Apologetics 3 - God As a Human Construct
29 January 2008 by Gil
Before getting into some (in my opinion) useful questions that point toward God’s existence, we went through some of the reasons why belief in God has come to be seen as less likely over the past few centuries. Here I borrowed from Alister McGrath’s The Twilight of Atheism which presents a helpful survey of the historical development of the God question (although the title is a bit misleading given the resurgence of atheism over the past few years).
For McGrath the contemporary objection to God has its origins in three historical figures, Feuerbach, Marx and Freud, each of whom presented some variation of the same argument. Our belief in God is something other than actual contact with a God who is out there. Instead it is either a psychological (Feuerbach and Freud) or social (Marx) phenomenon that has its origins in some feature of our human experience.
In the first case, belief in God is some form of ‘projection’ where we take our deepest desires and longings, project them on to the blank canvas of the universe and call them ‘God’. So if we have a desire for immortality, a longing for transcendent meaning or a need to ground morality in something absolute, we take these desires, these features of our experience, imagine a notion of God that corresponds to those desires and come to think of it as real.
Marx had a more cynical view of religion, namely that it was used by those in positions of power to reinforce the social hierarchy. Religion, Marx argued, was a useful way to keep people in their place. Convince a poor peasant that his reward is in heaven and you can get him to put up with his miserable state and dissuade him from revolting against the wealthy and the powerful (often the church).
It is, of course, possible to read the evidence in either of these ways but what I find confusing is the notion that it necessarily follows that belief in God is rendered less credible. For example, the idea that there is a psychological link between human desires and faith in God could be used to argue both sides. Either belief is merely a psychological phenomenon or our psychological makeup is what it is because of the possibility of our desires actually being met.
Moreover, it seems that if belief in God was some kind of projection of human desire then it would be far more likely that we would ‘project’ a more agreeable God. The God of the Bible certainly fulfills many of the deepest desires and wishes that we have but there are also facets of God’s character that seem directly opposed to what many of us would wish for.
All this to say, the alleged dethroning of God in light of our increased understanding of both human psychology and the social construction of reality may be exaggerated. It seems to me that we’re still left in position of making sense of ambiguous evidence and making a commitment with partial knowledge.
Whenever people describe our material world (within the context of personal values) with terms like “blank canvas,” or use words like the ones used by a C.S.Lewis fictional character - “hollow” and a “black pit of a kingdom,” I find it very disconcerting the kind of commentary they’re making on the personal lives of materialists. It’s disappointing, really.
Carl Sagan wrote, “If we are merely matter intricately assembled, is this really demeaning? If there’s nothing in here but atoms, does that make us less or does that make matter more?” I know our world is undeniably immoral in many respects, but I’m starting to wonder if religion contains a fundamental distraction from the value of the material world.
I’m glad you wrote - “.. or our psychological makeup is what it is because of the possibility of our desires actually being met.” This has always been an important point for me. It leads me to explore what exactly are the innate desires “God” could have designed within us? And what does Christianity’s ultimate ought for humanity actually look like?
“..if belief in God was some kind of projection of human desire then it would be far more likely that we would ‘project’ a more agreeable God. The God of the Bible certainly fulfils many of the deepest desires and wishes that people have but there are many more facets of God’s character that seem directly opposed to what many of us would wish for.” I appreciate your honesty here. Based on my experience, I’d say you’re in a minority among evangelicals on this point.
When I took a closer look at what I now call ‘a record of divine immorality’ portrayed in the biblical text, my Christian self couldn’t reconcile it with the best of current moral standards for humanity. I recognize that human improvement takes time, but I don’t understand why God took part in that immorality which I’m told was an improvement.
It increasingly became more than difficult to refer to God as the “absolute” morality is grounded in. I eventually came to the point of wondering if I had a limit for all of God’s actions or inactions that I found disagreeable. It turns out I did, and decided that “God trumps the bible.” In other words, the bible became far less of a revelation of God to biblical writers than I previously thought.
