Anselm of Canterbury once set out to prove definitively that God exists. He became so obsessed that he had difficulty eating, sleeping and performing his duties to the church. Since he was the archbishop, this was kind of a big deal. He came to regard it as a curse from the devil, but he still could not let it go. As Anselm lived in the 11th century, he aspired to put together such a solid argument that it could be recognized even by those who would not accept the authority of Scripture or the fathers of the church. Finally, one day, the inspiration came to him. He wrote it down as a work titled the Proslogion.
Anselm’s proof was quickly denied by another scholar named Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. Gaunilo was a fellow monk, so he certainly believed God existed. He had given his life to the church. But Gaunilo opposed Anselm’s proof for scholastic reasons. He believed God to be beyond the reach of human reason. In the Proslogion, Anselm argued God is a being, “of which no greater can be comprehended” (see the Proslogion for further details). Gaunilo countered by fabricating the existence of a mythical island, one of vast size and untold riches. Gaunilo showed that the existence of that mythical island could be proven just as easily by Anselm’s technique. Since the island did not actually exist, God’s existence had not been proven either. No mythical island; no God.
Academics today are divided as to whether Anselm succeeded in his quest. Many, like Gaunilo did, hold that God cannot be proven or disproven by any technique. But Anselm took his place as one of the most important figures in philosophical history. His Proslogian is famous as the first ontological proof for the existence of God.
But what about that mythical island that Gaunilo contrived in his rebuttal? I would contend it was discovered a few centuries later by Columbus. Today we call that island America.
Hey Bruce…
I’m surprised no one has replied to this (just yet).
PART ONE
There is perhaps no other question in the history of humanity that comes with so much baggage then the question of God’s existence. Great minds of the grand debate have said potent things and expressed valid insights. I am personally humbled by some of the great theological minds and the equally brilliant atheistic counterparts (when it comes to this question).
My personal take is that if the question of God’s existence was purely a rational question. The debate would end swiftly. Furthermore, I am led to believe that this grand debate would end on the side of theism. The reason is because the opposite side is basically Creation by Nothing.
Consider it for a moment…
If God is not…then…nothing is.
As the only thing that is; IS Nothingness. As meaning is only possible existentially.
I say this because No-God means No-Thing and/or nothing.
The idea is thus…
There’s nothing beyond ordinary experience because all that IS, is the here and now.
Thus, consciousness is merely an evolutionary development confined to biology. At least until newer discoveries are made to say otherwise.
Rationally speaking this is perhaps a very poor answer to why there is Something rather then Nothing in ordinary experience.
This is because for something to be here now logically means it cannot come from Nothing. Nothing only gives WHAT? Nothing…that is the answer.
There will likely be great minds who would rightfully take issue with what I just claimed.
Though many of them would claim science as their silver bullet. In the end such objections generally come from a philosophical rebuttal made on moral grounds rather then on empirical evidence. In the end…what their objections amount to is Creation ex Nihilo without a creator.
Besides Creation ex Niliho without a creator, there’s also the view that sees the universe as eternal in nature; without an actual beginning (Stuart Mill and Russell argued this as well as many eastern religions in Asia).
The problem with this view is that philosophically speaking it is more irrational to believe in this then it is to believe in God. This is because the second law of logic says every effect must have a cause: nowhere does the actual discipline of logic say that everything requires a cause.
To illustrate: when Karl Sagan was interviewed for his outstanding Cosmos TV series, at one point he essentially bought into this idea.
The way this manifested is that Sagan followed the logic of Stuart Mill and Russell: which saw the universe as essentially being it’s own cause.
This is a violation of the laws of logic. The universe is a state of becoming, it therefore cannot be the source of its beginning. It is caused. The word Cosmos is related to this. In Greek Cosmos is related to the same our English word for caused.
Only a Being with full ontological power (Bruce, this goes to what I think your point was): only a self-existenting Eternal Being with the ability of Willing motion into reality. Only this type Being would be able to account fully for not only why there is something rather then nothing but for also how everything operates.
Once someone wants claims the universe as being its own cause. Essentially having full ontological power that only a deity could have: once someone does that, they have successfully confused the classical distinguish between Being and Becoming. They are philosophically NOT the same thing.
Sagan was brilliant. I admire his work and contributions. I learned a lot from his Cosmos TV series. I learned so much that that is how I caught him claiming the idea that the universe was its own cause. That there was no need for a God based explanation because the universe being its own cause is sufficient enough. Perhaps there is a mathematical probability that allows one to conclude this. I do not the answer to that question.
PART TWO (Discussed Continued)
Fortunately philosophy has two traditions. It is not only what can be summed-up in its mathematical equivalence (that is good when discussing probabilities). There is also the grammatical side. And when the grammatical tradition is brought in as an aid to help scrutinize the issue: it will become that Sagan in this regard made formal errors in his thinking. For the laws of logic to work, one cannot buy into the notion that everything requires a cause. This is what creates circular reasoning.
