some thoughts on God, Faith and atheism

[axel]

This is an important debate and although this question has already been raised and discussed, I wanted to share a few thoughts on the subject. Hopefully, these arguments will shed some light on the issue through a different perspective.

 

The question of the existence of God can be answered quite simply, as someone pointed out, as God is first and foremost a spirit and this spirit that encompasses all ideals (Beauty, Truth, Justice...) exists if only by the fact that some are inspired by it, as revealed by their acts in this world.

 

Art is the projection of Beauty in the material domain but Beauty is an abstract ideal that has no material grounds. The existence of Beauty cannot be rationally proven, is that to say that it doesn't exist? Science is about deriving models to describe material phenomenons, it cannot encompass everything. It surely cannot explain anything in the absolute. Indeed, scientific theories are, by nature, constructions built upon (relative to) a given model (or representation) or a set of axioms. God being an absolute, it is out of the reach of science.

 

Of course, one can try to build a world without God and define a society as a federation of self-interests (which is the predominant model, derived from the philosophies of the likes of Hobbes and Rousseau). The question is whether such a society is capable of achieving anything. The example of the tower of Babel is quite eloquent. The fact that it has been identified in ancient times is revealing of the eternal nature of problems man is faced with.

 

I'd like to ask the following questions to the proponents of atheism:

 

Can Justice be achieved without righteous people? if Justice is not the ideal of a society, what is? do you think that Man can be righteous and work towards this ideal of Justice if he doesn't have faith in an ideal that transcends himself? If God doesn't exist, then Man IS God. If Man is God (ie his own ideal and thus his own end), then everything is allowed. The consequences of such belief can be seen in our tragic world. If you believe that we have to follow some ethical principles in our life (and not just adopt a legalistic attitude, for human laws or political systems (eg. democracy) do not guarantee that people do good) regardless of the existence of God, ask yourself why.

 

Actually the fact is we all, consciously or not, follow the precepts of a religion in the sense that our actions are based on moral judgements, on a conception of good and evil. The materialistic and anthropocentric religion (for we have to agree that atheism, the religion of man divinised, which should better be thought of as theophobia, is a religion in itself) that has served as a foundation for modern societies is not superior to that of Christ, it is in fact its negation. The twentieth century has been the tragic illustration of the advent of evil and lie as the fundamental basis of our world.

 

In the end, the essential challenge Man has to endorse in his existence and in history is to reach for something higher by dominating the animal instincts that enslave him to the material world and by defeating his ego and solipsism in order to tend towards altruism and harmony. This is the message of Christ. This is the true meaning of Freedom, the triumph of will. Christ came to raise the level of humanity. Those that scorn Him in fact work, not for the evolution, but for the regression of humanity towards bestiality. This is the hidden goal of atheism.

 

Conceptually, there are three ages in life and in history, the first is that of intuition (and ignorance), the second of reason and knowledge (including the one of evil and suffering) and the third is that of understanding (and the triumph of good over evil). Symbolically, these can be related to the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.

 

I encourage those who (wrongly) consider themselves as atheists to read Dostoyevsky especially "The Karamazov brothers". If you fail to understand the intrinsic nature of Christianism, it is because you falsely equate it with a set of beliefs or superstitions spread by spiritual crooks or simple-minded people.

 

Nothing is as strong as Faith. Faith is the basis of Life and creation, spirit is the root of culture. When spirit runs dry, culture cristallizes into civilization (as the Greek culture into the Roman civilization) and disappears.

 

Atheism/theophobia is the religion of death and destruction. There is no such thing as atheist art. So-called modern art is just a materialistic parody intended for a consumerist society, for Art is not a product to be consumed but the very expression of the Soul.

 

Armenian identity and culture is fundamentally linked to its spiritual integrity. It cannot be sustained if we, Armenians, lose our Faith. There can be no unity without spiritual communion. This is known to our ennemies and that is why their goal is to destroy our Faith (and that of other people) for their strategy is to divide and conquer. Do not be fooled and do not unconsciously serve their purpose.

 

PS: for an interesting perspective on western civilization: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/...arvard1978.html

[Sip]

Very interesting discussions!

 

Axel, I am puzzled about something as I have heard this before as well. What is your definition of "Atheism"? My dictionary says it's "disbelief in existance of God or deities".

 

Now I got the feeling that you equate atheism and theophobia (dictionary says "hatred or excessive fear of God") at some levels ...

