As a half-involved, half-detached observer I have been watching the continuous rise of religious feeling in Russia over the past two decades.
I have reason to be half-involved – my own cousin has gone deeply religious. So much that she, after having earned a degree in chemistry and biology, has now done a batchelors degree in theology swiftly followed by a masters degree in the same (the atheist in me would much prefer to call these degrees the “so-called” degrees). And over the last years, I have been witnessing her deepening mistrust towards all things associated with, in her eyes, a lack of christian and godly morality. It’s put quite a strain on our relationship, and of course some areas of conversation have become a zone where both of us feel like we tread on eggshells. But this subject continues to fascinate me. Especially since her faith is a heady mix with a parallel belief in astrology, which surely is a “pagan” area – and in any case, not a science after all?
The search for god in Russia is hardly surprising – in its days, communism acted as a form of belief system, faithfully adopted by some and forced onto many other unwilling ones. The collapse of communism, the appallingly shameful and horrible information about the bloody wrongdoings of the past leaders that was finally disclosed in the wake of that collapse, and the extreme economic hardships of the nineties left a vast emptiness in the lives of many and caused them to look for alternatives to run to. Anything went in those days – all things occult flourished, astrology enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) a huge following, whole families crowded before TV screens watching some charlatans waving their hands about on prime time telly promising to “charge up” water bottles dutifully held by viewers – waiting for all their illnesses being cured overnight.
Then, by the mid-nineties, and after decades of communist suppression, religious community leaders came out of the shadows and all churches started enjoying a revival. And it feels like it’s really taking hold of Russians by now. How much of it is a fashion thing and how much of it a true faith? It is probably a mixture – and this raises some interesting questions. Those people who only two decades ago professed to be atheists could not have been so, and certainly fear of being in trouble for being religious had a big part to play. But are they truly religious now? What makes them so sure of their faith? What makes a person look for god? How many of these people truly think and examine their position, and how many are ready to run for any sort of “shelter” as soon as things are tough?
I am also fascinated by some faith-related problems that my cousin seems to be not seeing at all. For instance, I asked her about the position of orthodox christians on catholics and protestants. Are the latter two supposed to be “deviant faiths” in the eyes of her church? Are they wrong in how they worship and will they go to hell for that? – Don’t laugh, as this is what catholics have surely been taught in the past about protestants, I have heard many references to that. Anyway, my cousin opined that the orthodox church has no agreed position on this. No agreed position!! And no view! How can a church not have a view on this major split between its key branches – apart from calling it “wrong”?
Certainly the current intention of educating younger people in the christian faith is to go out and seek like-minded faithful ones. These groups go on pilgrimages all over Russia, seeking out other people belonging to their sect and establishing contact (my cousin does not belong to mainstream russian orthodox church – they actually disapprove of one another and the followers are not welcome in each other’s places of worship). And perhaps that’s a good thing – it’s their own business how they spend their own free time provided this keeps them out of trouble? But of course they also want to convert young minds to their belief system. The view is that the current levels of morality have sunk so low – the lowest ever in the history of humankind – that there is nowhere left to go but to god. It’s interesting that most generations (since the Romans, I believe) also think that the next generation will bring about the end of the human race due to their total moral decline – so far we are still standing.
I want to finish this essay by briefly turning to the question of “why people might turn to god”. It is really difficult to comprehend why people believe – there are no facts to base one’s faith on, is one problem of many that atheists would point out. But this summer I came across a fanstastic science-fiction novel called “The Roadside Picnic” writted by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky in 1971. I was re-reading it again, and one passage struck me as so very relevant to the question that has been puzzling me for so long. Here it is:
“…Man, as opposed to animals, is a creature with an undefinable need for knowledge. But the whole problem with that is that the average man … very easily manages to overcome this need for knowledge. I don’t believe that need even exists. There is a need to understand, and you don’t need knowledge for that. The hypothesis of God, for instance, gives an incomparably absolute opportunity to understand everything and know absolutely nothing. Give man an extremely simplified system of the world and explain every phenomenon away on the basis of that system. An approach like that doesn’t require any knowledge. Just a few memorized formulas pins so-called intuition and so-called common sense.”
Copyright 2009 by CuriouslyInspired
Curiously Inspired 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 21, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Ausculta
Firstly you have not offended me at all and I also appreciate the opportunity to have an honest debate about these things.
