What It Means To Believe In God
Clear thinking should result in consistency; certainly among propositions, hopefully in one’s beliefs, and ideally, in one’s life.
If, for example, you can’t see why it is inconsistent to assert, “believe those who are seeking the truth. doubt those who find it”, then you are not thinking clearly. The statement is contradictory. Presumably the author thinks he has found a truth.
A most interesting inconsistency involves belief in God and those who reject, ridicule, or take that belief lightly.
Belief in God carries with it certain assumptions and implications. If you take belief in God lightly, think it a matter of sentiment only, or reject it entirely, then you should give up other beliefs.
The point, really, is to get you to read Dennis Prager’s latest column in which he urges us to think clearly about what it means to believe in God. In his article Prager lists fourteen implications of belief in God. I quote three.
If there is no God, then:
there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.
. . . there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with “art” that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo’s art in the Sistine chapel. The latter elevates the viewer — because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.
. . . there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America’s Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed “by our Creator” with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.
What I find odd is that those who reject, belittle, or make light of belief in God still want to take such things seriously.
The challenge then is this: if you do not take seriously a belief in God, on what basis do you believe in any of Prager’s list of fourteen? Of course, you can choose to believe such things, but what is the rational justification for such belief?
Hello friend,
I stumbled upon your site after reading an article by Austine Cline.
Anyway I read this post and noticed you submitted a challenge to us who don’t believe in God.
I will try and keep it as short as possible since most get bored by reading rants, as do I.
What is the rational justification for such belief?
This goes back to that old religious viewpoint, one I have encountered hundreds of times, that if you’re an atheist how can you have morals? Why don’t I just run out and kill people? Why don’t I just steal? If it doesn’t mean anything and there is no afterlife, why care at all?
To that question I always respond the same way; I wouldn’t want anyone to kill me, therefore I assume people don’t want me to kill them. The same goes for stealing, harming and lying. I wouldn’t want anyone to do these things to me; therefore I don’t do it to them.
I don’t know how else to explain it to people who think we need the threatening force of a deity to keep us in line. This is just the best way I know how.
I’ll go down Prager’s list real quick, by number only, and add a little comment from an Atheists perspective.
1. I agree.
2. I agree.
3. I agree.
4. I don’t need an instruction manual. Again, I treat others how I would like to be treated. I didn’t need a book for this.
5. Sad but true.
6. You don’t need God to confront people who do the wrong thing and fight for what is right. This is a blanket statement which cannot be applied to all Atheists.
7. I am so tired of this Atheism leads to Marxism argument that Ben Stein loves to promote. I am for big business, free enterprise and fewer taxes, but I am an Atheist. Sadly people keep buying into these scare tactics.
8. This statement is retarded (is that not a P.C. term?). Of course our genes influence us to do certain things. Just ask any of the politicians or pastors who have decided to cheat on their wives. That’s not to say we don’t have free will and that we are slaves to these genes. I look at women and wish I could ‘tap that ass’, but I am married and I wouldn’t want my wife to cheat on me. Therefore I show the same respect for her.
9. Ah yes, the gays will want to marry animals type of argument. No, humans and animals are not equal. I don’t need a book to tell me that.
10. Actually I love to create art whether it is music or drawings. Again, I don’t see how god fits in to the equation. Why does a dog like to lick its nuts if it has no God? Because he likes to.
11. True, nothing is holy.
12. How about nothing is supreme? I think that is good enough for me.
13. I have a creator. My mother. Since I have a creator we have rights and morals again. All is well. See how no God had to fill that gap?
14. Again, just because there is no God it doesn’t mean we have no rights or morals. I was watching the nature channel and I noticed an Elephant fight for the life of her offspring. Is that not a display of some type of morals? Surly the Elephant is Godless so why did it fight for its offspring? This argument gets old. So very old.
Just a side note; I am not too familiar with Dennis Prager and based on this article he is very ignorant when it comes to Atheism. I will say I caught him in the documentary “Fuck” in which he came across as a total fear monger. “The word ‘Fuck’ will lead to the collapse of society.” This article seems to reemphasize that assumption.
Hey Shannon,
Thanks for stopping by. And by the way, did you read my response to Cline?
Now, I mean no disrespect when I say I think you’ve missed the point here. You’re a very bright guy. So, I blame myself. I need to be clearer.
The problem with each of your responses is that they are either non-sequiturs or they miss the point. And this goes for your criticism of Prager at the end of your comment too.
Again, I blame myself.
Let me take one example (though I’d be more than happy to tackle each of your points).
Several of your points are very similar. Take your first one. You ridicule the idea that God is necessary for morality.
