Quote:
Originally posted by devnet:
<strong>First, I'll state the obvious: emotional arguments can't prove or disprove the existence of God any more than they can the blue sky of daytime. The evidential case for atheism is expansively covered elsewhere. For my part, I think all evidence points to atheism, and those who still believe in the God of the Bible/Qur'an in our day and age do so out of emotional reasons. Conversely, even if all evidence pointed to the truth of theism, the following arguments show why human beings are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God. Here goes:
Argumentum contra Pascalem (Argument against Pascalian systems):
Theistic religions have the element of reward and punishment according to people's deeds, lifestyles, faiths and so forth. The believer is promised a carrot for doing God's will, and a stick for disobeying. While this has its uses, it means that the believers are not doing anything spiritual in their way of life, but just following a wise business proposal, very much like fire insurance.
</strong>
|
It actually doesn't neccesarily mean that "theists" are doing this that or the other for reasons of "enlightened self-interest" as Spinoza taught. Not to use "name-flashing" to feign credability, but Kierkegaard in
Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing, an exposition on James' exhortation to "Purify your hearts ye double-minded/hyprocrites", that the purity of heart demanded by "the Eternal" was to "will the Good." Fear of punishment or lust for rewards was contrary to willing the "one thing", but that does not mean there is no punishment or rewards or that they are a bad thing- a man can have a "pure heart" and should strive to have one independently on hopes of reward. "Pie-in-the-sky" is not as effective as the "willing the good" because ther person that is "lusting for rewards" will probably prove impatient in the struggle of life and is more likely to grasp at the temporary, worldly reward and forsake Heavenly Pie once the heat is one. The relationship of man as alone before God, and that the relationship between the two on the personal level, is the real important "Eternal" thing rather than man's actions in the impersonal system which follow some absolute law of reward/punishment.
Quote:
|
Any religion that contains the element of reward and punishment is tainted, and can no longer be considered a basis for spiritual life. In atheism there is no reward or punishment. Of course this means the murderer and the helper of the needy have the same end, which may lead one to think that life is a free-for-all to act without account, but this is a lowly way of thinking. The higher way of thinking is that, with no reward or punishment awaiting, things are done for intrinsic reasons and not for extrinsic compulsion.
|
The "Pascalian system" you present however fulfillis the demand for Justice...
But to be honest, I don't think that "Calvanism" as it is follows the model you postulate. In Calvanism, God "elects" some to salvation and does not elect others(or elects the others to damnation if you believe in double-predestination). The Bible's words on election, predestination, punishment and reward and forgiveness in the fullest sense are many and it is a little crude to relate them to a simple punishment/reward schema, since that approaches the karmic laws rather than the dynamic and mysterious motions of "God's Will", and His personal ability to altogether "forgive and forget" sins. A strict reward/punishment system would ultimately result in continual punishment in Evangelical Christianity.
Quote:
Argumentum contra machinam (Argument against the machine):
This is an inverse result of the Argument from Design and refers to biological evolution. The oft-made complaint that evolution makes "mere animals" out of us is far outweighed by saying that the Intelligent Design prospect makes machines out of us. We are, accordingly, God's machines, designed to serve him, very much like the computers that we build. It's a degrading concept. I prefer to be an animal.
|
I don't know. The Bible of course compares man to animals a lot more than it compares them to machines(or other physical, lifeless objects to be fair). Of course your prefernce to be an "animal" to a "machine" hints at the notion that we are not "machines", else there would be no complaining now would there? Would it be fair to relegate this argument to instead, "argument against slavery to the divine?" Or argument for personal freedoms, etc.?
Quote:
Argumentum ad naturae miraculum (Argument from Wonder of Nature):
Theists point to the Glory of God as reflected by His Creation (nature). But when you think of it, what's so glorious here? We have granted that God is omnipotent; therefore, nothing he creates is of any surprise to us. Did God make an effort in creating things? I think not, for He transcends effort, right? Then the Wonder of Nature, far from being reflective of God's worthiness of worship, is just a pompous show of "look how great I am". In contrast, Blind Watchmaker Creation (ie evolution) is simply stunning in its concept of how meaningful complexity could arise without plan. This is truly wonderful.
|
Interesting. Would you be more impressed if a guy lifted 500 pounds with his pinky finger or with both arms, shaking sweating and grunting?
Quote:
Argumentum contra dictationem (Argument against dictation):
We are told to obey God because He is the most powerful. But is this not a dangerous teaching of "might makes right"? So He's powerful, so what? If we are to obey Him only because He's the most powerful, then we are worshipping out of fear. Might as well worship Stalin. God's being the most powerful is a very weak argument for His being worthy of obedience, and a detrimental idea to society (school bullies would be encouraged by it).
|
I really don't think "might makes right" is an argument used by most "theists" although this argument forms a joint between the "machine" and "reward/punishment" argument obviously. The Pauline argument: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who resisted his will?
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom 9:19-21)
This verse I think both proves contrary in one sense to the first arg you relate and puts the "rights" of God not on His
power, but on His status as Creator. I'm not sure if a UNIX guy will like an argument that is similar to proprietary rights. (OF course you'll probably also get on me for quoting the "pots" verse after the robot one! I think it's possible to have it "both ways" to an extent once we limit the domains or extent to which these things are meaningful- the rewards/grace dilemna and free-will/predestination dilemna are more intellectual arguments so I won't attempt to get into either one at least in this post) Independently one or the other "response" to this question would work, but a systematic theology would either have to nix one or somehow "resolve" them, (or assert "mystery/paradox"). The basic Arminian/Calvanistic schism.
Quote:
Argumentum contra scripturam (Argument against scripture):
In the question of God, which most people think about some time in their lives, it appears that no-one really has an idea of Him except from various writings which all claim to be His words. Both Bible and Qur'an claim to be God's infallible word. Which are we to believe? It's a life decision, and you might realize you're worshipping a book instead of God. Better, then, to evaluate things according to the one thing which is in "universal language", without dispute, known by all not to have been created by humans: nature. Searching for God is OK, but scriptures are not the key.
|
Not an emotional argument I think.
Quote:
Argumentum ad compassionem (Argument from compassion):
A partner of the Anti-Pascal argument, referring especially to the concept of eternal punishment. We take great human pity on those who are tortured, those who are imprisoned for life, those who suffer for nought; shall we not take pity on those who are damned in hell for eternity? I cannot worship that God who burns people in hell anymore than I can worship Stalin. It's not justice, it's outright sadism. Theists will say, "by whose standards? Yours or God's?", and I will reply, "yes, by my standards, and if God's standards are so different as to see it good to torture people forever, then I will not waste a single second of my life worshipping that fiend". Human compassion must prevail upon the greedy, selfish drive to make treasures in heaven. A person is no less greedy for striving to gather treasures in heaven than for striving to gather treasures on earth.[/QB]
|
Again the Paul quote from above "answers" your point but doubtfully salves the emotional content in anyway.
01-26-2002, 11:41 PM
Nor would I assert, as you do, that:
