable, empirical phenomena, a scientist who doesn't embrace only these things to the exclusion of others is more likely to not be taken seriously in the profession. So there's certainly some social adaptation going on. Even those scientists who are perfectly able to embrace, but differentiate between the observable phenomena of science and the irrational area of spiritualism are probably not going to admit to the latter.

Non-overlapping magisteria. You don't have to reject one to believe in the other.

I always thought atheism was just having faith in yourself. You don't believe in a god, you believe you are in control, that sort of thing. You are your own god. Doesn't everyone have faith or believe in something?

but it's 2 in the morning and i probably don't make any sense...

To be clear when I used the world faith I did mean it in the context of certainty. I for one believe that I can not know what lies beyond. I also don't discount the possibilty that I may one day be killed by goblins.

Possibility? Probability.

It's an absurd and reductive proposition to argue that a belief in 'divinity' (with that word defined differently across a broad spectrum of cultures, belief systems, traditions, etc) excludes a desire to define and understand the universe rationally. Even more absurd by far is the assertion that all atheists wish to see the universe defined and understood according to the reality of observable phenomena.

Ask Christopher Hitchens - champion of rationalism over the 'horrors' of theism - for a list of the observable phenomena he used to justify his war-mongering in Iraq over these past eight years. You'll find that his faith precluded any substantive reliance on evidence.

How do you feel about 'String Theory'?

An interesting theory that, as far as I know, is untested (and may be largely untestable ). So it remains just that: a theory. Could be true, could not be true, but it seems like the jury is still out. And since it is hopelessly complicated, I likely will not be a good candidate for that jury.

I am by no stretch of the imagination an advocate of organized religion, or religious institutions. I tend to side with Hitchens and Harris when they point out the ridiculousness of fossilized tradition within religion, and the irrationality of "blind faith".

However, anytime they start placing the blame for war crimes on "religion", I have to disagree. In my opinion, the real argument they're making, isn't that religion is the root of conflict, it's that it's a stupid thing to have a conflict over. Eliminating religion might reduce violence, but only because you're eliminating 'differences' between two opposing forces, thus rendering them neutral. It may be a factor in the conflict, but it is not the root. I doubt it will remove the core problem, which in essence is that people are perceiving those that are different as a threat to their identity and their vision of the world.

If you don't agree then let's look at it this way. Are we more likely to achieve world peace if we tackled the psychology behind intolerance and the equating of 'different' with 'enemy', or should we go around eliminating religions, ideologies and then geographical borders ?

Technically more wars have been fought over nationalism and geography than anything else, should we go around discussing the perils of nationalism and geography as if they're the real threat ?

Another example: Two very young siblings fight over who has the better imaginary friend. As a parent, if your objective is to stop the bickering, are you going to spend your time discussing how ignorant they're being for investing in imaginary people ? Or are you going to sit them down and explain that they have to respect each other ? If you opt for the first choice, how long do you think it will be before they latch on to something else (who has the better toys for example) ?

It is untestable - both at this point and for the foreseeable future. It cannot be proved. Based on your own argument, science itself is "rejecting the logic and rationalism upon which the scientific method (and therefore, all modern empirical based sciences) is founded."

How is this rational as you define rationalism? This negates the notion that science attempts to define the universe from observable phenomena in all instances. Another example (out of many, many options): the geometric theory of gravitation.

What is the difference, in your opinion, between believing in a theory that cannot be proved and believing in a 'divinity' that cannot be proved?

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm under the impression that you can use string theory (or certain of its assumptions) to do math that makes sense and that might be illuminating. Which would be a difference between belief in string theory and belief in any god I've heard of.

You can use a belief in 'Divinity' (or certain assumptions regarding your conception of the concept) to do 'moral calculus' that makes sense and that might be illuminating.

Spinoza, Neibuhr, Otto...hell, every theologian and a great many philosophers have done exactly that.

It's possible to take something unprovable and use it to shore up things that are provable. But that does not make the belief in these unproven things any more or less rational. They remain unproven in and of themselves and are taken on faith.

Regardless, my point is simply that on a 'rational' basis, as defined by Overlord above, there is no difference between the two.

You don't think that people have used religious belief to illuminate things? Morality? Art? General theories on human behavior?

