Warning: an unusually long introduction incoming.
I realize this might not be the right place to post it, so feel free to move it, edit, delete it or whatever.
Here goes.
Hello, I am a 23 year old student in my final year of university with rather big decisions ahead of me. Consequently, owing in part to this, and in part to other things, some of which I will get to shortly, I am currently in the middle of some sort of existentialist/spiritual/religious/life crisis (more or less in that order).
Since religious doubts are at least a part of my current problem, I thought it would perhaps be wise to share my thoughts with people who have thought about this subject, or even perhaps went through something similar. Frankly lately I have felt a strong need to communicate with somebody about my situation who can understand it. This is the main reason why I have registered here, if this is not appropriate let me know. I would also like to state that I am in no way seeking some sort of therapy from people here, or demanding immediate help, nor do I have grandiose expectations of any kind. I am simply looking for listeners.
With that in mind, let us begin.
Generally my worldview is perhaps best explained with this short semi-autobiography I wrote some time ago, and will paste a part of here.
What is, and what is not
In retrospect, I consider specific events that occurred when I was 18 years of age to be a major turning point in my life. It was at this time that I was first introduced to philosophy. In one of the first classes in my 4th and final year of high school, I was told that Thales thought everything to be water, Anaximander thought the same of something he called “apeiron”, and that Anaximenes thought the same about air. The vast majority of my classmates found this to be primitive nonsense, the gibberish of a forgotten time remembered and thought of as important today only by a few boring old men.
As the reader might guess, my initial reaction to what I had heard was somewhat different. I was greatly confused. As is appropriate of that age, I was highly rebellious, but still not rebellious enough to instantly dismiss what I was hearing as worthless on the account that it had no place in my worldview of the time. I was deeply intrigued as to the contrast of the seemingly primitive and grossly incorrect theories that I was hearing, and the great respect accorded to them by my professor and the curriculum.
In subsequent classes, I was told of even more disturbing and intriguing things these ancient minds had to say about the world. I was told that Pythagoras thought the world to be consisted of, and created by numbers. That Heraclitus thought it was in a constant state of flux, with every static state an illusion of the senses, while on the other hand Parmenides thought the very opposite, that the universe was One and unchanging, completely static, and that motion was the illusion. Moreover, I was taught that these were extremely wise men, who had had enormous influence on Western thought.
But how could this be? I had not heard anything of the sort before, and these theories were to my mind largely incompatible with what I had been taught in my physics and chemistry classes. As I was fond of debate at that time, I used to imagine what would happen if these ancient gentlemen were to somehow appear in my time, and I was given the task of explaining to them what was wrong with their theories, and what the world was actually like. If their theories are so primitive and childish as they seem to us now, this should be a relatively easy task, right?
Wrong. They plagued me for days with their infuriating questions: What reason do you have for believing that these so called “atoms” of yours exist? Is the world static or in a constant flux? Are there not four elements that compose the world? Is this not what your senses tell you? What are these “forces” you speak of? How do you know that what your senses are telling you is real, and not illusion? What is reality? What is proof, and how does one get it? What is truth? What is lie?
In time I realized that the only “proof” I could give them for anything that I was saying is that I was told so by someone else. In the end they were the rational ones, and I the child, since what they considered as truth was based on their own thinking on what they observed, while what I considered to be the truth was based exclusively on the belief in the authority of my teachers. Moreover, even if they would grant me my appeal to authority, and consented that everything I was taught in physics and chemistry classes was true, I would still be completely unable to answer most of their questions. Slowly but surely, it began to dawn on me that the pursuit of knowledge and explanation is a vastly more complicated affair than I had originally thought. I realized that I knew nothing. And from this realization came an irresistible urge to know, and to understand.
Armed with this new approach, in due time I arrived at the question of religion. Up to this point I was an atheist, a position, it seems to me I adopted largely because everyone I knew and respected at the time were atheists. I realized that what I had thought were rational and logical reasons for dismissing Christian faith (the only one I was in some measure exposed to) were not in any real sense either rational or logical, but more akin to faith, the very thing I ridiculed in others when I saw it. I was an atheist mainly because it appealed to me to be such, not because I could in any way prove that what the Christians were saying was untrue. Naturally, I found such a basis for an opinion wholly unsatisfactory, and I set out to find the truth of the matter.
It is this “quest” , that will be the subject of this work.
Knowledge and it's obtainment
Knowledge is a set of true statements about the universe, or certain particular parts of it. Knowledge is also something certain, something of which, once ascertained there can be no further reasonable doubt. As far as this paper is concerned, I think this definition will suffice.
Once knowledge is defined, the question that immediately comes to mind is: how is it to be obtained? To my mind, this question is of imperative importance when discussing matters of religion.
