Recently Yoram Hazony wrote an OpEd for the NY times which has been generating a considerable amount of discussion on the web. He basically says that the God of the Bible is not perfect is very human and maybe we should stop thinking about him so philosophically as some kind of Maimonidean "perfect being". So far I can't really argue with him. The God of the Bible is not omnipotent omniscient etc. He changes his mind, doesn't know the future gets mad, jealous, sad etc. Historically we know that Jews have not always thought of God as perfect.
However for some reason Hazony seems to think that this return to a simpler God from a simpler time provides some sort of rejoinder to the new atheist movement. As he points out such a conception solves the philosophical problem of evil. If God isn't perfect he can make mistakes and can do evil things.
However this is a very simplistic understanding of atheism. To reduce the entire challenge of atheism to the problem of evil and minor problems of philosophical coherence. These arguments are definitely employed by atheists (IMO they shouldn't be but that's another story) but new atheism amounts to a lot more then just this.
At the end of the day it all boils down to proof. Atheists don't believe in God mainly cuz he cannot be proven not because he is just too incoherent to understand. And bad news for Hazony, you can't prove an imperfect God any more than you can prove a perfect God. (Hell, if anything an imperfect God is harder to prove, because then a bunch of theistic philosophical arguments like the ontological argument for example are out the window).
Hazony if anything has made a minor dent in some tangential atheist arguments. That's about it. Maybe that's all he intended to do but I don't think it changes much about God and his nonexistence.
Posts
No New Post Today
1 day ago
20 comments:
I guess some people would prefer to believe in an imperfect God than no God at all.
The problem with atheism is that it posits that proof is required by theists but not required by atheists. The argument goes something like this "exceptional claims require exceptional proof". Since God is an exceptional claim, he requires proof. The default option is that there is no God since theists cannot produce proof.
The problem with this idea is that it removes the requirement that atheists prove anything. It allows them to sanctimoniously claim to be the intelligent ones against the dumb believers. The truth is that science is not even close to figuring out this problem. We cannot even figure out whether we live in a multi-verse or whether we exist as holographic projections from the event horizon of a black hole (to name just a few of the flavors of the month). In other words, we don't know the most basic things! We cannot even explain what our consciousness is. Some humility is required on both sides but in particular atheists who claim to be scientists should stop acting like atheism is anything more than a religion. The proper default for a scientist of that ilk should be agnosticism.
Forget exceptional claims requiring exceptional proof. ANY claim requires proof. You can't just go around spitting out statements that sound nice without proof.
>The problem with this idea is that it removes the requirement that atheists prove anything.
I mean good for us right? It makes our job easier. Just because our claim is easier doesn't make it wrong... A Muslim could say the same things to a Christian "The problem with this idea (of claiming that there is no evidence that Mohammed was a prophet) is that removes the requirement that Christians prove anything (about Mohammed), Prove Mohammed WASN'T a prophet!"
This is honestly a very silly argument. This has been repeated ad nauseum but prove to me Santa Clause doesn't exist? What you don't need proof!? You're being unfair! I think 5 year old children are right on this one and you're just being conceited.
>The truth is that science is not even close to figuring out this problem.
That may well be true but religion isn't any closer.You don't get points for having an answer you get points for having evidence. Science will say "Beats me.. multiverse? could be... gotta wait for that evidence" Religion says "Fuck evidence! God told us already!"
You seem to be erroneously equating atheism with scientism. Atheism does not propose an answer to Life the Universe and Everything. It merely denies the answer given by religion. It is mostly a negative statement. The only positive statement made by atheism is "We need evidence before we can say things". This positive aspect is based on the scientific method.However, atheism does not say "God doesn't exist and now I know the answers to everything" because that goes against "We need evidence before we can say things". Capish?
>Some humility is required on both sides but in particular atheists who claim to be scientists should stop acting like atheism is anything more than a religion.
Yes well we all know atheists get all their ideas from the infallible Atheist Bible and the atheist Torah Shb'al Peh which cannot be questioned on pain of excommunication for heresy.
seems like a bit of a raw deal to me... how can I be sure he'll come through with his promises...
If you need proof to believe in G-d. I think you've lost the whole point of what it means to be religious.
