Episode 6: Evidence for God
Visit threephilosophers.net and click the episode title or number underneath the podcast date to comment on this episode.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Aug
20
2009
20
2009
Visit threephilosophers.net and click the episode title or number underneath the podcast date to comment on this episode.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
So two-thirds of the way into this episode I lost my cool and hit my internal frustrated non-believer button. I’m not sure how badly so any feedback on that is welcome.
First, as I mentioned in the podcast, I felt a strong need to do an episode on evidence for God as this topic came up a number of times in the morality episodes. Having felt as though I was at times up against the wall in these discussions (this being confirmed in emails from multiple listeners), I told myself from the start of this topic that I would not let anything I thought non-sensical slide and to take a harder stance on what people in a non-supersticious frame of mind / an atheist would say is the truth. I think I remained calm and respectful for the first two-thirds of the episode and then snapped when John started talking about how he was going to raise his son. Partially because I feel like this is part of the problem (instead of having our kids eventually decide for themselves as independent human beings, we raise our them to have a superstition that passes on to their children perpetually) but also becuase I felt this then turned into a christian conversation that asked “How do I raise my son to know God” which was off-topic to any non-believer listening expecting a conversation on evidence for God.
Part of my problem was that I had hoped for this conversation to lead to the conclusion that 1. the only scientific empirical evidence for God is the Bible (which brings up a whole other set of issues) and that 2. reasonable people believe in a God not because of scientific empirical evidence or logic, but because they have faith. By it’s correct definition faith is a personal belief outside of evidence and reason…I can respect someones religious beliefs when they come to their conclusions based on faith. I have no intention of this line of thinking to be a degrading one in any way, but for it to be reasonable. Were my expectations of us coming to these conclusions unreasonable? Maybe…after the podcast we discussed that coming into a conversation with the expectation to change someones mind perhaps isn’t a good idea, especially with such a personal topic such as a God / No God debate.
I should also clarify (even to myself in thinking about it afterwards) that when I use the word evidence, I am always thinking about it in a scientific empirical way. That is to say the evidence can be observed by many people and all will agree to what was observed. In this sense the agrument that was presented throughout the podcast; there is love, and therefore there is God to me is flawed as being evidence for God.
Lastly, of course I would believe in a God…all I need is a little scientific empirical evidence. Sorry, but that’s how I think…believers would even say that’s how God made me. Looks like I’m going to hell and even free will can’t stop that.
-Andy
Andy, JP, and the other guy (sorry, I forgot your name!),
I enjoyed listening to podcast #6 this morning. It is the first I have listened to in its entirety, but I’ll catch up. For the purposes of full disclosure, I am Jeremy’s brother. There were several instances when I wished I could call in and give my two cents…which is often all my thoughts are worth. I’ll mention some of them here instead. As you read them, keep in mind that they are pretty “stream of thought,” so they may be jumbled a bit. I’m going to number them, but the numbers really don’t mean anything.
1) The topic of this particular podcast, in my opinion, was flawed from the get-go. Don’t get me wrong, I believe it’s a fair question, it just doesn’t have a good answer for either side of the question. People in Andy’s and Amber’s side of the conversation want scientific evidence for belief in God. People on the other side of the coversation, i.e. people of faith, cannot offer such evidence. If they could, it wouldn’t be faith. So it is a fun conversation to have, but it will simply lead to a lot of frustration on both sides, as you noted above Andy. None of the believers in this podcast tried to offer empirical evidence, but those that do simply make themself look foolish- in my opinion. I usually just smile politely and try to change the subject when that happens. All in all, I think the podcast could have gone something like this:
“Andy: Hey guys, can you give me some scientific/empirical evidence for the existence of God?
Guys: No.”
2) For reasons I mentioned above, I think looking at the Bible from a scientific/empirical point of view will present all kinds of challenges. What sometimes happens when you approach the Bible in this way is that you read something, like the portion of John that Jeremy quoted and Andy looked up that says Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and come away making a statement that starts with “The Bible is pretty clear…”. Given the fact that the Bible was written over thousands of years, with the most recent writings approaching 2000 years old, in the ancient middle east, in more than one language (none of which were modern American english), by many authors, in different modes, for different purposes, it is difficult to see how anybody who really studies all aspects of the Bible could say that it is clear. A person needs to know a bit more about Jesus’s perspective on his life, when he was living, who he was talking to, etc…to understand that often quoted and misquoted verse of John. I squint when I hear people, Christian or otherwise, use the word “Bible,” and the phrase “pretty clear” in the same sentence. Evangelicals do this all of the time.
3) I struggled throughout the podcast with the term “Christian God.” I understand where the term came from, and I understand why it was used, but I don’t think it is exactly a fair term in general. I’m assuming that the term “Christian God” is referring to the God of Jesus. Jesus wasn’t a Christian. He was Jew. It’s just not a term that I like. Again, I’m not really coming down on the participants of the podcast here, I’m more coming down on the misconceptions tied to the term “Christian God.” Which leads me to my next point…
4) Christianity took a seriously sharp turn when Constantine converted. The faith that had been the faith of the oppressed was now the faith of the oppressor. I can’t even describe how much I think that changed the faith. It was after this that the Bible was “put together.” It’s just one of those things that makes you go hmmmmm… And ask again how, exactly, we are to understand the “Christian God.”
