My friend Albert Loan of Universidad Francisco Marroquín recently quoted from Damon Linker’s review (“Memo to atheists: God’s not dead yet”) of theologian David Bentley Hart’s recent book.
The quotation: “The deeper reason why theism can’t be rejected, according to Hart, is that every pursuit of truth, every attempt to be good, every longing for beauty presupposes the existence of some idea of truth, goodness, and beauty from which these particular instances are derived. And these transcendental ideas unite in the classical concept of God, who simply is truth, goodness, and beauty. That’s why, although it isn’t necessary to believe in God in some explicit way in order to be good, it certainly is the case (in Hart’s words) ‘that to seek the good is already to believe in God, whether one wishes to do so or not.'”
The second sentence in the above is the key one. It claims that truth, goodness, and beauty are “transcendental ideas,” that is, not natural or based in the physical world. That is, the argument for theism starts with skepticism about the natural world as a source of truth, goodness, or beauty.
This has long seemed to me to be the deepest divide between the thoughtfully religious and the thoughtfully non-religious: the atheist is optimistic about finding value in the natural world, while the theist is pessimistic about that possibility and seeks it outside the natural world.
The difference can be phrased in emotionalist terms: the person who does not become religious feels the natural world to be valuable in itself, while the religious person feels the natural world to be lacking or deficient in a deep way and so seeks value beyond it.
Comments?
The fact is nihilism has assumed the cloak of idealism. This was the case with the Christian ethics and I think with Kant’s metaphysics-epistemology: by means of impossible contradictions held as ideals rational standards were subverted, if not outright demolished.
Can’t source this, but think it’s relevant: “If you get someone to believe in a better life after death, respect for life is lost.”
I would largely concur. It also explains why I have such a hard time talking to atheists about the concept of meaning and morality. Many atheists claim that there is an objective or universal case to be made for morality or beauty without God. They then introduce principles of evolutionary psychology, or the wonder of the universe. For the theist, these are simply not “big” enough to be considered solid foundations for a universal meaning or code of morality. As a theist, I find deriving moral tenets form nature or the universe to be as slippery as deriving them from everyday situations. I’ve heard atheists say they believe in absolute morals, but I find that their definition of “absolute” doesn’t match my definition of “absolute” in any meaningful way.
Our world views are skew.
Perhaps God and the Universe are one and the same thing (Pantheism).
“The heavens are telling the glory of God, the universe displays the wonders of his works.”
As a theist, I believe that God created the universe and all that is in it. He created everything, both things that can be seen, and things that can’t be seen, including the laws of physics. For that reason there is no conflict between science and religion, because truths revealed by scientific methods reveal a glimpse of the amazing creation of God. As for moral law, my belief and the teachings of theology tell me that God is good, God is truth and God is love. If God created everything, and has these attributes, then of course moral law comes from God.
Am I on the right page?
Interesting.
I’m non-religious and I’d like to think thoughtfully so, but perhaps I’m not given your use of the phrase.
I’m non-religious because none of the religions seem likely to be sufficiently accurate to me to be believable. Given that I don’t believe, I find it hard to be religious. (I also don’t believe in “not-God” so I’m not really a strong atheist either).
This has nothing to do with value (beauty, etc.) and the natural world nor optimism (or lack thereof) regarding finding beauty, goodness, etc. in the natural world.
On the other hand, I’ve written a number of times that I’m a free rider in that my concepts of “truth” and “goodness” are derived from Judeo-Christian constructs and believe that that morality required the concept of God to evolve to a workable point and might well continue to require the concept of God to be maintained for the future.
So I think I disagree.
Atheists are party poopers. They want to take away the drug that is religion and make people grow up and face reality.
I disagree strongly with this statement: “the religious person feels the natural world to be lacking or deficient in a deep way and so seeks value beyond it.”
This is a straw man argument. Some of the religious may (and I would argue do) feel this way. But that is your interpretation of the writer’s state of mind–you’ve avoided addressing his position.
The theist position, as stated here, is that there is an underlying order to the universe which is not well-represented by our probabilistic model of physical reality; the model in which we are each of us nothing more than a sack of meat in which endorphins and electric impulses interact to cause us to act in some probabilistic fashion like a complex machine. In which the Standard Model’s ever-increasing complexity of epicyclic particles is the epitome of understanding, and the Big Bang’s singularity is all one need know about the origins of the Universe.
Perhaps this is the truth, perhaps the physical world is all there is, and God (there’s that word again) does indeed play dice with the universe. But then again, perhaps we have mistaken the map for the territory, and are imputing existence to mere artifacts of the limitations of our models. Perhaps a little humility is in order, and perhaps we have failed to properly understand the universe. Indeed, a scientist who truly understands the math must leave room for the possibility that we are incapable of understanding the universe, that there may be an underlying truth that mere sacks of meat cannot understand and only dimly perceive.
Is it really a pessimistic act to engage in a humble search for those underlying, trancendental truths? Or is the pessimistic attitude the one which says there is no truth, no beauty, which cannot be instrumented?
