I got your name from a neighbour who invited me to a talk by you at the STAG church tomorrow in Cambridge where I treated myself to one of their religious courses some years ago, so I thought I would see what you were about!
Having said that, it would be nice sometimes if an article such as this one would explain what it was going to discuss at the beginning rather than just diving in and writing apparently whaffley assertions about supernatural issues.
I fear such writing will not stem the flow of people away from the church, whereas some discussion of why intelligent people believe in a concept such as god, and some do not might get a wider audience.
As an atheist I have been to a lot of talks in Cambridge to try and look into this and very rarely do I find it possible to have a more in depth discussion about belief. It is usually just one question and one answer and so it is usually a waste of time! Therefore I thought why not put my current understanding on this subject to you which is that whether someone believes is down to how the brain works. This comes from scientific studies with people with damages frontal brain lobes which shows such damage leads to heightened religious experiences. I think this is something Prof Alasdair Coles has done work on (I've looked at his Test of Faith website) but I have not had the opportunity to go to any of his church talks where I could raise this. Just wondering what your views are?
Hello, Thomas. Thank you for getting in touch. Sorry you didn't get on with the article very much. I guess there are two schools of thought in terms of telling people precisely what you are going to say at the beginning of the article. The other is to reveal it as you go. I favour the latter and like to give the author the benefit of the doubt. I guess that's how stories work, so I'm looking to be surprised as much as informed.
This article is probably aimed at people more familiar with my writing and areas of interest - and there are certain shared assumptions that maybe I should point out, at least. Clearly you didn't relate to that approach - and to be honest, the overall point of this article in particular is not as clear as it could or should be. Given I've set out to do these weekly, I just try to learn the lesson moving forward rather than agonise over every article. So I think the next article is clearer.
I'm not sure that discussion whether or not some people believe in God is terribly compelling for lots of people. It clearly has philosophical interest but that's not really anything I've ever wanted to write about, mostly because I find philosophical, teleological and epistimological arguments in favour of God (and against) to be rather unconvincing. Discussions about brain lobes and neural processes equally leave me cold because they lack explanatory power for the overall scientific process, and life itself - and form their own internal circular argument. I understand that's how Christianity looks from where you are. That's how science looks from where I am. That's why I believe in Christ, not a generic deity, as Jesus entered history as a man to be poked, prodded and then crucified.
What's more given the kind of God I think is revealed in scripture, I'm not convinced that humans deciding on whether or not God exists rather makes humans into Gods. And puts God in the dock. I wouldn't want to do that, but clearly I can see how that would be annoying from your point of you.
If this area is of interest, you've probably already been recommended The Reason for God by Tim Keller. I've read it and think it's pretty solid. I personally would recommend a different approach - and suggest Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton.
I've had my full of books on religion including (as a scientist) Francis Collins 'The Language of god' but was just interested how much you had thought about why serious minded intelligent people reject the god concept. It's not the arguments, it's that deep down they feel no need and that human relationships are far more important.
You make a good point. It's really not the arguments - and I think that goes for everyone. I wonder if the intelligent people think they are exempt, but the evidence shows that's not the case at all. I don't know if you've read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, a secular academic, and I thought it was fascinating and made a lot of sense. His contention is that we make up our minds very quickly emotionally and then use facts to rationalise it. He has a lot of supporting evidence. I wonder then if our level of intelligence is, at best, a distraction. Although this is not a justification for being uneducated!
That makes a lot of sense. You first have an immediate thought, then look further into it. But even then I think you are bound to be influenced by your upbringing and your personal experience, which is why I seriously doubt the free will argument for the problem of suffering. In the end our reaction to anything is bound to be determined in the brain, which is why it seems that it is how the brain works in different people that determines why they have religious beliefs or not and all the degrees in between
Another fantastic read. I agree with you on quite a lot of theology James, it reassures me that I'm not stark and raving after all.
Here's another view on the aversion to Creeds. What happens when the Pulpit has absolute disregard for the Creed, what becomes of the Pew? When the Clergy do not hold to the sound theological and doctrinal basis of the Christian faith, what then is to be the fate of the Laity? The Shepherd ought to lead well or the Sheep are roast! All around us we continue to see that faithful Christians are having to suffer the leadership of Donkeys instead of Godly Shepherds and therein lies a devastating problem. If the Donkeys were even of Balaam's kind, it would be semi-bearable.
Lamp-stands will continue to be removed, the sifting of wheat from chaff will persist even as the Lord continues to preserve His remnant and purify His Church.
