Isn’t Belief In God Just An Accident of Birth?

Over on Bound­less there’s a real­ly great dia­log between a stu­dent and a prof on the rea­son­able­ness of the­ism. The stu­dent is won­der­ing if he believes just because he was raised to believe.

Here’s an excerpt:
[stu­dent] “I was talk­ing with my friend Don. You know him.”

[pro­fes­sor] “Sure. It’s through him that I know you.”

“Well, the oth­er day he asked whether I believe in God, and I did­n’t know what to tell him.”

“You don’t know whether God is real?”

“It’s not that. I don’t know whether I believe in Him.”

“Isn’t that the same thing?”

“No. See, I do believe in God. But I don’t see why my belief should be true. So maybe I don’t believe in Him, if you see what I mean.”

“Maybe you’re try­ing to say that your belief does­n’t reflect real knowl­edge, so even though you believe in God, you also think maybe you should­n’t. Am I get­ting warm?

“Yeah, that’s it. See, one of my oth­er pro­fes­sors said that the only rea­son I believe in God is that I’ve been brought up that way. If I’d been brought up by pagans, prob­a­bly I’d believe in lots of gods. If I’d been brought up by athe­ists, prob­a­bly I would­n’t believe in any god. So I have this belief — but so what?”…

The rest of the dia­log gives a very satist­fy­ing answer to that ques­tion!

Larry Wall Discusses His Faith in Scientific Perspective

This is a fol­low-up to our arti­cle about famous liv­ing sci­en­tists who are Chris­tians:

Lar­ry Wall, cre­ator of the pro­gram­ming lan­guage Perl, is a Chris­t­ian. In a recent inter­view on Slash­dot he was asked the fol­low­ing ques­tion:

I remem­ber read­ing at some point that you are a Chris­t­ian, and there have been sug­ges­tions that some of your ear­ly mis­sion­ary impuls­es (a desire to do good, help oth­ers) are per­haps part of the zeal you have put into Perl over the years.

Pre­fer­ring a sci­en­tif­ic view, I am not reli­gious, and have no desire to be. Per­haps there is a God, but if there is, I think he/she has no oppos­able thumbs; in oth­er words, has no pow­er to change any­thing; real­i­ty is just play­ing out accord­ing to the laws of physics (what­ev­er those are).

Please tell us how in the world a sci­en­tif­ic or at least tech­ni­cal mind can believe in God, and what role reli­gion has played in your work on Perl.

If you’re a sci­en­tif­ic sort of per­son, I encour­age you to read his answer. It’s ques­tion num­ber 7 in the inter­view.

Why Are There So Many Different Ministries?

I recent­ly received an email from a stu­dent ask­ing me why there were so many dif­fer­ent cam­pus min­istries at Stan­ford. I think a lot of stu­dents have sim­i­lar ques­tions, so I’ve decid­ed to tweak my reply and post it here.

Do The Var­i­ous Cam­pus Min­istries Com­pete?
Only in intra­mu­rals.

Seri­ous­ly though: I sure hope not! Ide­al­ly, we should each view our­selves as hav­ing a small role in accom­plish­ing what God is doing on cam­pus.

Then Why Don’t They Merge?
There are at least two sig­nif­i­cant rea­sons: we believe slight­ly dif­fer­ent things and hav­ing dif­fer­ent groups max­i­mizes min­istry.

Why Should Dif­fer­ent Beliefs Lead to Dif­fer­ent Min­istries If You Agree On the Essen­tials?
Because beliefs dri­ve behav­ior, and at some point dif­fer­ent beliefs will call for dif­fer­ent behav­ior. Let me give you a con­crete exam­ple: some groups believe that you must cel­e­brate com­mu­nion at every week­ly meet­ing and oth­ers don’t. In a giv­en group, only one of those prac­tices can pre­vail. By hav­ing two dif­fer­ent groups, both sets of believ­ers can flour­ish.

OK, Maybe. But How Does Hav­ing Dif­fer­ent Groups Max­i­mize Min­istry?
In the same way that hav­ing mul­ti­ple church­es max­i­mizes min­istry in a town. Sup­pose there was only one church in a town of 10,000. Even if the church build­ing can accom­mo­date 500 peo­ple, it would take 20 ser­vices a week to accom­mo­date every­one if they all decid­ed to come!

Sup­pose, on the oth­er hand, that you have 10 church­es each of which can accom­mo­date 250 peo­ple. If each church had 4 ser­vices a week every­one could attend.

In the same way, there’s lim­it­ed meet­ing space on cam­pus (and we’re not allowed to build our own build­ings). We need to have dif­fer­ent groups sched­ul­ing meet­ings at dif­fer­ent times in dif­fer­ent places.

Also, since each group devel­ops its own fla­vor, per­son­al pref­er­ences can be accom­mo­dat­ed. There are some peo­ple who would nev­er con­sid­er attend­ing a reli­gious group that wor­shiped God by means of 45 min­utes of con­tin­u­ous light rock. There are oth­ers who would nev­er con­sid­er attend­ing a group that wor­shiped God by means of incense and hymns. By hav­ing mul­ti­ple groups, there is a greater like­li­hood of a per­son find­ing a group that they click with.