I would never expect anyone to believe in God, simply because it cannot be proven that God does not exist. Not only would such a belief be weak and insincere but it would be silly as which type of God would you believe in- the Christian god, or that of other religions?
It would help me to understand your position if you would define what you mean by “scientifically proven”. For example do you think that we can hold as true only those things which can be tested empirically and re-performed in lab conditions? Or is it what you can observe by sense data, or even Popper’s theory of falsification?
Whatever your theory of scientific knowledge, I would argue that we hold as true many things which cannot be proven scientifically, at least by any theory of scientific proof that I know of. Indeed much of science itself are theories postulated by the use of reason and are not proven. Furthermore, scientific theories are regularly updated and disproved.
Therefore I do not understand why the lack of scientific proof is enough to reject the existence of God.
How do you scientifically prove that you love your spouse, or that your spouse loves you, or even that love exists?
How do you scientifically prove historical events. For example can you scientifically prove that Elizabeth I existed?
How do you scientifically prove consciousness?
For that matter how do you scientifically prove the theory of evolution?
I hold that there are other ways of working out the truth as well as science. For example
– Our own experiences, thoughts, feelings
– The exercise of logical thought and reason
– Observation of the way the world is and works
– Reliance on creditable witnesses. (A tells me something, in my experience, A’s statements have been reliable, therefore I believe A)
– Historical documents are a subset of this.
– Historical artefacts.
Some of the signposts to God (or to put it another way the rational grounds for faith) are:
1) Nothing in the universe is uncaused. Therefore something must have caused the universe to come into existence. This cause is “necessary”. At this stage I am saying nothing about the qualities of this cause, only that it must exist.
2) This cause must in itself be uncaused.
3) All causes in the universe are exterior to the thing caused. (eg I exist because of my parents) therefore it is more rational to believe that the cause of the universe is exterior to the universe itself, than something within the universe. Note, your comments that one day someone will “figure out the big bang” is not scientific, but is in fact a statement of belief.
4) Still, even if you think it more likely that the cause lies within the universe (or indeed is external to it, but still not “God”), then is it not more intellectually rigorous to say, OK. I think it likely that the universe sprang into existence from nothing, however I do not know this and so let’s follow the arguments further.
5) Therefore, let’s assume that there is a cause external to the universe and that this cause might be personal. What if any, evidence do we have that this being is personal and has the qualities attributed to God and that this being is attempting to communicate with us and develop a personal relationship with us? If, after conducting this investigation, there is no such evidence, then atheism (or possibly deism as for practical purposes, there is no difference between the two), is a more rational belief, if there is such evidence, then theism is more rational. I now move on to consider some of the arguments put forward. (Not all of them, I am posting on a blog, not writing a book!)
– A) The universe is ordered, intelligible and can be studied and to a large degree understood by intelligent people. Ordered parts of enormous and delicate complexity work together to achieve the same end. This suggests ultimate creation by an intelligent being. Non believers have to believe this happened by chance. This is simply not credible. We can only understand chance against a background of order. To say something happened by chance is to say that it did not happen as we expected. Expectation is impossible without order. (Science is impossible without order). Darwinian theory shows only that species may have descended from others by random mutation and that survival can be accounted for by natural selection. In no way does it account for the order and intelligibility of nature. People like Dawkins seem to wish to extrapolate from the purely biological theory and maintain that the vast order around us is the result of random changes, and as such are saying something no empirical evidence could confirm and is very difficult to believe.
B) Consciousness- people are conscious and intelligent– we can experience and understand the universe. Where does this consciousness and intelligence come from? It is not necessary for the successful function of humans. Many organisms function perfectly well without consciousness and animals without our intelligence. Again, it seems more rational to think this comes from an intelligent source than by chance. Furthermore, our intelligence is highly prized – and makes us the most valuable things in the universe. However we did not cause the universe, so how can we be the best things in it? This points towards the existence of a more intelligent being outside the universe.
C) Moral obligation. We are truly obligated to do good and avoid evil. We all have a sense of moral obligation. This is evidenced by the use of words such as should / ought. It is present in children from a very young age, too young to be socially conditioned. We judge others by this standard. Yet, in a materialistic deterministic universe, where did this obligation come from? In a world created by chance, why should we do good?
