Is Believing in God Irrational?

This post is sparked by questions and ideas raised in the Christian book "Is Believing in God Irrational?" by Amy Orr-Ewing. Some parts are largely her ideas, some mine, and some both. It will probably be edited and extended as I read more.

For your clarity in reading, I'll explain that in many of these arguments I show the question to be unfounded. Most of these questions/ideas against belief in God are presented by others with practically zero evidence or reason. It is possible that there are more counter-arguments and evidence to support these questions - I have considered a number of them - but Amy presents virtually none and in general, those who ask the questions have no evidence or reason. As such I have not spent a lot of time looking for counter arguments, only commenting on Orr-Ewing's book book.

 Ch1) What about the religious experiences of other faiths?
 Amy defends this point by demonstrating that other religions, Buddhism and Islam in particular, do not claim a personal experience with a personal God. I might be led to believe that nearly all religions other than Christianity lack this point. However, I am not satisfied for two reasons: First, there may be existing religions (or we could invent a religion) that claims to have such an experience. Second, what if these other religions nonetheless claim to have some sort of experience that validates their faith, not necessarily a personal one with a personal God?

a) It is easy to invent religions and claim to have personal experiences. I think in the case of such claims, because it seems impossible to validate them scientifically (though I am open to suggestions), we must look at the results of the persons life. Do they actually live out (or try very hard to live out) what they believe? Does their life exhibit change that seems greater than would come from a fantasized psychological crutch, the effects of the religious institution, or a conscious deception? I would argue that Christianity alone exhibits this, though this point of evidence is of course quite debatable.

b) What we are dealing with here is my interpretation of the ontological argument. Is there evidence that we have been influenced by something greater than ourselves and the natural universe? One argument points to our concept of infinity, which has no reality in the universe, and so - assuming we cannot conceive of any concept we have not seen - suggests the touch of something infinite, namely God. The same argument may be applied personally from religious experiences. That heart tug we feel cannot be produced by psychological phenomena, from within ourselves, and so points to God. However, other religions may claim this argument as well.
First of all, I may ask if any do. I think there are a number of New Age type people who might volunteer for this, but for many main world religions, I don't know. Buddhism may claim a disappearing of desire, though that is rather an absence than a presence, and I would accept it as an effect of shutting down the brain partially, a common element of meditation many religions.
However, if some religions still claim experiences that seem to come from outside the natural world, then again I may have call in the test of that persons life again. Do they act as if they have been touched by something outside?


Ch2) Is the concept of God delusional? Isn't it outdated by science, based on no evidence, and an evolutionary leftover?
a) Has science dispensed with God? Orr-Ewing dismisses the idea (if someone gave it without evidence) by mentioning Christian scientists. I agree.

b) With scientific explanations for the universe, is God unnecessary? Amy says that science does not have the ability to say anything about God and the matter should be left to other disciplines. Two things come to mind for me: i) First, I believe there are a number of scientific arguments for the existence of God which have not been adequately shut down by atheists. Some of these (TSM in particular) rely on the fact that we cannot explain the universe with science only, namely due to the limits of time, space, and matter complexity. ii) Second, even if the natural universe could be explained (confining natural to that which is usually observed by science), other disciplines with other types of evidence may take their place and perhaps prove or disprove the existence of God. Personally, I tend to categorize science as anything that can be observed in any way, so I would include the inductive evidence of changed lives, miracles, and the like. These, especially miracles, are a sure front in the face of atheistic science.
 
c) Amy cites Dawkins, who says that many Christians present no evidence in their arguments, which rules out proper discussion and ends in violence, whereas people do not go to war based on an absence of belief. She defends the inference to the Crusades by saying that the logical end of Christianity is peace, while Atheists have no basis for it (e.g. Stalin). Here Dawkins is referencing normal, nonviolent atheists while Orr-Ewing is finding violent ones. Here I place a categorical distinction and a claim that everyone believes something. When Dawkins makes his statement, he suggests that all atheists believe the same (all have an absence of belief) and therefore do not go to war. However, atheists are defined only by their absence of belief in God, not as believing nothing, leaving every other belief open. Stalin believed in Marxism and that everyone richer than the common people must be thrown down. Dawkins behaves like a normal American and I have not met him personally, so it is hard to determine what he believes.
Let me go back to the impossibility of believing nothing and support this claim a little more. Perhaps people have different definitions of belief. I define it as whatever is most important to you. Romans 10:10 says "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified." defining belief as a desire. Believed facts only support the desire. For Christians, we do not so much believe in the existence of God, but know he is the most important, desirable person in the universe and so we pursue him at the cost of everything else. For Atheists, if it is not God, then perhaps it is comfort, power, leaving a legacy, knowledge, being seen as smart, family, money, affluence, etc. In Stalin's case it was the victory of the proleteriat.

