Religion
Introduction
“what is the meaning of life?”; “why do innocent people suffer?’ ; “is there life after
death?”
Man is a “religious animal.” Many people turn to religion to answer these questions.
Many different cultures have answered these questions similarly and differently. Much
of the discussion surrounding religion will focus on the extent to which it is possible for
human reason to penetrate the mysteries of religion. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
advised that we “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
Hence, a “global citizen” must try to objectively examine the idea of religion with an
open mind and be able to relate your own beliefs with that of others.
? Suggest ways in which a person’s religious beliefs may affect their understanding of
the following areas of knowledge:
a. science
b. history
c. the arts
d. ethics
Some preliminary distinctions
Theos is Greek for ‘God’, pan is for ‘all and a in this case is for ‘not’.’
1. Theism - A theist believes that the universe is governed by an eternal, allpowerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator, God (Judaism. Christianity and Islam
are examples of theistic religions).
2. Pantheism – A pantheist believes that God is everything and everything is part of
God, and that reality is spiritual in nature and the everyday world is an illusion
(Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism are examples of pantheistic religions).
3. Atheism – An atheist denies the existence of a creator, God, and believes that the
universe is material in nature and has no spiritual dimension.
metaphysical – that which we cannot determine whether they are true or false on the basis
of experience alone
agnosticism – one neither asserts nor denies the existence of God or some higher reality,
but keeps an open–albeit skeptical–mind about these things.
The nature of God
We will focus mainly on theistic religions and spend more time looking at the various
arguments for and against the existence of God. The use of the word God brings with it a
certain danger that we will reduce Him to something less than God or run into insoluable
paradoxes.
The danger of anthropomorphism
We tend to think of God in human terms, speaking of him as a father, loving in terms of
human love. Anthropomorphism means literally, ‘in the form of man,’ and of course the
ancient Greeks the gods were portrayed as glorified human beings. Some atheists
philosophers argue that, rather than God creating man in His own image, as the Bible
claims, man created God in his own image and that we continue to project human
qualities onto Him.
Some claim that we have outgrown such childish ways of thinking about God. The
figure below painted by Michelangelo, God is portrayed as an old man with a beard, but
these images are not taken too seriously. The forms we use to discuss God are in
analogous use, often calling Him the father and we are his children. So the language we
use to discuss God is based on analogy.
Michelangelo: The Creation of Adam
? 1. Do you think of God as ‘he’ or ‘she’ or an ‘it’? What difference, if any, do these
different words make to the way you think about God?
2. Do you think that God exists – or is supposed to exist – as a thing, or a force, or in
an entirely different way?
The God of the Philosophers
Philosophers argue the best way to avoid the taint of anthropomorphism is to describe
God in abstract language. According to the so–called God of the Philosophers, God is
eternal, all–powerful (omnipotent), all–knowing (omniscient), all–loving
(omniamorous), creator of the universe. While appearing cold and impersonal definition,
but it does seem to capture the key elements of what most people mean by the word
‘God’. The trouble is that, when we look at the definition more closely, we run into all
kinds of paradoxes. Here are four:
1. The paradox of omnipotence Consider the question “Could God create a being
that he could not subsequently control?” If He could not, then there is at least one
thing He cannot do and therefore He is not omnipotent; and if He could, than as
soon as He creates such a being He ceases to be omnipotent. This suggests that
the idea of an omnipotent being is self–contradictory.
2. The paradox of change This paradox arises when we ask how a God who is
perfect can intervene in human history as He has traditionally been thought to do.
The problem is that being perfect is like being at the top of a mountain in that if
you move at all you can only go in one direction: down. So it seems that, if God
takes any action, He will inevitably become imperfect which contradicts our
assumption that He is a perfect being.
3. The paradox of suffering This troubling paradox arises from the twin
assumptions that ‘God is all–loving and does not want us to suffer’ and that ‘God
is all–powerful and is able to prevent us from suffering’. Why then is there so
much suffering in the world?
