Above photo by Area10. Photo below by Daniel Villar Onrubia. Final image by Image Editor.
Apologetics do not work. Occasionally, a man or woman might be convinced of God’s existence as a result of Christian apologetics, but this is the rare exception rather than the rule. Attempts to develop logical reasons to believe in God just don’t make sense; it’s like attempting to find logical reasons to believe in love. Without a logical reason to believe in God, we have to accept God as an abstract idea that is unique to the human experience. This doesn’t sit well with most theists and I can understand why - it plays all too well into the arguments of atheists.
One issue with apologetics is that it attempts to serve two purposes; first to soothe the minds of believers who have doubts, and second to debate the issue with atheists. Believers are often more poetic, metaphorical, and are usually flexible as to the exact definition of a particular word. Atheists, on the other hand, tend to be literal and demand exacting definitions of words. Take for instance the meaning of the word “faith.” For the atheist, this word means the unwavering belief in something in the absence of evidence, and therefore they feel that faith
is in opposition to logic. A believer would argue, however, that faith doesn’t occur in the head but rather in the heart - that faith does not conflict with logic at all. Both meanings are viable, but attempting to adapt your argument to both definitions lead to messy and meandering debates.
The other problem of apologetics is the use of soft logic as opposed to hard logic. Soft logic, which is logic rooted in non-physical concepts, works best when speaking to an audience that accepts your understanding of these non-physical concepts. Love is such an example of a non-physical concept; I love my cat, and I love my wife, but I don’t love my cat in the same way that I love my wife (one hopes). There is no way to quantify love, or distill it into it’s purest form. Atheists want something measurable and testable - they want hard logic. Believers try not to meet atheism on that front and, quite honestly, when believers do try they often fail due to their loose grasp of the nature of scientific inquiry.
That isn’t to say there isn’t logical reasons to believe in God, however. Currently, there is only one scientific argument that I know of that could be made on the behalf of faith, but it involves accepting a few ideas with which most Christians feel uncomfortable. Neuroscience, which is the research into the human brain, shows that religious and spiritual experiences originate from a specific area of the brain nearly identically in each individual, rega
rdless of faith. While some non-theists have harped upon this as being proof that spiritual experience is nothing more than a quirk of the brain, I would seriously have to argue against that view.
If this region of the brain is present in the majority of the human species, regardless of faith or non-faith, than it must have been the product of evolution. This leads us to the interesting question of what evolutionary purpose that particular function of our brain serves. The ability to have spiritual experiences needs to contribute to the success of the species if it is to be perpetuated through evolution. While a deity may not be the only explanation, it certainly seems that I am at a loss for any other logical reasons for this development. Should one be found, though, I seriously doubt that this would completely invalidate spirituality. It would be cast in a different light, to be sure, but I suspect it would also raise new and more interesting questions.
Regardless of whether science validates religious and spiritual experience or seemingly invalidates it, my faith need not falter. I experience God in the same manner that I experience love, faith, or happiness. No amount of scientific discovery can strip me of what it means to be human, so long as I remain true to myself. This is the ultimate logic behind faith in God; it is real because of my personal experience and personal meaning. It is apart of my heritage as a human being to have faith in and honor something greater than all of humanity.
For more information on the scientific inquire into spiritual experiences, see the following articles:
- Seeking God in the Brain — Efforts to Localize Higher Brain Functions
- The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet - Review
- Religion and the Brain: Can science explain experience?
- The Neuroscience of Consciousness
- Your Brain on Religion: Mystic visions or brain circuits at work?
- Tracing the Synapses of Our Spirituality
|
|
|
|
|
 |
January 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
The “soft logic” vs “hard logic” sounds like the distinction between god as an “objective” phenomenon and god as a “subjective” phenomenon that I’ve read about on other UU blogs.
The “love as a non-physical concept” may be useful, but there is one problem with using it to make a case for theism.
Love may very well be a non-physical concept, but it’s highly likely that this non-physical concept does interact with the material world. It’s possible to develop a method for studying the interaction of love with the material world.
For example, one can interview subjects to gain insight into their mental state (do they say they are in love?) and try to see if there are any actions performed by a person in love that correlate with being in love. One could ask if buying flowers is associated with being in love? Carrying out the trash? Visiting a loved one who is hospitalized? Desire for a loved one’s happiness? Desire for a loved one’s sexual pleasure?
So it’s possible for the non-physical to have an effect on the material world and be measurable in theory.
If a god or gods exist as a non-physical concept, one can ask does this non-physical concept interact in any way with the material world?
Some deists would say that god’s involvement with the world was limited to the initial creation of the universe. This is the “god as watchmaker” view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis
Regarding a more theistic view of god or gods, there are possible ways that a god or gods could interact with the material world.
