Is It All In My Head?

August 13, 2011

Thanks to Derren Brown and Russell Crowe, I’ve recently been looking at Christianity differently than I ever have before.

At the time I watched Derren Brown’s Miracles For Sale (in which he trained someone to be a convincing faith healer), I only thought of it applying to the so-called Christians who manipulate people’s emotions to get money out of them in return for supposed miracles. Since my church background is not charismatic (i.e. you won’t see “healings” or people getting “slain in the spirit” or “speaking in tongues” at our services), I didn’t really see much connection between what he was talking about and my beliefs.

Then I watched the film A Beautiful Mind.

If you haven’t seen the film and don’t want any spoilers, you probably shouldn’t read beyond this paragraph, but please come back after you’ve seen it. :) Or maybe up to now you’ve had no interest in seeing it; in which case, perhaps the following will make you more interested.

A couple of things about the film led me to start really analysing whether the God of Christianity is just as imaginary as Parcher, Charles and Marcee.

For example, there’s the idea that Marcee doesn’t get any older, from which Nash worked out that she couldn’t be real. Obviously, unlike humans, God’s not supposed to age, so that specific line of reasoning doesn’t apply to Him, but this got me thinking about the attributes that God is supposed to have, that could work equally well, or perhaps better, for an imaginary friend.

Also, Nash found Parcher appealing because he gave his life a perceived purpose which it didn’t otherwise have. It seems that Nash’s brain created its own fictional purpose for existence to make up for the pointlessness of his real life. This got me analysing the way Christianity gives our lives an objective purpose that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

I don’t think any of the following is evidence that God doesn’t exist, but perhaps there really are plausible alternative explanations for a lot of Christian experiences.

So here are some of the questions that have been swirling around in my head recently:

God’s Guidance

One of the things I’ve learnt recently about Christian living is about getting guidance from God. Basically what I found from various sources was that, when making a decision, God doesn’t want you to just sit around and wait for Him to send a lightning bolt from heaven, you’re supposed to kind of knock on doors and see which ones He opens… Basically (once you’ve consulted the Bible) do what you want, and then find out whether God approves or not by your success or failure.

I’m starting to understand why unbelievers don’t want to spoil religion for those people who get “inner strength” from their belief in God. God gives them boldness to go out and do whatever they want – pursue their dreams! – armed with the knowledge that they’ve got an omnipotent friend to make things happen, instead of just their poor little selves trying to do it all on their own. At the same time, they can tell themselves it’s not their fault if things don’t go as they’d hoped; it was obviously not what God wanted for them. Is it possible that God could be totally imaginary and still perform the same function?

God In Control Of Everything

Then there’s the things that happen to us and other people around the world. God apparently works all things, both the good and the seemingly bad, for His purposes. We may not be able to see how, but everything will work out for the best; if not in this life, then in the next. We attribute the good stuff that happens to us as God’s goodness, and we attribute the bad stuff to God teaching us to depend on Him, or testing us or something. But what if we’re just kidding ourselves, and actually, things just happen… some good, and some bad?

Communicating With God

When we pray, are we just talking to ourselves? This is something that bugged me before I saw either of the films mentioned above.

Does God really answer prayer, or is that belief just a result of the confirmation biases of people who want it to be true?

An example of a belief based on a confirmation bias is Murphy’s Law, which states that whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. Obviously it’s not really true that everything that could go wrong in our lives does actually go wrong; it’s all about our perception. We notice when things go wrong; we don’t notice when things work as normal. The things that go wrong stand out. They seem more significant than they really are, so much so that we almost start to believe that whatever can go wrong really does go wrong. With prayer, when we apparently get a clear, positive answer, it’s very noticeable. When we don’t get an immediate answer, or we get a negative answer, we can write it off as “not God’s will” and perhaps these negative occurrences become much less significant than the positive answers, encouraging our belief that God really does answer prayer.

Why Pray?

Since God doesn’t change His mind, the point of praying can’t be to try to convince Him to do things he wouldn’t have done otherwise. He already knows exactly how things are going to work out. In this way I consider myself to have something in common with Deists, or maybe it’s determinists… anyway, what I mean is: I believe God had all of history (including miracles and “answers to prayer”) planned out before creation started, so in a way you could say he doesn’t really intervene any more; everything’s going exactly according to plan, so why would He intervene? So I’m not sure in what way He could be said to answer prayer. The only prayers He appears to answer are the ones that match what He already had planned.

