The Thinking Atheist synthesizes pretty much exactly why humans invented religion, then came to realize our true role in this cosmic ballet, in this elegantly professional video.
I wish I had the kind of talent it takes to produce such a slick piece. I strongly feel that for all my words, videos work far better at what I’m trying to achieve in terms of outreach, and in terms of explanation of this universe’s subtle intricacies.
Wow – that video is fantastic, I’m going to have to steal it from you 🙂
Feel free! It’s not mine to begin with, and I’m sure TA wouldn’t mind one bit having his video go viral.
Hey, nice video and all that, but as an atheist yourself don’t you feel a bit patronized by a blogger who calls himself/herself “Thinking Atheist?” Really? Is that “The thinking ateist,” or “A thinking atheist?” Does that imply that most atheists aren’t thinkers? It’s kind of like Hemant Mehta calling himself “The Friendly Atheist,” implying that the rest of us are not so friendly. (And Hemant is coming around on that friendliness/accommondationist bit, anyways. Perhaps he should let Michael Ruse take over the title Friendly Atheist.
Sorry, feeling a bit rankled and cranky on this today.
On a positive note, one of your fellow Canadians will be on the radio show tomorrow.
http://glendonmellow.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-sunday-on-atheists-talk-radio-with.html
I always get a chuckle at the Christian Hymn “Our God is a Mighty God”.
Yeah, is that to mean that he is one of the mighty gods?
Was this a sad attempt to disprove theism? I think so.
No, I think it was a great attempt to show that God has a wicked sense of humor.
I would have said it was an attempt at proving how theism came to be. It’s up to YOU to “prove theism”, dude. You’re the proponent of it. We’re just proponents of the null hypothesis! One does not have to prove the null hypothesis, because it is not the thing being proposed. We need only the failure to prove the thing being proposed!
In the meantime, we continue to refine our knowledge of the universe in a scientific manner. The evidence keeps adding up on the pile for naturalism. Have anything at all to show for your pet hypothesis — err, I mean deity?
By the way, I HAVE MISSED YOU SO MUCH, DANIEL MALDONADO!!!!!
I’ve missed you as well!
I felt the tingling need to spur up debate! There is no better place on the net to do such a thing. 😉
Here are some things I respect about you (and I’m not trying to win brownie points):
1. You’re intelligent. There is no doubt about it and if you and I were sitting in a chemistry class ready to battle it out in pop quizzes, you would be sure to win. I respect your knowledge about science as a whole and I’ve dropped by from time to time to read posts that I find intellectually stimulating. I definitely don’t always visit to argue!
2. You’re honest. I like that, regardless of how much I disagree, you argue in an honest way.
3. You miss me! Yay! 😀
For the sake of keeping it short, I mainly disagree with the fact that this video claims that because they have shown where a belief originated then that belief is false.
This argument commits the genetic fallacy. Even if it were true that belief in God arose from our lack of knowledge or fear of the unknown, it most certainly doesn’t show that belief in God is unwarranted or that God doesn’t exist.
For the record, I most certainly disagree with the videos hypothesis about why humans came to believe in God. 🙂 CHEERS!!!
I dunno about chemistry. I haven’t even taken a high school chemistry class. I’ve tried to teach myself some molecular biology, but I’m a computer guy, and biology is far too fuzzy and hack-ish for someone who thinks structured code. There’s a good possibility I might beat you on creative thinking aspects, if they exist at all in chemistry, but for rote memorization of chemical reactions, I’m at a strong disadvantage.
Thanks for calling me honest, by the by. I just got off being called a “lying sack of dogshit” (over my arguing that “sex by surprise” is actually “rape”, with regard to the Julian Assange investigation), so it comes at a timely juncture. Especially since we’ve gone toe to toe a number of times.
I don’t think the aim of the video was to refute or disprove theism as a whole. I understand the genetic fallacy — that thinking that showing where an idea came from is good enough to end debate on its merits — and I know that’s definitely a fallacy taken alone. It does, however, have its uses when tracing lineage of a particular idea. If you can say that there are precursors for an idea that you specifically claim sprang from divine inspiration, that disproves divine inspiration, unless you’re also claiming the divinity of the precursors. In most cases, a theist will deny the precursors or find some modicum of difference between the two — as though showing two finches’ beak sizes proves they aren’t related, when even theists admit “microevolution”.