 

So my confusion is, that I seem to fall in the "Atheist" category and certainly NOT in the theophobic category. Also, my own personal religion is certainly not one of "death and destruction". Therefore, I am confused with what you are trying to convey when you say "Atheism/theophobia is the religion of death and destruction".

 

 

 

MJ, very interesting observation about man cannot be God if there is no God

[Sip]

How so? If faith is so strong, how come so many are "unfaithful" in the world?

 

So I strongly disagree with the first part of your statement. As far as mainstream religions, I think their existance is mainly due to "fear". Yes, FEAR is a strong force. Fear of the unknown, fear of being judged, fear of future pains is much much stronger than any faith.

 

I'd say greed is even stronger than faith. Actually, a lot of things are stronger than faith. Faith is easily broken. Very easily. Unless, there is a force keeping it in place, such as fear , or the promise of something good in return for the "faith".

[hyebruin]

True faith can only be attained when one expands his or her consciousness big and wide enough to realize that we(all life) are conncected to one another and to the universe by a force that defies time and space and CANNOT be explained physically since science does not have the machinery to disprove or prove such existence. When one hurts all hurt, we are all affected by our joys and our sorrows...some of us have decided to cut ourselves off from the universe, from other fellow humans. (this is how I explain the lack of remorse or conscience in ruthless criminals)...what most people don't realize is that these same criminals themselves are in pain, deapair, and agony because they're cut off from all life...so cut off that they've become desensitized to the pain their soul endures!(ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR THEIR ACTIONS! THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE...THEIR FREE WILL!!!) Such pain only love and grace can heal...misery and confusion start when we ONLY look with physical eyes "OUT THERE" and try to explain things that can only offer insight when we look with SPIRITUAL EYES...WITHIN... There is NO greater wisdom and illumination and clarity and understanding when we look inside ourselves and nurture the God-like part of ourselves...this is where true peace and happiness reside

[MJ]

Here, I meant to say, "... why do we need unity amongst Armenians beyond what is already apparent - ..."

 

Overall, what I have been trying to say is that the concept of God is unduly ideologisized in the above material. If it is about spirituality, it cannot be about morality (morality can be quite non-spiritual), 'wisdom,' national unity, etc.

 

I think Hyebruin's contemplation on the subject of God is more convincing.

 

[ January 12, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[THOTH]

MJ - quite impressive. I'm surprised at your enlightnement. I had thought you perhaps fooled (though certainly no fool...)

 

Axel - your arguments seem to me as some sort of self-fulfiling prophecy...and I disagree with just about everything you propose as true...

 

Sip - also some good points...

 

I would perhaps elaborate but the power of the wine is much to strong...best to relax and just enjoy...later...

[MJ]

Well, Thoth, I am always flattered to receive a stamp of approval from you.

[MJ]

Dear Axel,

 

I like the way you write and appreciate your emotions.

 

However, I disagree with several of your statements. Let’s see if I can elaborate adequately.

 

For example, when you define God as an “absolute” and as “out of reach for science, which encompasses all ideals,” I think it doesn’t serve the purpose, since you are merely substituting the concept of God, and everything which is attributable to God by the concept of “spirit.” One of the problems is that spirit is even more complicated subject/object to comprehend than God. Second, what God encompasses or not does not shed light on the essence of God, but describes some of God’s properties/qualities.

 

Much like you have successfully described the nature of science, Beauty also exists only within the perimeters of various axiomatic frameworks, therefore, I disagree that it is an abstract category in the sense that we are unable to comprehend Beauty as an abstract category, but can only deal with its particular manifestation.

 

I also think that it is quite possible to build societies with God and accomplish quite a bit. In my view, the contemporary [especially] European society is an example. The fable of the tower of Babel may indeed be eloquent, but so is the legend of Pygmalion, for example.

 

I also think that the righteousness of people is not necessarily a religious or spiritual category. Righteousness has not much to do with the spirituality and faith, overall. Entire civilizations (such as the Roman) and religions (such as Judaism) are based on the concept of righteousness without requiring referral to God.

 

I also disagree with your logic that if, “God doesn’t exist than Man is God.” I think if God doesn’t exist, Man cannot be God, at least because there is no God.

 

Our actions are definitely based on moral judgments, but religion is not the sole source of morality. Morality, which itself appears to be a relativistic issue, has its source in human experience rather than anything else. One can also claim that people have created and recreated God in their own image, based on their own experience in different stages of development of society.

 

I also think that the twentieth century has been the most moral century in the history of Humanity, despite all the human cataclysms in that century. At least in the sense of the elevation of the human consciousness to unparalleled heights on the stage of morality.

