God as Metaphor?
This is a slightly edited version of a comment I have left for Alex. I am slightly hesitant to repost, but as I said there "there is passion, eloquence and insight - you set a high standard, and whatever level I actually achieve I promise I am at least striving to approach yours." At least here, I only have my own standards to live down up to. I may well, in addition, be retreading familiar theological ground, in which I case I hope you'll let me know. So, is it useful to see God as Metaphor?
I should start by stating that the militant atheism of my younger days has softened into agnosticism, a feeling that the God I am now not sure about has not been adequately evoked by any religion. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a supreme being, then for me, like in Highlander, there can be only one, and the different traditions are each describing Him (for want of a better pronoun) incompletely. This applies yet more to traditions which have a pantheon of deities rather than just the one. To me, each such deity represents only one or several aspects of the One. Blind men and elephants are often evoked in this context, I believe.
If, as Alex argues, and it seems a reasonable contention, literature does represent one way in which mankind struggles to find meaning, then is religion just a specialised version of this search? I understand that, for those who can, reading the Koran in Arabic provides great aesthetic pleasure, aside from anything else. Even as an agnostic, I respond positively to the English rhythms of the King James Bible.
The same argument, incidentally, could apply to scientific theories seeking to explain the world, including that part of it that relates to our morality. It is simply a metaphor framed in very different terms, albeit one I personally am finding increasingly limited.
There are universal codes of ethics, acts which all societies decree taboo, even if more minor details tend to differ; consider, for example, dietary requirements. Similarly, all societies develop religions, myths and epics. Each of these could be thought to represent a literary effort to explain us and our origins, including that of our moral codes. Understanding that it is a metaphor ought not to lessen the richness of the story, nor invalidate the particular precepts of a given story as tenets to live by. It may in addition have the beneficial side-effect of reducing the attraction of fundamentalist interpretations. Those who would seek the remains of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat or insist that the world literally was created in seven days miss the point in spectacular fashion.
And so I suppose I agree to a large extent with Matt in the debate that sparked off these musings: we do not need an external source for our life to have meaning. But I may differ in arguing we can use God as a metaphor for the drive within us to seek meaning, which may be compellingly satisfied for many by religious belief. In that sense, I believe.
I should start by stating that the militant atheism of my younger days has softened into agnosticism, a feeling that the God I am now not sure about has not been adequately evoked by any religion. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a supreme being, then for me, like in Highlander, there can be only one, and the different traditions are each describing Him (for want of a better pronoun) incompletely. This applies yet more to traditions which have a pantheon of deities rather than just the one. To me, each such deity represents only one or several aspects of the One. Blind men and elephants are often evoked in this context, I believe.
If, as Alex argues, and it seems a reasonable contention, literature does represent one way in which mankind struggles to find meaning, then is religion just a specialised version of this search? I understand that, for those who can, reading the Koran in Arabic provides great aesthetic pleasure, aside from anything else. Even as an agnostic, I respond positively to the English rhythms of the King James Bible.
The same argument, incidentally, could apply to scientific theories seeking to explain the world, including that part of it that relates to our morality. It is simply a metaphor framed in very different terms, albeit one I personally am finding increasingly limited.
There are universal codes of ethics, acts which all societies decree taboo, even if more minor details tend to differ; consider, for example, dietary requirements. Similarly, all societies develop religions, myths and epics. Each of these could be thought to represent a literary effort to explain us and our origins, including that of our moral codes. Understanding that it is a metaphor ought not to lessen the richness of the story, nor invalidate the particular precepts of a given story as tenets to live by. It may in addition have the beneficial side-effect of reducing the attraction of fundamentalist interpretations. Those who would seek the remains of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat or insist that the world literally was created in seven days miss the point in spectacular fashion.
And so I suppose I agree to a large extent with Matt in the debate that sparked off these musings: we do not need an external source for our life to have meaning. But I may differ in arguing we can use God as a metaphor for the drive within us to seek meaning, which may be compellingly satisfied for many by religious belief. In that sense, I believe.
Labels: agnosticism, atheism, god, metaphysics
posted by Ian Appleby at 1:21 am
20 Comments:
Atheism is essentially illogical, simply because we don't definitively know. Agnosticism is at least more intellectually honest but atheism is denial, which is more a psychological set than a philosophical position.
It's the position of one who wishes to have proof handed to him on a plate in a neat compact world. There is an emormous amound tof evidence for the existence of the deity from simple physiology to the fragments of ancient writings.
Sherlock Holmes had less than that.
Lastly, rather than demand proof, if you run with the idea, [surely the empirical position],'fly kites' so to speak, the pieces do fall into place. But that's the $64000 question - people are unwilling to run with it.