I don’t know what you’d do in this case, since I’m not offering any specific precursors to any central Christian dogmas. Nor is The Thinking Atheist. I just figured the video was an attempt at writing something uplifting for people like me and my readers — something “spiritual”, minus any need for belief in “spirits”, if you catch my meaning.
And this is where you and I differ. You believe humankind is a fallen race, created perfect but having knocked itself off its lofty pedestal. I believe humankind has performed great and wondrous things in its time on the planet, having dragged itself up out of the muck and pulled itself up by its as-yet-uninvented bootstraps to surpass the level of the “mere animal” from which we descend.
I agree with you that trying to determine the origin of something has great value. I don’t think any historian or specialist in sociology could actually prove belief in God had its origins the way the thinking atheist portrayed it.
I like the video overall, I feel as though there is a certain pride in the human effort and I can relate to that. I find that our ancient history is filled with inspiring stories that actually happened without the spiritual additive so to speak.
However, in regards to our disagreement, you’re right. I do believe man is “fallen” but I don’t believe this to mean that our ingenuity, perseverance, and intelligence has suffered as a result.
I believe God to be someone who wished man to reason with Him. Some might say I have blind faith, but that person simply has a large misunderstanding of faith, or at least biblical faith.
To quote the Bible, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)
Yes, man has been instrumental in discovering the way things work in nature and explaining why a certain thing may be a certain way. But I believe there are plenty of things man simply cannot discover through the finite powers of science.
Evolution is a theory I respect. I don’t hate it, I used to, but I don’t anymore. It has helped me understand plenty of things about human psychology and the natural world.
I most definitely do not believe that Darwinism can account for all biological complexity and my position on that is firm. I think most Christians will hear the word evolution and either get angry or step-away. Some blurt out ridiculous positions that hold no water that they heard in a sermon Sunday night. I take a position of, “I’m not afraid of evidence.”
I don’t like these micro/macro evolutionary terms any more, I think they convey the idea that I don’t know what evolution is or how it works according to modern biologists.
So the bottom line is that while I believe it’s an interesting study to try to find out how humans came to believe what they believe, I think it’s based on some large presuppositions that I reject from the start. I think the way Dawkins explains evolution seems plausible on the surface and most people I meet accept his stories as the best explanation of the theory. My main problem lies within the probability of the Darwinian mechanism producing all biological complexity. But you could also say to me as my good friend (atheist) says, “Anything is possible given enough time.” haha
I see your frustration with people arguing from my circle. I think a lot of people don’t even want to consider the evidence or look at the theory and shoot from the hip because they read a few books.
It’s like a story I heard of a Christian friend in a bookstore with another Christian friend. One of them wanted to learn about Islam and find out what was wrong with it. He looked around and found at least 3 books that showed what was wrong with Islam. The other Christian asked him what he was doing and the other guy says, “I’m learning about Islam.” Looking at the title of the books, he walked away, went to grab a Quran, and brought it back to say, “This is a good place to start.”
His friend responded, “I don’t need to read that, I have 3 books explaining everything!” and his friend forced him to start with the Quran and then work his way back. The conclusion was the same, there are some issues with Islam, but he understood the people more and got rid of the cliche arguments you hear day to day.
It’s a good lesson for people on both sides. 🙂
Daniel,
Almost all of my atheist friends have read the Bible. Most have read C.S. Lewis. Many have read other works by reputed theologians.
What would you say is the difference between those Christians that argue that I have never “really read” the bible or that I didn’t approach it with an open mind; and the Muslim who makes the same charge at the Christian in your parable?
A Muslim would claim that an honest reading of the Qur’an would most certainly result in a conversion to Islam, just as a Christian would say the same of the Bible. There is no doubt that as humans, it would be impossible to approach any book without interpreting it through the filter of our own biases and experiences. I would think it illogical to do otherwise.
