Silly Atheist and Skeptic Arguments, Episode I: Lightning and Bronze Age Goat Herding Nomads
Sometimes you just can’t force yourself to answer a silly internet argument, or wherever it’s encountered, for the 111th time. It becomes so repulsively repetitive and trite that you’ll ignore a blog post or comment altogether. That’s probably the best course of action, actually; however, I believe another option is to create a repository of answers to link to in lieu of composing the 111th response to the same silly ol’ arguments. It’s an elegant solution I’ve seen used effectively elsewhere, and I’d like to begin stocking the repository here, to be added to as time goes on. Feel free to suggest possible new entries based on your own travels.
Right. But, first, let’s be fully aware and frank that atheists and skeptics are not the only offenders! In fact, if we’re honest, Christian theists are masters of the silly argument or blog comment. To that end, I’ll also be contributing to a theist’s repository of silly arguments as well. It’s only fair, so if you’re a skeptical type or an atheist, don’t think you’re being singled out, or that this post suggests that all atheists are silly arguers. Are there any atheist or skeptics constant Areopagus readers lurking out there, btw? Feel free to contribute.
Here’s my first: the highly irritating and non-sensical lightning argument that normally devolves into a bronze Age goat herder charge. It typically proceeds as follows:
Mankind used to believe that God(s) threw lightning bolts from the sky. Now science has explained adequately how lightning works. Therefore, it is foolish to believe God influences the physical realm.
Fast Tube by Casper
Silly, indeed. Quit using this argument to prove anything more than the true proposition that we now know the natural causes that produce lightning. Until, of course, we learn even better how those natural causes work.
There are sophisticated arguments similar to this silly one that argue inductively that our increasing knowledge of the physical world has historically pushed the utility of God or the supernatural as a scientific explanation to the edges of the universe. That is not in view here; however, even such arguments do not demonstrate that God is not related to the physical realm, nor can they. A moment’s thought should confirm this.
Your moment is passed. Now, after the initial silliness has passed, generally the goat herders are not far behind. Here it is claimed that the skeptic is armed with science, while the hapless and deluded theist relies upon the oral traditions of Bronze Age desert nomad goat herders–there are a multitude of variations on the theme–to arrive at truth.
Again, quit the silliness. We’re confident that Bronze Age, and Stone Age for that matter, peoples understood that 1+1=2, or that a triangle has three sides. Which of these statements is no longer true? Develop it countless ways; the truth remains: what was true then necessarily, is true now necessarily. The time and place and Age in which the truth was apprehended is frankly irrelevant.
Not to mention that the New Testament was not written in the Bronze Age, but as I’ve said, that’s wholly irrelevant. Bronze Age arguments are ridiculous, and amount to nothing more than mere bluster and irrational ridicule. What’s true must be determined on other grounds. Roughly, Bronze Age arguments are genetic fallacies.
Can’t you just hear skeptics in the year 4000 ridiculing people for their Space Age or Computer Age beliefs?
29 comments
“The time and place and Age in which the truth was apprehended is frankly irrelevant.”
Well, the whole implication of “Bronze Age” as a pejorative is based on the assumption of lesser human intelligence ascending to greater intelligence through the past, and on claimed correlation between certain indicators of technological/infrastructure development and human development as a species. At least, where it suits the case. It’s kind of hard to ignore a Giza, but it can be done.
It’s very much a grade-school over-generalization. Without trivializing the usefulness of period demarcations in archaeological classification, the phrasing which lines up better with the layman thinking you’re referencing is not so much “When was the Bronze Age?” but “Where is/was the Bronze culture?” After all, it’s the goatherds (sheep, actually, Gen. 47:3/Luke 2:8ff) and their superstitions we’re concerned about, and the persistence of their cultural influence today.
Culture and technology go through rises and falls related to population redistribution (think of the settlement of the Americas and the difference between a pioneer’s hut and, say, a European cathedral with flying buttress engineering), natural catastrophe (numbers of modern communities reduced to minimal technology, at least temporarily, over the last few years), and of course, war, genocide and the inclinations of societal and governmental power structures.
As you say, these ebbs and flows of technology and infrastructure throughout history have no bearing on the truthiness of truth. There would be no Pyramid of Giza without 1+1=2, and of course triangles.
I suppose that might be my addition to the General List of Silly…maybe next time I’ll flip back to my originating worldview and lay out some Christian silliness. “Because the Bible says so” as a final answer comes to mind…appeal to authority has never worked on me, to the point where I’ve been labelled a de facto blasphemer for rejecting that line.