 

I also like your classification of the three ages in life and history. However, I fail to accept your symbolic explanation of it through “incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.” I would rather say that these stages are indicative of evolution of human thought, since God is a static concept, at least in the realm of all major religions.

 

I also disagree with your contemplation on the subject of art, especially the “so-called modern art.” In fact, I think modern art is as far from consumerism as art can possibly get. The average Armenian consumer, for example, just wants Mt. Ararat on his/her wall. Similar examples can be brought for other nationalities. Consumers don’t want modern art. Those, who are in search of their spirituality, are the ones who want modern art.

 

As far as death and distraction are concerned, based on human history, there has been nothing more distractive and death-delivering than Religion, Faith, God, etc. Human history is one big Genocide in the name of God, or if God exists, then by God.

 

I don’t know if there is atheist art. I doubt that art has an objective of being atheist or religious. Art is a form of self-expression and is a communication media for the like-minded. There is enough room in art for Raphael and for Andy Warhol.

 

My utmost disagreement in your thoughts is, however, with your assertion on Armenian identity and unity. To the degree that Armenian identity is linked to spiritual integrity, any other identity also may be linked to such. Additionally, if there is such a link, then we should observe that this spiritual integrity has overwhelming flaws. I am also disappointed with your contemplation about unity. You sort of spoiled the spirit of what you had said before. Spirituality being abstract category and being associated with non-ethnic God, cannot be a national unifying factor. In fact, if anything, spirituality tends to disunite people. Besides, why do we need unity beyond amongst Armenians which is already apparent – the territorial integrity, the Constitution, the economy of our Republic, etc.

 

I also don’t know who our enemies are, and being spiritual creatures, why would we have a perception of having enemies.

 

P.S. Just had some time to kill.

 

[ January 12, 2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[axel]

Dear all,

 

First a disclaimer : I may not have been precise enough as my first post is fairly dense and each assertion deserves a dissertation as we seem to be light-years away and not agree on some basic principles. I have to tell you english is not my native tongue (I am much more at ease with french) so semantically, I may not be rigorous enough and I may use words that have a special connotation in your american minds which I'm not aware of.

 

That said, let's answer your objections one by one:

 

No emotions here, just plain logic.

 

What I want to point out here is that the existence of absolutes cannot be proved or disproved. Either you believe Beauty exists or you don't. Same argument with God. You cannot rationally assert that God doesn't exist, you may only say that you don't know.

 

This is COMPLETELY wrong. Or maybe you mistake God/Christ for the great architect of the free masonic societies.

 

This doesn't contradict my reasoning. You may have the concept of righteousness in the Law but the Law is not enough to achieve it. That is the point. You should read the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans. He offers a number of arguments.

 

Let me rephrase this for you and Sip (You seem to give great importance to the letter and misunderstand the spirit) If nothing exists above Man, then Man is above all. is that a satisfactory formulation? I was not saying: If x doesn't exist then y = x which would be pure nonsense. You should think a bit and ponder my arguments before answering because this is a fundamental part of my argumentation.

 

Here again, a misunderstanding. I was not pretending faith is strong in the sense that one cannot lose faith. Actually most people have lost faith. What I mean is that people who have Faith are stronger in every possible sense to people that don't. But people who have real Faith are not necessarily those who think they do . All the great realizations of Man are those of people who had Faith (in some sense) and if man still creates in this world, it is because of the remaining traces of spirit. The problem is you don't envisage the consequences of pure atheism precisely because you are not pure atheists and you haven't thought enough on this subject. That is actually what I was trying to prove. A pure atheist doesn' believe in Ethics, in Beauty, in any ideal whatsoever and that is why, pure atheism can be equated with theophobia. I know people who would argue: what is Good? what is Evil? what is morality? why morality? If you don't believe in absolutes then there is no Good nor Evil (=> there is no sin). My idea is that although our human perception of ideals is relative, it doesn't imply their non-existence.

 

As far as fear is concerned, it is obviously a driving force of history. One need only consider the Jews and the role of antisemitism (the sentiment for what matters is not actual existence but general perception) in federating them.

 

This was not what I meant. There is a religious dimension to Art, that is all. Pure atheists cannot produce Art.

 

One first has to define Art (and this would be an entire subject in its own, I really don't have time during my lunch break ). If you believe that Art is a form of self-expression then my scribbling on a wall is art. This is obviously not true for one has at least to associate art with the quest for Perfection and Beauty which are ideals. Materialists do not have ideals for the simple reason they only believe in matter.