Why then, should your curious Christian trust his interpretation of the Qur’an given that he still approached the book to “find out what was wrong” with Islam? Why should his newfound insight be any different or more valid than the insight of the atheist who has read the Bible?
The fact of the matter is that humans have an amazing capacity to see what they want to see. If you approach the Bible because you are searching for comfort, or because you are looking for answers, you are far more likely to find what you are looking for then you are to spot the contradictions. Christians tell me this all the time. So the curious Christians new insight, although more reasonably derived on it’s face, is really not much better than reading a book titled “101 Reasons Islam is Wrong”. If both his interpretation of the Qur’an and the opinions of “101 Reasons” are informed by a Christian worldview, all our friend did was come to the same potentially false conclusions using the same potentially false filter.
So my question is: How is it noble for the Christian to discount a faith based on their interpretation of a holy text, but ignoble for the atheist?
George,
You asked, “How is it noble for the Christian to discount a faith based on their interpretation of a holy text, but ignoble for the atheist?
I don’t know that nobility is the real problem. It’s sort of pointless to ask if it’s noble for a Christian to discount another faith. Our entire faith is based on the fact that we are the only true faith. As ridiculous and narrow minded as it may sound to the atheist, they miss this fact most of the time.
I haven’t met one Christian who suggests that if a person were to honestly read the Bible without their own bias, they would most likely convert. Conversion, according to Christian theology, isn’t just an intellectual acknowledgement of the veracity of the Bible; it’s a deep spiritual experience that happens to a person when he or she encounters God.
You asked how can we discredit another religion and consider it noble but when you do it’s ignoble. I’m not sure we think it’s ignoble for you to discount a faith based on your reading. The problem with your example is that it’s wholly different from a Christian seeing whats wrong with Islam versus an Atheist.
I may find 50 reasons why Islam is wrong because I don’t like their theology, but you may find 150 things wrong because you reject the basic presupposition that “God exists.”
Islam rejects the Jesus Christians believe in and believe in a different Jesus. This, as you can imagine, causes extremely large problems for the Christian if he were going to try give the faith any credit.
Before I converted to Christianity, I was part of the New Age movement, where all religions are accepted as truth. I was deeply involved in the eastern religions and found then very intriguing. It wasn’t until a deep understanding of spiritual concepts that I began to examine Christianity. Naturally, my I disliked all the Christians who told me Jesus was the only way. I rejected that concept, I believed all roads led to God. But I found through deep intellectual and spiritual inquiry that Christianity made sense and I was affected intellectually and spiritually (which I don’t expect you to understand.)
I won’t go into WHY I found Christianity to be satisfying, I suppose we can have that discussion another time.
That’s true of most faiths. And it is a common counter argument for atheists. At least a counter to Pascal’s Wager. Perhaps the disconnect is that for Christians it is a fact, while for everyone else it is something Christians believe. That so many have mutually exclusive ‘one true’ beliefs doesn’t prove you’re all wrong. But to an outsider is certainly makes it all suspect. From my POV the talking snake is just as crazy as the talking gold discs or xenu.
I can’t recall being guaranteed that if I read the bible I’d become a Christian. I have been told that if I simply ask Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, and really believe it and give up to faith that it will happen. I’ve tried as best I know how, and nothing.
I have been told that if I read The Book of Mormon with an ‘open heart’ I’ll become a Latter Day Saint. Haven’t tried it yet, but it’s on my bucket list.
I used to have a co-worker who was a native Arabic (Egyptian) Muslim. He said that the qur’an in Arabic has a linguistic perfection that was only possible if it were divine. Keep in mind that unlike the bible, the qur’an was actually written bygod. I can’t read the qur’an in Arabic, and I don’t plan to learn Arabic just for that purpose, so I’ll probably never know.
But what does ‘like’ have to do with it? Surely there are parts of Christian theology that make you uncomfortable, but it’s the truth, so you accept it, good and uncomfortable.
At the end of The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell laments the erosion of his faith brought on by his inquiry. I have tried long and hard to ‘get’ how it is that people are religious. The more I try, the further entrenched I become in the idea that I just believe one less myth.
I thank you for a reasoned reply.