Interestingly, God has not struck me with a lightning bolt for this. In fact, I almost get the impression He prefers to cultivate thoughtfulness rather than sheeple (Isa. 41:20-22).
Excellent video clip, my man. The kids flocked instantly to my desk.
21st century goat-herding techniques…?
Nice. I do a similar thing, only I call it “False Arguments.” It’s time to add some new ones, too. I’ve been pretty consumed with other things lately, though. Looking forward..
Very familiar with that series, cl. It’s a good one. I can really use something to link to here, so I figured I’d get started.
So, I’m sitting at work today minding my own business, and one of the resident skeptics, who I happen to be fond of, btw, starts in on me. Yes, no kidding, this very argument, unprovoked.
“Well, the whole implication of “Bronze Age” as a pejorative is based on the assumption of lesser human intelligence ascending to greater intelligence through the past,”
Exactly, and if that sentiment is correct, then it self-refutes per my last line, or at best mires in some type of age/knowledge relativism.
““Where is/was the Bronze culture?”
You know, I don’t think you have to look that hard to find it still around today.
“I suppose that might be my addition to the General List of Silly…”
Well, start storing them up and we’ll eventually get them all down here…
Working on the appeal to Scriptural authority one…will post a perspective at Scienda soon.
cl, I see I made it onto your sidebar. Sweet.
MS,
Is comment #4 the conversation you had with the skeptic? If so, remind that science supports the observation that our brains are shrinking. I think we’ve become a bit arrogant on account of modern privileges. I tend to define “intelligence” as more than just data absorbed or quantity of “correct facts” one’s retained. It’s also a matter of unadulterated processing power; unbridled use of a mind capable of eternity. In many ways, I’d argue that peoples living thousands of years ago were more intelligent than we are. I would argue that the Ionian philosophers were far more intelligent than today’s average scholar, though today’s average scholar certainly has more data absorbed and “correct facts” at his or her disposal.
I linked to this post off of my own FA 13, figuring the more angles people hear, the better. Hope ya don’t mind.
CL Dyck,
Well, the original idea was to balance out hate comments with positive ones. Yours was positive. I lurk at your blog, but often can’t think of anything worth saying. I just, enjoy.
“In many ways, I’d argue that peoples living thousands of years ago were more intelligent than we are.”
Yes, I agree. Thanks for the tip on the brain. Wasn’t aware of that one.
“I linked to this post off of my own FA 13, figuring the more angles people hear, the better. Hope ya don’t mind.”
Pleased, actually.
“Sometimes you just can’t force yourself to answer a silly internet argument, or wherever it’s encountered, for the 111th time. It becomes so repulsively repetitive and trite that you’ll ignore a blog post or comment altogether.”
Stop that. It’s silly…All it takes is a little ‘precision and drilling’ to train your mind to not grow weary of the repetition.
13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” 15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (1 Peter 3)
A little out of context, perhaps, but a good reminder that we’re to do our part to publicly proclaim God’s truth. Times do arise when we would be wise to hold our tongues, but other times we just might be the avenue through which the Holy Spirit draws someone, even if we think we can’t stomach addressing yet another inane argument.
“A little out of context, perhaps, but a good reminder that we’re to do our part to publicly proclaim God’s truth.”
Right. Admonishment accepted, Shema, but you will notice that technically, the article was designed as a potential link-back to the silly arguments, thus achieving what it is you stress in a manner much more attuned to stewardship principles, while still providing an answer.
PS- FG called and he needs you to answer some of his rather lengthy questions
Touche, quixote.
btw, Happy Birthday again, Ray!
Shema,
Two words for my birthday:
HOOK ‘EM!
…and hopefully three (or five) more:
BCS Championship Game!
cl
“In many ways, I’d argue that peoples living thousands of years ago were more intelligent than we are.”
Nicely worded paragraph. I likes.
“I lurk at your blog, but often can’t think of anything worth saying. I just, enjoy.”
Perfect, actually; feel free to jump in with things “not worth saying” anytime. Scienda has a minimum 75% silliness quota in effect in the comments section. We had to institute this in order to accommodate MSQ, obviously.
Although silent enjoyment is also good to hear, and perfectly welcome also.
I’ve been doing the same around your place, as time permits.
Shema,
And your next post is going to be…?