“All this to say, the alleged dethroning of God in light of our increased understanding of both human psychology and the social construction of reality may be exaggerated. It seems to me that we’re still left in position of making sense of ambiguous evidence and making a commitment with partial knowledge.”
I think you’ve isolated the issue here helpfully Gil. Providing an psychological or sociological explanation for some feature of human experience is not the same thing as explaining it away, no matter what folks like Feuerbach, Freud, Marx, or any of the current crop of atheists may claim. Holmes Rolston III calls this the “if functional, false” fallacy - the idea that if something (say religion) can be shown to have enhanced our evolutionary fitness in some way, its truth claims can thereby be dismissed. This seems, to me, to be a totally unnecessary severing of truth and utility to me - as if it were impossible that God might have set things up so that the beliefs that aid our survival and flourishing in the world might also be true.
Jerry,
Thanks for your response. I do feel like I have to clarify one important point. I did not mean (nor have I ever meant) to disparage the personal lives of ‘materialists’. Talking about a ‘blank canvas’ says nothing about the ethical standards or the sense of purpose or meaning that materialists can and do demonstrate. My only question is whether or not this is an internally coherent view.
The idea of there being ‘nothing out there beyond the material’ (a blank canvas) is the view explicitly endorsed by most contemporary atheists and certainly by the historical figures that I’ve highlighted in the post. It seems pretty basic to the materialist worldview so I’m not sure why you’re reacting against it. If you believe that there actually is something out there beyond material reality then please correct me.
A few questions: If matter is really all that there is where is meaning to be found? How can an intricately assembled collection of atoms (to use Sagan’s terminology) mean anything? This question becomes even more acute when you take the materialist assumption that this whole process came about randomly, without any external direction or purpose.
A final question: do you think that the materialist view which you hold leads to some version of biological determinism?
Regarding your questions about the morality of God evidenced in Scripture I can only say that I feel the force of those questions too. There is some deeply troubling stuff in there, particularly around the conquest of the land of Canaan that I cannot claim to have resolved.
For me the question of the ‘morality of God’ is answered decisively in Jesus and that relativizes some of the other concerns. God’s solution to the problem of evil was to suffer under it, to bear it for our sakes as an act of love, and to triumph over it through that love. That conviction is my starting point when it comes to the question of God’s morality.
This obviously does not get rid of all the questions but for me it takes the Bible on its own terms and places the emphasis where it the Bible places it.
I heartily agree with you that ‘God trumps the Bible’. The Bible is not the church’s object of worship, God is.
Gil,
I really love what you have done here in terms of helping us see that the God of our Bible is a far cry from the longings and desires expressed by those looking beyond themselves for comfort and meaning - because not all longings and desires are valid (of course they are valid in the sense of personhood). What kind of a crazy concoction we would come up with if God were just what we would create (perhaps it would be closer to the God of Max Lucado……ooops, I guess an inside word just popped out!). Or it would be a God who murders because we are mad at our neighbor.
Thanks for your insight here Gil.
Thanks for your clarification, Gil. I still have a problem with your choice of analogy, though. “Blank canvas” implies a painting that has yet to be started. For materialists like myself, reality is evolving art started long ago. I hope this clarifies my initial response.
In response to your questions:
I think I explained this in my first response to your “Personal Knowledge” post. I currently understand meaning to be found in the sentient action of matter, where the impersonal becomes personal, therefore purposeful. Meaning is a personal reaction. I respond personally to the world I know with purpose. I’m filled with awe by the magnificence our world has evolved into, bringing about life and consciousness among life.
I haven’t read anything on the empirical significance of biological determinism, so I couldn’t comment on that yet. I suppose there’s many things to consider, as you’ve mentioned - “the materialist assumption that this whole process came about randomly, without any external direction or purpose,” and even in the religious sense that you’ve mentioned - “.. or our [religious] psychological makeup is what it is because of the possibility of our desires actually being met.”
