Philosophy of Religion |
||||||
Chapter 4. Arguments for the Existence of God: Reason |
||||||
Section 8. Overview |
||||||
In the end what can be made of all the proofs and arguments based primarily on reason for and against the existence of god. It appears that each and every one of them has strong points and weak points as well. It appears as if no one argument is definitive. No one argument is powerful enough to convince everyone to accept it. If each is flawed their combination would not produce a good argument that would be any better than its parts. Two, three or four flawed arguments do not make one argument without a flaw. What should be the position of a rational person in the absence of convincing argumentation? Should a rational person accept that a being exists when no proof has actually been provided? Many think that the position for a rational being would be at least a positive skepticism if not atheism.Considering that the burden of proof should be on the person who makes the claim that X does exist then it might appear that skepticism or atheism is well warranted where the claim is that a supernatural being, a deity, exists.
Finally, just what good are the proofs? ****************************************************************************************
“The Presumption of
Atheism” by Michael Scriven
Summary
by Meghan Ramsay Scriven asserts
that normally, the word faith is interchangeable with the word confidence,
and that confidence and reason must go hand in hand. For instance, we have
faith in a person because we have reason to be confident. Normally, if we
have faith (confidence) in something without reason to, the results can lead
to calamity. However, he points out that when it comes to religious
beliefs, faith is looked upon as a substitute for reason rather than
something that should have its foundation in reason. Scriven argues that
faith alone is not an adequate way to prove the truth of beliefs. Doing so,
he asserts, is like saying that you won a game just by playing and by
referring to playing as “winning.” Simply because you call it winning
doesn’t mean that you won. He goes on to say that in order to prove
something that one has faith in, s/he must provide evidence that justifies
the belief. In doing so, one would no longer need to believe based upon
faith, as s/he would have solid proof. Scriven also argues that the mere
possibility that a person with faith in religious beliefs might turn out to
be correct does not mean that the beliefs are automatically true. He also
points out that mere agreement is not enough to prove that a belief is true,
as the agreement of either religious persons or atheists could very well be
a shared mistake. Unlike scientific beliefs which are constantly verified
by our daily experiences, religious beliefs are not repeatedly verified by
constant, common religious experiences. In fact, he argues, many
fundamental religious beliefs vary widely between various denominations and
are open to much criticism by others. Scriven points out that the criteria
for religious truth must be connected with our everyday truths, or else
these religious criteria for truths do not have any connection with our
lives. Therefore, they would prove completely useless as a method for
explanation of our world or guidance for our lives.
Scriven argues
that if there are no arguments that point to even a slight chance of the
existence of God, the only alternative is atheism. Scriven uses the analogy
of the belief in Santa Clause to illustrate his point. When we are
children, we find it plausible to believe in Santa Clause. However, as we
grow older we realize that there is not the least bit of evidence in favor
of the possibility of his existence. We do not, however, attempt to prove
the inexistence of Santa. Instead we simply come to realize that there is
not the slightest reason to believe in his existence. In fact, belief in
his supernatural powers goes directly against the evidence. Thus, the
proper alternative to belief in Santa is disbelief rather than deferment of
belief.
Scriven maintains
that beliefs are either well founded (“there is evidence which is best
explained by this claim), provable (“the evidence is indubitable and the
claim is very clearly required), wholly unfounded or unsupported (“there is
no evidence for it and no general considerations in its favor”), or
disprovable (“it implies that something would be the case that definitely is
not the case”). He asserts that it is ridiculous to believe in either a
disproved belief or a wholly unfounded one. Additionally, he argues that it
is irrational to treat such a wholly unfounded belief as one that merits
serious consideration. Although a claim for which there is some support
cannot be dismissed, but without undoubted evidence such a claim cannot be
wholly believed either. In order for one to maintain agnosticism, the
belief must not be provable or disprovable. However, since there is not
even a slight bit of evidence to prove the existence of a supernatural
being, one cannot accept agnosticism. Scriven argues that regardless of how
many supposed proofs for the existence of a God exists, if they are all
defective, they are worthless. Additionally, Scriven points out that
although the various proofs for the existence of God attempt to support each
other, one must take a closer look. He argues that in reality, these varied
proofs are often referring to many different entities who seemingly share
the same name. In order for these supposedly connected proofs to work,
there must also be proof that they each refer to the same entity, which
monotheism does not provide.
Scriven, Michael.
Primary Philosophy.
*************************************************** What does the word "atheism" mean anyway? http://home.infostations.net/srm/athart3.htm Ernest Nagel Philosophical Concepts Of Atheism from the essay "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism" http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c23.htm *********************************************** Can science be used to disprove that there is a deity? Can Science Prove that God Does Not Exist? by Theodore Schick, Jr. The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1 http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=schick_21_1************************************************** Finally , just what good are the proofs? Well, concerning these proofs it has been said that:
Unbelievers will not heed them The following Philosophers have offered these views. Stephen Cahn has noted of the arguments or proofs for the existence of a deity:
S.T. Davis has made these points about the arguments:
Paul Tillich has observed that the "god" of the proofs is a being similar to other beings and conceived of within the experience of humans. The "god" of the proofs is not the "Ground of Being" So then in the end just what good are the proofs? What is their value? These arguments or proofs are philosophically and religiously valuable. They have several benefits (purposes):
So in the end the proofs remain optional for theists!!! Most human beings believe or disbelieve in a deity or the supernatural not due to any rational exercise involving thought but due to experiences!! |
||||||
Proceed to the next section by clicking here> next © Copyright Philip A. Pecorino 2001. All Rights reserved. Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify class discussion. They should be read as such. They are not intended for publication or general distribution. |
Return to: Table of Contents for the Online Textbook |