Quiz: Why do people have trouble believing in God?
Michelangelo‘s Creation of Adam with a significant 21st-century alteration. Can you find it? Source: www.fotodiario2.it
That’s the question I’m asking after reading physicist Marcelo Gleiser’s post published last week at 13.7. Pointing to the problems with creationism and the fact that that belief in evolution decreases as church attendance increases, he asks, “Why do so many have trouble believing in evolution?”
But that question can be turned around: Why do so many have trouble believing in God? It’s a fair question, you know, and the answer is not obvious.
But one thing is: God, it seems, is slipping through our fingers. You can’t spend a day in the religion sector of the blogosphere without hearing about newly-minted atheists, deeply ambivalent leavers of church, apatheists who can’t bring themselves to care, and even de-baptisms. The ranks of unbelievers seem to increase every month.
QUIZ: Why do so many people have trouble believing in God?
1. Because science has proven that God is ontologically equivalent to the tooth fairy. Duh.
2. There is no trouble. The blogosphere is not the real world.
3. Because the self-appointed representatives of God who say hateful things or drive Bentleys are more conspicuous than religious people who don’t, and sensible people don’t want to be associated with those clowns in any way whatsoever.
4. Because it’s simpler to say that, good or bad, God is just a Feuerbachian projection of human nature. Christians like MLK and Dorothy Day notwithstanding, God is a head game that needs to be shut down, and the sooner the better.
5. Because your average person would rather be god herself. And, as Walker Percy observed, if there is anything more offensive than the suggestion of the existence of God, it is the existence of two gods.
6. Because Hobbes’ vision of humanity’s natural condition is right: life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Any God worth the name wouldn’t let things be this way.
7. Because even asking the God question adds to suffering. Everyone should follow Buddha’s lead and get on with problems — like suffering itself — that can actually be solved.
8. Because we are coming of age as a species. We’re not Bronze-Age goat herders anymore, sure, but old habits die hard. The letting-go of religion is as necessary as the letting-go of mama’s skirt, and more painful. So you can expect people to let go of God, and for some to make a lot of noise as they do.
9. Because the end of the world is near, and that’s when unbelief spikes.
10. Because Barth was right: God in Christ is the great question mark that is set against us. The sparks fly upward at the mere mention of God. This is a rule.
11. Because it’s a lot easier to worry about my mortgage and Georgia Tech’s miserable season than to get mired in all that God nonsense. Besides, science has pretty much disproved God, right? I mean, hasn’t it?
(Check one)
There are 13 Comments to "Quiz: Why do people have trouble believing in God?"
Paul, glad to see your new post. Hope all is well in your new endeavors.
With respect to your quiz, one could say, “most of the above,” different ones for different people. As for me, I am especially taken with # 5, “Because your average person would rather be god herself.” I think a large chunk of “nonbelievers” don’t want there to be a god (God) because such a Being could (and, according to the Bible as conservatively understood and preached, does) make “demands” on people to do certain things, a sizeable portion of which are not things they like to do (or avoid things they would prefer to do). So they “make their own rules” (make themselves god).
For example, and without trying at the moment to take a position as to the “yea or nay” of such things, conservatively understood the Bible teaches against such things as homosexuality, other sex outside of marriage, abortion, taking God’s name in vain, selfishness, superiority over others, undue lust after financial gain, and a number of other things. Rather than trying to wrestle with such demands, it is much easier to discount their source, and hence reject such a “God’s” existence.
A final possibility, perhaps beyond your list, but somewhat related to the option I just referenced, is a rejection of hell. People shudder to consider such a prospect, and even a substantial percentage of Christians themselves reject its existence. Again, better to deny such a “Being” than accept that there could be such a Being who would create such a place and send anyone there, for any reason. You of course know my position on that front. If Jesus himself frequently spoke on the point (which he did on several occasions) and I want to consider myself a “Jesus-follower” (which I do), I cannot simply deny such a God as that, whether I “like” such a prospect, or even “Person”, or not. God says, “I am that I am,” and we can either accept that or reject that–bearing the consequences, as with our other choices. For me, I believe in such a “God.”
12. It’s difficult to trust those who make claims about God because of the untrustworthiness of their source. Any mention of the Divine interacting with a living brain is literally an unbelievable miracle. Any information is potential misinformation. Mistaken teachings about God and miracles is how those hypotheticals become reified.