Hi Neil:
It seems to me that you are agreeing with me.
In your third paragraph, you say that the best naturalist model of human nature is this: “we are each of us nothing more than a sack of meat in which endorphins and electric impulses interact.” Since you think that model is both deficient but the best that naturalism can do, you seek a non-naturalist model.
In your fourth paragraph you say that your quest is in part driven by skepticism: “cannot understand,” “incapable of understanding,” “failed to understand,” “dimly perceive,” etc.
Consequently, in your fifth paragraph, you conclude that the transcendental pursuit is legitimate.
You are agreeing with me, not disagreeing, that the religious account starts with negative conclusions about naturalism.
Hicks is completely missing the point.
The position stated in the article that he references are is, and the very least, an articulation of the”primal cause” argument, and the attendant notion of universals. This is a position of long standing, one most clearly articulated by Aquinas.
It has nothing at all to do with “pessimism” or optimism, and most certainly has nothing to do with some notion that “theist” do not find beauty in the physical world.
Indeed the argument flows, in part, from the perception of beauty in the world.
Evidently that Ph. D course world did not cover much Theological reading.
From either side of this–theist or atheist–Hick’s is merely proposing a straw man.
Hi Hattip:
I think you and Neil are making the same interpretive error.
The issue is not whether there is truth/value/beauty in the natural world, but whether the natural world can be seen as generating truth/value/beauty.
The transcendental move first requires seeing the natural world as incapable of being the source of truth/value/beauty; that’s its deficiency. So the source must be sought elsewhere.
You mention Aquinas, who is a good example of my point: Aquinas points out that there is order/causation/etc. in the natural world, but argues that the natural world can’t be the source of the order/causation/etc. That’s the first and negative claim. So he infers that those features must have a transcendental source.
Perhaps this is part of the confusion: some religions say the natural world has no value and that value is only outside the natural world. Other religions say that whatever value the natural world has must have come from a non-natural source. What they both have in common is the negative claim that the natural world is not itself a source of value.
And that is my point.
The integral piece of the naturalistic view is an honored and moral concept of the self and interest. Concepts of beauty, truth and value are derived from the interactive relationship of consciousness to reality. Religion, denigrating the individual human self, allowed only an honored and moral concept of the self of God. The human relationship to the world had to be mediated by Him.
Of course, looking at concepts of God, one finds a suspicious similarity in depictions of Him with the patriarchs of societies that produced them – down to the white hair.
“Finding I could speak the language of ants, I approached one and inquired, ‘What is God like? Does he much resemble the ant?’ He answered, ‘God! No, indeed – we have only one sting, but God, he has two!’ ”
– Shia Immam Muhammed al Baqir (from the days of the old Muslim empire)
Prof. Hicks, I must disagree again.
The atheist begins his inquiry (as you do here) by circumscribing “the natural world” to exclude anything which might be god-like. If he doesn’t begin with that assumption, then he is better described as agnostic. The atheist, therefore, limits his search for truth and understanding to that which may be found within our probabilistic understanding of the universe. (One of the corollaries of this probabilistic understanding is the view of consciousness as being an artifact of random physical interactions, not something that has a separate existence. Thus my reference to humanity as “sacks of meat”.)
I would compare this mode of inquiry to the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlamp because the light is better there. I suppose you could call him an optimist, but that’s not really germane to the discussion. It’s a question of whether we are to limit our search to the small pool of light we currently have available, or if it is legitimate to at least wonder what may lie out there in the darkness.
Neil: We are cast into the struggle for life and given a mind to negotiate it. We have to act according to what we know, not according to what we don’t know.
Science has been a long progression from the light of the known into the darkness of the unknown, transforming ever more of the latter into the former. Can religion say the same?
The scientist says in effect: With the evidence available to me and to the best of my thinking I have ascertained this to be true; if new evidence comes to light that challenges my position or an error in my logic or other methodology is pointed out, I will revise it accordingly. Though all may play a role in discovery scientists make careful distinction between intuition, conjecture, hypothesis, theory and knowledge. A claim to knowledge is based on rational criteria of proof. It isn’t a claim to omniscience or infallibility.
This is what many modern philosophers brand dogmatic and “intransigent” and religionists brand an alternate faith. (It’s worth noting that one doesn’t typically hear scientists’ accusing fundamentalists of actually being rational). A scientist doesn’t assert that he knows what he doesn’t, and demand his belief to be accepted uncritically on pain of torture and death (when political circumstances allow for it). Rather he lays out his evidence and arguments for objective review, where others are free to accept or dismiss his conclusions.
Were Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno drunks satisfied to stay in the comfortable light of the street lamp? Did they not wonder what lay in the starry darkness above them?
Mr. Fox,
“Science has been a long progression from the light of the known into the darkness of the unknown, transforming ever more of the latter into the former. Can religion say the same? ”
Religion is the method by which humanity considers the questions that science cannot answer. To reject religion as an atheist does is to reject the very questions, not just the answers.
“The scientist says in effect…if new evidence comes to light that challenges my position or an error in my logic or other methodology is pointed out, I will revise it accordingly.”