d) i) Wasn't religion an evolutionary construct to help us form societies? ii) Is it now a disease that religious people indoctrinate their helpless children with?
Orr-Ewing handles this quite well by pointing out the lack of evidence or reasoning behind this idea. For me I see that in the first case, i) the evolutionary construct is merely a plausible explanation for how religion came to be. I accept that is a good explanation that does not seem to have obvious holes. To the mind of the Atheist, this is a good idea to have around, something that fits with the rest of their arguments. However, it does not disprove theism nor present any evidence that our evolutionary history (assuming we have one) did indeed involve the creation of religion. [I have a book that an atheist friend gave me on the subject which I hope to read soon. We shall see if it has evidence or just ideas]. Even supposing religion did evolve, it's evolution does not prove its falsity. In fact, scientists traditionally claim that evolved things tend to be helpful. [Dawkins in his Oct 2008 debate against Lennox used evolution to support the validity of the truth from our brains.] And again, even if they claim evolution did not find a true thing in this case, the fact that it evolved still does not rule it out. Perhaps it found the truth by chance?
ii) Again there is no evidence, no scientific studies on the brains of 'sick' religious people, to prove the malady. On the strain of indoctrination, is it not the same to tell your child something is true as to say it is not? I can see how this may be discouraged if religion was proved false, but again, even if it were proved false, do we not have the right of free speech and ownership of our children so long as we do not abuse them? After all, we tell our children that Santa exists, and would probably not take forceful action against a parent who taught that the sky was green. Though we would have every right handily put them down in books.


Ch3) Is religion a psychological crutch to make the person feel better?
Some claim that, in need of comfort and protection, weak people project a God to fill the vacant father figure role, one in the image of man. Again, this idea has no psychological evidence. However, I will present a few thoughts Amy gave that came to my mind as well:
a) I suppose this concept of God makes sense from both ends. From the atheist perspective, of course God fills all the roles that weak human beings want him to, providing everything they need for comfort. This suggests man created God to fill his own void. From the Christian side, it makes sense that if God created us to be in relationship with him, he would create a need in us for him, such that he satisfies all our desires in the same way that women 'need' men and visa versa (though this desire is only a shadow and a foretaste deposit of our actual relationship with God). In fact, this intense desire that refuses to be satisfied by things of this world may be in itself and evidence for God. Because the facts (that the idea of God satisfies our desires) match both perspectives, there is nothing to be said here. This observation should have no weight to either side.
b)  It is simple to reverse this argument and say that atheists, or anyone who holds any position for that matter, has created their set of beliefs in order to avoid pain of some sort. Perhaps the atheist does not want to make the life changes that God would make necessary. Perhaps the atheist wants independence, a feeling of accomplishment without any help. Perhaps they have been scarred earlier by hateful religious people or had father, mothers, or friends who seriously let them down, and therefore the main images that reflect God. Whatever the belief, reasons can be suggested for creating a psychological crutch.
c) The same sort of arguments work for the nearly identical ideas that man invented God to fill the void of need and to create an orderly society (Ch2.d), that religion is only for the weak who can't realize that religion is just a reflection of our desires for society, a coping mechanism against the hard world, or a deluded escape from our failures.