In modern times, there seem to be two differing opinions on the matter. Roughly speaking, one can be called 'scientific', which relies on reason and logic. The other can be roughly classified as 'religious', and correspondingly, that which it relies upon can be summed up in the tricky concept of ‘faith’.
The scientific one is in essence that which is today accepted as ‘common sense’. The position it maintains is roughly as follows.
There is such a thing as an objective reality. That is to say the universe is not simply a construct of our mind, or a figment of our imagination. This reality is revealed to us by impartial observation. Impartial observation is in essence observation devoid of emotion. It is not affected by what one thinks should, or should not be. For instance, I am now writing on a computer. This will remain true regardless of whether I want the computer to be here or not. It remains unaffected by my internal thoughts, opinions or emotions. Furthermore this observation can be corroborated by other individuals observing the same thing. In this way the statement: “I am writing on my computer”, is empirically verifiable, as must all statements be which wish to be regarded as true, and accepted as knowledge. Knowledge of this kind, which can be determined by simple observation, is obviously not that difficult to obtain. The matter becomes a bit more complicated when statements cannot be corroborated in this way.
The human mind is a demanding mistress, for it, merely observing the universe is not enough, it demands explanation. Since the observable universe is determined as inadequate of explaining itself, entities not amenable to direct observation are called in for help. Such entities are for example: the soul, gravity, the atom, God, energy etc. But if they cannot be directly observed, how are we to determine if they really exist or not? Again, the method is roughly as follows.
If an entity or a concept is proposed to exist, and it cannot be directly observed, it is to be proven to exist, or conversely, to not exist, by indirect observation. Indirectly observing something, is observing it’s effect or effects on something that can be directly observed. To illustrate how this is done, it seems to me the case of the “atom” will do nicely.
In the 19th century, the atomistic theory of Democritus (460-370. BC) was revived. In the early 1800's, John Dalton, a prominent English chemist at that time, conducted a series of experiments that seemed to suggest that matter is composed of fundamental small particles, which he thought to be uniform and indestructible. In view of the theory's similarity to the one proposed in ancient Greece, he called the particles “atoms”, the same name Democritus used (atomos in ancient Greek meaning indivisible, indestructible). In 1897, the English physicist J.J Thompson discovered the electron, and proposed a model for the structure of the atom. Thompson knew that the electron must be negatively charged, so he thought matter must be positively charged. His model looked like raisins stuck on the surface of a lump of pudding (the raisins being the electrons, and matter being the pudding). Further experiments were made by prominent physicists, and the atomistic theory found itself in a state of constant revision.
One of the more interesting revisions was made by Ernest Rutherford in 1911, concerning the nature of the positive part of Thompson's atom. This is a prime example of how entities which cannot be directly observed, can be proven to exist by indirect observation. In the early 1900's positively charged particles known as “alpha rays” were discovered. Rutherford thought it would prove interesting to bombard atoms with these alpha rays, figuring that this experiment could investigate the inside of the atom (sort of like a probe). He used Radium as the source of the alpha particles and shinned them onto the atoms in gold foil. Behind the foil sat a fluorescent screen from which he could observe the alpha particles impact. The results of the experiments were unexpected. Most of the alpha particles went smoothly through the foil. Only an occasional alpha veered sharply from its original path, sometimes bouncing straight back from the foil. Rutherford reasoned that they must get scattered by tiny bits of positively charged matter. Most of the space around these positive centers had nothing in them. He thought that the electrons must exist somewhere within this empty space. In conclusion, Rutherford proposed a model of the atom in which the negative electrons orbited a positive center in a manner like the solar system where the planets orbit the sun.
Further revisions were made by Bohr, Sommerfeld, Pauli, Planck, Einstein, just to name a few. Other particles were discovered: protons, neutrons, quarks, leptons, gluons, photons etc, to make the atomistic theory into what it is today.
The method used for accepting or denying the existence of objects which are not directly observable should be clear enough from this example.
Certain empirical data seemed to suggest that Democritus had it right all those years ago. Then when this theory was shown to be incompatible with direct observation (experiment), it was modified. With further revisions it was modified almost beyond recognition. Practically the only thing that the modern atomistic theory shares with the one from ancient Greece, is the name “atom”.
If someone today proposes the existence of a new particle, or a new quality of a known one, he will have to prove his claims by way of experiment. That is to say he will have to demonstrate the effects of his proposed particle on something that is directly observable. If direct observation shows results incompatible with his theory, it is to be abandoned.
To put the matter abstractly, when enough direct observations of the behavior and qualities of an entity or object A are collected, an entity or object B, which is outside of direct observation, is proposed to exist. B has such and such qualities that cause and explain the behavior of A. If B seems like the only viable explanation of the behavior of A, and is not incompatible with all other known data obtained by direct observation, it's existence can be accepted as true, but is still open to revision or rejection if new information (again obtained by observation) is discovered which is incompatible with the current theory.
