I have been watching more political coverage than I usually do, even for a presidential race. Part of it is the unprecedented hijacking of the process by an egotistical blow hard whose response to probing questions is usually a dodge followed by a personal insult. Like a moth to the flame, I can't seem to stop watching. Normally politics bore me or disgust me. In an effort to draw contrasts, candidates demonize their opponents and are very loose or misleading with their "facts." Small differences between candidates balloon into earth-shattering crises. And, of course, every problem in the world is the fault of the party in power according to the current party out of power. In an effort to provide a bit of perspective I want to comment on a few things I have noticed that seem particularly note worthy and some of the things that bug me the most.
By way of self disclosure, so my biases are know upfront, I tend to lean left on social issues and my world view is much more secular than religious. However, I would not say that I perfectly align with the complete platform of either major party. I reserve the right to form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis regardless of party alignment, and for many issues I don't think I know or care enough to have a particularly strong opinion at all.
So with those qualifications and disclosures, here are some of my observations, likely worth exactly what you paid for them. In watching the coverage of the Iowa caucuses and the coverage leading up to them, I noticed some striking contrasts between the parties. I learned from the Republicans that President Obama is the devil incarnate and that absolute every problem in the world is his fault. He is the worst president we have ever had. The terrible trends of the last 8 years can be reversed if we can just get a Republican in the White House this time.
I wonder if these people are living in the same world I am. Did we not have the worst economic down-turn since the Great Depression just before Obama took office? Have we not since had the longest period of sustained growth since the end of World War II? Wasn't Obama instrumental in passing the most significant health-care legislation in our history that has helped millions of Americans get health coverage who did not have it previously? Other accomplishments include opening diplomatic relations with Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, and, of course, taking out Bin Laden. This is despite being blocked by congress at nearly every turn. America's international prestige took a hit during the administration of George W. Bush, but under Obama we are now far more respected in the international community. Perhaps there is disagreement on whether the Iran deal was a good thing, but I believe that future generations will count Obama as one of the better presidents. You would never know this by listening to the Republicans.
Early in the campaign there was talk about how unsafe we are in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings. This was put into perspective on an episode of GPS with Fareed Zakaria's. Zakaria pointed out that since the terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 there has been an average of 4 American deaths each year due to terrorism. In contrast, there are over 11,000 deaths each year due to gun violence not involving terrorists. There are an average of 51 deaths in the US each year due to lighting strikes. Americans are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to die in a terrorist attack. To be consistent, we should be clamoring for the government to protect us from lightning strikes. The truth is that terrorism is all about perception and fear, not a real probability of a threat. In this sense the fear mongering is actually aiding the terrorists by creating a greater sense a panic than what is warranted from the actual probabilities.
I have heard many Republican candidates talk about the US being in a crisis. What are they talking about? A crisis compared to what? There is no historical perspective in this rhetoric. I don't want to be dismissive of anyone who has experienced hardship due to loss of a job and stagnant wages, but think about how this compares to some of the historical crises previous generations have faced such as the civil war, two world wars, the great depression, and the anxiety of the cold war era. The reality is that we are close to full employment, crime is down, people are living longer, and it has been decades since we have been involved in a war against an equally powerful enemy. The average American lives better than royalty lived as recently as 200 years ago. I think "Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker should be required reading. Of course, because of how the brain works, our problems seem just as big to us as problems in the past seemed to our ancestors. We get used to the status quo. Still, some of the political rhetoric seems way over the top.
Many Republicans want to return to a time when things were better, before the liberals destroyed the country with their attacks on the family and attacks on religious liberty. I heard these sentiments expressed by many Evangelical Christian Iowa voters interviewed by CNN who asserted that they were in favor of traditional values such as the marriage of a man and a woman and religious liberty. I found my self yelling at the TV, "Who is stopping you from holding those values and practicing your religion?" Since when, I have wondered, did the definition of liberty change from doing what you want to forcing others to do what you think they should? I don't think these people understand what liberty means. They have also said that they want to vote for someone of high moral and ethical character. In other words, someone who is a Christian like them. I don't think religion is necessarily correlated with morals and ethics. I have known many atheists and agnostics who are very ethical and moral, and some Christians who are not.