Atheism is essentially illogical, simply because we don't definitively know.
I think it might be useful to distinguish between positive and negative atheism: the former is a clear assertion about the world - that God does not exist. The latter is more a rejection of the arguments for God's existence - that the evidence is just too weak. The first is pretty illogical (without recourse to divine knowledge how can you make any certain statements about the nature of the universe?). The second, which is borderline agnostic (though it doesn't reject the idea that God's existence could one day be proved or disproved) is, in my opinion, quite valid.
There is an emormous amound tof evidence for the existence of the deity from simple physiology to the fragments of ancient writings.
I hear this a lot - yet whenever I push for specifics I end up disappointed. I'm not hostile to the idea per se (only it's more extreme and dogmatic forms), but I've never heard even a vaguely convincing argument for the existence of a divine being.
Hmm, James, I think there's a difficulty in trying to use science to prove the existence of God, in that scientific and religious discourses run in very different channels. As a very dodgy metaphor (which is, at least, I suppose in keeping with my post),it is like trying to measure weight in terms of colour.
I also think it is possible to have a consistent philosophical basis for atheism. It could equally be argued that religion appeals to some due to their psychological make-up.
I would argue there is compelling evidence that humanity needs to believe in a deity of one kind or another, but I am not sure it follows that that need proves His (same caveat) existence.
Despite what I have just written, I don't intend to be contrary for the sake of it, and indeed I have a lot of time for your last point. I hope it is clear from my arguments that I am not seeking Proof with a capital P here. If anything, I'm flying a kite.
Matt M, our comments crossed, and I'm afraid I'm pushed for time to respond now my daughter's home. I'm not deliberately ignoring you :)
Matt, it looks though I'd be what you'd call a negative atheist, maybe just across the border into Agnosticism.
I'd refer you to the answer I gave James, I think any attempts to prove or disprove the existence of a deity through the appliance of science are pretty much doomed before they start.
Having said that, James, I'm open to persuasion. In the interests of kite-flying, would you like to lay out some of that evidence for us?
Reading with interest, gentlemen.
Evidence.
I did lay out much evidence over a period of four days on Stephen Pollard's blog and each new piece my atheist antagonist simply said "I'm not convinced" but without giving specific reasons why.
Because there is just so much of it, it was a huge task to take the time to go through the 250 or so documents to present it and highly dispiriting when he never argued against but simply said: "I'm not convinced."
When I pressed him on what basis he was not convinced, he didn't reply to that but said I'd presented nothing to convince him.
This is the classic atheist position. The other must come to him and convince him. I say it is the other way round. The evidence is clear for anyone with a brain to see. Now, on what basis does one fly in the face of that?
But the atheist doesn't want to be trapped that way because in the end he has no argument, only flat denial.
Take the comment of Josephus, for example. My antagonist simply said: "That's not definitive." Who was he to say that? There was a definite reference there to Jesus in an antagonistic manner and dozens of ancient scholars accepted it as compelling. But Stuart said no.
If the antagonist had said: "There's no final proof," one would have to agree. This is not about final proof. This is about so many disparate fragments all pointing towards the likelihood of it being true.
But in the end, it's all about faith and humanists don't want to debate that because they see it as unscientific. But who said that metaphysics was scientific anyway?
One of the best exponents of the 'likelihood' angle was CS Lewis who just showed the logicallity of a deity. No one denies man's need for the deity and in that is part of the evidence. the very fact of the need is telling.
Again though, it's only one of so many fragments.
James, thanks for the comment. I'm again pushed for time tonight, so could I just ask you at this stage if you have a link to your debate with Stephen Pollard? I'd hope we might be able to have a more constructive discussion here...
Take the comment of Josephus, for example.
I'm a little hard pressed to see how it makes a strong case for Christianity. All Josephus states is that there was a person called Jesus, who had a large following, and about whom there were supposed to be a number of prophecies. None of which is disputed, and none of which provides any evidence of the divine.
One of the best exponents of the 'likelihood' angle was CS Lewis who just showed the logicallity of a deity.
Lewis's "lord, liar or lunatic" argument has long been shown to be faulty, as it distorts the options we have - why not that Jesus was simply one of the many (non-divine) spiritual leaders of the time, who perhaps believed he was inspired by God, and has had his life distorted over time. After all, much of what we know about him comes from the Bible, which was put together at a time of great ideological conflict within Christianity, and represents only the most influential outlook of the time.
Matt,
I know this is just argueing for the sake of arguing here, but Lewis's "lord, liar, lunatic" argument was never intended to be an all encompasing statement. Reading the rest of the chapter prior to that statement there are a set of assumptions that must be made to accept that statement. The first assumption is that the history as recorded in the Bible is generally reliable and Jesus really did say and do what is says he did. Secondly he is responding to those who hold the position that Jesus truly was a great moral teacher but may simply deny his miricals and claims to divinity.