This is the scientific method in a nutshell. It has proven it's worth again and again, with every new technology invented, from the computer I am now writing on, to the nuclear bomb and the space shuttle.
If we accept that there is such a thing as an objective reality, the scientific method seems to me to be the natural approach. Apart from it's results being evident, I can find nothing wrong with the method itself, therefore I accept it as valid(As far as those who would deny the existence of objective reality are concerned (if any exist, or ever existed), they of course will not be reading this paper since it is not real, nor will they endeavor to establish any contact with me whatsoever, since to them I am an illusion. Therefore it would be futile to go on wasting words on them.).
But there seems to be a great number of people who think that this is not the only method of obtaining knowledge. I am referring to the concept of somehow deriving or obtaining knowledge from 'faith'. I use the adverb “somehow”, since to my knowledge, an adequate explanation of how exactly this is supposed to occur has never been put forth. In some cases the concept of “personal experience” is called in for help, and since this is the most coherent explanation I have come across it shall be the one with which I begin. First a rough definition will suffice.
Personal experience is something which is claimed to have been experienced by an individual, and only him, no one else (as far as I know no two accounts are identical).
As far as this has to do with religion, I am of course speaking of those people who claim that they have “experienced” their God. Some claim that they have heard him speak, some that they saw him, and others that it is not a matter of hearing or seeing or anything to do with the five senses, but rather that it is an altogether different kind of experience, sort of like a “sixth sense” with which you are aware of his presence in a way that is no less real to you than the existence of the chair you are sitting on, the person you are currently speaking to, the Sun, the Moon etc.
This concept is in many ways very peculiar. First of all, it seems it can only be applied to the divine. Perhaps it is best to illustrate this with a story.
One sunny afternoon I was sipping tea in my garden, and a unicorn appeared(and a talking unicorn at that!). I informed him that he should help himself to the plants and grass around us, a proposal which he gratefully accepted. We sat there for a few minutes, enjoying the silence, me drinking my tea and him munching on my plants, after which we exchanged a few pleasantries about the weather, and then he was gone as quick as he had appeared.
If I were to maintain that this story is true, I would presumably be ridiculed by theist and atheist alike, and if I would persist with my claim, and ask them why they don't believe me, they would say that I have no proof, that my senses deceived me etc etc. In other words they would not take my experience at face value, but would demand additional corroboration. Strangely enough, these same people who would demand that I present some additional proof for my unicorn, maintain that no such proof is necessary for their personal experience of their god.
Even more strange is the fact that the claims of religious personal experience that have been put forth over the ages, number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, and are in large number mutually exclusive. For instance, let us take the example of today's three major monotheistic religions, the very cores of which are mutually exclusive. If the Christian God exists, Jesus is his son and himself at the same time, and Mohamed was not his prophet. if Allah exists, Jesus was not his son but a misinterpreted prophet, who was followed and expounded upon by Mohamed, and if Yahweh exists, both Jesus and Mohamed are false prophets.
Since they are mutually exclusive, they cannot all be true, therefore at least 2/3 are false. How then, is a bystander to determine which of them, if any, is true? Every one of them has proponents who claim to have experienced with undeniable certainty the truth and the existence of their God and his son/prophet, and considers this sufficient reason for accepting their claim as true, and on the other hand when he is confronted with the same claim of personal experience, certainty and exclusivity by a believer of a different religion, he denies them on the same grounds as the other denies his, and the atheist denies them all.
In essence, the believer wishes the unbeliever (whether an atheist or a theist of another religion/denomination) to believe that he has had an experience which the unbeliever has not, that this experience is sufficient proof of his deity's existence, and that the unbeliever should take his word for it, while at the same time refusing to do the same thing when it is asked of him.
The truth of the matter is very simple. Suppose person A is convinced that there are invisible flying unicorns all around us all the time, that only the ones who make an effort to see them, in fact see them, while person B claims that he has somehow experienced the creator of the universe. If person A did not experience what B did, and vice-versa, I see absolutely no reason why A or B should accept that what the other is saying is true, solely on the grounds that he says it is, and on this much I think we can all agree.
There is a case however, when it seems reasonable that A should believe B (or vice-versa), when there are things that A has experienced, for which the most plausible explanation is the existence of the object of B's experience. Thus we are back to the concept of 'empirically verifiable', and to the scientific method. Unfortunately, so far as I have seen, the majority of the world's population (including myself) have not had any religious personal experience, nor any other type of experience which could not be explained more plausibly in any other way than by admitting the existence of a God, or gods of any one known religion.
