Via 3quarksdaily, here is Richard Skinner (“poet, writer, qualified therapist and performer”) elaborating on Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously. I would argue that they should take him seriously because much of what he says is true, but that’s not Skinner’s take.
Skinner suggests that Dawkins is arguing against a straw-man notion of God (stop me if you’ve heard this before). According to the straw man, God is some thing, or some person, or some something, of an essentially supernatural character, with a lot of influence over what happens in the universe, and in particular the ability to sidestep the laws of nature to which the rest of us are beholden. That’s a hopelessly simplistic and unsophisticated notion, apparently; not at all what careful theologians actually have in mind.
Nevertheless, Dawkins and his defenders typically reply, it’s precisely the notion of God that nearly all non-theologians — that is to say, the overwhelming majority of religious believers, at least in the Western world — actually believe in. Not just the most fanatic fundamentalists; that’s the God that the average person is worshipping in Church on Sunday. And, to his credit, Skinner grants this point. That, apparently, is why Christians should take Dawkins seriously — because all too often even thoughtful Christians take the easy way out, and conceptualize God as something much more tangible than He really is.
At this point, an optimist would hope to be informed, in precise language, exactly what “God” really does mean to the sophisticated believer. Something better than Terry Eagleton’s “the condition of possibility.” But no! We more or less get exactly that:
Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, grappling with what is meant by ‘God’, have resorted to a different type of language, making statements such as “God is ultimate reality”; or “God is the ground of our being”, or “God is the precondition that anything at all could exist”, and so forth. In theological discourse, they can be very helpful concepts, but the trouble with them is that if you’re not a philosopher or theologian, you feel your eyes glazing over – God has become a philosophical concept rather than a living presence.
The trouble is not that such sophisticated formulations make our eyes glaze over; the trouble is that they don’t mean anything. And I will tell you precisely what I mean by that. Consider two possible views of reality. One view, “atheism,” is completely materialistic — it describes reality as just a bunch of stuff obeying some equations, for as long as the universe exists, and that’s absolutely all there is. In the other view, God exists. What I would like to know is: what is the difference? What is the meaningful, operational, this-is-why-I-should-care difference between being a sophisticated believer and just being an atheist?
I can imagine two possibilities. One is that you sincerely can’t imagine a universe without the existence of God; that God is a logical necessity. But I have no trouble imagining a universe that exists all by itself, just obeying the laws of nature. So I would have to conclude, in that case, that you were simply attaching the meaningless label “God” to some other aspect of the universe, such as the fact that it exists. The other possibility is that there is actually some difference between the universe-with-God and the materialist universe. So what is it? How could I tell? What is it about the existence of God that has some effect on the universe? I’m not trying to spring some sort of logical trap; I sincerely want to know. Phrases like “God is ultimate reality” are either tautological or meaningless; I would like to have a specific, clear understanding of what it means to believe in God in the sophisticated non-straw-man sense.
Richard Skinner doesn’t give us that. In fact, he takes precisely the opposite lesson from these considerations: the correct tack for believers is to refuse to say what they mean by “God”!
So, if our understanding of God can be encapsulated in a nice, neat definition; a nice, neat God hypothesis; a nice, neat image; a nice, neat set of instructions – if, in other words, our understanding of God does approximate to a Dawkins version, then we are in danger of creating another golden calf. The alternative, the non-golden-calf route, is to sit light to definitions, hypotheses and images, and allow God to be God.
It’s a strategy, I suppose. Not an intellectually honest one, but one that can help you wriggle out of a lot of uncomfortable debates.
I’m a big believer that good-faith disagreements focus on the strong arguments of the opposite side, rather than setting up straw men. So please let me in on the non-straw-man position. If anyone can tell me once and for all what the correct and precise and sophisticated and non-vacuous meaning of “God” is, I promise to stick to disbelieving in that rather than any straw men.
Update: This discussion has done an even better job than I had anticipated in confirming my belief that the “sophisticated” notion of God is simply a category mistake. Some people clearly think of God in a way perfectly consistent with the supposed Dawkinsian straw man, which is fine on its own terms. Others take refuge in the Skinneresque stance that we can’t say what we mean when we talk about God, which I continue to think is simply intellectually dishonest.
