dragonffly
Weixelman 1
Kai Weixelman
Mr. Spieker
British Literature/Composition IV
14 November 2008
Atheism and The Lord
"God: One or more hypothetical entities, normally invisible to humans, supposed to possess super natural power" (par.1). This is a generic grammatical definition of God as written by Paul Harrison, F. Heylighen, and V. Turchin. in their collective article on God: GOD. However, "n Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God also has a human-like personal aspect as the all-knowing judge of human actions and thoughts" (par. 5). This is how the western world mentality views God, as the magical being in the sky. God is usually thought of as looking down on humankind, judging us, protecting us, loving us. God sets rules for us to abide by. God is usually thought of as the man, woman, or entity who decides where people go when they die. Under this concept, there are two basic possibilities: one is that we go to Heaven, a place of perfection and great rewards. The other is that we go to Hell, a place full of torment and pain where we rot for eternity, if we go against God. In this system, all of this is decided by God. Some people, however, stand out from this crowd and choose to question and disagree with this concept. Atheism is the belief against this god. "Atheism is the philosophy that there are no gods ('a' = without, 'theos' = God)" (par. 5) as defined by Heylighen. Atheists have several good arguments for their belief against the existence of God. "There is much less difference between a mystic faith in god and an atheist's rational faith in mankind." (qtd. in Gollancz 11). The major arguments made by atheists to disprove the existence of God are in ontology, causalogy, pragmatics, and the afterlife.
Ontology, the study of (metaphysical) being, is one of the arguments made between believers and disbelievers, regarding the possible existence of God. Ontological proof of God is an ongoing debate which can be broken into arguments over Fatih and philosophical perfection. The perfection argument for God, as put by Harrison in his article on the existence of God, is simply: "t is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be perfect unless its essence also included existence. Therefore a perfect being must exist." (par.5). This explains how some people view the possibility of this God's existence through His alleged perfection. On the contrary, it has a very simple rebuttal. "You cannot define or imagine something into existence." (par. 3). This rebuttal is merely saying that just because we say that something exists does not make it a reality. In his comments on the idea that God exists through perfection, Howie writes: "I'd like to argue that (using your logic) fairies exist at the bottom of my garden." (par. 2). This is a common argument made by atheists; that if God exists and there is no direct proof, anything imaginable could exist. "Logically, if we take your statement to be true, then anything can exist, and hence it is possible (given that 'nothing' is a valid concept) for nothing to exist, i.e. for there to be no God." (par. 2). The evidence against God is that, if it is true that God exists without proof; anything can exist without proof. If nothing has to be proven to exist then anything is meaningless. If nothing has meaning in existence, then God’s existence proves nothing of God as a true god.
Ontology has a second common argument over God's existence: Faith, which is the idea that, God exists simply because He just does. Over the years several believers and church-goers have made this argument. They have said that God is simply there because He just is or because they believe that He is, they have Faith. As always, atheists have a response: "'He just exists isn't an argument at all it is simply an assertion . . . Just because when you use this logic to justify your beliefs, more people agree with you, doesn't make them in any way more valid." (par. 2). This just does argument has never sat well with atheists, and has often resulted in such comments.
In summation, ontological ideas of perfection and Faith have not been successful in proving the existence of God to atheists. “[N]obody can prove that unicorns, flying toasters or 23-legged purple elephants do not exist, but that does not make their existence any more likely.” (Heylighen par. 2). If God cannot be proven to exist, and is assumed not to exist, God’s existence is unlikely, and meaningless in the atheist mind.
Another large debate over the existence of God is the causal debate: the first cause, God or the universe, and the argument over a creator. The side attempting to prove God’s existence says that God must exist because the universe could not have created itself. Perhaps this is best depicted in the Catholic Mass: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast made creation” (qtd. in Gollancz 61). Since the early Greeks, many have tried to prove their god's existence in this way by saying that God created everything, because you must have that first cause. Several atheists, however, disagree: “For example, in trying to explain why intelligent life exists, it is easier to say ‘God made it happen’ rather that try to explain it in terms of evolution and other processes.” (Hsien par. 2). Several believers claim that perhaps this is how the idea of God came into being in the first place. It is simply easier to believe in a greater control than to take responsibility for these events, which is perhaps why the idea of God was spawned.
