Weblog combo 5,6,7 research!!!!!

The first major reason why people don’t believe in God is the problem of pain. The most commonly asked question in regards to this is “how could a loving God allow suffering?” or “why do bad things happen to good people?” Perhaps one of the best argument for this viewpoint is by philosopher J. L. Mackie. In his book The Miracle of Theism(Oxford, 1982) he says if a good and powerful God exists, he would not allow pointless evil. But because there is so much unjustifiable and therefore pointless evil prevalant on the earth, the good and powerful God simply cannot exist. His reasoning allows that a God may in fact exist, but it cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful at the same time.

Another argument against the belief in God is largely scientific. It holds that the belief in God requires a belief in an un-scientific, un-provable miraculous entity. Popular Atheist author and speaker Richard Dawkins famously said, “Although Atheism may have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.” (The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, 1986, p.6) In his smash hit The God Delusion, Dawkins points to a statistic from 1998 that states only 7 percent of scientists in the  National Academy of Science believe in a God. (The God Delusion, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. p.100) A big problem science and rational minded thinkers have with world religions and the idea of  “God” is stories of miracles and supernatural occurences. Beginning in the Enlightenment period, many scientists looked at religious books like the Bible, and reasoned that anything that could not be measured or studied rationally or with the scientific method could not have happened. This thought is deeply rooted in the assumption that everything that is real can be studied in a rational manner. 

I researched and found a couple responses by Theists to my first point (the problem of suffering) Although Mackie’s reasoning seems airtight, there lies within it a few major assumptions. One such assertion hidden in the reasoning is a fallacious definition of “pointless” or “unjustifiable” evil. Just because it seems pointless to us, does not mean it must be utterly pointless in reality. The statement also implies that just because a possible all-loving and all-powerful God allows something bad happen that we do not understand, or that we see no redemptive reason for, that does not mean there isn’t one out there. This reasoning relies enormously on our own cognitive abilities to wholly understand good and evil on a worldwide scale. That requires a lot of faith in oneself.

Equally as problematic, a great many attribute positive personal change to pain and suffering in their lives. It is said that suffering through trials produces perseverance and character. Author and philosopher C.S. Lewis said this in his book Mere Christianity:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and “unjust”? What was I comparing this universe with when I was calling it unjust? Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own,. But if I did that, 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 fantasies. Consequently Atheism turns out to be too simple.”  (Mere Christianity, Macmillan, 1960, p.31)

To take it even further, some who believe in God argue that the very presence and existence of pain and suffering proves His existence! Take philosopher Alvin Plantinga for example:

“Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness? I don’t see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, are obliged to live.. A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness, and not just an illusion of some sort, then you have a powerful argument for the existence of God. (“A Christian Life Party Lived” Philosophers who belive. ed. Kelly James Clark. IVP, 1993. p.72) 

An objection I found in regards to my second point (lack of scientific and rational proof for God) there are a few points made that might not hold water. Although the arguments sound good, science itself proves the opposite. Ever since the advent of modern science, we are discovering more and more that we never knew before, and equally cannot explain. Something like the occurrence of special types of hydrogen bonds that appear exclusively in water molecules or the events leading up the Big Bang are things that science, no matter how advanced or evolved it becomes, might never be able to tell us. This reveals that fallacy that because we cannot study or learn about something through a rational or scientific lens, it must not be possible to learn about at all. The crux of the argument once again relies on one’s own cognitive ability to be able to understand everything under (and beyond) the sun.

Weblog 3

I chose Pinker vs. Chapman.

“Why they kill their newborns” vs. “A Modest Proposal”

Pinker advances his view in “Why they kill”, that we must understand why mothers commit neonatacide. He begins his article with very emotionally charged language, using words to describe the act like “depraved”, and using verbs like “murder” and “destroy”. He speaks of “helpless” babies abandoned in “trash cans” and “dumpsters.” Very emotionally charged. He does this to firmly establish that he recognize what he is dealing with, that it is no small matter. Pinker then goes on to give history of neonatacide. According to his research, cavewomen and the first humans often killed their newborn, or left them to die. Though he explores the history, he brings forth his main point: in order to figure out whether this is ultimately right or wrong, we must “define a boundary” in his words. Pinker is careful to examine and understand without excusing the act outright. In the end, he posites that we kill our newborn as a throwback to our ancestors habit of doing so. Their reason for this was to remain detached from their newborn until they had a good chance at survival.