The only on-topic replies I can see that don’t fall into either of those camps are ones that point to some feature of the world which would exist just as well in a purely materialistic conception, and say “I call that `God.'” To which I can only reply, you’re welcome to call it whatever you like, but it makes no difference whatsoever. Might as well just admit that you’re an atheist.
Which some people do, of course. I once invited as a guest speaker Father William Buckley, a Jesuit priest who is one of the world’s experts in the history of atheism. After giving an interesting talk on the spirituality of contemplation, he said to me “You don’t think I believe in G-O-D `God,’ do you?” I confessed that I had, but now I know better.
For people in this camp, I think their real mistake is to take a stance or feeling they have toward the world and interpret in conventionally religious language. Letting all that go is both more philosophically precise and ultimately more liberating.
reality as just a bunch of stuff obeying some equations
Hmmm, interesting. It seems you inadvertently used the word “obey”, illustrating your own point (freudian slip?). That would make God equivalent to math. I agree – nothing to be gained by it. If “God” cannot be defined as something uniquely distinct from other ordinary concepts, then “God” is a meaningless word. Although… it’s still curious why all this “stuff” conforms to equations. If you’re a believer, I guess that’s a religious question.
“obey” here isn’t a Freudian slip. It’s just the language used in physics.
General comment: These debates are hurting the desmination of science to people who are not normally exposed to science. Besides the “preach to the choir crowd” the people to whom these books are aimed are most likely science illiterate. Why not spend this energy to make them science literate before we reopen ancient debates?
I define God as non-spatiotemporal, conscious, loving intellect that is the ground of spatiotemporal existence (note the lack of an article — God is these attributes, not a being with these attributes). I came to believe in this God when I realized that ordinary human consciousness transcends space and time, that the experienced “now” is not a point but extended over space and time, which I think is impossible if consciousness is assumed to emerge from spatiotemporal activity. I realize this argument does not convince others, but it convinces me, especially since it agrees with what mystics have been saying for millennia (and it provides an interpretation of the quantum measurement problem).
Some differences that this makes:
1. The pursuit of a theory of consciousness that attempts to explain it in terms of spatiotemporal activity is hopeless. Rather one should look for explanations of spatiotemporal activity in terms of consciousness (e.g., that space and time are produced in the act of perception, like color, taste, etc.)
2. It makes survival after death a possibility.
3. It implies that there is something wrong with us in that this ground is not obvious to us (Christians call this Original Sin, Buddhists call it avidya (ignorance), Vedantists call it maya), but I believe mystics when they say they experience this ground, that it is possible to overcome this wrongness.
4. That it is of utmost importance, individually and socially, that we acknowledge and deal with (3).
The difference, I think, would be that a universe with god is more meaningful than one that without. It gives a sense of purpose. Is this a meaningful difference to you? What kind of difference you’re looking for? A physical difference?
I’m not a believer, but how is this for a “difference”?:
God has no observable effects at all. But belief in God has observable effects; a society of people who all believe in God is more successful (in the historical sense of conquering and exterminating rather than being conquered and exterminated) or more good (in terms of keeping its people happy) than one that doesn’t.
I don’t seriously think any theologian believes this. And, more to the point, it’s a property of cultures and institutions, not beliefs. The Catholic church, as an institution, historically had more political power than most princes, and could thus produce happiness and misery. Its theology is only barely relevant, coming in in places like papal infallibility.
If this is the case, then I would say “God does not exist, but it’s useful to believe in Him anyway.”
tytung:
People can have a “sense of purpose” without thinking that the Cosmos was arranged for their benefit by an intelligence bigger than but somehow akin to their own. Love will do that to you, for example. And people can have a “sense of purpose” if they believe that the Cosmos is a stage for human family drama, whether or not that’s the case.