The Atheistic response to this first cause argument is very similar to its counterpart. “. . . [T]here is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists without a cause.” (Harrison par. 7). This argument is saying that having a first cause does not prove that God was it. Perhaps the universe and its people created God. “The cause argument – even if it were valid – would only prove a first cause. It would tell us nothing as to the nature of that cause, nor whether the cause was mental or physical.” (Harrison par.1). Atheists have issues with this first cause argument because it only proves that the universe had to start, but not how it started. Some atheists disagree with this, and say that perhaps the fourth dimension (time) is and always has been infinite. So they argue a belief that the universe never began, and will never end, that it simply continues to exist.
Another portion of the cause argument is the idea of a creator of man, as well as a creator of the universe. The pro-God argument assumes that in order to have intelligent life in this reality, it must have been sparked, or caused, by a more intelligent being. Once again the Catholic mass proves to be an excellent source for this argument. “O God, by whom the dignity of human nature was so wondrously established.” (qtd. in Gollancz). The mass tells us that God, not mankind, made us as good as we are, not that we worked to become this magnificent.
Historically, this belief is credited as having originated from the creation story in the Old Testament. This story says that God created the universe in six days, and that he, she, or it created mankind, the way we act and appear today, in a single day. It does not give credit to the centuries of physical and social evolution and development, as found evident by modern scientists and historians. The reform Jews (whose testament and story this is) explain that this story was simply meant to entertain, to give meaning to life, and to teach basic thoughts and ideas. It was not meant to be taken as historical fact. However, a large group of Christian believers choose to disregard the purpose of these stories, despite the fact that they are Jewish stories, not stories from the Christian text. These people choose to say that these stories are the truth about creation and that they prove the existence of God, in the way most people think of Him, Her, or It today. To summarize, the causal arguments: the first cause, God or the universe, and the argument over a creator have not managed to disprove the idea of God to His, Her, or Its disbelievers.
Pragmatics is another large player in the debate over God’s existence involving the debate over fear and hope, and social necessity. The social necessity argument says: “[r]eligion has long been central to humans as well, giving meaning to billions people.” (Padget par. 1). Some people argue against atheism by saying that society needs a god to influence them and that without this supreme guidance, real or not, we would fail. So they say God must exist because we make Him, Her, or It exist. The counter to this argument is fairly obvious and expected: “The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth.” (Harrison par. 1). Just because a belief helps you in life does not mean it is a reality.
One of the reasons some people say we need God is because they believe we need divine retribution. This idea is that people get rewarded, or punished, for their actions. If one does good, good things happen. If one does bad, bad things happen. They believe that when death comes, we gain either eternal bliss in Heaven or endless pain in Hell. Several atheists believe that perhaps this was how the idea of a greater power came about: “The concept of God is created out of fear for total responsibility, fear for oneself and each other.” (Dominicus par. 2). Some prominent atheists, such as the late George Carlin, believe God and religion might have been created out of an attempt to control mankind. Voltaire has said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." (Moncur par.1). Voltaire is saying that it is more likely that the minds of men need God, than it is that God needs men. Some say God was created so that those in charge, or in control of the main stream, thought of society could take to power by saying, do this and ‘God’ will reward you in order to get more ignorant people to do their bidding.
Another response that atheists make to this accusation of society requiring divine guidance, is that ". . . many societies have thrived without these beliefs" (Harrison par. 11). Historically, this is mostly accurate. Throughout the course of humankind, it has mainly been those people who claim to do in anything in the name of God or for the honor of their god, that end up doing the most damage to our world and its people such as the Spanish Inquisition that killed and tortured thousands. One of the things about this that confuses atheists the most is whenever a war or a debate rises over a god, it is always a different god. Throughout our history, wars have raged over whose god is right and whose god is wrong. However, religious figures have tried to say over and over that there is only one God and all other gods are wrong. Yet, every time these debates arise, their god is the one and only right god. All of these gods are constantly going against one another, yet they are supposed to be one in the same.
