An Atheist Converts -- But for the Wrong Reasons?

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal features a column by Andrew Klavan, a former atheist who was baptized into the Episcopal Church this year.  He took that momentous step, not because science suggests the existence of God, but because of "the human experience of God's presence."  Contrasting his recent conversion experience with that of noted British atheist Antony Flew (see this posting), Mr. Klavan seems to argue that the scientific method really shouldn't come into play in deciding whether or not there's a God:

The presumption of atheism seems to me to be at the heart of all scientific reasoning about religion. And as I'm someone who loves and believes in science, it was a major stumbling block for me most of my life. After all, why would anyone believe without proof in that for which there is no evidence in the first place?

... What finally occurred to me--what tipped the scales in favor of baptism--was that the presumption of atheism proceeds without respect for the human experience of God's presence. Thinkers like Prof. Flew dismiss this experience because they make the mistake of applying the scientific method of analysis, of taking things apart, to an inner life that can only be known as a whole.

Of course, the human mind can be deceived.  But there are some matters in which internal human experience can neither be usefully dissected nor practically gainsaid. ...

When Prof. Flew looks to DNA and the mysteries of creation for God, I propose that he's looking in the wrong direction. Let him, rather, talk to a recovering alcoholic in whom God stands surety for the diseased will, or visit a Salvation Army shelter where God has taught a despairing soul its worth. Let the professor--in the name of experiment--sit in solitude and give silent thanks and feel the almost instantaneous repayment in the coin of vitality and joy. ...

... [S]cientific atheism seeks to proceed from nothing when human experience is the only reasonable place to start. ...

You can't help but admire a man who thinks his way from atheism to faith.  But Mr. Klavan's logic may not convince a lot of other atheists.  He correctly notes that an atheist's analysis cannot start from nothing, because that would be to ignore the very real "data" of human experience. 

But Mr. Klavan dismisses too lightly the equally-real problem of human fallibility.  As he rightly concedes, the human mind can indeed be deceived.  That's why it's so important to be cautious about assuming facts not in evidence; to cross-check our observations and thinking against those of others whenever possible; and to remain open to other possible explanations of the data. 

In other words, that's why it's so important to follow what we loosely call the scientific method.  It's especially important when our experience convinces us that we must be right.

(As an aside, I wonder where Mr. Klavan got his premise that the inner life can only be known as a whole, and how he concluded that the inner life is therefore impervious to scientific analysis.)

But all that said, we mustn't miss the main significance of Mr. Klavan's story:  He found God, and that should be an occasion for rejoicing for all believers.

Comments

[bls]

I'm 100% in Mr. Klavan's corner: I, too, find "human experience" with God to be the most convincing fact of all. Of course, I am one of those recovering alcoholics he speaks of, and I have had most of the other experiences he talks about as well, so probably I come in with a bias.

It's true, of course, that "the human mind can be deceived." But can millions of human minds be so deceived? And all in the same way?

Well, perhaps. Perhaps there really is a "God gene." Still we must ask: why is there something, rather than nothing?

[bls]

(Anyway, I'm a pragmatist and look rather at what belief produces. "Instantaneous repayment in the coin of vitality and joy" isn't anything to sneeze at. And you wrote of the King's College Christmas Eve broadcast on another thread; surely such beauty commends the thing that brought it about, no?

Here's something else that's interesting in the "pragmatic" sense" Buddhist Meditation May Produce Lasting Changes in the Brain:

Nov. 10, 2004 -- Meditation may not only produce a calming effect, but new research suggests that the practice of Buddhist meditation may produce lasting changes in the brain.

Researchers found that monks who spent many years in Buddhist meditation training show significantly greater brain activity in areas associated with learning and happiness than those who have never practiced meditation.

The results suggest that long-term mental training, such as Buddhist meditation, may prompt both short and long-term changes in brain activity and function.

But as I said, the "healing" aspects of the spiritual life are a huge part of my own experience, and seem to me to be among the most important benefits of faith.

[D. C.]

Concerning the human experience of God, BLS writes: "But can millions of human minds be so deceived? And all in the same way?"

1. Sure they can: For millennia, billions of people thought the sun rose in the east each day, traveled across the sky, and set in the west. Their senses were not deceiving them. But they didn't have all the data. As a result, they misunderstood what was actually going on.

We need to be mindful that the same might be true about the human experience of God. As data, such experience is always valuable. We mustn't ignore it. But such experience might not be all the data we need to understand what's really going on.