Hello James
I got your name from a neighbour who invited me to a talk by you at the STAG church tomorrow in Cambridge where I treated myself to one of their religious courses some years ago, so I thought I would see what you were about!
Having said that, it would be nice sometimes if an article such as this one would explain what it was going to discuss at the beginning rather than just diving in and writing apparently whaffley assertions about supernatural issues.
I fear such writing will not stem the flow of people away from the church, whereas some discussion of why intelligent people believe in a concept such as god, and some do not might get a wider audience.
As an atheist I have been to a lot of talks in Cambridge to try and look into this and very rarely do I find it possible to have a more in depth discussion about belief. It is usually just one question and one answer and so it is usually a waste of time! Therefore I thought why not put my current understanding on this subject to you which is that whether someone believes is down to how the brain works. This comes from scientific studies with people with damages frontal brain lobes which shows such damage leads to heightened religious experiences. I think this is something Prof Alasdair Coles has done work on (I've looked at his Test of Faith website) but I have not had the opportunity to go to any of his church talks where I could raise this. Just wondering what your views are?
Hello, Thomas. Thank you for getting in touch. Sorry you didn't get on with the article very much. I guess there are two schools of thought in terms of telling people precisely what you are going to say at the beginning of the article. The other is to reveal it as you go. I favour the latter and like to give the author the benefit of the doubt. I guess that's how stories work, so I'm looking to be surprised as much as informed.
This article is probably aimed at people more familiar with my writing and areas of interest - and there are certain shared assumptions that maybe I should point out, at least. Clearly you didn't relate to that approach - and to be honest, the overall point of this article in particular is not as clear as it could or should be. Given I've set out to do these weekly, I just try to learn the lesson moving forward rather than agonise over every article. So I think the next article is clearer.
I'm not sure that discussion whether or not some people believe in God is terribly compelling for lots of people. It clearly has philosophical interest but that's not really anything I've ever wanted to write about, mostly because I find philosophical, teleological and epistimological arguments in favour of God (and against) to be rather unconvincing. Discussions about brain lobes and neural processes equally leave me cold because they lack explanatory power for the overall scientific process, and life itself - and form their own internal circular argument. I understand that's how Christianity looks from where you are. That's how science looks from where I am. That's why I believe in Christ, not a generic deity, as Jesus entered history as a man to be poked, prodded and then crucified.
What's more given the kind of God I think is revealed in scripture, I'm not convinced that humans deciding on whether or not God exists rather makes humans into Gods. And puts God in the dock. I wouldn't want to do that, but clearly I can see how that would be annoying from your point of you.
If this area is of interest, you've probably already been recommended The Reason for God by Tim Keller. I've read it and think it's pretty solid. I personally would recommend a different approach - and suggest Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton.
I've had my full of books on religion including (as a scientist) Francis Collins 'The Language of god' but was just interested how much you had thought about why serious minded intelligent people reject the god concept. It's not the arguments, it's that deep down they feel no need and that human relationships are far more important.
You make a good point. It's really not the arguments - and I think that goes for everyone. I wonder if the intelligent people think they are exempt, but the evidence shows that's not the case at all. I don't know if you've read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, a secular academic, and I thought it was fascinating and made a lot of sense. His contention is that we make up our minds very quickly emotionally and then use facts to rationalise it. He has a lot of supporting evidence. I wonder then if our level of intelligence is, at best, a distraction. Although this is not a justification for being uneducated!
That makes a lot of sense. You first have an immediate thought, then look further into it. But even then I think you are bound to be influenced by your upbringing and your personal experience, which is why I seriously doubt the free will argument for the problem of suffering. In the end our reaction to anything is bound to be determined in the brain, which is why it seems that it is how the brain works in different people that determines why they have religious beliefs or not and all the degrees in between
Ie intelligence is not the primary reason, just the way the brain works.
Another fantastic read. I agree with you on quite a lot of theology James, it reassures me that I'm not stark and raving after all.
Here's another view on the aversion to Creeds. What happens when the Pulpit has absolute disregard for the Creed, what becomes of the Pew? When the Clergy do not hold to the sound theological and doctrinal basis of the Christian faith, what then is to be the fate of the Laity? The Shepherd ought to lead well or the Sheep are roast! All around us we continue to see that faithful Christians are having to suffer the leadership of Donkeys instead of Godly Shepherds and therein lies a devastating problem. If the Donkeys were even of Balaam's kind, it would be semi-bearable.
Lamp-stands will continue to be removed, the sifting of wheat from chaff will persist even as the Lord continues to preserve His remnant and purify His Church.