I do think that you are either being contradictory, dishonest, or perhaps a little too honest when you say
John 1:1, Romans 10:17. These passages imply something very different. It also took me all of one single google search and about five minutes to find a Christian trying to hammer home the point that hearing the word of God and reading the word of God are very different things.
Aside from some sects like Quakers, which I admittedly know nothing about, I am all too aware that Christian’s theology stands or falls on the presupposition that they are the one true religion. Why that or the fact that they would agree with Islam that there is a God is more intellectually honest then an atheist coming to a similar final conclusion about Islam or Christianity is still foggy to me. Or even how it is different. I may as an atheist agree with the qur’ans treatment of commerce, for example, where you may not. I may agree with the over arching philosophy without accepting the causal agent, Allah, or the historical accuracy of it’s plotline. If “there is no God but God” is a communal bond between Christians and Muslims than I can take the phrase “I like fruit” to mean that you like mangoes, without having to clarify that fact.
The Jesus of the qur’an is not a different Jesus, it is clear as day that it is the same Jesus, just without the dubious yet convenient pedigree. I understand how that causes a stumbling block for a Christian.
As an aside I hope you don’t take the wrong way, I have never met an evangelical christian who didn’t have a conversion story. It would appear that no one is actually born into this religion and even when they are they seem to drift away to Eastern Mysticism or Krishna Consciousness or Wicca or (insert faith system cloaked in mystery here)before coming back to the fold. Is that a testament to poor church leadership that they can’t keep their 15-25 year olds in the pews? It certainly isn’t because they preach tolerance and understanding of other faiths, as you point out in your second paragraph. Just wondering.
George,
I said that conversion doesn’t come from an intellectual acknowledgement of the veracity of the Bible. I do believe God’s Word has an effect on man and the theology is much deeper than this.
I understand what you mean by, “it is the same Jesus,” but a closer look would prove otherwise. Muslims took the Jesus Christians were following centuries before and turned Him into a Jesus that fit their bill. It’s clear that the Jesus (or Issah) that Muslims have come to know is one that is written about centuries after the original texts, which are in the new testament bible. This would prove it’s lack of authenticity in regards to the historical Jesus. This is why I reject the idea that who they speak of is the correct Jesus.
To Rich: You said, “I have been told that if I simply ask Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, and really believe it and give up to faith that it will happen. I’ve tried as best I know how, and nothing.”
There isn’t a formula for this. There aren’t instructions on how to have an experience. When You say, “I’ve tried as best I know how, and nothing” what is it that your not experiencing? Are you expecting some sudden urge of faith and enlightenment? Take a look at Hebrews 11:6
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
Coming to God requires a meekness and deep sense of longing for God so to speak. Are we [i]earnestly[/i] seeking Him?
Asking God to show up with sincerity and not with some attitude that would suggest God needs to show up in order for you to believe in Him, might convert you.
What evidence do you have, then, that the Jesus (Yeshua) you refer to, is the correct Jesus? Given the historical pedigree of the Bible’s authorship, nothing in the Bible can be trusted to be in its original form or documentary of any real person. So how do you *know* that your interpretation of Jesus is the right one, in any way other than the same way that Muslims *know* that their interpretation of Jesus is the right one?
I’m trying to find the atheist’s prayer (named something like that, I believe) where you fervently ask God to show up in your life and change your heart. It was written by a relatively high-ranking religious figure fairly early on, but I can’t remember any more details than that. If I could find that, it strikes me that this would serve as a “formula” for how to convert.
What you say, Daniel, is also in stark opposition to others throughout the theist world who say that one only has to open their hearts to God (in whichever form that particular theist believes), in order to find him and convert.
Jason,
The stories Muslims portray of Jesus derive from the so-called apocryphal gospels which came onto the scene much later. They are pretty much elaborations of the original four gospels. The simple fact that the Quran is 600 some odd years older than the BIble should shed some light on the credibility of their stories of Jesus versus the earliest accounts.
Although, I suppose you could just say, as Muslims often do, that both the Old and New testament are corrupt. One because of the Jews corrupting the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christians the New Testament.
