My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.–C.S. Lewis
hey guys, I have been busy lately and did not write anything new up front, this may contnue for a short period of time, so I am going to post in the mean while small quotes, I found on atheism. Have fun and take care
As per my posts on atheist morality, the argument has now been pushed from “atheism is more moral than religion” to “Secularism has resulted in higher moral standards than religion.”
So I thought it is worthwhile to analyze this argument and see if we can find that “Objective Morality” that atheists claim only exist in atheism, however since they could not prove it conclusively with atheism, they have broadened the term to secularism. I do not think they are playing word games with me rather they naturally think within the limits of atheism that anything but religion can be good.
The purpose of my argument is not to conclude that religion has the sole key to higher moral standards.
My purpose is to find out whether secularism results in any higher moral standards than religion. On a upclose view i find the given statement actually errant, it is based on faulty logic, now don’t think I am trying to evade the question, I will explain it to you.
Ok guys, I admit, I was having fun with atheists in my last “The Atheist Morality: A Parasitical Existence”
I got some very interesting feedback from it. I would also like to apologize as it offended some people that I took a funny shot at the atheists, accusing them partially (some of it was serious and true enough) and misrepresenting their position (actually not all positions I listed were my own or derived, most of them are held by eminent modern atheists).
One particular response I got was from Mr. Joseph Nevard, while you can read his comment on my previous post, he invited me to visit his blog. I do not know Mr. Nevard otherwise and it would be wrong of me to make assumptions but I think he believes in atheism (I could be wrong but that would not affect the following) and read his post he had directed me towards.
The modern atheists (much like the primitive atheists) are always more than eager to attack the moral structure of religion, namely Christianity. Islam and Judaism should be next on their lists but seldom heard, anyways.
- The Bible teaches, murder, revenge, fanaticism and immoral behavior of all types.
- Religion has been responsible for wars and is inherently dangerous. Crusades are the prime example.
- Religion is indoctrinated in children by their parents, this is extremely immoral and dangerous. (For all the blatant accusations made, this one makes me want to smash my head against a wall. Next one could be, beware of kittens, they are known to detonate when touched).
- Religion makes a person, blind, narrow minded, weak, un-intelligent – life forms. It sucks the brain out of them and makes them prone to be easily manipulated.
- Religion plants guilt in a person when he is having pre-martial sex or gluttony and so it should be banned as it limits pleasure, in short open sex license. (huh…I dont know what to say on this at the moment. This is so wrong that I am sure whoever first suggested it, could easily qualify to be the biggest fan of “Desperate Housewives”)
what can I say…IRONIC!
Like I said in my previous post, the ignorant atheist is very hard to crack (any nut is) since the questions he comes loaded with, are questions that trouble all mankind.
Among many, one that stands out is the question of Human suffering at the hands of a all benevolent God.
“Why does the world suffer with pain and death, why God allows suffering even on his own people. Why doesn’t not God interfere and stop the mass killings and bombings and earthquakes and Tsunami’s? If God can, then why wont he stop all this?”
And the answer they have made out for themselves is God doesn’t interfere because he isn’t there, he has to be all benevolent like the Bible (or some other books) say or pure evil. If God is all benevolent, he should be able to stop the pain in the world. If he doesn’t than he must be evil and it implies the that the nature of God as explained by major religions falsifies itself, based on lack of observation and evidence and the atheist thus concludes: There is no God.
However charming and simple it may seem I assure you that the truth is far more complex than the above excuse, Yes, I do not even call it a statement. It fails to be one, terribly. It is painfully childish.
My recent time was spent reading books on the idea that we would not need a God to have this awesome, beautiful and breath taking Nature and the Universe. While the list is not that long. Mr. Hawking’s “The Grand Design” and Mr. Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” were at the top of the lists.
I personally think of Mr. Hawking as a brilliant human being and that he has earned due respect with his contribution to the field of science. He is no doubt one of the great scientists of our present age.
Where I admire greatly the passion showed by the author in “The Grand Design” and the depth of rationale and knowledge that it summarizes, I found myself asking more questions about what most people bring to the table when they need to argue.
On the topic of “God”, he is quite subtle saying in his previous book, “A Brief History of Time”.
“There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed, It would just BE.”
“However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it
started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”
So the question is thrown back at the reader. It implies that we do not need God to understand this universe and given the appropriate pointers a simple conclusion would agree with what has been proposed.
He practically deduces that if there would only be gravity present and nothing else the universe would create itself, expand and shape up as we see around us. This is based on the premise that if there is a God, we can not know for sure, hence God is not needed
Come on, have you ever seen something really astounding birthed by gravity. Can gravity create a sprawling universe? where did it get the matter, and when did matter developed consciousness or preferences, since almost all of living things inherit one or other of these traits, even plants have preferences.
