Posted by Helen on: 01.29.2007 /
Karen started a very interesting discussion on the discussion board recently with the question
Karen wrote the following, picking up on a comment by Eliza:
Eliza: And that intersection with our world, any presence/effect of God outside of his/her/its passive observations, would be where the “hard, scientific proof” would come into it. There should be something that can be observed and measured…some clue that Christians actually fare better, or are better people, or live longer, or are objectively more likely to have their wishes/prayers come true…something that a non-believer could look at and say, look – there really is a difference, there really must be some force influencing things in the world in a way that points to belief as a factor.
This is a big point, for me. If there’s a divine force intervening in human history every single second, or even occasionally, that intervention should leave some readily measureable, obvious impact after thousands of years. And so far, I just don’t see that impact.
The second point is, if the “fruits” of divine intervention aren’t tangible, what’s the advantage of believing? If you’re not going to have a reliably happier life, less disease, less suffering, better prospects in career or romance or fortune, more effectiveness in helping others – why bother?
I’d like to hear what believers and former believers and nonbelievers think about this. You don’t agree that the fruits of belief aren’t tangible and measureable? Show us the money. ;-)
Go check out the discussion if you’re interested, and jump in here or there with your own thoughts.
Comment by: benjamin ady
1I’m fascinated that no one has replied to this yet. Can we generalize the question further? I mean why believe *anything* at all for which you don’t have “hard” evidence? This seems to be a quintesentially modern, scientifiic materialist viewpoint.
I’d like to rephrase the question. But before I do, here’s something kind of interesting to do with the question: Share both your initial “gut” reaction, and then your reaction upon further thought/reflection. Ready?
Are the only things worth believing the things for which there are “hard” scientific evidence?
Comment by: Eliza
2Well, as the hard-line science-skeptic-type whose comment appears above…I’ll put in a few words.
First, I think the discussion I was commenting on (in Karen’s comment in the main post here), was about what various people with various beliefs “accept” as evidence. Personal testimony about spiritual experiences (life-altering experiences, etc) was felt by some to be so common, and to have such common threads, that taken as a whole it must count as evidence for God. Others disagreed, saying spiritual-witness testimony was evidence of people’s internal experiences, not proof of a prime mover (I’m rephrasing here).
But when Karen posted this question on the DB, several people commented right away about how important their own experiences and beliefs were to them, and all agreed that personal experience is powerful, & that such stories are important & useful (which still doesn’t move it into the category of “proof” for us skeptics).
I commented in that thread that the discussion had pointed out to me that there is a type of “faith” that many atheists have (but not all): Atheists-humanists believe in the basic goodness of humankind. (If they didn’t, they’d be nihilist-atheists, which seems to be what some theists think all atheists are. Hope that makes sense.)
And it’s not clear to me that there’s adequate “proof” to “support” belief in the basic goodness of humankind – if you wrote out a list of counterexamples to human goodness, the list would be pretty long and pretty discouraging.
So that makes me wonder: why do I, as a skeptic science-type who is interested in evidence for so many things, believe this one without “hard” scientific evidence? Is it hard-wired? Is it just that the alternative (atheism w/o this belief) would be pretty darn bleak? Very curious, indeed.