4. The paradox of free–will If God is all – knowing, then He knows not only the
past and the present, but also the future. This means that He knows not only
everything we have done in the past, but also everything we will do in the future.
This would seem to make human free – will an illusion and reduce us to nothing
more than character in a divinely predetermined script.
Since we are finite beings, it could be argued that we can no more understand God than a
worm can understand a human being.
Is religious language meaningless?
an atheist may become impatient and insist that if religion cannot tell us anything about
the nature of God, then believers are not only really saying anything when they claim
God exists. This was the line taken by a group of philosophers, known as the logical
positivists, who were active in the middle of the twentieth century. They argued that a
statement is genuinely meaningful only if it can be empirically verified or falsified.
no more significance than the sound of the wind on a stormy night or the baying of a dog
at the moon.
most philosophers are unconvinced by the arguments put forward to support it.
we might agree that religious language is sometimes difficult to understand
‘God exists, is a metaphysical rather than empirical proposition, there may be evidence
that is at least relevant to determining it truth or falsity.
? 1. Which, if any, of the following would convince you that God exists?
a. A world littered with pieces of granite stamped with the words ‘Made by God’
b. Scientific evidence that people who pray are more likely to survive heart surgery
than people who do not
c. A thousand people at an atheist convention having a religious experience which
makes them believe in God
d. An earthquake which destroys a city, killing all of the atheists but none of the
believers
e. Surviving completely unharmed in a plane crash in which everybody else is
killed
f. A declaration by the world’s five hundred most intelligent people saying that
they believe in God
?
The argument from religious experience
Difficulties arise when we try to define God and some theologians have pointed out that
there is a big difference between the so–called ‘God of philosophers’ and the ‘God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’.
Since the biblical patriarchs claimed to be directly acquainted with God, they would
have felt no more need to define Him
Indeed, if no one had ever claimed to have had a religious experience, religion might not
exist.
Despite their importance, religious experiences are, of course, very different from everyday experiences, and they are difficult, if not impossible to verify.
skeptics to try to give natural or scientific explanations of such experiences.
mystic claims that God spoke to him in a dream, a skeptic might say that this is no
different from saying that the mystics frequently deprive themselves of food
As the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) wryly observed: ‘From a scientific
point of view, we can make no distinction between the man who eats little and sees heaven
and the man who drinks much and sees snakes.’
A Canadian neuroscientist, Michael Persinger has even claimed that by stimulating the
temporal lobes of the brain he can artificially induce religious experiences in people.
How should we respond to natural explanations for alleged religious phenomena? A
religious person might begin by pointing out that to explain something is not necessarily
to explain it away.
Since we are – in part at least – material beings, it is not surprising that religious
experiences can be correlated with various states of the brain. Perhaps, as the
neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran says:
God has vouchsafed for us ‘normal’ people only occasional glimpse of a deeper truth… but
these patients [epileptics] enjoy the unique privilege of gazing directly into God’s eye every
time they have a seizure. Who is to say whether such experiences are ‘genuine’ (whatever that
might mean) or ‘pathological’?
There is, however, still the question of how religious experiences should be interpreted.
People tend to interpret them in terms of their own cultural traditions – Buddhists do not
have visions of the Virgin Mary, and Catholics do not have visions of the Buddha –
suggests that they cannot simply be taken at face value.
David Koresh, the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones and Jonestown
William James cites four characteristics of mystical experiences: ineffable,
nontransferable, transient, and passive.
Miracles
A miracle can be defined as an extraordinary event which is brought about by God’s
intervention in the natural order of things.
If, for example, you survived a plane crash that killed everyone else on board, you
might say ‘It was a miracle that I survived.’
For example, in a country of 300 million people, you should expect 300 chances–in–a–
million to happen every day!
Think, for example, of biblical miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea, the turning
water into wine, or the raising of Lazarus. Such events, if they happened, would seem to
provide compelling evidence for the existence of God. What are we to make of them?
