Is there a god? Essay

The justification for the belief in the existence of God has historically evaded the scope of empirical verification. However, extraordinary historic events and profound cultural and political evolutions have taken place due to the influence of religious beliefs. Additionally, religious belief has impacted matters of social justice, economic parity, and moral and ethical beliefs all around the world. Whether or not the existence of a God (or Gods) can be established by modern scientific investigation seems irrelevant to the course of human events, many of which are propelled by religious convictions. Despite the native reluctance and technical inability of contemporary scientists to corroborate the existence of God, philosophical arguments based on psuedo-scientific criteria are numerous; most of these empirical arguments are based in one form or another around the idea-structure of Swinburne’s famous treatise â€Å"Is There a God?,† which purports to prove by rational hypothesis and logic that God exists. Foremost among Swinburne’s arguments is that the natural order of the universe demonstrates intelligent design: â€Å"†It is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all[†¦ ] And so many things. Maybe chance could have thrown up the odd electron. BUT so many particles! [†¦ ] If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so–even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being. † (Swinburne, 1996, p. 48-49) Swinburne’s argument is steeped in formal logic and rhetoric, yet the underlying principles are relatively simple. The idea that the existence of a complex universe which is well-suited to human experience postulates an intelligent creator for both things: the universe and humanity, is based less in rationality than in the emotion of astonished wonder. In other words, because Swinburne finds the universe to be a marvel of curiosities and interestingly designed elements and phenomena does not indicate that the universe is experienced this away by a majority of human beings or in any way that the experience Swinburne records indicates the existence of a God. Basically, the argument for intelligent design is based on analogy: the universe is well-designed as a human made artifact might be well-designed, therefore, the universe must have an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, this â€Å"teleological argument† which is normally â€Å"construed as an argument from analogy: Since the universe is analogous to some human artifact that one knows to be designed, probably the universe itself is designed† breaks down when examined closely. Although Hume and others have described the universe as a â€Å"watch† and argued that † just as we can infer that a watch found on a heath has a designer, so we can infer that the universe has a designer† (Martin, 1990, p. 125) the analogy is specious when taken to its logical conclusions. For example, if the analogy were carried to its logical extreme, one would end up with conclusions not acceptable to the theist. Because â€Å"machines are usually made by many intelligent beings; [†¦ ] some form of polytheism rather than monotheism would be warranted by the argument† as well as the fact that â€Å"the beings who create machines have bodies, so God must have a body. If machines have imperfections, we have grounds for supposing that the creators are not perfect. So since the universe has imperfections, one should conclude that God is not perfect. † (Martin, 1990, p. 127) These analogous conclusion run contrary to demonstrating the existence of God insofar as Swinburne intended his analogy to function. In fact, the deeper one takes the analogy, the closer one comes to the opposite conclusion: that no monotheistic God at all exists. Another of the assertions made by religious pragmatists is that not only the existence of a universe, but the existence of an orderly universe with a complex (and generally hierarchical) system of phenomena, demonstrates the existence of God. Again, because an orderly world is both functional and to some degree pleasurable (according to Swinburne) there must be an intelligence behind the design of the universe. And merely an intelligent designer but an omnipotent creator, who â€Å"is able to produce a world orderly in these respects. And he has good reason to choose to do so: a world containing human persons is a good thing. Persons have experiences, and thoughts, and can make choices, and their choices can make big differences to themselves, to others, and to the inanimate world. God, being perfectly good, is generous He wants to share. † (Swinburne, 1996, p. 52) This latter postulation seems completely out of order in a rational and â€Å"scientific† discussion, but as this discussion will later show, the emotionality of belief is an aspect of religious conviction which enters into not only the so-called logical argument on behalf of their faith, but as the primary emotional and psychological connection with the God or Gods which are believed in by religious devotees. Again, like Swinburne’s assertion that the mere existence of the universe indicates a designer, his likewise analogy that the universe, being â€Å"well-ordered† indicates intelligent design, is easily refuted simply by examining Swinburne’s analogy itself closely. If the universe is wonderfully complex and apparently designed to fulfill humanity’s needs and expectations, modern science accepts the possibility of multi-universes, most of which cannot be meaningfully detected by mankind: â€Å"Although it may be true that the universe is unique, there is no reason to suppose, in the light of our present evidence, that this is relevant in judging whether it is created or not. We have no reason to suppose it cannot be judged by the same criteria we use to judge whether planets, rocks, and gismos are created[†¦] it may be urged that as our technology advances, we may be able to create objects that resemble more and more the natural objects we find in the universe. † (Martin, 1990, p. 332) Obviously, the projected future of science could be extend logically to include the technology which could create geological elements, in fact planets themselves, which would demonstrate not the intelligent design of a God but the intelligent design of mankind, which is among the animal orders. That last assertion is something that Swinburne objects to with great fervor: â€Å"At some time in evolutionary history