You say that you don’t need an instruction manual. You just know that you treat people how you like to be treated. And one could add, what about all those religious hypocrites and religious people who act horribly? And what about all those atheist who act virtuously?
If God doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t follow that you’ll lie, rape, and murder.
Prager, interestingly, agrees with you. Prager:
“This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad believers in God.”
Prager isn’t arguing that a commitment to atheism necessarily leads to immoral behavior. Rather, he is arguing that without God what you label “good” and “bad” is a subjective matter. Again, Prager:
“It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, “right” and “wrong” no more objectively exist than do ‘beautiful’ and ‘ugly.’”
Take your rationale for moral behavior. It is purely subjective. You don’t lie, because you don’t want to be lied to. But are these things (lying, raping, murdering) wrong outside of Shannon’s feelings about them? Or outside of his wanting to avoid becoming the victim of such behavior?
In other words, is calling rape wrong just another way of saying “I don’t like it”? That’s what Prager is getting at.
Prager’s point isn’t about individual atheists, but about what you call “right” and “wrong”. Without God “right” and “wrong” can become personal preferences.
I’d love to respond to each of your points. They reveal, with all due respect, deep passion and deep confusion about these issues.
I’m glad we agree. I blame you too.
Evolution confers no rights, but humans do. No atheist would say they get there moral beliefs from molecules, energy, etc, etc. What one could say that we know right from wrong innately, one doesn’t need God to distinguish the difference.
We are born with ethical ideas, but we do not have ethical understanding or reasoning right away. Whether if it’s through someone’s experience or some objective authority, we will never understand what those feelings will be unless they are presented to us. We as humans, have created an objective meaning of morality through our experiences of what works and doesn’t work. What I mean by what works and doesn’t work is this: if it works for the good of the society, then it works for the good of morality. Of course, you can get into a whole different debate of what is good for society, but I think we might have some common ground on what we think is good for society. This might fall into more of an historical debate rather than philosophical but I will try my best-being that I am a philosphy scrub. As time has passed, we have developed a good understanding of what rape, murder, and other forms of immoral behavior can cause to society; we grow up with certain ideas that are not really clarified until presented to us in an objective form. My mother has received her knowledge of what works and doesn’t from her mother, and so on.We can also say that each generation has a generation mother. Each learn from one another of what works and doesn’t work.I will say, we are born with an insatiable hunger for power, lust, and other forms of what I would call “evil.” But through experience we learn from what those things can bring us, and the consequences of those things; thus, give us our understanding of what is right and wrong; good and bad; works and doesn’t work.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the thoughtful challenge.
I, and I think Prager, agree with you. Humans do confer rights. The question is what are those rights grounded in?
Prager’s point is that if human beings are no more than molecules and energy, then the “rights” they confer are no more binding and meaningful than a human preference for chocolate ice cream.
And It is not obvious to me that we know right and wrong innately. Especially given the multitude of moral systems in the world. We don’t all share the same values.
I’m not sure how you can create an objective morality through shared experiences. You can come to an agreement (with some people), but how would you make it objective (binding, if you will)?
And, of course, even those that share in a society don’t agree on what’s best for that society. Consider debates involving abortion (is it murder?), capital punishment, taxation, war, and health care.
I think at one point I would’ve agreed with you about rape and murder – they seem to be universal wrongs. But I’m not so sure anymore. Consider the ubiquity of child prostitution and slavery, honor-killings, and a host of other evils.
Clearly some people have learned from experience. Or to put it another way, clearly these things are working for some people. What would you say to them?
Hi Stephen,
I re-read your response and I’ll be the first to admit I may be missing a point here and that the only non-squinter I know is the comic strip.
I am open to listening. Just because I am skeptical doesn’t mean I am close minded.
But before I respond I want to clarify it was not my intention to ridicule anything. Again, maybe I am missing something, but I didn’t find anything I wrote to be disparaging. Just because one doesn’t agree that a God is necessary for morals shouldn’t be seen as ridicule.
“You don’t lie, because you don’t want to be lied to. But are these things (lying, raping, murdering) wrong outside of Shannon’s feelings about them? Or outside of his wanting to avoid becoming the victim of such behavior?”
Another reason I don’t lie is because I don’t like to hurt others. I am compassionate to some degree. To answer your question, I would say yes, these things are wrong, even outside of my feelings for them.
I believe adults should be able to do what they want, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Not everyone agree with me, but this is how I feel. Because this is how I feel that means that rape, murder, etc are all wrong. Of course this is subjective. Laws are man made (To me Gods laws are also man made). What is right and what is wrong is not decided by God, but instead by man and the society. I personally think drugs should be decriminalized. But I am in the minority and more people in our society believe it’s wrong for adults to have freedom over their own bodies, therefore it’s illegal.