Comment by: HereandNow
3Eliza,
Your admission that their is no hard evidence for inherent goodness is really spot on, I think. It seems to me that there is no hard scientific evidence for any of the explanations of the human condition that try and determine at our beginnings whether we are moral or immoral beings. The reality of a human condition that is full of suffering and non-good generates a lot of intellectual and spiritual confusion for me. I used to just buy the whole original sin explanation, but I’ve grown increasingly convinced of the possibility of our brutality towards one another and our selves being solely a learned condition rather than a mysteriously inherited one. My problem lies in the fact that so many of us seem to have learned the lesson so well that we fail to exercise the goodness of humanity in too many instances to convince me that our basic goodness is the dominant thing. I see no hard scientific evidence for either original sin or basic human goodness because both characteristics are always present in all but the most sociopathic of us. So, how on earth do we determine which came first or which is our “true” character? In this one thing I think that Buhddism and Taoism have some great things to offer bringing us closer to illumination (sort of an intended pun). Begging pardon for the gross over-simplifications of the two, in both systems we just are, and basic goodness and basic non-goodness aren’t applicable catagories, and such judgement should be avoided as much as possible. So, if suffering blocks illumination (Buhddism) or motivates us to act other than we inherently are (Taoism), a possible explanation is that we come into the world suffering because as infants we are so dependent upon others who are available to us in varying degrees, but never perfect at providing for our every needs. These needs of ours are often unsatisfied not only because of the limitations of those we depend on, but because of our own inability to articulate our needs in an understandable way, and this continues on past infancy. We begin to learn to adapt to this condition in varying degrees, some healthy and some not at all healthy. We also begin to ascribe “moral” and “immoral” to the adaptations we make. The really unhealthy adaptations that we make motivate us to act brutally towards ourselves or others. Finding our identity in religious affiliation or finding our identity in a God of a particular faith is one of the adaptations that we make, but for some this results in the healthy move towards goodness and for others, not. It seems to me that in virtually every faith I’ve been exposed to, there are some who experience change that is mostly good, and some who use their faith as a place to continue behaving brutully towards the self or others. All of this to say that neither the Christian concept of original sin nor the atheist/humanist concept of original goodness has the evidence to support great confidence, yet I too find nihilism too darn bleak to embrace. I just don’t know if there is a sufficient explanation for why we behave the way we do, certainly not one that has the hard scientific evidence to back it up.
Comment by: JG
4Eliza, thank you for open and thoughtful comments on this topic.
I don’t believe we have to choose between two stark alternatives, basic goodness or nihilism.
Regardless of anything my faith might lead me to believe, my observation of myself and others coupled with comments made by others tends to suggest we are complex beings and that suggestions we are either basically good or basically bad fall short of reality.
Isn’t there both good and bad in all of us? And isn’t this a basic principle in understanding people?
So take say Bill Clinton (I have pulled his name out at random). He is no saint. But he is not wholly bad either. The fact that some of the things about him are at least questionable should not cause us to write him off as no good. But we shouldn’t be blind to his faults either.
This approach should enable us to accept everyone rather than adopt a holier than thou attitude. And it should also enable us to continue to accept people even when we discover aspects of their personality that are not so attractive to us. Or when they let us down.
Comment by: Hunter
5I’ve recently become a Christian(6 weeks ago) and in the short time since i started to believe I have definately changed i.e. improved work at Uni, more overall happiness, never complaining, feeling even more positive, feeling more kind, more giving, improved social life, due to Church and also the fact i have become more kind, accepting and tolerant + other positive changes. The good supernatural world is a very cool thing to experience.
I wasn’t a terrible person by any standards, in fact i was more moral than most people I knew. However since I repented(Acknowledged that i had done many things wrong,-sinned- and would try to turn away from sin)and started truly believing that Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins and then rose from the dead after three days.
Since then my prayers have been answered.
I haven’t actually wanted to sin, i.e i don’t feel im under some law that forces me not to sin but i happily choose not to do things that I previously thought were fine but in the bible are sins.
People, i think, imagine that, like many religions, christianity will require you to perform rituals and follow LAWS, however this isn’t true Christianity. Real christianity is about trusting God and his teachings. Once you are a true Christian you have a relationship with god.
God said:
‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it’(Jeremiah31:31-34)
This verse is talking about how God will make a new agreement with man. This new agreement was Jesus. When you believe in Jesus the law will be written on your heart. Since I started truly believing in Jesus the truth of this statement was proven to me. Give God a chance to come into you’re life and you’ll be surprised what happens.
I’m at uni and am 19, allowing God into my life is the best decision I ever made and will make.
Comment by: Helen
6Hi Hunter, thanks for sharing about the difference Jesus has made in your life.
Did you tell your family you became a Christian yet?