D) The conscience. Even today, when not everyone agrees that there is an external moral obligation, many if not most, think that not only does the conscience exist, but that we should follow it. Where does the conscience come from? It could come from nature (by chance), it could come from me, it could come from society or it could come from God. If it comes from nature why should I obey it- is not my intelligence superior to natural instinct? If it comes from society, what right does society have to impose its values upon me? If it comes from me, then the concept of obeying our conscience is meaningless- the conscience prompts us to behave in ways that are sometimes against our desires and makes us feel guilty when we do not follow our conscience. The conscience is not therefore personal choice. Therefore it does seem as though the conscience comes from outside our own thoughts, feelings and desires- or to put in another way, it comes from God.
E) Religious experience. An enormous number of people from different eras and cultures claim to have an experience of the divine. Are we to believe them? Given the sheer volume of testimony, it is not rational to dismiss this evidence without evaluating at least some claims in the light of the following factors.
– the consistency of these claims
– the character of those who make them. (do they seem honest, decent, trustworthy)
-the effects these experiences have had on their lives and those of others.
Many people have been convinced by these testimonies. Testimonies I have found particularly convincing have been wide ranging and include CS Lewis (in Surprised By Joy), St Augustine’s confessions, a family member’s outstanding courage faced with a particularly tragic bereavement, Sophie Scholl. I could go on, the list is endless.
F) The argument from aesthetic experience. There is the music of Beethoven. Therefore there must be a God. You either see this one or you don’t.
G) Our yearning for God. There exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing in earth, no creature can satisfy. However every other desire corresponds to a real object that can satisfy that desire. Therefore there must be an object also for our yearning desire for God. As CS Lewis puts it: “ creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well there is such a thing as food… Men feel sexual desire, well there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in the world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”
H) Pascal’s wager- you might already be familiar with this. Ie if you believe in God you have everything to win and nothing to lose. – If you don’t believe in God you have nothing to win and everything to lose. I don’ t like this reason, as it seems a cowardly, insincere even selfish reason to believe in God. However it is a very good reason never to close your mind to the existence of God and to also continue searching for what many believe to be the ultimate source of love, truth and beauty. It is a very good reason for trying out prayer and seeing what happens- for example the prayer of the sceptic, “God, I don’t know whether you exist or not, but if you do, please show me who you are”.
PS I must credit the words of the philosopher Peter Kreeft with helping me to express some of these arguments.
August 26, 2009 at 8:24 am
Anonymous
Hi Ausculta, just one comment. Yes, it is true that some religious people are too aggressive in trying to convert non-believers. The same goes for atheists. Unfortunately….
PS I am not CI
August 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Ausculta
Hello CI. Glad to see you are blogging again.
Without knowing how your cousin presents her religion (I am aware that some people are too aggressive in trying to convert others), it would be a shame if it spoiled your relationship. I assume that she values her faith highly, sees it as a very valuable gift and therefore only naturally wishes to share it with those she loves. Indeed it might be considered selfish were she to keep it to herself!
What sect does she belong to and how does it relate to Russian Orthodoxy? I think it unlikely that the Russian Orthodox church would approve of astrology. As to your question on hell, I can’t of course speak for the mainstream Russian Orthodox church, but Catholic faith does not teach that the Russian Orthodox will go to hell, simply for being Russian Orthodox. Indeed, I understand that the theology of the churches is very similar if not the same, in all key matters. The differences lie in organisational structure and worship practices.
Might I ask how you define “fact” and also which facts you base atheistic belief on?
My Oxford Concise dictionary defines fact in two ways,
Firstly – things which are indisputably the case
Secondly- information used as evidence
Perhaps we can agree that neither theism nor atheism falls into the first category of fact?
Further more, perhaps we can agree that very few of life’s major decisions and opinions are based on facts which are indisputably the case.
Take for example marriage. When I married my husband, it was not indisputably the case that he would remain faithful, never leave me, nor beat me up, or even that he would be a good father to my children. I had to take a leap of faith and trust him with my life and my wellbeing. Of course, I did not take a blind leap of faith. I did have rational grounds for putting my trust in him, for example, the way he had treated me until then, the way he treated others, his family background etc. Or in other words, I had information I used as evidence, to justify putting my faith in him.
In the same way, theists have rational grounds or evidence for putting their faith in God. As to what these rational grounds are, there are many and they will vary from person to person. I am happy to elaborate further, if you are interested.
December 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm
curiouslyinspired
Hi Ausculta. Thank you for your comment, and my apologies for a very late reply.