At any rate, we could naturally deduct the validity of the gospels and the Jesus they speak of by comparing internal and external sources that refer to Him. I think the internal evidence alone is very compelling. For example, Paul’s letters are wholly separate from the Gospels themselves, yet there are plenty examples of his understanding of the Jesus in the Gospels. Now, you will of course have people, such as the ones in the Jesus seminar, who will try their best to argue against Paul’s belief in the Jesus of the Gospels, but their arguments hold very little if any water at all.
I suppose we could discuss this at length if you would like.
I know you say what I say is in stark opposition to others who say you just have to open your heart to God. I think you misunderstood my position. I said there isn’t a “formula” for conversion. What does it mean to you to “open your heart”?
Also, when an atheist is seeking some result by asking God into their heart, what are they seeking for? If they want lights and sounds and a whole show, they will almost always be disappointed. I think you get my drift.
Sure, but there’s a chicken and egg here. If I don’t think God needs to show up for me to believe in him, then don’t I already believe in him? At the very least, I have suspended the reasoning mind that he supposedly gave me.
I was as sincere as I could be. I really and truly felt that if intelligent friends and family I knew believed in the Christian theology, then maybe I was missing something. But it’s impossible to forget all the problems with the Jesus story (million lived and died without ever hearing of Jesus, what of them? etc). So there I was, wanting to believe, but unable.
How can you suspend doubt completely? If I tell you there are five lights, but you only see four, I can torture you into saying there are five, but you still know there are four. You can call it attitude if you want, but how is it really different from ‘The Secret’? If ‘The Secret’ doesn’t work for someone, and they don’t get a red sports car, they’re just not really envisioning it in their life. I know, Jesus is real and ‘The Secret is a book selling scam. But, for Jesus to be son of God, you have to have faith. And if you don’t have faith, he isn’t. So there has to be some kind primer in getting faith. That’s what I just don’t get.
Here’s a wild and crazy thought I just had: What if our purpose is for God to decide if he’s real or not. He can’t decide, so he creates us with faculties for both reason and faith, and sets us loose to debate and come to an eventual conclusion as to his existence.
No, I don’t do recreational drugs 🙂
Rich,
I appreciate your honesty. You’re not too far from the truth actually, in your last statement. The purpose of life is not to be happy but to know God. I do believe God created us with faculties for both reason and faith and I firmly believe that these faculties, especially faith, has been damaged due to the fall.
The problem in thinking that God needs to “show up” and by “show up” I mean physically, audibly, etc., is really that God may not show up in that way. I have friends who have experienced such a thing, but that was after they came to faith. Remember the verse in ancient Scripture? “It is impossible to please God without faith…” and it goes on to say that he rewards those who earnestly seek Him. It could very well be that that reward is a physical appearance of sorts (although I have no idea what that would look like).
I understand your desire to want God to exist but you feel like it is a compromise on your reason. I don’t blame you for this feeling. I think God understands this, “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD”
I had to wrestle with doubts for a while, but there is a certain confirmation in my heart, what Thomas Acquinas would call the “internal instigation of the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts man of sin and shows him the truth. I read Romans for example plenty of times before I was actually a believer. But, there was a moment when I felt like I was being told the meaning of Scripture.
We can’t offer any repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to offer you any “evidence” of God answering prayers or confirming your faith. Prayer is a misunderstood concept, even in Christian circles. You are not somehow informing God of something that He didn’t know. Prayer is a form of Love or to put it in a rather unorthodox way, it’s like spiritual intercourse. It’s an exchange of love and pleasure, of conversation and confirmation, it’s a beautiful thing.
I think C.S. Lewis’ “Efficacy of Prayer” would be a good read. It’s not too long to read, here is a link:
http://www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/books/articles/cslewis.htm
I certainly hope I’m not getting too preachy for you, but I would like to share Scripture because I feel as though it is fitting. I was reading and I thought it would help or at least encourage. It’s from Ephesians 1:17-19 . Paul speaks of His prayers towards the early church and I most certainly mirror this prayer for your sake. I pray…
“…that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe”
Thanks Daniel, but I should probably clarify that this was over 20 years ago. At the time I had a desire to at least understand the disconnect between myself and several Christians, mostly family. I certainly wasn’t expecting thunder and lightening. Faith would have been sufficient, but I/He couldn’t/didn’t muster it.