In that regard, BLS, I submit that your note about trained Buddhist meditators works against your argument. From what I understand, Buddhists aren't theists. They don't believe in God the way Jews, Christians, and Muslims do. It appears that Buddhists' (areligious) practices can lead to roughly the same sort of happiness as religious belief. This suggests that when religious believers experience happiness, it might not be belief in God per se that causes it. We simply don't know enough about what causes the brain to experience "happiness" to make any hard-and-fast claims in this area.

2. Let's not forget something else: Certainly, millions of people have experienced God in a way that Christians would recognize and approve. But other millions have experienced God in other ways -- Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, for example, to say nothing of different varieties of Christian experience. Among all these different types of experience, is it possible for us to ascertain which is "valid"? If so, how do we go about making that determination?

Thanks for the comment, BLS, and have a Merry Christmas season.

[bls]

Sure they can: For millennia, billions of people thought the sun rose in the east each day, traveled across the sky, and set in the west. Their senses were not deceiving them. But they didn't have all the data. As a result, they misunderstood what was actually going on.

But this is of course knowledge of a type different from "the experience of God"; there is actual hard evidence for things like this, derived from mathematical proofs and logical inferences. There will never be comparable physical evidence for the existence of God, almost by definition; certainly there won't be evidence of the type you're suggesting here. We will never have all the data.

And actually, all of us are taking (current) science's conclusions on faith, anyway. It's apparently true, for instance, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - but that's a major problem for the original "Big Bang" theory. Quantum Mechanics is deeply counterintuitive, but it fits the observed data. So far. In fact, almost everything that science has ever posited has been ultimately proved wrong, or at least incomplete.

I'll respond about the study of the Buddhist monks later. It's my belief that the major religions are all attempting to do the same sorts of things vis-a-vis the human psyche - for if not, why is religion ubiquitous in humans? - so I don't make the distinction you do between "theistic" and "non-theistic" religion. At least, not in this sense.

Buddhism neither requires nor forbids a belief in God. And of course Buddhism is a derivative of Hinduism, a decidedly theistic religion. (Anyway, has anyone defined terms here? Like what "God" means, for instance?)

[D. C.]

BLS (12:25 p.m.) writes:

But this is of course knowledge of a type different from "the experience of God"; there is actual hard evidence for things like this, derived from mathematical proofs and logical inferences. There will never be comparable physical evidence for the existence of God, almost by definition; certainly there won't be evidence of the type you're suggesting here. We will never have all the data.

I don't know that we can categorically declare our knowledge of God to be necessarily different from our knowledge of other things. We may never have all the data, but I don't think that gives us a warrant to abandon a cautious, data-oriented approach.

BLS also writes:

almost everything that science has ever posited has been ultimately proved wrong, or at least incomplete.

Careful -- don't go to the other extreme of dismissing the scientific approach entirely for theological purposes. Remember that a "scientific" statement of facts can be entirely serviceable for particular purposes even when it's incomplete or wrong. For example:

• Newton's notion of gravity was superseded by Einstein's relativity theory, but for most purposes the Newtonian version works just fine;
  
• The sun doesn't revolve around the earth, but for basic direction-finding, we can usefully act as though it does (see this link if you're curious).

By the same token, we have no reason to assume that an incomplete, "scientific" view of God might not be serviceable for our purposes.

[bls]

(And Merry Christmas to you, also, BTW!)

[bls]

By the same token, we have no reason to assume that an incomplete, "scientific" view of God might not be serviceable for our purposes.

And why is the experience of human beings in seeking God, over the course of 5 millennia, not included as part of this "scientific" view?

Why would you write that "when religious believers experience happiness, it might not be belief in God per se that causes it," when we have volumes of writing that says that that's exactly what's happening? Isn't this exactly what people are saying, and have been saying, for millennia? Why disbelieve them? I don't understand. Even in scientific experiment, you have to take the subjects' word for what they say they experience.

All of this, of course, says absolutely nothing about the actual existence of God.

BLS writes at 1:25 p.m.: And why is the experience of human beings in seeking God, over the course of 5 millennia, not included as part of this "scientific" view?

I've always said such data needs to be included -- see my 8:00 a.m. comment: "As data, such experience is always valuable. We mustn't ignore it. But such experience might not be all the data we need to understand what's really going on."

BLS also writes: "Even in scientific experiment, you have to take the subjects' word for what they say they experience."

No we don't; it depends on what they say. If a subject says, I feel happy, then we probably ought to take the subject's word for it. But if the subject says, I feel happy because Jesus is standing in front of me smiling at me, you'll pardon me if I want to probe a little further.