Ch4) Christians haven't tried out all the alternatives. They've never tried believing in something else. How can they then know the truth?
Here I think Orr-Ewing misses part of the question. She addresses six assumptions that often lie behind this question regarding relative truth (what's true or a good path for me might not be for you), which is a big issue, but does not mention its connection to the first chapter - what about the religions experiences of other faiths? This second aspect of the question could be phrase "If Christians have not legitimately tried out other religions for their experiential evidence , how do they know they are not false? I'll answer that question at the end of this chapter, but first we'll cover six assumptions:

a) Often the world puts religion in its own category, separate from the sciences or philosophy, something of cultural preference or self-help choice, so that people can pick and choose their own religions without reference to truth. Perhaps 'religion' can be defined that way, but not the way I've been using it in this post. Some who claim religion hope that it is seen as a scientific pursuit, on level with all the other sciences, subject to evidence and reason. This means that religion, like science, is also applicable to all people. The sky is blue and we argue that God loves you. You can argue back or ignore our questions, but do not dismiss it as something that should be left to the individual.

b) There is a philosophical school of thought called logical positivism whose main tenet states that if something can't be proved true, it isn't. People often state that God cannot be proved and so dismiss the matter, perhaps not even realizing the principle they are using. i) The principle does not withstand its own test. Because the tenet itself cannot be proved true, it isn't. ii) Morals, in general, cannot be proved and so, under this idea, must be done away with. Typically most supporters of positivism do not wish to discard morals. iii) I was slightly ashamed to see that Amy did not mention arguments for the existence of God. There are a number that are still being contested and may, in fact, prove God. In this way, setting aside the problems with the principle, God still withstands the test. iv) In what sense can anything be proved? (This may be brought up against arguments for God or anything else.) Science has never claimed to ultimately prove something in the correspondent sense, only in the pragmatic sense (which is quite limited). Under the correspondent definition, nothing is true by Logical Positivism.

c) Like with religion, there is another assumption about definitions. Tolerance, though perhaps defined well formally, is used politically as 'mind your own business' or 'have an open mind' or 'their way is equally right' or 'it doesn't really  matter so don't make a fuss'. NO. If you wish, you may use the word that way. However, I see two possible definitions of tolerance, the commonly used one is not imperative, but the calmer one ought to be. Tolerance in the quieter sense is not treating anyone with special deference or negativity due to their culture, views, etc. Of course if someone believes in killing, it is commonsense not to hire them, but that springs from a concern for yourself, not a special hate of the other person.

d) A common implication during conversations is that ones religion is merely determined by birth. You were indoctrinated by your parents and cannot be changed, pity you. You need to learn to tolerate other upbringings. i) Ones upbringing has nothing to do with what is actually true. After all, you were indoctrinated by your school to believe 1+1=2. Oh, well I believe 1+1=3, who are you to discriminate against me, you were only brought up to believe that. ii) If beliefs, even restricting them to religious beliefs, are a product of your childhood, do atheistic homes have the same treatment?

What follows is an attack on relativism based on its implications, followed by a very fundamental (or eye-opening) assumption behind some parts of relativism. Then I will get into my defense of the original question "How can you know the truth if you haven't explored other options?"
 
e) The logical result of relative or personal religion is relative morality. If anyone can choose his or her own beliefs, without question from others, there is no basis for law, morals, good manners, and all kinds of things. Do you wish your children do not swear or use drugs? Then you are imposing your personal values, your religion, on them. Nothing in formal science says that one should not cheat at card games, get drunk every night, or even murder. Now many will reply that these things are commonsense and not related to religion. Commonsense based on what? How you feel? How your were brought up? We already discussed how relative and unimportant that is. Some others may claim that good manners are good for society. i) What if they aren't? What if killing someone is the survival of the fittest? We don't know, we're just in the moment. Only time will tell. We can arrest them, claiming that a fit society that punishes people who kill tends to survive, but we don't know. ii) Good for society? What do you mean by good? People are happier? Whoever said we should try to make people happy? Nothing innate in the way the world is made suggests that we should pursue our own happiness, promote the survival of our species, or get up tomorrow morning. Anything you strive for, anything you seek, think about what good reason you have for pursuing that thing. After all, you've devoted your life to it.

f) Look at these assumptions. Religion is a product of upbringing, your personal desires, in it's own category. This is a picture of man deciding what his own religion is, it is man pursuing and inventing God. Even for New Age thinkers, they are pursuing God to solve their own aches through an assortment of loosely valued ways. However, Christianity does not work this way. Christ is not about mans attempt to satisfy self, to reach God. "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." This is God reaching down to man to give us what he has planned for us, which is far better than what we want.