It is interesting to me that many of the Republican goals, especially that of the Christian right, seem to be about codifying Christian beliefs into law and forcing everyone else to live by them, even when failure for others to conform to Christian-specific beliefs hurts no one so long as people are otherwise law abiding. In contrast, the Democratic candidates have emphasized adopting policies that benefit everyone such as universal health care, college tuition assistance, and equal and fair treatment for all regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. I find it ironic that Republicans are all about smaller government and preserving individual freedom when it comes to corporate regulations, freedom of religion, and gun rights, but they seem to be about more government intervention when it comes to forcing their own version of morality on others. Somehow this seems philosophically inconsistent to me. Either you want to preserve individual freedoms for everyone (when they don't interfere with the rights of others) or you don't. It is hypocritical to insist on the freedoms important to you while denying the same rights to others.
Perhaps my views are biased, but I think even a neutral observer would have to notice the dramatic contrast. The level of discourse has been much more mature and substantive in the Democratic debates where issues are discussed in a respectful tone. In contrast, the Republican debates often degenerate into a contest of personal insults. Of course, most of this tone is due to a single candidate, Donald Trump. The discourse was much improved in the debate he boycotted when the vitriol was mostly limited to the absent candidate and the Democrats. All this has led to greater entertainment value in the Republican debates, which is partly why I can't stop watching. I am just not sure if ratings-based reality TV is the best way to choose who gets to hold the most powerful office in the world.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Do You Believe in God?
My dad, who died last year just before his 92nd birthday, never expressed much confidence in an afterlife. As a kid, I remember him saying that when you are dead you are just dead. You no longer exist. I don't know if my dad changed his mind about this later, but at his funeral my brother-in-law expressed his opinion that this may have been the case. My brother-in-law is an active, believing Mormon and a former bishop, while I am more of a skeptical agnostic. As evidence for my dad's transformation my brother-in-law cited examples of my dad offering touching prayers in front of family members. What he did not know is that my dad had always done that on very special occasions, interspersed with the times I heard him express deep skepticism.
This raises a number of questions for me. Why was it so important for my brother-in-law to believe that my dad believed in God? Who is this God anyway, and why does he require belief? It seems to be an almost universal assumption that belief in God is a good thing and that it is something that God requires or even demands of us. Why is this the case? When I think about all the implications of this it starts to fall apart and seems to be more a characteristic of the human psyche or human culture than a characteristic of an actual deity.
The more I think about this issue the more I come to the conclusion that any God worthy of respect and adoration probably does not care whether anyone actually believes in him or her. Furthermore, some of the assumptions about God inherited through the Judeo-Christian, monotheistic tradition are so deeply ingrained that it rarely occurs to us to question them. Questioning many of these assumptions and pointing out that they are not necessarily logically connected is what I propose to do in this post.
Assumption 1: Faith is a virtue
This raises a number of questions for me. Why was it so important for my brother-in-law to believe that my dad believed in God? Who is this God anyway, and why does he require belief? It seems to be an almost universal assumption that belief in God is a good thing and that it is something that God requires or even demands of us. Why is this the case? When I think about all the implications of this it starts to fall apart and seems to be more a characteristic of the human psyche or human culture than a characteristic of an actual deity.
The more I think about this issue the more I come to the conclusion that any God worthy of respect and adoration probably does not care whether anyone actually believes in him or her. Furthermore, some of the assumptions about God inherited through the Judeo-Christian, monotheistic tradition are so deeply ingrained that it rarely occurs to us to question them. Questioning many of these assumptions and pointing out that they are not necessarily logically connected is what I propose to do in this post.