And while I disagreed on the above, I had to laugh a few times on some of the things I read in the “Grand Design”.
“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? “
And after some lines…
“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency7 that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”
Here I could not but fathom reading science fiction. Anyways, you may as well decide if the laws of physics govern, rape murder and necrophilia? But given the implication it might as well conclude that if we are doing what we are programmed to do. no matter what and how deep the level of arbitration and complexity we might see, it would be an automated response, complex, so complex that it is impossible to be calculated, yet instilled in us. And here is where I part ways with this statement.
All life and all the complex beauty of the universe is so diverse that we still haven’t seen much of it. we hope to, in our search of enlightenment but “God” does not seem modern in terms of our quest to understand all that surrounds us. Yet his deduction from the creation hypothesis seems to leave large gaps.
First and foremost as I mentioned in my previous post, what was time zero? and If God was at time zero? there is no way scientifically to disapprove that. What science merely gives as an alternative that we would not need God, but then they do not have all the answers as well.
Quantum Physics, Gravity and M-theory (which is not even universally accepted or completed for that matter) proves a lot of things but parts of them are still to be tested, e.g Quantum Gravity is one thing where a lot of research is still needed, often barred by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and to top that, what these theories (while not wrong) can not redo is the actual event of creation it self. That it has never been duplicated or redone. Why? that is one question which science takes the liberty at telling us that creation or collapse/annihilation is millions and millions of years ahead.
Of course in the event of a black hole or a star exploding we see annihilation but that in itself is not conclusive. what we see in such events is matter transforming in an other form or shape. In simple words, we see transformation not creation since matter can not be produced by nothing. If our universe was born like this than it happened from previous existing matter.
My question still stands.
Where did matter originate? Where did magnetic fields and polarities originated? How do they always follow the same principles and laws of physics and not change or evolve. If they change why is not the change constant? If they do not change than it implies a set of rules programmed. who programmed them?
If I say God, it is thought to be ridiculed. However if someone says, “lets presume the universe was always like this”…bang, we just substituted the argument, nothing else.
I can assure you that if you sit on a beach and hope to cross the ocean with nothing and you wait for 5 billion years, the trees on the beach will not automatically turn or should I say evolve into a boat without a carpenter. Evolution without God, creation without God would be shapeless and chaotic, it would be random and prone to change. Even at grand scales why do we find uniformity?
Matter would be present but not in shape and structure that is organized and follows a pattern. As the stapler on your desk does not become a photocopier even if it is left to do that for a million years, likewise a stunning and complex system cannot be founded without at least someone starting the process. I can even think that God might have started our universe and then never interrupted natural process.
I do not go against scientific findings they are there because they are proven (not talking about hunches and assumptions and theories that can not be tested) but if you are trying to find God through science that is like finding Alexander the great in your mommy’s cook book.
The reason I quote Mr. Stephen Hawking is that he is one of the lead scientists of our day and that many Atheist views spring out of such incomplete theories. I am not against anybody but I must point out the obvious gaps presented in such data, not to be offensive but simply to counter act the fact that such theories and ideas are mostly thrown at people who choose to believe while they do not know that even qualified analysis, must make some assumptions. The same flaw that Theists are accused of making up.
A word or two on Mr. Dawkins is due (soon).
One of the most hotly debated argument when it comes to proving or dis-approving God is “How The Universe was Created?”
Let me begin by saying that I do not think God made this universe in six days and I also conclude that it might have taken billions of years for evolution to take control of our planet.
Thus saying do I concur with science? yes I do.
Do I negate the Biblical story, no. I can only assume that thousands of years ago, man did not have the unblinking, revealing nature and reality of the cosmos.
Do I think that it is an error? certainly not. All discovery is limited by our own perceptions. The Bible is filled with poetry and metaphorical language and though I am sure that there is no hidden pattern or clues hidden in it for a higher truth than the knowledge of science about our universe. I am sure that most of the biblical language is not be taken and interpreted literally, it should be within its context, translated and understood.
The concept that there is no god is as old as the belief in god itself. The world’s dominant number of sects and races still have a religion, even if it is a brand to most. Atheists tend to believe that they got it right and hence almost 86% (as the rest are around 2-3% atheists and 12 percent non-religious) of the world is either mentally ill or plain delusional. Though numbers are not the pillar of proof still they give a striking contrast of the atheist position.
The average atheist doesn’t realize that what he/she basically tries to prove can not be called a statement if there is no equal argument. I do not think God is necessary, no, but he is present.
The act of reproduction is the biggest proof to me that there is a God, a creator. Something triggers a complex chain of events inside a womb and life breaks out. No matter what the Atheist say about it, I think more conviction is called for.