Does God exist? - (1) The Ontological Argument

Christian apologists are fond of "proving" that God exists using logic or philosophical arguments. Are the proofs mere word games, or is there more to them? One of the oldest widely disseminated arguments is the so called "Ontological" argument. In the late 11th Century St Anselm argued that we can deduce the existence of God from the mere idea of God. Just by thinking about what God is we can deduce that He exists. St Anselm's argument was:

By definition God is greater than which none can be conceived.
God can be conceived of as just an idea, or as really existing.
It is greater to exist than not to exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Over time various philosphers have exposed the flaws in this argument.
Initially Anselm's contemporary, the monk Gaunilo, objected that logically one could prove anything exists by this argument. St Anselm's response was that this argument could only be applied to God, because only He could be perfect and unique.

But it was not until Emmanual Kant in the late 18th Century that the Ontological argument appears to be have been conclusively rebutted. Kant showed that the argument wrongly assumes that existence is a property. According to St Anselm the concept "God" contains contains the idea of existence. So the statement "God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. Therefore he must exist. But Kant claimed that existence does not add anything to, or define, a concept. To say something exists merely means that some object corresponds to the concept. Existence is not the same as a concept. Therefore it is not true that "God exists" must be true.

However, this argument is still used today in various forms, and with further justifications and explanations.

In future posts I'll summarize further arguments. Next will be the "Cosmological Argument"

Amsterdam Declaration 2002 - What we're all about...

Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world’s great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself.

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1.Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.
2.Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.
3.Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
4.Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.
5.Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process: of observation, evaluation and revision.
6.Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
7.Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.
Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.

Charles Kingsley on the fossil record

I've just recalled a quote by 19th century writer Charles Kingsley, made when discussing his doubt that God made the World complete with fossils that appear to predate the Creation. He said:

"I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie"

I find myself ever more perplexed by the creationist view of the World. How can they sustain their belief, when every argument they produce can so easily be refuted, and when the much simpler rational solution is so blindingly apparent? I find it scary that people can be so intent on self delusion. Of what else are they capable?
I do acknowledge, however, that most Christians do not subscribe to such a literal view.

The origins of religion: evolved adaptation or by-product?

There is an interesting piece at Trends in Cognitive Sciences which debates whether morality is a product of religion or religion is a product of morality. Click on the title to read.
Thought provoking. But is it really so surprising that they find people without religion to be as moral as those with religion?

Christopher Hitchens interviewed by Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell

Click on the title to listen to a great interview with Christopher Hitchens by liberal US Christian, Marilynn Sewell. A fascinating exchange in which there appears to be a meeting of minds. Are Unitarians really Christian in name only?

Apologists and epistemology

Why is it that Christian apologists are so entranced by arcane vocabulary? In almost any American Christian treatise one can guarantee there will be a free use of such words as "epistemology" (the theory of knowledge, especially the critical study of its validity, methods and scope), even where their use is really not required by the discussion.
Is this just an attempt to add authority to their arguments - by demonstrating that they have an educated background? For instance, just look at any of the blogs by the apologist Mariano for examples. This person is so wrapped up in his own intellect and importance, that whenever his view is challenged he tries to defeat his opponent by ridiculously verbose and pedantic responses.
The main problem for me is that too often these people use this form of writing to "explain" in complex terms a quote from the Bible for which there is invariably a much simpler, but less convincing explanation, which is more appropriate to the time it was written. Much wasted energy is expended trying to relate outdated writings to the present day.
It seems to me that part of the problem is the common belief amongst religious apologists that morality is absolute. But deeds and words in the Bible which may have appeared moral or self-evident at the time they were written, now often appear just plain weird, unless they are wrapped up in "interpretation" by these people, to make them palatable and reasonable to the modern ear. To take one of many examples - the possession of slaves was thought of as quite normal and acceptable in biblical times, and this is reflected in the Bible.

The Bible is also full of truisms and common sense advice on how to live in an enlightened society. At the time these ideas may have been revolutionary, and fired people's imagination. But are they still? I think not. Most of us now live in a far more sophisticated, educated and enlightened society. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the Bible has ceased to be such a compelling read, and why apologists have to resort to ever more inventive ways to recreate interest and belief.

Is human morality a result of evolution or God given?

I discovered a fascinating study at the "Trends in Cognitive Science" website. The following is an extract. The full report is at the link, including sources. Click on the title above to go to the link.
See also my earlier post: "A monopoly on moral behaviour?"

"...

For some, there is no morality without religion. For others, religion is merely one way of expressing and legitimating one's moral intuitions. Religion can be linked to morality in different ways: moral principles are either decided by gods or by ancestors, or saints and holy individuals provide a model to be followed. Alternatively, gods and ancestors are regarded as interested parties that pay attention to what people do and people thus feel that their moral choices are never merely a private matter.