So the statement would go something like this. IF Jesus said the kind of things he said THEN he was either "lord, liar, or lunatic".
If he was simply mistaken The end of his life would have been the end of his movement. Each and every other "Messiah claimer's" movement was efectivly ended with the death of it's leader. There was clearly something different about this man. The penatrating insight he had into the soul of man was that of a one who had a profound grasp on the nature of humanity and it's condition. Deluded people generally do not have this gift.
Alex,
IF Jesus said the kind of things he said THEN he was either "lord, liar, or lunatic".
That's a pretty big if.
I have to admit that I haven't read 'Mere Christianity', though it does look interesting. But, I don't think that many people see the arguments put forward as really valid anymore, assuming they did to begin with. I do know that others who are far more learned in theology, and far more agnostic on the issue than I am tend to be a bit dismissive of them - at least in my experience.
If he was simply mistaken The end of his life would have been the end of his movement.
Following this logic though you'd have to say that L Ron. Hubbard was on to something, as Scientology is still going strong. Christianity, as with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and all the other religious movements which have survived for centuries, certainly offers some insight into the human psyche, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily divinely inspired.
Alex, it's a pleasure to see you gracing these pages, thanks for coming, and for commenting.
Matt, I think I'm located closer to your position than to Alex's or James' - added to in this instance by the fact that I haven't read Lewis on this either - but I'm not sure about this:
"IF Jesus said the kind of things he said THEN he was either "lord, liar, or lunatic".
That's a pretty big if. "
The trouble is, and we risk returning to the religion as literature theme here, that if Jesus didn't say them, then someone else (or, indeed, more than one person) did, by way of putting the words into his mouth; the book that resulted formed the basis of a religion of world importance. In that context, what was said is more important than who said it. As you said in response to Alex, though, just because a religion grew up around it doesn't make it divinely inspired.
I like your point about Hubbard, but then again, who's to say he wasn't divinely inspired?
Here, of course, I'm taking "divinely inspired" to mean directly influenced by a separately existing deity (assuming one to exist). However, if we take God as a metaphor for this drive to explain, then it does become possible to talk of divine inspiration for texts, but I have yet to convince myself this is anything more than semantics.
Matt, again: After all, much of what we know about him comes from the Bible, which was put together at a time of great ideological conflict within Christianity, and represents only the most influential outlook of the time.
Now, here I think is a really rich seam to be mined: the mutual interplay between religion and politics on their formation and development - politics both internal (in this case, among Christians) and external. There's a lot more to be said on this than I am able to do here and now, so I just want to flag it as a possible launch pad for another thread. Don't necessarily wait for me to start it...
Matt,
To be honest what we are doing at this point is silliness. I know that debating one who is sold on an atheistic world view about these sorts of specific topics is bound for mutual failure. One needs to be at a different place to accept the sort of arguments I will make. I've heard the atheistic techniques for debunking the historicity, authenticity and divinity of Christ. If you really want to go that route it's easy enough. In comparison the Christian responses sound fantastic. They involve miracles and the supernatural. If you are absolutely unwilling to accept that type of outlook there is really nothing more that can be accomplished with regard to debating the 'historical' Jesus. ANYTHING will be more probable than to believe hat Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Having said that, I will now indulge my lack of self-control by poking this hornets nest one last time. After this I will make a concerted effort to leave this one alone. I don't think we will accomplish anything here other than frustrating each other.
The main difference one needs to consider regarding the difference between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and all the other religious movements is that Christianity is the ONLY one who bases it's entire existence upon it's founder having actually been God himself and who came back to life to prove it. Sure other movements cary on long after it's founder has died, but no other movement carries on claiming as it's sole foundation an event that the leaders (the disciples) would have known to be a lie had it not occurred.
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile 1 Corinthians 15:17
It's the fact that Christianity would have been a religion about honesty, love and sacrifice while being based on a known lie that would make it quite a different situation than other religions. Each and every disciple would have had to have been a liar to get that movement off the ground. Not to mention a liar in a period where others who were hostile to the movement would have still been alive to prove them wrong. Where's the body? Just drag it out into the street and end this thing.
I've seen the many creative ways skeptics have wiggled around this, but they've never been convincing to me. They sound good on their own, but to me they leave to many other pieces unaccounted for. Once you come back to Atheism as your best option... well, you know my opinions on that.
On that note I will try real hard to let this conversation sit.
Alex,
You're right, I don't think we can too far with this. But, I'm going to reply to your comment as it might help establish where each of us stands a little clearer.
