So, I've been feeling like my philosophy class has been wearing on me a little bit. On my beliefs. And I go to a school funded by and completely ingrained with the beliefs of my church. I've been feeling some ambiguity toward the teacher, though, and having some questions about what he's trying to accomplish by asking us certain questions or saying certain things. Is he just trying to fire us up so we'll go after the questions he's asking and object reasonably? I wouldn't put it past him. So I considered objecting to his overall apparent stance in a philosophical way, and then I felt like that was to drop down a level to fight (the level I'm at being stubborn statement of testimony), like going from civilized conversation to a brawl. Au contraire. Though I don't know what level philosophical reasoning is at, compared to stubborn testimony, it's definitely not below it. We were told in class that we might be seriously examining our beliefs, and I was anxious about that. In any case, I felt as though I should begin fighting on a philosophical level. How in the world is anyone going to accept what I believe if I don't have something of their standard to back it with? While I was working yesterday, I began reasoning with myself why I believed in God. Now, if you are still reading this, I WANT COMMENTS. I am confident that I'll be able to think about any objections and consider them and come to a meaningful conclusion. A second opinion is always helpful. If you have questions, objections, or even comments in assent, please post them.
I decided to start with "Why do I believe in God?" or, perhaps, "What would be good reasons to believe in God?" I concluded that a good reason to believe in God could be that a lot of people do (though that isn't very solid, don't worry, give me a couple of sentences). Then I wondered, "Why do they believe in God?" and, "From where does a belief in God (or the idea of a supreme being) stem?" So I came up with two origins of a belief in God:
A. God communicated directly with man in some way, and word of that communication passed down through the generations, and so people, who trusted the word and testimony of their ancestors, believed in a Supreme Being.
B. The idea of a presiding male authority 'clicked' with some people, the father being the usual leader of a household, and they decided that perhaps that was a good idea, and began believing in a God, and looking for evidence to back that belief, eventually concluding that God existed via things like the creations all around us, the organization of things, etc.
If you guys can think of anything else, let me know.
As I've thought about it, I've been kind of biased. But right now, I will try to think out loud in an unbiased way:
Let's examine option A. To have a witness of a God from ancestors, relations, or acquaintances would introduce you to the concept of a Supreme Being. However, your belief in Him probably wouldn't come just because someone told you about him. For example, let's say that someone told you that there was a 10-foot-long candy bar in Paris. You wouldn't believe them just because they told you. On the other hand, the concept of a 10-foot-long candy bar would then be in your mind. You could conceptualize that candy bar, and wonder if such a thing existed.
Now let's look at option B. Again, if you guys have any other theories of how belief in God or in a Supreme Being was originated, please don't hesitate to present them at the end when you read this. My option B isn't very strong because...
1. I, think it's possible to have an aversion towards your father. To not appreciate a disciplinarian figure. Though, to someone who had a kind and loving father I can see how having a father figure watching over you would be comforting. I suppose it all depends on what kind of a God they were looking for. According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, I should do more legitimate research) the Aztecs believed that if they did not make sacrifices to the Gods, that either the Gods would not send gifts, or they would send punishments. If they did not make sacrifices to Huehueteotl, the fire god, a big fire would "strike their city."If they did not make sacrifices to Tiรกloc, the god of rain, then they would not have rain and would be unable to feed their crops. Also according to Wikipedia, in Hinduism, the concept of God is that he does not inherently have any attributes, but that he takes different forms, which represent different ideas. "For example when one is depressed and sees the form of God Strong and Powerful, the seeker feels the moral boost that God would definitely be the support for the right thing." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Hinduism) So I suppose it would depend on what kind of a God you were looking for.
2. The following, however, debunks option B, in my opinion. If you come up with the concept of a Supreme Being, what's keeping you believing in it? You know full well that YOU had the idea. You know for a fact that the being was the fabrication of YOUR imagination. Even if you were to find stimuli outside of your mind to help you believe in that being, you still came up with it on your own.
Therefore, I tend to favor option A: that man had real communication with a Supreme Being. Then, at least the man who had direct communication would know such a being existed. He wouldn't have any choice. If I TOOK you to Paris and showed you that 10 foot candy bar, and you looked at it and felt it yourself, you wouldn't really have any other choice but to believe that it's real. But really, that's not what I'm looking for this discussion to be about. I'm trying to establish proof that there is a God, by showing that the surfacing of the idea of a God wouldn't have been able to stick any other way. And I don't think man would've been creative enough to come up with the idea of a being which was all-powerful and all-knowledgable and all-seeing. Even if they could, why would they want to believe in it?
Thus ends my ramblings. If you guys have any refutations, please feel free to write them in the comment box below.
Gabe, you're the man. It's cool to see you engaging this stuff. I thought I'd share a couple of thoughts since you asked for it.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm no expert. I've taken a handful of philosophy classes in college, but that's it. But that said, I have given this issue a lot of thought and have a few things to say about it.
First off, I think there is something inherently problematic and limiting about trying to think about our relationship with God as something we need to prove philosophically. The problem is that philosophy only really has two tools to offer proof about anything. Deductive logic (rationalism) and empiricism. This limits what can be accepted as "proof" and as near as I can tell God is not accessible through either. We can not prove His existence through empiricism because empiricism demands that we see it to believe it and rationalism just can't seem to construct a water tight deductive argument for why God should exist.
So now you are probably wondering why this is problematic or limiting. It is both because it is how men (not God) have decided we know things. It is limiting because it completely discounts religious experience. (Meaning, what it is like to pray and receive revelation, go to church and feel the spirit, etc.)