 

As a contrast, Bruce Chapman writes in “A Modest Proposal” as a rebuttal to Pinker’s aforementioned article in the New York Times Magazine. He starts out with a similarly emotional plea as Pinker, though immediately takes it over the top to grab your attention and bring you into the article. He is emotionally outraged on paper. He attacks defense attorneys who try and represent baby killers in court vigorously over the course of a paragraph. While Chapman appears over the top, he does make a few valid points against Pinker. The first being Pinker’s dealings with Evil. As Chapman says, midway through the article there is no other mentiohn of it. The written exposition turn from questioning the morality of neonatacide becomes a rationalization of the act. Chapman also confronts Pinker on his definition of life; suggesting that emotionally detached babies may as well be mice. While he may be making a valid point, Chapmans over the top rehtoric will lose all but the staunchest Pro-life reader. Chapman’s ending is very clever. He ultimately gets at the fact that the obscure instincts of our ancient ancestors doesn’t excuse our behavior in this modern society where life is so highly valued both in and outside the womb.

Weblog 2

Part I

1. i wonder about, whether this planet can sustain the human race as we continue to grow and use the world’s resources. I wonder if the earth can continue to produce the vital elements we need to live in future generations.

2. I’m puzzled by, most people’s tendancy to disdain and ignore the homeless in Norfolk. They walk right by other human beings who are hurting and helpless.

3. I doubt that, there is much of a difference between the two presidential candidates. Though they may differ on the issues, they both want more governmental control over private citizen’s lives.

4. I’m bothered by the wealth and decadence that our country embraces even as other starve to death a continent away. Sometimes I walk through the mall and this really disturbs me.

5. I’m sad that the city of Norfolk has passed laws that descriminate against the homeless and their access to public parks after sunset. The city’s parks are often the only place the homeless can find shelter at night.

6. I’m angry about, the continued war on photography through America’s major metropolitan cities. Public police departments as well as private security firms continue to try and restrict citizens’ constitutional right to photography in public spaces.

7. I’ve always thought, either America has to adopt a strict isolationist policy (in which do not intervene in other countries and affairs) or we have to become involved wherever there is conflict and police the world. I don’t think there can be an inbetween.

8. I’m suprised by: some people’s ability to completely ignore the needs of others, like those suffering genocide in Darfur. Nothing is being done to stop it, because many are able to ignore it.

9. I’m interested in: learning what are the reasons why people do not believe in a higher power, or God. Are they legitemate? Or are they just an attempt to rationalize away what they don’t understand.

10. I wish I could: refrain from judging others by their appearance. The problem is that human beings are visual people, and we form patterns in our mind concerning the way people look and act who we have encountered in the past.

11.  I worry about: the expanding influence of radical Islam through Europe, and what that will mean for our society in the future. While our society currently functions well with Muslims in it, radical Islam takes and shapes society to their own standards.

12. I’m afraid that: i will live my life for myself and forget those around me. I’m afraid I will have to live with that regret even after my life on this earth ends.

Part II

I’m interested in learning what are the reasons why people do not believe in a higher power, or God. Are they legitemate? Or are they just an attempt to rationalize away what they don’t understand. I have had many conversations about the existence of God with friends and have thought about the question myself. I have heard debates on the radio, television, and read books from both sides of the arguments by authors such as Richard Dawkins and C.S. Lewis to name a few. Some of the possible answers to this question include the problem of suffering, lack of empirical evidence, lack of a “need” for the idea of God, as well as complacency or ignorance. 

Some reasons or opinions that could support these answers are as follows. How could a loving all-powerfulGod allow bad things to happen? Either he’s not good because he doesn’t stop bad things from happening, or he’s not powerful enough to do it. Also, there is no evidence to prove God’s existence. We can’t see, or hear, or feel and we certainly can’t use the scientific method to prove anything about him whatsoever. Also, God has not made himself explicitly known to us, and we are fine. Society is continuing to improve, and God or not, things are going fine. And the last reasons are we cant ever know or it doesn’t matter.