“In other words, is calling rape wrong just another way of saying “I don’t like it”? That’s what Prager is getting at. ”
No. Rape is wrong. By wrong I mean it’s unfair and it’s unjust. If I wanted to use it as a noun I would say it’s a violation of a person’s legal rights.
Keeping my fingers crossed… did I miss the point, if so I must be retarded.
Hey Shannon,
You do want to say these things (lying, raping, murdering) are wrong outside of your feelings for them. And, if I read you correctly, you give two reasons for this: one, you don’t like to hurt others, and two, you believe adults should be able to do what they want, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.
And then you sum up your position by saying rape, for example, is wrong because it’s a violation of a person’s legal rights.
Lets put it like this: I am with you. I also don’t like hurting others. But what would you say to someone who does? Someone who has no guilt over doing horrible things, why should he stop, morally (not legally)?
The question Prager is getting at is this: why do you believe, and it is a belief, people should be free to do what they want, so long as they don’t hurt others? Suppose someone disagrees. To what do you appeal?
Or put most simply, your reasons for not hurting others and for your belief seem rooted in your heart. Shannon’s heart is his moral guide.
Take, for example, your last point. You say rape is wrong because it is unfair and unjust. But then you say it is a violation of a person’s legal rights.
These aren’t the same things: a legal right and a moral right. Now, assuming you agree with me, on what basis do you say rape is morally unjust and unfair?
Is the root of your moral decision making located outside of your heart?
History has shown us that throughout different periods of time and in different cultures that morality is subjective.
To define morality would be like trying to define the best pizza. Different people have different ideological beliefs and people define different things as immoral. Some would call killing a child in the name of war immoral. Others would call it a casualty of.
For Mr. Prager, or anyone else (thinking of Dinesh D’Souza here), to assert that absolute morality exists, is making a false claim. Throughout history, as you have stated, both believers and non believers have committed horrible acts to others. Somehow I don’t think they would call their behavior immoral.
Is the root of my moral decision located outside of my mind? I would say yes and no. What if I was born into another time or into another culture? What would the conscience on morality be? Rape and pillage or farm and pray? What if I was born to a father or a mother who raped me? Would I still perceive it as immoral or would I somehow accept this behavior as the accepted normalcy and inflict it onto others? I can’t say one way or another.
What I can say is that I am glad to have been born in this country where laws have been set up to protect people. I am happy to have been born in a time period in which we have the highest life expectancy and where mankind seems to be moving forward, even if in baby steps. But who is to say I would not have felt that way if I was a radical Muslim who sole intent was to kill others? Again, they feel their morals are rooted in their heart and placed there by Allah.
As a side note, I enjoyed your post on “new” atheism. I have no idea what’s new about it. I have felt this way my entire life and for others to act like it’s the new “hip” thing to do, is ridiculous. I will however write I am happy that others are becoming more vocal about it. As a white male I rarely feel discriminated against, yet on occasion when it’s revealed to some that I have no belief in a god, I get the most awkward of looks. Sometimes I get lectured about the bible and the rapture. Sometimes it ends relationships. So I am glad some are speaking up and clarifying we’re not bad people. I am happy to know others are asking the same questions I have asked since adolescence.
That there exist different moralities does not show that morality is subjective. One doesn’t follow from the other. It’s like saying because there are differing theories about blackholes, that therefore, black holes don’t exist.
It’s not a false claim to affirm an objective morality. You may disagree (and Prager argues you have to), but it doesn’t violate any logical principle.
And so, this is the point really. Without God, your morality can go no deeper than your heart, your feelings, unless you hold to some form of utilitarianism (or another ethical theory).
Hi Shannon,
Here are a few issues that I have with your recent post, if you don’t mind:
“To define morality would be like trying to define the best pizza. Different people have different ideological beliefs and people define different things as immoral. Some would call killing a child in the name of war immoral. Others would call it a casualty of.”
The problem here is that, in your attempt to show why morality is undefinable, you attempt to define it in the following sentences. Secondly, all you do here is just point out differences. You need to provide more to show why different opinions all have the same value. Sure, it’s one thing to point out differences, and I’d bet few would disagree with that assertion, but it’s another thing to show why those differences are equal. The fact that it’s different is not sufficient enough. And even if morality is subjective, then that presupposes a moral objective standard; again, that it is relative.
“What I can say is that I am glad to have been born in this country where laws have been set up to protect people. I am happy to have been born in a time period in which we have the highest life expectancy and where mankind seems to be moving forward, even if in baby steps.”