Personally, I think we do ourselves a grave injustice by attaching to our sense of heartbreaking wonder the name of a bad Bronze Age dream, a petty tyrant and thunder-tosser with a taste for blood and an unhealthy interest in others’ sex lives. For every claim by prophet or scribe that “He lives in an unapproachable light,” there are far too many verses which claim to have penetrated that light and found the adamant within:
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-2)
In response to Scott Roberts, who posted:
Well, then, we can get drunk. Ergo consciousness is naturalistic, as deviations in consciousness can be imposed via physical means.
Quick followup question: What does it mean to be ‘Christian’?
The practical problem with the concept of “God” is that we tend to reductively define unity in terms of the unit. Oneness in terms of one. The universal state as singular set. Even science re-enforces this tendency with Big Bang theory, that the entire universe is a singular narrative unit that was born and will eventually perish. It is natural for us to think in terms of structure, since that is what our intellect perceives, yet process is continually creating and consuming structure. So to the extent we are one, it is as process, not structure.
The concept of meaning is inherently static and reductionistic, so reality has no meaning, in the sense that it can be reduced to some hard nugget of mathematical formalism, or spiritual divinity. Reality has purpose in that everything is a dynamic and wholistic aspect of everything else.
That God is a person is not a straw man:
“As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you (Isaiah 66:13)”
“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Mt 7:11)”.
These are simplistic ideas. But I don’t think God was concerned in the Bible with the theological equivalent of string theory (or whatever). Just as it is useful to ordinary human beings to think of objects having position and momentum, it is useful to the ‘average person is worshipping in Church on Sunday’ to think of God as a person. God is beyond our full understanding, but by His grace, we do know a little about Him. And that little is enough for practical Christian living:
Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen (1 John 4:20).
No one has seen or can see God. (John 1.18)
How does he know that, and why is he talking as though he’s so sure about what he’s saying, and why are you quoting that person?
He lives in unapproachable light. (1 Timothy 6:16)
How does he know that, and why is he talking as though he’s so sure about what he’s saying, and why are you quoting that person?
The true knowledge and vision of God consists in this—in seeing that He is invisible, because what we seek lies beyond all knowledge, being wholly separated by the darkness of incomprehensibility. (Gregory of Nyssa)
How does he know that, and why is he talking as though he’s so sure about what he’s saying, and why are you quoting that person?
God is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. (John of Damascus)
How does he know that, and why is he talking as though he’s so sure about what he’s saying, and why are you quoting that person?
Blah blah blah…
Sean said, “I can imagine two possibilities:”
“One is that God is a logical necessity. But I have no trouble imagining a universe that exists all by itself, just obeying the laws of Nature”
Is that a bit like saying I have no trouble imagining a universe without strings, or the theory of a landscape and the multiverse, or the MegaVerse of universes.
And of course others may feel this universe does not ‘need’ dark energy, or there could be some other physical (material/particulate) explanation why some galaxies may appear to be drifting apart.
“The other possibility is that there is actually some difference between the universe with God and the materialist universe”
Well if you have a multiverse, the idea or concept of heaven in a universe other than this universe, is not that ‘alien’. That is of course even allowing for the fact that you need to go as far as a landscape of universes or the multiverse, outside our own universe, to find conditions which are inherently different from those we know. For in all honesty and speaking truthfully we have absolutely no ‘proof’ of what the conditions may be in another galaxy six billion light years away in the ‘observable ‘ universe.
But all that aside Sean, the simple concept is between believing there is life after death (in la-la land or disneyland or wherever) or there is nothing after death, to which you clearly subscribe.
That is the only One thing you need to keep believing or disbelieving as the case may be, and at least for now, the definitive answer certainly seems to be beyond ‘contemporary’ science.
However let us not forget that simply believing is not error-proof proof of truth or existence, and disbelieving is not error-proof proof of lack of existence, whether we are talking strings, dark energy or the ‘spirit’ – after all speculation, fiction, science fiction, the internet, theoretical physics and the imagination are filled with things that do not exist.
John testified further, saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him.
Okay, you can see the spirit but you can’t see the god then. Alrighty then, I’ll go and look up some more stuff from this “John 1.18” fellow and see if he agrees with you on evrything you say about other stuffs too.
