Does God exist - 2 - The Cosmological Argument

Why does anything exist? - why something rather than nothing? The argument is that unless God exists, the question is unanswerable. If the Universe had a beginning, who created the Universe if not God? Human experience informs us that something can't come out of nothing. What we need, it seems, is a cause which itself has no cause; and God fits the bill.

Claims and counterclaims have been made since the idea was first postulated. Bertrand Russell said something simple but profound:

"...the Universe is just there, and that's all".

Why cannot the Universe be infinite, regardless of whether we can comprehend that. We are after all just short lived carbon life forms living precariously on a small planet revolving around an unremarkable star.

We seem to be tantalisingly close to a scientific explanation for the origin of our Universe and the apparent "Big Bang" that started it all. But let's suppose that humankind is not able to fully understand the origin of the Universe, before our brief existence (In Cosmic terms) is snuffed out by our dying Sun. The fact that we do not understand something is not sufficient cause to say "God did it".

Let's imagine that every day my cat sees me taking food from the cupboard to feed him, but is never there when I replenish the cupboard. My cat has no idea why everything always comes from that cupboard or why it is there, but he knows that it does, he knows that it always has done, and has no reason to doubt that it always will. He has no facility to understand the process. But might it not seem reasonable to him that a God lives in the cupboard, a God which always provides, and apparently from nothing? There is a perfectly logical process, but he is mentally unequipped to understand it. As far as he is concerned I am the one who acts as an intercessor (I know how to open a can and he marvels at that!), and therefore perhaps I am the equivalent to his High Priest, if you like.

At a different scale and level of complexity, doesn't the God that humans assume exists fit the same mould? OK, so this is a gross oversimplification, but surely the basic prionciple is the same.

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"

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.

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.

One way Street?

I can understand how someone who believes in a God can become a non-believer, but I’m puzzled as to how a thoughtful and well informed atheist can go the other way, and “convert” to Deism. Though I note that some Christian websites take great pleasure in showcasing people who have made this leap.

As a small child I believed in all sorts of illogical things, from a jolly fellow called Father Christmas, to the Tooth Fairy who would leave money under my pillow. Gradually as I became more aware of the rational reality of the World around me these acts of faith were discarded. Along the way I learnt why parents went along with these bizarre concepts, in their sincere and thoughtful belief that it would make our childhood more wonderful and full of joy. Understandable and maybe laudable, but no way to continue to live one's life as a fulfilled adult.

Last to go, after an immense struggle to hold onto it, was my belief in the Christian God. For months - even years - before I finally admitted it, I struggled and tortured myself to hang onto my belief, but I just could not do it. Everything around me screamed that this belief could not be upheld.

When I finally accepted my new state it was probably the most wonderfully liberating moment in my entire life. To borrow from Biblical parlance, it was as if the shackles that weighed me down were cast off, and I became intoxicated by the light of reason and the loss of fear. Suddenly the World made sense, and I could experience the joy of being, without questioning everything for otherworldly meaning, without doubting my motives, or being ashamed of any ideas that did not fit into the Christian view of the World.

Since that time my journey has been one of great excitement, and I have found inner peace that I had not thought possible. It does not matter that there is no higher being, no higher purpose to life. This World is so incredibly awe inspiring that there is no need for anything else, and the Gods worshipped by the mainstream religions appear so petty and tawdry when compared to the wonderful symmetry and rationality of an evolved Universe. Yes, there are gaps in our understanding of the natural Universe, but almost every month some new part of the jigsaw is discovered that brings us closer to a fuller understanding. As short lived and physically restrained humans there will remain some things our minds are not equipped to understand, such as the unimaginable vastness of space and of time. We will most likely, however, find better ways to explain them conceptually, and that will have to suffice.

I cannot prove the non-existence of God, any more than I can prove the non-existence of fairies, but that is insufficient reason to devote my life to belief in a God. The arguments for belief are surely so self-serving and circular that I still find it incredible that so many people can suspend belief in everything they learn about our pysical nature, and instead make a blind leap into belief in Gods who are so full of contradictions and who often exhibit signs of human frailty and imperfection. For everything around us we can find a reason that does not include a God, despite the tortuous, circular arguments put forward by the apologists, which so often are the result of selective misquotation or which exhibit basic flaws in logical reasoning. And the argument that deists too readily propose that "we are too imperfect to comprehend the workings of God" is such a cop out for any action or lack of action that cannot be explained satisfactorily in terms of innate human morality.

I intend to find someone who has made this apparent leap from non-belief to belief, to try to understand the motivation, and the truth that this person has found that I have not. I feel that there may well be a fault in me that I cannot find empathy with these people, who I have to assume are still sane and rational.

I will come back to this again…

Whistling down the wind

It's probably just as well that I don't have lots of people reading this blog. I'm a newcomer this arena, and judging from the reactions of many readers of more established blogs, there is much room for vilification, usually ill informed and/or plain unhelpful and rude.
Why are we all so polarised by religion? It's as if we are all supporting our own "team" and trying to score points. To read many of the critiques you would have thought they feel a whoop of delight each time they believe they have trumped the opposing "team".
It's interesting that Christian apologists appear to focus much of their spleen on atheists, instead of other (presumably competing) religions? Is that because they feel that questioning someone's sincerely held belief in a supernatural force is out of bounds? "If we question the basis for their deity then they will do the same to us, wheras atheists are fair game becasue there is no deity to compare." I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's how a number of those blogs come across, and I can see it's a tempting avenue to follow. Ah well, they are only words, and all this is just ephemeral. Does not stop me being happy that the Sun is shining brightly through my window.