But if morality itself is relative and there are no objective standards to reach for, then on what basis are you determining that we are making “progress” or, to use your words, “moving forward?” In other words, how can we be sure that we are passing the test when your subjectivization of morality implicates that there is no test to begin with?
“But who is to say I would not have felt that way if I was a radical Muslim who sole intent was to kill others? Again, they feel their morals are rooted in their heart and placed there by Allah.”
The problem with this, Shannon, is that this implies reality depends on feelings. Sure, perhaps if you grew up in that type of culture you might have different feelings. However, again, I fail to see how this follows to your conclusion that just because you think something or feel something then it means that it is. To extend this to something else: what if I thought that 2+2 = 22? Does the fact that I think it make it true? If I feel I’m Paul McCartney, does that make it so? Or better yet: if morality is relative, and it can be whatever you want it to be, then who are you to say one is wrong in thinking morality is objective? After all, isn’t it a matter of heart and feelings in these instances? How is your interpretation any better?
Finally, the other problem in your argument is that it contradicts itself. If two people have two very different opinions on a moral issue (or any issue), they cannot both be right. For instance, if I believe in God and you don’t, we cannot both be right. One of us is going to be wrong.
You mention in your earlier posts how the only non-sequitur you are familiar with is a comic strip. Non-sequitur is latin for “it does not follow”. It happens when you infer an idea or conclusion from another unrelated statement. So, for example, from the statement, “it is raining” you infer “the Dallas Cowboys will win the Superbowl”. Or in this instance, “people have differences of opinion in morality” therefore “everyone is right and there is no objective standard.”
Hi Stephen and Matthew,
Thanks to Matthew I see how I created what appears to be a conundrum. In one paragraph I state “Is the root of my moral decision located outside of my mind? I would say yes and no.” And yet in another paragraph I call morality subjective as opposed to objective.
I will attempt to clarify my position and we can label it afterwards. I agree with Stephen about the black hole and the different theories around them. But the difference I see in that analogy is that if all animals died today, morality would cease to exist, whereas the black hole would still exist. Morality is dependent on our feelings, actions and the existence of creatures capable of these feeling and actions.
When I claimed that rape is wrong, even outside of my personal mindset and heart I meant it and that is how I feel. It doesn’t mean I am right. But as Matthew stated just because I believe something to be true, doesn’t make it so. I could not agree more and that is part of the reason I call myself an Atheist. So why do I think rape is wrong even outside of my own perceptions? Because you have to harm another person physically to get what you want. My feelings on the matter are subjective. Just because I believe rape to be wrong, does not make me right or wrong and it does not make morality objective.
Furthermore I don’t believe that because I feel something or think something to be true that it is. As Matthew pointed out, I know I am not Paul McCartney just because I think I am. I truly don’t see how my statements on Islamic morality imply that I believe otherwise.
“But if morality itself is relative and there are no objective standards to reach for, then on what basis are you determining that we are making “progress” or, to use your words, “moving forward?” In other words, how can we be sure that we are passing the test when your subjectivization of morality implicates that there is no test to begin with?”
To quote Robert Hinde, “moral precepts, while not necessarily constructed by reason, should be defensible by reason.” I determine progress on the increase in the average life expectancy. I determine progress on the fact that woman, for the most part, are treated fairly. I have no way of knowing if we are passing any test. My thoughts on this progress, as opposed to the way things used to be, is completely subjective and based on my own feelings. Others would argue that we are going backwards.
“If two people have two very different opinions on a moral issue (or any issue), they cannot both be right.”
I disagree. Sometimes there is a yes or no, a right or wrong. For others there is not. Let’s take an issue like gay sex. Some would call it immoral and others would not. Who is right? Who is wrong? Some would call it gross. Who is right? Who is wrong? I think this is what Prager meant when he said “Without God, your morality can go no deeper than your heart, your feelings.” I would argue that with the belief in God, your morality can go no deeper than the heart and feelings of others. So I ask again, who is right? Who is wrong?
“For instance, if I believe in God and you don’t, we cannot both be right. One of us is going to be wrong.”
I agree. This is like saying either a Black Hole exists or it doesn’t. One of us is right. Your previous statement on moral issues is more like one person stating “Pepperoni pizza is the best” and another stating “Sausage pizza is the best. According to you, one is right, one is wrong. Who’s right?
I hope I have clarified my position somewhat. I have a tendency to not express how I feel and my standpoint on the internet as well as I do in person.
I think we’ve come full circle. Or put differently, I think Prager has been vindicated.