Blamer, I don’t understand your second sentence: “Any mention of the Divine interacting with a living brain is literally an unbelievable miracle.” A lot of things interact with the brain–sound waves, via our ears; photons, via our eyes; things that impact our bodies; things we taste; things we smell. And ideas, as a result of what we read or hear other people say, or even originating within our own minds. Why do you say that such interactions are impossible simply because the source may be Divine? The “source” says God sometimes interacted directly by “speaking,” just as a human person would do, for example. In fact, if there is a Divine who created the synapses and neurons in our brain in the first place, I find it difficult to believe that it would be impossible for him to “make them fire” without any “intermediate” source at all. Just asking what you meant by saying such interaction is “unbelievable.”
To clarify, I don’t mean to say it isn’t possible, only that it isn’t believable. A brain might sense the physical part of a miracle, or somehow directly sense God. But he who tells such a story won’t be believed. Except for perhaps by a few locals who implicitly trust that the source (the brain) isn’t mistaken.
The Guardian has this new article that frames belief in God using the familiar “believers Vs atheists” dichotomy, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/26/modern-believer-not-suspicious-enough
This framing seems naive because believers don’t all have the same Divinity in mind, profoundly so.
I’m trying to make the more general point that everybody tends to doubt what a stranger says about their personally received messages from God. The exception is when the witness (unlike a stranger) happens to be your parent or your preacher… or ancient characters in your holybook; Muhammad, Abraham, Paul, Jesus.
It’s good to see you back in action, Paul – with guns blazing too! I hope you are enjoying your new position.
I think your quiz list pretty much sums up most of the reasons people use for not believing in God. There is another argument that I sometimes hear from my non-believer friends. And that is, even if God does exist, that fact, if it is a fact, is irrelevant. They do not see God working in their lives (or anyone else’s), so they merely go about the business of figuring out life without the direct aid of God or religion. This may actually be a form of agnosticism as opposed to atheism, but I find it strangely comforting and quite intellectually honest. And, more importantly, it is non-confrontational. These people are able to live and let live, and it is very difficult to drag them into a religious discussion – how refreshing.
For that reason, item number 7 is probably the one I find most appealing. Why not take the Buddhist perspective? Suffering is something we can both examine and potentially even eliminate, and it can be done pretty much on our own. I’m sure even Buddhists sometimes question whether or not there is a God. And some may even be those non-confrontational agnostics. But, as far as I know, they have never gone to war over their beliefs, or tortured (physically or otherwise) others for not agreeing with them. How could they – that would create more suffering!
I think their is another reason people have a very difficult time in letting go of religion. If they did, it would not only increase their anxiety about “who’s going to watch what we do?”, it would also remove a very important element ingrained in human nature. And, that is our need and desire to argue, fight, become violent, wage war, and all of those other negative attributes we still carry over from our Bronze-Age goat herding days. It always has and probably always will be about our individual egos. It is not only God that we want to hang onto, it’s our uniquely human ability to commit violence, and to be justified when we do. For most of us, violence is no longer necessary for our physical survival, but it still has a hold on us. Many times, if not most times, throughout history, religion has been our justification for acting out our primitive, instinctual need for violence.
Steve, I don’t want to seem to question everybody here, but I don’t really think violence can particularly be laid at the feet of religion. The greatest of all massacres of modern vintage were instituted by Stalin and Mao, both communist deniers of God. Of course there has been (and still is) violence in the name of religion, I acknowledge. But I think the drive to fight and argue is more basic in our character than “imposed” by religious beliefs. In fact, if you consider the perhaps “ultimate” religious figure (at least in many minds), Jesus, he told Peter to “Put away your sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” So, while religion certainly has given us things to “fight about,” I very much suspect we do and will fight about a lot of other things as well.
You make a very fair point, Tom. I certainly don’t lay the blame for all violence at the feet of religion. That would be absurd. We are all familiar with the atrocities of Stalin and Mao, as well as those in Cambodia and Uganda in more recent times. These were far from being inspired or justified by religion.
And yes, violence is deeply etched in human nature. But, how has religion aided us in overcoming this violence, or at least teaching us not to act out? Outside of pointing to the example of Jesus, and being told to imitate Him, what concrete actions does religion take to form us? And how does our constant bickering and confrontations aid us in that formation? I know we don’t burn people at the stake for heresy anymore, but I sometimes wonder if we still would barring the secular authority of society. And what of the religious fanatics in the world; the ones who bomb buildings? Would they still threaten us if they didn’t believe their actions were justified by their religion?
I’m not anti-religion, nor am I an atheist. I’m a believer who just does not know enough to talk about God in a way that I can be certain is truthful. Yes, we get some information from the Scriptures about what Jesus says about God and how to live our lives. But, as Revelation, I think religion has missed the boat. I don’t see the life in it. And I think taht is why so many have dropped out.
