Tag: RE

Posted on

June 2005 Religious Studies A2 question 5

(a) Analyse the key concepts of either arguments for the non-existence of God or critiques of religious belief. [12]

(b) Discuss the contributions of a study of religious language to the topic selected in part (a) [8]

 

(a) Key arguments for the non-existence of God have, in more recent times, revolved around the facts of modern science. Galileo, among others, helped to undermine the previous Ptolemaic view of an earth centred universe and since then physics and astronomy have gone on to give more evidence of the insignificance of man’s place in the universe with the founding of the Big Bang idea.

Genetics, too, has had a hand in producing arguments against the existence of God. Ever since the discovery of the double helix and the effort to codify the human genome there has been increased speculation along Darwinian lines that evolution is more than just survival of the fittest by natural selection of the genes but even less of God’s handiwork. Richard Dawkins (1) has spearheaded a whole new area in modern genetics in which he has argued that we are as much a product of our ideas or memes which collectively collude to ensure survival as we are of just our genes. He wholeheartedly throws God out of the equation as he asks ‘Is technology just what our genes want, or is it a cultural conspiracy of our genes and memes? Does human DNA control the technosphere we’ve created and live in and around?‘ (2) He suggests that the watchmaker of Paley’s theory must have been blind: ‘the analogy is false. Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.’ (3)

In other words many scientists believe that the universe has been shown to be a self-contained entity and self-creating too that does not need supernatural or supranatural explanations for its existence.

Another argument for the non-existence of god comes from the classic problem for religious believers – why does a supposedly ‘good’ god allow evil and suffering to exist? God is regarded as having three classical properties: omniscience, omnipotence and omni benevolence and a number of other qualities like eternal, personal, infinite, flawless etc but to each of these the objection can be raised – so why does He allow suffering? The classical theodicies have all tried to justify both God’s existence and the existence of evil and have either succeeded in changing the nature of God to fit in with their theories or concluded that our human understanding is limited and therefore we cannot hope to really understand why God should allow evil to exist. However as an argument for the non-existence of God however it fails to puncture a believer’s faith; the believer will continue to believe probably come what may though it can be instrumental in preventing someone who doesn’t already believe in coming to faith. God is also defined as ineffable and transcendent and within these definitions lies the idea that we cannot possibly fully comprehend God and maybe this is one of those times. Though Hume and other atheists would argue since there is no God there is no problem evil just is, maybe even a non-believer would agree that suffering and evil do allow for the development of higher traits like altruism, selflessness, loyalty and self-sacrifice.

A further argument for the non-existence of God is the idea that religious belief is just a meme, a unit of culture which is passed on from generation to generation and that what passes for religious experience can be explained as a neurological reflex. Recent biological research has ‘discovered’ a religious gene; this turns out to be a predisposition to ‘religious experience’. It is a gene which can be ‘turned on’; the so-called religious experience that people have is something which can be induced under the right ritual or meditative conditions and therefore is not a real religious experience and as a result Dawkins, again, suggests that the only reality of God’s existence is the idea that God exists.

Finally, the charge levelled at religious belief that it inhibits human development is a serious one.

 

(1) and (2) – http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml

(3) http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml#quotes

Posted on

The non-existence of God

So far we’ve looked at the arguments for the existence of God!

The main argument against the existence of God is the existence of evil.

One or more of the classical attributes of God must be wrong.

So what can we know about God and how?

 

We can therefore learn God is:

Omnipotent – without limits; but if her were all the other things too he would have to be consistent and therefore he wouldn’t do the illogical or absurd thus he is self-limiting

            So why allow evil?

 

Omniscient – if God knows everything it would appear to remove free-will / choice – but God has chosen to act within time and history and therefore again consistent with his nature, the future is not fixed.

            So why allow suffering

 

Eternal – “I am” unaffected by time yet he acts within it to be consistent.

 

Beneficent/ omni benevolent – if this is so why do we suffer?

            So why does evil exist?

 

Transcendent – above and beyond – not fully comprehensible it He is the greatest we can conceive of he would have to be greater than we can comprehend

            May be this is why we don’t understand why evil – but it’s a bit of a cop out!

 

Personal – in ancient times only a few communicated directly with God – with Jesus al were made equally worthy of direct communication – God became a personal God.

            So why let people suffer?

 

Infinite – unlimited in any way?

            So why evil?

 

Omnipresent – not limited to three dimensions so like air is everywhere at once.

            Must therefore be with the sufferers!

 

Flawless – perfect and therefore not the cause of anything bad.

            So why evil?

 

So evil is still a problem – it seems to be a perfect paradox, each of the above qualities seem to be negated by the existence of evil.

 

We looked at theodicies last year

  • Do we just not understand God’s purpose? It’s too unknowable?
  • Is he in there suffering along with us?
  • Is it designed help us grow; a part of the evolutionary mechanism?
  • Is a flawed world to engender higher qualities such as duty, honour and altruism?
  • Is it a test? How we deal with it proves our humanity?
  • Is it to prove to us we genuinely do have free-will? So how we deal with it is our choice?

 

Hume: and atheists say there is no God so non problem – evil just is!

 

Russell said since there is no God get on with life, deal with despair and make the most of this life ‘cos there’s no other! Make our own meaning, give our own lives purpose. Faith in God weakens man’s drive to take moral responsibility. Believes the world is material only. Could find no evidence for anything other than the material world so concluded there is nothing else.

 

Hawking maintains that before the Big Bang there was no space, time or matter therefore no god as there was nowhere for Him to be (but if God had no limits then this wouldn’t be a problem would it!)

 

Atkins believes that we believe in God in a desperate attempt to make ourselves and our lives significant. Belief in God is a delusion and believers should have to prove God exists. Like Russell he felt that religious belief stifles. Science and or will answer all questions. The question is there a god? is distracting and irrelevant. Like Russell says we should simply make the best of it.

 

Dawkins also fervently believes that religion stultifies the human mind. Religious belief is a ‘meme’, a unit of cultural belief handed on generation to generation. He suggests that the only reality of God’s existence (see Anselm) is the idea that God exists. (see p 223 of TY Philosophy of Religion)

 

Nietzsche, famous for his ‘God is Dead’ claim, was really criticising the emptiness of formal religious practices. He said we have grown out of the need to believe in God, it was time to take control of our own fate. This is life enhancing, gives us purpose and goals and a reason fore being and will make us shoulder our own responsibilities.

 

Notes from Rhinegold A2 guide for Edexcel

  • Science has shown the universe to be a self-contained and self0-maintaining reality; it does not need the supernatural.
  • There is evil and suffering
  • Religious belief and behaviour can be explained by neuroscience.

 

  • Agnostic critique: insufficient evidence therefore it is irrational – there is no proof.

 

  • Humanistic critique : the bad effects of religion; religion holding back science; science is necessary for future happiness.
  • Marxist critique: religion as a social painkiller ‘ opium of the masses.; the poor discouraged from rising above the oppressors; religious belief is a projection of human hopes and dreams.

 

  • Psychoanalytical critique: religious behaviour is sexual neurosis; ancient Oedipus moment; killed the tribal father – guilt replaced him with God the father and sacrifice; now the human race has grown up!!