Engage.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Trash Talking Faith

**warning. the following is a response I made to my cousin's blog about the existence of God; therefore, if you have high blood pressure or heart disease and have difficulty breathing when exposed to others arguing over such topics as God and Politics, please stop reading now.**

--Isn't that like Bush saying that its up to Iraq to prove that it DOESN'T have WMDs? When Iraq couldn't prove that it had nothing, Bush acted on the faith that it did. Look at the harm that has come from it. Look at the injustice that has come from it. I hope no harm or injustice comes to you as a result of faith based on the absence of proof that nothing exists. I have no doubt Vern that you could live the rest of your life having faith in God while really living a fulfilling life. I, on the other hand, would rather live a fulfilling life free of assumptions about anything. I'd argue that this is a more hopeful approach to life.

I don't think that the existence of God could ever be disproved. There will always be "the unknown". The faithful can point to it and say, "See, the only explanation must be god." As if a single word like "God" is ever enough to explain something as vast as that which is not known.

Just because we have a hard time conceptualizing something existing without a creator doesn't mean that it had one. The only conclusion we can come to is that our intelligence is limited. We can see only so much. The question "what caused the big bang" is a presumptious question. It assumes that there was something which caused it, that we just don't know what it is. In the short term, science might explain, in some limited way, what process preceeded the big bang or "caused" it; but in the longer term, we might ask, what was the cause of that?? And then we would ask what caused the thing that caused the thing that caused the big bang?? There is no end to the questions. Even if god existed, wouldn't we ask where he came from? Who made him? We are never satisfied not knowing everything. I think that its the biggest lie science fosters--that we can really know things. Yes we can know facts about things; like where a comet is headed, how bright it is, what it is made of, etc-- but these are souless facts. Since we cannot really experience a comet by entering into it, feeling it, hearing it, seeing all of the properties of its elements, and they ways those elements are dynamic, we cannot really say that we know anything about it.

I took an astronomy class and learned that the most up to date scientific understanding of the big bang is that it was followed by an expanding universe, which might eventually slow down and start contracting. Sooner or later something called a "big crunch" could occur, which would either mean the end of everything; or, as most agree, spark another big bang. The big bang-big crunch cycle would continue forever. No beginning or end could ever be identified... in other words--the universe would be infinite.

We see signs of infinite/the cycle all around us in the shape of a circle. This is the predominate shape of the universe and its myriad galaxies, stars, planets, etc. If anything, this speaks to something other than a single beginning to all things and a single planner of that beginning. This understanding should affect our beliefs and morals more than assumptions like, "if it exists, it must have been made by something." Furthermore, we are a bit cocky for thinking that whatever might have made the universe was in any way like us. We just learn how to flush poo down a drain or gain flight with our man-made contraptions and we proclaim that the entire universe exists because of someone that looks and acts like us.

Your questions:
1) What caused the big bang?
Where did all the matter in the universe come from?
Scientists have pretty detailed answers for these questions--ranging from pretty factual/scientific, to purely theoretical, but look into it and you'll see.
2) How does science explain the spirit/soul/consciousness?
Just because you refuse to believe that a human being could only consist of chemicals and other matter, as well as electrical impulses doesn't mean that there must be a soul. Basically, we're extremely complicated organisms. We shouldn't believe that something exists (soul) just because we can't fully grasp the complexity of what does exist (the human body/mind).

I don't believe in god but I am a moral person. I would not cheat on my spouse because I would love her, and I would also understand that she is just like me, and I would feel bad if she was hurt...her pain would be my pain. The understanding that we are all in this together--you could say that we are all running around blind, making mistakes, feeling pain, finding comfort and pleasure in each other...but we're all pretty clueless relatively speaking--this understanding fosters immense sympathy for fellow human beings...we see ourselves as largely innocent...we find that our greatest hope for being happy is in being courageous, living energetically, and especially helping each other...giving to each other. This is what morality can be based on, this "all in it together" thing. Not some "mind fuck" called faith, in which we metaphorically stare up out of our cages hoping that some day we will be let free. I don't need an imaginary friend or parent (god) to feel secure. I don't need to imagine a heaven or a hell to behave.

You said that belief and faith are not at all bad. I say tell that to the people who drank the poisoned punch. Tell that to those who keep expecting some divine UFO to arrive and take away the chosen ones. Tell that to the Branch Davidians. How about Terrorists? What about the millions of people each day who live in guilt and fear of punishment because they "fornicated"? What about the millions of women throughout history who lived their lives as sex-slaves and slaves to their families because they were fulfilling their roles in accordance with their faith? You may say that these are extreme cases, or that the evil which occured cannot be blamed on faith, but I disagree. Faith--the shutting down of the mind--is to blame for allowing these people and others to throw away their lives.

Vern, I'm ranting and arguing so strongly because my uncles, aunts, mom, sister, cousins, and so many others let this thing called faith control their lives, and I don't believe that that is at all helpful. Anyway, thanks for the good blog. More later, I'm sure. Josh

3 Comments:

At 10:07 AM, Blogger Vernarial said...

