The Smidgin » faith

To read: God and the new atheists

Jim — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:27:58 +0000

The New Yorker has an excellent article, which I only learned later was a book review, on faith and atheism. For quite some time now I have found the modern debate about the existence of God to be unfortunately unintelligent. Denizens of the Internet, especially, tend to characterize it as a duel between Bible-toting, young-earth, fundamentalist Christians on one side and super rational, intelligent scientists on the other. But I think James Wood gets it right:

What is needed is neither the overweening rationalist atheism of a Dawkins nor the rarefied religious belief of an Eagleton but a theologically engagcd atheism that resembles disappointed belief. Such atheism, onlya semitone from fuith, would be, like musical dissonance, the more acute for its proximity. It could give a brother’s account of belief, rather than treat it as some unwanted impoverished relative. It would be unafraid to credit the immense allure of religious tradition, but at the same time it would be ready to argue that the abstract God of the philosophers and the theologians is no more probable than the idolatrous God of the fundamentalists, makes no better sense ofthe fallen world, and is certainly no more likable or worthy of our worshipful respect—alas.

If you have a chance (and a subscription), read the rest of the article.

Posted in Recommended Reading Tagged: atheism, faith, God, New Yorker

The Ontological Argument Against God

Jim — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:11:36 +0000

The other day I was reminded of Anselm’s ontological argument for God. Put in a simple form, it goes thusly:

God is a being which nothing greater than can be imagined.
Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one’s imagination.
Therefore, God must exist in reality: if not, God would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined.

In an effort to expand my horizons, I decided to see if I could reverse the argument. You can be the judge of whether I accomplished it:

That which exists must be conceivable in the imagination.
God in reality would be greater than God in the imagination (per Anselm’s argument).
Therefore, God cannot exist in reality: if so something would exist that cannot be imagined.

The weak point in my argument is, obviously, the first point. Let us assume for a minute that it is actually incorrect, allowing us to present this argument:

Things can exist which cannot be imagined.
God is a being which nothing greater than can be imagined.
Therefore, God cannot be known to be greater than all things: if things can exist that can’t be imagined, they could be greater than God.

While the argument does not reduce to a logical absurdity, and thus prove that we must be able to imagine all things that exist, it does greatly diminish the essence of what God would be. As I see it, this brings us to two options:

God doesn’t exist (because we can’t imagine him).
God exists but we don’t know whether he is the greatest thing in existence. (Under the typical definition of God this would mean God isn’t God. Anselm, however, used a different definition in his argument and thus God could still exist.)

If anyone has a suggestion as to how I can improve my argument, I’d love to hear it. Of course, in the end I do believe in God. What I was seeking to do here (in addition to sharpen my mind) was to show that God is never going to be proved or disproved by reason or logic. (Or, I would add, science.) Arguments and counter-arguments can always be made.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see [and cannot prove]. -Hebrews 11:1

Posted in Contemplations Tagged: Anselm, faith, ontological argument, reason

The Impracticality of Grace

Jim — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:01:46 +0000

When you were a child and misbehaved, how did you learn not to do it again? Because you were punished. Punishment hurts us and teaches us not to do something again. In a sense, it functions like pain does: only a fool touches a hot stove after being burned the first time.

One of the hard things about being an adult is that there is no one to punish you. Of course, in some areas of life this isn’t true. If you murder someone, the law will take over and punish you. I’m talking instead about those many areas of our lives that the law doesn’t legislate.

Specifically, I’m talking about those actions that violate our moral creeds yet go unpunished. I’m talking about sin.

In his infinite wisdom, God answered our sin with his grace and mercy at the death of Christ. And grace it undoubtedly is, because I know full well that the wages of sin are death. Yet grace so often seems to fail me because I refuse to learn from my failures.

Is it that the sin is supposed to be punishment enough? Or is the punishment the chasm between me and God created by sin? Somehow nothing seems to fit. I find myself wanting someone to simply hit me when I commit a sin, so I know that I’ve done wrong.

Grace begins to seem impractical. What good does grace do me if my behavior doesn’t change?I suppose there is a reason the apostle Paul wrote “by grace… through faith.” I realize the need for grace, even if I can’t understand the sense in it. I must never disparage God’s grace in my life, so I’ll have to depend on God for the faith.