Assumption 1: Faith is a virtue
Faith is not universally acknowledged as a virtue. For example, atheists value skepticism, evidence, and reasoning above faith. What I am asking here is why religious people universal acknowledge faith as one of the highest virtues. Why do they assume that a God would require faith? If I accept that a God exists (which I am not at all sure about but will concede for argument's sake), I might try to imagine the mind of God using an analogy. Perhaps we are to God as a colony of ants is to me. I can't imagine caring in the slightest whether a colony of ants believes in me. I don't need them to believe in me. It does absolutely nothing for me one way or another. I am perfectly fine with them going about their little ant lives as ants do. I do not begrudge them pursuing their goals of surviving and thriving as long as they stay out of my kitchen.
When I think about what is actually accomplished by faith, the main answer that I can come up with is that it makes things more convenient for people in positions of authority. It prevents subjects or followers from asking hard questions and challenging the authority of those in power over them. An all-powerful God would not need it, but humans in authority very much need it since the masses so greatly outnumber them. If those in power can placate their subjects by getting them to accept things on faith, their hold on power is more secure. Of course, we may also be psychologically wired for this, and it was probably more important historically than today. The main point is that emphasis on faith seems to serve human wants and needs rather than divine ones.
I can't imagine why an all-powerful God would insist on faith, especially if he cares at all about our growth and development. I want my own children to learn to be self sufficient and independent. I want them to think critically, question authority, and learn to solve problems on their own. Why would a loving God want anything different? Insisting on faith seems a bit insecure. Maybe some parents insist on unquestioning obedience from their children, but I don't consider such parents to be particularly enlightened, and I expect God to be more enlightened that the most enlightened humans.
So who am I to tell God how she should behave? That is a good question, but since none of us has direct access to God we are left to create God in our own image. So while I may be guilty of creating a God in my own image, or at least in an image that I aspire to, aren't those who insist on faith doing pretty much the same thing? I don't believe any of us have privileged access so it is the best we can do. Whether we imagine a vindictive and vengeful God or a kind and loving God probably says more about us than it does about God. Insisting that everyone believes in the God we imagine probably speaks more to our own insecurities than to any actual attributes of a deity.
Assumption 2: Belief in God and belief in the afterlife are basically the same thing
When I think about what is actually accomplished by faith, the main answer that I can come up with is that it makes things more convenient for people in positions of authority. It prevents subjects or followers from asking hard questions and challenging the authority of those in power over them. An all-powerful God would not need it, but humans in authority very much need it since the masses so greatly outnumber them. If those in power can placate their subjects by getting them to accept things on faith, their hold on power is more secure. Of course, we may also be psychologically wired for this, and it was probably more important historically than today. The main point is that emphasis on faith seems to serve human wants and needs rather than divine ones.
I can't imagine why an all-powerful God would insist on faith, especially if he cares at all about our growth and development. I want my own children to learn to be self sufficient and independent. I want them to think critically, question authority, and learn to solve problems on their own. Why would a loving God want anything different? Insisting on faith seems a bit insecure. Maybe some parents insist on unquestioning obedience from their children, but I don't consider such parents to be particularly enlightened, and I expect God to be more enlightened that the most enlightened humans.
So who am I to tell God how she should behave? That is a good question, but since none of us has direct access to God we are left to create God in our own image. So while I may be guilty of creating a God in my own image, or at least in an image that I aspire to, aren't those who insist on faith doing pretty much the same thing? I don't believe any of us have privileged access so it is the best we can do. Whether we imagine a vindictive and vengeful God or a kind and loving God probably says more about us than it does about God. Insisting that everyone believes in the God we imagine probably speaks more to our own insecurities than to any actual attributes of a deity.
Assumption 2: Belief in God and belief in the afterlife are basically the same thing
I have sometimes heard believers reveling in what will happen to atheists when they die. They will finally know that they were wrong when they discover that they can still see, think, and feel even though they are no longer occupying their physical body. But what have they really discovered? I am not insisting that this is what actually happens, but suppose that it does. The only thing they have learned, assuming that they are not hallucinating, is that there is a part of them that lives independent of their body. They have not learned anything about the existence of God. Conversely, the existence of God does not necessarily imply the existence of an afterlife. Many religious traditions assume the existence of God or Gods, but say nothing about an afterlife for individual humans. The Bible itself, especially the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament), says very little about the afterlife. Even Christian traditions that allow for an afterlife for humans may deny its existence for other forms of life. So the existence of God does not guarantee an afterlife for our dogs, for example, according to many traditions. Questions about God and the afterlife are independent.