At this point I don’t care. Those relationships are settled and well defined. We mostly respect boundaries, and share photos of our kids on FB. I have no desire to ‘find God’. Burning curiosity as to what makes faith tick, but no more fear of what might happen to me after I die then I suspect your fear of having made the wrong choice. I don’t think you’re losing any sleep over Ganesh. I’m not losing any sleep over Jesus. I appreciate the concern of a fellow human being. If I thought it would do any good, I’d return the prayer 🙂
Unfortunately George, you misunderstand God then. The first thing you could think of is some provocative imagery I’m sure. I was thinking in terms symbolically. Sex for my wife and I is a oneness and an exchange of love, pleasure, confirmation, and conversation. So, prayer is a oneness in the same way.
If there is a God, I’m going to hell for this thought…
So wouldn’t the result of Pascal’s Wager be spiritual rape then?
Many people seem to have a tendency to want to believe that they are “the center of all things.” Nearly all religious paths claim to be the One True Religion™. Each wants to be special in a way that sets them above other people.
I observe the same type of arrogance in the chest-thumping of those who believe in American exceptionalism. Anyone who doesn’t hold the same political beliefs that they do is not a Patriot™.
I don’t know Dan J, you’re assuming people “want” to be special and claim that they are the one true religion. I’m not sure you’re correct either when you say, “Nearly all religious paths claim to be the One True Religion.” How many religious different religions have you studied?
There are very few religions that claim religious exclusivity. In fact, most religions are very open to other religions being the “truth.”
But it’s like what I said earlier, it’s pointless to criticize a Christian, for example, for thinking (not wanting) to be special in his/her religious beliefs. Our entire faith is contingent on the fact that our faith IS the truth. It makes no sense for a true Christian to accept other beliefs as truth because then he/she wouldn’t be a true Christian. We can embrace people of other faiths and be tolerant of them so long as they do not attempt to eradicate our freedom to practice our faith.
Just wanted to mention that I’m glad to see you back here, Daniel. It’s been a long time!
I’m familiar with a wide array of religious beliefs and practices, and have participated in a variety of religious ceremonies and practices. What some call a religion, others might call a philosophy, so there isn’t even agreement on what is a religion. But that’s a whole different can of worms.
Do we lump all of Christianity together, or is each “sect” (for lack of a better term) a different religion? Are Catholics, Southern Baptists and Eastern Orthodox separate faiths? In my opinion, yes, because of their own exclusivity. Each is convinced that their particular flavor of religion is the single correct religion. All others are false. The same can be said of the different varieties of Islam, or of Judaism.
As you point out, your whole faith is contingent on its being the One True Religion™, as are many others. Unlike you, personally, many of those others, be they some variety of Christian, Muslim, etc., do not embrace people of other faiths. Infidels, heretics, and apostates are often put to death for their transgression of religious rules.
If only there were more moderate, tolerant Christians like you and many of the people I talk to in my own community. Even the Christians that I know speak of some Evangelical groups with disdain.
I’m not sure how many different religions claim to be ‘one true’ (as Dan says, counting religions is hard on its own). But I feel pretty safe in saying that a majority of the population of the planet feel their own is the ‘one true’ and everyone else isn’t going to get the same afterlife reward that they will. I think that describes most followers of the Abrahamic traditions, which is a clear majority.
I have read passages in the Gita, and quotes from Mohandis Gandhi, that suggest Hinduism is a little more open. OTHO Hinduism is tied up with the whole caste system, so I’m not sure. I’m certainly no expert.
Agree with Dan J on politics in the US. Very frequently person A will make some statement that in and of itself is no way political, and person B will object and use ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ as an epithet, assuming that since they disagree with A on issue X, obviously A must be the other side of the political spectrum, which of course means they hate puppies and want to destroy America.
Oh, Daniel,
lighten up…
It was clearly delivered in jest.
I don’t think I “misunderstand God”, I think sometimes I may misunderstand the Godly, but this case was not one of them. I will take this opportunity to compliment your levelheaded and polite response.