Hume’s argument against miracles
The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711 – 1776) was in no doubt about what we
should think. He denied the existence of miracles and argued that it is never rational to
believe in them because the weight of the evidence is always against them.
According to Hume, the same line of argument can be used against any alleged miracle.
In short, it is always more likely that the witnesses to an alleged miracle are mistaken
than the laws of nature should suddenly stop working.
? 1. What, if anything, would convince you that a miracle had occurred? To what extent
would you take into account the following factors?
a. the nature of the alleged miracles
b. the number of witnesses
c. the reliability of the witnesses
d. how long ago it happened
2. Do you think that Hume’s argument against miracles would carry any conviction
with someone who claimed to have witnessed a miracle herself?
3. We sometimes speak of ‘the miracle of birth’. Is this just a metaphor, or do you
think there is a sense in which birth really is a miracle?
4. G. K. Charleston (1874 – 1936) once asked: ‘Do you know why a pumpkin goes on
being a pumpkin? If you don’t, then you can’t know whether sooner or later it
won’t turn into a coach?” What do you think Charleston is getting at here?
Does Hume’s argument prove too much?
Hume’s argument against miracles might be said to prove too much; for it implies that
it is irrational to believe not only in miracles, but also any observations that do not fit in
with our current understanding of the world.
anomalies – ones that do not fit in with current ways of thinking – can play an
important role in helping to bring about scientific revolutions.
We should keep in mind Carl Sagan’s (1934–1996) point that ‘extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence’. And even if we accept that an event contradicts the laws
of nature, we are not obliged to say that it is a miracle. For it might simply show the
limitations of our current understanding of the world.
We said above that a miracle is something that contradicts the laws of nature, but
perhaps we should understand the word ‘miracle’ in a broader sense. For it could be
argued that the underlying order and harmony of the universe – which makes the
discovery of laws of nature possible – is itself a miracle.
The result, in the words of a Jewish Sabbath prayer, is that, ‘Days pass, years vanish,
and we walk sightless through miracles.’
The idea that everything is a miracle is in some ways an attractive one; but whether or
not the word ‘miracle’ has at this point become so broad as to lose its meaning, I leave for
you to decide.
The argument from design
the order and harmony of the universe could not have come about by chance, but must
have been made by an intelligent creator. The eighteenth–century theologian William
Paley (1743 – 1805) made a famous analogy between a watch and a watchmaker on the
one hand and God and the world on the other.
As evidence, a biologist might point to the exquisite design of the eye, and physicist to
the majestic harmony of the heavens. Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727) ‘This most beautiful
system of the sun, plants, and comets, could only proceed form the counsel and
domination of an intelligent Being.’ The evidence from biology and physics was enough
to convince most eighteenth – century scientists that the universe had indeed been
designed.
? 1. How does the ‘hypothesis’ of a divine creator to explain the order and harmony of
the universe resemble a scientific hypothesis?
2. How good is the analogy of the watch and the watchmaker? How does the universe
resemble a watch and how does it differ from it?
Hume’s criticisms of the argument from design
There were, however, dissenting voices, and once again David Hume was foremost
among the critics. According to Hume:
1. Paley’s analogy is a poor one because there is in fact little resemblance between
the world and a machine.
2. The most the argument from design can prove is the existence of an architect god
– not a creator god. After all, a watchmaker does not create his parts out of
nothing, but fashions them out of pre-existing material.
3. If we look at the universe objectively, it is far from clear that it was designed by an
omnipotent and benevolent God. Indeed, for all we know, says Hume, the world
‘is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard, and was only the
first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his
lame performance’. As an anonymous wit once said, ‘Don’t worry, God is alive
and well and now working on a less ambitious project.’
Does the theory of evolution make design unnecessary?
The theory of evolution would seem to cast further doubt on the argument from design.