Assumption 3: God is Omnipotent and Omniscient
There seems to be an unspoken assumption among the monotheistic traditions that certain attributes are implicit in the definition of God, among which are omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing) and omni-present (everywhere at once). Most monotheists also assume that God's existence extends into the infinite past and the infinite future. This is only one possible way to view God. Many other possibilities exist. The God of the Deists got the universe started, but does not intervene in day-to-day affairs. The Gods of ancient Greece and Rome as well as many Hindu Gods are limited in power and knowledge, while still being immortal and much more powerful than humans. God could be defined merely as the most intelligent of all intelligent beings in the Universe. By this definition, God could be an advanced alien.
The assumed divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are not well defined and they may be logically inconsistent or impossible. One version of this dilemma is "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or Homer Simpson's version, "Can God create a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?" While these are humorous ways to illustrate this dilemma, they nevertheless make a valid point. These attributes may very well be the theological equivalent of dividing by zero in mathematics. In other words, the God of the monotheistic religions is undefined. While this may be considered a virtue in traditions that emphasize mystery, the question remains as to whether the rules of logic apply to God so that only a logically consistent God is possible. Perhaps this could be resolved by tightening up the definition of omnipotence to mean all possible power rather than all arbitrarily conceivable power.
In the design of computer chips it is possible to create a logically inconsistent circuit by feeding the output back into the input and creating the electronic equivalent of the propositions "everything I say is a lie" and "I am lying now." You end up with a rapidly oscillating circuit that is not good for doing any useful work. Chip designers are well aware of this and avoid ever designing it into their chips. It seems to me that a God would also need to avoid such logical errors or he could make his own or the universe's existence unstable or impossible. Part of his omniscience should include knowing how to avoid such errors, not the arbitrary power to make them without consequence.
Belief in God
There seems to be an unspoken assumption among the monotheistic traditions that certain attributes are implicit in the definition of God, among which are omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing) and omni-present (everywhere at once). Most monotheists also assume that God's existence extends into the infinite past and the infinite future. This is only one possible way to view God. Many other possibilities exist. The God of the Deists got the universe started, but does not intervene in day-to-day affairs. The Gods of ancient Greece and Rome as well as many Hindu Gods are limited in power and knowledge, while still being immortal and much more powerful than humans. God could be defined merely as the most intelligent of all intelligent beings in the Universe. By this definition, God could be an advanced alien.
The assumed divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are not well defined and they may be logically inconsistent or impossible. One version of this dilemma is "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or Homer Simpson's version, "Can God create a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?" While these are humorous ways to illustrate this dilemma, they nevertheless make a valid point. These attributes may very well be the theological equivalent of dividing by zero in mathematics. In other words, the God of the monotheistic religions is undefined. While this may be considered a virtue in traditions that emphasize mystery, the question remains as to whether the rules of logic apply to God so that only a logically consistent God is possible. Perhaps this could be resolved by tightening up the definition of omnipotence to mean all possible power rather than all arbitrarily conceivable power.
In the design of computer chips it is possible to create a logically inconsistent circuit by feeding the output back into the input and creating the electronic equivalent of the propositions "everything I say is a lie" and "I am lying now." You end up with a rapidly oscillating circuit that is not good for doing any useful work. Chip designers are well aware of this and avoid ever designing it into their chips. It seems to me that a God would also need to avoid such logical errors or he could make his own or the universe's existence unstable or impossible. Part of his omniscience should include knowing how to avoid such errors, not the arbitrary power to make them without consequence.
