There is but one way to demonstrate the existence of a power independent of and superior to nature, and that is by breaking, if only for one moment, the continuity of cause and effect. Pluck from the endless chain of existence one little link; stop for one instant the grand procession and you have shown beyond all contradiction that nature has a master. Change the fact, just for one second, that matter attracts matter, and a god appears. The rudest savage has always known this fact, and for that reason always demanded the evidence of miracle. The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine — cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple, that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance this was easy to do. The credulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvelous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion has for its foundation a miracle — that is to say, a violation of nature — that is to say, a falsehood. No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and independent of nature. The church wishes us to believe. Let the church, or one of its intellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will believe. We are told that nature has a superior. Let this superior, for one single instant, control nature, and we will admit the truth of your assertions.
—Robert G. Ingersoll, "The Gods", 1872
Comments
Beautiful. Just simply beautiful.
This is why Ingersoll's wisdom remains after his death. Bill Gates is also an atheists, but apparently he does not consider an important issue. A hundred years on, Ingersoll will still be quoted -- Gates, not so much.
But that's the whole idea of faith: To have faith is to believe something even though there's no evidence for it.
This reminds me of that great part of the Book of Job, that portion right in the center when Job becomes furiously frustrated over his diseased and destroyed life and God's absence from the world and says something like "I ask for help and I get nothing. I ask for miracles and I get nothing. I ask for explanations and I get nothing. I ask why and get silence. My life is nothing but pain and suffering and loss, and the only thing He gives me is strength."
Intellectually honest people of faith might say that's the only evidence there is.
It's alarming how little progress we have made since 1872.
telecom: This reminds me of that great part of the Book of Job
Yeah... Job... what a great book! I personally love that one part where God and the Devil are sharing a soda and they decide to fuck with this guy's existence. I just get a kick out of God taking a bar bet and KICKING THE DEVIL'S ASS so he can prove His dick is bigger. AWESOME story!
Not all pious men and women conform with such a view. If that were the case why do so many believers concoct silly God-proofs to try to map their beliefs onto reality?
There's the truth and then there is the feeling of truth. Faith is the requirement to adhere to any superstition. Think about it.
The fact that believing in a 'God' character is a useful tactic in unburdening yourself with certain stresses proves nothing beyond how easy it is to manipulate your own brain.
Given that our perceptions are so malleable, we should be extra demanding of credible evidence when making tough decisions, always vigilant to guard against the inevitable lapses of judgment when the superstitious parts of our brain attempts to mutiny against our intellect.
But Telecom brings up an interesting point. If the whole virtue of religious 'faith' is believing things for which we have no evidence, why are all faiths so dependent on ancient 'miracles?' It's complete intellectual hypocrisy. Religious people are desperate the credibility of verifiable proof, but since there so plainly is none, thousand-year-old urban legends must fill the void.
That Ingersoll chap is right on the money!
That's the definition of an atheist, isn't it? I mean, you've got as much of a chance of finding an intellectually honest person of faith, as you do, finding a virgin in a catholic orphanage.
(Rim shot, please)
(Yeah, double entendre)
(Courtesy Pat Condell)
I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
Erik, I think you are precisely correct that devising any sort of "proof of God" construct is incompatible with this "Jobian" notion that there is no evidence of God beyond faith.
I would add to that my own guess that it is the irrationality or unreality of faith that is precisely its attraction. And we don't just see it in religion, but in politics, sports, etc. We seem to gain value and power by internalizing these symbolic systems and that may be because they form aspects of our identity that—as symbols—become impossible for other people to take away.
In other words, you can take away every vestige of value and identity that gives a person social standing and a sense of worth: lovers can leave, employment can disappear, money can be lost, homes can burn down, children can be killed, and on and on and on, but how do you unmake a baseball fan? How can a person have their political beliefs taken away from them? Or their fixation on a movie star? I tend to think of religious faith in the same way: something like a favorite song that people hold inside of themselves that in some way gives them strength, cannot be taken away, and is absolutely impervious to reason or logic.
All of which is a separate question of why people then feel compelled to prove to others that God exists or that miracles are real: the notion itself is foolish, not to mention bad science, and not really interesting at all. Which is probably why I find Job such an interesting character. He seems to possess a very difficult idea about faith that seems to elude the very religious institutions and religious people whe swear every word in the book is true. Which is a really satisfying paradox.
Post a comment