Looking forward to it…
“Shema,
And your next post is going to be…?
Looking forward to it…”
Stop nagging me about it…
*wink*
(Thank you for the encouragement!)
“Stop nagging me about it…”
Aw, come on, incorrigibility is why your brother and I get along so famously. Can’t ask a leopard to change its spots…and so that post is when?
*wink back*
Incorrigible encouragement available anytime.
Ha! Well, okay then!! No more excuses, I guess..
[...] HT: MSQ [...]
Scienda perspective now posted, and cl, you’ll note the first commenter is of course my husband griefing me over it, as only he can. (“Woman, shut up! Because I said so!”)
“Are there any atheist or skeptics constant Areopagus readers lurking out there, btw? Feel free to contribute.”
Yep.
“Well, the whole implication of “Bronze Age” as a pejorative is based on the assumption of lesser human intelligence”
Not necessarily. This use of “Bronze Age”, however inaccurate it may be (especially as regards the New Testament), it is not primarily based on the assumption of lesser human intelligence, but rather it is based on the assumption of lesser human ignorance over time, from past eras until now.
I’m not here to argue over whether humans are less ignorant or not and how much that affects religious beliefs (although I do believe that humans are less ignorant about their world today than in the past), but that is the angle I’ve seen that accusation leveled on by those who’ve made it.
Anyway, I think this series is a good idea. I appreciate the fact that you’re searching for silly arguments in equal-opportunity style. Thanks.
Tele,
Hey man, how’ve you been? Well, hopefully. By way of introduction, Tele has proven himself a very considerate and thoughtful commenter, both on his blog and elsewhere, one who has the uncommon and noteworthy good habit of crossing ideological lines when he perceives rationality on the other side, and is always a very welcome and good acquaintance of mine.
Equal opportunity, for certain. Cathi-Lyn took a good whack at the “because the Bible says so” argument at her place. In fact. I’m much more interested in exposing the bad theistic arguments-and there are plenty to go around-than I am the atheistic ones, and I’m not interested in singling out any particular skeptic.
Glad you got this one. For the record, I’ve never seen you do it, and if so, use the good one I alluded to in the OP, as it appears you are in your middle paragraphs. If you have a silly theistic argument in mind, feel free to share it.
Glad you made it by, Tele. Take care.
Thanks, MS. I don’t have the greatest amount of time to write or the greatest amount of inclination, but by lurking, I try to keep up with things as I can.
One faulty argument I’ve made in the past is assuming the uniformity of beliefs, especially in theism. As a skeptic, I know that it’s irritating to have people *tell me* what I believe, which appears to be arrogant and thoughtless. However, I know that it’s just as easy to say “this is what Christians believe” or “this is what theists believe” without considering the diversity of beliefs or the statements and ideas actually expressed by individuals. It’s usually dangerous to assume that the beliefs of any group or person are monolithic or unchanging.
Also, another thing I’ve noticed in conversations about religion (or any other matter really) is the shifting burden of proof. If you ask me about my beliefs on morality, and I start talking about higher criticism, then that’s definitely a silly argument in my opinion, even if it’s technically correct. By changing the subject from the original topic, people often weasel their way through discussions. If I can’t defend my beliefs about morality, then it does absolutely no good for me to lecture you about some other subject. I’ve seen this happen all too often, as people assume that “I can defeat your beliefs with ‘x’ and ‘y’ even if I can’t answer your questions about ‘z’”.
Hey, Tele. I believe I’ve seen you around a couple of other places, and can certainly acquiesce to the introduction Quixote’s given you as a result.
Appreciate your thoughts, here. FWIW, I run Scienda as a semi-closed community for quieter, more relaxed exchanges, but you’re one guy who’s welcome to come by anytime.
“As a skeptic, I know that it’s irritating to have people *tell me* what I believe”
Oh, no kidding. The first of these discussions I had where MSQ graciously got involved, some guy popped by to tell me what I and my entire family of skeptics believed and didn’t know they believed. I failed to control my temper–it was very insulting to my loved ones, who are a really delightful pack of semi-bohemian intellectuals ranged along the spectrum of skepticism.
“I’ve seen this happen all too often, as people assume that “I can defeat your beliefs with ‘x’ and ‘y’ even if I can’t answer your questions about ‘z’”.”
As if it were all about defeating someone’s stance at all costs, eh (sorry, I’m Canadian)…something of a self-defeating attitude, in my opinion. Besides silliness of argument, it quite ruins the whole part about making friends and having some fun with quality expression of ideas.