If you need proof to believe in G-d, then I think you are "missing the point" in regards to what it means to be religious. Belief in the irrational is one that comes from a subjective place in one's core being. A person who believes in G-d because of some external "proof" is a person whose emunah is likely to be resting on a weak, shaky foundation. Emunah is a risk one takes for the sake of heaven (so to speak). Is this a difficult then to grasp? yes, but that's the point. Emunah isn't supposed to be easy, simple and clear cut. It's hard and a struggle and a fight and a spiritual war with one's own ego, soul and mind. If you're not up for this struggle, I don't blame you because this isn't easy "stuff."
I think Hazony's point is that the nature of G-d (as traditional religion once thought G-d to be) may be wrong and we must be humble to admit that no one really knows what G-d is or the reason why anything really exists at all. Additionally, theodicy is an issue that suggests that we will never fully understand the nature of this reality and that G-d may actually not always be a "nice guy" Thus, we will never know truly what life's purpose is or if it has one at all. Therefore, at best what we can do it try to imitate the better things that emanate from the transcendent such as love, good deeds, intellectual pursuit etc etc.
Forcing oneself to believe in something (insofar as one can choose what he believes) despite a lack of evidence is stupid. Pointing out the difficulty of holding onto the belief because of the lack of evidence and painting the struggle as a virtue just compounds the stupidity.
Besides, that’s not how most believers are. Most people have
some sort of reason for their beliefs, whether it’s kiruv kvetches, bits of philosophical proofs remembered from hashkafa classes, personal experiences, family traditions, or even just that their beliefs are comfortable.
I haven’t done this in a while. I’ve gotten past the point where
I think I need to defend myself to everyone. Still, it’s fun to do every now and then.
> The problem with atheism is that it posits that proof is required by theists but not required by atheists.
“Atheism” doesn’t posit anything. There is no atheistic torah, no atheist halacha or haskafa. Atheists, generally, hold that all propositions require proof in order to be accepted as true. Therefore both the statements, “God exists,” and, “God doesn’t exist,” need to be proved. Most atheists, however,
are what’s called “weak atheists” who don’t assert that there isn’t a God, but merely that there isn’t enough proof to suppose that there is one.
> The argument goes something like this "exceptional claims require exceptional proof". Since God is an exceptional claim, he requires proof.
No, ALL claims require proof. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. In other words, the evidence must be commensurate with what you’re trying to prove.
> The default option is that there is no God since theists
cannot produce proof.
No, the default is that we don’t know. There might be a God,
there might not be, and until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other, we’ll act as though there isn’t one. After all, there may be fairies living on your lawn who want you to dance on the grass every night, but until there is some proof, you probably won’t spend your nights dancing.
> The problem with this idea is that it removes the requirement that atheists prove anything.
What should we prove? That there isn’t enough evidence? That’s easy. There isn’t enough evidence. Now prove me wrong. Is the problem that it’s not fair? Oh well. Too bad.
> It allows them to sanctimoniously claim to be the intelligent ones against the dumb believers.
I dislike people who think like that, though your right, there are unfortunately many atheists who like to pretend that they’re so much smarter than believers. The fact is that the great majority of believers never give their beliefs much
thought, As for the few who do, some think there is enough evidence. I disagree. Many others say that there is no evidence, but they choose to hold onto their beliefs for other reasons.
> The truth is that science is not even close to figuring out this problem. We cannot even figure out whether we live in a multi-verse or whether we exist as holographic projections from the event horizon of a black hole (to name just a few of the flavors of the month). In other words, we don't know the most basic things! We cannot even explain what our consciousness is.
So? What does any of that have to do with whether or not God exists?
> Some humility is required on both sides but in particular atheists who claim to be scientists should stop acting like atheism is anything more than a religion.
And atheists worship what, exactly? Atheism is the proposition that there is not enough evidence to suppose that there is a God. It’s a bit ridiculous that it’s even a category. I don’t believe in ghosts, either. Am I an ameduim, and is ameduimism a superstition? Anyway, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that you’re right, and atheism is a
religion. Is it now a less valid option? If so, if being a religion makes a belief system less valid, then the same applies to all religions.
> The proper default for a scientist of that ilk should be agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism exist on grid, not a continuum. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, gnostic atheists and gnostic theists.
Your belief that it is stupidity -- is just that-- your belief. That is not an objective fact. You can have an opinion but that doesn't mean you are "right." You are right because you think you are right not because you can point to some evidence that says "aha..see I'm right!"