If one were to flip the coin, one would find that those who do not agree with these concepts of the church have rarely lead wars. Still, these are the people more often regarded as immoral or evil despite the fact that they do very little to harm society other than merely question its blind faith.
Several atheists believe that it is us who have the power to change this world, and until we see that and make changes, bad things will continue to occur. They believe that as long as we continue to trust our fate to this higher power, rather than changing things ourselves, nothing will truly change. "As long as we do not accept that we are God (and the Devil) horror will rule our planet." (Dominicus par. 3). Many, if not most atheists, would agree with this. All of us have the power to change and decide our own future. There is not a grand plan that we all fit into, unless several people come together and make a plan, then ask people to abide by it. The idea of God, in the mind of these people, is that He has been the driving force behind many or most of the greatest catastrophes of our world, such as the Crusades, the Native American conversions, religious wars, religious, slavery, and incarceration. To abridge: the courses of history as we know it, and the path of humans without God against those who have found God, is why most atheists believe that even though society believes in a god, it does not necessarily need its God and does not need divine fear and hope to guide it.
The after life in another large debate made between the two groups, with four main atheistic arguments. Most atheists such as Keir Howie have a basic belief in whether or not to try to believe in God or to accept God: "A true god must surely be worthy of my worship and if I am required to believe without question then sorry, but he isn't and I won't" (Howie par. 1). Most atheists accept the small possibility of a god but do not see it as very probable and believe that if there is a just and loving god, he "wouldn't actually want to be surrounded for eternity by hypocrites who all believe 'just in case'" (Howie par. 4). There are very many religious people who believe in God solely for the belief benefits, not because they honestly find it to be true.
Most atheists accept that if there truly is a god in the formal sense, there are a few main ideas for the after life: “(a) There is no God - I'm right and haven't wasted my time on unnecessary prayers and religious rituals. . .” (Howie par. 5). This is the most common atheistic belief: that there is no god and no one will be punished or rewarded in anyway by God after they die. There are two sides to this theo-philosophy: the first is that when we die our bodies' cells die. We feel nothing, we know nothing, we are aware of nothing after death. There is no afterlife which is a very welcome concept to several atheists. However, to some non-atheists this seems like a very depressing point of view. The second idea under this possibility is that we die, and essentially become ghosts. We float around outside of the world of the living and influence, or not, their lives or their surroundings.
The second big belief is that: “(b) …There is a God, but He isn't directly involved with human affairs, so once again I just die and that's that…”(Howie par. 6). This idea stems more from the theology of deism than from direct atheism. This is the concept that there is a great power beyond our control, but that it does not necessarily have anything to do with our lives. Deists believes that there is most likely a being with thoughts and power that has some control and influence over the cosmos, and there was a creator. This says that this creator does not necessarily care about us or our lives and God is not in the clouds staring down on us, or watching and judging our every move.
There are two other, less common ideas, one of which is that: “(c) . . . There is a God he is concerned with human affairs . . . but He’s a just God and won’t punish me for holding beliefs for what I honestly found to be valid reasons. . . .”(Howie par. 7). Several religions claim that the key to God’s graces is in independent investigation of the truth. This idea is that if you attempt to find the reality of these matters on one's own without the influence of others, God will respect you for it and allow you into Heaven. Unfortunately, however, it usually works out that if you disagree with what your religion has to say, then you are wrong. You searched for the truth on your own, but it didn’t work. You found the wrong truth and just need a little guidance in the right direction – their direction. Most atheists find that by the religious descriptions of God it seems more likely for those who follow God’s word unknowing, blindly and without any question, to get punished. In the minds of these atheist, those people who go to church simply for the approval of the people around them or because they know nothing else, are far more likely to be banished from His Heaven; for that is not what the religious texts say is the will of God.
