Book:
Goldstein, Clifford. God, Gödel, and Grace: A Philosophy of Faith. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2003.
Chapter: 2: Chemical Dilemma
Context:
This book was gifted to me by my friend, a Christian, many years ago. I’m not Christian. But I found the book recently and decided to reread it. I am grateful for friendship and find Christians, in particular, to be some of the best people I know.
Sum:
The chapter begins with some summary and commentary on Waiting for Godot. In the play, like Christians wait for God, two men wait among the absurdity of life for someone who doesn’t show up. It seems, life has no inherent meaning. Goldstein takes issue with this view. In short, he says that we are more than the molecules and chemistry that make us up. Our ideas and feelings (love!) seem to transcend mere materialism. He also writes about determinism; we don’t act like people are automatons. We hold people responsible. And to not do so would be insane.
Thoughts:
Goldstein writes, “A worldview that limits its world, and its view, only to rationalism, to materialism, and to scientific Atheism misses all that's beyond them—which is so much of us, of what we are, of what we hope for, of what we aspire to, of what we imagine, of what we dream and laugh and cry about and love and worship and live and die for” (26). It’s a beautiful sentence, and it captures something true about the human condition. There is so much of who we are and what we experience that cannot and – maybe – should not be explained through science. Science is limited to what can be systemically and objectively tested and falsified. We cannot go to it for philosophical questions or for how we feel, or perhaps should feel, about important, subjective questions. Religion has done a good job, from an evolutionary point of view, in filling that void. But, of course, as Nietzsche observed some time ago, we have killed God; we are not the society we once were. So what will rise in His place? I don’t know. Perhaps a different kind of God. Perhaps a different kind of secularism. Whatever the case, it is toxic to live without meaning.
Quickly, I want to make a simple point that seems to elude the author, if I may be so bold. Materialism, as he calls it, doesn’t necessitate a lack of meaning; to be fair, his point is that because all is material, we don’t have access to innate, objective, eternal truths – to any truths, really, other than our own. So who’s to say anything matters or anything is correct? It seems sad. Why live? Why love? What does your love even mean? My dear atheist and agnostic friends, you must know this: Christians will always win the narrative battle. Their story is better than ours. It’s more comforting, inspiring, and probably more prosocial. Nevertheless, no one escapes the human condition. Whether you realize you are, epistemically speaking, on your own or not, you are. For example, Christians rely on their faith to determine ultimate truth. This belief may be false. After all, that is why faith is needed. Believing in your belief because God made it doesn’t make it any more reliable. So, when criticizing secularists for relying on reason, which, the author asserts, relies on faith, consider who is being more reasonable, relying less on faith, and is more aware of reason’s fallibility – theists or the Godless, sciency types?
Note: This will be my last Jim Nog Reads. I’ve decided to instead focus on doing reviews for the books I read and find interesting, instead of these weekly updates. It reduces redundancy, makes the individual posts more substantial and significant, and I may enjoy the process more. I reserve the right to change my mind and return to these; we’ll see how it goes.