The two are obviously not analogous, but in the example you give, you're still basically using unobserved, somewhat intuitive (I use that term loosely, since I'm not all that clear on the ins and outs of string theory) phenomena in a sense-making exercise.

The problem with privileging science over religion is similar to that of privileging science over art - it suggests that cold, hard empiricism is the only truly meaningful aspect to existence. For participants on a movie message board on which people regularly talk about their lives being changed by pieces of fiction - works in which metaphor and the irrational take precedence over straight-up logic, it should be clear that science isn't the only game in town. For most of you, religious or not, Ikiru and The Iron Giant are going to have more resonance in your life than the theory of relativity.

As usual, I'll add the caveat that we don't govern based on Kurosawa nor should we govern based on Christianity. An argument for religion is not an argument for religious literalism nor an argument for religious involvement in matters of law. Although I'm not sure we can govern by science, either, if such a thing were even possible. Science can show us how to clone, but it can't tell us if we should clone.

We don't know that string theory cannot be proved. We just don't know how to prove it yet. In fact, I believe the Large Hadron Collider in some manner provides a means of testing we didn't have before.

And I don't think that any scientists considers string theory to be anything more than a theory. If a revolutionary breakthrough proved that something else was right, they'd abandon it wholesale. That's not the case with religion. It doesn't matter how much evidence mounts up, people still believe.

And this position is different from a belief in potential 'Divinity' in what sense?

Note: I'm not referring specifically to the claim that we haven't proven String Theory. I'm referring to the notion that something theoretical (a belief) is potentially valid as long as it has not been disproven. Which is what you're advancing here.

Sure. Specifically:

(emphasis mine)

All of the above would be terrific, if it happens. But no one - not even the scientists working on this project - knows whether it will.

That's faith. And it's present as an integral part of the scientific process.

Of course, it's just as likely that they're wrong.

While it's 'just' a theory, scientists base their life's work around it. It may be proven within their lifetime or it may never be proven at all. That doesn't strike you as being, in part, a faith-based career choice?

You refer to people 'believing' as if they all believe the same thing at the same time, and as if those beliefs do not change. This is - yet again - an absurdly reductive view. Adaptability is a part of religious belief. In some ways, it is not unlike a theory continually under revision. Some theories are fringe, and do not command respect. The same is true of some religious attitudes. Some theories are used to promote mass genocide (see: the perversion of Darwinism into the 'science' of eugenics). This is obviously true of religious beliefs - which have been used as justification for atrocity. Some theories evolve to capture and incorporate new data. This is also not unlike religion's continued transformation. My church welcomes, with open arms, the gay and lesbian community. We do not seek to change them. We accept them as God's children (take that figuratively or literally, as you like it). That is progress. That is adaptation.

But this isn't about what I believe or do not believe. It's about pointing out the fallacies in dogmatic thinking. More generally, it is about staking a middle ground between the ignorance of Biblical Literalism and the New Atheist scorn of people like Hitchens. Simplistically categorizing, then dismissing, a vast and varied swath of people is a key element in the dehumanization of those people. It aids Fundamentalist attitudes and rhetoric. It is dangerous.

I'm just as happy to attack the dangers of Christian/Muslim/Scientologist/Whatever Fundamentalism if anyone thinks I'm biased here. It's the ideology of Fundamentalism itself - self-righteous, self-blinding, total surety - that poses a threat to all of us.

It is not dangerous to dismiss a belief system that has no evidence in favor of it, and a ton of evidence against it, as false. We can be sure there is no reason to believe in the veracity of the claims of the great monotheisms, so we would do well to reject them utterly.

String theory is a set of mathematical principles which we seek to test scientifically. String theorists don't claim to have all the answers. Trying to link the belief that any scientific principle is correct with the claims of religion is spurious, at best.

Religion is 'bad' was your initial point. Now it's monotheism that's the problem? Make up your mind, so that the Wiccans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Pantheists and other 'spiritual' folks can know whether to expect scorn from you.

I get it - you don't like religion (or 'great monotheisms,' or whatever). But that's all I get. You don't attempt an argument deeper than that. You could have taken the opportunity to intelligently engage the ideas being thrown around in here. But we're back to square one instead, with your having ignored or brushed aside every point that doesn't help your argument. That's boring, frankly. It's also unscientific.

