Thursday, September 07, 2006
the first rebuttal.
christians who believe in the existence of god will tell atheists tt god exists for a number of reasons, most of which cannot be supported by empirical evidence, but nonetheless will garner great popularity among the flock.
one such argument is for the existence of right and wrong, and consequently, the remedying of justice - or the lack thereof - in the current world.
taken off http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html:
(c)Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"
1. the moral argument for a deity
one form of moral argument for the existence of god, is that there would be no right or wrong unless god existed. the difference between right and wrong may be debatable. however, if we are certain that there is a difference between right and wrong, the question to ask is - is this difference due to god's decree, or is it not?
if the difference between right and wrong is due to god's decree, then for god himself there has to be no difference between right and wrong. in that case, it will no longer be a significant statement to say that god is good. because if we do say, as the theologians do, that god is good, then we must first concede that right and wrong have some meaning that is independent of god's decree, because his decrees have to be good, and not bad, independently of the mere fact that he made them.
and if we say this, we may have to then say that it cannot only be through god that right and wrong came into being, but rather that they are in their essence, logically anterior to him.
2. the moral argument for the remedying of justice
a second form of argument, is that the existence of god is required in order to bring justice into the world. however, in this part of the universe, we know there already exists great injustice, such that oftentimes the good suffer while the wicked prosper. so the argument is that if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole, you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. so as a result, it is said that there must be a god, and there must be a heaven and a hell, so that in the long run there may be justice.
however, looking at the matter from a scientific point of view, a person would say, "i know only this world. i do not know about the rest of the universe, but insofar as one can argue on probabilities, one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, such that if there is injustice here, the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also."
using the crate of oranges principle, if you got a crate of oranges that you opened and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue that the ones underneath must be good so as to redress the balance. you would instead say that the whole lot is probably a bad consignment.
this is also what any scientific person would argue about the universe. that because there is great injustice in this world as far as this goes, this is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore it affords a moral argument more against a deity and not in favor of one.
note: it is not intellectual arguments that moves people however, because religion is rarely founded on logic. religion is usually embraced for 3 other (non-logical) reasons: 1) people are proselytized into religion from early infancy; and 2) because of the profound need for a safety net, for the sort of feeling that there is a 'big brother' who will look after you. this is a strong influence for people believing in a supernatural higher being that is difficult to prove on logical or empirical grounds.
3) most importantly, religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. it is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as mentioned in point 2), the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. fear for the most part, is also the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. it is because fear is at the basis of those two things.
the counter to this fear is not to look to some supernatural ally in the sky to solve our own problems for us, but rather, to look into our own hearts and rely upon our own efforts, to make the world that we live in a better one.
now playing: hotel costes - cafe de flor
one such argument is for the existence of right and wrong, and consequently, the remedying of justice - or the lack thereof - in the current world.
taken off http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html:
(c)Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"
1. the moral argument for a deity
one form of moral argument for the existence of god, is that there would be no right or wrong unless god existed. the difference between right and wrong may be debatable. however, if we are certain that there is a difference between right and wrong, the question to ask is - is this difference due to god's decree, or is it not?
if the difference between right and wrong is due to god's decree, then for god himself there has to be no difference between right and wrong. in that case, it will no longer be a significant statement to say that god is good. because if we do say, as the theologians do, that god is good, then we must first concede that right and wrong have some meaning that is independent of god's decree, because his decrees have to be good, and not bad, independently of the mere fact that he made them.
and if we say this, we may have to then say that it cannot only be through god that right and wrong came into being, but rather that they are in their essence, logically anterior to him.
2. the moral argument for the remedying of justice
a second form of argument, is that the existence of god is required in order to bring justice into the world. however, in this part of the universe, we know there already exists great injustice, such that oftentimes the good suffer while the wicked prosper. so the argument is that if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole, you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. so as a result, it is said that there must be a god, and there must be a heaven and a hell, so that in the long run there may be justice.
however, looking at the matter from a scientific point of view, a person would say, "i know only this world. i do not know about the rest of the universe, but insofar as one can argue on probabilities, one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, such that if there is injustice here, the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also."
using the crate of oranges principle, if you got a crate of oranges that you opened and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue that the ones underneath must be good so as to redress the balance. you would instead say that the whole lot is probably a bad consignment.
this is also what any scientific person would argue about the universe. that because there is great injustice in this world as far as this goes, this is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore it affords a moral argument more against a deity and not in favor of one.
note: it is not intellectual arguments that moves people however, because religion is rarely founded on logic. religion is usually embraced for 3 other (non-logical) reasons: 1) people are proselytized into religion from early infancy; and 2) because of the profound need for a safety net, for the sort of feeling that there is a 'big brother' who will look after you. this is a strong influence for people believing in a supernatural higher being that is difficult to prove on logical or empirical grounds.
3) most importantly, religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. it is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as mentioned in point 2), the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. fear for the most part, is also the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. it is because fear is at the basis of those two things.
the counter to this fear is not to look to some supernatural ally in the sky to solve our own problems for us, but rather, to look into our own hearts and rely upon our own efforts, to make the world that we live in a better one.
# posted by Kitana @ 9/07/2006 02:18:00 PM 