Belief in God
The question in the title of this post, then, might not be so simple given the problematic nature of some widely-held assumptions about the attributes of God. My answer is that it depends on what you mean by God. This makes all the difference. My answer is "no" for nearly every God I have heard described, but that does not mean "no" for any conceivable God. Perhaps all the various beliefs in God are like the blind men feeling the elephant in the oft-repeated proverb. Some describe it as a tree, some as a snake, and some as a rope. So maybe each tradition has a portion of the truth by giving a view from one particular angle without comprehending the whole. It may also be that none of them are anywhere close and the nature of God has yet to be conceived by the mind of humans.
I subscribe to the idea that views about God reflect the attributes of the believer more than the attributes of God. This is what initially attracted me to my wife. Her view of God emphasized kindness and compassion, which are attributes that she has. I have also noticed that those who believe in a vengeful God tend to exhibit that trait themselves. This may not always be the case because many people believe in the God they first learned about as children and never question his attributes. Over time, however, whether they move closer to their God or their God moves closer to them, people seem to grow to resemble their Gods.
One of the attributes of the God I was raised to believe in is that he is a bureaucratic paper pusher. He is a being that would keep someone out of super VIP heaven (as Brother Jake calls it) for not having his proper papers in order. It makes no sense to me that God would be so anal. The longer I live the more a subscribe to a universalist view of God. It makes no sense to impose an infinite penalty for a finite infraction. I cannot and will never believe in the Christian view of hell. My aversion to this is aided by the fact that I was not really brought up with this view of hell. However, I don't subscribe to the Mormon view of the afterlife either where you are forever assigned to a particular kingdom. I am open to the possibility of something like Catholic purgatory where individuals have to work some things out, but ultimately they come through this temporary state. It is the eternal hell that I refuse to believe in.
Ultimately my dad may have been right. Maybe there is nothing. On the other hand, if there is a God and an afterlife I don't think it will make any difference whether my dad believed it or not. If God sent my dad to hell for not believing, he is not a being I would worship or would care to be with. How could anyone enjoy heaven knowing some of their loved ones, friends, or even casual acquaintances were suffering in hell for eternity? People who are OK with this are not the type of people I would care to associate with for eternity. So it makes no difference to me at all whether or not my dad believed. I only know that he loved his family and that he was the most generous, loving, and humble man I have known. I think that is quite enough. I would rather be wherever he is than with many self-described believers that I know.
I subscribe to the idea that views about God reflect the attributes of the believer more than the attributes of God. This is what initially attracted me to my wife. Her view of God emphasized kindness and compassion, which are attributes that she has. I have also noticed that those who believe in a vengeful God tend to exhibit that trait themselves. This may not always be the case because many people believe in the God they first learned about as children and never question his attributes. Over time, however, whether they move closer to their God or their God moves closer to them, people seem to grow to resemble their Gods.
One of the attributes of the God I was raised to believe in is that he is a bureaucratic paper pusher. He is a being that would keep someone out of super VIP heaven (as Brother Jake calls it) for not having his proper papers in order. It makes no sense to me that God would be so anal. The longer I live the more a subscribe to a universalist view of God. It makes no sense to impose an infinite penalty for a finite infraction. I cannot and will never believe in the Christian view of hell. My aversion to this is aided by the fact that I was not really brought up with this view of hell. However, I don't subscribe to the Mormon view of the afterlife either where you are forever assigned to a particular kingdom. I am open to the possibility of something like Catholic purgatory where individuals have to work some things out, but ultimately they come through this temporary state. It is the eternal hell that I refuse to believe in.
Ultimately my dad may have been right. Maybe there is nothing. On the other hand, if there is a God and an afterlife I don't think it will make any difference whether my dad believed it or not. If God sent my dad to hell for not believing, he is not a being I would worship or would care to be with. How could anyone enjoy heaven knowing some of their loved ones, friends, or even casual acquaintances were suffering in hell for eternity? People who are OK with this are not the type of people I would care to associate with for eternity. So it makes no difference to me at all whether or not my dad believed. I only know that he loved his family and that he was the most generous, loving, and humble man I have known. I think that is quite enough. I would rather be wherever he is than with many self-described believers that I know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)