For it gives us a way of explaining the complexity and harmony of nature without having
to appeal to a designer God. biologists, such complex and apparently well–designed
features as a human eye or a bird’s wing
the so–called ‘balance of nature’ as the scientist Paul Davies (1946 -) summarizes it:
Darwin’s theory of evolution demonstrated decisively that complex organizations efficiently adapted to
the environment could arise as a result of random mutations and natural selection. No designer is needed
to produce an eye or a wing.
Since everything we see around us can be explained in terms of natural processes, it
would seem, echoing Paley, that nature itself is the watchmaker
Physics and the new argument from design
Recently focuses more on physics than biology, and the laws underlying the universe
rather than the things within it.
the universe is not only orderly, but orderly in such a way that it can be understood by
human beings.
The mystery deepens why the laws of physics are the way they are.
key values, such as the speed of light, the force of gravity, and the charge carried by
electrons,
The other laws are equally fine–tuned, and if their values had been even slightly
different, then life would never have appeared in the universe. How, then, should we
interpret them? According to Paul Davies,
If it is the case that the existence of life requires the laws of physics and the initial conditions of
the universe to be fine – tuned to high precision, and that fine – tuning does in fact obtain, then
the suggestion of design seems compelling.
We inhabit a ‘multiverse’, and our universe is only one of an infinite number of
universes. Since every conceivable value for the laws of physics is explored in one
universe or another, the values that hold in our universe were bound to turn up
somewhere.
This hypothesis is, of course, highly speculative, and, on our current understanding at
least, there is no way we could prove the existence of these other universe.
Choice between two metaphysical hypothesis: a universe designed by an intelligent
creator, or an infinity of universes.
? Read the following piece by Douglas Adams (1952–2001). How does it affect your
view of the argument from design?
‘Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I
find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In
fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it” This is such a
powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the
puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that
everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built
to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this
may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’
The cosmological argument
The cosmological argument for the existence of God is based not on the order of the
universe but on the fact that it exists at all. history of the universe all the way back to the
Big Bang 15 billion years ago,
ultimate question, ‘What caused the Big Bang?’
So the only possible is that the universe was created by God. God, we might say, lit
the fuse that set off the Big Bang.
? How convincing do you find the cosmological argument? What criticisms, if any,
would you make of it?
?
Some alternatives
Do we really need a creator God to explain the existence of the universe? At least two
other alternatives suggest themselves:
1. The universe has always existed although cosmologists believe that the universe
originated in the Big Bang. Some are willing to entertain as a speculative possibility the
idea that the Big Bang is itself the result of a Big Crunch, and that the universe has been
expanding and contracting for ever in an endless cycles. Interestingly the basic cycle in
Hinduism is known as a ‘day of Brahma’ and lasts 4,200 million years.
Archbishop Ussher, a seventeenth – century Irish cleric, who calculated the earth was
created on the evening of October 22, 4004 BCE!
? Do you think it makes sense to say that the universe is eternal and goes back infinitely
far in time?
2. The Big Bang was the uncaused first cause A second alternative to a creator God
is to deny that everything has a cause and to argue that the Big Bang was an uncaused
event – the ultimate brute fact.
But perhaps our belief in the causal principle is simply a metaphysical prejudice,
perhaps it is simply wrong to think everything has a cause.
To many people the idea that God created the universe makes more sense than the idea
that it has always existed of that it appeared by chance. But this solution invites the
question that children sometimes ask: ‘And who made God?’
The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) observed, supporters of the
cosmological argument treat the causal principle like a hired cab which they dismiss
when they have reached their destination.
Neither of these options gives us an uncreated creator.
? 1. When you create something new, such as a piece of music, or a novel or a painting,
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Does this show that something can
come of nothing? What has this got to do with our discussion?
2. Imagine finding a sandcastle on the beach. When you ask someone who made it,
they reply ‘The Unknown Builder’. How does this differ from saying ‘I don’t
know?’ What has this got to do with our discussion?
