The Archbishop of Canterbury and the little old lady might use a different vocabulary to try to explain why they believe, but it comes to the same thing in the end. They believe because they believe. This is not about intellect or learning: it’s more basic than that. It is both more profound and more simple.
I suspect that on the most primitive level it is not all that different from the little scrap of blanket that so many small children rely on. They need it whenever they get tired or life looks a bit threatening.
I invite you to imagine the impossibly grand figure of the Archbishop of Canterbury sitting on the steps of his cathedral with his thumb stuck in his mouth, stroking his bearded cheek with the little bit of satin at the edge of his comfort blanket.
This image may not do a great deal for the dignity of the primate’s office, but the comfort blanket is not a million miles away from what religion offers at its most simplistic. Strip from Christianity the notion of proof, evidence and historical events (or nonevents) and what drives belief has little to do with the head and a great deal to do with the heart.
Many atheists, as my list suggests, say that people believe because of the way they were brought up: children are credulous and accept what they are told. As they grow older they get rid of their comfort blankets and often the beliefs with which they were inculcated. But not everyone does that ”“ and even those who do may return to belief, in one form or another, in later life.
There remains what the atheist philosopher AC Grayling calls “the lingering splinter in the mind . . . a sense of yearning for the absolute”. There is a profound longing for something that will stimulate and satisfy emotionally and spiritually.
Thanks for posting this, Kendall. An interesting article; although obviously I disagree with most of it. But it does provide useful insights into the Atheist/Agnostic thought.
One comment is that John Humpreys could have done better than to quiz Giles Fraser about theology; for example I expect that on his trip to Oxford to interview Fraser he could have picked many other people instead, Alistair McGrath being the example that first springs to mind, who could have provided far more satisfactory answers to his questions on philosophy and theology. And I know many Christians who are just as certain about their faith as the atheists he interviewed are about their lack of it.
However, his (and most atheists) claim that our belief is not based on evidence is what I take issue with. He speaks of first principle proof from reason, as though that could settle anything, or anyone could agree on the underlying assumptions and definitions behind which such proof is built; but he does not mention that that is not the only sort of evidence. Of course, reason and philosophy can and do lead to a catholic and evangelical faith; for example Justin Martyr, Augustine himself, and C.S. Lewis, were all led to Christianity by realising that it fulfilled their philosophical studies. We do not just have reason alone, and we should not rely on reason alone, since our reason is fallible; and this is where Humphreys falls short: reason should be backed up by observation, or reliable record of observation. For the apostles, they did not need to indulge in philosophy to know that Jesus Christ was the son of God: they had seen the resurrection with their own eyes. For us, we have their testimony; and not only that testimony but records of the power and love of God displayed throughout the centuries, down to what we have observed, not to mention the testimony of the holy spirit.
Of course, I do not intend to claim that experience alone is enough either – one needs observation (including revelation about which we can be certain), and reason (as in first principle philosophical arguments) working together – and this is where I think that our worthy opponents fall short; in trying to bend the records of scripture (and other Christian writings) to their philosophy and own (fallible) experiences rather than bend their philosophy to and judge their experience in terms of scripture.
Whether it would be possible to prove from first principles to everyone’s satisfaction the existence of God such as the Christian God by reason alone, even if our knowledge was complete, I do not know, but I do know that orthodox Christianity is not contrary to reason (which is the best that reason can ever say), and that the assumptions we need to make to establish that philosophy (instead of the philosophy behind atheism, rooted on different assumptions) are backed up by observation.
Great comment #1!
The Christian faith cannot be proved by reason, but it is not an irrational faith. It has an internal consistency; it also has many points of congruence with what we can observe.
It is true that fanatical religion can do some awful things. Then again, so can atheism — Soviet Russia and Communist China being profound examples of atheism producing misery.
I also suspect that atheists are comforted by the thought that they will not face judgment — although they are hardly likely to voice this comfort! They would rather invent the god who is not there than to deal with the God who is there.
AS to the ahtiests, there is always Pascal’s gamble, the kind of risk sensible men might not like to take, given what might be at stake. Religious evidence is always a matter of the odds, whether of intellect of faith, and the gamble speaks rather clearly to the odds. LM
3, But then they must freely acknowledge that death is the end. And along with that is the acknowledgment that history and life have no meaning. Life just is and it ultimately makes no difference whether one dies or a billion.
Nature is totally indifferent to humanity and the ultimate truth is Sartre which he quotes:
“One choice is to accept the conclusion reached by Jean-Paul Sartre in The Age of Reason: “There is no purpose to existence, only nothingness.â€
But having gotten to this point Humphrys cops out and says “But however much he may appeal to our reason, Sartre’s conclusion is too bleak for me.†But if it is true, and that is James Sire’s answer in his book “Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?†then why not embrace that dismal truth with gusto.
Like so many struggling with enlightenment reason and the naturalistic worldview he notes its refusal acknowledge any reality beyond the material. If if is not material then it does not exist, and yet in the very next breath he abandons this worldview and acknowledges the existence of the unmeasurable:
[blockquote]Trite it may be, but most of us can see the beauty as well as the horrors of the world and, sometimes, humanity at its most noble. We sense a spiritual element in that nobility and, in the miracle of unselfish love and sacrifice, something beyond our conscious understanding. You don’t need to be an eastern mystic or a devout religious believer to feel that. We should not – we must not – be browbeaten by arrogant atheists and meekly accept their “deluded†label. They are no more capable of understanding this most profound mystery than a small child making his first awe-inspiring discoveries.[/blockquote]
And if he can acknowledge that the enlightenment naturalistic worldview does not match the world we see then why not accept a theistic Christian worldview, which does.