The second of these less common ideas, and the least common of all, is:
(d) . . . There is a God and he is concerned with human affairs . . . but He’s an evil b****** and will send me to burn in Hell even though I made an honest effort to ascertain the truth . . . This God is clearly unjust. So if God is unjust, how do you know He won’t send you to burn in Hell for eternity as well? (Howie par. 8 )
This is a much less common idea, maybe because people don’t like to think this negatively, but it is just as relevant. There is no proof that God, provided that God exists, is lying and evil and has only anger in his, her, or its being. This God may be willing, or even wanting, to send all who are in this universe to God’s fiery pit of Hell. Even atheists have thought about the after life and found the four possibilities that they believe are probable.
To conclude, the major arguments made by atheists to disprove the existence of god are in ontology, causalogy, pragmatics, and the after life. It does not matter which side of this debate is right or wrong. If God is how the believers describe, he will forgive the atheists for not believing. On the other side, if the atheist argument is right then no one will be punished and, as long as their religion helped them, the believer’s have lost nothing. The essential part for most atheists is just a desire to be respected. They want to be able to join theological debates without being looked at as wrong or immoral and to not have people attempt to change their minds. Whether God exists or not, one thing is certain: “[t]he study of religious ethics stands in need of conceptual and methodological clarification.” (qtd. in Gollancz 35).
Works Cited
Dominicus. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 2000. 30 October 2008..
Gollancz, Victor. Man and God. Kingsport: Kingsport P, 1951.
Harrison, Paul. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1997. 22 October 2008..
Harrison, Paul, Heylighen, F., Turchin, V. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1997. 30 October 2008..
Heylighen, F. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1999. 30 October 2008..
Howie, Keir. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1997. 30 October 2008..
Hsien, Chua Tat. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 2000. 30 October 2008..
Michael Moncur. "The Quotations Page." 1994-2007. 14 November 2008. < http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/343.html>.
Padgett, Alan G. “The Big Questions in Science and Religion.” Christian Century. 23 September 2008: 48-50. Mas Ultra – School Edition. EBSCO. Wayne HS Lib. 17 October 2008..
Kai Weixelman
Mr. Spieker
British Literature/Composition IV
14 November 2008
Atheism and The Lord
"God: One or more hypothetical entities, normally invisible to humans, supposed to possess super natural power" (par.1). This is a generic grammatical definition of God as written by Paul Harrison, F. Heylighen, and V. Turchin. in their collective article on God: GOD. However, "n Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God also has a human-like personal aspect as the all-knowing judge of human actions and thoughts" (par. 5). This is how the western world mentality views God, as the magical being in the sky. God is usually thought of as looking down on humankind, judging us, protecting us, loving us. God sets rules for us to abide by. God is usually thought of as the man, woman, or entity who decides where people go when they die. Under this concept, there are two basic possibilities: one is that we go to Heaven, a place of perfection and great rewards. The other is that we go to Hell, a place full of torment and pain where we rot for eternity, if we go against God. In this system, all of this is decided by God. Some people, however, stand out from this crowd and choose to question and disagree with this concept. Atheism is the belief against this god. "Atheism is the philosophy that there are no gods ('a' = without, 'theos' = God)" (par. 5) as defined by Heylighen. Atheists have several good arguments for their belief against the existence of God. "There is much less difference between a mystic faith in god and an atheist's rational faith in mankind." (qtd. in Gollancz 11). The major arguments made by atheists to disprove the existence of God are in ontology, causalogy, pragmatics, and the afterlife.
Ontology, the study of (metaphysical) being, is one of the arguments made between believers and disbelievers, regarding the possible existence of God. Ontological proof of God is an ongoing debate which can be broken into arguments over Fatih and philosophical perfection. The perfection argument for God, as put by Harrison in his article on the existence of God, is simply: "t is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be perfect unless its essence also included existence. Therefore a perfect being must exist." (par.5). This explains how some people view the possibility of this God's existence through His alleged perfection. On the contrary, it has a very simple rebuttal. "You cannot define or imagine something into existence." (par. 3). This rebuttal is merely saying that just because we say that something exists does not make it a reality. In his comments on the idea that God exists through perfection, Howie writes: "I'd like to argue that (using your logic) fairies exist at the bottom of my garden." (par. 2). This is a common argument made by atheists; that if God exists and there is no direct proof, anything imaginable could exist. "Logically, if we take your statement to be true, then anything can exist, and hence it is possible (given that 'nothing' is a valid concept) for nothing to exist, i.e. for there to be no God." (par. 2). The evidence against God is that, if it is true that God exists without proof; anything can exist without proof. If nothing has to be proven to exist then anything is meaningless. If nothing has meaning in existence, then God’s existence proves nothing of God as a true god.
