I certainly agree with the Pascal quote. The reasoning of the heart (or what I would call the emotional part of the mind) certainly operates by a different set of rules than the reasoning of our "reasonable" and "logical" minds. And sometimes our reasonable self comes into conflict with our heart and finds it incomprehensible.
This brings up the question: when our heart and our reason conflict, what should we heed?
My answer to this is that it depends on the subject matter. There are some things are heart is good at and some things our head is good at. When the question is something like, "Should I propose to my girlfriend?" the heart should have the dominant say (though it would behoove one to consult one's reason as well). When the question is, "what is the average annual rainfall in Austin, TX over the past ten years?" the heart should shut up and let the head figure it out (probably with Google).
So, what kind of question is "Is there a God?" Is it a heart question or a head question? I think it's clear that to you, occams hatchet, it is a heart question, where our own personal feelings and beliefs and convictions that well up from deep within our being are the most important "data". I think for many of the people who are arguing in these comments, "Is there a God?" and related questions are "head" questions, where external facts and evidence are the most important data. Hence the pictures of horrible suffering, since that is what the "head" people felt you were excluding or ignoring. I think this difference in approach is what causes a lot of the "talking past each other" that happens in these debates.
Indeed, I'd go so far as to guess that the method of approach to the question has an enormous impact on what answer people come up with. My guess would be that many believers approach this as a heart question and many non-believers believe it is a head question. But I don't have data on this and I might be wrong.
To me, "Is there a God?" is a head question, because to me it is a question about the universe out there (though I know that most theistic religions also include a humanist component). And when we ask, "What is the universe like?", I think we need to look out into the universe for answers, and not deep into ourselves. And this is the approach that has led to my athiestic humanism. (Or at any rate it is how I justify my athiesm; the actual mechanisms at work that determine my beliefs are probably not open to casual introspection.)
For me, when someone says "I belive there is a God", I can't just take it as a personal statement, the way I would take a statement like "I don't like the Beatles". I might disapprove of both statements, but your opinion about the Beatles depends on your feelings, tastes, etc. whereas my opinion of the Beatles depends on mine. There's nothing inconsistent with one person liking the Beatles and another person not liking the Beatles. But to me, "I believe there is a God" is a statement about the entire universe, the way "The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second" is a statement about the entire universe (at least as far as we know). It is applicable to the entire universe, and our opinions, feelings, passions, convictions, etc. do not have an effect on the ultimate truth of the matter. I'm not a relativist who thinks that there can be a God for one person and not be a God for another.
So when someone says "I believe that God exists" but then retreats behind a statement like "I was just expressing my belief", I feel somewhat cheated. I don't feel one should get to make statements about the fundamental nature of the universe (and what could be more fundamental than the existence of God?) and not have them open to argument. I know that belief in god feels intensely personal, like love of one's mother or the feeling one gets looking in the eyes of a lover. But at bottom, I don't feel that the existence of God is a "personal" matter. It would be as if a scientist asserted that the speed of light was 60,000 miles per second, but upon having that theory attacked by various bits of evidence were to say, "I was just expressing my belief". Of course, I think that believers o and non-believers should get along in the world and be nice to each other. To live otherwise would be hellish. But I don't believe that both can be right, the way two people can both have different opinions on rice pudding and both be right.
But I agree with your emphasis on contemplating the positive things that are in our lives, and your photo diary is a good example of that. We have to choose what we focus our attention on, and I think choosing to look at the positive is often a healthy and wonderful thing to do.
(Perhaps it's time for my own diary.)
More god discussion on Kos by me:
Comments