But Should­n’t We All Be In Uni­ty?
Absolute­ly! But that does­n’t imply that the groups should merge into one. Just as you can be in uni­ty with oth­er Chris­tians with­out becom­ing the same per­son as them, groups can remain dis­tinct and exist in uni­ty.

We are in uni­ty in that we pro­claim the good news of Jesus Christ and con­sid­er one anoth­er a part of God’s plan for expos­ing stu­dents to the gospel. We encour­age one anoth­er on to love and good deeds, and we pray for one anoth­er. We rejoice at one anoth­er’s suc­cess­es and com­mis­er­ate over one anoth­er’s fail­ures.

We do not, how­ev­er, merge. To do so would be a bad strat­e­gy for reach­ing the cam­pus.

Don’t You Ever Do Any­thing Togeth­er?
Yeah. There are some spe­cial prayer meet­ings and wor­ship services–you’ll find out about those as the school year pro­gress­es.

Objections To Objectivism: A Brief Critique of Ayn Rand’s Ethical Egoism

The Objec­tivist Club at Stan­ford is pret­ty active, and so this seemed like an appro­pri­ate first entry in our “Rea­son­able Answers to Hon­est Ques­tions” cat­e­go­ry.

In case you’re not famil­iar with it, objec­tivism is the sys­tem of phi­los­o­phy defined by Ayn Rand. It deals with much more than mere­ly ethics, but that’s what I want to com­ment on today.

Ayn Rand’s eth­i­cal the­o­ry is of the type known as “eth­i­cal ego­ism,” which means that we should always choose to do things that ben­e­fit our­selves (we also call this self­ish­ness). A short way to sum­ma­rize Ayn Rand’s eth­i­cal the­o­ry would be “self­ish­ness is a virtue.” That’s not a com­plete­ly fair sum­ma­ry: she argues for a very spe­cif­ic type of self­ish­ness: an enlight­ened self-inter­est which rec­og­nizes that some­times act­ing for the good of oth­ers actu­al­ly ben­e­fits one­self. Here’s a more detailed descrip­tion writ­ten by one of her fans:

The Objec­tivist ethics rebuilds moral­i­ty from the ground up. “You can­not say ‘I love you’ if you can­not say the ‘I’,” wrote Ayn Rand. Accord­ing to Objec­tivism, a per­son­’s own life and hap­pi­ness is the ulti­mate good. To achieve hap­pi­ness requires a moral­i­ty of ratio­nal self­ish­ness, one that does not give unde­served rewards to oth­ers and that does not ask them for one­self. (source

I sent an email to Ravi Zacharias Inter­na­tion­al Min­istries ask­ing them to pro­vide me with a cri­tique of Ayn Rand’s eth­i­cal the­o­ry. Paul Copan was kind enough to craft this brief reply:

“AYN RAND’S ETHICAL EGOISM (OBJECTIVISM)

  • Rand’s eth­i­cal views pre­sup­pose a nat­u­ral­is­tic fal­la­cy; that is,
    it moves from the descrip­tive (that we are nat­u­ral­ly self­ish) to the
    pre­scrip­tive (that we ought to look out for Num­ber One). But there is
    noth­ing log­i­cal­ly com­pelling about mak­ing this jump.
  • What hap­pens if there is a con­flict of inter­ests? How do we adju­di­cate between con­flict­ing egos?
  • If the rules of moral­i­ty are real­ly rules of expe­di­en­cy, then they
    will be oblig­a­tory only so long as they are expe­di­ent.
  • The pur­suit of self­ish pleasures/goals even­tu­al­ly leads to anar­chy,
    in which every­one does what is right in his own eyes.
  • What hap­pens when an eth­i­cal ego­ist turns into a dic­ta­tor? It seems
    moral­ly counter-intu­itive to sug­gest that act­ing ego­is­ti­cal­ly is legit­i­mate
    for him.
  • The eth­i­cal ego­istal view is arbi­trary. Why should I opt for my own
    good as opposed to soci­ety’s good (or the good of some oth­er group­ing)?
    It seems that the ego­ist can give no real rea­sons for why his view is to be
    pre­ferred.
  • Ego­ism pre­sumes a uni­ver­sal rel­e­vance (i.e., the ego­ist pre­sumes
    a will­ing­ness to see oth­ers should embrace this view and act on it, but if
    the ego­ist does not, then it seems to be a defi­cient moral view). How­ev­er,
    if the ego­is­tic eth­ic is uni­ver­sal­ized, then it seems that this would go
    against the ego­ist’s own self­ish ends. That is, the ego­ist would­n’t
    want his eth­ic uni­ver­sal­ized.
  • The eth­i­cal ego­ist can’t be trust­ed when offer­ing moral advice
    to oth­ers since it will be to his own advan­tage rather than to that of the
    one seek­ing his advice.
  • Fur­ther­more, even if purs­ing self­ish ends is legit­i­mate, it seems
    hard to believe that this is the only moral virtue. That is, one’s good may
    be an object to pur­sue, but it need not be the only one.