Ontology has a second common argument over God's existence: Faith, which is the idea that, God exists simply because He just does. Over the years several believers and church-goers have made this argument. They have said that God is simply there because He just is or because they believe that He is, they have Faith. As always, atheists have a response: "'He just exists isn't an argument at all it is simply an assertion . . . Just because when you use this logic to justify your beliefs, more people agree with you, doesn't make them in any way more valid." (par. 2). This just does argument has never sat well with atheists, and has often resulted in such comments.
In summation, ontological ideas of perfection and Faith have not been successful in proving the existence of God to atheists. “[N]obody can prove that unicorns, flying toasters or 23-legged purple elephants do not exist, but that does not make their existence any more likely.” (Heylighen par. 2). If God cannot be proven to exist, and is assumed not to exist, God’s existence is unlikely, and meaningless in the atheist mind.
Another large debate over the existence of God is the causal debate: the first cause, God or the universe, and the argument over a creator. The side attempting to prove God’s existence says that God must exist because the universe could not have created itself. Perhaps this is best depicted in the Catholic Mass: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast made creation” (qtd. in Gollancz 61). Since the early Greeks, many have tried to prove their god's existence in this way by saying that God created everything, because you must have that first cause. Several atheists, however, disagree: “For example, in trying to explain why intelligent life exists, it is easier to say ‘God made it happen’ rather that try to explain it in terms of evolution and other processes.” (Hsien par. 2). Several believers claim that perhaps this is how the idea of God came into being in the first place. It is simply easier to believe in a greater control than to take responsibility for these events, which is perhaps why the idea of God was spawned.
The Atheistic response to this first cause argument is very similar to its counterpart. “. . . [T]here is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists without a cause.” (Harrison par. 7). This argument is saying that having a first cause does not prove that God was it. Perhaps the universe and its people created God. “The cause argument – even if it were valid – would only prove a first cause. It would tell us nothing as to the nature of that cause, nor whether the cause was mental or physical.” (Harrison par.1). Atheists have issues with this first cause argument because it only proves that the universe had to start, but not how it started. Some atheists disagree with this, and say that perhaps the fourth dimension (time) is and always has been infinite. So they argue a belief that the universe never began, and will never end, that it simply continues to exist.
Another portion of the cause argument is the idea of a creator of man, as well as a creator of the universe. The pro-God argument assumes that in order to have intelligent life in this reality, it must have been sparked, or caused, by a more intelligent being. Once again the Catholic mass proves to be an excellent source for this argument. “O God, by whom the dignity of human nature was so wondrously established.” (qtd. in Gollancz). The mass tells us that God, not mankind, made us as good as we are, not that we worked to become this magnificent.
Historically, this belief is credited as having originated from the creation story in the Old Testament. This story says that God created the universe in six days, and that he, she, or it created mankind, the way we act and appear today, in a single day. It does not give credit to the centuries of physical and social evolution and development, as found evident by modern scientists and historians. The reform Jews (whose testament and story this is) explain that this story was simply meant to entertain, to give meaning to life, and to teach basic thoughts and ideas. It was not meant to be taken as historical fact. However, a large group of Christian believers choose to disregard the purpose of these stories, despite the fact that they are Jewish stories, not stories from the Christian text. These people choose to say that these stories are the truth about creation and that they prove the existence of God, in the way most people think of Him, Her, or It today. To summarize, the causal arguments: the first cause, God or the universe, and the argument over a creator have not managed to disprove the idea of God to His, Her, or Its disbelievers.