[bls]

D.C.: I don't really think that the "scientific method" can be used in theological matters. We can ask questions, but we can never answer them, because God is by definition out of our frame of reference.

We don't have the language, or the tools, to make observations and measurements about God - and then to try to falsify the results - which is what the method requires. What are we to observe and measure?

I'm still not really sure what the terms are here. But this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, really, and can't be anything else.

[bls]

But if the subject says, I feel happy because Jesus is standing in front of me smiling at me, you'll pardon me if I want to probe a little further.

Well, yes - but what you'd be probing is the question of "Jesus standing in front of me" - not the happiness of respondant. But this is a sort of outlandish example, anyway, and it's not the kind of data I'm talking about. I'm talking about Psalms, and Isaiah, and the Upanishads, and the Letters to the Corinthians, and the writings of Julian of Norwich and St. John of the Cross and of the Buddha.

I'm talking about millennia of people's subjective experiences with seeking God, and the fact that everybody reports the same sorts of emotional and psychological effects. There is therefore some constant there - some universal thing - and this is what "God" has come to mean to Andrew Klavan, as far as I can tell. Health, joy, and vitality: these things are the hard evidence of faith in God. These things are what all human beings aspire to, and if we call their source "God," isn't that enough?

BLS writes at 1:56 p.m.: "Health, joy, and vitality: these things are the hard evidence of faith in God. These things are what all human beings aspire to, and if we call their source "God," isn't that enough?"

It's possible that we may be talking past one another. If you're happy, and you attribute it to your faith in God, that's wonderful; I'll take that as a given. (But I'll still be interested in learning more about the precise mechanism by which this happens.)

But it gets a bit stickier if you now tell me that I therefore ought to have faith in God as you conceive him / her / it. I'm far less likely to take that as a given.

And it's stickier still if you later demand that I comply with a particular standard of conduct because it's clear to you that that's what God wants. This last bit isn't just an abstract proposition for debate; it has life-and-death significance in countries where Islamic sharia is the law.

[bls]

And it's stickier still if you later demand that I comply with a particular standard of conduct because it's clear to you that that's what God wants. This last bit isn't just an abstract proposition for debate; it has life-and-death significance in countries where Islamic sharia is the law.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with people who "demand that I comply with a particular standard of conduct because it's clear to you that that's what God wants."

;-)

Such abuse occurs in many places, even where it isn't law. But of course, Andrew Klavan isn't saying anything like that.

So your claim is that the scientific method eliminates subjective claims for God and would eliminate such abuse? I wonder. Don't forget that during the 20th Century the worst murderers were explicitly atheist governments - the U.S.S.R and China. So I think this may be an inherent tendency in human beings; it's more about power, don't you think, and control, than it is about religion?

But I get your point. I just don't think we can really use the scientific method in this area; I think we should instead accept the nebulousness (some might say "mystery") of claims for God and use the scientific method anyway, in every other area. Science, of course, has made our lives much, much better - but it's not a panacea, either. Truth to tell, I'm a little worried about the future because of the power of science, and I think religious (or at least philosophical) questions will become prominent again. We need to use both, I guess I'm saying: human nature seems to seek meaning, and that's where religion came in and still does, I think.

For instance, I adore Psalms, and I find it amazing that they still speak to us 3,000 years later. There's something important there, I think - the trick is to tease out the crucial stuff and let go of the rest. But that's what this current argument is all about, I suppose.

Thanks for an interesting conversation, anyway! Here's a link, along these same lines, that you might find interesting: Nuns Brain Probed for God.

[Geoff]

If we explain the universality of religious experience in terms of genes and neurones, that still will not explain why such genes arose in the first place. We would not have evolved the ability to see if their was no light to perceive!

In any case I would like to quote Bishop Richard Holloway:
"Even if it doesn't mean anything, I choose to live as though it did. And the philosopher of this faith as romantic defiance is the great passionate Castilian Miguel de Unamuno, in the tragic sense of life a magnificent romantic quixotic book, and something that Unamuno wrote and I'd love stencilled on my tombstone: 'Man is perishing that may be, but if it is nothingness that awaits us, then let us so live that it will be an unjust fate.' Isn't that great?"

[bls]

Yes, it is. Romantic defiance is definitely the way to go, IMO; there's something in the genes of homo sapiens that seems to lean that way, in any case. We're all suckers for the lost cause, and for the quixotic life.

;-)