Indisputable proof that a miracle happened would be one possible interaction (one medical example would be the regrowth of an amputated limb). To the best of my knowledge, this hasn’t happened. The shrines at Lourdes and Fatima have plenty of discarded crutches and braces testifying to cures — however, there are no wooden legs.
Another more subtle place to look for interaction would be examining the impact of intercessory prayer on those who are sick using double-blind methods and rigorous experimental controls. So far, these results have been inconclusive:
http://www.progressiveu.org/090035-scientific-studies-of-the-effectiveness-of-intercessory-prayer
The most-rigorous study (Benson study) found no significant difference between those who were prayed for and those who were not. Here’s a brief summary of this study:
Group 1 received intercessory prayer but were unsure whether or not they were going to receive it. Group 2 didn’t receive intercessory prayer and were unsure whether or not they were going to receive it. Group 3 received intercessory prayer after being assured they were going to receive it.
And here are the post-surgery complication rates for the three groups:
** Group 1 patients (received prayer; uncertain that they would receive it) – 52.5%
** Group 2 patients (received prayer; uncertain that they would receive it) – 50.9%
** Group 3 patients (received prayer; certain that they would receive it) – 58.6%
Apparently praying for someone and letting them know you are praying for them is harmful. This certainly gives a new spin for Jesus’ suggestion that one pray for one’s enemies.
Of course, it’s possible that god or gods exist but have no effect whatsoever on the material world.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Hello Steve! Welcome to The Pageless Book.
The problem with the terms “objective” and “subjective” is that there are no objective truths, just subjective truths that are less subjective than other. Love, for instance, is more subjective side. Although it is fair to say that love influences our behavior, I think it is a stretch to say that it influences the fabric of reality… Unless of course you through in the Chaos Theory and Quantum Physics into the discussion. Unfortunately, I’m not as well versed in those subjects as I would like to be, so I wouldn’t be able to discuss them effectively.
As for the Benson Study, there is one more possibility I’d like to throw out there… Jesus taught that we should pray in private, and not in public. Perhaps this study is evidence of why he made that suggestion. If this is true, the likes of Pat Robertson would be, through their public prayers, doing the world a great deal of harm… Aside from the harm they might be doing already, that is.
Thank you for your comment. Namaste.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
From what I’ve read about the Benson study, it was private prayer and not public congregational prayer that was studied.
The medical researchers did have a possible explanation for why group #3 did worse than the other two groups.
Group 3 subjects knew that folks were praying for them.
One theory is that those who knew that others were praying for them felt pressure to get well. Researchers did find excessive levels of adrenaline in the group 3 subjects.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Heh… Dude, it was a joke.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
It’s no surprise that a good theological (or other metaphysical) argument can’t be constructed according to a materialist method.
“God”, “spirit” and so forth are ’subjective’ experiences. But then so is food and it seems objectively real enough.
The confusion is constructing the argument in the useless subjective/objective terms.
January 13th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I find it interesting how science does all the work, and then creationists use what science has taught us to understand the world, yet they still give all the credit to god. You said, “No amount of scientific discovery can strip me of what it means to be human.” Quite interesting, because if anything, science gives one a better insight of what it means to be human. I thought this post was refreshingly unbiased until I got to the last paragraph.
January 13th, 2008 at 2:37 am
I experience God in the same manner that I experience love, faith, or happiness.
Unfortunately, many theists experience God in the same manner that they experience very negative emotions.
And no one can prove or disprove feelings or thoughts (which is what a “sense” of God would be). But then there’s that inevitable leap between “I experience God,” and “God told us to be like this, in this book.” That’s the part that makes me want to pull out what little hair I have.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hello Evan & Welcome!
True, I shouldn’t be surprised either… I guess my frustration is that they try and expect results. I personally feel that it’s more important to know why I believe, rather than try to convince anyone else. Apologetics takes this personal understanding, and tries to frame it into logic - a process that is prone clumsy arguments. It’s kind of like fitting a baseball into a 8×11 mailing envelope; it fits, er, sorta.
Thank you for commenting.
Namaste.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Hello Travis! Welcome!
Ah, well… I am still a theist. I feel that faith, not blind belief but faith, and spirituality is apart of what it means to be human. Science may still one day come to understand spiritual feelings as being nothing more than chemicals in the brain & the same can be said of love, yet this doesn’t make these feelings any less true or any less special.
Thank you for your praise… I try my best to come from an intellectually honest angle. I respect and would expect that you disagree with the last paragraph - it represents the fundamental difference between non-theists and theists.
Namaste.
