Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion posits a spectrum of belief (in God). On one end of the spectrum are those who completely believe in God and on the other end there are those who are 100% sure there is no Supreme Being, with various options in between. Dawkins – perhaps a bit surprisingly -- does not consider himself or most of his fellow atheists to generally be on the latter end of the spectrum; instead, he considers them very close to it. They aren’t willing to say there isn’t a God; just that the possibility is so ridiculously low, that one may as well de facto operate as if He does not exist. Similar as to how one cannot say for certain that there are no fairies at the bottom of wells (after all, how do you KNOW there aren’t?), one cannot say he has empirically falsified the concept of a Supreme Being; still, the possibilities of both are so ridiculously low, one might as well operate with the general concept that they both do not exist. Dawkins calls this worldview “de facto atheism.”
I don’t view myself as particularly wise, but I must admit that I see a difference between fairies at the bottom of wells and God. We still don’t know how everything started. Whatever we find, the question will always be, “Well, where did that come from?” Even if we say that the cosmic forces which caused the creation of the world were always there, it’s pretty amazing that said forces created an ever-replenishing universe. Is it possible that such a universe could exist without something that is beyond our comprehension? Dawkins says to avoid the urge the universe thrusts upon us to see a builder, a creator -- as Avraham did in the Midrash – and say, “This is all the result of natural, materialistic, reproduction.” I’m not so sure. That’s why I can’t identify with atheism per se.
The answer to the question of if there is a plausible chance of there being a Divine though, is not to the point of religion. No, one needs to understand that there are two questions which need to be asked in order to properly explore the validity of religion. 1) Is it the most logical explanation that such a universe could exist without something that is beyond our comprehension? 2) Is it the most logical explanation that this metaphysical being interacted with us and revealed the truth?
[Tomorrow: "RE Climategate"]
[Minor update: Messed up the concept, Dawkins actually uses fairies in gardens, not wells]
Well if there is a supreme being that created us, it is logical to say this supreme being created us for a reason. This reason would then need to be revealed to us. So, if you believe there is a supreme being that created the world, it stands to reason this supreme being communicated to the world at one point what the reason is/was for this creation.
ReplyDeleteActually, the reason would not need to be revealed to us. The reason for evil in the universe was never revealed to us; why must the reason for good be revealed either? For the record, I'm a believing Jew.
ReplyDeleteE-man:
ReplyDelete(Thanks for reading so quickly!)
Whether or not we have purpose touches on the nature of the Being and his Revelation. You would have to prove that the Being is out for our good (otherwise, you end up with Deism).
You also have to take into consideration modern developments in historiography and science; do those give any reason to throw the Revelation as given over to the superstitious Ashkenazi mesorah and worldview into doubt? Also, if the way the Bible was traditionally interpreted is out the window, so what's the process for reinterpreting it? Do we reinterpret it (as historically rabbis did) in line with our experiences and ethics? If so, then what does it have to teach us?
Well that's not much of an issue unless you're haredi and think that the only legitimate Torah is Torah that was passed down through generations, and that anyone who makes a hidush is really just mehadesh what Moshe (read: God) *meant* when they said completely-unrelated-statement-x. But if you think the Torah is just the "Divinely-given discussion starter," then who even cares how the Torah was traditionally interpreted? Bear in mind that there's nothing strictly logically wrong with such a presumption.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what I actually came back to say was, I think it's a bit silly to claim agnosticism when for all real intents and purposes, God (whether the false idea or the incarnate man on a throne) does not affect the way you live your life right now. So what do you really gain by saying agnosticism instead of atheism? Or to switch from James to yeshivish - if there's no nafka mina what's the point?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would say the difference lies with Dawkins' assertion about faith. It would place him on one end of an essentially binary system between atheism and belief in the divine. As with most things in the world, religion is not binary and it would be inaccurate to classify himself on a 0, 1 spectrum when his actual position is actually somewhere in the middle.
ReplyDeleteDaniel:
ReplyDeleteI tried to preempt such a response with the "seifa" of my last comment ["if the way the Bible was traditionally interpreted is out the window, so what's the process for reinterpreting it? Do we reinterpret it (as historically rabbis did) in line with our experiences and ethics? If so, then what does it have to teach us?"]. Although still, the more primary question is who said he came down with a torah in the first place? My readings would seem to indicate that the Kuzari principle has been nicely refuted in a couple of places (and I plan to address that in a soon-to-be post), so the whole "mass revelation" thing doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. And that seems to be the leg most people who say "Judaism is rational" stand on.
I would disagree with your assertion vis-a-vis agnosticism, essentially for the reason Jared said. I think a deist is not an agnostic and an agnostic is not an atheist; we have different views of faith.
Oh, and I get to put myself in the same classification as George Will :P
Daniel:
ReplyDeleteI came across a youtube video of an interesting 3-on-3 debate between New Atheists and believers today. They also had Robert Wright there and he expounded on his own worldview. I don't know if I agree with everything he says there, but I'm probably closer to him than the New Atheists. I found his distinctions pretty poignant. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tKDdOnWjpw
All this because one a--hole rabbi yelled at you?
ReplyDeleteRe Garnel:
ReplyDeleteSee http://bpelta.blogspot.com/2010/08/regarding-nice-jews.html
That's what I thought - you'll be a lot more effective just focusing on the "prove it" question.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Jared said, again, I understand that there is a difference in the actual views. I recognize the difference between saying "maybe" and "definitely," but "maybe' is de facto atheism. I'm not sure how this adresses what I said.
Daniel, perhaps I don't really understand what you're saying. A deist would act the same way as an atheist, but I wouldn't say a deist is an atheist. Similarly, I wouldn't say I'm an atheist.
ReplyDelete> Is it possible that such a universe could exist without something that is beyond our comprehension?
ReplyDeletesomething that is beyond our comprehension /= God
Our comprehension is limited by the wetware we have to work with. A squirrel has no hope of comprehending how a car works, but that doesn't make cars ot car makers gods. I see no reason to think that humans are capable of understanding everthing there is to know. That we cannot comprehend something just means that we don't have the brainpowerto understand it. There's no reason to think that it's God.
Define God.
ReplyDelete