Do Progressives Believe They are God-Like?

Many modern human beings do not believe in God or disagree with the idea of a higher power who has the ability to change the world. Once someone denies the existence of a higher power, s/he is left to rely on other human beings to implement change. Standing alone, an individual cannot produce wide-ranging, substantial change unless s/he is exceptional (e.g., founders of Google, etc.).

However, most of us are not exceptional. Therefore, most people who do not believe in a higher power rely on groups of people to create change. In practice, groups of people solicit their government to implement change via government programs. In short, modern human beings seem to have replaced God with man-made governments.

The idea of God required humans to be beneath a higher power and to accept certain limitations; in contrast, the idea of government as a change agent places human beings in a similar role as an omniscient or omnipotent God.

Babies, Morality, and God

In "The Moral Life of Babies" (May 9, 2010, NYT, Paul Bloom, see here), the author discusses babies and their sense of innate justice. Below is a description of one of the studies used to determine baby behavior:

[W]e tested 8-month-olds by first showing them a character who acted as a helper (for instance, helping a puppet trying to open a box) and then presenting a scene in which this helper was the target of a good action by one puppet and a bad action by another puppet. Then we got the babies to choose between these two puppets. That is, they had to choose between a puppet who rewarded a good guy versus a puppet who punished a good guy. Likewise, we showed them a character who acted as a hinderer (for example, keeping a puppet from opening a box) and then had them choose between a puppet who rewarded the bad guy versus one who punished the bad guy.

The results were striking. When the target of the action was itself a good guy, babies preferred the puppet who was nice to it. This alone wasn’t very surprising, given that the other studies found an overall preference among babies for those who act nicely. What was more interesting was what happened when they watched the bad guy being rewarded or punished. Here they chose the punisher. Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behavior.

The babies rewarded the "good" puppet by giving it a treat. This experiment reminded me of C.S. Lewis's book, The Problem of Pain. Lewis, a former atheist turned Christian, argues that pain and guilt must come from God (or some innately programmed code placed by a programmer) because even at an early age, we have feelings that come too early to be explained away by socialization.

Another way to review Lewis's ideas is by examining the problem of a conscience. Most of us, from a very early age, have a conscience that produces guilt and pleasure. Where does a two-year-old child's conscience come from? Lewis contends that the best explanation for a young child having guilt is God, because it is unlikely that biology can produce such feelings in someone so young. Today, we talk about genes for diabetes, cancer, and even homosexuality, but few reputable scientists have tried to argue for a "guilt gene." Of course, there may be genes that make humans more social and more attuned to social networks, but such genes would presumably need more catalysts than a mere two years of experience, much of it spent in a restricted space.

Aquinas, Pascal, and other philosophers have submitted their pro-God arguments, but C.S. Lewis's musings on the problem of guilt/pain don't get enough credit in philosophy classes or general theology discussions. That's a shame, because Lewis has presented an argument that anyone, merely by studying a child, can understand. Reducing theology to child's play might seem overly simplistic, but I see nothing wrong with effective arguments.

Random Thoughts: Religion

I am with Thomas Jefferson when it comes to religion: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." This libertarian strain leads me to get slightly upset when people blame any other religious group for any reason. My friends, knowing I am easily needled, quote Christopher Hitchens (of God is Not Great fame) to me whenever they can. Borrowing from C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, I came up with the following argument, which gently straddles the line between proselytizing and confirming faith as a private matter. 

1. If you agree guilt is innate, explain where it comes from? At such a young age, we've all felt guilt. Assuming socialization at that young of an age could not have played a part, where did it come from, if not God or something we cannot understand and therefore name "God"? 

2. Agree that humanity is not omnipotent. Okay. Agree that humanity will always be subject to the unknown, which will nevertheless have real effects on a person's life. Okay. If you believe in cause and effect, the unknown that causes effects has to come from somewhere. Religion assigns a name to that unknown and calls it "God." To not believe in God is to reject the concept of the unknown. 

One way to escape that conclusion is to say "Yes, at some point, humanity will be able to explain everything or will evolve to be able to explain everything." That is not a humble explanation. 

So the atheist must post this scenario: God-believers are wrong and humble, and atheists are not humble but right and can be omnipotent. Therefore, the main difference under an atheist's view between believers and non-believers is believers are predisposed to humility and possibly stupidity. I agreed with this position my friend advocated. I'd rather live in a world where people are humble and wrong than arrogant and right. That division, at the end of the day, seems to be one difference between believers and nonbelievers. Just my two cents from a former atheist (just like C.S. Lewis). 

As for calling particular religions harmful, the New York Times's Lindsey O'Rourke reminds us that terrorism crosses all lines. See A27, August 2, 2008, "Blaming Islamic fundamentalism [for female terrorism] is also wrongheaded. More than 85 percent of female suicide terrorists since 1981 committed their attacks on behalf of secular organizations; many grew up in Christian and Hindu families...The founder of Hamas claimed 'A woman martyr is problematic for Muslim society. A man who recruits a woman is breaking Islamic law."' And, "95 percent of female suicide attacks occurred within the context of a military campaign against foreign occupying forces, suggesting that, at a macro level, the main strategic logic is to create or maintain territorial sovereignty for their ethnic group" (e.g. Tamil Tigers--see an overlooked but incredible Indian film called A Peck on the Cheek for more). 

Of course, Hamas' anti-Semitic comments contradict the Quran's Sura 2:256: "There shall be no compulsion in religion." Just goes to show you can bring a man to the book, but you can't make him understand it.