You know how you can think really hard about an answer and then have the answer pop into your head, so that you love life? Yeah, I don’t either. But I’ll tell you something I do love: proving God’s existence. Unfortunately, I’ve only come up with one way to do so, but I think it’s more creative than Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument for God. Take that, supreme Catholic philosopher!
Unfortunately, my ever-so-creative argument doesn’t prove anything. Nonetheless, I thought it would be quite fun and intellectually-stimulating for you to read. So, here is how the argument goes.
When I look around, I see an interesting phenomenon. In psychology, I see how determinism is able to answer a good many things (environment, genetics, feelings, etc). In sociology, I see how people act eerily similar in a large-scale group. In physics, I see how the laws that govern macro-bodies are quite consistent and pervasive. In chemistry and biology, I see how the classifications and the understandings of chemical reactions work in most cases most of the time. In philosophy, I see how arguments have grown stale and we can easily knock out many views and perspectives as being outdated or ludicrous (like Kant’s entire ontology, for example).
However, I also see amazing complexity. Even though psychology’s determinism answers an amazing percentage of our behavior (like criminal behavior, for instance), there remains so much unexplained and left up to either our environment, our experiences or our free will (if you believe in that). In sociology, I see how the principles that govern people’s behavior on a large-scale break down and utterly fail on a specific person’s reaction to a stimulus. In physics, the entire field seemed to have been torn apart and rebuilt thanks to the complexity and accuracy of quantum mechanics. In chemistry and biology, I have been amazed at how scarce our knowledge actually is in the fields of medicine and curable diseases. Quite simply, we have very little knowledge of why things work, even though we can often manipulate things out and get lucky. And in philosophy, new arguments and new perspectives are always coming around, even using old, outdated arguments that seemed, before, to have no relevance.
You see, the world is unbelievably complex.
This is why I have given up on Ockham’s Razor. Ockham’s Razor says that if one is torn between two ideas, a simple idea and a more complicated idea, one should believe and assume as true the simple idea. Quite simply, I believe that if an idea is really simple, it’s probably NOT true (unlike poor Ockham who just didn’t know how complicated the world was). If a deterministic Newtonian physics framework seems too simple, it’s probably wrong. In fact, science has shown its error.
Now, let’s think about atheism. Atheism is majestic, awe-inspiring, and, to be blunt, simply too good to be true. Do humans have free will? Obviously not, according to Nietzsche and Stirner, but that never stopped them from extending their will to power, and that shouldn’t stop you either. Our world is simply one big, cosmic accident, and we got the lucky planet that could support life. There is no higher goal we should orient ourselves towards, nor is there any stupid God to hold us accountable.
To be honest, it’s just creepy. Every question is easily-answered by atheists with a natural answer. Their answers aren’t exactly inspiring, but who can fault them? Every atheist is just a grand, unbelievably-unlikely accident.
And that’s what I love about theism: it’s just way too complicated. Theism has more problems than I could ever comprehend in my whole life, and Christianity, in my experience, has more problems than any other religion. Theism is simply crazy complicated. Faith is paradoxical; if you can’t understand it, then you SHOULD believe in it. Or so says Kierkegaard. Barth says God is so far above us, we can only know what He’s NOT, and Hegel says atheism is just another aspect of God.
In fact, theism is so complicated and so fraught with problems, that it’s probably true. Atheism just makes too much sense for me.
But that’s just theoretical support for theism. Now, let’s address practical issues.
Interestingly enough, atheism says faith does not protect you: science and enlightenment protect you. “Put your faith in something with tangible results,” says the killer in Dan Brown’s book Angels and Demons. Science, not God, has provided gadgets and technology. Yet, while we become more connected to the globe, we merely feel more alone. Science holds nothing sacred, for nothing remains out-of-reach, even unborn children. The god, science, gives its people power but somehow missed the memo about throwing in a moral framework or even an instruction manual (kind of a big oversight, don’t you think?).
Have we gotten to the point that we would rather assume a mathematical impossibility than believe in a power greater than us? Have we become so spiritually-bankrupt? Would we rather have a trite, scientific answer with no deeper explanation and simply appeal to our selfish desires for power or selfish desires for pleasure than believe in a God who will make all things right and just?
But skepticism has become a virtue. That’s not a bad thing, per se. Yet, there is a point at which faith is blind: both for theism and for atheism. Atheism demands proof of God, but theism is amazed that the question could even be asked.
Perhaps I’m just obtuse for being dissatisfied with the simple answers given to me. Or perhaps I’m a misguided complexiton who just gravitates toward things he can’t understand. It’s just that, in my experience, simple people like simple answers. And in my experience, atheism is the simplest answer of them all.
