The Pageless Book

Photo Above by Steve Garry. Photo Below by Braden Kowitz.

Is it so strange to want to befriend those who disagree with and challenge my beliefs rigorously? I have no real good reason why, but I like atheists. I like how they think, how they look at the world, their honesty, and straight-forwardness. The first thing I think about when I hear that someone is an atheist is the enjoyment I will have debating with that person about religion and spirituality.

Many atheists might assume that someone like myself would want to debate as a means of converting them to my way of thinking. However, I’m not interested so much in changing their mind as I am in challenging their mind and being challenged in return. If either of us learn something in the process, then so much the better. It is this contest of the minds that ultimately pleases me - not winning or losing.

So, as a result of my healthy obsession with atheists, I often find myself writing about non-theistic thinking, browsing the atheist blogosphere, and chuckling at humorous jabs made about religion. I embrace their criticism, even though I don’t always agree with it, and try to keep the lines of communication open. Unfortunately, not everyone sees attempts of fellowship between their camps desirable.

That actually saddens me a great deal. I don’t think we need more harsh rhetoric between the religious and the non-religious - it betrays an insecurity on the part of both. Regardless of what an individual believes, if they take themselves too seriously, they come off as being fools or, worse still, tyrants. I don’t think I should have to suffer the mind of a tyrant, nor should anyone.

In contrast, it makes me very happy to see websites such as Friendly Atheist.com and Friendly Christian.com share banter and refer to each other’s articles on a regular basis. I want to see more of this, yet I’m not always entirely sure how to initiate it on my own site. I have the feeling that I might come off a little too eccentric to be taken seriously… although, to be honest, that hasn’t stopped me before.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Debate, Humor, Reason, Religion

“Reason is our soul’s left hand, faith her right;
By these we reach divinity.”
- John Donne, 1572 - 1631.

Above Photo by Old Sarge. Photo Below by Zorilla.

Whether the religion in question venerates one god or one hundred gods, believes that their gods are a part of creation or apart from creation, all religions share one trait; the worship of the Divine. While that single similarity seems obvious, it is also the most over looked. It also happens to be the most important.

The moment a seeker starts questioning one aspect of the religion in which she was born, the tendency is to question all aspects of that religion, including the teachings, rituals, and practices. This usually results one of two extreme reactions - either the adoption of a radically different religion to spite the religion of their parents or the rejection of the Divine in all forms resulting in atheism.

To avoid such drastic changes in belief and maintain the emotionally satisfying and fulfilling connection to the Divine, many religious men and women cling to the teachings of their given faith. They reject anything that contradicts the literal interpretation of their religion to avoid having to question and endanger their faith. They forgo reason to satisfy their spiritual hunger.

The ideal situation is to be able openly to question the teachings and practices of any given religion, and yet to feel no loss for that with the Divine. In western society, we’ve been convinced that ideal is all but unattainable and unrealistic. Western society has been informed incorrectly. We merely need to recognize that spiritual and reason are not opposites, but rather two different ways of understanding. Spirituality is meant for understanding one’s self, while reason is meant for understanding the world beyond one’s self.

From this perspective, how each individual religion defines the Divine is irrelevant as we believe that the Divine is beyond definition. One or many, a part of or apart from, involved or observing - all of the definitions that we apply to the Divine are merely for the convenience of our limited human intellect. It is our deeper emotions to which the Divine appeals; the logic of definitions are meaningless.

Once we have moved away from trying to define, contain, and restrict our spirituality to our intellect, several amazing things happen. We find that we are free to worship the Divine in the way that most satisfies that spiritual hunger. As a culture, we begin to see all religions as different means of devotion to the same source. One more barrier that divides us against one another will have been torn down, and one less issue will be distracting us from the larger problems we face.
Originally Posted September 25, 2007.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, God, Reason, Religion, Spirituality

One of the things that some of the more hard-core atheists pride themselves on is being firmly placed in reality. The argument is that because theists choose to believe in something not verifiable by modern science, they are delusional. A delusional person is not in touch with reality. There are atheists who use this as a reason to argue that they are superior to theists. If by reality they mean “only that which is verifiable by modern science,” it would seem that they are correct. However, reality is more than just what is observable.

There is a great deal that can be experienced in the natural world that cannot be measured or verified by the scientific method. Just as much as the ground under you feet, your dreams, thoughts, and feelings are aspects of reality. Artwork, fiction, poetry, music, and acting each can illuminate truth that cannot be defined empirically, but can be felt. In our dreams and within any works of artistic endeavors there is a sense of “realness” that is immeasurable.

Reality is fluid - it takes the shape of the container in which you place it. The shape of your reality’s “container” is dictated by your paradigm. A paradigm is a filter through which you experience reality; it is the accumulation of preferences, prejudices, and protocol shaped both by physical ability and experience. Language is a key factor to an individual paradigm, as is childhood memories.