Glad to make your acquaintance.
“Can’t you just hear skeptics in the year 4000 ridiculing people for their Space Age or Computer Age beliefs?”
LOL LOL LOL !!!
Not sure why I didn’t catch that the first time around.
Tele or Quixote,
“This use of “Bronze Age”, however inaccurate it may be (especially as regards the New Testament), it is not primarily based on the assumption of lesser human intelligence, but rather it is based on the assumption of lesser human ignorance over time, from past eras until now”
I’m not much for this stuff, but if I have it straight, this refers to God of the gaps, right?
fwiw, Tele, I was deliberately scraping the bottom of the barrel with the “appeal to uniformitarian genetic novelty” interpretation–hence “grade school.” Quixote did ask for arguments so silly we get tired of hearing/answering them. GOTG, from the little I’ve seen of it, contains more room for sophistication, as against a take that relies on a misconception of evolution as straight-line and predictable like an ape-to-man chart.
But as I say, that’s not my sweet spot–I do cultural apologetics, with a particular weakness for social justice/human rights and their relationship to the Bible. I have much to learn in other areas.
Roughly, God of the gaps is generally thought to be a postulation of an act of God to account for an event, cause, or phenomenon that is currently not explainable scientifically, or by naturalism overall. Naturalists typically do not utilize God of the gaps thinking, as they believe everything is explainable through science and naturalism, at least in principle. However, they do at times engage in a reverse type of GOTG argument by which they appeal to his non-existence or non-agency through his supposed failure to appeal. As I’ve mentioned before, summon your philological skills; we’d like to have a catchy phrase that rivals GOTG for this reverse appeal.
The naturalistic argument referring to less human ignorance over time is really simply an induction that since natural causes increasingly deliver known causes for events, God, as an explanation for phenomema, is increasingly forced to the fringes of the known universe. IOW, once we thought God hurled lightning bolts; now we may only attribute first causes, as in the Big Bang, and other less understood facets of the natural world (consciousness, perhaps) to him due to our knowledge acquired through science. It is therefore assumed that this trend will continue as we progress scientifically.
Unfortunately, induction of this type is only as good as its latest sale. It’s truly a “what have you done for me lately” mode of thought. As inferential tool, it works thusly:
Obsevation 1: a black raven
O2: black raven
O3: black raven
…
O400 black raven
Conclusion: therefore all ravens are black.
The problem is, logically, you’ve really not proven anything. There may be a white raven one day, thus spoiling all the fun. In terms of the discussion above, you have something like the following in the arguments from naturalists:
O1: lightning has been explained scientifically; it turns out it’s not God hurling bolts.
O2: the rotation of the earth around the sun has been explained scientifically; it turns out we’re not the center of God’s universe.
O3: disease has been explained scientifically; it turns out disease is caused by microscopic organisms, not by a curse from God.
O4: and so on…
Therefore, one day, in principle, everything will be explained naturally, leaving no room for the God hypothesis. But, again, nothing is really proven. It’s more an inductive hunch.
There’s much to be said for this pragmatically. It’s good to know natural causes, after all. Nonetheless, what can this method of induction actually tells us about God? The answer is, nothing, really, given that (once again inductive) arguments of His hiddeness are false (and they are). All it can deliver is a proper understanding of secondary causation: the lightning bolts themselves and how they operate. It can tell us nothing about God’s primary causation.
Christianity teaches that God created, governs, and sustains the universe through his providence. Moreover, it teaches that God acts concurrently in the affiars of men. Though science tells us *how* things work, it tells us nothing about *why* they work, and certainly lacks any ability to even approach God’s primary cause interaction and governance with and of these natural secondary causes. IOW, he could still be throwing the lightning bolts and science would lack the capability to detect it.
In a very real sense, rather than being banished to the outer reaches by science, God, if He exists, would be right here among us, guiding the world as He sees best. We would need a method other than scence to arrive at this knowledge. Fortunately, we possess such a method at our disposal.
And, it just so may be that this inductive argument from naturalism is currently undermined, and perhaps refuted, by the design inference. If the design inference proves out in the years ahead, science itself will have disproved this naturalistic line of thinking. Or, likewise, if cl’s arguments for consciousness prove out, it’s virtually damning for this naturalistic claim. It will be interesting to watch events unfold, and certainly, an irony the size of which is rarely seen. And that’s the problem for the naturalist with regard to this argument: theism may always in principle be proven deductively and by direct observation. After all, everyone will die one day and test it, if, of course, God does not peel back the sky first and demonstrate it firsthand. Unfortunately, and here’s the irony, there’s just not a comparable, conceivable manner in which naturalism could be empirically verified.