Offhand, I don’t know how one thing would determine itself. If evolution is about adapting to the environment, I suppose everything is influenced to different degrees by various surroundings filled with diversity. If you could be a God (or a God greater than the Christian God), capable of seeing how all things are influenced within the universe (and by the supposed Christian God), recognizing how the whole universe is changing and what it is changing into, the question of freedom becomes quite the philosophical riddle.
Determinism, for me, isn’t about being against human wills, either. For me, it’s about an imagined ‘objective big-picture view’ of all inclusive influences. And ‘Free-will,’ to me, means being consciously free of knowing all that influences our wills.
You said, “For me the question of the ‘morality of God’ is answered decisively in Jesus and that relativizes some of the other concerns. God’s solution to the problem of evil was to suffer under it.. …for me [this] takes the Bible on its own terms and places the emphasis where it the Bible places it.”
So, your faith commitment to the whole biblical text is a recognition of the best as the best and the worst to be understood as better through the best? Doesn’t that cheapen the best? This may be good enough for you, but it isn’t for me. I just can’t make my eyes see the bible’s worst as some sort of ‘good’. And I still can’t understand why the omnipotent God chooses to suffer for a problem he can fix without inflicting pain on himself.
Jeff,
You said, “What kind of a crazy concoction we would come up with if God were just what we would create (perhaps it would be closer to the God of Max Lucado……ooops, I guess an inside word just popped out!). Or it would be a God who murders because we are mad at our neighbor.”
How about a God who infallibly protects people without hurting others, like we want our police officers to do? How about a God who ensures all have communicated with him by presenting himself to each person in whatever form that was needed, spirit or physical?
Do these concoctions sound crazy?
Sounds pretty crazy to me.
AHHAHAHAAHHAHAH
Gil,
I really appreciate this series you are doing here. It’s becoming a main ingredient in my spiritual nourishment (along with a few other select corridors of thought).
Question: When we contend with sociology and psychology with respect to the question of God to what extent do we need to account for the mountain of evidence that piles up to ‘dethrone God’? Is it intellectually honest to say like you did that the psychological arguments against God are based on evidence that could point equally toward God as away from him? Or what about our buddy Karl who would march the annals of history right in front of our noses and contend with us that for as much as we would contend the otherness of God – He is and must be incarnate (an incarnation that is deeply flawed) in order to affect this world.
In my neuroscience course, it is plainly clear that at a cellular level there are action potentials, chemical reactions, neurons, glial cells – and that is pretty much it. There is no evidence of, for example, the soul, a theological pillar that in extricable from Christianity. The Mind/Body problem is perplexing for neuroscience and they are doing a mountain of research to discover as much as they can. The theological community seemingly could care less about the real complexities of this problem (like for instance when was the last time you ever heard a Christian person actually contend with this issue as anything but an agreed assumption of fact – that there is a soul – regardless of whether we can evidence it or not). What is interesting to me is that from my brief encounter with people in the psych department here at the U of L, they seem far more willing to admit the vast gaps in their own knowledge. Something I find incredibly odd especially compared to some of the typical approaches in the Christian community.
If as the Hybelism goes, ‘the church is the hope for the world’ – why does it, the church, seem so hopeless – now and over time.
I know what I’ve written here seems critical or harsh but what I wonder about is whether we are too dismissive of the content of these theoretical perspectives (psych, socio). I too believe there is another way to interpret the facts that lie before us. I think questions about design and intention are fascinating jump off points in our discovery of the divine. I also think that power and control need to be top shelf discussions in the church – especially in this era where orthodoxy is being challenged. And while I agree that a God we might have constructed of our own accord would look differently – we must admit the significant and problematic ways we have constructed Him in our image and in a convenient one.
Here’s my dream: that perhaps students of Bible colleges would one day be inspired to investigate and contend with these significant secular theories with the intellectual honesty and prowess endowed by God.
