The Search For Proofs For God’s Existence

[rug]

In conversation with the author of an intellectual history and spiritual memoir.



God in Proof: The Story of a Search from the Ancients to the Internet
by Nathan Schneider
University of California Press , 2013

By Gordon Haber

To say that Nathan Schneider is particularly concerned with religion and activism belies his wide-ranging interests and accomplishments as an editor and writer. At the age of 28, Schneider defines the next generation of public intellectuals—fiercely articulate, indefatigably curious and Internet-savvy.

In 2008, shortly after earning an MA in Religious Studies from the University of California, Santa Barbara, Schneider began his editing career at Killing the Buddha, an online religion magazine. As a writer, Schneider has brought a clear-eyed enthusiasm to his commentary on the Occupy movement for The Nation, Harper’s, and The New York Times. He has also written about the largesse of the Templeton Foundation and profiled the anthropologist Gabriella Coleman for The Chronicle of Higher Education. Schneider’s “The Biblical Circus of William Stringfellow,” the first of many contributions to RD, appeared just four weeks after RD’s launch in early 2008.

His new book, God In Proof, is the story of “the search for proofs for God’s existence”—how dozens of world-historical thinkers have applied logic and reason to questions of faith. Schneider summarizes the arguments put forward by ancient Greeks, early Christians, medieval Muslims and Jews, and the grand figures of the Enlightenment, in addition to more recent arguments, like Intelligent Design and the surprising rise of philosophy as a witnessing tool for Evangelicals.

A scrupulous historian, Schneider does not leave out the thinkers, from Darwin to Dawkins, whose work has been deployed to argue against the existence of God.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/7133/the_search_for_proofs_for_god_s_existence/

[Buzz Clik]

1. Would you say that the proof of God's existence is more important to believers or atheists?

[rug]

3. I'd say the latter.

Evidence, proof, and so on.

[gcomeau]

11. I would agree...

The majority of believers I've encountered generally can't be bothered with things like evidence.

[rug]

14. Then it's a good thing it's not a matter for a jury.

[gcomeau]

15. You snark..

...as if disregard for evidence when formulating ones worldview were a joking matter.

It isn't.

(See the average GOP voter for a non-religious example)

[rug]

16. Evidence is but one thing that goes into a world view.

Assuming the goal is not a narrow world view.

[gcomeau]

17. Yes...

...you can also get bias, bigotry and intentional and willful ignorance for example.

Evidence is how those things are combated. Instilling a disregard for evidence is their defense mechanism.

[rug]

18. Or . . . .

you can wed yourself to a single tool and transform it into a weapon of arrogance, condescension and willful blindness. That is a surer path to bias and bigotry,

An open mind, dialogue and respect are far better vehicles for human understanding.

Assuming that is the goal, of course.

There is no monopoly on reason and evidence.

[gcomeau]

20. That's the thing about evidence...

...it only leads to reality. That's the nature of evidence.

There is no monopoly on reason and evidence.

And what exactly does that statement have to do with those we were discussing who do not concern themselves with it?

[rug]

21. Unless you have all the evidence, you only have part of reality.

If you only have part of reality, you have a skewed view of reality.

Speaking of snark, what this, "There is no monopoly on reason and evidence", means is that your implication, that believers lack reason or evidence, is crap. But it is an example of the baseless arrogance your view engenders.

[gcomeau]

23. Try paying attention when responding

I did not say they did not have it, I said they do not concern themselves with it.

Feel free to mull over the difference between the two and get back to me when you're ready to deal with things I actually say.

[rug]

24. Did I say you said that?

I said you implied it. Try paying attention when responding.

The only difference between your statements is the level of baseless arrogance. (If you need help, the second one has more.)

[arely staircase]

30. +1 nt

[Buzz Clik]

22. I'd say so, too -- particularly for the totally obsessed atheists.

Believers have their faith, and they see evidence of God in many ways -- some beautiful, some horrible.

Atheists should be comfortable in their nonbelief, not worrying at all whether the ever see God's face, converse with God, or see God's image in a piece of toast. Why bother trying to prove something does not exist? Just move on.

[Laochtine]

27. I'll move on

Thank for telling me how I should feel. When true separation of Church and State is reality, till then I'll be obsessed.

[customerserviceguy]

2. Here's a question I have for the religionists

Even if there can be scientific proof of a supreme being, either past or past and present, how does that knowledge inform anyone about which one of the tens of thousands of religions are probably right, in all their "thou shalls" and "thou shall nots"? Do you just assume that some sort of irrefutable proof (I doubt such can be found) will automatically validate your own particular set of man-made rules?

[rug]

4. You're asking what is the quantity of yellow.

It's not a numbers game, to be measured in yards and petri dishes.

[customerserviceguy]

5. Here's the point

So what if there is a supreme being? No religion leads to anything to know/understand/curry favor with or otherwise interact with said being. If there is one, how does it modify my behavior if I am already a decent, moral human being?

Since it's the religionists who are always arguing that there must be one, it must be part of their recruitment efforts. Even the certainty that there was one does not validate their particular religion.

[rug]

6. If there is a supreme being, your answer is so what?

Best you step out of the way before being trampled by scientists wanting to learn about it.

It's also odd that you link "know" and "understand" with "curry favor". I suppose it makes sense if you equate a supreme being with a rich uncle.

If there is one, and if it is known, it is likely to alter your understanding of many things, including yourself. I doubt that I with that knowledge would be poking myself and asking if I was a decent moral being, let alone if my religion was the right one.

[customerserviceguy]

7. I just view most of religion

with an eye towards how it "motivates" people to do "correct" things, and avoid "wrong" ones. Of course, these things also happen to be what the ruling elites wanted, no coincidence there in my mind.

As far as I'm concerned, those scientists can study anything they want. However, I'd prefer that government grant money not be employed to deal with this line of research. That's the only way I'm in their way.

[rug]

8. Religion is a whole other topic.

On occasion I find it useful to simply consider the concept of god.

[customerserviceguy]

9. I'll admit

I have trouble separating the two. I guess being beaten up for decades with the idea of enforcement/reward from a supreme being did that. I suppose it is possible to have a set of philosophical beliefs about a verified supreme being that doesn't involve forcing your will on other people, but I haven't seen it on this planet.

[rug]

12. It's a common enough experience.

Religion is probably the single most factor that drives people from even considering the notion of a god. Ironic.

[TlalocW]

10. Isn't the point of a religion...

Faith? I never understood the ulta-religious and their need to prove things - God exists, creationism, etc. The whole point is that if there is an all-powerful being out there that did create everything, and He/She says you must believe in me via faith, then He or She can, "cover up their tracks," so you can't prove their existence.

TlalocW

[rug]

13. I don't think there are any proofs.

If anything, these are faint echoes.

[skepticscott]

25. Yes, Haber appears not to even recognize

the rather laughable irony in his characterization of the book as "how dozens of world-historical thinkers have applied logic and reason to questions of faith." True religious faith requires no evidence...that's why it's "faith". The religionistas want it both ways of course. When they think that reason and evidence support the existence of their god, they trumpet it from the mountaintop and say "See? This proves it!", but when their evidence and arguments are shown to be flawed, they just fall back on "I have faith that this is true..I don't need evidence" or some other dodge to that effect.

[cpwm17]

28. Theists do tend to be very closed minded

They believe what they believe regardless of the evidence.

[cbayer]

29. All theists? Some theists? Only certain kinds of theists?

[dimbear]

19. Hundreds of proofs of God's existence......

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

My grandfather had a book of about that title, I have never been able to find a copy.

[mindwalker_i]

26. The more proof, the more God

Seems completely rreasonable to me.