Recently, blogger Andrew Sullivan put up a post called "The Scientific View of Man." He ended it with an aside, saying, "If I could disbelieve in God, I would," and two days later, one of his readers wrote back: "Funny, I'm the exact opposite; if I could believe in God, I would."
But what does that phrase mean, "believe in God"? I've most often heard it framed in terms of existence: People will often say to me, "I don't believe God exists," or "I have seen no evidence for God," or "I often question whether there is a God."
But here's the thing: Either God exists, or God doesn't. And we have absolutely no control over that fact. And so because there's nothing we can do about whether there is a God, I've never found that question to be a particularly interesting one to ask. After all, when the question is framed in that way, there are really only three answers people can give: "Yes, I do," "No, I don't" or "I'm not sure."
But there's an even deeper reason why that question is the wrong one to ask. In my experience working in the religious world, the people who tend to ask the question, "Do you believe in God?" are the ones who hope the answer is "yes," while the people who tend to be asked are the ones who are more inclined to say "no" or "I'm not sure." When you're asking a question with an expected answer -- and that answer is the opposite of what you hope it will be -- there's no constructive dialogue. Instead, when someone asks "Do you believe in God?" it simply comes off as a judgmental attack.
In fact, Rabbi David Wolpe recently wrote a piece here asking "Why Are Atheists So Angry?" and while he made some accurate statements, I think he missed the main reason why atheists have problems with religion -- they feel like they are being viewed as "less than" and are being judged in a harsh and negative light.
So because asking "Do you believe in God?" prompts primarily close-ended questions, and is often experienced as a condemnation, I instead prefer to ask two other questions that I have found to be more valuable to explore:
1. How can we bring more justice and kindness into this world?
Regardless of whatever particular worldview we hold, we have a responsibility to find ways to improve ourselves, our society and our world. Now, reasonable people can certainly disagree about the specifics of how we do that, and our personal outlook will obviously affect our ultimate decisions, but most people I have met are striving to create a more just and more kind world.
So by focusing the discussion around how people act more than on what they believe, we can now have a more productive dialogue. Yes, we may all be coming at this question from different ways, but now the arguments stop being attacks and counter-attacks about who is right, and instead, become an exploration about the ways we need to work together to create the kind of world we hope for.
In many ways, author (and atheist) Sam Harris got it right in his book, The Moral Landscape, when he argued that human and societal well-being are directly related to the state of the world and our own mental state, and that "morality" is about how we improve those two states. And so by emphasizing the myriad ways we can explore how to bring more justice and more kindness into this world, we can also recognize and accept the different belief systems that can all ultimately lead to the same end.
2. When have we felt moments of deep connection?
Martin Buber and Abraham Joshua Heschel were two of the most influential Jewish theologians of the 20th century, and both of them pushed us to recognize that our greatest source of joy and wonder are our relationships -- Buber focusing on our interpersonal relationships and Heschel emphasizing our relationship with all of creation.
Buber taught that the most spiritual moments occur when we are truly in relationship with others. His great book describing his theology is usually translated as I and Thou, but a better description would be "you and me." As he claims, our most powerful and most memorable moments occur when we truly feel "there" with and for another person. As Rabbi Dennis Ross explains in God in Our Relationships, "I-Thou is doing, speaking, listening and touching. Not in the I or the Thou, I-Thou is essentially the '-,' the dash that connects two people" (Ross, 53).
Heschel's theology is often called "radical amazement" -- a deep sense of incomprehensibility at the wonder of sheer existence. As he argues, "We can never sneer at the stars, mock the dawn or scoff at the totality of being. Sublime grandeur evokes unhesitating, unflinching awe ... Standing between earth and sky, we are silenced by the sight" (Heschel, Man is Not Alone, 25).
What both Buber and Heschel have in common is that we cannot put into words our most important and most life-changing encounters. Indeed, the more we try to analyze and explain them, the less power they have. Not only that, we cannot ever expect or plan to experience these moments that elevate our soul -- we can only be open to them and hope we are aware enough to feel them and appreciate them when they arise.
