My calling is an interesting one. I'm called to teach children in the most effective way possible and thus have been called into Applied Behavior Analysis, a field who's theoretical foundations (rooted in science, phenomenology, and evolution) as well as it's suppositions about how behavior is controlled (which negate free will) are often contradictory to the faith and belief that convicts me to pursue behavior analysis in the first place. God's a funny guy. Why does this matter to my 70 weeks? Because threats to my belief are always going to impact any decisions I make and because what I pursue after I leave here depends on how I view God and even my field in relation to God.
Moving on: I read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" for class (Theoretical Foundations of Applied Behavior Analysis). I have struggled with Christianity and Behavior Analysis as conflicting philosophies for a long time, and always settled on the idea that professionally, I am a teacher who uses behavior analysis practices (while still a Christian) and spiritually, I am a Christian (not a behavior analyst, as some allow it to seep even into that realm). I found that our friend Bertrand has a lot of holes and in the end, his view of things and what it inspires struck me in an incredibly painful way, proving even further, why I am not "not a Christian"
Primary points (most of these are what Russell claims are Christianity's support for its claims, he then refutes, I then refute Russell- the last few are other important notes not part of the list of Christian claims he discusses)
*First Cause- something must be the original cause of everything
-Russell says that this theory is flawed as if there must be a first cause for everything, there must be a cause for God
-I disagree both with Russell and somewhat with the first cause theory. The problem with both is that they assume that God exists within time. Time allows for first, last, successive, etc. When time does not exist, “first” and thus “first cause” cannot exist, thus, exempting God from first cause theory as well as the notion that something had to create God. You could argue that we do not have the pre-requisite skills to prove or disprove God’s existence because we live on a temporal plane, not an eternal plane.
*Natural Law- that all things in the universe are governed by natural laws/do what they do due to God
-Russell says that when we examine things that appear to be natural laws we find they are simply human conventions or chance
- However, natural laws can be explained by observations within the universe. But our ability to observe and see environmental causation does not mean that there is not a source for these laws. At one point, these laws had to be created, and their intricacy suggests design. Too often we attempt to apply natural Laws to God and make Him fit them rather than apply God to natural laws to God and make them fall under Him, their creator.
*Design- that everything in the world was carefully planned so it could be lived in and would be unlivable if there were even small alterations.
-Russell says that evolution shows that the environment was not made to suit us but that we change to suit our environment, thus negating design. He also argues that if something omnipotent and omniscient designed the world, it has flaws and is in a state of decay. Why would something divine design something broken?
-I disagree because, true design implies that everything is designed to function in a certain way with one another in a way that it exists for however long it is designed to exist for. This does not require the environment to alter but it does require something to alter- and in the case of our universe it is the organisms that alter and evolve and change their environment to suit them. An omnipotent and omniscient designer would be remiss if it did not create flexible, adaptable creatures. Also, the assumption that the world has flaws/is in a state of decay, assumes the notion of flaws, assuming that there is good and bad. Which begs the question: What is the source of good and evil? Where do they come from? Design can also account for this- the design is not ours, and the design may not be necessarily beneficial for us (in ways that we can conceive it), thus, the universe may have been designed to burn out, human kind may have been designed to fall(not that I necessary believe this- I'm just pointing out holes in Russell's argument). The assumption that design theory necessitates a perfect design is remiss. A designer may very well design something broken with the purpose of fixing it or with any other number of purposes that we cannot guess at as we are not the designer.
*Christianity and religion in general is not something someone reasons himself into, it comes from emotion, not logic- this is a general point Russell makes, explaining that one does not become a Christian only because logic leads him to it. And here, I agree with Russell, but I suppose being a Christian, there is a bias that leads me to believe this is a good thing that Russell, not having experienced this, cannot understand. While I recognize that in many ways, a belief in God actually is logical, and the belief of many may be backed up by logic, no one comes to true belief only for the sake of logic alone. Doing something purely out of logic sucks the life out of it, sucks the faith out of it. You can't have belief without faith, you can't have faith if logic is the only reason you do anything.
The professor of the class where we discussed this talked about his atheism and how Russell did not make him an Atheist, Priests being inappropriate with little boys did. That is not only a terribly sad statement because it means he lost faith through the sins of other men, and because he doesn't have the understanding to differentiate between who God is and the sins of men- how the sins of men should not prove that God does not exist. It also proves that even for a man who claims to be primarily logical, for a man well known for his work in an incredibly scientific field based on theory contradictory to many forms of religious faith, did not come to be an atheist by logic, but though emotion. Not just belief, but lack of belief (which is a belief unto itself, so thus, all forms of belief or belief of nothing) can, and often, come from emotion, not logic.
Needless to say this class sent me into an emotional tailspin for a few reasons. First because some of Russell's support for his ideas were just awful and I knew it, but I needed more evidence to support Christianity. Second (and this is one of the reasons I was very emotional), was that I just felt sorrow and compassion for my professor given many of the things he said that were very telling about his faith, lack of understanding of God, sin, and basic theological concepts that are necessary to understand Christianity at all. Basically, it led to me experiencing something that's been happening more often lately- I feel as though I'm seeing aspects of a person in the way God sees them (minimally of course, my brain doesn't have the capacity for all that understanding) and suddenly feel compassion and sorrow for them and sense how much God longs after them. Third and finally, because we talked so much in this respect, I began trying to imagine the world without God, without a creator, looking at it, trying to see it as though it was all there was. There was nothing beyond it, nothing moving among it that was greater- it was all at face value, and thus, it all looked empty and meaningless. I wanted to stop, I couldn't look at the world that way. It hurt my heart, literally gave me a hollow feeling in my stomach, the kind you get when someone has died or you've broken up with someone and you find yourself reminded of them.
Only, everything in the world reminds me of God, and when I tried to view it as an atheist, scientifically, etc. and imagined it without God, it felt like someone I loved had died- worse- had never even existed. And in a way it was true, in that moment, in that thought, the God I loved was dead- at least in my current view. So, I hated thinking like this, but I couldn't help it because I felt like stopping viewing the world that way was like just stopping because it hurt- I wasn't being analytical enough. I'm a philosopher, I question, I don't just stop questioning or believe something because it's more pleasant, I believe something because it's the truth, I stop questioning because I have found the truth. So, I had to meditate on and really think out my faith to justify ceasing viewing the world in an atheistic way. I had a lot of thought time and conversations with great friends who made me feel much better and helped me talk and think through things and I was good again.
But for that day, I realized what it would be like to go without a God- how it is really the worst thing I could possibly endure: to stop believing in a God. The world was so empty. Not that I was good at being an atheist, I kept accidentally thinking, "God, what is your plan for me and these atheistic thoughts" as if, this way of viewing the world as Godless was God's plan. I'd make a terrible atheist. For a better explanation of that experience see my poem: http://visionofjohanna.livejournal.com/51599.html
This sudden attack on my faith was interesting- affecting me emotionally and intellectually. I felt anger and loss at the same time, and honestly, freaked out a little bit.
Bertrand Russell, what a guy. As my mom said when I told her, "oh, Bertrand Russell?! That jerk just needed to get laid."
No comments:
Post a Comment