So what is the point of prayer? We’re told that God likes to hear us ask for things, but surely the point must be, not that we convince Him to give us stuff, but that we somehow learn from the process of prayer. We learn to depend on God for things, we learn patience when He doesn’t answer our prayers immediately, or we learn to submit to His will when He doesn’t answer our prayers in the way we hoped. But in reality, could all those things work in the basically the same way if God is not really there and we’re just talking to ourselves? Sometimes things go our way and sometimes they don’t. Believing that God is listening to their prayers could usefully teach people patience and help them move on in life when things don’t go as they hoped, even if God didn’t actually exist.

On Paper

A while ago one of the blogs I follow shared this post about how fantasies regarding men and women appearing in printed media compare with real relationships with people we actually know, and who know us. He talks specifically about how Christians relate to their favourite authors compared with how they get on with their local pastors, and notes the similarities with a man’s relationships with women in real life compared to pornography.

I’m pretty sure fantasy relationships don’t need to be based on paper forms, I reckon it works just as well – if not better – with TV, movies, song lyrics, and facebook… and images certainly don’t have to be pornographic; the people in them don’t even need to be physically attractive. In fact, I think the fictional personalities of TV and movie characters have the potential to cause even more problems than their looks… and I’m certain it’s not just men that have this sort of problem. How many women complain that “there’s no really nice guys out there”?* Could it be that unrealistic standards have been set by the men in Rom-coms? Is it surprising that real-life men don’t live up to those standards?

*Do women really complain that much about a lack of nice guys? Or have I just got that impression based on women I’ve seen on TV? :S

I’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent there, but does a similar thing happen with God?

We’re told that God, like the paper men and women described above, is unchanging (EDIT: I haven’t explained it very well, it’ll make more sense if you go and read the article yourself). I wonder if we’re convinced that God is unchanging because our knowledge of Him is based on a book that hasn’t changed in the last 1900 years. Do we impose our own thoughts and ideas and desires on a text that is perhaps in a lot of ways more ambiguous than we think? I don’t have anything particular in mind here, but (even in a Sola Scriptura-minded church) I do wonder how much of my understanding of God’s character is actually directly from the Bible, and how much depends on interpretation. Derren Brown demonstrated how to use mood lighting, arm-waving, shouting and emotionally-charged music to manipulate people, but I think a church can influence people just as powerfully without putting on that sort of show; when I read the Bible, how much does my understanding of it depend on what was originally written, and how much does it depend on what I’ve been told it means? And in private too, how much does my understanding of the Bible depend on what’s going on in my head at the time as I read a particular passage?

When it comes to decision making based on our understanding of the Bible, on one level we might think we’re obeying God, but in reality, do our thoughts about what God wants actually always suit our mood, our needs, our wants (or what others have taught us we should want)?

I wonder if I’ve sometimes tricked myself into thinking I’m submitting to God, when really I’m just doing what I want to do (or what I’ve been brought up to think is the right thing to do). I suppose at least with Christian Hedonism, you don’t pretend you’re not doing things to make yourself happy, but still, is God just a kind of sophisticated psychological tool for motivating ourselves?

Like paper pastors, and unlike the humans we speak to literally face-to-face, God always has time for us, He’s available 24/7, anywhere we like, at our whim, and we always have His full attention. He’s willing to listen to all our moaning, He never has to rush off to another appointment, He’s never ill, and – as far as we know – He’s never in a bad mood when we’re speaking to Him; He understands exactly how we feel, and almost certainly agrees with our conclusions. He also keeps His distance when we don’t want to hear from Him. We can just shut the book and think about something else and stop listening to Him. Just like you can turn the TV off or skip a few pages in your paper pastor’s latest book when it makes you a little bit uncomfortable.

To be continued…

Since I have more of an open mind than ever before, I thought it would be a good time to read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, so at some point I’ll get a review posted on here.

In the mean time, in case you’ve read this far thinking all this is evidence that God is not real:

Also, I reckon the film Horton Hears A Who! is worth a watch.