I hope this makes sense – although I highly doubt it does…
you know when I reread this post I think it may sound too much like I am going after you Gil. That was not really my intention so forgive me if it sounds that way. I am really not trying to say that you are intellectually dishonest. your comments sparked a larger question in my mind about the Christian voice in general. hope that is clear
Dale,
No worries about appearing overly harsh. I’ve camped with you, I know what overly harsh looks (smells!) like.
I agree with what I hear motivating you in your comment. I agree that Christians have been far too dismissive of other disciplines of study and I think that this reflects very poorly on us. To be perfectly honest, I think it betrays a fear of being wrong and I think that if we actually believe that God is the source of all truth then we should engage expectantly with all who are seeking to explain reality more clearly. Our failure to do that is a testimony to our weakness.
I am convinced, however, that intellectual honesty has to be a sword that cuts both ways. I’ve referred earlier to a certain kind of reductionism that I sense within a lot of naturalistic explanations about reality. The reductionism is quite simple: to explain causal links between events is not to explain their meaning or significance. To be able to understand how the machine works is not the same thing as saying whether or not it has any significance.
So I am sometimes frustrated by the refusal of ardent naturalists to admit that their worldview is underwritten by a bottom-line assumption that ‘what is is all there is’. This seems to be another example of intellectual dishonesty, a refusal to admit that there are unproved assumptions at work that are simply accepted as true (in faith).
This naturalistic assumption is profoundly not a scientific conclusion. It is question about the limits of science (or rational knowledge) and it is obvious that this is not the kind of question that could be answered using rational enquiry or the scientific method (I was very glad to hear you say that you are encountering instructors in science who are willing to admit gaps in their knowledge).
Certainly we live in a time where there are a lot of rival explanations out there regarding the meaning (or lack of meaning) of what we see all around us. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the church needs to produce Christians who have willingness to engage with these questions.
Jerry,
The ‘empirical significance’ of biological determinism is pretty simple. If you conclude that everything that you think, believe and do is biologically determined then that would render this conversation (and all others like it) pointless. You think what you think because of your genes and so do I.
You might think that your ideas are true but they can easily be explained in terms of neural activity in your brain and the relentless efforts of your biological material to replicate itself. To expect change in either direction of a debate would be pointless. Sort of like a biologically necessary relativism.
I don’t know what the ’sentient action of matter’ means. Can you use smaller words?
Re: your question of why God couldn’t just fix the problem. God is love. To love someone is to take the risk that your love won’t be returned. To love truly is to give freedom and just stepping in and ‘fixing’ all of our efforts to resist God would be an action against that commitment to love.
I share your sense that God should fix the mess. But think about the level of intervention that would require. It would require God overriding people’s choices at innumerable points in time, whenever there was a threat that things might not go according to plan. This might be a more agreeable kind of world but I don’t think it would be one where love is possible.
Gil and Jerry,
I guess that is what I would resonate with the most (Gil’s last comments). It’s not that those desires for God to fix things or to intervene in some way are bad or “crazy.” In fact, if we were honest, we all want that. Humanity does not seem to be able to make a really good world on our own and to have a higher power fix things does not seem unreasonable at some level. But the distortion of a loving relationship that this would cause between Creator and creation would disqualify everything else (maybe not everything!) I believe about God and His world. Thanks Gil for writing these thoughts better than I can think them.
Gil,
I certainly believe that it is possible for you to help me change my mind. So, whatever influence my biological make-up has on what I “think, believe and do” it isn’t the only influence in my life.
“I don’t know what the ’sentient action of matter’ means. Can you use smaller words?” I honestly don’t know how. But I’m hoping to come across material that can challenge my assumptions here and/or help me articulate them better.
On the matter of God fixing things - I never meant to imply that he was to do it without our consent. No, what I mean is, whatever salvation you have and will receive from God by your consent, I think God could have accomplished it without inflicting pain on himself.
