Instead of trying to prove the improvable, I thought it might be an interesting exercise to see how many arguments I could find to support the following proposition: You should be seeking God.
1. The Evolution Argument:
This is one of my favorites. I believe that the theory of evolution is a very valuable tool. It explains a lot. I use it when I think about the world I find myself in, about my journey in this life, about my country and culture, religion, music, movies, love, God, etc. It is one of my most basic intellectual paradigms.
Here’s the argument:
a. Evolution tells us that characteristics of living things generally have benefits. The more costly the characteristic, the more important it must be, otherwise the characteristic would have been bred out. For example, we humans have very expensive brains. They use up a lot of calories, make childbirth more dangerous, are difficult to maintain well, and are too easily injured. When they are injured, we become very vulnerable. So, evolution tells us they must be very valuable, there must be a big upside to having complex brains.
b. Belief in God is close to a universal characteristic of humans, and it appears this has been true for a very long time. This characteristic, however, is very expensive. Our belief in God has been used and abused by many, both throughout history and today, to our detriment. Wars, crusades, inquisitions, sacrifice, tributes, etc, are just some of the costs that come to mind. Even today many people spend at least some of their time and money in pursuit of God. A few even dedicate their lives to the task.
c. So, evolution tells us, there must really be a big upside to believing in God.
2. The Logic Argument:
This is my least favorite approach. I’m probably not familiar enough with logic, but let me take a stab at it:
a. It seems to me that all logical arguments start with some presupposition. For example, a logical argument might go: Assume all birds sing, we have a bird, therefore we have something that sings. So, wouldn’t the best logical argument for the existence of God be: Assume God. b. Maybe there’s a better one. How about the argument: There might be a God whose nature is such that one must believe in God or else suffer eternal damnation. If you chose to believe in God and are wrong you are no better or worse off than if you hadn’t. If you chose to not believe in God, however, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal hell fire.This is probably the closest I’ve seen to a persuasive “logical” argument for believing in God. I’ve always hated it. Problems with this approach:a. First, and foremost, as was cleverly pointed out by Luke (take the time to journey to his website through the MySpace friends links), this leaves you wondering which God you should believe in, which religion you should be practicing. What if, for example, both Christianity and Islam demand that you believe them, and only them, lest you fry? (That’s not my understanding of Christ’s message, by the way, but that’s a bag of worms for another day).
b. (Uhmm, I guess I do have to stir those worms up a little) This is in essence the – love me or I might torture you forever argument, which seems to be based on an odd idea of what love is. (Maybe this is the S&M argument?)(I can’t help but think of Star Trek’s Spock when I hear arguments like this. The problem is, I think, ultimately one of only seeing a small part of God’s creation. Far too much of it seems “highly illogical.” Where’s the logic in love, self-sacrifice, empathy, intuition, longings?)
c. This ignores the fact that there can be a big cost in believing in God, as I noted in the evolution argument.
d. It can too easily be trumped by the (logically superior?) argument: Assume No God. At that point the logician isn’t going to hear anything about the nature of God. He’s assumed God away. You can only counter it with the equally powerful (or, perhaps, equally lame), Assume God.
e. Nonetheless, some seem to be persuaded by the logic argument.
3. The Humanist Argument:
This is one I like, although it’s a little tricky. The argument is basically: Religion makes people feel better. The trickiness:It can be one of the most powerful arguments if you are talking to decent kindhearted non-believers IF your goal is to end the discussion. It doesn’t necessarily win them over, but rather points out to them that if they win the argument they will be hurting you or others. So, they will often wish you luck with your religion, and they might even support religious endeavors, but they will often think that they are strong enough (intellectually, emotionally, etc) to not need God. The reason it is still a good argument, I think, is that most people will someday come to a point in life when they realize that they can’t make it on their own, that they need a moral framework, or some reason behind it all, that only God can provide. They may realize that most of the feel good approaches, alcohol, easy sex, drugs, porn, blind patriotism, “objective” science and reason, TV vegging, computer games, etc., just ain’t doing it for them in the long run, so maybe they’ll give that religion thing a try. I should note, some Christians, apparently, are wary of their religion making people feel good. This baffles me, but I’ll let that go, for now
4. The Postmodern Argument
This is my personal favorite. I think it represents the lion’s share of why I started looking for God. The term Postmodern can be problematic. People seem to be using it in different ways. Here, I mean postmodern in the sense of finding the dominant modern approach (science, empiricism, reason) to be seriously lacking in providing guidance and explanations for many important things. I came to realize that modernity really couldn’t explain important things to me, such as how to live a good life, how to be happy, what marriage was, how to be a good husband, etc. Modernity failed to provide me with a reason for my existence. Religion hasn’t answered all this fully, but it does better than science ever did, and to be fair I haven’t gotten all that deep into religion yet to know all what it can answer. There does seem to be a lot there, though.
5. The other big reason that I’m aware of for believing in God is that people simply believe in God because they do. This is not to be confused with the logic argument. There is no logical assumption. They simply believe. I really don’t understand this, but I find it fascinating. How do they do that?!! My guess is that they are born and raised to be a believer. My guess is that as they are learning their name and as they are learning about those fascinating fingers and toes, they are also learning that God exists. Or perhaps they never have that inner voice that draws us all to God quashed. Or perhaps it’s both. I don’t know. But some people really seem to know that God exists in the same way that they know their name, or in the same way they know how to move their hands around. That’s wonderful. I like learning from them, and hope they find some value in hearing about my journey as well.
First published on MySpace in May 2005
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment