God and the social construction of reality

[writergal]

Can science be used to prove the existence of god?

 

If religion and God are social constructions, then why do civilizations/people believe and worship these social constructions? If we create our own reality, how can people believe in a deity that doesn't really exist -- except in one's imagination?

 

I was raised Roman Catholic and even studied Mahayana Buddhism side by side with monks when I lived in China. However now I question what I've been investing my 'faith' in, if not a complete delusion - the delusion of god, that is.

 

I haven't attended mass in a while now for this very reason. I have no issue with visiting one of the local Buddhist temples here for a Sunday meditation and Dharma talk, followed by a social reception because Buddha isn't a god and never claimed to be one. Whereas in a Catholic mass, I have to be told that God is my father (which isn't true), and that if I don't take care of my soul I'm going to hell (which I don't believe in anyway).

 

So, what do I do with all the time and energy I invested towards my Catholic faith, if it no longer suits me? I enjoy what Buddhism has to offer, but I'm not willing to go so far as to call myself a complete Buddhist. And I certainly don't consider myself a complete Catholic. I just can't justify going to church or engaging in discussions anymore with Catholics who truly believe that God and Jesus are real, when I disagree. I don't believe in the afterlife, or resurrection (or reincarnation). I also believe that morality is a social construct. Does this make me a nihilist? If so, what does that mean exactly?

 

Crisis of faith here.

[d'Arthez]

Can science be used to prove the existence of god?

No. No conclusive evidence can be had one way or the other. I am a devout atheist (note not a flaming one), I don't believe in the existence of any god, but that does not mean I cannot appreciate the good things in religion.

 

If religion and God are social constructions, then why do civilizations/people believe and worship these social constructions? If we create our own reality, how can people believe in a deity that doesn't really exist -- except in one's imagination?

To me it seems your questions are not so much about the history of religion, but how a particular set of social constructions can shape community.

 

We don't create our own reality. We are born into this world, we receive socialization from an already existent realty. Your parents did not draw a lucky number when introducing you to Catholicism. You were born in a certain spot in the world, and were imposed citizenship (because the world demands it. The child does not demand such a thing), and by the time the idea of "social construction" hit you, you were already deeply entrenched in this world. We all are. Religion, or lack thereof is just one of the many filters we are subjected to. By the time we come of age and can make our "own decisions", the freedom to actually discover things independent from the state of affairs of the world has already been taken from us.

 

Shared mythology can make or break a community. Insiders share certain views, with which outsiders find it difficult to relate to.

You even see it in massive communities, such as all stable countries in the world. Take a look at the whole perception of the US, its founding fathers and the War of Independence. Americans are quite "delusional" if you want about the birth of their nation. But the same applies to the Japanese, French, Dutch, Koreans, Spanish, British; once you are an outsider your view is markedly different, because you are not tied to the shared mythology.

 

 

I don't believe in the afterlife, or resurrection (or reincarnation). I also believe that morality is a social construct. Does this make me a nihilist? If so, what does that mean exactly?

It does not make you a moral nihilist. Far from it. You still have beliefs about right and wrong, and though these beliefs are not based on "facts", they do exist. It is foolishness to even want to establish morality on the basis of "facts", since our "facts" themselves are often socially construed, and our understanding of "facts" is limited by our own consciousness, which is tainted by the specters of the present world.

 

To quote from Minima Moralia:

153. At the end. – The only philosophy which would still be accountable in the face of despair, would be the attempt to consider all things, as they would be portrayed from the standpoint of redemption. Cognition has no other light than that which shines from redemption out upon the world; all else exhausts itself in post-construction and remains a piece of technics. Perspectives must be produced which set the world beside itself, alienated from itself, revealing its cracks and fissures, as needy and distorted as it will one day lay there in the messianic light. To win such perspectives without caprice or violence, wholly by the feel for objects, this alone is what thinking is all about. It is the simplest of all things, because the condition irrefutably call for such cognitions, indeed because completed negativity, once it comes fully into view, shoots [zusammenschiesst] into the mirror-writing of its opposite. But it is also that which is totally impossible, because it presupposes a standpoint at a remove, were it even the tiniest bit, from the bane [bannkreis] of the existent; meanwhile every possible cognition must not only be wrested from that which is, in order to be binding, but for that very reason is stricken with the same distortedness and neediness which it intends to escape. The more passionately thought seals itself off from its conditional being for the sake of what is unconditional, the more unconsciously, and thereby catastrophically, it falls into the world. It must comprehend even its own impossibility for the sake of possibility. In relation to the demand thereby imposed on it, the question concerning the reality or non-reality of redemption is however almost inconsequential.

 

In short: you cannot get a definitive and satisfactory answer in this world.

Edited May 23, 2012 by d'Arthez

[thatone]

I recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

 

The facts are, people are social creatures, and quite simply, you gain more benefit by being good to your fellow humans and that's why you have a moral desire to be that way. There is no magic man in the sky required to make people behave this way. Nor is the absence of belief in a magic man in the sky an unavoidable invitation to behave in the opposite manner.

 

The bottom line is you have to ask yourself if you need guilt and fear to guide your life's actions. Because there's no denying that Christian religions in particular would completely die in a generation without the ability to prey on the guilt and fear of their flocks.

 

Free your mind, imo.

[florence of suburbia]

Having studied religion I'm sure you agree morality can be boiled down to a few constants most of us can agree on. Instead of focusing on what you don't believe, start with what you know and build a new belief system that you can get behind.

[Feelin Frisky]

When one rips off the second placenta of hand-me-down faith, he or she should not hurry to apply labels to the self because it tends to become a new placenta that again gets built up until the flaw creates a rip and that label has to be torn off as well. It's always a human convention and why not your own uniquely defined one--even if your definition overlaps other things, it is no less sincere.

 

I used to consider myself an atheist or an anti-theist or a militant atheist but now I say that by defining myself that way I am still a prisoner of other people's delusion. I am a self-directed free thinker--a minority of one facing an almost totality of opposite in the world. I'm am good with that. There's strength in that.

[Feelin Frisky]

... i don't think one can militantly not believe in something.

Thus my point. I didn't invent the term. I just was OK with it because I took it to mean I don't take my atheism sitting down. This leads to anti-theism which, if one is lucky, should lead to purposeful ignorance because being such an atheist give theism too much power.

[Radu]

Can science be used to prove the existence of god?

 

If religion and God are social constructions, then why do civilizations/people believe and worship these social constructions? If we create our own reality, how can people believe in a deity that doesn't really exist -- except in one's imagination?

 

I was raised Roman Catholic and even studied Mahayana Buddhism side by side with monks when I lived in China. However now I question what I've been investing my 'faith' in, if not a complete delusion - the delusion of god, that is.

 

I haven't attended mass in a while now for this very reason. I have no issue with visiting one of the local Buddhist temples here for a Sunday meditation and Dharma talk, followed by a social reception because Buddha isn't a god and never claimed to be one. Whereas in a Catholic mass, I have to be told that God is my father (which isn't true), and that if I don't take care of my soul I'm going to hell (which I don't believe in anyway).

 

So, what do I do with all the time and energy I invested towards my Catholic faith, if it no longer suits me? I enjoy what Buddhism has to offer, but I'm not willing to go so far as to call myself a complete Buddhist. And I certainly don't consider myself a complete Catholic. I just can't justify going to church or engaging in discussions anymore with Catholics who truly believe that God and Jesus are real, when I disagree. I don't believe in the afterlife, or resurrection (or reincarnation). I also believe that morality is a social construct. Does this make me a nihilist? If so, what does that mean exactly?

 

Crisis of faith here.

 

Depends what one understands through God, what religion you refer to.