And since our democratic society has handed over (out of love for humanity) our freedom to physically hurt others, freeing the protectors of our laws to stop us, I see no reason why God couldn’t help the protectors of our laws (and the criminals that truly want to be rehabilitated). To me, this sounds like a world where more love is possible.
Jerry,
As a materialist, if it’s not just biology that’s influencing you, what else do you suppose it might be?
I’m having trouble imagining what the world would look like if God required the ‘consent of the governed’ in order to run the show. That kind of world, I’m afraid, requires more imagination than I can muster.
Your take on democracy as emerging out of ‘love for humanity’ is interesting but I think a bit revisionist. While there may have been some who entertained such lofty ideals, there were many more who saw it as the best possible way of maintaining a minimal level of security and protecting property rights.
So while the democratic arrangement might lead to peace and order (at least in theory), you’d be hard pressed to say that it could produce anything like genuine love.
now you’ve hurt MY feelings - smell?!?
seriously - tee hee!
No yeah Gil, I certainly agree about the intellectual honesty. last semester I had ample evidence in my Philosophy professor who refused to account for many of the significant epistemological challenges to his materialist propaganda.
I think you’ve said it well. The apparent fear of the scientific method is palpable in many corners of the church.
I think what I would like to see is a far more integrated approach to these questions. Instead of isolating science and philosophy and theology and sociology - these disciplines need to be intertwined in our pursuit and discovery lest we be held to the same shame as our contention that the earth is/was flat.
to illustrate let me give you an example of what i think accomplishes the opposite of the above paragraph.
I recently had a discussion with several believers about the content we have been covering in my Neuroscience course. We were all taking turns commenting on the marvels of the intricacies of the brain while complaining about the impending doom we sensed with the difficulty of the appraoching mid term exam. At length, I asked my fellow class mates how they thought the material we covered in class affected thier perspective on faith.
“You know it really shows how complex we were created - it’s really quite wonderful.” When I pressed them to explore the issue of things like the mind body problem - I was met mostly with blank stares and awkward shuffling. It was pretty clear that the reasoning had sort of found its end goal in that reassuring statement.
Now i will grant that there may be some virtue in being able to live with simple faith such as this - but it felt unmistably clear that when pushed to make deeper connections between science and faith there did not seem to be many bridges across that cavern in thier minds. And i am not here to say that this conversation is typical of most and certainly not all believers but it did seem to resonate with similar feelings that have surfaced before with respect to the how believers view science (And i am not just talking about those cheesy lines in Nacho Libre either).
That’s what i mean about integration. I guess I think that for believers the jump between what are seen as secular disicplines and faith ought to be more natural and honest.
“As a materialist, if it’s not just biology that’s influencing you, what else do you suppose it might be?” How could anyone be an entity unto themselves, Gil?
“I’m having trouble imagining what the world would look like if God required the ‘consent of the governed’ in order to run the show.” (emphasis mine). You sound like a diehard predeterminist here. I’ve always got the impression from previous discussions with you that you were the exact opposite.
Nevertheless, I think the quality of our dialogue has started to take a bad turn, so I’ll bow out because I don’t want it to diminish the rest of our conversation - what I consider an improvement from our past conversations.
It still has been a pleasure. Thanks.
Jerry I have to admit I can’t see where you’re detecting a deterioration in the quality of our conversation. You have rightly felt free to ask me to carry my ideas through to their logical conclusions and I am merely trying to make the same request of you.
If you choose to decline that request that is fine but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to avoid answering direct questions by alleging a drop in the civility of the conversation.
Hey Gil,
I like what you said about God as/is love. I think more people would be drawn to a Christian worldview if they could believe it was the truest expression of love available to them.
Maybe making academic understandings of life a first priority, isn’t the best thing. Most of the really, really smart people I’ve known or know of seem to have a general mistrust of and contempt for, humanity. You strike me as an exception to the rule but I assume that to be because somebody taught you about love before they taught you about reason.
Sentient action of matter?