3. What distinguishes a good explanation from a bad explanation? Do you think the
claim that God created the universe is a good explanation or a bad one? Give
reasons.
Perhaps the reason that a believer finds the idea of a creator God a satisfying
explanation is not so much that it solves the problem of where the universe came from as
that it guarantees that the universe has a meaning and that our lives have significance.
At this point in the argument we reach an impasse, with a believer asserting, and a non
– believer denying, that the universe must have some king of deeper meaning.
Whether or not you believe in God, the existence of the universe remains a highly
puzzling fact.
This is surely a mystery that will always lie beyond the reach of science.
? 1. Can you imagine anyone ever coming up with a compelling answer to the question
of why the universe exists?
2. Do you think it is worth spending time thinking about questions to which there are
no definite answers?
The problem of suffering
What kind of an all-powerful, all-loving God creates a world where people suffer?
We now need to consider one of the main arguments against the existence of God—the
problem of suffering. As we saw earlier, the problem arises from the fact that God is
supposed to be not only all–powerful, but also all–loving. For it would seem that if He is
all–powerful, He is able to prevent our suffering; and He is all–loving, He does not want
us to suffer. So why is there so much suffering in the world? We seem forced to
conclude either that God is not all–powerful and that suffering is the result of
circumstances beyond His control, or that He is not all–loving and that He does not care
about our plight. Perhaps God created the universe, but it did not turn out the way He
planned; or perhaps He created it and then lost interest in it. Neither of these options is
very attractive. If God is an incompetent bungler, or a heartless dictator, then He hardly
seems worthy of worship.
The free-will defense
Standard argument against the problem of suffering, how does it stack up against
predestination? Only addresses the problems created by people.
One standard response to the problem of suffering is known as the free–will defense.
God gave human beings free–will, and that we have misused our freedom to inflict
suffering on one another.
raw statistics, war, for example. since 1500, an estimated 142 million people have died
in more than 600 wars around the world.
there have been at least 36 genocides, leading one commentator to bleakly observe that
‘Genocide is as human as art and prayer.’
poverty. 24,000 people starve to death every day
United States & Europe spend more money on pet food every year one billion undernourished people on the planet, our contribution to world suffering.
Does the free–will defense ‘let God off the hook’
why God could not have made the universe with slightly different laws of physics so
that we could not develop weapons of mass destruction.
A believer might argue that, if we are to have genuine freedom, then the freedom to sin
must be a real option.
free–will defense resolves one paradox, it seems to do so only at the expense of
creating another. For if the problem of suffering is explained that human beings have
free–will, we might now ask how we can reconcile human free–will with divine
omniscience.
The problem is that, if God knows everything, then He must know our future as well as
our past—indeed, He must have known our entire life stories from the beginning of time.
This would seem to reduce us to little more than characters of a divine novel, or
computer simulation.
response God does not force us to make the choices that we make, divine foreknowing
is perfectly compatible with human free–will. .
Natural suffering
What about the forces of nature that cause human suffering? Answer is the silver lining
in every cloud, that good comes from evil!
? 1. Give some examples of the apparent goodness and kindness of nature.
2. Give some examples of where the apparent cruelty of nature turns out to be
beneficial.
3. Do you think that on balance nature is more cruel than kind, or more kind than
cruel?
?
Poem by Cecil Francis Alexander All Things Bright and Beautiful vs Monty Python All
Thing Dull and Ugly
All Things Bright and Beautiful
All Thing Dull and Ugly
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all,
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot,
Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing color,
He made their tiny wings.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
There are two main problems with the above defense of suffering. First, it is far from
clear that the alleged benefits of natural suffering outweigh the costs in terms of death
and destruction. Second, even if they do, this does not explain the distribution of
suffering. If good people prospered and only bad people were struck down, we might
claim to see the working of divine justice in the distribution of suffering. But it seems
that the good suffer as much as the bad, the innocent as much as the guilty. The suffering
of little children seems particularly difficult to reconcile with the belief in an all – loving
God. For it is hard to see how anything could justify the death of thousands of innocent
children in an earthquake or a tsunami.