Now we get to the question:
g) How can Christians discredit other religions if they haven't explored their experiential evidence? A large foundation for Christian belief is on a personal experience with God; how can Christians be so arrogant as to disregard other experiences?

i) There is one point that Amy makes to defend this question. This is the observation that many people use this argument to discourage all religion, because since it would be impossible to explore all religions, religious truth is unattainable. This is a minor point that could be brought up during a discussion to see the reaction of the questioner, however, it has no philosophical weight. So what if religious truth is unreachable? If that's the way the world happens to be, we have to deal with it. We can't plead our innocence because such a possibility discourages all truth.

ii)  A second idea that is not compulsory is that of terrible 'religions'. I define religion as a set of beliefs that drive actions, a set of values, desires, etc. Therefore, the idolization of the state and obsession to exterminate 'weaker' races, Nazi Facism, is a religion. If you disagree with my definition I still hope you see my point. If we have not given ourselves over the the thrill of being united under one all-controlling government, how do we know what it feels like, how do we know if it isn't the way? Obviously exploring such possibilities is both impractical and disagreeable.

iii) The one logical function that aids us here is that of truth exclusion. If you have found and tested that 1+1=2, then you do not need to test 1+1=5 or any other number. If somehow you can prove that all of the acceleration of an object can be accounted for by gravity, you do not need to search for others (well, there could be equal but opposite other forces that would change later due to position, but that's outside of the analogy). In the same way, if we have somehow proved that God exists, we know that no other religions are completely true because the idea of God logically excludes all others. We know "in the beginning God created" and major history afterward, so we can exclude all other creation stories, etc.  In this way, it is legitimate to exclude other religions once you believe you have found the truth.
Now, of course other religions can claim the same principle. Buddhist monks may claim to have reached some level of enlightenment which proves (at least to them) that Buddhism is true. Please see Chapter 1 for this.


Ch5) If God existed, bad things would not happen to good people, or to anyone for that matter.

a) Existence of good and evil
i) Amy begins by saying that this defining of good and evil, the statement that bad things happen to people, presupposes a definition of good and evil, which come from God, and not elsewhere.
On the one hand, this argument is sound in the sense that we can say "You guys don't believe in good or evil, so why are you complaining about this problem?" On the other hand, on a true philosophical level, this is a semi-internal attack against the validity of belief in God. According to Christianity, there is good and evil, and (it is assumed) God should take the evil out of peoples lives.
 ii) Orr-Ewing then makes another slightly misguided attach. I must say, by the way, that it is quite possible I am misinterpreting her intentions in many of these cases. I am fairly certain I am not, but it's possible. Anyway, to continue: She quotes Richard Dawkins in a paragraph where he says that the universe under Atheism is blind and pitiless. She attacks this by saying that atheists deny moral law but nevertheless use moral law when they speak. This is a false attack because Dawkins use of moral language says nothing about his belief in it. Dawkins must use moral language in order to explain that in a naturalistic universe, moral law does not exist.
iii) However, Amy does continue to say that moral language is naturally laid in people's minds, which is evidence for its truth - think of a conscience. This is valid - it may not be compulsory, but it is valid.

b) How other religions define and deal with good and evil.
i) Buddhism believes evil is illusory, that suffering is only a cause of desire. If you can control your desires (and desire nothing, I presume), you can transcend suffering. This does not exclude pain, physical pain, but pain is just physical. You don't have to be bothered by it if you have overcome suffering.
ii) Islam believes in the absolute, all-detail controlling will of Allah. This is much like extreme Calvinism, which tends to blot out free will. (But the balance between Gods sovereignty and our free will is for another time.) Because of this, Allah wills everything, including good and evil. So...they're really not that important.
iii) This is of my own design: Atheism. If atheism is to denounce things like the holocaust, it has to create some method of creating moral law. It will attempt something beyond God, of course, but it will make something. However, whatever it chooses will nonetheless be an unbased judgement. Say for instance, the survival and benefit (in the general meaning of the word) of the human race - this is good. But who is to say that we humans should pursue our own survival? Maybe it's a natural function of evolution, but who says we need to obey the laws of nature? I don't think we treat them very respectfully when we fly in airplanes, why with evolution?