In the same way your paradigm shapes your reality, it also limits your reality. One bucket full of water is not an accurate representative of all the forms which water can take; in the same way your paradigm is not representative of the fullness of reality. Every paradigm is flawed or missing some aspect of reality. However, this does not mean that every paradigm is equal. To continue my metaphor, Lake Michigan is a lot closer to representing all the forms of water than a bucket of water. Broader paradigms, although still limited, are more accurate than narrow paradigms.

Science attempts to utilize one of the broadest paradigm possible by including only those ideas which can be tested and verified by a community of peers. However, this is still a paradigm, as it is limited to the scope of our ability to perceive the physical world, and does not include those phenomena that are immeasurable. One day science may progress so far as to be able to measure and understand even those phenomena which are currently outside its paradigm. However, to reject the fundamental reality of those things which remain untestable simply due to one paradigm’s limitations is short sighted.

The Divine is one of those aspects of reality which does not fit so neatly into every paradigm. It is so often reinterpreted and misunderstood as a result of our individual paradigms that no single broad paradigm can reach consensus with a majority of people. As a result, it is often easier to exclude that concept from our mutual paradigm. Could this be because the Divine truly does not exist? Is the Divine nothing more than myth?

It is true that one of the reasons why the concept of the Divine has not reached consensus could be due to the Divine not being real in a universal sense, but rather be real a limited individual sense. If this were the case, non-theists would have a valid argument against theism in all forms. Still, when the whole of human history is looked at in an honest manner, you cannot help but notice the consistency in which the Divine manifests itself in every culture. There is another possible reason why the Divine remains so consistent in human cultures, yet is so subject to individual opinion; it could be that when we talk about God or the Divine, we are really referencing to the ultimate reality which no single paradigm can adequately explain.

Might I be wrong? Of course, but I don’t think that is adequate reason to not expand my own paradigm beyond that provided by modern science. Albert Einstein had once said “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Limiting our paradigm to one branch of reality or another limits us as individual human beings and as a species. It is worth risking being wrong.

Temple Photo by Neal McQuaid. Blue Liquid Photo by Anticline. Bar Plaque Photo by Bruno Girin.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Atheism, God, Myth, Reason, Religion, Science

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, regardless 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

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, God, Humanity, Questions, Reason, Science, Spirituality

DNA rendering by Ynse

I believe that there is no contradiction between science and spirituality; both speak of different truths. Science speaks in regards to the verifiable truth of empirical research, while spirituality speaks in regards to the truth of the human condition which we can only know in our hearts. Yet many people find the two incompatible, based upon literal interpretation of religious scripture or practice, and it’s conflict with scientific discoveries.Like myself, Dr. Francis S. Collins sees no contradiction between science and spirituality and attempts to show those on both sides of the argument why. Unlike myself, Dr. Collins has an advantage in that he himself is a former atheist who converted to Christianity and was the head of the Human Genome Project. With having been on both sides of the argument, as well as being one of the world’s most prestigious scientists, one would think that his reasoning would be sound and solid. Unfortunately, I found this not to be so in his book The Language of God.

While I liked The Language of God, I found it lacking in several areas. Most important of these, as it is central to the book’s theme, is his use of apologetics to explain his belief in God. The very first chapter of the book, which attempts to show the reason he came to believing in God, argues that altruism could not be the result of evolution and so must be considered evidence of God’s Moral Law inherent within humanity. However, this argument is based upon what I would call soft logic - that is logic that has no basis in concrete physical reality.

Altruistic behavior has to be defined and quantified, observed and studied in order for even the suggestion to be taken seriously. What you might define as altruistic may not be strictly without evolutionary benefit. Those examples of altruism that cannot be explained as being evolutionary could possibly be explained as psychological anomalies or the result of social conditioning. There are simply too many variables to make that claim; if I were an atheist, I wouldn’t accept this argument.

The failure of Dr. Collins’s “Moral Law” argument puts a large dent in his other arguments, as he repeatedly refers back to this throughout the book. In addition to that issue, Dr. Collins relies far too much on C.S. Lewis and not enough on his own understanding or experiences to promote his views. I hate to say it, but if I wanted to read C.S. Lewis, I would have picked a book authored by him. I did say that I like this book, didn’t I?

I do like The Language of God… but not for it’s intended purpose. His personal stories and explanation of the current struggle between science and religion is where this book truly shines. His disarming demeanor serves him well in bringing a better understanding of science to the religious community, which all too often looks upon the scientific community with suspicion. As it is the religious community that is instigating the argument over evolution, his goal of ending the disagreement would better be served by concentrating his efforts on that audience.

So while I feel that The Language of God is worth reading, the chances of an atheist reading this book and having doubts over their non-belief in God is very slim indeed. If you are going to read this book, read it for one man’s story from atheism to Christianity, his growth as a human being, and to understand the science behind the controversies. Don’t look here for irrefutable proof of God’s existence - you won’t find it.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Christian, God, Growth, Humanity, Reason, Religion, Reviews