Is there a god? Essay

The justification for the belief in the foundation of god has historically evaded the scope of empirical verification. However, exceeding historic events and profound cultural and political evolutions cede taken place due to the influence of unearthly beliefs. Additionally, unearthly belief has impacted matters of social justice, economic parity, and moralistic and ethical beliefs all around the world.Whether or non the existence of a deity (or paragons) tin domiciliate be established by modern scientific investigation seems irrelevant to the course of mankind events, legion(predicate) an(prenominal) of which argon propelled by religious convictions. Despite the native reluctance and technical inability of contemporary scientists to corroborate the existence of God, philosophical pedigrees based on psuedo-scientific criteria are numerous most of these empirical arguments are based in one form or an separate around the idea-structure of Swinburnes famous treatise Is The re a God?, which purports to prove by rational hypothesis and logic that God exists. Foremost among Swinburnes arguments is that the natural order of the founding demonstrates intelligent design It is extraordinary that in that location should exist whateverthing 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 man by one unsubdivided existence which keeps them in existence, we should do soeven if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being. (Swinburne, 1996, p. 48-49) Swinburnes 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 kind race experience postulates an intelligent creator for some(prenominal) 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 affinity the universe is well-designed as a human made arti fact might be well-designed, therefore, the universe mustiness have an intelligent designer.Nonetheless, this teleological argument which is normally 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 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 gratifying to the theist. Because 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 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 powerful creator, who 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 asking seems completely out of order in a rational and scientific discussion, but as this discussion will later show, the emotionality of belief is an picture 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 Swinburnes assertion that the mere existence of the universe indicates a designer, his likewise analogy that the universe, being well-ordered indicates intelligent design, is easily refuted simply by examining Swinburnes analogy itself closely.If the universe is wonderfully complex and apparently designed to fulfill humanitys needs and expectations, modern science accepts the possibility of multi-universes, most of which cannot be meaningfully detected by mankind Although it may be true that the universe is unique, there is no reason to suppose, in the light of our pbegrudge state, 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, w e may be able to create objects that resemble more than 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 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 explain. merely theism can explain thisfor God has the power and reason to join souls to bodies. (Swinburne, 1996, p. 69-70) Of course, science has no power to 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 Gods existence resides in the supernatural sphere.Those who argue along these lines contend that 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 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 a group of eminent scholars from the humanities and the sciences founded the Society for Psychical Re appear, with the state purp ose 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 disdain amongst certain scientific atheists regarding religious belief, and their rejection of religion is based not on sound physical/material march but on existing prejudices. There is no existing record 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 Heerdens 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 exhaus ted 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 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 exclusion 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 in dicates that even among strong believers, God is viewed more as an internal psychological component rather than an external force which exudes omnipotent power all over the created universe 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 h anded down from God must be used to restrain our worst tendencies.However, another vision fo a 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 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 determined worlds which have inspired wars and intellectual conservatism. Should atheism become the dominant world-view, it is posited, then 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 building and state would probably become separate in countries in which they have traditionally been interwovenThis in turn would bring about profound political changes. only 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. stark naked 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+.