If you really want to go that route it's easy enough. In comparison the Christian responses sound fantastic.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the arguments for religion are better than those against it? Or simply that the Christian story strikes you as more pleasing than the atheistic one? If the former, then that's really a matter for demonstration rather than assertion. if the latter, then even if that's true (I don't necessarily agree) it's not a basis for arguing for Christianity on anything other than a subjective, aesthetic level.
If you are absolutely unwilling to accept that type of outlook there is really nothing more that can be accomplished with regard to debating the 'historical' Jesus.
This is probably the case, I'm afraid. I heartily accept the fact that there are things in the universe that we can't explain, but I see calling them "miraculous" to be a bit of a cop-out. Taking Christ's resurrection for example, we cannot get beyond probability (as there's no direct evidence), and, given the complete absence of miracles in day-to-day life and the fact that a number of alleged miracles have been successfully debunked, I can't see any other honest conclusion than that the Biblical story is a distorted version of a non-miraculous event. If it were true, then it would something so alien to my experience of life to date that even the evidence of my own eyes wouldn't be enough to establish its validity. Seeing it any differently would involve completely changing the way I think about life. Obviously, something has happened to you which has allowed you to make that leap of faith and embrace the idea, but, as with the bulk of the human race, I have no reason to make that leap.
no other movement carries on claiming as it's sole foundation an event that the leaders (the disciples) would have known to be a lie had it not occurred.
There are alternative explanations for Christ's survival, most of which don't require a miracle. Though, as I haven't looked into this thoroughly, I'm not saying that any of them are correct, just that it's not simply an choice between complete truth or complete lie. In my opinion, the most likely answer is that it's a mixture of distortion and exaggeration, rather than cynical lies.
Our knowledge of the resurrection comes from the Bible, a text of questionable authorship, put together by the Church of Rome at a time of great ideological conflict. It's not a great thing to base any arguments on. I should also point out that two of the best criticisms of the Bible that I've come across are both from religious sources - the main one is Thomas Paine's 'The Age of Reason', while the second was a BBC documentary on the formation of the Bible by an Anglican priest.
Okay, first off, I apologise for extending this argument even further - but the best way to win a battle is to make your opponent fight on as many fronts as possible after all. ;-)
[I'm also quite interested in what people think on these matters. The best way to get your thoughts into shape is to hold them up for public scrutiny].
Even if the resurrection of Christ is true, I can't quite see it in the way it's supposed to be seen. God sent his only son to be crucified and atone for all our sins. But a) if God is as all-powerful as He's supposed to be, then it was surely within his power to redeem us in a less cruel way, and b) it was He who cursed us in the first place, so that means he changed His mind and regretted his previous actions - which is hardly the behaviour of an all-knowing being.
Plus, and I'll be brief here, why redeem us in a way that's lead to centuries of anti-semitism, with the Jews portrayed as the killers of Christ?
Hmmm, it might be best to put this matter to one side for the moment and come back to it later. Perhaps once we've reached either a solution of an impasse on the meaning and morality issue?
Matt...
You are killing me brother. LOL! This is all great stuff. You are asking great questions. I don't have all of the perfect answers. However, there's MUCH to be said on each and every point you raised. I just can't do it right now. I'll address a 'few' of them in my explaination of my view of God that i'm STILL working on. Maybe James will cover some of them as well when he finishes up his thing he's writing.
I don't want to ditch this conversation. I just don't want to start it just yet. Perhpas in the near future. If others pick it up and carry it I'll be happy to follow along and maybe say a thing or two, but right now I can not shoulder this battle along with all our other ones we have going. Hope you understand.
Just one quick clarification then I'll step aside for now.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the arguments for religion are better than those against it? Or simply that the Christian story strikes you as more pleasing than the atheistic one?
by 'fantastic' I mean increadible, miraculous, beyond the ordinary. does that make sense?
Alex,
If it helps, I could just jot these things down in a notebook, rather than inflict them onto other peoples' comment boxes. But, then they'd sit there, on the desk, calling for me to tie myself even further in knots, until eventually I could contain them no longer and they resulted in some uber-rant on somebody's blog.
It wouldn't be pretty.
I know, I know... I'm the same way. These conversations literally keep me up at night. I'm glad I've discovered the blogging world to vent to. It pains me to not be able to just sit down and completly devote myself to these discussions. You ask great questions. It makes me want to keep writing until I can write no more. Sigh... luckly we have time on our sides... God willing. (To borrow a phrase from our Muslim friends.)
If it were true, then it would something so alien to my experience of life to date that even the evidence of my own eyes wouldn't be enough to establish its validity. Seeing it any differently would involve completely changing the way I think about life.
Profound...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home