The thing is that God has a completely different way set up for us to acquire knowledge. It is laid out plainly in the scriptures. We're told straight up that we are to walk by faith rather than by sight. And we're told that if we pray and ask God, in faith, then the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of things to us. The scriptures even explain what the manifestations of the Holy Ghost will feel like so we know what to expect. (Burning bosom, told in your mind and heart, fruits of the Spirit are peace, love, joy, etc. We're told it's a still, small voice, etc.) The pattern laid out in scripture for how we learn is testable. In fact, this church has been built by asking people to do just that, to take God at His word and to acquire knowledge the way God says we can. I have tested it myself and have found it to work consistently and know tons of people who have done the same. Experiencing God on His terms (as opposed to ours) is the only way to know Him.
So, if I understand all of this correctly than the whole point is that God created a world/universe where he is "unprovable" by philosophical means ON PURPOSE. Why? Because apparently the way to become like Him is to walk by faith, not know beforehand what we should do. This is the only way he could protect our agency! You see, the whole point of philosophical discourse is to be able to say to someone, "I have made my argument in such a way that you HAVE to believe it." Or in short, "I am right and you are wrong." But God doesn't want us to follow Him because we have no philosophical alternative. He wants us to believe in Him and follow Him because in our moral agency we have decided we want to (because we've come to know Him through our experience of Him on His terms)
So, how do I explain where the idea of God came from? It came from billions of people throughout the history of the world having religious experience that is consistent with the way God says it works.
Can I prove that God exists? Nope. At least not in a way that any true philosopher would be satisfied with. But I feel like philosophy is only the way it is because of a pretty extreme misunderstanding of God and His plan for us. So, the point is that the restored gospel has the answers, as Bapa would say.
Did any of this make sense?
I'll await your thoughts and thoughts of any others.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.
ReplyDelete[And I don't think man would've been creative enough to come up with the idea of a being which was all-powerful and all-knowledgable and all-seeing.]
I think man is completely capable of inventing a god or gods to explain things they don't have another explanation for. There are people out there now who can't figure out how the great pyramid could have been made however-many thousands of years ago, so it must have been made by some all-powerful beings (in this case, aliens... seriously).
[Even if they could, why would they want to believe in it?]
Well, if I'm a beaten down Hebrew slave with no chance at ever having anything, then maybe holding onto a belief that someday I'll be rewarded and be in a wonderful place is what I need to make it through another grueling day.
Is it possible that all religion be made up by man? Yes. There is no way to prove it. On the other hand, there is no way to disprove it. But... we aren't meant to prove it. I can lean on the testimony of people who have seen Christ or have experienced miracles, trusting that their testimony is true, and I can lean on my own feelings through the Spirit, but ultimately you can explain away anything... so it's a leap of faith, which I think is the point.
@Rich - Please understand that I do have a testimony. I know that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ exist and love us. And I know that there is a life after this one where we will go when we die. I know that Joseph Smith did indeed see Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and I feel that he was a good and honest man, which means that he was what he said he was. I believe with all my heart that his account was true, which means that the Book of Mormon is also true, and I don't think that I could deny the Book of Mormon anyway. I feel the spirit when I read it. My objective here was to try to attack objections from a Philosophical standpoint. But indeed, I have been wondering about that as well; that our belief in God requires us to have faith, not definite, tangible proof. I did not, however, consider deductive reasoning to be an unreliable method. I will, though. The reason I wrote this was that I was having a hard time considering how to respond on my terms. There's nothing necessarily wrong with bearing your testimony, but I think that there are people out there who just won't believe it. If you have a reason to believe it, and you can explain that to them, that's something different. However, my reasons are not written in this blog post, but rather in this comment box. My reasons are that I have received witness of the truth of these things. I was just taking a shot at reasoning on a Philosophical level.
ReplyDeleteI really squandered the use of Bapa. I wish we had him here now, and I wish I could talk to him about Philosophy. He'd know exactly what to say. Thanks for the comment.
@Angie. Makes sense. You both seem to be saying the same thing. Belief in the gospel and in Christ requires faith. I agree. And thank you for your perspective.
The difficulty I have always had with belief in a God, and the thing that ultimately put me off the faith I had been brought up in from birth to sixteen was.. well actually, exactly that. That I had been brought up in said faith for sixteen years, and that was why I believed. Force of habit. I do not mean it in a provocative or insulting way, but essentially my faith was based on a level of indoctrination and cultural immersion from my family and church.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting point that occured to me is this: If we assume the origin of belief in God is A) as you concluded, how do we decide which of the plethora of faiths is correct? Every religion under the sun claims to have come about via Divine Providence from their Deity or religious figure. Every faith claims their path and their God is the One True Way, each offering evidence empirical examples of miracles, firsthand experiences with said God or, in some cases, by foolishly trying to prove it scientifically (which, as addressed above, undermines the entire point of faith).
What puts one faith, one God above another? If it's age, then we should all be Hindus. If we're going on popular opinion, then we should all be Christians - probably Catholics at that. The realisation I came to was that my supposed faith was based pretty much entirely on the cultural immersion I mentioned earlier. Had I been born in Northwest America, I'd probably have been a Mormon. If I'd been born in South Asia, however, I'd be a Sikh. Even the occasional moments of "oneness" with God that I had felt in my years as a Catholic were probably a mixture of euphoria and subconscious peer pressure. My priest would say that they were moments of true faith, but if I were a Shinto Buddhist experiencing exactly the same things said priest would brush it off as irrelevant, or claim it was his God talking to me.
My point, I suppose, is to advise one of two things - either a level of wariness if you're lacking in conviction to your faith and are studying philosophy seriously, because you'll ask questions of yourself you may not like the answers to. Or if you are confident in your way of thinking / do not mind it being challenged and are open to exploring new avenues of thought; then a level of intentional introspection when studying philosophy and other ways of thinking. You may learn some interesting things.