Friday, March 26, 2004
cases for the existance of god
In making a case for the existence of God, there are many arguments, of which the most convincing constitutes, as quoted from M. Martin’s, ‘Some Minor Evidential Arguments for God’, of the premises “(1) If morality is objective and absolute, then God exists. (2) Morality is objective and absolute. (3) Therefore, God exists. This claim is supported by the argument from consciousness, which seeks to claim that mental phenomena that are impossible to account for through science can be explained through theism.
The argument in itself is a valid one, although disagreements on the premises will cause this argument to be an unsound one. The main weakness in this argument is that there is nothing to suggest that morality is, in fact, objective and absolute. For one to find this argument sound, one must first establish why morality is objective and absolute.
Atheists will seek to explain the world through rational and materialistic means, stating that all thoughts and mental revelations can be directly derived from the laws of science and psychology. The fault in this, however, is the failure of science to find conclusive evidence to support the claim that all activity in the human psyche is directly caused by chemical reactions in the brain, although it can seek to present this theory very convincingly. One can take this lack of definitive evidence as indirect evidence for the existence of God. Of course, one can take each mental action and break them down into smaller components, thus explaining the ‘space’ from which these mental revelations come from. This argument against the existence of God is flawed in assuming that one can infinitely break down phenomena into smaller units of mental links and stimuli.
To argue for the existence of God through mental phenomena does not support a claim to monotheism. There could well be many gods across many cultures that administer this kind of mental activity in humans. However, if God is the ultimate lawgiver, then one could also suggest that God appeals to people through the medium of culture, thereby asserting an absolute and objective moral code, although viewed from the varied perspectives of relative upbringing and customs. As stated by Copleston “It would help to explain the differences in the perception of particular moral values.” If moral code were simply relative to culture, people would not have disagreements. Therefore, there must be one absolute and objective moral code, whereby it is then possible for people to have disagreements regarding it. Thus, God would exist as the ultimate lawgiver.
Coplestone’s claim, as paraphrased above, is a valid, although not entirely sound argument. It presupposes that there can be no set of moral values without a model to base them on. It is possible, however, to refute this argument by taking on a utilitarian view, whereby the reason people act as they do is to maximise the greater good. What people judge rationally to be right and what will facilitate survival of the species is therefore constituent in the sense of moral code and values that they have. This renders the set of moral values people have as survival instinct, as opposed to intrinsic values defined by God. However, as long as we don’t consider this utilitarian perspective (also laden with flaws), one can conclude that the originally proposed argument is the most convincing for the existence of God.
fon @ 5:38 AM link to post * *