An Atheist's Case for God

[rug]

By Ian R. Van Wye, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
4 days ago

I cannot believe in God. It would be inaccurate to say that I am happy or even comfortable with my particular condition, for I feel nothing but a gnawing emptiness when confronted with the rites of the religious tradition in which my mother attempted to raise me. Try as I might, I simply can’t conjure up those feelings that I imagine must be the hallmark of faith—and for me, at least, reason leads to the same spiritual dead end.

Unlike many atheists, however, I believe that the existence of at least one god, if such a thing could indeed be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, would offer humanity the possibility of substantial moral improvement. While I am satisfied that a universal code of ethics could exist independently of faith, and that secular communities and organizations can offer the same benefits as their religious counterparts, I maintain that God could still change the equation for the better.

At its essence, religion demands that we acknowledge our inferiority to some being or beings. In my opinion, all the pomp and circumstance is extraneous, purely ornamental. This notion of inferiority is apt to provoke discomfort amongst many of us at Harvard—why should we, the denizens of one of the world’s most storied institutions, devote any time at all to the consideration of our own fallibility? The ethos of Harvard is collective triumphalism: We laud our Rhodes Scholars. We tout our financial resources. We celebrate our competition-crushing entrepreneurs. We conveniently gloss over the many alumni who will lead quotidian rather than superior lives.

Great minds think alike—many secular thinkers across the centuries have shared in this conceit. Nietzsche famously lambasted religion as the apotheosis of the weak. I am more comfortable with the theory of one of his contemporaries, Feuerbach, who argued that God is merely an amalgam of ideal human traits that none of us could possess all at once.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/5/atheists-case-for-god/

[jwirr]

1. Thank you. I like that. One other benefit - if I can believe in God then I can also believe in hell.

And then when we talk about not bringing bush and cheney to justice I can picture them in hell. Sooner or later justice will prevail.

[cbayer]

3. I soother myself with a quasi-belief in karma.

I do not think these men lead happy lives. I tend to believe that their hell is on this earth.

[jwirr]

4. That to helps.

[cbayer]

2. Brilliant. I wish there were comments.

He is an undergraduate, btw, which is impressive.

He describes one of the facets of theism that holds the most appeal for me.

If all your reason and rational thought and lack of cognitive dissonance merely leads you to the conclusion that you are at the top of the universal food chain, you have completely missed the point.

[Fumesucker]

5. What if god turns out to be a psychopath?

The god of the Old Testament certainly could qualify.

I'd rather not believe in any god at all than in a malevolent one and whenever I ponder the subject and consider the world and the inhabitants thereof the words of Epicurus always come to mind.

I watched a hawk catch and eat a squirrel the other day, the squirrel was still struggling as the hawk ripped pieces off it and swallowed them.

[cbayer]

6. He doesn't believe either, but what do you think of the case he makes?

He doesn't necessarily make the case for a good or bad god, just a being that is bigger or greater than us - one that would humble us.

I watch pelicans eat live fish pretty much every day. The lesson I take from that is that all creatures are vulnerable, including humans.

[Fumesucker]

9. Not everyone is wired that way by a long shot

I'm reminded of this cartoon..

[cbayer]

10. Lol I can see you as the defiant mouse, fs.

I once saw a hawk try to pick up a friend's dog. It came perilously close. The little dog never saw it, but those watching him did and diverted the attention of the hawk.

[Fumesucker]

13. Arthur Clarke wrote a book called "Childhood's End"

In that book the technically and morally advanced benevolent aliens (not gods) showed up at Earth eventually in the not-too-distant future, they looked much like popular depictions of Satan, large and muscular, winged, red skin, horns, hooves, tail. Clarke's theory (in the book) was that their arrival was such a traumatic event in human development that their appearance had echoed back through the collective human consciousness for millennia before they actually got here.

I read it at you could say childhood's end and it had quite an effect on my thinking, the "childhood's end" of the title is the end of the childhood of the human race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End

[cbayer]

15. I have not read it, but am intrigued by books where humans

encounter other life and are exposed to the reality that they are not the top of the pile, much as a child must come to realize in due time.

I will see if I can get it to download, if you recommend.

[Fumesucker]

17. It's been at least half a lifetime since I read it...

But I think CE rather than 2001 is Clarke's true masterpiece.

Clarke wrote quite a bit about religion, consciousness and the raising of our collective moral and ethical sense.

"The Nine Billion Names of God" is another one you wouldn't expect from such a notorious atheist.

http://downlode.org/Etext/nine_billion_names_of_god.html

[cbayer]

18. I will do some research and see what I can download.

Thanks.

[longship]

27. I read it years ago. It's a great read.

The end -- no spoilers -- is very thoughtful, as would be the case with Clark.

Glad to kick and DURec this thread.