c) Defense by free will, with definition for good and evil
All right, here we go.
 First of all, the book explains that God wanted to make people with a capacity to love, people in his image, so he had to give them free will. If we didn't have it, we'd be no better than the rocks in the ground, and that isn't very interesting.
Second, Amy starts defining good and evil as light vs. dark, where evil is the absence of good. God doesn't make evil, it's just him not being there.

i) Here there is a small counter-argument (my own) that could be made: isn't God omnipresent (he's everywhere), then how can there be an absence of him somewhere? 1) When Adam and Eve sinned, God cursed the ground and cursed man. Plants are no longer so proliferous, animals don't grow as huge, man has to work to get food, woman will be in pain during birth, etc. This is all done as a sign to us that yes, indeed, we choose to do wrong things and that messes up the world. If God didn't let the world go to waste a little, that would suggest to us that we still had it right. 2) By the nature of having free will, we have the choice to do and be non-God things, which creates evil.

ii) Here is another section of my other thought. Let us further define good and evil. It is already said that evil is the absence of good, but what is good? From a worldly perspective, it is pleasure, wealth, contentment, strong families, a stable economy, etc. But that is what we feel is good. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I would like to pose the idea that good is what points to God. He is the only source of life or anything that is good. Therefore pain and disaster can sometimes be good, so long as it helps people get closer to God. Let me give an illustration. I often pose God as a father and we as his sons. If a son is not following his dad, will his dad not punish him out of love, in order for him to learn and be the happiest in the long run? If a patient has a tumor, doesn't the doctor need to cut away the skin and painfully cut out the tumor in order to save the life of the patient? If a man is wicked all his life and runs into no pain, how can he know that he is doing wrong? In the same way, God allows what we see as evil in order to bring us to himself and give himself glory (which is not selfish, because he actually deserves it).

d)Now Amy treats Christians as they suffer:
i) Am I suffering because I sinned? Not neccessarily, Amy answers. Orr-Ewing lists some reasons, I will list more for suffering. 1) The world is just messed up as a sign that there is sin in the world. 2) You are being tested and refined by God. He is making you into a better Christian, take it just as you would painful athletic workouts. 3) You are being persecuted by the world because you believe. Rejoice in this, for your reward in heaven will be great. 4) Sinful people simply do mean things to people. 5) You have strayed really far from God and he is waking you back up. The book of Hosea explains this well. 6) It can be natural consequences of your own sin, like drinking and driving and having an accident. 7) When God cursed the world after the garden of Eden, he said that mans work would be tough. Doing Gods work might just be exhausting to our fallen, depreciating bodies.
ii) Why doesn't God intervene? Well, we just listed a ton of reasons why suffering is good and normal. Amy only adds the hope of heaven and the future conquest of Jesus.


Ch6) Why are Christians so bad?

Many people object to the Christian faith based on the hypocrisy of Christians they know or hear of: Clergy that sexually abuse children, megachurch pastors that cheat on their wives, televangelists with private jets, Christian neighbors who shun them with elitist morality, and just people who claim they're Christian but act like everyone else. If God is supposed to transform lives, why don't we see that in Christians? The failure of some to follow Jesus's moral teaching might be evidence against the validity of the Christian faith, against God himself.
Unfortunately Amy bounces around a lot between different arguments of quite different types. I'll try to separate them here and make my own comments.

a) First of all, let me clarify two things:
i) The idea called into question here, what lies at stake, is whether or not God transforms lives. His existence, the actions of Jesus, the truth of the moral codes he taught, and other facts are not at stake. Transformed lives are simply another piece of evidence in favor of Christianity, and their lack only calls into question the claim that God transforms. It's like the wind: if someone claims it turns windmills and it doesn't seem to, that doesn't defeat wind, because we might feel it on our face too. However, if the bible claims that Christians should be transformed and they aren't, there's a lot more ground to question the rest of it, simply because if we lie in one place, we're probably wrong in another too (though other things like Gods existence can be independently verified).