Boring Bloke’s [#1] thoughtful comment says: “One comment is that John Humpreys could have done better than to quiz Giles Fraser about theology; for example I expect that on his trip to Oxford to interview Fraser he could have picked many other people instead, Alistair McGrath being the example that first springs to mind, who could have provided far more satisfactory answers to his questions on philosophy and theology.”
I would guess that in the course of researching his book, Humphrys talked to a lot of people, quite possibly including McGrath. I would also guess that he quoted Fraser in this piece because he could understand Fraser’s views — and, more importantly, his approach.
————
Humphrys ‘ piece hints that he may well obey the Summary of the Law in his life, even if perhaps he doesn’t know it:
• Humphrys seems to recognize and accept that he’s not God. That’s no small thing — some people seem to think they’re entitled to have the world be what they think it is, or what they want it to be, as opposed to what God has wrought;
• Humphrys appears to try to face the facts, to live in the reality that actually exists — or as believers would put it, in the reality that God created — as opposed to living in the fantasy “reality” that we all tend to create in our imaginations;
• We get the sense that Humphrys isn’t a totally selfish man; that at least some of the time he seeks the best for others as he does for himself.
That sounds quite a bit like the Summary of the Law, no? Maybe Humphrys doesn’t “love” God and neighbor, in the sense of love as an emotional state. But it’s not apparent that people have any control over the emotion of love. Where the Summary of the Law is concerned, maybe Humphrys is doing all that’s expected.
And if we’re to believe Jesus’ response to the lawyer, as reported in Luke chapter 10, then perhaps Humphrys the doubter has just as good a shot at eternal life as the most devout of orthodox Christians.
Of course, the well-informed atheist would point out, when confronted with Pascal’s wager, will point out the various apparent flaws in the argument, for example that the wager only offers a choice between the Christian God and atheism; and not all the possible God’s out there. Of course, the easy solution to this objection is to simply include all possible (as in consistent with observation and with a self-consistent theology) Gods, assign various appropriate probabilities to all of them, and, whatever system of probabilities we choose (argue that Gods who punish those who worship him and send those who don’t to heaven are ruled out by philosophical considerations); and the atheist still loses, whatever probabilities you assign to the various possible theologies. Not that that argument would convince the hardest set atheists, who have managed (somehow) to convince themselves that the probability of any sort of God is very close to zero. I sometimes wonder if they are emotionally crippled; need to hold on to that belief as an emotional crutch, just believe because they believe etc., because they are afraid of facing the truth.
But I question whether Pascal’s wager; i.e. fear of eternal torment/promise of paradise is the best reason for becoming Christian. I would prefer people to become Christian out of love of God, creation, and because they desire to become all that their creator intended them to be.
#6
John Humphreys is a well respected radio presenter, one of the hosts of the BBC’s flagship news program; known for his biting political interviews. I personally am a big fan of his broadcasts. I think the work referenced was a series of radio programs rather than a book; in a series of programs he interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Jew a Muslim, and perhaps a few others; none of whom were able to satisfy him.
I did not intend in any way to belittle Humphreys character or journalism skills. I am sure that he is living his life as well as he, or anybody else can. The question is, is that good enough?
Boring Bloke [#8], thanks for the additional info about John Humphrys. I wasn’t suggesting you were belittling anything. FYI, Humphrys’ Sunday Times piece says at the bottom that it’s extracted from his forthcoming book, to be published this Thursday.
#10
My apologies; I obviously didn’t read the small print carefully enough first time round (or do a search on amazon, which gave me the same information). I guess that I’ll have to pick up a copy of the book at some point.
Giles Fraser, founder of the website ‘Inclusive Church’, was a poor choice to consult, but I suspect Humphrys went to him because Fraser sometimes does a religion spot on Humphrys’ morning radio show, in which F. regularly trots out liberal shibboleths (pro-gay, evangelical bashing etc). I can’t imagine he does much teaching of philosophy at Oxford (where he was once a college chaplain), but if his written pieces are anything to go by, his teaching can’t amount to much. If Fraser is really so inadequate as an apologist as these quotes suggest, then he’s simply a fideist, and I would think Dawkins and Grayling must hold him for a fool.
There are many, many true philosophers and theologians in Oxford who could have done a much better job than Fraser, and earlier this year Humphrys himself chaired a big debate in London between an atheist philosopher Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig – who mightily impressed Humphrys with his intellect and breadth of learning (something Fraser doesn’t have). Strange that he doesn’t reference this occasion. Craig, of course, believes there are planety of rational grounds for belief, but also knows that sin has noetic effects.
Humphrys is an interesting character in broadcasting today, an autodidact who left school at 15. Maybe with more education he’d understand the issues a bit better, but at least he doesn’t evince to much prejudice. Given his own religious upbringing and the fact that he’s not married to his ‘partner’, I wonder how this affects his own thinking?
Here’s a reference to the Craig-Wolpert debate that Humphrys chaired:
http://www.bethinking.org/events.php
I think a DVD of this is going to be released. Humphrys can’t say there are no serious Christian intellectuals out there arguing for the rationality of Christian faith – he spent hours listening to one.
#7: YOu said you would prefer people who chose Christianity for some better reason than Pascal’s wager. So should we all, I suppose. But Pascal’s point is rather different, that when looked at with a coldly statistical eye, atheism is a poor risk. This will not generate love – the heart only goes where it is sent – but it will make the spiritually dead stop and think about whether they are as well off as they might be, and if they conclude that they are not, begin to look about with fresh eyes at what evidence there is they had missed. Larry
Atheist tomes are best-sellers. They don’t have to be any good, as Dawkins has amply demonstrated.