ARTICLE: Is Religion a Noble Deception?

[STR Ambassador]

Is Religion a Noble Deception?

by Greg Koukl

re: "The Lies that Bind: Nearly All Species Deceive," LA Times, Monday, April 1, 1991 B3 Science/Medicine, Thomas Maugh, Times Science Writer

Maybe you saw this piece. What anthropologist Robert Sussman of Washington University in St. Louis is suggesting is that religion is one of the lies society creates--one of the noble self-deceptions--to achieve personal well-being and social order. Science has exposed these myths, making, among other things, the Judeo-Christian ethic less convincing. His evidence for this last fact is that "paleontologists have overthrown the myths of creation."

I can well imagine Christians reading this piece and shuddering as they face this attack on their faith that sounds so intelligent, so scientific.


First of all, this particular attack is not new. Feuerbach was the first to suggest God was nothing but a psychological projection. Religion to him was a universal neurosis. Freud, Marx and Nietzsche all picked up the theme: God the imaginary "cosmic father" invented for our emotional protection, created in our image to comfort us, a phantom to fill our hollow places.

Because some one, or some culture, might have a motive for fabricating religion doesn't mean that they have, in fact, invented it. It's an important concept to keep in mind when you're doing advocacy: an alternate explanation isn't a refutation. Because someone can come up with a purely human explanation why someone would believe in God doesn't refute God's existence at all. The strength of any argument should be based on its own merits.

Secondly science has not made religion untenable. Quite the opposite. If paleontology has shown anything it is the inadequacy of evolution to explain the fossil record as we have it.

I have another explanation for people's belief in God. I think it's an intuitive response. Now you can't show that on a Geiger counter or measure it in a test tube, but you can't put love or beauty in a test tube either. I'd say belief in God is a first principle because every person has a natural sense of His transcendence and every culture in the world is beating a tom-tom to someone "out there." In fact, you have to work at being an atheist.

Sometimes that belief is expressed in subtle ways. Even Thomas Maugh, Times Science Writer and author of this article, shows his hand in the things he says. He makes reference to noble lies and altruistic behavior. But if religion is a myth then the values religion spawns are myth also, values like nobility (which has to do with moral qualities) and altruism (dealing with the moral dimensions of unselfishness) are myth also.

This is underscored further by the fact that as the "myth" of religion vanishes, altruism declines and egotism becomes more prevalent.

Maugh also cannot help avoiding the language of design when he talks about the natural realm: "The viceroy butterfly...is a delicacy for birds, but evolution has colored its wings to mimic the markings of the foul-tasting monarch butterfly, forcing the birds to think twice before attacking it." To say the coloring was accidental would be much more honest, but it would sound so ludicrous. Instead design and intent are invoked because it really looks like someone's behind the scenes making things happen. Ergo the term "mother nature."

If we were to invent god, what would he be like? If left to ourselves to fashion a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible? A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities. He would think and act, more or less, like we do. As our invention, his morality would reflect our desires. When we erred, he'd cluck his disapproval and then dismiss our frailties with an affectionate kids-will-be-kids shrug. After all, nobody's perfect.

The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He us. His wisdom confuses us; His purity confounds us. He makes moral demands we can't live up to, then threatens retribution if we don't obey. Instead of being at our summons, He defies manipulation. In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first.

Did we invent that? Could we invent it? Is this the kind of god we would create if left to our own devices? Or have we seen the true God and trembled, closed our eyes, hid our faces and turned our backs?


Stand to Reason - www.str.org - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character

[technomage]

Science has exposed these myths, making, among other things, the Judeo-Christian ethic less convincing. His evidence for this last fact is that "paleontologists have overthrown the myths of creation."
The quicker scientists (and science writers) figure out that the ToE does not invalidate the existence of God, the better off we'll all be.

Justin

[lucaspa]

Is Religion a Noble Deception? by Greg Koukl

re: "The Lies that Bind: Nearly All Species Deceive," LA Times, Monday, April 1, 1991 B3 Science/Medicine, Thomas Maugh, Times Science Writer

Maybe you saw this piece. What anthropologist Robert Sussman of Washington University in St. Louis is suggesting is that religion is one of the lies society creates--one of the noble self-deceptions--to achieve personal well-being and social order. Science has exposed these myths, making, among other things, the Judeo-Christian ethic less convincing. His evidence for this last fact is that "paleontologists have overthrown the myths of creation."
I can well imagine Christians reading this piece and shuddering as they face this attack on their faith that sounds so intelligent, so scientific.
This is another instance where Biblical Fundamentalism creationism has done so much harm to Christianity and critical thinking. Creationism ties the how of creation to the existence of a Creator. The logic is: if deity did not create this particular way, then deity does not exist. But that is non-sequitor. Notice that Sussman makes the same illogical leap: if deity did not create by zapping species into existence by special creation (and paleontology has series of transitional individuals showing this did not happen), then Judeo-Christianity (with its ethic) is wrong. Apparently, Sussman has never heard of the first quote in my signature.

