Let's use this functional definition of deity or "god":
A sacred reality which is a reality that is fundamentally and substantively other than that which is constrained by the set of all cause and effect, yet actively engages in the set of all cause and effect in relationship to it.
In scientific terms, any object that is outside of the set of all cause and effect simply cannot exist. To posit such an object is for all intents and purposes absurd. Kant made this observation regarding how the human mind works, how reason functions, and the nature of God as that which cannot be known in terms of cause and effect relationships. God's existence is outside of space and time and anything outside of space and time is beyond the limits of reason.
This Kantian understanding of God is largely where the neo-atheists of today start off with their arguments contra the existence of God. Framed this way with these foundational criteria, there is no where for a believer in God to go. Any belief in God will never meet the criteria for rationality required here.
Of course, Kierkegaard went in a radically different direction. While after Kant, Hegel would posit the idealism of the unfolding of "spirit" through the necessity of history, Kierkegaard ran past Hegel's necessity to focus on choice. In this sense Kierkegaard re-grounds belief in God in the behavior of choice, but not by choosing what is most rational. Rather it is choosing what appears to be absurd only to find on the other side of the choce that it is the only rational outcome one could have made in the first place. Choosing God appears to be something very absurd, but it is in the end quite rational. The point is that one has to make the choice.
For Dawkins and others choosing God is absurd. It is also at the heart of what it means to be irrational and so, one ought not choose it. To that Kierkegaard would agree. However, not to choose the absurd in this case is not rational. This cannot be made through a rational argument, but ony through a leap of faith. It is only on the other side of that choice that we understand we have made a rational decision. Dawkins would consider this foolish to be sure. He is right from his point of view. But what seems to us to be foolish on his criteria of rationality may in fact be the best choice possible.
While many atheists will use the bible to say that God is evil, it is full of absurd tales of magic, rape, etc. The one bit that perhaps they cannot accept is that for most believers in God or in some sort of deity, that belief is ultimately rooted in the experience one has with that deity, or with that sacred reality – not on the sole basis of a text. Evidence shows that even among fundamentalists who appear to rely only on the bible for their faith (or a kind of interpretation of the bible) experience is what actually mediates that understanding of the bible. One side will determine this experience to be delusional and no amount of evidence can be convincing. It is the choice in the face of the absurd to believe in God that mediates the kind of belief one has. Many continue to make that choice on a regular basis. To them not making that choice is, ironically, something that would be evidence of irrational and irresponsible behavior.
Related posts:
Hmmm, thank you. I'll be back to read more of you posts. thank you
Hi Drew. It's been a while
"The one bit that perhaps they cannot accept is that for most believers in God or in some sort of deity, that belief is ultimately rooted in the experience one has with that deity, or with that sacred reality – not on the sole basis of a text."
The trouble is when religious people use their "text" to tell other people how to live their lives. Which happens a lot.
Kant and Kierkegaard both argued that belief in God was justified or even necessary. Maybe it is. I don't see it personally. Wittgenstein believed in God even after saying "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." I don't see how.
Given the impact Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and other "beieving" philosophers have had on atheistic philosophers, the one thing was can surely say is that non-belief in God is reasonable, even is (and I remain to be convinced) that a belief in God is reasonable.
And if it is reasonable not to believe in God, then the truth-claims of most religions fall.
Best wishes – and a belated happy fourth of July
i think that what people call "god" has changed quite a bit since what Kant or Soren assumed. Take Tillich's definition of god as "ultimate concern" or "ground of being." In a post Heidegger world, existence takes ona very different meaning and so, some belief in ultimacy is going to happen with people.
So the question then is, which god must I believe in to be rational? I think people make that decision on largely pragmatic grounds and do what works for them in a given situation. I would just hope that everyone could at least practice the same love of neighbor that Jesus discussed even if you don't think Jesus ever existed.
But you know well enough that I despise Dawkins' pushing of his scientism rooted in logical positivist claims that looks and smell like 19th century stuff that has not a lot of use to most people as much as I despise Pat Robertson's equally logical positivist interpretation of sacred texts. They are of the same cloth, just with different objects that form their respective worlds. I frankly have little use for either of those worlds since I don't think people should live that way to get along and help others be better persons.
"I think people make that decision on largely pragmatic grounds and do what works for them in a given situation."
That doesn't make their decisions rational, reasonable or valid. Especially when (as it most cases) their chosen religion tries to tel everyone else how to behave.
"I would just hope that everyone could at least practice the same love of neighbor that Jesus discussed even if you don't think Jesus ever existed."
I agree. I don't think, however, you need "Jesus" (real or imaginary) to do that.
I don't like how Dawkins tries to tell everyone else how to think either. I also don't think you've given a rational or reasonable ground to believe in "God" in anything other than the most ephemeral terms. Maybe you aren't trying to.
I also think that I'm close to you when it comes to philosophy than I am to Dawkins, and maybe that you're closer to me than you are to Pat Robertson.
I came across this great article about the Middle East yesterday. I can't help thinking that the world needs less religion, not more to solve its problems. I don't know if you'd agree with that. Finally, it seems to be that theological arguments are essentially useless. I don't know whether or not "god" or an "afterlife" exists, and frankly no-one else does either.
Peace and (as the Buddhist's say) loving kindness and compassion to all beings…
i agree that pragmatism does not always equate with rationality, or even good behavior given the social circumstances that define what works for people in a given situation. yet, nonetheless, my claim is that people on the whole do behave this way.
and i would hope i am to robertson as you are to dawkins. that's why we can gt along on opposite sides of the fence as it were! i just bought robert wright's book the evolution of god which argues that we need more religion, but better religion to mediate the good. this makes sense with the sociological observation that religion is never going to be less or more, just different over the long term.
"I think people make that decision on largely pragmatic grounds and do what works for them in a given situation."
That doesn't make their decisions rational, reasonable or valid. Especially when (as it most cases) their chosen religion tries to tel everyone else how to behave.
"I would just hope that everyone could at least practice the same love of neighbor that Jesus discussed even if you don't think Jesus ever existed."
I agree. I don't think, however, you need "Jesus" (real or imaginary) to do that.
I don't like how Dawkins tries to tell everyone else how to think either. I also don't think you've given a rational or reasonable ground to believe in "God" in anything other than the most ephemeral terms. Maybe you aren't trying to.
I also think that I'm close to you when it comes to philosophy than I am to Dawkins, and maybe that you're closer to me than you are to Pat Robertson.
I came across this great article about the Middle East yesterday. I can't help thinking that the world needs less religion, not more to solve its problems. I don't know if you'd agree with that. Finally, it seems to be that theological arguments are essentially useless. I don't know whether or not "god" or an "afterlife" exists, and frankly no-one else does either.
Peace and (as the Buddhist's say) loving kindness and compassion to all beings…
i agree that pragmatism does not always equate with rationality, or even good behavior given the social circumstances that define what works for people in a given situation. yet, nonetheless, my claim is that people on the whole do behave this way.
and i would hope i am to robertson as you are to dawkins. that's why we can gt along on opposite sides of the fence as it were! i just bought robert wright's book the evolution of god which argues that we need more religion, but better religion to mediate the good. this makes sense with the sociological observation that religion is never going to be less or more, just different over the long term.