This week we turn from the broad problem of religious diversity to the relatively specific challenge of demonstrating the existence of the monotheistic God. This has been an abiding intellectual project in the West for centuries, an attempt to shore up the insights from revelation with a solid foundation in reason. And, indeed, why should it be otherwise? According to the major belief-systems of the West, God gave human beings reason, so his existence should be susceptible to rational proof--or else there's maybe something wrong with this picture...
The first proof we'll examine is the most homely, but the one most deserving of honor (according to Kant): it is the design or "physico-telelogical" proof. We wander straight from the ordering God of Genesis 1 to the insights of contemporary evolutionary science on this one (and also into the contemporary high school classroom, with the suggestion that something called "Intelligent Design" should be taught alongside evolutionary science).
Comments are invited here on the idea of proving God's existence in general: Is this a worthy project, or should it be abandoned? Is this matter susceptible to rational proof? If not, why not? And does the same analysis apply to _disproving_ God's existence?
Then, of course, the design proof itself is on the table. Does the apparent order of creation confirm anything at all about the existence of an author/creator? Does contemporary science help or hinder this form of demonstration?
Nadine
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that demonstrating the existence of a monotheistic god is a challenging task. I suppose for me the first hurdle to get over is the need to demonstrate the existence of a monotheistic god. I never thought of needing to prove the existence, because it has been something I have always accepted as a given, not as something that needed to be proven. However, given this is a philosophy of religion class, I suppose it is only right to try and make an argument for or against the existence of god.
Out of all of this weeks readings, I particularly enjoyed William Paley’s “The Classical Design Argument.” I thought that the format of the argument was clearly articulated. First, Paley differentiates between finding a stone, and a watch. A stone is created, but is it created by a specialist? A watch on the other hand has a very specific function and must have been made by a skilled and intelligent craftsman. Paley’s point is that just like the watch has a creator, so does the stone, and for that matter, the world. This is where god comes in. Paley notes that god is the designer of the world, just like an artist designed a watch. In my mind this argument is certainly logical. However, Paley is aware that not everyone will agree, noting that there is a difference between a watch having a manufacturer and the world having a manufacturer. Though I believe it is essential for Paley to recognize the opposition-for it always makes for a stronger argument-I certainly agree that just like watches have builders, so did the earth. The only thing that I was puzzled by was at the end when Paley starting talking about atheism. The piece from my interpretation was very much pro a creator of the world, so I don’t quite get why he brought up atheism in a very vague manner?
Karen Lemme
ReplyDeletePaley’s article “The Classical Design Argument” was the reading that was most appealing to me. Maybe it’s the fact that I grew up believing in a monotheistic God which makes his argument so applicable to my beliefs, but regardless, his argument is also cleverly expressed.
By comparing the making of a watch versus the making of a stone, our perceptions of who put nature here is called to focus. If you find a watch on the ground, “we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker”; however finding a stone on the ground doesn’t seem uncommon or out of place, and it wouldn’t be weird to assume it had just been there for a extended period of time, with no one in particular dropping it or placing it where it is. Paley’s argument stating that even though we may never have seen a watch being made or we would never assume that the watch was formed “out of possible combinations of material forms”, we would always confidently assert that a human had made it. We don’t make that assumption about a rock, we just know it to be a part of nature.
His argument for why atheism is faulty however, seems a bit weak. Maybe it’s because this was just an excerpt, but he didn’t seem to elaborate on why nature supersedes the mechanics of a watch. Although he does acknowledge that nature is greater than human designs because it exists “in a degree which exceeds all computation”, he doesn’t expand or support this claim very strongly, making his criticism of atheism insignificant.
I know that we are supposed to be writing about the design argument. But I thought today's discussion was an interesting one -- until the school's decision to close at 4 rudely interrupted our discussion (okay admittedly I was secretly happy). I will have to agree with Runzo that religious exclusivism "is highly presumptuous, ignoring the fact that religious truth-claims are human constructs, human attempts to know Ultimate Reality, subject to the limitations and fallibility of the human mind". I am not suggesting that truth-claims cannot be made (in fact I think that religious subjectivism is worse). But the question as to how do you know that what you think you know is correct remains. As I have mentioned in class how much do you need to know about (all) other religions in order to conclude for sure that you are right and that others are dead wrong? How can there not be at least an element of arrogance in making such claims (although arrogance might not be a bad thing, under certain circumstances)?
ReplyDeletePersonally I am leaning towards Keith Ward's theory of "revisionist pluralism": the idea that if religious traditions are more willing to revise their Scriptural interpretations in accordance to "the natural sciences, Biblical (or other theological) scholarship and ... post-Enlightenment critical thinking", the highly diversified religious traditions might well turn out to be more compatible with each other.
Sorry for digressing.
in all honesty i always saw this project as rather pointless. I tend to prefer the Thomas Jefferson method of bible studies that was mentioned in class, keeping to what is pragmatic and applicable to real life. the while process of arguing about god, whether he does exist or not, seems like a circular project with no satisfactory end in sight; besides, does one necessarily need to believe in god to live an exemplary life?
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to bash the otherworldly ideas, mythology and miracles of these religions but these arguments come off as distracting as the mystical takes more focus than the morality. getting to the topic of morality i guess it would become an issue, without the godhead there might bring confusion as things that may or may not need changing or "updating". Being roman catholic, i often heard the story of the "adulterous" woman and Jesus' line of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." the story in itself has multiple layers yet normally when discussed, the focus is placed n Jesus being without sin and being god as opposed the the situation of the woman which put into a context of the time and place, is a bit of a political commentary on the society and government. here you have the objectification of a woman, whose story is largely hidden from the reader. she's an adulterer, she must be killed. she is not given much of a chance to defend herself, we don't even know the situation of her crime. It's also curiouser that the man she supposedly committed this act with is not brought up. this was a time when women didn't have many right as human beings, they were considered property. these people are willing to treat her like an animal, specifically men since women were not allowed at these executions. even in a medieval context where a women was raped, she was not allowed to marry. In this context, this could be a very feminist story, commenting on peoples tendency to throw blame on the woman in the case of sexual violence.
why isn't this subtext focused on? I know this was a huge digression but in terms of the way we live life, isn't this the kind of things we should focus on when discussing our beliefs and their validity.
k. Byrnes
I have recently come back to this and realized a bit of a flaw in my logic. going back to a more Kantian/Euthyphro idea, the godhead does stand in to justify certain systems. ignoring god or taking away this idea of perfection to which this lifestyle or belief adheres to does make the system falls apart; it becomes more like a recommendation than a belief i suppose.
ReplyDeletestill you can't just leave this overpowered elephant in the room and expect no one to ever question it, so in that logic i suppose the proofs are important.
k. byrnes
Paley's classical design argument put much into perspective for me. The comparison between the stone and the watch was what caught my attention and made me think about the complexity of nature. Today a person looks at a watch and thinks about the complexity and knowledge necessary in creating such an instrument but sees a stone and forgets that such a simple object is made up of such complicated particles. The stone is just as complex as the watch and its existence should be credited at the same level.
ReplyDeleteDimitria