Why do some people believe in God and some don't? And, as a person who's encountered phenomena I can't explain though natural means, I also sometimes wonder why atheists and agnostics don't have the same experiences. If God wants everyone to believe, why not do miracles on demand?
In college, I noticed a few things which touched on this question.
For one, I was surprised to meet people who considered themselves atheists, but, unlike classical atheists, also avidly believed in the supernatural, or were at least more open to the supernatural than belief God. One self-designated atheist friend, for example, would insist that chunks of quartz gave him some kind of power. (He was also big into "vibrations".) He believed in the supernatural, but insisted no God existed. Yet I couldn't help but wonder: if you admit you believe in the supernatural, and admit you don't have direct detailed knowledge of it, how can you rationally entirely exclude the possibility of God?
Another: I seem to remember (dimly) hearing about a study which found that a non-trivial percentage of people who called said they didn't believe in the supernatural (or perhaps were atheists: the exact details escape my memory) also admitted to having had supernatural experiences. I haven't been able to track down the study, but I've been keeping my eyes open since.
Together, these imply that some skeptics base their disbelief (just as some believers surely base their belief) in God more on their wishes and emotional preferences than in some more objective method of assessment. The issue, it would seem, in some cases, is not so much that they are rationally sure that a theistic God can't or doesn't exist, but more that they find the implication repugnant at a more emotional level.
And indeed, you can find even more support just by closely watching the statements of atheist evangelists. Hitchens, for example, implies an omniscient God would be some sort of cosmic equivalent of Kim Jong Il, spying on everyone (never mind that ability to know is quite different than malevolent intent); and Dawkins' arguments always frequently strong statements of dislike for the God depicted in the bible. C.S. Lewis also reported that his main negative feeling toward God, once being shaken of his atheism, was that of being interfered with; undoubtedly, the basis for that feeling hadn't just appeared at that moment. (And frankly, I can understand, as I feel that way sometimes too: How dare God decide what's right for my life without consulting me!)
(And indeed, in Pullman's His Dark Materials, Dr. Malone, a former nun, admits that she left the faith because she couldn't stand the idea of a life without the possibility of further sexual intimacy.)
Anyway, sorry for the longish windup, but I was reminded of all this today when I encountered this blog entry over at Mindful Hack, mentioning a near-death experience reported by atheist and philosopher A. J. Ayer, in which he
encountered a painful red light that he took to be responsible for the government of the universe, and he thought it was his job to put things right. He remained an atheist until he died a year later, but according to a source close to him, he became much more interested in others (a classic outcome of a near death experience).
And what of his philosophical views? Playwright William Cash, who staged a play based on Ayer’s account of his NDE at the Edinburgh Festival, was told by Ayer's doctor, "George recalls that Ayer told him, 'I saw a Divine Being. I’m afraid I’m going to have to revise all my various books and opinions.'"
But he didn't.
Despite his own strong initial conviction, Ayer later decided it was just his brain malfunctioning. That may be possible, but it then raises the question of whether one has any threshold of experience for changing one's views. And indeed, some even admit otherwise: Not long after graduation, a materialist friend of mine admitted that even if he saw, with his own eyes, a UFO or angel, he wouldn't believe in such "because it is more important to believe in a rational universe"! (Of course, a rational universe could indeed contain angels or other trans-dimensional beings, but "rational" to him meant there was no supernatural, not simply that the laws of reason would apply.)
So my point here is that for many people, believers and disbelievers alike, there are far more pressing considerations than simply trying to seek after the truth where-ever it takes us. In one bible story, Jesus heals ten lepers, but only one actually bothers to come back and thank him, and acknowledge what the miracle implies, theologically. Stories like those above seem similar in that regard.
Linda! Nothing wrong with mentioning a thing twice: I usually think it takes a human brain a couple of repetitions to absorb stuff.
I hadn't heard that before, though it doesn't surprise me: Although we can't always tell an author's belief from his fiction, Asimov did write a story called The Last Question in which a giant God-like computer restarts the universe when it all fizzles out.
Interestingly, it seems Asimov may have envisioned machines playing another kind of God-like role as well:
In the related novels of his robot character R. Daneel Olivaw, it is revealed that a humanoid robot, created by humanity but virtually immortal in its life-span, has also been guiding the progress and development of all the humanity that has spread outward to the stars. The one super-robot, with an exceptional life-span, had been for countless centuries protecting humanity, manipulating events, and guiding the human race to its ultimate destiny.
The charge you quote seems to come from Hugh Ross's web site, or at least is reprinted there:
Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.
The general thrust of the charge (I can't comment on the psychological motivations yet) seems correct, Asimov having expounded the idea in The Collapsing Universe:
The only negative point about this book is that it is, in some ways, very dated. The idea of a closed (and possibly oscillating) Universe that is put forth in the final chapter of the book is no longer in favor in the scientific community, as recent observations (which are widely held to be conclusive) indicate that the expansion of the Universe is not slowing down and may in fact be accelerating.
The story of smart non- or anti-theists being massively wrong about the history and fate of the universe is not uncommon. Before Einstein, the materialistic scientific community believed the universe was infinitely old, and had to be, in order to be "rational."
And Einstein himself (an ardent Marxist, BTW) worked against the plain implication of his equations (cosmic expansion) for years because he felt the implication the universe had begun was "monstrous". To repeat myself, he later called it the worst mistake of his life. But it was clearly motivated by his religious outlook.
Great example, Linda, I didn't know that.
I've mentioned before (forgive me if it was here) that I heard Isaac Asimov state that he believed the universe would contract and start all over again after it reached its limits of expansion, simply because he couldn't believe it would ever come to an end. That's when I learned that even the most apparently rational people are more governed by faith than they would like to believe.
Posted by: SursumCorda on January 9, 2008 05:56 AM