Hey I don't think we are arguing. We are just having a vigorous debate.
I still don't believe there is anything wrong with faith itself. I can accept that you do not believe in God. I still think you got that wrong when you said,
"I hope no harm or injustice comes to you as a result of faith based on the absence of proof that nothing exists."
My faith is based on the absence of proof that something/someone exists. I don't think the comparison between my faith in God and Bush lying about WMDs' in Iraq is very accurate at all. Bush knew for a fact there weren't much, if any, WMDs' and he just lied to meet his own ends. He had proof that they didn't exist.
You explained the Big Bang very well, and you were right that science will keep digging deeper and deeper and probably not ever get to the beginning. I choose to believe there was a beginning. But lets set that aside along with the soul argument. Like you said I refuse to believe we are just a bunch of electrical or chemical impulses. It just doesn't feel right to me. You know, in my soul it doesn't feel right.
I was mostly just thinking on paper about my 2 main questions, and hoping to get some responses I could contemplate some more.
Faith is not in and of itself a bad thing. I do believe that you used the extreme cases of people who had/have faith in another person who was either insane or evil. Faith does not come with built in guilt. Faith in the existence of a god doesn't either. Faith simply means you have a belief in something you cannot prove.
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
That is the first definition of faith. Yes religion uses faith to promote steady membership. Religion promotes the faith in heaven or hell and a judgement day of some sort to keep people aligned to the standards they set. This is where the guilt comes from. Not from faith itself.
This is what I was so pissed about in my blog entry. The broad encompassing spread of your thoughts. Like someone laughing at mormons because of individual instances or individual people. Like trash talking faith because of how some people or organizations use faith. I am a citizen of the USA and I claim no reponsibility for the direction my country has taken. You must take things on individual cases. I'm sure you have a kind of faith in your bike. You have faith that it will preform to your standards. This is not a bad faith, and it causes you no guilt. This doesn't mean that you are shutting down your mind. It just means that you believe something that you could not possibly know with absolute certainty. It means that you trust you bike.

I'll give you a chance to respond. I really do enjoy these debates. You can have faith in that. :)

 
At 10:29 PM, Blogger Josh said...

Yes, its a good vigorous debate. I'm loving it. You know, I began to spew my liberal philosophy to Uncle Warren a year or so ago, and he just lost it. He couldn't handle debating...clearly he didn't know that such a thing as a debate between people could happen without things getting personal. I'm super glad that you and I know about this intellectual exercise called debate....in the end we all learn something.

This is what I love to do with debate. Get to the EXACT points of disagreement. Because a lot of times when there is contention or arguments between people in real life, no one really understands what it is they are dissagreeing about. Its crazy. Here's what I think that we've established so far:

1. a) You don't believe that there is anything wrong with faith itself (to use your own words).
b) I do believe that there is a lot wrong with faith itself (speaking of the concept apart from any particular examples).

2. a) You choose to believe that there was a beginning to the universe.
b) I do not choose to believe that there was a beginning to the univers. I do not know whether there was a beginning or not, and I accept that I do not know.

[[I am implying for #3. please correct me if I'm wrong]]

3. a) you believe that your feelings alone can be trusted to establish fact or count as a basis for belief/faith, like a belief in a soul.
b) I don't believe that feelings alone can be trusted to establish fact or count as a basis for belief/faith.

Ok, that's enough for now.
About some things you said:
I'm not sure what guilt has to do with faith either. Guilt of sinning and fear of punishment might be something that leads people to have greater faith, but the faith I think we both want to talk about is a positive, willing faith--a belief in something because it feels right, or because we choose to believe it, despite the absence of proof.

I trust my bike, yes. I know that at any moment it is possible that my bike could break in half. But I have experienced my bike like I have experienced few other things. I KNOW it greater than I know just about anything. See my definition of KNOWING in the blog. Truly knowing something in its entirety is never possible, so you're right in the sense that we have faith in all around us that it is how we assume it is. We even have faith that something we see from afar is actually there, because our sight is not %100 reliable. But I think that we can know some things much better than other things. My bike for example. Sure I trust my bike, but my trust does not have to be extreme, for I know it so well. At times, I feel as if it is an extension of my body. I don't know god very well because I have not experienced him like I have experienced my bike. I don't know him like I know my bike, through the sum of my experiences and senses. Thus, If I choose to acknowledge his existence, all I really have is 99% faith. Maybe my experiences in church could constitute 1% real knowledge, but I don't really think so. I don't like to acknowledge something if that is the wide ratio of faith to knowledge I've got to work with.
My bike has performed in an unsurprising way ever since I acquired it. It perfoms to my standards in this sense. I have faith that it will continue to perform to these standards because, like I've said, I know my bike. God I do not know. As much as we're taught in church that a comment like this is wrong, I stand by it: I have not touched, seen, felt, heard, or even tasted God; therefore, I can't claim to know that he exists (one kind of faith), and I can't really trust him to do whatever it is he does (another kind of faith-trust).

coolio. I'd encourage us to continue discussing the exact points in which we differ. a good debate is one where we don't take up too many topics at once... so far so good.

 
At 3:50 PM, Blogger Josh said...

heehee. did I say touched...felt...god? smelled is the other sense I was going for there. erduh.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home