Joshua Huff is a philosophy and economics senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mythman 2 years, 9 months ago
On the contrary, the core of theism is a very simple answer, the mantra that god(s) are responsible for it all. It becomes complicated because it tries to justify its answer in increasingly various, bizarre and desperate ways. Atheism is not an answer, it is the realization that there is no answer.
mikedavis 2 years, 9 months ago
So let me get this straight. You think Atheism makes too much sense to be true? What does that even mean?
doubledownrob 2 years, 9 months ago
For someone who seems to claim knowledge in the areas of philosophy, theology, and psychology, you have this absolutely ass-backwards.
Allow me to start with your premise, that theology is more complex than atheism. This is, to put it bluntly, completely false. Religion, regardless of the form it takes, is extremely simple when reduced to its only important claim: That it can predict the future, including what happens when you die. The mechanics of how it gets to that point, be it Jesus dying for man's sins, Moses leading the Jews from Egypt, or Mohamed riding a winged horse to heaven might look complicated, but are all just window dressing.
Mankind has a natural desire for coherence, a desire to have an internally consistent framework with which to understand the world around him. Unfortunately, we are born with some rather large holes in that framework, in the form of questions like, "Why are we here," "How did we get here," "Where are we going," and the big one, "What happens when we die?" Because it is uncomfortable to try to explain the world around us, mankind, as Ockham would predict, took the simple route and made up the answers. I could list several points of evidence that show this to be the case, but to offer only one, consider the fact that as a species, we have come up with innumerable answers to these questions. From the gods of Egypt to the Olympic Pantheon, from Jesus to Mohamed, from Wiccans to the Heaven's Gate cultists, we have developed far ranging and often contradictory answers. Which leads to one simple question: If there was one true God, lets say, since you brought him up, the Christian God of the Bible, why would he allow so many other theologies to spring up? furthermore, since we're sticking with the Christians, why would he wait so long in human history to reveal himself? If to know God is to love him than it would seem that a whole lot of humanity in history missed the party! There are two answers to the question, neither which are good for you. Either A.) he doesn't exist, we made him up, or B.) he does exist, and doesn't care or isn't very good at his job. And if he can't take care of something like making sure everyone is on the same page in terms of believing him, than i will tend to doubt his competency in other areas. By the way, Ockham's handy razor once again gives us an answer, its the simple one, A. We made God up.
Now, after that lengthy digression, what we've come to find is that theism is simply a made up set of answers to life's big questions. That's about as simple as it gets. Sure, they come wrapped in brightly colored, interesting boxes, but the actual content is as simple as it gets.
Bubba 2 years, 9 months ago
If it takes this many words to prove "God", I'm not gonna make it. Let's get God to Twitter, for those who need it now, need it quick, and need it everywhere....
doubledownrob 2 years, 9 months ago
continued from previous comment:
Now as for Atheism, you are right in one sense, our answers to those questions is even more simple than making up stories. but the ramifications of those answers are far more complex and interesting than the fanciful imaginations of people living in the desert during a time in which a wheelbarrow would have been cutting edge technology. The answer to the big questions is three words: "I don't know." that's it. you want to dismiss atheism as having "no higher goal we should orient ourselves towards," which is absurd and silly. Our goal is to find out the true answers to those questions. I don't know why we are here, I don't know what happens to us when we die, and i'm not arrogant enough to think that I believe hard enough in a story passed along for the last 2000 years that i will suddenly know the answers. The first sentence of your article, while silly, does explain the phenomenon of faith oh so nicely. If you just believe hard enough, pray like you really mean it, than everything will come to you and you will have knowledge that no one else has. This is arrogance on a grand scale.
On a final note, i'd like to point out the sheer ridiculousness of this entire exercise. Your tag claims that you are an economics student. I'd be interested to see if the attitude you take in this article carries through to the rest of your studies. What you've essentially said is "I don't trust evidence, I'm going to believe whatever makes the least sense." Do you do this with economics problems? Colleague: "man, oil prices skyrocketed last month! it must be due to this spike in demand due to increased summer driving." You: "No, that spike in prices was caused by combination of a worldwide conspiracy by librarians to keep people from driving so that they'd stay home and read more books instead of going to the movies." Colleague: "why would you possibly think that?" You: "Because i have absolutely no evidence to support it but find your simple evidence too easy. suspiciously too easy. It's exactly what the librarians would want you to think!"
"While it has never been difficult to meet your maker... it will simply be too easy to drag everyone else along to meet him with you." -Sam Harris
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 9 months ago
doubledownrob, you missed my point about false belief being judgement; of course the Bible could not judge things before it was written - my point was that disbelief or false theology is sometimes judgment from God.
The people preceding the Bible did not have written revelation, but that does not mean that they were lacking any specific revelation - I suggest you re-read Genesis, 2 Peter 2, and Romans 5.