In my opinion, atheism is anti-scientific. It is a belief that presumes to know what the universe does not contain.
George H. Smith helped clarify the issue in ‘Atheism: The Case Against God’: That atheists – at least sensible ones – do not say there IS no God. Just as they do not say there ARE NO fairies.
An important rule of logic is that one is never required to prove a negative. If for example a scientist holds a news conference and declares that there is life on Mars, then, in response to journalists’ and scientists’ eager questions says “Well you can’t prove there isn’t!” he’s hardly made his case. The onus of proof rests with the person making the claim.
Smith notes that the ‘a’ in atheist is a simple negation, like in amoral i.e. ‘not moral’. That’s different from immoral. A ‘theist’ is one who accepts as true the proposition that God exists. An ‘atheist’ is one who does not accept as true the proposition that God exists. Period.
He notes that the standard definitions of God are meaningless. ‘Infinite goodness’, ‘all powerful’, ‘all-knowing’, etc., do not define anything. It’s like someone asking me who Neil is and me replying, “he’s very charming.” In practice and history ‘God’ was whatever people chose to say he was. That was often a blank check on crime. When slaughtering Muslims and anyone else who got in their way Christian crusaders cried “Deus Vult!” – “God wills it!” Today Muslim radicals cry the same when committing their acts of terror.
There is also the misconception among theists that God explains anything.
Felix: Who created the universe?
Carl: God.
Felix: What is God?
Carl: He is that which we cannot know.
Felix: Cool.
Mr. Fox,
I don’t think that your criticisms of the actions of particular religionists at particular times have any bearing on the topic at hand. You are making the argument that mankind would be better off without religion because some people use it to justify evil acts. The question at hand, however, is whether people look for God because they despair of finding meaning in the natural world as we understand it, or because the concept of God is required in order to understand our experience within the natural world.
I don’t think your characterization of atheism is any different from mine. Atheists require that God be measured and weighed before being willing to consider his existence–that the concept of God must fit within our physical concept of the universe. Theists accept (for one reason or another) that that framework does not fully describe the universe, and that God is worth attempting to understand, even if we cannot accurately describe the concept.
I say again, it is a funny sort of science that bounds the possible answers before even knowing how to ask the question.
Re: “it is a funny sort of science that bounds the possible answers before even knowing how to ask the question.” To ask for evidence and logic as opposed to uncritically accepting the hearsay of others before granting it the status of knowledge is funny?
I think it comes down to being opposed to those who treat unproven assertions as knowledge. And historically have been all too willing to commit the most horrendous atrocities against those questioned them.
If someone wants to speculate on the existence of fairies, let them. But if he points a gun at me and says I have to live as the fairy queen told him I ought to and that criticism of her and her program is punishable by death I’m going to become intensely resentful.
I think Prof Hicks decided to put a cat among the pigeons with this one. And a bit of mischief too. The tone of his question and example seems weighted in favor of the atheist as a more appreciative sensibility. I would argue (from Scripture) that “His invisible qualities are perceived in His visible works.” I suggest that we appreciate a Rembrandt painting more when we know he done it. “Transcendence” is beside the point. One does not discard the beauty of the stars because they were created, nor is it less when we know the Creator, even by name.
Atheists have the advantage that they don’t believe in anything above matter, energy and life, but theists may be Jews, Christians, or pagans, even Buddhists, a religion with no god. Atheists regularly ask for a “proof” of God, but this proof, like that of the pudding, is in the eating of it.
I think Mr. Fox should avoid his rabid atheistic rants, as the issue discussed here is aesthetic, and very subjective. He seems to assume this website is privileged for atheists, and throws in the old “green goblin” argument. He fears the “Fairy Queen” and taunts his adversary. Perhaps, as J.M. Barrie wrote, one must believe in fairies to see them. “When a child says, I don’t believe in fairies, then a fairy dies.” Green goblins may be visible to some, invisible to others. When Mary is told by Gabriel she will bear a son under God’s spirit, the others of her household thought she was hallucinating. The atheist, with a gynecologist by his side, stands ready to condemn the lass. The “theist” defends this unique event as part of God’s provision of a Messiah. The gynecologist points out that parthenogenesis does occur, but the child is always female, there being no male chromosome. And so, the merry-go-round keeps spinning.
Belief in the Bible “God” requires perception and rational faith to sustain. No one can “believe” or “exercise faith in” [the actual meaning of the Greek] by rational proof. Perhaps atheists believe only through rational proof. But the beauty of stars and flowers and dames can be essayed by any aesthetic person of any religious bent. Faith is not “blind” but an act of confidence based on evidence revealed and its inherent logic. Believers have the hope of life everlasting, but, by their general admission, atheists do not. The new religion is Dawkins’ Darwinian Atheism, of which he is high priest. Yet Dawkins is eager to share his appreciation of worldly beauty. One may see a similar view of this beauty in Gerard Manly Hopkins poems, particularly “Pied Beauty” and “God’s Grandeur.”
The door on this issue continues to revolve. When it will be shut, who can say?