 

Nonsense, anything can be exploited. But death and destruction in the name of God fundamentally contradicts the precepts of Christ. You seem to mistake Faith for blindness. As a sidenote, the atheist ideologies of the twentieth century (socialism, communism, nazism) are the one that killed the most. Evil is evil and people that pretend to follow Christ but do evil actually follow Satan. No contradiction here.

 

All the atrocities of the twentieth century were committed in the name of progress, freedom, democracy and other false gods and lies. as far as "the elevation of the human consciousness to unparalleled heights on the stage of morality", you ought to be kidding. There is no morality in western societies, just mere greed and hypocrisy which is quite the opposite. In fact, our time is reminiscent of the roman empire on the verge of its decadence.

 

I used the term "symbolically", that is to say, it was intended to be a metaphor

 

This is not to say Art doesn't exist in our times but most of what is touted as contemporary art is not Art. No subjective judgement here.

 

I never said the contrary. But Christian Faith has held a fundamental role in our history. This happens to be true for the Russian people too.

 

This is untrue. The meaning you associate with the word spirituality is not clear but you seem to have quite a new age perception of it which has nothing to do with the Christian Orthodox spirituality. People with a common spirit unite. This is an obvious fact.

 

You seem to attribute greater importance to appearances than to realities. I will not delve into the problems of our diaspora and that of the ROA but armenian unity is more of a wish than a reality.

 

It is a simple fact, not a perception. One simple counterexample to your claim is that a "spiritual creature" was crucified some two thousand years ago and if He were to come among us today, one can be sure history would repeat. One other point is we seem to also have a body and not entirely belong to the immaterial. Or maybe is that just a perception?

 

Please reread my post carefully and try to understand the spirit behind the words.

 

PS: nobody reacted on the solipsism/altruism issue.

 

BTW, have you read Dostoyevsky?

 

[ January 13, 2003, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

[axel]

I meant no self-proclaimed atheist reacted on the issue. HyeBruin actually did and I fully agree with her but her formulation lends to some misinterpretation. This thing about "connection" sounds so "psychic" and new age...

[Sip]

Sorry I'm about to pass out but I figured I'd get a quick post in before my eyes give up on me for today

 

I think a "belief" can also be arrived at using logic and thought. So we have a fundamental difference in our definition of Atheist. I don't equate "not believing in God" with "not having ethics" and "not believing in beauty".

 

I disagree. Maybe you need absolutes to have "good" and "evil" but you certainly don't need absolutes for having "better" and "worse". Are you saying an atheist can't distinguish between "better" and "worse"? Because I think that's really all you need to be "moral" in life.

 

I can certainly imagine a "moral" atheist The only requirement in my opinion, is having an ability to "rank" different things according to relative "good/evil"-ness (no need for ANY absolute).

[axel]

I will attempt to summarize my original post.

 

First point, the existence of God is a question of "belief". It is beyond reason and logic (read Kant). One cannot argue that God doesn't exist, one can only believe this to be true which is in no way more rational than the opposite attitude. The argument of the absolute of Beauty is just there to serve as an illustration.

 

Second point is the following: If there is nothing above man, then man is above all. Then everything is allowed (Clearly such belief is contrary to the ideal of Justice which is the goal of society). If you disagree with this reasoning, then you're not a real atheist for one may ask: why should we have ethics? you may have an answer to this question but your answer will almost certainly be the indirect expression of a judgement not motivated by reason. For example, if you say it is necessary for the well-being of society, I would ask why is the well-being of society something desirable? why is justice desirable? and so on... until you will not have any answer to the question WHY? and you will have to admit the limits of pure reason. You're not a real atheist although you think you are, that is my conviction. Real atheism is something else and leads to other conclusions. If there is no good nor evil, then what some consider to be evil is good and vice versa. if you say something is better than another, it is because you have an idea (perception, as relative as it may be) of what Good is. If you're able to order things this way, then you unconsciously believe in an absolute although you cannot precisely define it (BTW even in math, + and - infinity exist as concepts)

 

Third point is the altruism/solipsism antagonism and the real meaning of the message of Christ which alas you do not seem to comprehend.

 

And at last, the argument that Faith is an unbounded force for life and creation in the sense that people that have Faith are stronger than those who don't. You may choose to remain with your doubts or your empty certitudes and somehow try to convince yourself you "analyze" things. The truth is there are things beyond pure reason and analysis. I myself am no less rational than you are but I have Faith.

