Quote from vhehn:
even lewis came to his senses as he got older and had a chance reflect on what he believed. in his last book called " a grief observed" he said:
"Meanwhile, where is God? This is one of the most disquieting symptoms. When you are happy, so happy that you have no sense of needing Him, so happy that you are tempted to feel His claims upon you as an interruption, if you remember yourself and turn to Him with gratitude and praise, you will be â or so it feels â welcomed with open arms. But go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and what do you find? A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double bolting on the inside."
On similar lines, a nice piece from Heather MacDonald:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGYxNDFiMzdiZjZjMDExZjYxYmUxODExMzBkYmUyYmQ=
Excerpt:
Perhaps when believers speak of Godâs âlove,â they use the term in a way that has nothing to do with ordinary usage. Novak maybe implies as much when he states: âWhat is difficult to believe is that any one of us . . . knows more than God does about His love for every individual.â Godâs âloveâ is different from human love; it includes the capacity to foresee and watch the destruction of oneâs children and not intervene. But then why not use a different word entirely â âcallousness,â say. At the very least, if we are going to continue to use ordinary words in counterintuitive ways to refer to God, we should give them some sort of diacritical marker to let listeners know that the words they are hearing donât mean what they ordinarily mean. One could speak of âG-love,â for instance, to distinguish it from ordinary human love.
As MacDonald points out, the idea that God "loves" everyone is patently silly because such a notion is falsifiable; we can observe reality and see that it is not true.
The one point where I quibble with atheists is in denial of the possibility that a first mover exists. It is, in fact, possible that a first mover of some sort exists. It is even possible that a first mover has a Plan, with a capital P, for the universe.
However--and it is a very BIG however--even if a first mover exists, reality still holds. Testable claims should be tested, and logic should be upheld, and by this light all the testable claims of popular religion fall short.
There is no clear evidence that God intervenes in people's lives, for example, and therefore it is not logical to believe in a first mover that intervenes. There is no evidence that a hypothetical first mover cares about human beings individually; in fact it is pure speculation to think He / She / It gives a shit about the human race at all. Therefore it is not logical to believe in a first mover who has a special concern for every living person.
Science cannot go beyond the boundaries of the closed system--it cannot look behind the big bang--but all assertions regarding God that amount to testable claims submit themselves to the domain of science. To make assertions regarding an intervening or caring God is to come into science's house. If you say prayer works, that is a testable claim. If one says God cares about human individuals, that is an obliquely testable claim too. If one says the bible is scientifically accurate, that is a testable claim also. Even the fruit of the holy spirit is something of a testable claim, as it is possible to compare the general behavior and attitudes of churched vs unchurched.
And by all these tests, popular religion fails and fails miserably. Every testable claim that religion inadvertently offers up is beat to a pulp... steamrolled as it were.
So is it still possible to suggest that a hypothetical first mover "loves" humanity? Not in an individual sense. Not while remaining logical. The universe cares for human life about as much as you or I care for dead houseflies. If the universe cares for life at all, it is probably on a scale of planets (or maybe galaxies) and a scope of eons. I am to the world as a single digestive enzyme in my stomach is to me. Or perhaps a single stretch of molecules within that enzyme. Part of something, yes; worthy of individual attention from the master planner, if there is one? I highly doubt it.
But is it possible to construct a metanarrative that is not shattered by science and does not require straying into fantasyland? Say, an evolutionary metanarrative in which a hypothetical first mover thinks in terms of eons, and cares nothing for individual life, and brings about a purpose through processes of evolution and the rise of consciousness in sentient life forms via coherent natural processes?
Yes, it is possible. It is not possible to confirm that this is the real story, but something like it would at least have the virtue of being theoretically consistent with reality as know it.
If one truly submits to logic and reason, it is absolutely necessary to let go of the demonstrably false idea of an intervening and loving God. But it isn't absolutely necessary to believe that we are here for no reason at all. It is possible that the metanarrative is far bigger and grander than we imagined. And even if we
are here for no reason at all--a possibility that cannot be ruled out any more than a first mover can--then that tabula rasa state gives us the freedom to construct a metanarrative of our own choosing... and to do so logically, without violating basic tenets of reality.
One of the biggest problems with atheism, or biggest challenges for atheism I should say, is coming up with a positive metanarrative to replace what is torn down. Religion serves multiple purposes, and has done so since the beginning. If you tear down a man's religion, but offer him nothing to take its place, then that man is left hopeless and adrift, perhaps suicidal even.
It is instructive to note that most of those who reject religion have their own alternative metanarratives in place, or build them during the transition from religious to non-religious, finding their own reasons to live and love and pursue excellence apart from a book of stories handed down. For example, pursuit of truth and reason as a noble ideal in itself is a common foundation for those who shun religion. But for many people, truth as a life-motivating ideal is too cold and too abstract. The average joe has spent far too long wandering in the fever swamps of rationalization and self-gratification to suddenly rise up and recognize the beauty of logic and honesty for their own sakes.
To those atheists who see challenging the poisonous comforts of religion as their greatest mission, isn't that really only half the story? Isn't the real goal to spread an appreciation for truth and reason, and not just leave the masses disillusioned and empty? If you kick out a man's crutch but do not offer him another, he will hate you for it. Perhaps try helping him with his bum leg before exhorting him to walk free. (If he is foaming at the mouth, though, by all means shoot him.)
Just some thoughts...