Remember, the point here was a simple one: If God doesn’t exist, then what you call “right” and “wrong”is a matter of taste. If there is no God, then calling rape wrong is just another way of saying “I don’t like it”. It is no more significant than your preference for a certain kind of ice cream (unless you hold to a certain moral theory).
But first, a few other points:
Hopefully, we’ve cleared up a few things.
1. Diversity of opinion about morality does not entail the subjective character of morality. That, after all, was the point of the black hole/morality analogy; not a comparison between the physical and the non-physical. It was simply that difference doesn’t entail subjective.
2. Shannon is correct that morality is unlike a black hole in that morality necessarily involves human beings. However, it does not follow that morality is a creation of human beings. You may believe that, but it doesn’t follow from the fact that morality involves human beings.
I think we can all agree on that much – I think.
Lots could (and should) be said about the notion of progress, the Robert Hinde quote, and many other things brought up by everyone who commented.
But I don’t want to lose sight of the central point.
Shannon said it nicely in his last comment (the emphasis is mine of course):
“When I claimed that rape is wrong, even outside of my personal mindset and heart I meant it and THAT IS HOW I FEEL.”
Again Shannon:
“So why do I think rape is wrong even outside of my own perceptions? Because you have to harm another person physically to get what you want. MY FEELINGS ON THE MATTER ARE SUBJECTIVE. Just because I believe rape to be wrong, does not make me right or wrong and it does not make morality objective.”
Again:
“Your previous statement on moral issues is more like one person stating “Pepperoni pizza is the best” and another stating “Sausage pizza is the best. According to you, one is right, one is wrong. Who’s right?”
Yes, yes, yes! That’s the whole point. For he (or she) who can make no sense of the reality of God, right and wrong are like preferences for pizza. In fact, ultimately, there is no right and wrong, just what I prefer and what I don’t prefer.
Now, the really interesting question is, “can you actually live like that?” It is one thing to talk abstractly about the subjectivity of morality, it is another to live it out – in fact, I’ve never seen it. But that is a subject for another post.
“Yes, yes, yes! That’s the whole point. For he (or she) who can make no sense of the reality of God, right and wrong are like preferences for pizza. In fact, ultimately, there is no right and wrong, just what I prefer and what I don’t prefer.”
This is a hard one to respond to because I take issue with “the reality of God.” This is where I agree with Matthew about believing something to be reality doesn’t make it so.
To clarify my understanding of what the basic point here is; Without God, morality is subjective and with God, morality is objective. If I am correct and this is the basic point Mr. Prager is making I would like to address it.
I am confident in my position that all mono-theistic and poly-theistic religions are nothing more than works of fiction. I am as confident in this as I am as confident that Aesop’s Fable “The Ant and the Grasshopper” was also a work of fiction. As Penn from Penn and Teller once put it, “I’m beyond Atheism.”
Let’s say I believed that Aesop’s Fables, including the story of the ant and the grasshopper, were in fact real. We both agree it doesn’t make it real, but let’s say I believed it nonetheless. Could I not argue, as Mr. Prager has, that without the sense of the reality of neither the Ant nor the Grasshopper, right and wrong are like preferences for pizza?
I see them both as two in the same. One is a personal preference like stating “Pepperoni Pizza is the best” where as the other is the personal preference of another person or persons, “Pepperoni Pizza is the best because it was in a book I read.”
Additionally I see another problem here. Is it not a personal preference to which God or Gods one prefers? Granted most people are indoctrinated from birth, so maybe it’s a parent’s choice for their child, but ultimately one has a preference for which religion, if any, to accept as reality, therefore choosing those moral guidelines. The reality of it is Mr. Prager prefers to believe in the God of the Old Testament (Yes, I’ve been listening to the show) as opposed to the God of the New Testament.
Prager’s point is that if there is no God, morality is nothing more than opinion.
Sometimes using the word subjective is dangerous – for most things have a subjective element. The question is whether it is ONLY subjective.
So, yes, his point is: if there is no God, then morality goes no deeper than opinion or preference or taste.
And we seem to agree on that.
Whether or not God is real and what it means to believe in God (i.e. what is it you reject, when you reject belief in God) – these are separate questions. Interesting ones, but different ones.
It’s important not to confuse the issues.
I’m not sure what your point is regarding Aesop’s fables. The stories of Aesop are illustrations of moral principles.
The point Prager is making is a simple one: certain beliefs carry implications. Not all beliefs mind you. But belief in God is one of those beliefs.
It’s really a call for clear thinking and consistent living. Prager is saying this: you reject belief in God? Fine. Then logically other things fall with that belief, and the belief that right and wrong are more than opinion is one of those things that falls.
To paraphrase Nietzsche roughly: God is dead, and his morality died with him.
Amen