I'm not sure if you were saying this or not, but just so we're clear, most Calvinists don't believe that only Calvinists are chosen... so I'm not sure how it's convenient. I also wonder why you think Calvinism is arrogant. Is it because Calvinists believe themselves to be chose by God? If you find that arrogant, I find your understanding of election superficial, as the election is based on nothing inherent within the person chosen and is not based on anything the person will do (Rom. 9:11).
Your proof of "inconsistency" is that not all of the Gospels mention the virgin birth?! Surely you can browse atheist websites and come up with something better than that! The four gospels have different purposes and different audiences, so the accounts differ in what details are included and omitted.
I don't find atheism to be humble. And after your bold proclamation that God (presumably the one of the Bible) does not exist, I'm curious to hear your argument against the existence of God.
JJanowiak 2 years, 9 months ago
If you consider this a "proof" of anything your philosophy teachers should be embarrassed. Past all the blah-blah-blah, all you're saying is that you believe in god because it feels more right than not believing in god. Maybe this stems from your misunderstanding of what Occam's razor is (hint: it is not carte blanche to pick the simplest answer, but to pick the simplest answer that explains all of the parts of a question with the least amount of extraneous content) but it also stinks of pretentiousness. It's all one big "gotcha!" where you try to shift something that is a general social rule - issues are complex, not simple - onto what is basically a scientific question. To top it all off, you think atheists are just little slaves to rationality and logic without room for creativity or conflict or creation or emotions! Maybe that's how you think life works in your mechanical philosophical frameworks, but in real life we proceed with reality, not mechanics.
dargus 2 years, 9 months ago
Newtonian physics wasn't exactly shown to be wrong. Newtonian physics are still valid, but only in a specific case. It is essentially a subset of what Einstein and quantum physicists discovered later. All of Newton's observations still hold true. His Laws of Motion still apply, under the proper conditions. The simple answer was still correct, simply not complete.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 9 months ago
Josh, I agree with JJanowiak; I think you've misunderstood and wrongly dismissed Occam's razor.
doubledownrob, why would God (the biblical one) allow false theologies to spring up? Well, disbelief and false belief are sometimes referred to as judgment in the Bible. But also, as a Calvinist, I don't believe it is God's intention to save everyone -- hence he isn't failing at his "job". There are variant theologies within Christianity and I would suggest that you don't assume one, ignore the rest and set up a false dilemma.
Also, Christianity doesn't simply teach that if you believe in a story hard enough, you'll know the answers to all the hard questions - what it does teach is that God has revealed himself to man (from the beginning, btw) and that we have specific revelation from him via the Bible. I fail to see how belief in revelation is arrogant (though I'm sure if you respond you'll come up with a reason this is arrogant). What I do find arrogant is feigning autonomy in order to pretend that agnosticism is noble.
Brewer 2 years, 9 months ago
No people are simple! That is an outrageous statement and it comes across as misguided and arrogant.
doubledownrob 2 years, 9 months ago
First of all, Brian, you missed the point. What you refer to as judgment in the Bible doesn't apply to the thousands of theologies which came before the Bible. How could the bible judge something when it did not yet exist?
The idea that we have specific revelation from the Bible again fails the history test. If we, from the beginning, knew of God's existence, what were all the people who came before the Bible supposed to do? They didn't have God's instruction manual, so what then? And Calvinism is the most arrogant (and convenient) of all Christian traditions. The idea that God isn't going to save everyone, only his chosen few is really convenient, when, as it turns out, the Calvinists are the chosen. Belief in revelation in and of itself isn't arrogant, but it is absurd. People take great stock in books, as if somehow, if something is written it must be true. If i were to say that God had revealed himself in the films of Sergio Leone, or that a ritualistic close reading of the fourth season of Friends revealed the true nature of God, it would be laughable and silly. But if its a 2000 year old book, well then that's another ball of wax entirely. This is the part where you say, "but the bible was divinely written, thus it is special." If the bible was written by God, why are there so many inconsistencies? why do two of the gospels, for instance, leave out the virgin birth? That would seem to be a rather important part of the story, don't you think? Something that an omniscient, divine author (or editor in chief) would want included wherever possible.
Oh, and i'm not an agnostic. God, as you think of him, does not exist. He does exist insofar as we have created him in our image, but he is not divine, he is not all powerful, and he does not micromanage the universe. He simply exists in our imaginations to ward off the darkness of uncertainty. And atheism isn't noble, either. its humble. It looks at the world around us and says, "i don't know. But i intend to find out."
acsooner 2 years, 9 months ago
Theist Vs. Atheist debate the first day back in class?!? It must be my birthday!! Thanks Daily. I smell an hot air filled crap-tastic semester ahead.
Brewer 2 years, 9 months ago
SIMPLE people? ummm, NO! NO! NO! NO! NOOOOOO!