 

If you refer to an all-powerfull being that pulls strings from behind the curtains of this Universe ... maybe.

If you refer to the way God is understood through the Christian Faith, i doubt it.

 

God is a good concept to remove responsability from ourselves, to accept that you are weak in the end and that it's better to serve in luxury than to live in poverty.

Many give themselves to God when they feel the cold aproach of Death's hand, in that way is it not spiritual morphine ?

[denise_xo]

Like someone else said, if you look across societies and religions, there appears to be a lot of moral dimensions that are constant over time (and a lot, of course, that are not). I recommend this book on the universal/local aspects of ethics, if you are interested in those things:

 

Amazon.com: Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time) (9780393329339): Kwame Anthony Appiah: Books

 

 

I don't think what you experience 'means' much except that you have discovered that most religions, and the ways in which people enact them, are filled with contradictions and with ideas that are purely faith based. Just accept that fact and keep exploring the world on your own terms, and take from it what you want. I wouldn't worry too much about what to call yourself. More generally, I think those who feel a strong need for labels are those who are the most insecure in themselves, or in 'faith'.

[Radu]

I think those who feel a strong need for labels are those who are the most insecure in themselves, or in 'faith'.

 

Good point.

[Nohbody]

Philip K Dick had a great quote:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

 

There is very likely an objective reality that we cannot comprehend but for the imperfect reception of our senses and whatever instruments we have designed to augment our senses.

 

That doesn't mean objective reality isn't there, you just can't perceive it in its entirety.

 

Or as Bucky Fuller said:

"The Universe consists of non-simultaneously apprehended events."

[M30USA]

I recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

 

The facts are, people are social creatures, and quite simply, you gain more benefit by being good to your fellow humans and that's why you have a moral desire to be that way. There is no magic man in the sky required to make people behave this way. Nor is the absence of belief in a magic man in the sky an unavoidable invitation to behave in the opposite manner.

 

The bottom line is you have to ask yourself if you need guilt and fear to guide your life's actions. Because there's no denying that Christian religions in particular would completely die in a generation without the ability to prey on the guilt and fear of their flocks.

 

Free your mind, imo.

 

Richard Dawkins got owned by Ben Stein, who isn't even a scientist or theologian, in "Expelled". I wouldn't bother reading his work.

 

And, by the way, you're forgetting that the early Church was a radical group which went against the grain of organized religion at the time. Christ, himself, reserved his harshest words for religious leaders. It may be the case that false Christianity preys on the flock, as you say, but not real bible-based Christianity. The Bible is the most revolutionary book on planet Earth. It has always been directly in contradiction to the world's opinions and always will be. What you must be referring to are some misleading teachers of the Bible or their followers who, as the apostle Paul wrote, mistake the Gospel as a means for gain and only pursue it because they think they will get rich, etc.

Edited June 23, 2012 by M30USA

[writergal]

My uncle who is a nuclear physicist recently suggested I read Stephen Hawking's new book The Grand Design, because Hawking uses science's String theory to argue that God did not create the universe.

 

I think Hawking wrote a previous book where he agreed with the argument that God created the universe but then The Grand Design totally contradicts that. The more scientific evidence I can find, the better. I just don't believe that a deity created the universe. That's just human nature using the filter of theology to contemplate with philosophical arguments what science can prove with hard evidence.

 

I think my crisis of labels (re Quick Joe's observation) is over. I have decided to label myself as a Buddhist. I can't justify being a Catholic when I don't believe in the Bible as "the" source of answers to all things because it's certainly not. I think science and Buddhism can co-exist quite well together.

Edited June 24, 2012 by writergal

[writergal]

I recall an interview with the Dalai Lama who, when asked what he would do if science could demonstrate that reincarnation was false, answered with almost no hesitation "I'd stop believing in it".

 

I was struck by the level of honesty and openness that I had simply never encountered from any of the Abrahamic religions our culture is so immersed in. From what I have gathered since, his opinion is mostly shared.