It is important to distinguish explicitly held religious beliefs and affiliations from religious intuitions. Bering, for example, presents experimental evidence that even non-religious subjects intuitively consider some mental states and processes, such as emotions, more likely to continue after death than others, such as hunger. Bloom argues that all humans are intuitive dualists in the sense that we feel our self to be the owner of the body, but we are not the same as our bodies. Thus, in folk psychology, the death of the body does not mean the cessation of personhood. Furthermore, because human reasoning is characterized by a promiscuous teleology, a capacity that causes us to see meaning and intentionality in everything that happens, we automatically postulate an agent as an explanation of various events; often this is some god -like concept.

Arguably, these tendencies make religious beliefs contagious in the sense that they are easy to spread and propagate because they functionally resonate with many of the basic operations of the mind. Consequently, they are also easy to use in moral reasoning. This does not mean, however, that there is a necessary link between morality and religion. There is evidence that at least some religious concepts and beliefs need certain cultural input in order to become adopted and to persist. The Vezo of Madagascar, for instance, seem to have two conceptions of death. Guided by their everyday experience, they construe death in biological terms as the breakdown of all vital functions, but see it as the beginning of a different form of existence in a ritual context. These two conceptions of death are activated in different contexts, and thus the Vezo do not feel that there is a tension between them.

Thus, although it seems undebatable that religiously colored intuitions can affect moral reasoning, and that religious primes can affect prosocial behavior, these observations do not license the conclusion that the mechanisms are specific to religion, nor that religion provides the central explanatory factor. Even when the intuitive content is interpreted as religious, the mechanisms that support reasoning are more general in scope.

There are endless often pointless web arguments about whether religion is necessary for humans to be moral. But surely that's the wrong question. I think most of us would agree that humans have an innate sense of morality. The really important question is surely whether this is God given. I hold the belief that it is not, but I cannot prove that, any more than someone else can prove that it is.

An alternative version of the Noah's Ark story

Yes, I know it's silly, and there will be Christians who will explain away Genesis as a parable or as an analogy. My concern is the way that apologists selectively discount those parts of the Bible that do not make sense and still feel enabled to quote other parts that do appear to make sense. I am reminded of a colleague who assembled many details about his birth, and sent them away for a horoscope reading. Back came a 4 page horoscope "specially compiled" using his details. He was delighted with the result and showed it to me. He had used a yellow highlighter to show all those parts that were "true" and he said he was amazed at how they had got it so right. I pointed out to him that although there was an even distribution of yellow throughout the piece, only about 30% of the the report was coloured yellow, and that many of the highlighted sections could equally apply to me or many other people. I then used a different coloured marker to show the statements that applied to me, and guess what, the ratio was about the same! Interestingly he was not convinced by my argument. I wonder which parts of the Bible he highlights and which he does not?

"The Ten Commandments and Me" - Ann Widdecombe

I just watched a programme on UK Channel 4 with MP Ann Widdecombe explaining why she thought the Biblical Ten Commandments were so relevant, and suggesting that society today would be a better place if we took more account of them. There was a subtext running through the programme that Christianity had served our country well down the centuries, and we would be well advised to stick with it as an alternative to our current obsession with consumerism and celebrity.

I have no problem with a majority of the exhortations in the ten commandments. I do however have an issue with the notion that without these biblical commendments we would lose our way in the moral maze of life. Are we seriously to consider that "Thou shalt not kill" is a uniquely Christian idea, or that without it we would all feel that it was acceptable to kill

At this point fundamentalists are liable to quote Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot as examples of how atheism leads to people being "permitted" to indulge in mass slaughter. Oh pleease! They did not commit those crimes BECAUSE they were atheists. I am an atheist, but I don't think that gives me a licence to kill. It's a basic tenet of a civilised human society not to kill fellow humans. The same shared values apply equally to all the other non-supernatural Biblical commandents.

However, atheists and humanists are individuals rather than subscribers to a specific creed. I think we tend to see ethics and morals as self evident. There are many religions and cultures amongst humans around the World, but I'm not aware of any that have a markedly different view to the Christian code of behaviour. These values are absolutely not unique to Christians.
Perhaps we should nail our colours to the mast a bit more and declare what we all share in common. Hmmm... Something to think about. It is absurd to accept some Christians' position that we need to embrace their religion to be truly moral humans.

The curious sport of Bible bashing...

“[If] people’s beliefs – secular or religious – make them belligerent, intolerant and unkind about other people’s [beliefs], they are not ‘skilful’. If, however, their convictions impel them to act compassionately and to honour the stranger, then they are good, helpful and sound.” - Karen Armstrong

I'm not a great fan of Karen Armstong, but I have to agree with this statement. It puzzles me why so many non-religious people take such pleasure in pouring scorn on those who are religious. One wonders about their motivations. Usually abuse just hardens existing beliefs and makes the recipient even more determined to defend their position. So this abuse surely cannot be a constructive attempt to persuade religious people to modify their view. It's just a form of mindless bullying.

I guess there is always a need for extremism to achieve moderate change, but people too often confuse assertiveness and conviction with rudeness and outrageous personal attacks.

So, I've decided that wherever possible when I see evidence of this type of abuse I will try to inject moderation. If we have to be abusive to make our points, then it does not say much for the strength of our argument.