Freedomain Radio

While taking a shower, a weird idea popped into my head.  A way to get to reason and logic with even the most stubborn believer....  I was thinking of a conversation that would go like this:

Christian: "We should base our system of organization on the moral laws of God."

Me: "Let me ask you something.  Would this be the all-knowing, all-seeing and omnipresent God that most people talk about?"

Christian: "Uh, yes...I guess so."

Me: "So this God knows everthing, and is always right, and can see or do anything, correct?"

Christian: "Yes, of course."

Me: "And is any human capable of being those things?"

Christian: "No, of course not."  (alternatively)  "Only his son, Jesus Christ."  (le sigh)

Me: "So you agree that no ordinary human could have a mind like that?"

Christian: "Yes."

Me: "So, then it follows that no human could ever understand the mind of god, or really effectively communicate with god.  It would be like a human, who knows more than a few things about the world, trying to communicate with a mouse, who cannot even process language.  That is, just as one of the stories in the bible itself explains, if god were to try to show a man everything that is in an apple, his mind would be incapable of receiving it.  In essence, the best a man could ever hope for is to understand the tiniest piece of god."

Christian: "Yes, I suppose that's true."

Me: "Then it follows that any utterance any person makes about god is, at best, leaving a ton of stuff out."

Christian: "Well...uh...."

And this is where they'll no doubt see the argument slipping away from them.  The next steps would be:

Of course, all of this would easily explain why there are so damned many holy books, even to a believer: because no human can know the all-knowing.

Taken together, these would mean that the following of any utterance about a divine entity would be the following of meaningless noise. Clearly, this would be no way to run a society.  (In case it is not obvious to everyone here, or to the believer in our hypothetical discusion: The bible and all holy books are utterances about god.)

Therefore, the best course of action would be to proceed as if there were no divine entity, and to use reason, evidence and logic to sort out the small pieces of the universe that our human senses and human reasoning do permit us to perceive.

So, even if one does believe in the standard all-knowing, all-seeing divine being...it still remains more sensible to follow reason and logic than whatever somebody made up about that which they cannot perceive, simply by proceeding from the definition of said being.

Nice thought.

Unfortunately this approach does not tackle and eliminate the preexisting "false self" ideas which have been ingrained into the religious. The most powerful argument I have used is to simply point out that the descriptive characteristics of god(s) are contradictory. Powerful meaning: makes them have to stop and scramble for excuses (and maybe extremely rarely truly think about it).

About 99% of the time however, no matter how perfectly it is spelled out for them...the main point is that they have been building their life for X years off of a prejudice against reality which has granted them many friendships and comforts which the truth doesn't give them. A one time discussion will not undo all of the bias in a religious person's lifestyle. It usually requires (years of) consistent effort and trust, which means you would need to get to know them and see them. At least that is what I have heard. I'm sure it would work, but I've never taken it that far. If one's goal is to help the other person understand truth about the non-existence of god(s), I say your best bet is with agnostics. Even then, all the logic in the world may very well lead you to the ever so popular utility phrase:

"All of that makes sense - and I don't think I can prove it wrong- but..."

I still believe.

That is just -your- opinion. This is mine.

You can't explain god with logic.

You need to read xyz religious text before you can really understand.

etc.

Yes, yes, of course.  I know all this, which is usually why I don't even get into it, and just dismiss the whole discussion entirely.

I may not convince anyone with this, but it was an interesting line of reasoning to entertain for a moment.  I wrote it up here because I hadn't heard it or considered it before, and found the mental exercise of writing it out sort of fun.