 

You could do far, far worse than Buddhism.

 

And THAT'S why I have so much admiration for the Dalai Lama. Do you recall where you read/heard his interview? I'd love to read/watch it. I met the Dala Lama over a decade ago when he visited the Twin Cities for one day to speak at a local university. Left me on a spiritual high for weeks. He shoots straight from the hip and has a great sense of humor. How can you not like the fellow? Am I right?

 

And yes I could do far worse than Buddhism (well I did for 41 years as a Catholic).

[writergal]

Ok. I'll check that book out from the library. I never read it. Thanks!

[M30USA]

thatone and quickjoe,

 

Nothing I can say to you will make you believe God's Word. Nothing you say to me will make me not believe it.

 

The Bible, without the revelation of the Holy Spirit, is nothing but a book filled with words. The great theologican John Calvin said that what happens first is that God sends his spirit to a spiritually-blinded person (which we all are from birth), at which point the person either immediately or later on comes across the Scriptures and, only because of the Holy Spirit, recognizes it as the truth. It's not that the Bible can't be proven. It's entirely accurate historically and scientifically. But the bigger truth is that belief in it never started with this proof, but rather with the beckoning of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, mankind in our natural state reads the Scriptures and sees it as nonsense. The Bible is written for those who already have received the Holy Spirit and it's made to teach us in the ways of God.

[thatone]

no it is not accurate historically and scientifically.

 

there are a multitude of examples, with factual backing, on this very forum dispelling claims in the bible that upon even cursory examination, cannot be true. most recently the one that comes to mind is the fact that the town of nazareth did not exist.

 

our natural state sees it as nonsense because it is nonsense. it has no more merit than voodoo, greek mythology, norse mythology, human sacrifice to the crop gods, or any other misguided mysticism from humanity's past.

[writergal]

No offense ThatOne and M30USA but your posts aren't even on-topic. My OP was asking if science can prove the existence of god. I have no interest in the legitimacy of the christian bible or arguing with you about your own faith. Feel free to argue that in another thread. Thanks for not reading my OP and not posting according to the topic.

 

ETA: The conversation started off in the right direction but then you two took it into a completely different direction. I'm irritated because I think it's a very interesting question to ask "can science prove the existence of god" and I wanted to have a legitimate discussion with people, not listen to people argue the history of the bible outside the context of my question or have you cite theologians without applying their arguments to my OP question. So please stick to the topic or don't post here anymore. Thanks.

Edited June 24, 2012 by writergal

[M30USA]

My answer:

 

No. Science can't prove the existence of God. Only the Holy Spirit, who comes from God, and is God, can testify on behalf of God.

 

All science can hope to do is prove SECONDARY evidence about God's actions in time, space, and history.

 

There. Back on topic.

[writergal]

My answer:

 

No. Science can't prove the existence of God. Only the Holy Spirit, who comes from God, and is God, can testify on behalf of God.

 

All science can hope to do is prove SECONDARY evidence about God's actions in time, space, and history.

 

There. Back on topic.

 

Really? Sarcasm? That's the only thing you've contributed to my thread. Gee, thanks M30USA you set me straight.

[M30USA]

LOL, I'm being dead serious! How do you expect to prove or disprove a God who is either a 10 or 11 dimensional being, while we are 3 dimensional (arguably 4) and use 3 dimensional evidence? You can't. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying. We act like the scientific method must be used for anything to be proven. But certain things (ie, God) stand outside what is measurable by the scientific method.

[writergal]

LOL, I'm being dead serious! How do you expect to prove or disprove a God who is either a 10 or 11 dimensional being, while we are 3 dimensional (arguably 4) and use 3 dimensional evidence? You can't. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying. We act like the scientific method must be used for anything to be proven. But certain things (ie, God) stand outside what is measurable by the scientific method.