These two questions, I have found, resonate with people much more deeply and create much more interesting, much more respectful and much more valuable conversations than asking "Do you believe in God?" These questions prompt people to ask together, "How should I be treating myself and those around me?" "How can we be more open to the varied experiences of life?" Rather than thinking that those who believe in God are "better" than those who don't, each of us can examine how we can be more just and kind, and how we can create a deeper connection with ourselves, with others and with our world.
And what do I believe? For me, I find God when I am grappling with those questions -- and especially when I am learning new ways to try to answer them. And while I certainly can't prove this, I believe that when we are seeking to bring more justice, kindness and connection into this world, we are also bringing just a little more of God into this world, as well.
Follow Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiMitelman
Belief in God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Still, I have many doubts on gods powers, where we came from,apart from biological ways, where we will go after our death.,
Whatever it may be, if there is god, he or she should remove poverty,violence, inequalities on our lives at the earliest.,
Till,today, nobody had answered our basic questions on previous birth, causes and effects of our life after death and so on.,
As an atheist I do not believe that any diety or religion is necessary to "...bring more justice, kindness and connection into this world..."
No matter how reasonable and gently you pose your question it all comes back to increasing belief rather than expanding the good we do as humans. As a non-believer I have volunteered my time, and money to causes that benefit my fellow humans. I do not do so because I feel any sort of diety compels me to do so.
Perhaps instead of praying on the street corner more religionists should actually go out and quietly do the good works their religions expect of them.
read carefully, this is important!
First, never ever mention god, jes.us, the bible, or any religious beliefs in public! Keep them 100% to yourself.
Second, take down all religious symbolism from government buildings.
Third, Stop indoctrinating children, let them grow up completely before poisoning their minds with this bronze-age sheepherder nonsense.
Fourth, stop giving money to churches, instead, take your money to the grocery store and buy some food then take it directly to the poor side of town and find people with children and give it to them.
Voila! Heaven on Earth will appear right before your very eyes, 100% guaranteed.
Really?
Well, in America the the Land of the Free, we can comment on anything we want and I for one will continue to do so.
This way, a theocracy that would encode your ideas into law will never exist.
There is no anthropomorphic god of the desert, whatever more there is it does not resemble any religious notions that you could invent for yourself.
However, you do have to concern yourself with REAL LIFE, like looking both ways before you cross the street...
I would be curious to know if the Rabbi is suggesting the substitution of "do you believe in god?" with these other questions simply because he believes they are more effective means of proselytizing, or if he appreciates that meaningful answers to these questions need not have anything at all to do with belief in God.
When he writes that "different belief systems... can all ultimately lead to the same end" I have hope that he does appreciate that. And I agree that a good way to change the mutual lack of appreciation believers and nonbelievers have for each other might be to talk about other subjects all together. However, the moment either side expresses that God-belief (or lack thereof) is the answer to these questions, the conversation is back to square one. Ideological habits are very hard to break.
DIridescent: "I'm sure they could be great starts to meaningful discussionÂs, provided they are not just round-abouÂt ways for believers to try to stuff the minds of other people with concepts of god as opposed to LISTENING for answers that may not conform to their beliefs."
But I thought the rabbi was being very clear that he was suggesting ways for believers to approach atheists when they approach us, not trying to preach to atheists about how believers prefer that we approach them. I appreciate that effort on his part a lot.
When a product in the market burn out the novelty of its conception, it looks for alternatives ways of asociation. For example a soda might say "forget about the flavor, its all about the style of drinking", cigarettes will go after an image of sucess and sex-appeal,
Religion will go after the "spiritual", its a safe market, nobody question your nonsensical notions, your religion will be less likely to be associated with its own ill side effects, there is already a good PR build around it, it appeals better to younger more educated generations.
Or in one pharse, "It sell beter".
If Creator Then Judeo-Christian God without argument.
This is the arrogance.
There are infinite possibilities for what a Universe creator could be, but I'm certain that what's portrayed in the Bible is pure rubbish and not one of the infinite possibilities.