 

_______________________________________________

"Illusion pour illusion, nous gardons celle de Dieu, qui donne, seule, à ses éternels éblouis, la joie, la lumière, la force et la paix. Nulle créature, nulle vitalité n'échappe à la Foi.[...] Seulement, l'indécis demeure avec son irrésolution, qui devient la somme nulle de sa vie. Il croit "analyser", il creuse la fosse de son âme et retourne vers un néant qui ne peut plus s'appeler que l'Enfer..." (Villiers de l'Isle Adam)

[MJ]

Btw, who is Dostoevski?

 

P.S. I don't have time to kill today.

[axel]

Some material on this author can be found here. I won't express any personal judgement on the author but if you give credit to what "recognized authorities" say (unlike I who prefer to judge by myself), you may read some quotations about him on the front page.

 

I don't have time to waste either and I hope I didn't waste my time posting on this board (actually I'm quite sure I did not )

 

[ January 13, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

[MJ]

But I looked here and didn't see any materials.

[axel]

Just out of curiosity, are you a reader of Kafka? your last post really sounds kafkaian to me...

[axel]

For those that are stuck here, I will make things a bit more explicit:

 

http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/contents.html

[MJ]

Thanks.

 

I especially liked the photo:

 

http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/images/Fetalsmall.jpg

[Sip]

I personally like to go and spend my day HERE.

[MJ]

BTW, who are Kafka and Kant?

[Sasun]

Axel, great observations. I very much agree with you, especially in your later post.

I believe there are no absolute atheists, or maybe very few close to absolute. Those few would be like monsters. If you do not recognize and appreciate in any direct or indirect way the existence of God then you must be inhumane also, in other words a monster. The degree of lack of morality could serve as a measure for ones degree of atheism. So, if someone has chosen the lifestyle and philosophy of an atheist that doesn't mean he/she is atheist.

 

BTW, I once called myself atheist then I came to realize that I was not really an atheist Some "atheists" say they don't believe in God but they believe there is something supernatural, or something else of that sort. Why, one could wonder, not regard that something as God or part of God?

The thing is, God is so big that human mind can never understand and recognize as it is. For that we are given souls and spiritual introspection. The fact that we have brains doesn't mean that's the only way to learn. I wonder if what we perceive as Faith is stored in the brain like ordinary information, or has to do with the soul.

 

Scientists and all thinkers in that category should not waste their time trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is only a matter of Faith for ordinary people, and for very few illuminated individuals it is a matter of their own experience (God realization) and unity with God.

[THOTH]

I am an Atheist. I have no faith or belief in "God" or gods per se (except as we create them).

 

How dare you call me a monster. you must be inhuman.

 

PS - What is the supernatural?

[Sasun]

THOTH, I don't want to repeat what Axel said, but I will clarify: if you have no feeling of love, compassion, hope, respect, appreciattion, etc., if you do not accept morality in your life in any way, if you do not care about other people, if you do not want justice, if you... then you are an Atheist. These are qualities attributed to God. I have not met or heard of such a person. This is the way I understand. If you call yourself an Atheist that is fine, but that is not what I mean. Call it a difference of definition. Just to give you an idea. All humans have shares of good and evil, that's what makes them human. So if an individual has no degree of "good" or no degree of "evil" then he/she does not qualify as human. That would make either a monster or a saint.

 

Supernatural is something that cannot be explained by natural laws, i.e. materialistic laws. For example, some people believe that the universe was created by a supernatural force, a force that was outside of space and time. Some people believe that Jesus actually existed and performed miracles but it had nothing to do with a god, he was simply a person that had supernatural powers. Or, psychic powers of people, if taken seriously, are regarded as supernatural powers. Things like that...

 

The bottomline is, you either believe or not. I can't prove you anything.

[Sip]

Dear Sasun, no one seems to be trying to prove or disprove anything. I am just trying to understand which "dictionary" you and axel seem to be using.

 

My dictionary, once again, says:

 

I completely fail to see how you make the jump from that definition all the way to lacking love, hope, respect, appreciation, compassion, hope, etc etc etc.

 

I am with Thoth on this.

 

I do NOT believe in any supernatural God. Certainly nothing as big as you seem to claim. However, I LOVEmy computer. I respect Thoth. I appreciate an all-you-can-eat buffet more than you can imagine, and I hope I make my point clear

 

Cheers!

[Sip]

On second thought, I may have misunderstood. I think you are saying not having all those implies being an Atheist. That may be .. I am not sure. But are you also saying that being an Atheist implies the other stuff (lacking that entire list)? Because that is the direction I disagree with you not the way you have phrased it in that sentence.

 

[ January 13, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]