bodies of complex animals become connected to souls, and this, I shall be arguing, is something utterly beyond the power of science to â€Å"explain. But theism can explain this–for God has the power and reason to join souls to bodies. † (Swinburne, 1996, p. 69-70) Of course, science has no power to â€Å"explain† mystical or supernatural phenomena. The lack of scientific inquiry into these ares comprises another, more dramatically contemporary, argument for the existence of Gid. This argument posits the idea that since science and scientists are reluctant to investigate mystical and supernatural phenomena, proof of the existence of God has evaded science because the proof for God’s existence resides in the supernatural sphere. Those who argue along these lines contend that â€Å"Scientific practice is often contrasted with religious belief in that the former is supposed to be open-minded whereas the latter is said to be close-minded and hence closer to ideology† and these same observers resent being categorized as â€Å"close-minded† instead positing that science is, in fact,narrow-minded for not taking into account the supernatural. (Van Heerden, 2004) Investigation of the supernatural does, in fact, seem to be outside of the preferred scope of scientific investigation, although some noteworthy efforts have been made. In 1882 â€Å"a group of eminent scholars from the humanities and the sciences[†¦ ]founded the Society for Psychical Research, with the stated purpose of investigating so-called ‘paranormal’ phenomena in a scientific manner† but this gesture seems to have been more or less forgotten in contemporary science. The prevailing â€Å"disdain amongst certain scientific atheists regarding religious belief, and their rejection of religion is based not on sound physical/material evidence but on existing prejudices. There is no existing evidence that disproves the existence of a supernatural agent or agents; or which proves conclusively that other mechanisms/agencies are not at work alongside (or working through) ones already identified and canonized in orthodox science† (Van Heerden, 2004) Van Heerden’s argument is one of the most compelling arguments that theists have at their disposal. It must be remembered, though, that this contention is one of distinguishing a lack of evidence which would prove the existence of God; it is not a conformation that such evidence is there to be collected, merely a positing of an area which has not been thoroughly exhausted in the search for possible evidence. Such arguments are, in fact, the province of mysticism rather than science and seem to be an acknowledgment that science cannot â€Å"fulfil this purpose because it extends alienation in the world by driving subject and object ever further apart in its reductive thinking. Mysticism, at the other end of the spectrum, claims the complete elimination of alienation; ; but again this contention has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing evidence for the existence of God; rather it is an emotional appeal, based in human psychology rather than in empirical, objective evidence. (Van Heerden, 2004) In fact, the psychological and hence subjective connection to the idea of a God or Gods is what drives the conviction many believers profess to having in the existence of God. A survey of theists revealed a personal, subjective, rather than empirically phenomenal, vision of God among respondents. Such a distinction from empirical evidence is important because it indicates that even among strong believers, God is viewed more as an internal psychological component rather than an external force which exudes omnipotent power over the created universe: â€Å"God is valued as an end in Himself rather than as a means to other ends. Most people want God for the same reason for which they want friends, and His relation to them is exactly that of a very dear and very lovable and very sympathizing friend. † (Pratt, 1907, p. 264). Theists, as we have seen through our preceding discussion, typically move from an empirical or scientific mode of argument to an emotional mode of argument to a mystical mode of argument and finally to a moral or ethical mode of argument. This final mode is usually articulated, fundamentally, as ana indictment of human moral and ethical character. Without a God, it is posited, the moral and ethical systems of human society would crumble. Or conversely, since humanity is so innately sinful, elaborate ethical and moral systems as handed down from God must be used to restrain our worst tendencies. However, another vision fo a â€Å"Godless† world acn be equally demonstrated, due the lack of any evidence as God as an active force in the universe and not merely as a psychological quantity â€Å"the religious consciousness values God chiefly as a companion. The need of Him is a social need. Religious people would miss Him if they should lose their faith, just as they miss a dead friend† however, society would surely endure. (Pratt, 1907, p. 268) In fact, atheists envision a world which, would in some ways,. be superior to the theistically driven worlds which have inspired wars and intellectual conservatism. Should atheism become the dominant world-view, it is posited, then â€Å"one would anticipate vast changes in many areas. For example, there would probably be fewer wars and less violence than there is now[†¦ ]. The birth rate would also drop in many countries, since religious objections to contraception would no longer prevail[†¦ ]. Church and state would probably become separate in countries in which they have traditionally been interwoven[†¦] This in turn would bring about profound political changes. † But such changes are unlikely to happen in the near future because, despite the lack of any credible scientific or empirical evidence to demonstrate the existence of God, the psychological component of these belief-systems are so endemic and so influential in world-affairs that their functional repudiation, despite the ease with which it can be made from a scientific or philosophical angel, seems destined for a distant future. (Martin, 1990, p. 459) References Martin, M. (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Pratt, J. B. (1907). The Psychology of Religious Belief. New York: Macmillan. Swinburne, R. (1996). Is There a God?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Heerden, A. (2004, June). Why Atheism Is Unscientific. Contemporary Review, 284, 351+.