Some reasons or opinions that could contradict these answers are as follow. Just because suffering happens to us, doesn’t mean that a good, all-powerful God does not exist. There could be a higher purpose for our suffering that we may not see or know at this point in time. Next, just because we cannot see or test God doesn’t mean he can’t exist. There are many things that scientists believe in such as atoms and molecules that have never been see before by human eyes. Also, science is limited to how much our minds can comprehend the subject being studied. Just because we cannot understand something, does not mean it doesn’t exist (like the concept of infinity) Religion affects society because religions are worldviews, and everyone has them. The question of whether or not God exists does matter, as it affects the law, ideas of morality, and many other factors that determine what kind of society we live in.

Part III

This topic is interesting to me because it is rather epic, and has been something people have been debating probably since the dawn of man. My experiences thinking about the question and studying ideologies different than my own have convinced led me to desire knowledge on this topic. Some difficulties i might encounter are that the question is very theological in nature, and thus philosphical. It is difficult to have your beliefs challenged or questioned and the subject is definetly emotionally charged. I hope to discover why people do not believe in God, or a higher power, and to do this i need to know more about how people reason and think.

Weblog 1

Part 1

I believe that people… can spend their whole lives working and living for things that are trivial and unfulfilling. I also believe that people can spend their lives living and dying for a true purpose.

I believe that society… is composed of many diverse individual parts, economic classes, races, religions, and cultures. I also believe that societies rise and fall. Succeed and fail.

I believe that government… Has the capability of providing its citizens both liberty and slavery. It is up to the citizens to decide, indirectly, which one they want.

I believe that justice… is a concept that Darwinian Evolution cannot fully explain. Without an eternal absolute standard of right and wrong (which Darwinian Evolution has no room for) there can be no such thing as true justice. We may make our own standards of what is just and unjust, but they are subjective and morally relative

I believe that knowledge… is infinite, just as the universe is. For in an infinite universe there are inifinite things to know. The problem is that we, our bodies, our minds are finite. How can a finite brain contain the infinite?

I believe that science… is useful in explaining what our minds can understand. however it fails catastrophically when trying to explain the unnatural, that which is not comprehensible by our finite minds.

I believe that reality… is nothing like what they show on television. Cogito ergo sum?

I believe that life… was my favorite cereal growing up. I used to look at the “where’s waldo” puzzles on the back as i was eating my cereal. Its also a board game that tried to make you believe that wealth, cars and houses with a white picket fence out front were the only things worth living for.

I believe that happiness… is a yuppie word. The pursuit of it is ultimately a self-serving one. And i’m not sure people really know what it is most of the time.

I believe that goodness… cannot exist without a divine moral code. Without an objective standard, the concepts of good and bad are meaningless. What is a good thing for the bird is a bad thing for the worm.

I believe that death… is the final frontier of exploration. I believe it is going to be an incredible adventure. And i believe ironically that only in death will I find what life truly is.

I believe that God… is a mystery. A largely incomprehensible being that we like to reason away or ignore. Things that are greater than us that we don’t understand are frightening.

Part II

I’m choosing “I believe that goodness…” to write about. My definition of good and bad, right and wrong came from two places. First and foremost, i was born with an innate sense of right and wrong. I think all humans are. It may not have even been as complex as right and wrong. Call it a soul, a conscience, call it what you will. Everyone is born with it. The other influence on my belief was the way my parents raised me. This was with a strict moral code. Obedience, respect, telling the truth, working hard, etc. Though the morality itself wasn’t what i was raised to live for, rather it was something that would help me grow up in the right way. It affects every decision I make. Ultimately because I live under the law. The cops, the government, my parents, my landlord. It has a profound effect on my life. 

Part III

An opposing view to my held belief would be that right and wrong are subjective. I would have a hard time describing why a person would hold that viewpoint. I think it would be because they do not want to condemn others as being “wrong.” But they only believe that because they think it is truth. In otherwords they will condemn an absolute truth claim, but in that very process make one of their own! People on the other side seem to share an experience of comig in conflict with other people who sincerely believe the opposite of they do. They then find bits and pieces of truth in a viewpoint they previously thought was wrong. This concept can be revolutionary, that truth can lie in any idea or worldview. Instead of directing them to seek out an over-arching absolute truth, they turn to a belief that everyone has the full truth. Our experiences differ, because when i realized that there are pieces of truth in everything, i didn’t accept it point blank, i looked further for one truth. There is absolutely a set of beliefs held on each side. That belief is in an absolute truth claim. Although many relativists may not realize they are doing it, by saying that everyone’s beliefs are equally true they are making an absolute truth claim. They are making an absolute claim that there are no absolutes. Ah, the irony.