[pinto]

7. Good, brief piece. I like his referencing the two concepts - Hubris and humility.

Brought to mind those two well known sayings - "Pride goes before a fall" and "Humility is a virtue". I think both hold true in theist or non-theist settings.

His personal perspective in the opening paragraph caught me, as well. I had not considered that situation at all. Thanks for the snag.

[cbayer]

8. If one does not believe that there is any being greater than themselves,

then hubris and humility may be much harder to access, though not impossible.

One thing he doesn't talk about is that some people's belief in god does the opposite of what he proposes. For some, they feel a superiority and that they are chosen and raise above other humans. That's the downside.

[pinto]

11. With those who feel superior, chosen somehow I try and limit their influence beyond their own sphere

i.e. faith based legislation, church / state stuff, etc. And, to be honest, ignore them in my day to day life as possible. Yeah, he didn't touch on that aspect.

It's an interesting approach - that hubris and humility may be somewhat tied to an awareness, or belief, of something greater than ourselves. Whatever that greater than may be.

(aside) I'm taking hubris = pride in a simple definition.

[cbayer]

12. I also try to avoid them. I am particularly averse to anyone trying

to save me.

I have met those who are totally humbled because of their belief in god as well. Many historical religious figures are just that. I was particularly touched by my experiences this summer in regards to to St. Francis. He was the epitome of humility and hubris.

I think the pope took his name for that reason, though it is very hard to attain and maintain those things when you are surrounded by all the pomp and wealth that goes with the job.

[Fumesucker]

14. I'm going to point out here that hubris is the exact opposite of humility..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις means extreme pride or self-confidence.

[cbayer]

16. You are, of course correct and the author speaks of suppressing our own hubris

and how bad we are at it.

[okasha]

19. A god isn't necessary for people to feel "chosen."

All that's necessary is an advantaged group vis-à-vis a disadvantaged one. The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, and the Muslim Uyghur people they're intent on exterminating.

[cbayer]

20. Very true. I think that has happened throughout history and continues to happen

I read Joshua Slocum's book on his sailing travels. He saw native people as savages and clearly did not even consider them human.

Pretty horrific.

[edhopper]

21. For a counterpoint, I would argue that

most religions teach people how special they are. How they are the most important creation in the Universe and how God holds a special place for them.
It is atheist who often talk about how insignificant man is in the scheme of the universe.
Any God that has time for us among the billions of the stars and galaxies does not teach inferiority.
And being created "in his image" is the height of arrogance.

[cbayer]

22. I think different flavors of religion teach different things.

Some do push a rather narcissistic agenda and tell people how special they are, while others definitely teach humility and push a message that pride is a sin.

It is both believers and non-believers who talk of their insignificance, but it is the insignificance in terms of other beings that might separate religion, and I think that is the author's point.

As the author, who is a non-believer, says, perhaps the ideal of god is that it is a being that has all the positive attributes of all beings, something no human could achieve. In that way, "in his image" makes sense.

[edhopper]

24. But that doesn't sound like

most of the Gods people believe in.
I can't think of one it does.

[cbayer]

25. I think your ideas about "most of the gods people believe in"

are limited by you personal experience, and probably also by attitude.

I can't give you numbers, but many people hold a concept of god that is very much in line with this author's description.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. I don't understand this need for humility, granted, excessive pride can lead to hubris...

but, to put it simply who are we to humble ourselves toward? If there is a deity responsible for this universe, that being certainly isn't worthy of our humility nor or worship.

But we should be proud of ourselves as species, we have accomplished much, most in the ways of advancements in science and technology that allows us to reduce the suffering of all. We have a lot more to accomplish in the future. We have a lot of issues to work out, problems to solve, some of our own creation, some that aren't, we should acknowledge them and find solutions.

[guillaumeb]

26. humility is not false modesty

and I believe that you are equating the two here.

Humility, to me, means that no matter what I accomplish I do not and cannot do it alone. No one springs into existence fully formed and proceeds to accomplish great things. We are all interlinked and interdependent.

Yes humans have indeed invented many things, but it seems that as quickly as one person invents something another person is trying to use that invention for personal gain. While scientists can indeed solve many problems they cannot invent a solution for this tendency to promote self gain to the exclusion of others. Pride is good in moderation as long as the prideful person recognizes his/her need for others.

Whether you are a person of faith or a person with no faith (in a higher being), do we not as humans have an obligation to work together simply as a matter of preservation of the species? Seems to me to be common sense to want to get along.

[longship]

28. Happy to support this thread.

Not so much for any argument that an atheist would support belief in gods -- I am and I do not -- but because religious warfare, whether it be by believers or non-believers is a singular useless endeavor.

One sees a similitude of that here in the Religion group, equally useless. However, I notice much less recently, which is good.

As always, my best regards.