When all is said and done, we still inflame one another’s emotions by battling over God or no God, religion or no religion. What is it about this debate that so riles us up? Do we really have to be that “right” about everything? Can we not just believe or not believe, practice or not practice religion, live and let live? If we are to be judged for being a little agnostic, shouldn’t we pass on making that judgment on our own?
Steve, I acknowledge your fair point as well. As John Lennon said, “Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too.” I think certain “fanatics” are motivated by their religious beliefs, at least in part. That’s bad. But I don’t know that ultimately “live and let live” necessarily carries the day, though. Most religious systems call for conduct on the part of their practitioners, not just “beliefs.” In other words, a person cannot truly be “religious” unless he “practices what he preaches.” One tenet of the Christian faith (conservative branch) is that it makes a great deal of difference whether a person subscribes to the faith or not–eternal destination. As such, a true “loving concern” for others (including atheists and agnostics) rather impels the believer to try to “persuade.” Through violent means? Wrong. Yet, by way of “argument,” I don’t think there is necessarily a way ultimately to just “call a truce.” But, I certainly agree that in the final analysis it is each person’s choice of what to believe and accept the consequences of whatever that choice might be; so, let me say that I am not trying to “twist anyone’s arm.” I just think that in the bigger picture, it is pretty hard for religious people to avoid “argument,” though they should (in my opinion, at least), lay off “force of arms.”
Well Tom, you are a “reasonable” conservative. I don’t mean that as a contradiction in terms either! I know of quite a few people I regard as conservative, both in the religious and political sense, who speak with the voice of reason.
For every “unreasonable” (in my opinion) religious person, I can probably point to a half dozen non-believers who are just as unreasonable in their speech and actions. While these discussions and debates will never be without passion, they can at least be civil. I have never known anyone to become reasonable or change their mind while someone is wagging their finger at them. I suppose I hope for a dialectic of some kind eventually.
With all due respect to John Lennon, I have been thinking lately that some people might want to be careful what they wish for. Bound as we are in this current time and place, and from our limited perspective, it’s not possible to fully appreciate the positive effects religion has had on civilization. I’m not sure I want to be around on the day there is “no religion too”!
Of all the reasons people give for not believing in God, there is one for believing in God that I hang onto when all else fails. It’s just too arrogant not to believe! It strikes me that with all of our scientific advancement (which I heartily applaud by the way), there must be a fundamental limitation to what we can ultimately understand about the nature of reality. As a species which is probably no longer evolving (if you accept evolution of course), and is captured in reality, as part of reality itself, how is it possible to objectively explain reality. Are we not too much a part of it to be anything but subjective? We obviously have perceptual limitations in that we can only observe and measure in a uniquely human way. It seems to me that because of this kind of limitation (I’m sure there are more), how is it possible to come to a description of reality that isn’t in itself limited? We may eventually be able to describe the nature of reality to a tee, but isn’t that still just a human explanation; one that fits us? It may be as accurate as we can make it, but it is still inherently limited. Could there not be a different explanation, perhaps by a different species, that has more complete, or advanced perceptual abilities, and fewer or even no limitations?
I suppose that is a more philosophical than scientific question, but I’m pretty sure there are a few scientists out there who would be willing to take a swing at it, and many more philosophers!
Hi Steve, the position you describe supports agnosticism, it isn’t a defence of theism. To be more specific…
“Of all the reasons people give for not believing in God, there is one for believing in God that I hang onto when all else fails. It’s just too arrogant not to believe!”
That is suggesting that because academic knowledge is always limited and tentative (and professors prone to arrogance), it follows that there’s another reliable way to know about reality that academia has shed, presumably for being unreliable… or being not yet being convinced of.
As per my previous comment this is certainly possible, however it’s profoundly uncompelling (unbelievable to others).
As you’re aware, what you personally have in mind is in profound conflict with what others are out there saying about God. If not academia, how can humans reconcile conflict when they speak about the Divine? Arguing that their human brains make unreliable witnesses, but ours don’t, is to pin our hopes on a miracle… which I’ll let you interpret as literally a fluke or divine intervention or poetically/paradoxically both.
Some people who are attracted to the idea of believing in God have may have a problem because, aside from wishful thinking, there is no evident or logically compelling reason to believe. They might think it would be good to believe, but are conflicted by the fact that the suspected goodness of something is not in fact a good reason for believing it to be true.
Fortunately, the lack of any “good reason” to believe in God is not a problem for those of us who have no wish to. Such people don’t have a problem believing in God. They just don’t believe and it’s not a problem.
[...] (Image Source) Share this:FacebookTwitterDiggRedditStumbleUponEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]