Namaste.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Hello again, Sofia.
While there are spiritual elements to *healthy* negative emotions, I’d be hard pressed to say the same about unhealthy emotions, such as hate and bitterness. What can be said about a theist who experiences God only through negative emotions? I don’t know.
The leap between faith and blind faith just proves how harmful blind faith can be. Don’t pull out your hair over it, hon… old age will make us all into cue-balls soon enough.
Namaste.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I appreciate the honesty of your post, and I’d like to attempt an honest answer to the following:
“The ability to have spiritual experiences needs to contribute to the success of the species if it is to be perpetuated through evolution. While a deity may not be the only explanation, it certainly seems that I am at a loss for any other logical reasons for this development.”
Simply put, curiosity often killed the proto-humans. Those with the propensity to stop questioning the nature of phenomena at a certain point and ascribe their existence to supernatural agency had a tendency to live longer (and procreate more) than those who investigated on their own. This is why thrill-seekers, unsatisfied with others’ descriptions of events that push the envelope of human survivorship, are much less insurable - because they often die in the process of discovery.
As a humanist, of course I would encourage you to embrace all that makes you human. However, while I respect your choice in the matter, my own experience has taught me that embracing the “god center” of the brain, especially in this age of scientific discovery, is roughly as fulfilling and satisfying as embracing the appendix as a vital organ.
Thanks for a great read.
d
January 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Hello Dante! Welcome to the Pageless Book.
I haven’t thought of that theory before and it does seem plausible… However, I am not sure that the so-called “god center” of the brain would really keep individuals from questioning their surroundings. Quite the opposite, I would say the failure to question and think for yourself is the mark of spiritual immaturity. Consider Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi - all the great spiritual teachers; they questioned the society in which they lived and challenged both the secular and religious components of that society. While this may not be natural phenomena, I would have assume that a evolutionary predisposition to not question natural phenomena would also affect social phenomena.
In any case, I have to admit that this is still speculation; I am not a scientist. I will say that I am glad you enjoyed my article and hope to see you again.
Namaste.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
In your completely valid and welcomed argument you have used Apologetics to show that Apologetics is not a reasonable form of combating the modern world. Apologetics is simply the defense of our religion, it is a practice of using words and ideas of an unbeliever on terms they can understand. It is not so conclusive that it “proves” to an unbeliever that Christianity is the only true religion any more than we can “prove” what happened during the creation. Faith is still a requirement of God.
Today Christians are becoming increasingly polarized with the rest of society, I recently read an article about college students remaining abstinent until marriage. The writer may as well have been writing about an extinct species of water-breathing bird recently found in the depths of a sub-saharan jungle, such was his awe and fascination at young people remaining chaste. The departure of modern society from its morals founded in Christianity was not due to ignorant or wayward Christians (though they certainly didnt help). It was due to what great minds believed was the evolving (and to them, better) form of human logic and reason. What they did not realize at the time is that God invented Logic and reason. John 1:1 in greek, which it was originaly written reads “In the beginning there was logos”. A divine, logical, mind.
Faith is a deeply personal thing, and as you said yourself, extremely hard to put into exact words when expressing it. I dont believe that a Christian Apologist or an “Apologist-created” convert has a weaker faith, on the contrary, the more either of these people can see or explain with words or ideas the stronger their faith will be. Just as the Christian that goes hiking can see all of the finer complexities and details of nature will feel closer to God, the Christian that sees the subtle genius of logic will as well.
Theists may feel uncomfortable with it, I would see why, because it requires them to climb out of their shell. It is so much easier to argue that you feel a certain way because you have “faith” in God than it is to do your homework and learn why everyone else thinks differently. On some level they may be afraid to “lose” an argument or debate for God, or maybe if they go looking for the answers they might find something they didnt want to know that would change their beliefs.
Apologetics should not replace one’s religion any more than one should take a Tylenol after their headache is gone. At this time though it is necessary to show, as Children of God, that he has relevance in this day and age. Refusing to speak and talk amoungst those we as Christians seek to convert is not only the opposite of what Jesus Christ did, it will send our religion further to the fringe, and society further to the brink of lawlessness and debauchery.
I am 23 years old, and though I do not know how old you or the rest of those that commented on here are, I know my generation. My generation will allow its children to irradicate religion and morals as we know them and replace them with the postmodern view that “whatever you believe, you may practice, and if your belief says another is wrong, it must go”.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Apologetics certainly can’t prove God. I think it’s use is to open up a space for dialogue (testimony in traditional terms).
Paradoxically I think the dialogue works best and change happens most easily when working on common projects - poverty alleviation and such.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hello Evan,
Not really much to add…
GOOD POINT.
Namaste.