Answering yes to the question "Do you believe in God" then must somehow immediately conclude God of the Bible is pure arrogance. The notion of the God as described in the Old and New Testaments has always been irrelevant to me because the Creator described in the Old and New Testaments is too ridiculous to ever be taken seriously.
Separate the notion of Universe creator from religion and then you might, might be able to have a meaningful conversation. God is just an arrogant conceit used by religion to promote a religion's supposed, "take our word for it" superiority and to justify self-righteous indignation in the public square by invoking God.
Your question is also too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Of course you know it's all absurd. Everybody knows it's all absurd, ESPECIALLY those of you who complain the most whenever somebody points out the absurdity of your Bronze Age superstitions.
Really? You've heard of "critical thinking skills", right?
The individual is the basis of truth, not the group or mob. The subjective is truer than the objective. The personal is higher than the impersonal. It is a delusion to say science represents some higher, absolute truth. One that voids all personal experience as anecdotal and all life as merely objects.
Mere impersonal objects aren't a very good representation of reality, of life, and yet it's a fundamental of science. If you ignore the laws of science, you will die. But since you're just an impersonal collection of chemicals, it doesn't matter if you die. To science, life on earth is a fungus growing an insignificant rock in an unremarkable galaxy. In this regard, science is fundamentally untrue.
Another fundamental of science is reproducability. Something must be perfectly reproducable for it to be considered true. But ever event is unique, in space, time and initial conditions. For the purpose of utility, science ignores this greater subjective truth for an extracted, representitive truth. True in principle but not in act, in occurance, in event, in actuality, in fact. Because every event is unique. And that's reality.
Sorry 'bout the ramble.
I find it useful to separate atheist reactions to religions and religious beliefs into (1) the metaphysical arguments about the nature of reality, and (2) actions of the various religious groups and organisations in our secular society. The opening question (belief in God) is a problem for atheists as it poses a question without any significant meaning for them and of a purely hypothetical situation with the same relevance as asking about unicorns, fairies, and the usual stereotypical creatures and forces quoted here. The question also becomes highly problematic simply by asking even the most devout believer to explain their meaning of God. From my experience, even the most devoted person is little ability to enunciate the concept of God beyond the standard theological phrases of their religious traditions.
The second aspect of arguing about the role of religious organisations is a whole different argument and one, probably, too involved for here.
Finally, I do disagree with 'we can also recognize and accept the different belief systems that can all ultimately lead to the same end'. I think that's a common claim by liberal religious thinkers like Karen Armstrong, Marcus Borg of Christian traditions. I probably more concur the Stephen Prothero's "God is Not One" book that there irreconcilable differences between religious faiths, such an observer is unable to see anything common beyond providing different and conflicting foundational grand narratives about humans in 'Reality' (as do many naturalists by the way). Alex
Right now I am reading the new book "Allah: A Christian Response (2011) by Miroslav Volf. It is an excellent treatise on the common core of beliefs & differences between Christianity & Islam. I especially enjoy his section titled "Living under the Same Roof." Thanks for your recommendations for authors to investigate.
"How can you possibly believe in god?"
The question is: "Do you believe that mythology and stories from 2000 years ago should tell us how to live our lives, to the extent of basing personal morality and public policy on them? Or, should they merely be treated as fonts of mythological allegorical wisdom, so that Jesus's death and Issac's near sacrifice occupy roughly the same mental space as Poseidon's anger?"
The beginning of the Universe
But Daddy
Where did that
thing
that went BANG!
come from?
Shut up
and eat your oatmeal
You ask too many questions
****************************
[from: www.religio-lines.blogspot.com]
******************************
God
The creator of everything
But Daddy
Where did god come from
shut up
and eat your oatmeal
you ask too many questions.
You dont believe that something starts from nothing, but you have no idea who or what created GOD.
People that are angry about religion usually are angry about the violence, strife, tyranny, ec. that fundamentalists create or try to create. Its not about being viewed as "less than." Believe me, people that don't respect religions due to the multi-thousand year history of religious war, religious atrocity, and all sorts of vile acts done in the name of almost every major religion, aren't worried about their fragile egos....
This author misses the point all together.