I see a lot people in the Church and other religions use circular reasoning too…hence, I am not picking on nonbelievers just because I am theist. Circular reasoning is a universal problem in human thinking. Also, it is possible that Sagan changed his views after his Cosmos TV series. I am not God. So…I have to leave it at this possibility.
Another alternative (logically speaking) is a notion that “God” and the universe are interlinked. In this the word “God” was placed in quotation marks because this is not a pure alternative to there being “no god”.
Rather this is more or less a Neo-Platonic notion that sees the universe as an outpouring of a higher conscious. For all intents and purposes this viewpoint is contrary to various traditional Western Theological Ideals. For this reason I have included it. Though I equally believe that the majority of non-believers wouldn’t consider this as a valid option. To be fair, some religions in the world do claim this as being the true nature of the universe (as well)
The other alternative to there being a God (logically speaking) is the belief that everything in ordinary experience is an illusion. The entire Matrix movie series for instance used this philosophical viewpoint throughout the 3 major films.
Most people serious about the grand debate on God generally have not historically bought into this viewpoint. It is only from time to time (like the Neo-Platonic viewpoint) when a valid debater articulates this viewpoint. As it can be argued rather well. To be fair, there some also are valid religious traditions in the world that also claim this.
PART THREE (Discussion Continued)
Here are the choices:
(1) Nothing “created” Something
(If this is true, something has be in quotation marks. This is because nothing has no will of its own…nothing is truly doesn’t exist: but for argument sake Nothing Created Something does communicate the intuitive ideal rather well.)
(2) Creation ex Nihilo Without a Creator
(3) The Universe is its own cause
(4) Cosmos and God Are Linked As One (With No Fine-line To Ultimately Tell Them Apart)
(5) Ordinary Experience Is An Illusion
Or
(6) There Is A God
Logically I am compelled to affirm God’s existence; especially when in light of these alternatives. I have yet to hear an argument that can speak to the contrary with full certainty. Either God is or God isn’t. This question is one of the few things in life that does not stem from the fallacy of the false dilemma.
I am equally compelled to see that the Jewish Christian understanding of God is the most adequate understanding possible. I would need at least another 10 to 20 paragraphs to explain this further detail, but this statement is…as it stands…a fair statement nonetheless.
With the intellectual arguments aside, I am now ready to state my main my thesis: if these arguments are what it would take to end the grand debate, shouldn’t the grand debate be over by now? Since the obvious answer to this is no. Then perhaps there is a different reason why the grand debate continues….
I am not the first nor will I be the last to claim these alternatives as irrational and belief in God the most rational conclusion. If this is so…then why does the grand debate continue. Why doesn’t it end?
PART FOUR (discussion continued)
It is because of moral inequality in this world and human beings wanting justice for injustices. From my perspective this is why people continuously debate the existence of God.
Simply stated: for many, when good people suffer for no apparent reason God is often blamed. Why would a benevolent God allow such things, many would ask. This is the main reason for unbelief, I think. There is yet to be a solid theological answer that address moral inequality.
The classic answer to this will entertain a debate on the human will; sin; and sometimes the idea that God is rendering judgement.
The new atheism (for example) is essentially trying to make the idea of the Jewish-Christian God into a morally offensive idea. This is the main thesis to the majority of their publications.
The honest question is…would one honestly blame for them for it?
Personally, a part of me does not….
This is because I have to ask the why questions too. As related to my humanity. Asking these questions will lead to questing whether there is a God or Not.
At the same time, a lot of what is claimed by the new atheism is intellectually naive.
Sam Harris actually said (in Letter to a Christian Nation) that religion is no different than sexually raping another human being.
Richard Dawkins (in the God Delusion) claimed that God is a fictional bully and is proud of it. He uses the idea of boeing 747 as his reason for why man basically created the idea of God.
Christopher Hitchens in his hyperbole said religion poisons everything….
….in spite of the hyperbole. At one time there were soldiers and a government: prior to their invasion of Tibet told a very young Dahlia Lama and his fellow monks that religion is poison. They would oddly agree with Hitchens.
Hitchens said this because of his experience with mainly Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The assumption is that religion is the reason for why human beings go to war. Curious? I cannot think of a war started in the name of Buddhism. I wish Hitchens wouldn’t have been so closed minded to this fact.
This is not to suggest that all atheism is bad because atheistic ideas were used as justification when invading Tibet (mercilessly slaughtering innocent people in the process). Certainly not!
I don’t think atheism is the reason why something like this happens…just as theism would be the reason either. Wanting to do something like this results because the human heart is at war with itself. I am sorry if anyone disagrees (this is a valid statement that transcends the Christian understanding of sin).