First of all, this particular attack is not new. Feuerbach was the first to suggest God was nothing but a psychological projection. Religion to him was a universal neurosis. What is being missed here is that there is evidence for the existence of deity. And that evidence is the personal experiences people claim to have of deity. Feuerbach, since he has no evidence deity does not exist, must take this path to get rid of all this data. Suggest that "universal neurosis" is at work. However, Feuerbach must explain why this neurosis does not affect other areas of their lives. IOW, if Francisco Ayala engaes in "psychological projection" in believing in a deity, why does he not also engage in such projection in his work as a scientist?
If he did, then his scientific work would not stand up and he would not occupy his position as one of America's premier evolutionary biologists.

Freud, Marx and Nietzsche all picked up the theme: God the imaginary "cosmic father" invented for our emotional protection, created in our image to comfort us, a phantom to fill our hollow places.
Because some one, or some culture, might have a motive for fabricating religion doesn't mean that they have, in fact, invented it. It's an important concept to keep in mind when you're doing advocacy: an alternate explanation isn't a refutation.
Right. This is an alternative hypothesis to explain the data of personal experience. The existence of such a hypothesis makes atheism a reasonable faith. However, it is a weak hypothesis because people who otherwise do not seem to have "hollow places" have personal experiences of deity.

Secondly science has not made religion untenable. Quite the opposite. If paleontology has shown anything it is the inadequacy of evolution to explain the fossil record as we have it.
Sorry, but this is not the case. Paleontology has amply demonstrated that evolution is a fact. There are numerous transitional series, both of species and, more importantly, of individuals connecting species and higher taxa. What happens is that allopatric speciation explains the punctuated nature of most of the fossil record exactly.

No, this is the wrong place to make your rational defense of Christianity. Instead, you make your defense that paleontology simply shows that God created using the process of evolution.

All science can show you is how God works. The "secondary causes" God uses, to borrow a phrase from pre-20th century Christian theologians. Belief in God comes from sources outside science. If you have such a belief, science simply shows you how God works or created. Otherwise, science is unable to falsify the existence of God.

I have another explanation for people's belief in God. I think it's an intuitive response. Now you can't show that on a Geiger counter or measure it in a test tube, but you can't put love or beauty in a test tube either. I'd say belief in God is a first principle because every person has a natural sense of His transcendence and every culture in the world is beating a tom-tom to someone "out there." In fact, you have to work at being an atheist.
I have a different explanation: People believe in God either because they 1) have personal experience of God or 2) they trust people who do report such experiences. Atheists are atheists simply because they have no such experiences and distrust the experiences of people who say they do.

In this explanation, everyone is working from evidence. Hume showed that all evidence is personal experience. So what we have are 2 different sets of personal experience. Experience of deity or experience that is absence of deity.

The argument above seems to be a variant of the Argument from Design.

He makes reference to noble lies and altruistic behavior. But if religion is a myth then the values religion spawns are myth also, values like nobility (which has to do with moral qualities) and altruism (dealing with the moral dimensions of unselfishness) are myth also. Non-sequitor. Shakespear's Macbeth is a "myth" in that the history is purely fiction. However, the human values discussed in the play are not fictional.

Also, in another thread, you argue strenuously that the truth of an idea is separate from the person. It was part of critical thinking. Well, here the "person" is religion and the idea are the values.

Back to Plato: Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good? If the first, then you have the ultimate in moral relativism. If the second, you have separated values from religion. Values/ideas are true regardless of who proposes them. That's what you said in the other thread. Apply it here.

This is underscored further by the fact that as the "myth" of religion vanishes, altruism declines and egotism becomes more prevalent. Please document that. This is a myth propagated by those who mistakenly believe that morals require a belief in God, but I have never seen any data.

Maugh also cannot help avoiding the language of design when he talks about the natural realm: "The viceroy butterfly...is a delicacy for birds, but evolution has colored its wings to mimic the markings of the foul-tasting monarch butterfly, forcing the birds to think twice before attacking it." To say the coloring was accidental would be much more honest, but it would sound so ludicrous. Instead design and intent are invoked because it really looks like someone's behind the scenes making things happen. Ergo the term "mother nature."
There is design in nature. Plants and animals are designed. Designed by natural selection. That's what natural selection is: an unintelligent process that is guaranteed to give design. That's why the Argument from Design (what you just used) went out as a valid Apologetics argument in 1859. If this is your "stand to reason", then the ministry is in deep trouble.

If we were to invent god, what would he be like? If left to ourselves to fashion a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible? A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities. He would think and act, more or less, like we do. I hate to tell you, but Yahweh as depicted in the OT meets these requirements.

However, the real counter to this argument is: humans have looked at thousands of versions of deity. Now, if humans were inventing them, then eventually humans would invent such a deity as they tried out the possible variations.

OR, Yahweh could equally represent an accurate experience such that Moses really did hear deity say it had no name.

Did we invent that? Could we invent it? Is this the kind of god we would create if left to our own devices? Or have we seen the true God and trembled, closed our eyes, hid our faces and turned our backs? You can equally answer either way. As I pointed out above, if humans are inventing variations on the idea of deity, then this would be one of the variations. It would survive partly because it is a variation that can't be shown to be wrong. Or, equally possible, this variation arose because of accurate experiences and this is the accurate version.