There is one thing to be kept in mind when discussing knowledge and methods of it's obtainment that I have not so far mentioned, and that is the fact that human life cannot be lived solely on the basis of 100% sure undeniable knowledge, since of that, we have very little (this was implied when I said earlier that the conclusions of science are not set in stone, but are constantly open to revision). Thus in order to live, we have to have a certain 'reasonable belief', which consists of accepting as true (at least provisionally) some things of which we cannot be 100% sure, because everything we have experienced suggests that it is true. For example, every one of us believes that the Sun will rise tomorrow (even though we cannot prove it in any way), because we have never known it not to, nor had we had any other experience that would suggest or convince us that it won't. Thus, a large part of our decision-making is based on a certain 'rational belief', that is to say, in believing in what all the evidence that we are aware of points to, even though we cannot be sure of it 100%.
This point can also be restated in terms of probability theory. All our plans for the future are contingent on the assumption that we will live long enough to realize them. Of course, we can never be absolutely sure that we will, but our assumption, or belief in this case is justified if our plans can be realized in the time equal to the average life-expectancy of the place we live in. Thus, a person in our day and age, will be justified in his belief that he will live to see his 30th birthday, but not justified that he will see his 1000th since there is no evidence which supports that belief.
In the end , it seems to me that there is no way to disprove any god's existence (at least the gods of the modern three monotheistic religions), nor alternatively, to prove his existence, simply because of the fact that we cannot test for the existence of something which is claimed to be something which is not part of our universe. Thus if there is no way to prove the existence or non-existence of a god of any religion, the question remains: Is there sufficient evidence in reality to make belief in any known religion justified? Or restated in terms which I used a little earlier, is there anything in that which A has experienced that would make his belief in the truthfulness B's personal experience, that would make the existence of B's object of personal experience a plausible proposition?
In other words is there such a thing as a rational belief in any of today's gods? A rational belief analogous to the belief in the Sun rising tomorrow, or that a healthy 10 year-old will live to see another day?
My answer: No
This is pretty much the worldview I held until about a few months ago, when this crisis started. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I still hold it, but it does not provide me with the security, stability and peace of mind it once did.
The catalyst and I guess the final and most obvious cause of my crisis is a series of conversations I have had with a fellow student of mine. In short, he was a nonbeliever who converted to catholicism after a series of tragedies happened to him and his family. At the time I found out about his religious views, I have never met a very seriously religious person who prays before every meal, goes to church regularly and believes everything the Bible says is true. My first instinct, was to engage in a debate with him to show him how wrong he is. Up to that point I have spent a lot of time in seclusion reading philosophy and thinking, and considered his view to be completely primitive nonsense derived from lack of thinking, and quite frankly it irritated me that such a person exists in the 21.st century. We debated and talked about it on and off for about 3 years (he is my classmate), but eventually we go to the very core of our disagreement. We determined that the root and basis of his belief is his "inner feeling of God", or as it is formally called "belief from personal experience". My position on this was that our feelings can never be a reliable source of knowledge, only reason is fit for that role, and this I considered so matter-of-fact that it was completely inconceivable to me that someone could disagree.
But disagree he did. What got me is that he completely understood what I was saying, and was completely convinced that it was not true, and this was pretty much the starting point of all my thinking, I could not come up with any more arguments. His view on the matter was that what he "feels" is different from regular "feelings" and it's source is external, namely his God.
When we got to this point, and I could not convince him that what he's talking about are still emotions and feelings, only stronger and perhaps of a different magnitude, I started to feel very uncomfortable and eventually bad when talking to him.
I started to question myself to the very core, and started to feel very much the "stick" part of the monotheistic religions MO of "stick and carrot". Horrible thoughts of "what if I'm wrong and will go to hell because of it", started appearing, doubts, feelings of pointlessness, purposelessness etc.
These feelings and doubts of a religious kind came together in a package with doubts of completely different origin which I will leave out of this post, and I got completely overwhelmed.
Up until now I have been looking for quick fixes, and I would shake of my doubts for the moment and continue living my normal life, but eventually, be it in a few hours, days or even a week or, two the same or completely different doubts and questions would surface, and on and on it goes for the last 3 or so months.
I have finally concluded that I have spent a large majority of my time in trying to understand the world around me, but have spent very little if any on trying to know myself, or in christian terminology: I have been taking care of everything around me but my soul, or in typical ancient Greek fashion: I have been concerning myself all of my life with the heavens, instead of concerning myself with how to live a noble and good life.
So right at the end of my university years, when i thought I had it all figured out, what I'm going to do and who I'm going to be, I am a seeker again
, that's life I guess.
And here I am now, posting on this forum. Currently I am reading Steven Uhl's "Out of God's closet", and am enthralled by it, and right now I am going to go out to walk in the sunshine, sit on a park bench and read it on my kindle, and have a cup of coffee with my girlfriend, and when I get back I look forward to seeing your comments.
P.S. I imagine lots of things written here will need further explaining, especially in the last part of the text but for the moment this will have to suffice. If there is any interest, I will be happy to explain more thoroughly some point, idea or thought process that was not adequately explained.
A big thanks to everyone who had the patience to read the whole thing, I appreciate it.