Yet, isn’t this a clone of the same charge that new atheism levels against theism?
Harris and Hitchens will tell you for instance that theism is bad because theism created various wars and is used to justify violence. According to them, it sanctions violence in holy books and gives people a justification to do nasty things against another person. All because “God” says it’s okay in the respected inspired writings. How naive! A illustration was just given that suggests something similar can be leveled against atheism, right.
Of course, this type of argument though clothed in the language of rationality is merely nothing more but a moral argument built in human experience.
Believers and nonbelievers use similar argument types. I hope I am not the only person who sees this.
PART FIVE (final)
I figure that the main reason why God does not appear in a full blown manifestation is because one of these speculations might be THE reason.
(1) Would you want to present yourself to someone that constantly bad mouths you?
If I were the Almightily and my omnipresent ear kept hearing voices bad mouthing me maybe I wouldn’t bother giving them a revelation of me.
Of course, this is hyperbole. I hope the point is taken with a gain of salt.
When someone bad mouths me I don’t want to be around them. Would you want to be around someone that constantly insults you as a person. Goes as far as to say “hey you can’t exist; you’re not real.”
If in fact we are made in the image and likeness of a Deity with moral character and personal standards of wanting to be respected: perhaps our initial reaction to slanderous words is really nothing more but a reflection of how God may react to similar feedback.
(2) Maybe if God did a full blown manifestation it would be like atomic bomb.
In other words: perhaps out of mercy God chooses to keep Him or Herself disclosed for the sake of the greater good.
This is not the greatest answer to the problem I have to admit but it is fair. After all did Jesus not teach that the weeds will grow side by side with the grain?
Since God has the ability to see everything, wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that God is simply being patient with what He or She sees in full totality in its completeness and God simply has chosen to let it play out in space-time?
(3) When God looks at creation, it is likely that God probably sees everything at once.
Our problem is that we don’t see everything at once. We only see it through time.
In this sense a moral issue certainly will arise. As some will say “God is this not fair!” or maybe “Thy Will be done” and so on.
(4) “God is imaginary; we created God and God is pretend,” some would say.
According to this way of thinking, God cannot make a flown blown manifestation of Himself because God is no different then a fairytale told to excuse our ignorance.
Why is this said?
I think it’s because for some they are disappointed by God and decided well ‘He simply Must Not Be since I didn’t get what I want or needed’.
For some God is not necessary to live a full life and one can be good without God.
For others, maybe it’s because of religious hypocrisy and how everything seems to be about power…and the idea of God was created because it helped sanctified social arrangements built on privilege.
(5) God is holy and we are not.
This generally means that God will favor those whom He chooses to favor.
True, this sounds similar to Calvin when he adopted Luther’s theme of how the human will is not free until God makes a preemptive act to regenerate it so it can be free to make a decision for God.
Sort of fatalistic but the thesis of a Holy God who can seem scary in His or Her absolute decision making is in fact a legitimate point. Especially when this is something we do all the time. This understanding also gives an adequate description to what God’s perfect justice can look like.
(6) God is love: He or She Wills all to be saved and/or allows us to make mistakes so we can learn by them.
This means God has to allow the bad by default so the good can eventually triumph.
It should be noted that for those who don’t believe in universal salvation while also affirming that the central attribute of God is love. Theologically speaking the universal salvation perspective also sees LOVE as God’s central attribute: for many of those who do not agree with the idea of universal salvation, they say this because God (by default of His moral charcter) chooses to offer a choice on salvation because a loving God makes the offer of salvation freely while respecting the freedom of a human being to say no.
This is a legitimate viewpoint as God’s Holiness needs to also be balanced with His/Her loving character.
There are countless other reasons why God allows what appears to us as moral inequality. I am sure others will be able to comment on anything said herein.
My thesis however is that if God’s existence was merely an academic, logical question the debate would have essentially ended in favor of theism a long time.
The reason why it hasn’t (as I tried to demonstrate) is because of moral reasons based on one’s perspective and experience.
…if there is a God Why does this God allow suffering and wickendness. Things that according to Jewish-Christian Teaching are not part of His character. Why?
Unfortunately I will have to conclude on the why question. I only speculated on it…with the hope that my speculation provided futher food for discussion.
Thanks Rob- Excellent comments and some great scholarship! I will have to take some time to read and digest them. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
thank you Bruce…
Hey, I heard they’re coming close to the God particle. Sort of uncanny isn’t it. Perhaps you should comment on that (as an actual article). May I suggest using this question as a springboard. What will we do if or when the God particle is located?
From my take, if they actually locate this…it would possibly be a break through and it would challenge us to rethink reality as we know it.
Just a thought.
How are you.
Yeah, I think there was a kind of official announcement today on the Higgs. I will take your suggestion and put something together on the God particle. Good idea!