There is a fuller defense of an objec­tive, divine­ly-root­ed eth­ic in the book, True for You, But Not for Me; this can be ordered through RZIM’s order line at 800–448-6766.”

If this top­ic is of more inter­est to you, Copan (author of the above cri­tique) also rec­om­mends that you read The Ethics of Ayn Rand: Appre­ci­a­tion and Cri­tique by John Piper. Piper takes more space to elab­o­rate on Rand’s the­o­ry and points out sev­er­al ele­ments of it he agrees with.

Scientists And Their Gods

Note: this was orig­i­nal­ly an excerpt from the arti­cle men­tioned at the begin­ning. Since then, I’ve added a few oth­ers and I’ve also done some fur­ther research on most of the sci­en­tists.

In Sci­en­tists And Their Gods, Dr. Hen­ry F. Schae­fer (Chris­t­ian, Nobel nom­i­nee, Stan­ford grad, and the third most-quot­ed chemist in the world) writes about the fact that there are many Chris­tians who work in the hard sci­ences. I was par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ed to note that three (four count­ing the author) have con­nec­tions to Stan­ford.

Some nota­bles:

Robert Grif­fiths, “mem­ber of our U.S. Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, Otto Stern pro­fes­sor of physics at Carnegie Mel­lon Uni­ver­si­ty received one of the most cov­et­ed awards of the Amer­i­can Phys­i­cal Soci­ety in 1984 on his work in phys­i­cal mechan­ics and ther­mo­dy­nam­ics. Physics Today said he is an evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian who is an ama­teur the­olo­gian and who helps teach a course on Chris­tian­i­ty and sci­ence.” (inci­den­tal­ly, he’s a Stan­ford grad)

Richard Bube “For many years, Bube was the chair­man of the depart­ment of mate­ri­als sci­ence at Stan­ford and car­ried out foun­da­tion­al work on sol­id state physics con­cern­ing semi­con­duc­tors. He said:There are pro­por­tion­ate­ly as many athe­is­tic truck dri­vers as there are athe­is­tic sci­en­tists.”

John Suppe, “Mem­ber of the U.S. Acad­e­my of Sci­ences and not­ed pro­fes­sor of geol­o­gy at Prince­ton, expert in the are of tec­ton­ics, began a long search for God as a Chris­t­ian fac­ul­ty mem­ber. He began attend­ing ser­vices in the Prince­ton Chapel, read­ing the Bible and oth­er Chris­t­ian books.”

Charles H. Townes “My can­di­date for the sci­en­tist of the cen­tu­ry is Char­lie Townes. (Of course, he is a friend of mine and there could be some bias here.) He did some­thing fair­ly sig­nif­i­cant when he dis­cov­ered the laser. He almost got a sec­ond Nobel Prize for the first obser­va­tion of an inter­stel­lar mol­e­cule.”

Arthur Schawlow: “won a Nobel Prize in physics, 1981, serves as physics pro­fes­sor at Stan­ford and iden­ti­fies him­self as a Chris­t­ian.”

Allan Sandage: “the world’s great­est obser­va­tion­al cos­mol­o­gist, an astronomer at the Carnegie Insti­tu­tion, was called the Grand Old Man of cos­mol­o­gy by The New York Times when he won a $1 mil­lion prize from the Roy­al Swedish Acad­e­my of Sci­ences.”

William Phillips yet anoth­er Nobel lau­re­ate. Read a fas­ci­nat­ing arti­cle about him.

David Cole: a Berke­ley bio­chemist. Could­n’t find a bio page on him.

Fran­cis Collins: direc­tor of the Human Genome Project, the largest sci­en­tif­ic project ever under­tak­en, Dr. Collins once said I’d call myself a seri­ous Chris­t­ian. That is some­one who believes in the real­i­ty of Christ’s death and res­ur­rec­tion, and who tries to inte­grate that into dai­ly life and not just rel­e­gate it to some­thing you talk about on Sun­day morn­ing. (source) Inci­den­tal­ly, Collins was an athe­ist who became a believ­er after attain­ing his doc­tor­ate.

Arno Pen­zias said “The best data we have are exact­ly what I would have pre­dict­ed had I had noth­ing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” (read more about him)

Owen Gin­gerich, pro­fes­sor of astron­o­my at Har­vard and a devout Chris­t­ian, said “I can only imag­ine that God, as a pow­er­ful force in the uni­verse, could put on many dif­fer­ent faces. If God is in fact all-pow­er­ful, there’s no rea­son why this all-pow­er­ful force in the uni­verse could not rep­re­sent itself and relate to the self-con­scious human beings, in some fash­ion, through com­mu­ni­ca­tion with human beings. And how do you com­mu­ni­cate? Through prophets of all ages.” (source)

Relat­ed Sto­ries

last updat­ed 5/21/2005: added Owen Gin­gerich