MS Quixote,
I agree with the entirety of the first part of your reply, essentially agreeing that, “All it can deliver is a proper understanding of secondary causation: the lightning bolts themselves and how they operate. It can tell us nothing about God’s primary causation.”
Yes, one white raven (as in your example) is enough to conclusively establish the failure of my black raven-style inductive argument.
I am espousing a somewhat radical level of skepticism, and I am comfortable with that.
“Christianity teaches that God created, governs, and sustains the universe through his providence. Moreover, it teaches that God acts concurrently in the affairs of men. Though science tells us *how* things work, it tells us nothing about *why* they work, and certainly lacks any ability to even approach God’s primary cause interaction and governance with and of these natural secondary causes. IOW, he could still be throwing the lightning bolts and science would lack the capability to detect it.”
Science does tell us how things work, but not why they work. The Bible and Christian tradition at various points also try to tell us how things work, but often these passages and ideas conflict with science. All of us accept that Christians are highly diverse and have many approaches to this analysis of the relationship between scientific and religious hypotheses about our world.
Some Christians accept that the “hows” traditionally offered are metaphorical, but that the “whys” are literal. Some believe that the “hows” and the “whys” are literal, and that science must be incorrect as a result.
I accept the scientific explanations that we have so far. If science ever confirms that some of the things the Bible and Christians said for the “hows” to be true, then all the better for me to believe that. However, this has yet to happen.
I view Christianity as an inductive-based approach in the same manner as naturalism. For Christianity to be true, there are many assumptions that must also be true which are prior to it, including the existence of supernatural entities, life after death, etc.
I agree that science cannot show that there are no gods guiding the world. However, I also believe that science does not show any evidence that there is a God or gods guiding the world.
For me, there is just no evidence to sustain belief in Christianity. Its priors (that there are supernatural entities, that there is life after death) are not logically coercive to me. I see no evidence for them which would compel my acceptance of Christianity.
At the end of the day, while I agree with you that naturalism cannot be empirically verified, I still accept naturalism because I believe that naturalism is the hypothesis which most closely matches the evidence which is available. I do not accept Christianity or any other religion because I do not believe that they match the evidence which is available.
In my opinion, there are many things which could at least strongly suggest that Christianity is not empirically true, some of which, in my opinion, have already been demonstrated.
The evidence for the suspension of consciousness (and therefore personhood) after physical death is, for me, overwhelming. The ways that personalities change when the brain is damaged, the things we know now about the brain – I believe these examples build a strong case that whatever we are, it does not survive after physical death, which defeats one of the prior arguments to which one must assent before one assents to Christianity.
“I am espousing a somewhat radical level of skepticism, and I am comfortable with that.”
I think I understand you, here, Tele, but I quite disagree. Skepticism in line with induction is quite reasonable, and you’ve left your mind open to further developments that might question or contradict your worldview. Perfectly reasonable, my friend.
“I view Christianity as an inductive-based approach in the same manner as naturalism. For Christianity to be true, there are many assumptions that must also be true which are prior to it, including the existence of supernatural entities, life after death, etc.”
Well, not so fast. Christianity, in particular, rests on deductive proofs within time-space and history, such as the resurrection. For theism in general, which accounts for your priors such as the supernatural, natural theology sets forth deductive proofs for the existence of these entities. They may or may not be persuasive to you, but they’re deductive nonetheless. However, as a matter of fairness, I find some of the inductive paths to theism highly persuasive, as you note. The world just doesn’t make sense or seem complete to me given naturalism.
“The evidence for the suspension of consciousness (and therefore personhood) after physical death is, for me, overwhelming.”
If you have an interest in this, here’s a place where a lot of interesting discussions are ongoing on this subject, and a place where you’ll receive a challenging, but rational fair-hearing from a believer’s perspective on consciousness from a bit more scientific perspective than I can offer you: http://www.thewarfareismental.info/the_warfare_is_mental/2009/12/amp-4.html. If I engage you on consciousness, it’s going to be more philosophical, relating to qualia, perception, nominalism and such, which is generally unconvincing to skeptics. The TWIM link is on the blogroll.