You might be indeed be correct that in general this is not how believers relate to their religiosity..well... so what?
So one's religious motivations and beliefs must be totally framed (100%) by other people? I'm supposed to just mimic and act and think reflexively like others? Ridiculous. I couldn't think of anything less religious than that.
Furthermore, who said anything about forcing a belief? If one's belief comes out of some need to force it upon oneself..then I think that person will not be religious for very long or is just going through the motions in an unauthentic way.
Instead..belief I think should emanate out of an ineffable part of one's being that can't just be easily reduced to a few words. Can you reduce the act of creating love or music or art to just mere simplicity? Belief in a sense is like the root and source of the creative impulse and drive. It's a subjective thing that will be a little different in everyone.
"Atheism” doesn’t posit anything."
Of course it does, atheism posits that there is no God. Websters uses two definitions: 1) a disbelief in the existence of a deity; 2) the doctrine that there is no deity. I think you want to describe agnosticism. Needless to say, you can hyphenate the word to describe a modification but an atheist is a defined term...stop trying to make it squishy.
"No, ALL claims require proof. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. In other words, the evidence must be commensurate with what you’re trying to prove."
Right. That's what I said. Both sides need to prove something extraordinary. The Theist needs to prove that something at least created the universe, an atheist needs to prove that nothing did.
"So? What does any of that have to do with whether or not God exists? [meaning the lastest thoughts in science]"
It has everything to do with the question. The latest views from science have posited possibilities that can only be described as fantastical when viewed against our own day to day experience; without any kind of proof, or in many cases with the recognition that proof is not even possible! Since that is where science is going how is it not relevant to your definition of the need for proof.
"And atheists worship what, exactly?"
Based upon the stuff I read, mostly themselves.
I'm sorry but your missing the point. Its not that Religious people should not be given a free pass on proving something or if they want to make an argument. Its just that the simple fact is we do not know whether the universe is created by something or nothing. It is a postulate of each system; in other words "to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary".
"Prove Mohammed WASN'T a prophet!"
At some point this might be reasonably provable (say a new scroll is unearthed or something. Nevertheless, this is not the point. The particulars of a religious tradition are in many cases simply not a legitimate area of scientific inquiry. Since Mohammed is dead, we cannot test whether he was a prophet or not and in fact, no test CAN be devised to prove it either way. Science should pass over such things and not weigh in. Science can only prove things for which there is physical evidence.
Now if a new prophet came into the world now, perhaps we could figure out a test for that. Perhaps we may find that there are more things in heaven and earth, etc. perhaps not.
So where can science weigh in? On physical phenomena. When science comes closer to discovering how the universe works we can perhaps put the question to rest. Right now we are many many miles away from that goal, in fact almost impossibly far.
>Its just that the simple fact is we do not know whether the universe is created by something or nothing.
Once again you're conflating two separate issues. Saying the universe was created by "something" is not equivalent to saying God exists. If we're dealing with a question of "something from something" vs. "something from nothing" then I have no disagreement with you and neither do most atheists. In which case I'm not sure exactly what your point is we're talking about something more specific than a generic "something" i.e. God.
Are you saying that the DEFINITION of God is the first cause and that there is no difference between a generic something and God?
>I think you want to describe agnosticism.
Very few intelligent atheists (i.e. people who have sat and thought about it) dogmatically claim there is no God. At best you've identified a misnomer in the term people use to define themselves. Call 'em the NEW AGNOSTICS instead of the new atheists if you can't palate the imprecise term.
>The Theist needs to prove that something at least created the universe, an atheist needs to prove that nothing did.
Just call 'em all agnostics and you won't have this problem.
> Of course it does, atheism posits that there is no God.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. “Atheism,” as a phenomenon, doesn’t posit anything in the way
that Judaism or Christianity do. There is no doctrine of atheism. ATHEISTS, as individuals,
of course posit things, and as you say, one who disbelieves in god(s) is an atheist.
> The Theist needs to prove that something at least created the universe, an atheist needs to prove that nothing did.
Absolutely not. The theist needs to prove
that his particular god created the universe (assuming that his god is a creator god, of course). The atheist doesn’t need to prove that nothing created the universe. He merely has to show that the evidence for a deity is insufficient.
Re. out-there scientific ideas, none of those ideas have anything at all to do with whether or not God exists.
> Based upon the stuff I read, mostly themselves.
