We have spent the last few weeks thinking about proofs for the existence of God, ranging from the design proof, which is based on evidence derived from our experience of the world (and analogical reasoning), to the cosmological proof, which is based on more general characteristics of the world we find ourselves in, to the ontological proof, which supposedly relies on a priori concepts and extends to the existence of a being outside of the understanding.
These proofs have suffered a beating, but I would like to know: what's positive and/or instructive about these proofs? What do we learn from examining them? Ok, one answer is that it's impossible to prove the existence of God by rational demonstrations...but I wonder if there's anything else, besides this negative truth, that arises out of them.
I think all of it (the proofs themselves and also the arguments against them) is an interesting narrative about human nature. It is a clear illustration of how very few people are capable of blind belief. Religion is about faith and I think that the sheer existence of proofs totally undermines that aspect of it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that's what you had in mind when you asked what came of it all, but that is the insight I gained. :]
I think Gabby makes a really good point. Maybe what this is showing us that there is something that makes us as humans want to question things, to see if they make sense or to try to make them make sense. However, I'm sorry to say that I think most people ARE capable of rationalizing and blind belief and that a reliance on "faith" in religion is a big part of this.
ReplyDelete--Caroline
Interesting points Caroline/Gab! I agree that it might indicate that there is something about us humans that makes us want to question things, always looking for truth (like the Being vs. Becoming). But believing without any evidence or reasoning just seems irrational to me - so it does seem odd that so many people can just rely on 'faith'. Is it that they want to believe what they're believing so badly that they just accept that as sufficient evidence for justification? Is it just because everyone else is doing it? Or is it because there it is literally impossible to justify the existence of god beyond pure faith?
ReplyDeleteGoing back to this discussion or the issue of faith vs. reason - I liked what we were discussing last class. For some reason, I think faith mixed with a healthy investigation into one's own beliefs is might be considered a sufficient justification for religious belief. These proofs on by themselves are a little ridiculous, and they definitely do not prove anything as far as the existence of God goes. But neither does blind faith. I think the combination of having investigated your beliefs and truly understanding them mixed with faith yields the best possible results. I don't think either can stand on their own.
ReplyDeleteHealthy investigation of one's beliefs is definitely key! There is nothing more despicable and irritating than a preachy religious fanatic who has not even taken the time to explore the possibility that their God may not exist. No one is asking that they abandon their beliefs, because it is most likely somewhat of a vice for them, but they could at least try to be informed. Even despite my utter disdain for all things religious, I would have more respect for someone who acknowledged the challenges to their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabby. However, there remains a threshold problem as to how much investigation constitutes justification. Furthermore, I submit that not everyone everywhere has the means to really investigate their religion, and these are generally the people who most often have uninvestigated beliefs. It's easy for us who have the time and resources for a Philosophy Of Religion course to tell everyone to give up religion. It's a much different thing for those who generally have religions, and I'm not just talking poor people either. Very few people in our workaday society have the strong inclination to perioudically test the foundations of their ethical systems.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Proofs give any sort of solace to those searching for God... Although I do think they could be a catalyst for a person(s) search for something more in the universe. I do believe that using Proof of which is rational/logical could lead someone to question the irrational, thus coming to a paradox in thier search.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument from design, oddly, is my favorite. I happened to be drawn to it, after I read an argument from an anonymous blogger... He said:
ReplyDelete"Anyone who can live in this universe and witness such phenomena as the balance of nature or the way life is sustained by the composition of a blood cell, and cannot see that these things are not accidental but well-thought-out systems that don’t just happen by themselves, is a colossal idiot. Somebody, or some THING, figured it out and put it into motion."
But in respect to the argument from design: Is “he” or “it” an entity concerned not just with the infinitely expanding dark matter of the universe and its galaxies but also in the personal destinies of each infinitesimal human individual? Is this a creator that, not only monitors the incredibly strategical phenomena of life and basic laws of physics, but also develops personal relationships with mankind and considers the prayers strictly of those who “believe”? Here is the probing tradeoff between deism and theism.
*Deism- belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
How can a “being” so massively powerful, involved in the creation of the extraordinarily calculated affairs of the universe, its cosmos, its expanding dark matter, its many planets, moons, stars, and galaxies—ranging in size beyond what our mental capacities can envisage (all of which are infinitely expanding), be interested and invested in our deeply personal and trivial affairs, troubles, dreams, wishes, and afterlives?
I myself, of course, can claim no positivity in either Deism nor Theism, instead, I remain agnostic in these ever-absorbing questions of existence. Still, truly more than just food for thought, rather, an everlasting sustenance for any curious thinker!