I have seen very little proof in the teachings of any religion that I have looked into. They want me to follow what they believe based on blind faith. I would not jump off a bridge because everyone else was doing it and they said it was the way to go, so why would I live my life by something written in an ancient text just because everyone else does? Someone else believed in those ideas, not me.
I can’t prove pink elephants don’t exist. But I don’t see any reason to believe in them, and so I don’t. Regarding “God,” I want to take exactly the same line.
In any existential debate, the burden of proof falls on the side making the positive case. In a debate on the existence of God, that is undeniably the theistic side. The atheist cannot be expected to prove God’s non-existence; however, one should not accept God’s existence without good reasons. (Ditto for pink elephants.)
I think it is absurd that children are ‘born into’ a religion. No one wants to admit that they believe in their religion simply because they were brought up that way. However, parental beliefs have a significant impact on children’s beliefs. Rather than letting a child discover what he or she believes in, they are taught about a God, a religion, and in many cases are forced to follow that religion because it is what the parents want. I had many friends who simply hated going to church, but their parents made them.
In a country that prides’ itself on individualism, I think it is amazing that we still try to make children follow and believe the same religion as their parents. I don’t see parents expecting their children to like the same style of music as they do. If children do not like country music, are they expected to sit there and listen to only country until they DO like it? Why not give children choices rather than forcing a religion down their throat?
There are so many religions today, and they all claim to have the answers to righteousness. If you follow a different belief, they claim that you are just misled, and pray that you will find the true path. I find it funny how different religions choose to defend the existence of their Gods. Why defend the existence of any particular “God” over any other? Indeed, why defend the existence of a particular “God” over that of some paranormal entity, such as Bigfoot or space aliens?
A theist arguing to an atheist must appeal to either faith or reason to show us why we should believe in his philosopher’s God. Both approaches are flawed.
I don’t doubt that people have faith, but I see no good reason for thinking that having faith can lead to some truth about reality. One cannot rationally argue that faith leads to truth; one can only have faith that faith leads to truth. But again, the claim that having faith that faith leads to truth leads to truth can only be supported through faith. Thus there is no good reason to think faith leads to truth.
There are many other arguments against atheism. The “cosmological” argument (in one rendition) claims (1) that everything must have a cause, but (2) an infinite chain of causes is impossible, therefore (3) there must be a First Cause: God. However, this argument contradicts itself. If everything must have a cause, so must the First Cause.
The argument from religious experience claims that, because people have similar religious experiences, there must be some truth behind them. But UFO abductees also tell strikingly similar stories – must we believe them, too?
The moral argument claims that without God, there would be no absolute moral standards. I disagree. I believe that everyone has their own moral code that they follow, irregardless of a God or religion. Just as we discussed in class, ‘Sally the Slut’ can be just as moral as ‘Veronica the Virgin.’ It simply depends up on the level of morality each follows, and what they believe is good and what is bad.
The explanatory argument claims that we need God to explain what we see around us, the universe, or why there is something rather than nothing. But postulating God explains nothing, because if God exists then God requires an explanation - and a good one.
The “teleological” argument claims that (1) aspects of the world exhibit purposeful design, and (2) design implies a designer. Therefore, (3) probably God exists. This popular argument comes in both biological and physical versions. The biological version was refuted by the discovery of evolution, which explains why eyes are good at seeing, ears at hearing, etc. The “designer” was natural selection.
At best, the above arguments are inconclusive. The presence of evil and suffering in our world, however, is not in doubt – and weighs strongly against the existence of a beneficent God.
Personally, I stand behind science. 20 years ago, God was the creator. However, today humans can become ‘creators’ through the use of cloning. I believe that everything has its answer in science. And what about the things that science cannot explain? Well, not everything can be explained at our current level! Perhaps we do not have the tools or technology yet at our disposal TO explain why things happen. And again, maybe we simply do not, and possibly will never, have the mental capacity to be able to understand everything that goes on around us.
However, not understanding does not warrant belief in a ‘higher power.’ I do not understand complex mathematics, yet I would be foolish to think that since I do not understand it, God must be at work in mathematics!
I have been asked many times what I believe, and I have often used this analogy to explain myself. Picture a caterpillar. That caterpillar is going to eat and eat, and after a certain amount of time, he is going to spin a cocoon and turn into a butterfly. Call it the death of something old and the birth of something new if you may.
I believe our death is very much like this. When the human body dies, our ‘soul’ or ‘essence of being’ simply transforms as the caterpillar did when turning into a butterfly. When we die, we do not cease to exist, we simply transform into something new. I do not believe that we transform into a tree, or something else on this earth, but we instead transform into a new existence that is now unseen.
Scientifically speaking, energy doesn’t die, it simply transforms. Just because our body, or shell, has died, does not mean our energy is gone. When you burn a piece of paper, it appears to be gone, but is now high in the sky as chemicals. Its energy has transformed. We may not see the paper, but it is still around us.
Perhaps we will become a form of invisible energy on Earth, in space, or the universe. I cannot predict what we become when we die, however, I do believe that we still exist, only our new existence is nothing like our physical existence. I am sure the caterpillar could never dream it was going to take flight one day, and become a butterfly.
With that, I believe that no matter what we do on this Earth, be it good or bad, we will all move on to our next existence when we die. I’ll bring it back to the caterpillar yet again. What happens if one caterpillar eats another caterpillar? That was bad! However, no matter WHAT that caterpillar does in its life, whether it eats millions of other caterpillars, or does anything else that could be considered being ‘bad,’ that caterpillar is STILL going to turn into a butterfly.
That is what I believe. No matter what evil we may commit on this earth, we all will transform into our next level of existence at death. I do not believe in a judgment, a Heaven, or a Hell. I believe that through science, we simply exist and transform.
For me, the idea of religion helps people to focus their lives, and to believe in the good of our world. I see no problem with that. However, I find it strongly disturbing that these same religions teach people intolerance and hate. Many religious teachings forbid homosexual love. If you are gay, you have evil spirits working on your mind. Religion also splits people rather than joining them. There are countless religions, and churches. Even those who fall under the same religion get split because they tend to believe one thing that another sector does not.
How many ‘holy wars’ have been fought in the name of religion and God? Pain, suffering, and dying are not holy to me. I also find it repulsive that Saddam Hussein has called our war a holy war, or jihad, and an attack on their religion. He has also called on the people to defend their beliefs by giving their lives and causing countless deaths through suicide missions, similar to the attack on the World Trade Centers.
For me, my belief does not harm anyone. I do not look down on others who may believe in another religion. I would not call on anyone to ‘defend’ science or my belief.
Who knows, I could very well be wrong and will be judged accordingly. However, without better evidence or arguments, then, I believe there is no good reason to succumb to the positive belief, “God exists.”
On his 90th birthday, the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was (supposedly) asked what he would say if he died, went to heaven, and met God. Russell’s eyes lit up, and he replied, “Why, I should say, ‘God, you gave us insufficient evidence.’”
Bibliography
Blackwell, Kenneth (1985) The Spinozistic Ethics of Bertrand Russell, London: George
Allen & Unwin.
Grattan-Guinness, I. (1977) Dear Russell, Dear Jourdain: A Commentary on Russell's
Logic, Based on His Correspondence with Philip Jourdain, New York: Columbia
University Press.
Savage, C. Wade, and C. Anthony Anderson (eds) (1989) Rereading Russell: Essays on
Bertrand Russell's Metaphysics and Epistemology, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Wood, Alan (1957) Bertrand Russell: The Passionate Sceptic, London: Allen & Unwin.