 

*waves white flag* Well, first off, I don't believe in God or the Bible or anything in any way, shape or form related to Christianity anymore. I'm a recovering Catholic. Secondly, I was really hoping to engage people in a discussion (not an angry debate) about different scientists or philosophers who support my belief that science can prove or disprove the existence of God. So my question isn't asking Christians to come here and argue the history of the bible. No, my question is asking people with an interest in science or philosophy to find refutable research that supports my question, "can science prove the existence of god." A gazillion books and papers and speeches have been given on the topic. But I'm sorely disappointed that no one has really stepped up to the plate to address my question directly. So I may be overshooting my expectations for Love Shackers and need to find another forum where this question can be answered better.

[thatone]

LOL, I'm being dead serious! How do you expect to prove or disprove a God who is either a 10 or 11 dimensional being, while we are 3 dimensional (arguably 4) and use 3 dimensional evidence? You can't. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying. We act like the scientific method must be used for anything to be proven. But certain things (ie, God) stand outside what is measurable by the scientific method.

 

i'm very curious to hear where these numbers come from.

[M30USA]

i'm very curious to hear where these numbers come from.

 

What, 11 dimesions? It's the current minimal amount theorized by the leading physicists. Spend a few hours researching it at least. What cracks me up is these physicists admit that you can't actually see anything above the 4th dimension--and these are the very people who talk about a merely physical, tangible universe where things only exist if they can be subject to the scientific method and measured. What hypocrasy!

[M30USA]

*waves white flag* Well, first off, I don't believe in God or the Bible or anything in any way, shape or form related to Christianity anymore. I'm a recovering Catholic. Secondly, I was really hoping to engage people in a discussion (not an angry debate) about different scientists or philosophers who support my belief that science can prove or disprove the existence of God. So my question isn't asking Christians to come here and argue the history of the bible. No, my question is asking people with an interest in science or philosophy to find refutable research that supports my question, "can science prove the existence of god." A gazillion books and papers and speeches have been given on the topic. But I'm sorely disappointed that no one has really stepped up to the plate to address my question directly. So I may be overshooting my expectations for Love Shackers and need to find another forum where this question can be answered better.

 

And I am directly answering your question:

 

Your question is based on the assumption that we live in a merely physical universe where the scientific method can prove all things if they indeed are true. My point is that the very subject you are dealing with, ie God, is higher than the 3-dimensional universe and, therefore, cannot be proven or disproven with the scientific method.

 

And, trust me, I'm not angry. People only get angry if they are insecure in their own beliefs.

Edited June 24, 2012 by M30USA

[Feelin Frisky]

Science cannot prove the existence of god. It already disproves the existence of the god or gods of popular belief by revealing systems of cause and effect that explain things attributed to a god or gods in the ancient world like creation, the weather, et al. In it's ultimate practice it can come to a place where it may run out of evidence of cause and effect and come to a point where the conclusion can be that something outside of the nature we all live within played some role in creating or causing the nature we DO know, but it is never science's place to call that "god" or conclude it to be "the" god or evidence of a single "super-nature". Science is flawed if it runs around looking to proclaim a god being involved--that is not science, it is religious bias.

 

Belief in "god" is anthropocentric--meaning human beings see themselves so central to the universe that the universe is a provision for them and they so important that the supposed creator personally knows of the existence of people and people have after-lives because they are too important to just end. The evidence against that is exposed before our eyes. The population of the Earth was reduced to a few thousand when the last super volcano erupted and could have caused us to go extinct. An asteroid, a gamma ray burst, a solar storm, and even our own creation of nuclear and biological weapons show that we are not important at all to the universe, it doesn't cease to exist because we do, it had existed for billions of years before we evolved and will continue on it's own trajectory long after we burn up. There has never been in interceding god who has suspended the laws of physics and nature to grant a personal favor nor will there ever be and everything will break down if begging a deity for a personal customization of reality actually worked.