I realize this might not be the right place to post it, so feel free to move it, edit, delete it or whatever.
Here goes.
Hello, I am a 23 year old student in my final year of university with rather big decisions ahead of me. Consequently, owing in part to this, and in part to other things, some of which I will get to shortly, I am currently in the middle of some sort of existentialist/spiritual/religious/life crisis (more or less in that order).
Since religious doubts are at least a part of my current problem, I thought it would perhaps be wise to share my thoughts with people who have thought about this subject, or even perhaps went through something similar. Frankly lately I have felt a strong need to communicate with somebody about my situation who can understand it. This is the main reason why I have registered here, if this is not appropriate let me know. I would also like to state that I am in no way seeking some sort of therapy from people here, or demanding immediate help, nor do I have grandiose expectations of any kind. I am simply looking for listeners.
With that in mind, let us begin.
Generally my worldview is perhaps best explained with this short semi-autobiography I wrote some time ago, and will paste a part of here.
What is, and what is not
In retrospect, I consider specific events that occurred when I was 18 years of age to be a major turning point in my life. It was at this time that I was first introduced to philosophy. In one of the first classes in my 4th and final year of high school, I was told that Thales thought everything to be water, Anaximander thought the same of something he called “apeiron”, and that Anaximenes thought the same about air. The vast majority of my classmates found this to be primitive nonsense, the gibberish of a forgotten time remembered and thought of as important today only by a few boring old men.
As the reader might guess, my initial reaction to what I had heard was somewhat different. I was greatly confused. As is appropriate of that age, I was highly rebellious, but still not rebellious enough to instantly dismiss what I was hearing as worthless on the account that it had no place in my worldview of the time. I was deeply intrigued as to the contrast of the seemingly primitive and grossly incorrect theories that I was hearing, and the great respect accorded to them by my professor and the curriculum.
In subsequent classes, I was told of even more disturbing and intriguing things these ancient minds had to say about the world. I was told that Pythagoras thought the world to be consisted of, and created by numbers. That Heraclitus thought it was in a constant state of flux, with every static state an illusion of the senses, while on the other hand Parmenides thought the very opposite, that the universe was One and unchanging, completely static, and that motion was the illusion. Moreover, I was taught that these were extremely wise men, who had had enormous influence on Western thought.
But how could this be? I had not heard anything of the sort before, and these theories were to my mind largely incompatible with what I had been taught in my physics and chemistry classes. As I was fond of debate at that time, I used to imagine what would happen if these ancient gentlemen were to somehow appear in my time, and I was given the task of explaining to them what was wrong with their theories, and what the world was actually like. If their theories are so primitive and childish as they seem to us now, this should be a relatively easy task, right?
Wrong. They plagued me for days with their infuriating questions: What reason do you have for believing that these so called “atoms” of yours exist? Is the world static or in a constant flux? Are there not four elements that compose the world? Is this not what your senses tell you? What are these “forces” you speak of? How do you know that what your senses are telling you is real, and not illusion? What is reality? What is proof, and how does one get it? What is truth? What is lie?
In time I realized that the only “proof” I could give them for anything that I was saying is that I was told so by someone else. In the end they were the rational ones, and I the child, since what they considered as truth was based on their own thinking on what they observed, while what I considered to be the truth was based exclusively on the belief in the authority of my teachers. Moreover, even if they would grant me my appeal to authority, and consented that everything I was taught in physics and chemistry classes was true, I would still be completely unable to answer most of their questions. Slowly but surely, it began to dawn on me that the pursuit of knowledge and explanation is a vastly more complicated affair than I had originally thought. I realized that I knew nothing. And from this realization came an irresistible urge to know, and to understand.
Armed with this new approach, in due time I arrived at the question of religion. Up to this point I was an atheist, a position, it seems to me I adopted largely because everyone I knew and respected at the time were atheists. I realized that what I had thought were rational and logical reasons for dismissing Christian faith (the only one I was in some measure exposed to) were not in any real sense either rational or logical, but more akin to faith, the very thing I ridiculed in others when I saw it. I was an atheist mainly because it appealed to me to be such, not because I could in any way prove that what the Christians were saying was untrue. Naturally, I found such a basis for an opinion wholly unsatisfactory, and I set out to find the truth of the matter.
It is this “quest” , that will be the subject of this work.
Knowledge and it's obtainment
Knowledge is a set of true statements about the universe, or certain particular parts of it. Knowledge is also something certain, something of which, once ascertained there can be no further reasonable doubt. As far as this paper is concerned, I think this definition will suffice.
Once knowledge is defined, the question that immediately comes to mind is: how is it to be obtained? To my mind, this question is of imperative importance when discussing matters of religion.
In modern times, there seem to be two differing opinions on the matter. Roughly speaking, one can be called 'scientific', which relies on reason and logic. The other can be roughly classified as 'religious', and correspondingly, that which it relies upon can be summed up in the tricky concept of ‘faith’.