And for someone that has no use for religion, you don't seem to mind appropriating the trappings of it. Damn religion and cast it all out! But let's hold on to those latin phrases for our internet messageboard signatures! "In Hoc Signo Vinces," indeed.

Most religions don't claim this either. But again - you don't care about most religions. You're fixated on some unidentified faith that bothers you for unknown reasons. I suppose it's easier for you to keep moving the target that way.

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that all of 'religion' claims to have all the answers. There can be no rational discussion with someone that refuses to discuss something rationally.

Feel free to restate the same unfounded points yet again. Consider all of this a standing rebuke.

Jesse and Dave:

NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument) is IMO weak sauce. EVERY question is ultimately a scientific question.

Just to take one of Dave's examples: Sure, art can move us, but emotions are an outgrowth of consciousness (and other metabolic processes), which is itself a naturally occurring phenomenon of the brain, which we will likely eventually reverse engineer and understand completely. Science.

Dennett is far more articulate about this subject than I could ever hope to be, so I'll defer to him here:

http://www.searchmagazine.org/Archiv...l-dennett.html

Excerpt:
Kiddo's waking up, gotta run, will check back later, just wanted to throw that in here...

Art and religion are both ways of making our consciousness behave in a certain way. Both may involve a bit of figurative thinking (or maybe "trickery," depending on how you want to interpret it), but they have value in terms of what they inspire.

In other words, I know fully well that my appreciation of a particular song requires immense amounts of brain activity that, given enough time and study, could be quantified in a scientific way. But being conscious of that activity in the moment it's happening is actively destructive to the intended emotional response. In analyzing it in strictly scientific terms in that moment, I am booted out of exactly the feeling that one seeks in art AND religion*. The non-overlapping magesteria argument, as I see it, has more to do with perspective in a given moment than an actual, quantitative means of evaluating the universe.

* Maybe this isn't universal. Maybe when you listen to a John Coltrane solo, you're attempting to analyze your every response to the music as you ostensibly "enjoy" it. But I don't think that's the norm. Most of us approach art with the idea of attaining (as Ebert put it in another article) "elevation" - a distinctly irrational response. I think the same is true when it comes to the religious when done in a certain way.

"It is seldom remarked (though often observed in private, I daresay) that many, many people who profess belief in God do not really act the way people who believed in God would act; they act the way people would act who believed in believing in God. That is, they manifestly think that believing in God is—would be—a good thing, a state of mind to be encouraged, by example if possible, so they defend belief-in-God with whatever rhetorical and political tools they can muster. They ask for God’s help, but do not risk anything on receiving it, for instance. They thank God for their blessings, but, following the principle that God helps those who help themselves, they proceed with the major decisions of their lives as if they were going it alone."

This is one of the most true observations on religion that I have heard. People don't really live there lives like an omnipotent being reigns over them. I was recently at a Catholic funeral where everyone was crying their eyes out over a dead grandfather. I wanted to say "he's gonna live in heaven with Jesus forever! You'll be reunited with him in such a relatively short time!"

That's a pretty myopic observation.

I remember the day I left my family at age 14 to live in the US. I cried my eyes out. I knew I would keep seeing my mother and my brother and sister occasionally, but emotionally I felt great pain by the absence of their physical company. Death, even if you believe in an after life is very similar.

I clearly remember the day my mother in law, who was like my mother, died. My wife was pregnant with her first granddaughter, and we couldn't bear the pain. We knew we weren't going to be able to share the birth of our first child with her in person, or enjoy her company at all her important events. That loss still hurts today, but that doesn't mean we we don't act in a way "people who believe in God would act". We hope and strive for the best, but we are human. There is no contradiction there.

Aren't the faithful departed always with us and watching over us? The distance between you and your family in a different country is real and measurable in miles. The distance between you and a being of pure spirit should be negligible. They can still hear your prayers and intercede on your behalf right? Also, if we spend a mere 100 years at best on Earth and eternity in heaven I would argue that our time here is meaningless.

I'm not sure what religious faith you are trying to caricature there, but I'm talking about missing family members. In my example, they were always "available" to me, I could always call them, that did not mean I didn't miss them deeply. Even if you believe in life after death (and the "watching over us" differs greatly among religions) there is nothing inconsistent in being sad by the "departure" of a loved one.

