![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
God & the Burden of Proof
Another interesting point raised about the existence of god in the comments of a previous post. RG writes:
Whether God does or does not exist is not a question that inherently exists in nature. The burden of proof is on those who claim that God exists. Ancient texts don’t prove it, and they don’t put the burden of proof on the skeptics.
I don’t know if we can really successfully apply this idea of “burden of proof” when it comes to God. A lot of rational types are always trying to claim that we need evidence or proof before we can believe in the existence of god. But what exactly would constitute evidence or proof? Nobody ever seems to outline that. For people who don’t believe in god, what would you accept as 100% valid proof that god is real and exists? For people who do believe in god, what evidence do you already have that god does exist?
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:29 pm
I think before you even get started on whether “God” exists, you have to define “God.” For example, I believe that the JHVH character in the Old Testament was a real entity, who might still be around, but who is neither omnipotent, omniscient, wise, nor good. Also I think the universe as a whole is aware and intelligent, but this intelligence is not at all in our image. So do I believe in God twice, once, or not at all?
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:02 pm
The only evidence that I have of God’s existence comes from books written by other men. In fact, the only evidence I have of MOST things is from books written by other men.
Even my own direct experience is influenced by the opinions of other men.
A more interesting question for a believer is whether there is proof that God doesn’t exist. Of course there’s plenty of evidence to support that… however, none of it is 100% conclusive, and therefore I’m back at Square One again.
After a while, it becomes clear to me that belief in God is something you have to want. Like Mulder and his UFOs, I Want To Believe.
I think most Christians want to believe but have no fucking clue as to how, and they line up like sheep in front of a priest or preacher and take their words for it.
I alos have met many atheists who wanted to believe once, but extremely negative exposure to man’s inherent hypocrisy alienated them from traditional belief.
So, according to my logic, belief in God is rooted in Desire, one of the basest instincts that we humans possess. Maybe Desire is the True God… who knows?
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Funny that if you say God is hooked into Desire, since the Buddhists suggest that’s the root of all suffering. God then becomes the root of suffering and you’ve got to move past him, a la gnosticism
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Yes.
August 24th, 2005 at 2:57 am
i’m uncertain what god is, so the question of existence is second-order uncertainty. what evidence would satisfy me either way? how the fuck could i know that already, if i don’t even know what it is that i’m looking for?
maybe god is a question. after all, isn’t it likely that god is beyond both faith and proof, in the trickster realm of uncertainty? you won’t know if you don’t ask.
oh, and as the burden of faith is on those that desire faith, so too is the burden of proof on those that desire proof.
and i really do see both faith and proof as burdens, desired as they are.
August 24th, 2005 at 9:55 am
those last two sentences of carlos’ are quotables. I wanna put ‘em on a t-shirt!
eye feel that the comment that those who believe in “god” (whatever the definition) are being simplistic seems to imply that the commenter knows what the thought processes of those with faith in a god or gods is; I myself don’t assume to be so superior as to gno what anyone’s reasons are, but my suspicious is that even the seemingly simplistic has a whole “complex” of reasons and desires–emotional, intellectual, psychological, etc.–built in. Same goes for atheists.
more interesting to me is what are the effects of faith–are they functional? and then ya gotta think, what KIND of faith, because, say christian A (Pat Robertson) has faith in one way, which leads to certain effects in mindset and behavior and “success” in the world (look at all dem 700 Club-bots!), christian B (Soren Kierkegaard or, hell Meister Eckhart) have a different KIND of faith in terms of how it operates and what its effects are. And the same can go for KINDS of anti-faith or atheism. It can be as individual as the person–but what are the criteria (or the psychological make-ups) of the adherents that makes atheism or faith useful and effective as tools or operating systems? And what makes them disfunctional and ultimately self-defeating?
August 24th, 2005 at 11:24 am
I think you might want to consider that perhaps god exists like freedom, or socialism exists: as a concept. We can’t say that concepts don’t have an existence of a sort, but that existence is much more subjective. And that existence has very real effects in the world, as the amount of freedom or socialism in my life is determined by the reality of the idea to those who make decisions that effect me.
God, as a concept, is just as real, and has as much effect on the world, as any other concept.
August 24th, 2005 at 11:31 am
But what if God’s not just a concept?
August 24th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
The concept of a God is a metaphor for the ineffable Reality. Any conceptions we hold are inadequate. Do we have enough confidence to allow It to show Itself?