The scientific one is in essence that which is today accepted as ‘common sense’. The position it maintains is roughly as follows.
There is such a thing as an objective reality. That is to say the universe is not simply a construct of our mind, or a figment of our imagination. This reality is revealed to us by impartial observation. Impartial observation is in essence observation devoid of emotion. It is not affected by what one thinks should, or should not be. For instance, I am now writing on a computer. This will remain true regardless of whether I want the computer to be here or not. It remains unaffected by my internal thoughts, opinions or emotions. Furthermore this observation can be corroborated by other individuals observing the same thing. In this way the statement: “I am writing on my computer”, is empirically verifiable, as must all statements be which wish to be regarded as true, and accepted as knowledge. Knowledge of this kind, which can be determined by simple observation, is obviously not that difficult to obtain. The matter becomes a bit more complicated when statements cannot be corroborated in this way.
The human mind is a demanding mistress, for it, merely observing the universe is not enough, it demands explanation. Since the observable universe is determined as inadequate of explaining itself, entities not amenable to direct observation are called in for help. Such entities are for example: the soul, gravity, the atom, God, energy etc. But if they cannot be directly observed, how are we to determine if they really exist or not? Again, the method is roughly as follows.
If an entity or a concept is proposed to exist, and it cannot be directly observed, it is to be proven to exist, or conversely, to not exist, by indirect observation. Indirectly observing something, is observing it’s effect or effects on something that can be directly observed. To illustrate how this is done, it seems to me the case of the “atom” will do nicely.
In the 19th century, the atomistic theory of Democritus (460-370. BC) was revived. In the early 1800's, John Dalton, a prominent English chemist at that time, conducted a series of experiments that seemed to suggest that matter is composed of fundamental small particles, which he thought to be uniform and indestructible. In view of the theory's similarity to the one proposed in ancient Greece, he called the particles “atoms”, the same name Democritus used (atomos in ancient Greek meaning indivisible, indestructible). In 1897, the English physicist J.J Thompson discovered the electron, and proposed a model for the structure of the atom. Thompson knew that the electron must be negatively charged, so he thought matter must be positively charged. His model looked like raisins stuck on the surface of a lump of pudding (the raisins being the electrons, and matter being the pudding). Further experiments were made by prominent physicists, and the atomistic theory found itself in a state of constant revision.
One of the more interesting revisions was made by Ernest Rutherford in 1911, concerning the nature of the positive part of Thompson's atom. This is a prime example of how entities which cannot be directly observed, can be proven to exist by indirect observation. In the early 1900's positively charged particles known as “alpha rays” were discovered. Rutherford thought it would prove interesting to bombard atoms with these alpha rays, figuring that this experiment could investigate the inside of the atom (sort of like a probe). He used Radium as the source of the alpha particles and shinned them onto the atoms in gold foil. Behind the foil sat a fluorescent screen from which he could observe the alpha particles impact. The results of the experiments were unexpected. Most of the alpha particles went smoothly through the foil. Only an occasional alpha veered sharply from its original path, sometimes bouncing straight back from the foil. Rutherford reasoned that they must get scattered by tiny bits of positively charged matter. Most of the space around these positive centers had nothing in them. He thought that the electrons must exist somewhere within this empty space. In conclusion, Rutherford proposed a model of the atom in which the negative electrons orbited a positive center in a manner like the solar system where the planets orbit the sun.
Further revisions were made by Bohr, Sommerfeld, Pauli, Planck, Einstein, just to name a few. Other particles were discovered: protons, neutrons, quarks, leptons, gluons, photons etc, to make the atomistic theory into what it is today.
The method used for accepting or denying the existence of objects which are not directly observable should be clear enough from this example.
Certain empirical data seemed to suggest that Democritus had it right all those years ago. Then when this theory was shown to be incompatible with direct observation (experiment), it was modified. With further revisions it was modified almost beyond recognition. Practically the only thing that the modern atomistic theory shares with the one from ancient Greece, is the name “atom”.
If someone today proposes the existence of a new particle, or a new quality of a known one, he will have to prove his claims by way of experiment. That is to say he will have to demonstrate the effects of his proposed particle on something that is directly observable. If direct observation shows results incompatible with his theory, it is to be abandoned.
To put the matter abstractly, when enough direct observations of the behavior and qualities of an entity or object A are collected, an entity or object B, which is outside of direct observation, is proposed to exist. B has such and such qualities that cause and explain the behavior of A. If B seems like the only viable explanation of the behavior of A, and is not incompatible with all other known data obtained by direct observation, it's existence can be accepted as true, but is still open to revision or rejection if new information (again obtained by observation) is discovered which is incompatible with the current theory.