I joined Twitter

October 7, 2010

Until recently I couldn’t see myself ever joining Twitter. It just seemed like they’d copied a bit of facebook, but left out the stuff it’s actually useful for, like organising events.

But I’ve recently found a couple of reasons to join:

a) I’ve noticed that more and more people are on Twitter that I would like to follow (although immediately after signing up I seem to have forgotten who most of those people are).

2) I’m thinking that I could put most of my pointless facebook status updates on Twitter instead, so those facebook friends who really don’t care that I’m listening to Katy Perry’s Gospel-rock album from back in 2001 when she was known as Katy Hudson, can just choose not to follow me on Twitter.

In case you’d like to follow me, my profile is here.


Love

October 3, 2009
Manly people like me don't say stuff like this, but in the video (click the picture) she looked even more adorable

Manly people like me don't say stuff like this, but in the video (click the picture) she looked even more adorable than she does in this screen capture.

This post was prompted by a friend who responded to my facebook status when I said I missed the ginger hair, by claiming he’d “never quite understood the obsession” with Hayley Williams. I don’t think he was saying I’m obsessed, but that some people go a little overboard with the Hayley-love.

I’d already sort of been thinking about whether obsession could be understood.

I had a pretty long discussion with another friend about whether it’s reasonable to believe supernatural events could have occurred. He was arguing that even the most improbable natural explanation for any perceived event is preferable to an explanation involving the supernatural. His field of expertise is Psychology, so he has natural explanations for the widespread belief in a God or gods that don’t actually exist.

This made me wonder if people who have a natural explanation for all their own thoughts can believe in things like love.

I’m far from well qualified to write on this subject, but I imagine if I told someone I ‘loved’ them and then went on to describe in detail how the feeling could be fully explained by natural causes, that they would not be particularly impressed. It would be a bit like programming two robots to be ‘in love’ with each other. It seems to me that kind of the point of love is that there’s something about it that can’t be explained, but I could be wrong.

This would be reflected in God’s love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). If he’d waited for us to turn to him, no one would’ve been saved.

Hopefully it’s clear that the point of this post is not to declare that I’m in love with Hayley Williams, but I think she would agree with the above. In her thankyous for Riot! she thanks Jesus for “blessing me even though I definitely don’t deserve it”.


Why Facebook Is Good For Revision

May 14, 2009

So I was recorded as saying today that “I think facebook is better than spending time with people in real life.”

Just thought I’d write a quick note to explain what I meant.

When I’m revising (or working on my third year project as I have been doing recently), I work better on my own.

So I think it’s better for productivity to spend time on facebook than actually talking to people – LET ME FINISHbecause facebook gets boring pretty quickly, meaning I get back to work (or at least pretending to work) pretty quickly, whereas if I’m with people face to face, it stays interesting for much longer, meaning less work gets done.

Having said that, I’ve spent far too much time on facebook, particularly the last couple of weeks, so I think I’m gonna start strictly limiting how much time I spend on there. My project gets handed in tomorrow, so I don’t need to worry so much about getting work done, I can talk lots to real people, and distract them from their revision.


Really, why bother?

April 21, 2009

I’m 21 and I think this guy is pretty much right, although I wouldn’t argue quite so passionately.

“Clubs are despicable. Cramped, overpriced furnaces with sticky walls and the latest idiot theme tunes thumping through the humid air so loud you can’t hold a conversation, just bellow inanities at megaphone-level.”

“Clubs are such insufferable dungeons of misery, the inmates have to take mood-altering substances to make their ordeal seem halfway tolerable. This leads them to believe they “enjoy” clubbing. They don’t. No one does. They just enjoy drugs.”

“Why not just stay at home punching yourself in the face? Invite a few friends round and make a night of it.”

“Clubs have always been vapid and awful and boring and blah – but I can’t remember clubbers documenting their every moment before. Not to this demented extent. It’s not enough to pretend you’re having fun in the club any more – you’ve got to pretend you’re having fun in your Flickr gallery, and your friends’ Flickr galleries.”

Probably my least original post yet, I already wrote about the stupidity of getting drunk, I found this article thanks to James P posting the link on facebook, and I’ve not added anything to the best bits of Charlie Brooker’s original rant. 

What’s cool or fun about a thumping, sweaty dungeon full of posing idiots? – Charlie Brooker @ The Guardian


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.