Pragmatics is another large player in the debate over God’s existence involving the debate over fear and hope, and social necessity. The social necessity argument says: “[r]eligion has long been central to humans as well, giving meaning to billions people.” (Padget par. 1). Some people argue against atheism by saying that society needs a god to influence them and that without this supreme guidance, real or not, we would fail. So they say God must exist because we make Him, Her, or It exist. The counter to this argument is fairly obvious and expected: “The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth.” (Harrison par. 1). Just because a belief helps you in life does not mean it is a reality.
One of the reasons some people say we need God is because they believe we need divine retribution. This idea is that people get rewarded, or punished, for their actions. If one does good, good things happen. If one does bad, bad things happen. They believe that when death comes, we gain either eternal bliss in Heaven or endless pain in Hell. Several atheists believe that perhaps this was how the idea of a greater power came about: “The concept of God is created out of fear for total responsibility, fear for oneself and each other.” (Dominicus par. 2). Some prominent atheists, such as the late George Carlin, believe God and religion might have been created out of an attempt to control mankind. Voltaire has said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." (Moncur par.1). Voltaire is saying that it is more likely that the minds of men need God, than it is that God needs men. Some say God was created so that those in charge, or in control of the main stream, thought of society could take to power by saying, do this and ‘God’ will reward you in order to get more ignorant people to do their bidding.
Another response that atheists make to this accusation of society requiring divine guidance, is that ". . . many societies have thrived without these beliefs" (Harrison par. 11). Historically, this is mostly accurate. Throughout the course of humankind, it has mainly been those people who claim to do in anything in the name of God or for the honor of their god, that end up doing the most damage to our world and its people such as the Spanish Inquisition that killed and tortured thousands. One of the things about this that confuses atheists the most is whenever a war or a debate rises over a god, it is always a different god. Throughout our history, wars have raged over whose god is right and whose god is wrong. However, religious figures have tried to say over and over that there is only one God and all other gods are wrong. Yet, every time these debates arise, their god is the one and only right god. All of these gods are constantly going against one another, yet they are supposed to be one in the same.
If one were to flip the coin, one would find that those who do not agree with these concepts of the church have rarely lead wars. Still, these are the people more often regarded as immoral or evil despite the fact that they do very little to harm society other than merely question its blind faith.
Several atheists believe that it is us who have the power to change this world, and until we see that and make changes, bad things will continue to occur. They believe that as long as we continue to trust our fate to this higher power, rather than changing things ourselves, nothing will truly change. "As long as we do not accept that we are God (and the Devil) horror will rule our planet." (Dominicus par. 3). Many, if not most atheists, would agree with this. All of us have the power to change and decide our own future. There is not a grand plan that we all fit into, unless several people come together and make a plan, then ask people to abide by it. The idea of God, in the mind of these people, is that He has been the driving force behind many or most of the greatest catastrophes of our world, such as the Crusades, the Native American conversions, religious wars, religious, slavery, and incarceration. To abridge: the courses of history as we know it, and the path of humans without God against those who have found God, is why most atheists believe that even though society believes in a god, it does not necessarily need its God and does not need divine fear and hope to guide it.
The after life in another large debate made between the two groups, with four main atheistic arguments. Most atheists such as Keir Howie have a basic belief in whether or not to try to believe in God or to accept God: "A true god must surely be worthy of my worship and if I am required to believe without question then sorry, but he isn't and I won't" (Howie par. 1). Most atheists accept the small possibility of a god but do not see it as very probable and believe that if there is a just and loving god, he "wouldn't actually want to be surrounded for eternity by hypocrites who all believe 'just in case'" (Howie par. 4). There are very many religious people who believe in God solely for the belief benefits, not because they honestly find it to be true.