Cute, snarky, and completely beside the point.
You seem to be arguing (albeit obliquely) using
the Cosmological Argument – In short, the universe must have come from something, and that something must either be God or a good alternative. However, the God is not a privileged option for explaining the origin of the universe.
I don’t know wehere the universe came from. The answer might be that God created it, but until there is some proof that He did, the God hypothesis is just one of an infinite number of possible explanations.
> Your belief that it is stupidity -- is just that-- your belief.
Of course. It is, however, an opinion that most people share in regard to everything except religion.
This notion that emunah – unfounded beliefs/trust – is a virtue, and further, that the more difficult it is to maintain the belief, the more virtuous it is, would be an objectively stupid position to take in, say, a business deal. Believing that your business partner is trustworthy without having any reason to think so (without first researching his past record) is foolish and naive. Continuing to believe that he’s trustworthy while it appears that he’s fleecing you is stupid.
> You might be indeed be correct that in general this is not how believers relate to their religiosity..well... so what?
So, according to you, most people’s “ emunah is likely to be resting on a weak, shaky foundation.” Hey, maybe that’s true.
> So one's religious motivations and beliefs must be totally framed (100%) by other people? I'm supposed to just mimic and act and think reflexively like others? Ridiculous. I couldn't think of anything less religious than that.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here.
> Furthermore, who said anything about forcing a belief?
You did: “Emunah isn't supposed to be easy, simple and clear cut. It's hard and a struggle and a fight and a spiritual war with one's own ego, soul and mind.” Perhaps I misunderstood? I took that to mean that one should make himself believe even if his mind was telling him there’s no reason to believe.
> Can you reduce the act of creating love or music or art to just mere simplicity?
Yes. Love is the result of the release of oxcytocin and serotonin in the brain, and it’s purpose is to cement familial bonds. Music is mathematics. So is a lot of art. That’s not reducing it to “simplicity,” (it’s still pretty complicated) but it does take the mystery out of it. There is nothing ethereal or metaphysical about love, music, or art.
Wow...so love is just oxcytocin and neurotransmitters? Have you ever even been in love?
I am musician..math plays a big role..but math alone does not create a masterpiece like say Bach's Brandenburg Concertos. If this were true most mathematicians would be musicians par excellence. But most certainly are not.
I would say if music and love are not ethereal they are at the very least mysterious.
>"Perhaps I misunderstood? I took that to mean that one should make himself believe even if his mind was telling him there’s no reason to believe"
Certainly not! But if one has a belief based on a subjective "faith" than that is the struggle because we live in a reality of senses and perception. Yet faith (honestly I'm not sure why I have it..I just sort of...do) is demanding you relinquish these faculties. That's a very tough thing. And I don't blame many who just give up on it because for them it's just too big a leap of well...faith to set aside the rational and detectable for something that is not and will not ever be - provable.
Belief in God is not nearly the same thing as a business deal! Not sure how you could even make the comparison. Emunah isn't necessarily a universal virtue. From a Jewish perspective ethical behavior is a much bigger virtue than emunah. But I will admit, for me at least as a religious person emunah is a virtue.
Yes. I am saying that the Definition of God (from a scientific perspective) is the first cause. There may be more to God (hypothetically) that can measured by science, but at least lets start with first cause.
From a religious perspective it is entirely different. Lets assume that there is in fact a first cause. A religious person might create all sorts of personal myths around that first cause, calling it creator, or implying intelligence, some of which may be ultimately measurable by science, but science should not take umbrage with things that it cannot measure.
What could a newly unearthy scroll possibly say that proves Mohammed not to be a prophet?
I know I'm late to this post, but I just saw this and would like to comment. "Emunah is a risk one takes for the sake of heaven (so to speak). Is this
a difficult then to grasp? yes, but that's the point. Emunah isn't
supposed to be easy, simple and clear cut. It's hard and a struggle and a
fight and a spiritual war with one's own ego, soul and mind. If you're
not up for this struggle, I don't blame you because this isn't easy"stuff.""
I find the type of argument that I pasted above to be silly. As a Jew, it would be a huge struggle for me to have emunah in the truth of Christianity. More so Hinduism. More so... The difficulty of the struggle has NOTHING to do with the truth of what you struggle with. Nothing. You want a hard struggle. Believe in the angel Moroni despite your rational beliefs
Post a Comment