Are Rational Arguments for the Existence of a God or Gods Doomed to Fail?
I'm inclined to think so. Lots of rational arguments for the existence of a god have been put forward over the millennia. But I have yet to hear a good one. They are all easily brushed aside. Moreover, such arguments seem to become increasingly weak as we devise better and better non-god theories to account for ourselves and the things around us.
Consequently, in response to the question, "Why should I believe what you're telling me, Mr./Ms. Theist?" I don't think any answer is worth making. There is no answer that will convince any educated person who is not already disposed to agree.
The only things a theist can say (IMO) that are not pointless would be: "This is what I believe. I have a strong, private conviction that it is right."
Statements of religious belief would thus be similar to "I like broccoli" or "I find Tyra Banks more attractive than Heidi Klum." They would be statements of private opinion, beyond rational support (or contravention).
(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)
Some Responses:
calystia: "I agree, I have never seen a rational argument for god, and I doubt any theist would be able to come up with one that would sway my opinion in the slightest."
Leon-Scott-Kennedy: "I don't know that they are 'easily brushed aside' (I doubt philosophers would still be seriously debating many forms of various arguments if they were that easy to be rid of), but yes, ultimately, I think they are 'doomed to fail.' You can't rationalize the irrational, and even if you succeed in doing so, you've probably only touched at the surface of what is true."
Leon-Scott-Kennedy (responding to my question whether any philosophers are currently debating arguments for a god): "Well, I know relatively recently, the cosmological argument has resurfaced thanks to William Lane Craig, and the ontological argument thanks to Alvin Plantinga. Hans Kung published a hefty tome in the 80s compiling all the 'proofs' for the existence of God. For a class, I recently picked up a much smaller text by Richard Swinburne discussing some 'proofs.' It seems unlikely to me that these men would go unanswered; one could probably find a 'companion' volume to each of these works arguing the very opposite point."
Helios 1: "I'm somewhat undecided at the moment, but I know the answer isn't so obviously in the positive as the denizens of this board seem to believe it is (and they are not good at brushing them to the side...very few of them are willing or able to criticize anything other than radically conservative fundamentalist sects of major theistic religions). It's something that intelligent people and philosophers have grappled with since rising from the primordial soup. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in theism (mainly due to the implosion of logical positivism), and a surge of interesting literature has been produced by contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Those who are really interested would probably do well to start looking there. See, for example, the work of Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, John Hick, John Mackie, William Rowe, Mark McCleod, Joshua Hoffman, Gary Rosenkrantz, Brian Leftow, Paul Helm, Peter van Inwagen, Keith Yandell, Robin Collins, John Leslie, Linda Zagzebski, Eleanore Stump, Robert Adams, Keith Ward, Hans Küng, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, and many others. Good luck."
lovehopefaith: "To answer simply, YES they are doomed to fail. How do you explain an infinite being with your finite mind and capabilities? How do you explain a spiritual being with merely physical data/proof? You can't."
sverrir90: "I have yet to see a somewhat decent and thorough argument for the existence of a higher [supernatural] being. I never seen an argument for the exisence of a *particular* higher [supernatural] being that has not been insanely retarded."
LionHearted99: "Let's put it this way: If there were any convincing arguments for the existence of God, they would have long ago been manifest. Since no convincing arguments have come forward, we must conclude that there are no rational arguments that prove the existence of God."
I'm inclined to think so. Lots of rational arguments for the existence of a god have been put forward over the millennia. But I have yet to hear a good one. They are all easily brushed aside. Moreover, such arguments seem to become increasingly weak as we devise better and better non-god theories to account for ourselves and the things around us.
Consequently, in response to the question, "Why should I believe what you're telling me, Mr./Ms. Theist?" I don't think any answer is worth making. There is no answer that will convince any educated person who is not already disposed to agree.
The only things a theist can say (IMO) that are not pointless would be: "This is what I believe. I have a strong, private conviction that it is right."
Statements of religious belief would thus be similar to "I like broccoli" or "I find Tyra Banks more attractive than Heidi Klum." They would be statements of private opinion, beyond rational support (or contravention).
(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)
Some Responses:
calystia: "I agree, I have never seen a rational argument for god, and I doubt any theist would be able to come up with one that would sway my opinion in the slightest."
Leon-Scott-Kennedy: "I don't know that they are 'easily brushed aside' (I doubt philosophers would still be seriously debating many forms of various arguments if they were that easy to be rid of), but yes, ultimately, I think they are 'doomed to fail.' You can't rationalize the irrational, and even if you succeed in doing so, you've probably only touched at the surface of what is true."
Leon-Scott-Kennedy (responding to my question whether any philosophers are currently debating arguments for a god): "Well, I know relatively recently, the cosmological argument has resurfaced thanks to William Lane Craig, and the ontological argument thanks to Alvin Plantinga. Hans Kung published a hefty tome in the 80s compiling all the 'proofs' for the existence of God. For a class, I recently picked up a much smaller text by Richard Swinburne discussing some 'proofs.' It seems unlikely to me that these men would go unanswered; one could probably find a 'companion' volume to each of these works arguing the very opposite point."
Helios 1: "I'm somewhat undecided at the moment, but I know the answer isn't so obviously in the positive as the denizens of this board seem to believe it is (and they are not good at brushing them to the side...very few of them are willing or able to criticize anything other than radically conservative fundamentalist sects of major theistic religions). It's something that intelligent people and philosophers have grappled with since rising from the primordial soup. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in theism (mainly due to the implosion of logical positivism), and a surge of interesting literature has been produced by contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Those who are really interested would probably do well to start looking there. See, for example, the work of Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, John Hick, John Mackie, William Rowe, Mark McCleod, Joshua Hoffman, Gary Rosenkrantz, Brian Leftow, Paul Helm, Peter van Inwagen, Keith Yandell, Robin Collins, John Leslie, Linda Zagzebski, Eleanore Stump, Robert Adams, Keith Ward, Hans Küng, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, and many others. Good luck."
lovehopefaith: "To answer simply, YES they are doomed to fail. How do you explain an infinite being with your finite mind and capabilities? How do you explain a spiritual being with merely physical data/proof? You can't."
sverrir90: "I have yet to see a somewhat decent and thorough argument for the existence of a higher [supernatural] being. I never seen an argument for the exisence of a *particular* higher [supernatural] being that has not been insanely retarded."
LionHearted99: "Let's put it this way: If there were any convincing arguments for the existence of God, they would have long ago been manifest. Since no convincing arguments have come forward, we must conclude that there are no rational arguments that prove the existence of God."
posted by iohannes | 6:39 PM
<< Home