Please return often and whenever something strikes you, Tele, whether in agreement or disagreement. Your view is always welcome, especially when it can clarify things from your side of the fence. You’re a tribute to your side.
Quixote,
“Roughly, God of the gaps is generally thought to be a postulation of an act of God to account for an event, cause, or phenomenon that is currently not explainable scientifically, or by naturalism overall. Naturalists typically do not utilize God of the gaps thinking, as they believe everything is explainable through science and naturalism, at least in principle. However, they do at times engage in a reverse type of GOTG argument by which they appeal to his non-existence or non-agency through his supposed failure to appeal. ”
Okay. I know what idea I’m thinking of, but had the wrong nomenclature in mind. Familiar with this also, just not the high-falutin’ appellation.
“The naturalistic argument referring to less human ignorance over time is really simply an induction that since natural causes increasingly deliver known causes for events, God, as an explanation for phenomena, is increasingly forced to the fringes of the known universe.”
Yes, that idea. *wallflowerish blush* Glad for a patient instructor.
“Though science tells us *how* things work, it tells us nothing about *why* they work, and certainly lacks any ability to even approach God’s primary cause interaction and governance with and of these natural secondary causes.”
That one’s been in my awareness for some time, but as usual I like the BT phrasing best.
“if, of course, God does not peel back the sky first and demonstrate it firsthand.”
It was a good time singing, eh…especially with our old deacon buddy on the bass part.
Either way, it’s well with my soul.
Tele,
Pardon me for intruding again. This is more a point of trivia for Quixote’s interest.
“The evidence for the suspension of consciousness (and therefore personhood) after physical death is, for me, overwhelming.”
At one point in the past, I agreed with that wholeheartedly, to the point where I would have said — did say — “regardless of what I or others might wish to imagine, I must conclude it to be so.” In other words, it wasn’t a defining question in my conversion to Christianity, in terms of requiring my prior assent in order to examine the Christian gospel. To eventually place faith in the gospel, I did have to assent to the resurrection of Christ, but the resurrection was quite literally the last obstacle to my mind, not the first.
MS Quixote,
Thanks for the link to information and discussion on consciousness. I will check it out – it is something that fascinates me, and in the coming years I believe that a lot of study will be undertaken which should vastly increase our knowledge about consciousness – at least, that is what I hope will happen.
I appreciate your note that there are several deductive paths to Christianity, as well as several inductive paths which you note that you find quite convincing.
I am not as familiar with the deductive proofs of natural theology – or am I? Is this the territory of the ontological or first-cause arguments?
I can sympathize with your concern that the world doesn’t seem as complete given naturalism. It’s interesting that I feel the same way when imagining a world given theism, that we both feel this way.
I was chatting with a friend of mine who has been a life-long non-believer last summer. I asked him how he felt about the possibility that there is no ultimate meaning in our Universe. My friend said that he didn’t care, that he didn’t think about it – he shrugged it off, and said that it didn’t matter.
While I am inclined to agree with his view that a lack of ultimate meaning does not incapacitate me from living a life with some purpose, I am still shocked by his apathy when it comes to the question of ultimate meaning. What do you mean that there are all of these people and places and things and it’s all here for absolutely no reason, or so it may appear? That possibility means nothing to you?
We human beings, we typically assume when we grow up, if we’re lucky, that there is some sense of stability which permeates existence. Yet there is much disruption: war, famine, natural disasters all take their toll on our sense of “normalcy”. It’s difficult to believe that we don’t inhabit a “stable” society or a “stable” world or a “stable” universe. There’s got to be some underlying *there* there, it seems. It feels like this can’t be here for nothing, and sometimes I share that feeling. It’s difficult for me to accept that any “stability” is our lives is largely produced by those around us and those who have come before us, not as a basic fact of our existence.
This apparent lack of stability, this apparent lack of any “divine plan” is one of the inductive factors which has contributed to my naturalistic beliefs, especially when this is applied to the lack of stability in human religious beliefs and belief systems, which further casts doubt on the validity, for me, of religious ideas. Humans all over the world kill each other, civilizations rise and fall, laws are set and laws are broken, beliefs are spread and beliefs die, beliefs change and shift with all of these trends – this sense of transience, this sense of un-orderliness is pervasive for me when I examine our history and how we got here. It’s troublesome for me to say that there is some divine intelligence which is directing and regulating it all.
Leave a Comment