Rev. Joe: Arguments About God

I have a strong belief in free thought though am somewhat in disagreement with the "freedom from religion" foundation (though appreciate the free copies of their publication). Such organizations have some special concern to be truly freedom from religion. I'm not really concerned about religion as much as the right to be truly free to practice.  I'm a freethinker in that respect.

I wrote a piece on "Why We Believe in God" here.  On some level, each part of that is involved in answering the question.  The essay was not a complete attempt as much as "we" (basically people in this country) believe (what is this?) "in God."  I think "God" can mean many things and that shows up in my analysis.  I think it can be a form of poetry.

The recent program arising out of FFRF had a clip from one of leaders debating the existence of God.  He does this regular and as referenced in the link, a general summary:

I briefly sketched the cumulative case that belief in a god suffers from serious deficiencies: lack of coherent definition, lack of evidence, lack of good argument (many theistic arguments are merely “god-of-the-gaps” explanations), lack of moral and theological agreement among believers, lack of good response to the problem of evil, and the lack of reliability of so-called holy books.

 I heard him mention "six" basic problems in belief in God:

• lack of coherent definition
• lack of evidence
• lack of good argument [design etc.]
• lack of agreement 
• lack of a need 

That's five, but I think he might have ran out of time in his introduction.   The other argument might be positive arguments against a belief in God such as the problems with the problem of evil.  This reflects a response to a basic understanding of "God" as some independent entity. Maybe, more is said about more metaphorical references in the full video.

I don't think there is necessary some basic "need" before God can exist. And, there can be confusion on exactly what God entails.  Like the blind men feeling an elephant, the basic idea is that God is too big for any one mortal to obtain a full sense of God's full existence.  

Still, the concept does require some general agreement, or it's just somewhat confused.  And, the usual arguments posed, including by little children, about God (where did God come from? etc.) can be cited.  Like the argument for Christ's resurrection (I'm reading The Shoes of The Fisherman, which is pretty good, though it rambles too much), there are various arguments of "God" as is usually defined that are not sensible.

If God works, God is sort of metaphor of broader forces and qualities of man (goodness, hope, etc.)  for which humans use to provide meaning to their lives.  Ancients told of tales of gods and animals and so forth to explain the world.  Did they all really accept their view of turtles or whatever?  I doubt it.  They realized fables and myths taught a wider lesson.  They used a means that was approachable.  

[Here is a video of an interview the regular hosts of the program had with a freethinking sculptor.  They have some interesting interviews.]

I think many today realize religion is used in this way, including those who practice.  The more "liberal Christian" often sees it this way.  But, I think deep down many others do as well.  Some reject that approach and wish for a more literal sentiment.  One black minister told Rachel Held Evans that his flock would not accept the more symbolic approach of one speaker.  The suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ as a literal fact is key.

(I felt her last book, Inspired, was a very good different, personal take on the Bible.  Wholehearted Faith was also powerful in its own way, but I was concerned about how much "she" was in it as compared to the person who edited her notes.  She died tragically under 40. OTOH, this has a somewhat fitting place here given biblical books also are edited.)  

Rachel Held Evans in time was not as very sure of herself as she was in her earlier days.  She still gave it her all and notes that she chose to continue to live as if the Bible was correct.  This is often the life of many people of various faiths.  There is something in acting if God exists, that is, God as is the basic usual concept that "we' use when using that word.  

Stephen Colbert* said a few things that sounds something like this. He speaks of a belief, a need, to believe in basic Christian concepts. I question if he would find it overly useful to deeply examine the nuances of such "mysteries."  Playing "gotcha" about evil and all that will only get you so far.  These arguments against God have been here for quite some time.

And, people continue to believe or act as if they do.  

 ====

* Looking at the few hits I receive, I saw an old reference to an interview he had on his old show.  It concerns the problems of amicus briefs [!] and how the "facts" found in them can be unreliable.  

It still is worthwhile and I still would add she looks cute. If I'm allowed to say that. He had a lot of "thinking" guests on that show as compared to simply celebrities.  And, the interviews turned out to often be quite good, he being skillful in editing the whole thing so that it balances his character and the real life material.