5)The word “Heaven” is not exactly synonomous with the term “Kingdom of God.” One is a supposed afterlife setting, the second is a cultural term.
6)At one point Andy mentioned that if he ever came to faith, it wouldn’t be a personal decision. (Pardon me if I misunderstood, I didn’t “rewind” to be sure that’s what he said.” I think he said that he’d have to be meet God or whatever in the presence of others in order to believe. I couldn’t help but think of the story of Doubting Thomas when I heard that. I don’t know if what Thomas was looking for was “empirical evidence” or not, but he got the evidence he needed. Jesus’s response to Thomas was “Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe.” (Or something close to that.) This was a personal interaction between Thomas and God, though others witnessed it. It was what Thomas needed for belief. When, and if, people from Andy’s perspective become people of faith, it will be for personal reasons, they just can’t conceive of it being that way because it’s not the way they think. Scientifically speaking, any evidence worth being evidence is always peer reviewed before publication. But faith is a personal choice. This is not something the Church has understood very well. (Thank you Constantine.) I would also like to note that we might read a bit into what Jesus did NOT say to Thomas. He didn’t say “Cursed are those that don’t believe.” I don’t even think he implied it.
Those are just some thoughts. Again, I didn’t spend a lot of time composing them. I enjoyed the podcast, will catch up on the others (particularly the one where JP makes the ridiculous statement saying he would kill people if there was no God) and look forward to future discussions.
Jeff
Hi all. Well done on another entertaining podcast. I’m glad you took on the biggest question of them all. However, I think several points were problematic. In this post I shall tackle two of them.
1. Jeremy’s definition of God is not commonplace. It’s interesting that he interprets God this way; as joy, love and all things nice. However, I don’t think this does anything to define the Christian God that most Christians have faith in. It’s merely an interpretation; as are all other definitions, I am sure. How do you reconcile this? Why are they wrong and you’re right?
Imagine this. There is a law book. I think some of these laws are far-fetched so I decide to interpret them a different way. I believe that people that interpret these laws another way are wrong. I haven’t done anything here to define one thing, rather, two things, it seems.
2. Andy’s request for scientific evidence is counter-intuitive. But is it? I think it would be a long, up-hill battle to convince a devout theist that God ought to be proved by empirical means. I agree with Andy that believers are, indeed, happy to posit conclusions without any basis. In logic, this simply doesn’t pass. So the two methods humans have to come to truths seem to be exempt when it comes to exploring something really important.
But I wonder, and I’d like Mike, Jean-Paul and Jeremy to have a shot at this one, if science managed to prove God, how would you take it? Would you dismiss it as you have done empirical evidence all this time? Or would you embrace it as it finally offers evidence of the validity of your claim?
I look forward to hearing back.
Thank you for your comments Paul. Some thought provoking questions there. Let me try to address them. First, I would disagree with you that Jeremy’s definition of God is not commonplace. I am still not clear on what this “Christian God,” as you and Andy have referred to him, is. Furthermore, since we do not have a definitive definition of God, aren’t they all interpretations? Is it necessarily a point where someone has to be wrong. I know your reaction to that may be that it is illogical, someone must be wrong. What I am merely saying is that it may not be possible to determine who is wrong, so none of us have any stronger ground to stand on that anyone else, logically.
Second, I would wonder what “truths” logic has given us? In my opinion, logic is a tool that can be used by anyone with enough skill to show a great many things that may or may not be true. I disagree with the posit that it is the all powerful tool to lead us to all truth.
Lastly, I am not sure what you are implying with your last question about science proving God and “taking it.” What would there be to take? Of course I would accept that evidence. I don’t think you should interpret my comments on the podcast as holistically dismissing all science. In fact, I am quite a fan. However, science is able to do only so much. We must acknowledge its shortcomings in this area. This is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. I do not mean to throw the baby out with the bath water however. If science proved that there was a God I would be very happy about it.
Thank you for your comments and keep listening and contributing. It is our goal for this conversation to be engaged in by as many people as possible.
Mike – Thanks so much for replying.
I’ll jump right into the guts of it. You said, “Of course I would accept that evidence”; referring to scientific evidence of a God, if it was ever discovered. But then you said “[S]cience is able to do only so much. We must acknowledge its shortcomings in this area”. I’m afraid these two claims contradict one another.
If science is only able to do so much (=not enough to prove God as you so imply) then why would you accept such a discovery? I’m not trying to set a trap but you may want to clarify what you say above.
Cheers
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. I love your conversations. I assume that the infrequent podcasts are a result of personal frustrations at the whole process. Philosophy is not a win/lose, it is a conversation. Somehow, keep talking.
Arnie, I agree, philosophy isn’t about win / lose, it’s about knowledge and discussion. But evidence as merely in the “eye of the beholder” is a dangerous claim.
Andy, JP and Mike; I’d love ya’ll to do something on the nature of evidence.
Hi,
If this show were truly philosophy and not just theology the concept of occam’s razor would have been mentioned at least once. Your christian brow beater, jeremy, was as slippery as an eel and as Andy said was just cherry picking the bible to fit his idiosyncratic whishes to be right.
A genuine philosophical debate on the existence of God would have considered the concept of god in a universal manner and not just the god that some human conjured up.
Thank god for atheism!
Hi,
Just read my post again and think I was a bit hard on eels. Sorry to all eels!