This regularly-occurring series trades on the notion topics of religion, especially in a theist vs. atheist context, are interesting. For those who grew up in the church and have left or happily remain immersed, the following dialogue will at some point elicit a strong response. Good. This series also intends to dispel the myth often held by textbook atheists that people who believe in God are naive, dumb, and defenseless. And, for the theists, to show not all atheists are bitter, had a bad experience in church, or are in a stage they just need to grow out of.
Many self-proclaimed intellectual atheists and genuine ones, too, are able to hold their own in arguments championing the absurdity of religion and spirituality. And many self-proclaimed theist intellectuals and genuine ones, too, are able to defend their faith using thoughtful, robust arguments. The Spectator Tribune will only narrate this conversation and ensure both parties play by one rule: No fisticuffs.
__________
Brett,
I always seem to have too many words, it is true. Let us begin by acknowledging that we are both making claims about the ‘being’ of God, me affirming and you denying. The path of the philosophical proofs of God’s existence are well trodden, and certainly by better minds than mine. I have, nevertheless, come to conclude that finally all claims for or against God’s existence are a matter of belief, or in religious terms, faith. There does not seem to be any way of negotiating terms that would amount to a ‘proof’ for the existence or non-existence of God in mathematical or scientific discourse.
[related_content slugs=”the-theist-the-atheist-do-we-need-god” description=”More theist & the atheist” position=”right”]
I thank you for raising many questions that will need to be fleshed out in regard to the foundation of moral codes, behavior theory and choice theory, all in due time. But, for now, let us survey what the nature of our fundamental claim is. So I ask you: Do you believe when you assert “God is a projection of ourselves” to be making a psychological claim or a claim about the being of God? And, if the latter what evidence do you propose to support such a sweeping claim about reality?
Peace,
Gary
__________
Gary,
Touche, sir. When I say that God is a projection of our selves, I am referring to a psychological claim. What evidence do I have? Belief. Ha ha ha. It would appear that I have my own “God” – my belief in the psychological construct that many believe to be an external power in the universe. I would suggest that belief in God is similar to belief in money. Without the agreement of the masses, money is without value or power.
In the same vein, without agreement by a large number of people that God exists and has power, any deity is powerless. If this is the case, I have to believe that the existence of God is a projection of our selves – whether it be our better or worse selves is completely subject to each individual’s interpretation of what their God is. Sweeping claims about reality must be based in belief. So I guess I am doing both – as I assume you would be by suggesting that God does indeed exist. Although I don’t remember asking y0u what you mean by God’s existence. Do you suggest that there is a physical form? What does existence mean, anyway? Do I even exist? Sometimes I doubt that last one.
Brett
__________
Hello Brett,
I do believe in the reality of God, not merely as an idea or projection, I am, however, convinced that we cannot prove or disprove such a thesis and must be content in a discussion like ours to deal with the ‘idea’ of God. By existence I do not believe that God exists in a bodily form, although I do recognize the function of representing God in a human form. By existence I mean the power to effect the world and human life in particular.
I would counter that we do not believe in money, but rather it is established as a medium of exchange, there could be other mediums, but the reality of exchange is a universal human phenomena.The value of money is not a psychological phenomena but a economic and political one that is given to us by an ‘authority’- government, bank, international trading community, stock exchange, among others. It is in fact external to my psyche, not an outgrowth of it. Certainly if the vast majority chose not to use money as a means of exchange it would be useless, but by definition-God the power of existence-the same cannot be said of God any more than my belief in evolution or big bang theory render them powerless in the universe or in human life.
Peace,
Gary
__________
Gary,
Could not the church be considered an authority by which the idea of god is promulgated and given power by the active dissemination of the idea of God? It seems to me that whether you are talking about a more nuanced idea regarding the institutional agreements in place that give paper money its power or the a more generalized idea regarding belief that paper money has power it amounts to the same thing. The church has been working very hard for many years to propagate belief in God. The term propaganda was established in the 1600s by the Catholic church to describe mission activity. Now I am sure that the Cardinals of the era were not considering the negative connotations that such a term would have today, but it seems telling to me that propaganda has become the negative part of the zeitgeist that it is today.
I would also suggest that belief in evolution is entirely different than belief in God. Evolution, though termed as a theory, isn’t really a theory any more. There is measurable scientific data to back up evolution. There is no scientific data to back up the existence of an all-powerful force effecting change in our lives. Therefore I posit that if the one billion Catholics in the world ceased to believe in the Catholic God, then that God would lose all power and significance. Certainly the right to abortion would be far more acceptable across the world than it currently is.
__________
Brett,
Absolutely! I am only pointing out that a psychological explanation falls far short of explaining the role of money just as it falls far short of explaining almost anything. Such explanations may add nuance to our understanding of a phenomena but most certainly cannot explain their existence, and accordingly cannot, of itself amount to a proof or disproof of an idea, God, or a phenomena, religion. My point about evolution is merely that it occurs, affects us, regardless of our knowledge, belief or even intervention. It did not begin with Darwin and should all scientific knowledge be lost it will continue. Most certainly should the church in any or all of its forms disappear, so would its influence on humanity and world, but only by a reductive definition of God-such as a projection of our self- could this be said of God in any religious or philosophical definition. We should also note that while we cannot prove the effect of God through science, we also cannot disprove it scientifically. But this is true of many of the most significant ideas that affect our lives-democracy, love, friendship, maybe even our concept of humanity. And while you are right about abortion, much of the world would have a hard time finding a hospital if the Catholic Church had never existed .
Peace,
Gary
___
If you are interested in participating in future theist & the atheist entries, please contact Spectator Tribune at editor@spectatortribune.com
Brett Geisel is Winnipeg writer, father and, perhaps, atheist zealot (we’re not sure yet).
Gary Conway is a Winnipeg-based writer, theologian, and a fun guy to share a pint with.