You are trying to point that out as a big inconsistency, when it is just the same in the real world (being away from somebody) and natural to feel that way.

I'm trying to figure out why Christians seem just as sad as atheists at funerals when one group has the clear advantage of resurrection. Do you feel equally upset about missing your family in another country as you do about a dead family member or do you somehow feel more upset about the death?

I'm going to see my grandfather in heaven someday. That doesn't mean I'm not sad/depressed that I won't get to hear him sing on earth anymore, or listen to him tell my children the same stories he told me.

I know I'm going to see my son in heaven someday. That doesn't mean I am not sad that I won't get to see him ride a bike or play baseball, or sit and talk with him about how his day went.

I take comfort that I'll see my loved ones again, but that doesn't keep me from missing them terribly right now.

Really, is it that hard to understand?

When you're in heaven you no longer have a biological component, so technically you won't even be related to these people anymore. I'm not sure if former earth relationships even matter after death since your new existence is one of eternal joy from being in the presence of God. You'd have no need for anything else. Would a belief in God still appeal to you without the reward/punishment system of heaven and hell?

The problem is that this reduces "religion" to "irrational fear of death"/"belief in an afterlife," which is one of the go-to rationales for religion that people who aren't religious bring up on behalf of people who are.

Belief in an afterlife/resurrection is not a requirement for many religions, and is not the focus for many people who subscribe to them. And in some of those that address the topic, like Buddhism, it's hardly as simple as "you're going to see your loved ones in heaven."

Seeking miracle cures for that irrational fear of death is not restricted to the religious - consider the people banking on the Singularity to "scientifically" put an end to death. There are many religious thinkers who consider the afterlife and such to be figurative; the Singularity kooks are convinced that their miracle cure will be quite literal.

I don't see why emotionally it would be that much different in the first place to be quite honest. Intellectually there are other things going on, but for most people a death is a very emotional experience more than anything, not an intellectual exercise.

Of course there is a component of hope in the case of those who believe in the resurrection, but how that helps or not varies greatly among different people, and how you react and cope with a death encompasses just so much more than the religious aspects of your life.

No offense, but I'm trying to figure out if this is really a serious question.

So, if our world has existed for millions of years, but our species has only existed for a little portion of that, our species is meaningless?

Because they're "human beings," and human beings experience strange, powerful currents within them that they call emotions. Strange as it must seem, humans are often vulnerable to immediate emotions even over the ideological beliefs they hold dear.

Sarcasm aside, I'm bewildered by this statement.

So...biological lineage is the only accepted means of experiencing affection? What?

Your question presupposes that reward/punishment is the only motivating factor for spiritual belief. That seems a bit 2-D to me, in light of the multiple faiths that have no established vision of the afterlife. Judaism comes to mind. Not to mention the multiple faiths that reject a classical notion of either 'realm'.

Ray Kurzweil is a perfect example of a 'rational' person with religious levels of faith in the Singularity. Science pursues immortality at this very moment in the form of cell reconstruction, consciousness preservation, etc. If successful in any way, such advances will immediately threaten global stability, resources, space and relations between those who extend their lives and those who cannot/will not. The practical, ethical, political and emotional implications of such advances? Who cares! I want to live forever!

Apparently.

My point is that believers don't live their lives as if God really does exist. They work a 9 to 5, pay taxes, and partition off the "religious aspects" of their lives. They live an otherwise perfectly secular life except for the beliefs that they carry inside their heads. They still fret about daily life activities that are meaningless in the grand cosmic scale. They don't face persecution so belief comes cheap. They may go to a church or temple regularly but their daily lives are probably very similar to the most hardcore atheist or those with conflicting religions. Explain to me how you have a belief in God and not just a belief in the "belief of god" in your life.

I agree that earthly realtionships don't matter in heaven (see Luke 20:27-40, the Sadducees and the woman who married seven brothers), but I do believe we'll still know the connections we had to people on earth (Luke 16:19-31, the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man).

Again, while we will experience total joy in heaven, we're still flesh right now, and have to deal with missing our loved ones.

EDIT: What DaveB said.

Congrats. You just gleaned the problem a lot of Christians have with the "church."