This is the scientific method in a nutshell. It has proven it's worth again and again, with every new technology invented, from the computer I am now writing on, to the nuclear bomb and the space shuttle.
If we accept that there is such a thing as an objective reality, the scientific method seems to me to be the natural approach. Apart from it's results being evident, I can find nothing wrong with the method itself, therefore I accept it as valid(As far as those who would deny the existence of objective reality are concerned (if any exist, or ever existed), they of course will not be reading this paper since it is not real, nor will they endeavor to establish any contact with me whatsoever, since to them I am an illusion. Therefore it would be futile to go on wasting words on them.).
But there seems to be a great number of people who think that this is not the only method of obtaining knowledge. I am referring to the concept of somehow deriving or obtaining knowledge from 'faith'. I use the adverb “somehow”, since to my knowledge, an adequate explanation of how exactly this is supposed to occur has never been put forth. In some cases the concept of “personal experience” is called in for help, and since this is the most coherent explanation I have come across it shall be the one with which I begin. First a rough definition will suffice.
Personal experience is something which is claimed to have been experienced by an individual, and only him, no one else (as far as I know no two accounts are identical).
As far as this has to do with religion, I am of course speaking of those people who claim that they have “experienced” their God. Some claim that they have heard him speak, some that they saw him, and others that it is not a matter of hearing or seeing or anything to do with the five senses, but rather that it is an altogether different kind of experience, sort of like a “sixth sense” with which you are aware of his presence in a way that is no less real to you than the existence of the chair you are sitting on, the person you are currently speaking to, the Sun, the Moon etc.
This concept is in many ways very peculiar. First of all, it seems it can only be applied to the divine. Perhaps it is best to illustrate this with a story.
One sunny afternoon I was sipping tea in my garden, and a unicorn appeared(and a talking unicorn at that!). I informed him that he should help himself to the plants and grass around us, a proposal which he gratefully accepted. We sat there for a few minutes, enjoying the silence, me drinking my tea and him munching on my plants, after which we exchanged a few pleasantries about the weather, and then he was gone as quick as he had appeared.
If I were to maintain that this story is true, I would presumably be ridiculed by theist and atheist alike, and if I would persist with my claim, and ask them why they don't believe me, they would say that I have no proof, that my senses deceived me etc etc. In other words they would not take my experience at face value, but would demand additional corroboration. Strangely enough, these same people who would demand that I present some additional proof for my unicorn, maintain that no such proof is necessary for their personal experience of their god.
Even more strange is the fact that the claims of religious personal experience that have been put forth over the ages, number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, and are in large number mutually exclusive. For instance, let us take the example of today's three major monotheistic religions, the very cores of which are mutually exclusive. If the Christian God exists, Jesus is his son and himself at the same time, and Mohamed was not his prophet. if Allah exists, Jesus was not his son but a misinterpreted prophet, who was followed and expounded upon by Mohamed, and if Yahweh exists, both Jesus and Mohamed are false prophets.
Since they are mutually exclusive, they cannot all be true, therefore at least 2/3 are false. How then, is a bystander to determine which of them, if any, is true? Every one of them has proponents who claim to have experienced with undeniable certainty the truth and the existence of their God and his son/prophet, and considers this sufficient reason for accepting their claim as true, and on the other hand when he is confronted with the same claim of personal experience, certainty and exclusivity by a believer of a different religion, he denies them on the same grounds as the other denies his, and the atheist denies them all.
In essence, the believer wishes the unbeliever (whether an atheist or a theist of another religion/denomination) to believe that he has had an experience which the unbeliever has not, that this experience is sufficient proof of his deity's existence, and that the unbeliever should take his word for it, while at the same time refusing to do the same thing when it is asked of him.
The truth of the matter is very simple. Suppose person A is convinced that there are invisible flying unicorns all around us all the time, that only the ones who make an effort to see them, in fact see them, while person B claims that he has somehow experienced the creator of the universe. If person A did not experience what B did, and vice-versa, I see absolutely no reason why A or B should accept that what the other is saying is true, solely on the grounds that he says it is, and on this much I think we can all agree.
There is a case however, when it seems reasonable that A should believe B (or vice-versa), when there are things that A has experienced, for which the most plausible explanation is the existence of the object of B's experience. Thus we are back to the concept of 'empirically verifiable', and to the scientific method. Unfortunately, so far as I have seen, the majority of the world's population (including myself) have not had any religious personal experience, nor any other type of experience which could not be explained more plausibly in any other way than by admitting the existence of a God, or gods of any one known religion.