Most atheists accept that if there truly is a god in the formal sense, there are a few main ideas for the after life: “(a) There is no God - I'm right and haven't wasted my time on unnecessary prayers and religious rituals. . .” (Howie par. 5). This is the most common atheistic belief: that there is no god and no one will be punished or rewarded in anyway by God after they die. There are two sides to this theo-philosophy: the first is that when we die our bodies' cells die. We feel nothing, we know nothing, we are aware of nothing after death. There is no afterlife which is a very welcome concept to several atheists. However, to some non-atheists this seems like a very depressing point of view. The second idea under this possibility is that we die, and essentially become ghosts. We float around outside of the world of the living and influence, or not, their lives or their surroundings.
The second big belief is that: “(b) …There is a God, but He isn't directly involved with human affairs, so once again I just die and that's that…”(Howie par. 6). This idea stems more from the theology of deism than from direct atheism. This is the concept that there is a great power beyond our control, but that it does not necessarily have anything to do with our lives. Deists believes that there is most likely a being with thoughts and power that has some control and influence over the cosmos, and there was a creator. This says that this creator does not necessarily care about us or our lives and God is not in the clouds staring down on us, or watching and judging our every move.
There are two other, less common ideas, one of which is that: “(c) . . . There is a God he is concerned with human affairs . . . but He’s a just God and won’t punish me for holding beliefs for what I honestly found to be valid reasons. . . .”(Howie par. 7). Several religions claim that the key to God’s graces is in independent investigation of the truth. This idea is that if you attempt to find the reality of these matters on one's own without the influence of others, God will respect you for it and allow you into Heaven. Unfortunately, however, it usually works out that if you disagree with what your religion has to say, then you are wrong. You searched for the truth on your own, but it didn’t work. You found the wrong truth and just need a little guidance in the right direction – their direction. Most atheists find that by the religious descriptions of God it seems more likely for those who follow God’s word unknowing, blindly and without any question, to get punished. In the minds of these atheist, those people who go to church simply for the approval of the people around them or because they know nothing else, are far more likely to be banished from His Heaven; for that is not what the religious texts say is the will of God.
The second of these less common ideas, and the least common of all, is:
(d) . . . There is a God and he is concerned with human affairs . . . but He’s an evil b****** and will send me to burn in Hell even though I made an honest effort to ascertain the truth . . . This God is clearly unjust. So if God is unjust, how do you know He won’t send you to burn in Hell for eternity as well? (Howie par. 8 )
This is a much less common idea, maybe because people don’t like to think this negatively, but it is just as relevant. There is no proof that God, provided that God exists, is lying and evil and has only anger in his, her, or its being. This God may be willing, or even wanting, to send all who are in this universe to God’s fiery pit of Hell. Even atheists have thought about the after life and found the four possibilities that they believe are probable.
To conclude, the major arguments made by atheists to disprove the existence of god are in ontology, causalogy, pragmatics, and the after life. It does not matter which side of this debate is right or wrong. If God is how the believers describe, he will forgive the atheists for not believing. On the other side, if the atheist argument is right then no one will be punished and, as long as their religion helped them, the believer’s have lost nothing. The essential part for most atheists is just a desire to be respected. They want to be able to join theological debates without being looked at as wrong or immoral and to not have people attempt to change their minds. Whether God exists or not, one thing is certain: “[t]he study of religious ethics stands in need of conceptual and methodological clarification.” (qtd. in Gollancz 35).
Works Cited
Dominicus. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 2000. 30 October 2008.
Gollancz, Victor. Man and God. Kingsport: Kingsport P, 1951.
Harrison, Paul. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1997. 22 October 2008.
Harrison, Paul, Heylighen, F., Turchin, V. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1997. 30 October 2008.
Heylighen, F. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1999. 30 October 2008.
Howie, Keir. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 1997. 30 October 2008.
Hsien, Chua Tat. “Princia Cybernetica Web.” 2000. 30 October 2008.
Michael Moncur. "The Quotations Page." 1994-2007. 14 November 2008. < http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/343.html>.
Padgett, Alan G. “The Big Questions in Science and Religion.” Christian Century. 23 September 2008: 48-50. Mas Ultra – School Edition. EBSCO. Wayne HS Lib. 17 October 2008.
The English teacher in me wants to correct some colloquialisms. XD