ii) Doing good things is completely not the point. Jesus came to "seek and the save the lost" (Luke 19:10). And he said himself "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." (Matt 9:12). We Christians are sick, messed up people who need help. That's why we trust in Jesus instead of trying to make it our own way. Unfortunately many people (including myself from time to time) fall into the trap of thinking that we can earn our way into heaven by doing good things. Nope. If that were the case we're all doomed. 1 John 4:18 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." Following Jesus is not for perfect people. If you're perfect, you don't need him (but no one is). People aren't supposed to have their act together before they come to God, but hopefully start improving after.

b) Christians do not claim that they will be transformed into good people immediately or perfectly
i) First of all, let me say again that we begin as sinners needing a savior, and never stop needing Jesus - ever. Even when he brings us to heaven.
ii) Sanctification (become a better person) is a process. Philippians 1:6 "He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." So, don't expect Christians to be perfect right away.You can't build a house by snapping your fingers.
iii) This process of sanctification is not easy, it's a struggle, and sometimes we backslide. Paul tells Timothy to "Fight the good fight of faith." So in a fight you win some and you lose some. Eventually you will win the war, but there are individual battles that you might lose. Even great leaders in the bible fell sometimes. David was said to be a man after Gods own heart, often looked to as a model of devotion. However even he fell to murdering Uriah in order to sleep with Uriah's wife Bathsheba. 
iv) The 1 John 4 passage, saying we can never claim to be without sin, implies that we will not be without sin until Jesus comes back at least. So no matter what a Christian can never be perfect until Jesus comes back and we should never expect them to be without mistake.

c) Christians are not supposed to be perfect, yet most people (including me) still feel like there's something missing. God is supposed to transform us right? Doesn't somebody get it right? Why do we hear of so many catastrophic failures?
i) First of all, for the perfect example look to Christ himself. He's not with us on earth right now unfortunately, but look at the bible. His behavior was perfect. Gandhi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (from the book). The goal of the Christian walk is to be like Christ. 2 Cor 3:18 "And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

ii) So how should we look for transformation? First of all, look for effort. Is the person honestly trying to improve, to treat people with respect, to be a man or woman of integrity? Again, people backslide, but the point is they mainly fight to be like Christ. Now, any of you Christians reading this who are satisfied there, shame on you. We alone are not fighting this battle. Many non-believers also try to be good people. That's what all the self-help books, yoga, meditation techniques, etc are for. In fact, that's what all other religions are for. All other religions save Christianity have humans trying to reach, control, or appease God, not God coming down, humbling himself, and dying for humans. So we ought to see more change than simply effort. One easy way to quantify this might be looking at the long-run. I admit my lack of research here, but I'll bet most people who try self-help programs don't stick with it very long, moving on to something else or giving up on those sorts of things for a while. Christians, on the other hand, have the holy spirit inside of them. As long as they have approached the Gospel recognizing they need a savior and have accepted Christ for real, not just as a moral code to follow, relying on Gods help and not their own effort, they should stick with the fight until they die. Go see if that's true. (Unfortunately there are so many people who call themselves Christians and really don't believe at all).

iii) There are quite a few false people who call themselves Christians simply because their parents were, simply because that's what everyone is in America, right?, or simply, because that's what good people are.If that sounds like you let me say, you're missing so much. I'm not here to condemn you, I'm here to beg you, please, dig a little deeper and see what you find. The truth of the gospel transforms your life. Because God has died for you and now fights for you, because he holds your soul in the palm of his hand, you have nothing to fear, nothing to get ticked off about, everything to gain and nothing to lose, and you have him, the holy spirit living inside of you. These truths by Gods spirit, settled down into the soul of a Christian, are what makes them good, loving people, and allows them to give of themselves and serve others repeatedly without needing something in return. Woot Woot!

iv) On a different note, it may seem that many Christians make huge mistakes because those that do are televised and harped upon. Kind of sad, but true. Why do we hate every president we elect? Because we only see the things we disagree with. Why do we only hear of our troops dying in Afghanistan and not all the good they're doing? (FYI I'm against the war - for some reason I just don't tend to talk about politics in this blog). Because that's what people want to see on television. So yeah, some people mess up, but there are a bjillion pastors and individuals who don't make such spectacular mistakes (and quite a few who do but just aren't in public positions).

TO BE CONTINUED...


why doesn't god just blast us with evidence?
atheism is a belief just like theism