Balh blah…
John Baez (#23) wrote:
I’m sure most thoughtful religious people include the “shattering majesty” of reality in their definition of God. The problem is, by any sensible definition of “religious” and “God”, they also mean something more. Is it really such a petty squabble for those of us who don’t believe in that something more to wish to be clear about the distinction? It’s not silly or empty to assert either “God exists” or “God does not exist” when you use the word with any reasonable degree of linguistic precision based on its traditional associations.
I wish we had a good word in English that meant only “the shattering majesty of reality”, so atheists could make it abundantly clear that they’re aware of this majesty, but don’t imagine that it’s due to anything that resembles a person in any way. But what atheists absolutely should not do is say “Well, I’m going to use the word ‘God’ to mean ‘the awesomeness of the universe'”. This is helpful for selling lots of tenth-rate pop-science books with “God” in their titles, and for winning the Templeton prize, but even when it’s not plain venal and dishonest it’s linguistically sloppy.
Honest users of the word “God” mean a being that possesses consciousness of some kind. Maybe vastly different from ours, “greater” than ours, whatever … but if you don’t think God ever had so much as a thought in its mind, you need to pick another word for what you’re talking about.
Sean, there’s a straightforward definition of God. Start by listing every possible conception of God that you have a compelling argument against.
Well, God’s not any of those things, OK?
Didn’t you get the memo?
It doesn’t mean anything, because any viable notion of God that is not contradicted by experiments/observations is not well defined enough to be able to make a difference.
The same can be said about the notion of a physical universe apart from a purely mathematical universe, as discussed here recently.
Stop being so obtuse 386sx.
Greg Egan, did the word ‘awesomeness’ come close before it
became used to describe hot dogs and novelty lamp shades?
It is quite interesting to hear scientists talk about god. Almost as much so as religious people talking about science!
I like what Ann @31 said. I see ‘god’ as a philosophical place-holder. If you try to pin people down by asking for a clear operational definition which is testable, they simply cannot provide one. But humans are animistic to the core, and we must wrap the universe in a story, so the narrative center becomes (ta da!) god. But human stories are really about humans, even if the central actor is super-human, and so they incorporate our in-group out-group distinctions. So religions distinguish their in-group from the hated out-group by using ‘god’ as a shibboleth – and I mean that literally (witness the many heated discussions over the true name of god, eg, ywh -v- allah etc). Using the right name and adhering to the dogma are required signs of group membership.
Well, then, we can get drunk. Ergo consciousness is naturalistic, as deviations in consciousness can be imposed via physical means.
Getting drunk alters your perception, not your consciousness. You still need your consciousness to perceive that you are drunk. No matter how drunk or stoned you get, short of becoming unconscious, there always seems to be an “I” underneath everything.
I think my comment is going into your anti-spam.
I think Quasar put his finger on it — it’s about avoiding the reality of death. Any conception of God will do as long as he/she/it relieves us of death.
Where does consciousness go when you sleep, then?
The argument “consciousness is special because you always have it until you don’t” is not particularly persuasive.
Some may want to read or reread my explanation of how our awareness could perhaps survive death of the body (summary: the process making your mind could run somewhere else, in a suitable system in a diverse multiverse.) Some say that “isn’t testable” because you couldn’t tell everyone else. Well, it is testable (even if not fully) because *you* can find out. Would you say a prediction about what will happen in one million years is “not testable” because we won’t be around to find out? That isn’t what really matters, as long as someone or some sentient entity can appreciate it. It is ironic (and the hard atheist ideologues avoid such ironies and flies in the scientistic ointment) that survival actually is testable, but the wording of spoken conversations last year is not (because of how randomness and quantum uncertainty destroy even the ability in principle to find out. Sure, there are memories (maybe – but what if those people died?), but that is not very precise and reliable.
I am also still waiting for some “clarity” of explanation of what the wave function “really is”, especially the oft neglected (!) question of how unreliable detectors (what’s what most are anyway, right?) “affect” the wave function. For that matter, I am still waiting for good answers/rebuttals to most of the points I have been making about this general subject of knowledge/God/reality in various threads.