There is one thing to be kept in mind when discussing knowledge and methods of it's obtainment that I have not so far mentioned, and that is the fact that human life cannot be lived solely on the basis of 100% sure undeniable knowledge, since of that, we have very little (this was implied when I said earlier that the conclusions of science are not set in stone, but are constantly open to revision). Thus in order to live, we have to have a certain 'reasonable belief', which consists of accepting as true (at least provisionally) some things of which we cannot be 100% sure, because everything we have experienced suggests that it is true. For example, every one of us believes that the Sun will rise tomorrow (even though we cannot prove it in any way), because we have never known it not to, nor had we had any other experience that would suggest or convince us that it won't. Thus, a large part of our decision-making is based on a certain 'rational belief', that is to say, in believing in what all the evidence that we are aware of points to, even though we cannot be sure of it 100%.
This point can also be restated in terms of probability theory. All our plans for the future are contingent on the assumption that we will live long enough to realize them. Of course, we can never be absolutely sure that we will, but our assumption, or belief in this case is justified if our plans can be realized in the time equal to the average life-expectancy of the place we live in. Thus, a person in our day and age, will be justified in his belief that he will live to see his 30th birthday, but not justified that he will see his 1000th since there is no evidence which supports that belief.
In the end , it seems to me that there is no way to disprove any god's existence (at least the gods of the modern three monotheistic religions), nor alternatively, to prove his existence, simply because of the fact that we cannot test for the existence of something which is claimed to be something which is not part of our universe. Thus if there is no way to prove the existence or non-existence of a god of any religion, the question remains: Is there sufficient evidence in reality to make belief in any known religion justified? Or restated in terms which I used a little earlier, is there anything in that which A has experienced that would make his belief in the truthfulness B's personal experience, that would make the existence of B's object of personal experience a plausible proposition?
In other words is there such a thing as a rational belief in any of today's gods? A rational belief analogous to the belief in the Sun rising tomorrow, or that a healthy 10 year-old will live to see another day?
My answer: No
This is pretty much the worldview I held until about a few months ago, when this crisis started. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I still hold it, but it does not provide me with the security, stability and peace of mind it once did.
The catalyst and I guess the final and most obvious cause of my crisis is a series of conversations I have had with a fellow student of mine. In short, he was a nonbeliever who converted to catholicism after a series of tragedies happened to him and his family. At the time I found out about his religious views, I have never met a very seriously religious person who prays before every meal, goes to church regularly and believes everything the Bible says is true. My first instinct, was to engage in a debate with him to show him how wrong he is. Up to that point I have spent a lot of time in seclusion reading philosophy and thinking, and considered his view to be completely primitive nonsense derived from lack of thinking, and quite frankly it irritated me that such a person exists in the 21.st century. We debated and talked about it on and off for about 3 years (he is my classmate), but eventually we go to the very core of our disagreement. We determined that the root and basis of his belief is his "inner feeling of God", or as it is formally called "belief from personal experience". My position on this was that our feelings can never be a reliable source of knowledge, only reason is fit for that role, and this I considered so matter-of-fact that it was completely inconceivable to me that someone could disagree.
But disagree he did. What got me is that he completely understood what I was saying, and was completely convinced that it was not true, and this was pretty much the starting point of all my thinking, I could not come up with any more arguments. His view on the matter was that what he "feels" is different from regular "feelings" and it's source is external, namely his God.
When we got to this point, and I could not convince him that what he's talking about are still emotions and feelings, only stronger and perhaps of a different magnitude, I started to feel very uncomfortable and eventually bad when talking to him.
I started to question myself to the very core, and started to feel very much the "stick" part of the monotheistic religions MO of "stick and carrot". Horrible thoughts of "what if I'm wrong and will go to hell because of it", started appearing, doubts, feelings of pointlessness, purposelessness etc.
These feelings and doubts of a religious kind came together in a package with doubts of completely different origin which I will leave out of this post, and I got completely overwhelmed.
Up until now I have been looking for quick fixes, and I would shake of my doubts for the moment and continue living my normal life, but eventually, be it in a few hours, days or even a week or, two the same or completely different doubts and questions would surface, and on and on it goes for the last 3 or so months.
I have finally concluded that I have spent a large majority of my time in trying to understand the world around me, but have spent very little if any on trying to know myself, or in christian terminology: I have been taking care of everything around me but my soul, or in typical ancient Greek fashion: I have been concerning myself all of my life with the heavens, instead of concerning myself with how to live a noble and good life.
So right at the end of my university years, when i thought I had it all figured out, what I'm going to do and who I'm going to be, I am a seeker again
, that's life I guess. And here I am now, posting on this forum. Currently I am reading Steven Uhl's "Out of God's closet", and am enthralled by it, and right now I am going to go out to walk in the sunshine, sit on a park bench and read it on my kindle, and have a cup of coffee with my girlfriend, and when I get back I look forward to seeing your comments.
P.S. I imagine lots of things written here will need further explaining, especially in the last part of the text but for the moment this will have to suffice. If there is any interest, I will be happy to explain more thoroughly some point, idea or thought process that was not adequately explained.
A big thanks to everyone who had the patience to read the whole thing, I appreciate it.