To be honest, I am not totally sure what the “church” that my cousin belongs to is called “correctly”. I do know that members of their church are often not welcome in mainstream Russian orthodox churches. One of the key problems they have with the mainstream “official” church is that the latter accepted Soviet rule back in the 1920ies. These guys did not and went underground, and were persecuted particularly harshly, which as you might imagine under Stalin’s rule must have been quite bad.
I agree with you on your definitions of fact and that logically speaking, neither faith nor atheism can be based on the first definition.
What am I basing my atheism on – that is a good question indeed. I think we should probably mention that there are several possible definitions of god out there. One, a man with a heavy beard literally sitting on a cloud high above our planet watching us all intently. I guess not many people believe in that one, however there are of course some who do. Two, a deity that is very involved in human affairs – listening to or ignoring prayers, forgiving or punishing sins, reading our innermost thoughts and performing an occasional miracle etc. Many people believe in that. One and two are examples of theism. Three, some supernatural intelligence who set the laws that govern the universe, brought this universe into existence, and then withdrew from active participation. This is deism. Fourth, and that is an example of pantheism, people can use the word “god” as a non-supernatural synonym for nature or universe with all its beauty and richness.
It should go without saying that I don’t believe in 1. 2, I have no belief in also. It’s not a case of having a series of facts available to me that I came to this conclusion. In some ways it’s about probabilities, see later. But mainly it’s about approaching the question from a different end – not trying to disprove or prove anything, but about me having having read and thought about why religions spring into existince that I became convinced that religion is something that humans have a certain need for, and thus create, for all sorts of reasons.
None of the stuff relating to religion and supernaturality has been proven to hold true scientifically, I would argue. Yes, we might have unexplained phenomena, but science has steadily been chipping away at this realm for centuries, so the areas of the unexplained is much smaller than it used to be. And it will continue to shrink as we probe deeper and further than ever thought possible.
Now of course people on the opposite side of the theism-atheism dividing line would always ask me to disprove that god exists. I cannot; the best minds in science cannot. It’s just very, very, very unlikely that god exists, so unlikely that for all intents and purposes, we say it does not. Especially not the god that reads our innermost thoughts, listens or ignores prayers, etc etc – the god who is said to be omnipotent and omniscient, which is in itself not possible and a paradox.
Richard Dawkins lists a great example. If someone postulated that there is a tiny teapot circulating the Sun somewhere between Mars and planet Earth in between gazillions of other asteriods, how can one disprove its existence? with the best telescopic equipment in the world, it’s just not feasible. But if this someone goes on to say that since we cannot disprove it, it must be right, everyone would rightly agree that this is nonsense. I would add, if someone chose to furnish the celestial teapot with magical powers that we should recognize and revere in a church, that is also nonsense as well and everyone would be up in arms. But isn’t this what has effectively happened over the millenia – only it became custom and has been written in a book?
Now, is there something that put this universe into existence, and then withdrew from active participation? That is deism in my example 3. It might be tempting to postulate this. And of course until someone explains the Big Bang there will always be this possibility. But if such a Creator did indeed exist, then who created the Creator? This one has no realistic answer, in the same way that Big Bang, a starting externality for this universe, does not – at present. And I’d rather put my money on someone eventually figuring out the Big Bang, than someone putting their faith in a creator that has “no beginning and no end” – as that is just cheating and avoiding the question.
As for example 4, well that is atheism mixed in with a deep admiration for the beautiful laws of nature and its infinite complexity. For instance, you mentioned once before the Pi number, or some other beautiful and complex maths rules etc. I totally agree, this is fascinating stuff! But this in ifself won’t alter my view about the origins of the universe or how it came about, in the same way that if something looks “designed”, it does not mean that someone designed it.
Nevertheless, I am keen to stress that atheists keep an open mind about this stuff. If some new facts or food for thought came up that would point us towards god existing, we can and will change our minds. But nothing has so far come up that would be convincing or factual in this debate. I therefore not a believer.
If at some point in future you would like to share your thoughts about what facts you base your belief on, I would be more than interested to listen, as I have never had such an open and engaged debate with anyone on this matter, and I thank you for this opportunity.
I hope I have not offended you in any way, if in any way I have that was absolutely not my intention. I am just trying to lay out – in a briefest way possible – my reasoning for thinking the way I do. There are others, e.g. the human need for religion and why this arises, and that would draw me further into this subject and further into the possible risk of offending you, my listener and reader. Thank you very much for getting this far, if you have.