Continuing on from last week I’m listing some of the more common reasons why many people fail to believe in gods or God. So far I’ve talked about different kinds of atheism, about how evidence and how it does not lead to God, about how God isn’t necessary to living, about how some of the common argument for God are not convincing for me and about the old classic the Problem of Evil. We’ve touched on science as a “way of knowing” about the real world and this week I want to compare and contrast this with other “ways of knowing” that existed before the rise of science.
I want to stress at the outset that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I know that some consider the two to be contradictory but I believe that is because they are placing them on the same scale. Science is a way of knowing. Religion is a belief system. It might be fair to compare how they benefit or limit people but comparing them directly is unfair to both. By doing so you’re setting a false dichotomy and buying in to the sort of thinking that creationists are keen to promote. Science and religion don’t operate on the same scale. Having said that I’m now going to write about how faith has been used in the place of science and how, in my view, it fails to be convincing.
Read the rest of this news item »
Over at the Friendly Atheist Hemant has given some space for Lee Strobel to answer some questions. In his list of arguments that might plant the seeds of faith in atheists Lee mentions Philosopher Paul Copan’s second point:
And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don’t such ‘injustices’ or ‘evils’ seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?
It’s an interesting twist on the old argument posed even before Epicurus wrote his famous riddle. The argument goes like this: If God is believed to be wholly good and omnipotent and omniscient in his power and knowledge then the existence of evil that is evident in the world creates an inconsistency.
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Whence then is evil?
Or possibly some combination of these. Whatever the combination though we are left with a being that is not wholly good, all knowing and all powerful. Plenty of such beings exist. I am not all good, all knowing or all powerful. Nor am I a god.
Read the rest of this news item »
Continuing on from last week I’m listing some of the more common reasons why many people fail to believe in gods or God. So far I’ve talked about different kinds of atheism, about how evidence and how it does not lead to God and about how God isn’t necessary to living. Alone each of these reasons may not be sufficient to reject belief in God in the face of the reasons that people do have for belief.
This week I’ll look at some of the common proofs of God’s existence and try to explain why they are not convincing enough for me and many other atheists to make that leap of faith. This time I want to start off by saying that I accept that these arguments are enough to convince some, they just don’t convince me.
The Argument from Design
Mike alluded to this back in the discussion about evidence when he talked about the totality of existence being evidence for God. We live in a universe that seems perfectly suited to life. It is beautiful and apparently orderly, at least the rules of physics remain orderly wherever we look. Surely such a wondrous thing is proof of design? If we can infer design then there must be a designer and only God could have designed it. The argument for design says that the universe exists so God must exist.
On the face of things this seems pretty reasonable except that the universe isn’t that beautiful or that orderly. Look at evolution for example and you see massive waste with evolutionary dead ends seeing the extinction of 99% of all life that has ever lived on this planet. You see carnivores that have to kill in order to survive. You see lives snuffed out for no reason. You see suffering and death, destruction and torture at every turn. Human beings, supposedly the pinnacle of God’s creation, are wrought with flaws too numerous to mention. We are less created in God’s image than thrown together out of whatever working parts could be found.
However, even if the universe were a perfectly ordered and beautiful thing, and I’m not disputing that we can see beauty and order within it, even if it were perfect, why should there be a designer? Modern science has shown us that natural explanations exist for a wide variety of thinks we once thought of as designed. Laws are devised to explain the effects of gravity, theories are formed that explain natural processed like evolution or the chemical imbalances in the brain that lead to some mental illnesses.
The “Ontological” Argument
The ontological argument uses logic and reasoning based on an a priori proof proposed by Anselm of Canterbury way back in the 11th century. It is an argument that seeks to put God in a place where He is necessary for existence.
Ever since I first heard this I’ve always disliked it. I find it childish and silly and I really don’t see why anyone takes is seriously.
The First Cause Argument
Unlike the ontological argument I actually like the first cause argument. Among my “real life” friends who hold to no particular religion but retain a belief in a mysterious “something” the first cause is a favourite reason. “Well something must have started it all off” they say and they are quite correct. If everything has a cause then the universe must have a cause. isn’t it fair to say that this cause must be God?
Actually, no. If you want to put God up as a first cause then that is just begging the question of who or what caused God. If everything needs a cause then so does God. If God doesn’t need a cause then why does the universe? Saying that God is uncreated and perfect, that He somehow lives outside of the universe and outside of time, well, that isn’t satisfactory. It’s just begging the question again. If God was already perfect then what reason did he have for creating the universe?
Also, if the universe was caused why does that mean that God was the cause? Perhaps Odin was the cause, perhaps Ra, perhaps some unknown, natural process. There is room for doubt and lots of it.
Posted in A Cacophony of Posts, Jason | 48 Comments »