? 1. Given that God is omnipotent, do you think that He could have created the world
with less suffering in it?
2. To what extent do natural disasters bring out the best in people, and to what extent
do they bring out the worst in people?
3. In the novel The Brother Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-81), one of the
characters, Ivan, gives his brother, Alyosha, the following challenge:
“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making
men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential
and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature – that baby beating its
breast with its fist, for instance – and to found the edifice on its unavenged tears,
would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me and tell me
the truth.”
“No, I wouldn’t consent”, said Alyosha softly.’
Do you agree or disagree with Aluosha’s response to Ivan’s challenge? Give
reasons.
4. To what extent could it be argued that so-called ‘natural disasters’ are the result of
our interfering with the balance of nature, and are therefore our responsibility?
Reason versus faith
We have looked at various arguments for and against the existence of God, but we
have not arrived at any definite conclusion. This is hardly surprising –since certainly
cannot be found in any other area of knowledge, we should not expect to find it in an area
as difficult and controversial as religion. Indeed, since human understanding is limited
and cannot comprehend the infinite, many believers would say that it is absurd to try to
prove the existence of God. If God wished then presumably He could reveal Himself in a
way that left us in no doubt about His existence; but then we would have no choice about
what to believe. So perhaps the lack of proof gives us freedom to decide for ourselves
and the lack of knowledge leaves room for faith.
What is faith?
The word ‘faith’ is difficult to define in a neutral way. On the positive side, St. Paul
defined it as ‘the conviction of things hoped for and the assurance of things not seen’. On
the negative side, Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) dismissed it as ‘the believing of propositions upon insufficient evidence’. More neutrally, we might say that faith is a kind of
belief which is held with a strong emotional commitment and concerns things that have
great significance to the believer.
Is faith rational?
As Freud’s definition of faith suggests, most atheists would say that, while scientific
belief is rational, religious faith is irrational and amounts too little more than wish fulfillment. Since you are keen to believe that something is true, you convince yourself, on the
basis of little or no evidence, that it really is true.
Atheist claim that faith is little more than wish fulfillment
As science has explained the forces of nature, man’s need for religious explanation has
reduced…
“Muhammad, “God has not created anything better than reason’…Thomas Aquinas
argued that reason and faith are complementary…”
the philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) argued that reason and faith are complementary ways of seeking the truth. As we have seen, there are several rational arguments
for the existence of God, and even though none of them is conclusive, taken together they
might be said to provide a rational foundation for faith.
we might think of religious faith as a kind of paradigm through which we interpret our
experience and make sense of the world.
Science and religion
When it comes to the relation between science and religion, most religious believers
would claim that they are quite consistent with one another. After all, many famous
scientists have believed in God, and they seem to have had no difficulty in reconciling
their scientific beliefs with their religious beliefs. One way of trying to do this is to say
that while science is concerned with the how of the universe, religion is concerned with its
why, and that problems arise only when religion gets involved with how questions, or
science with why questions. If religion tries to answer scientific questions by, for
example, insisting that the sun goes around the earth, or that each species is uniquely
created by God, then it will find itself having to retreat before the forward march of
science. (The Catholic Church belatedly acquitted Galileo of heresy in 1993; and it finally
accepted evolution ‘as an effectively proven fact’ in 1996.) And if science tries to answer
religious questions by pontificating about the ultimate reality or human destiny, then it
effectively ceases to be science and becomes a kind of religion.
A religious apologist might also point out that there is a sense in which not only
religion but also science is based on faith. For a scientist must have faith that the
universe is orderly, and that human beings are capable of discovering that order. (Since
we can never be certain of anything, it could, indeed, be argued that there is an element of
faith built into all knowledge claims.) However, an atheist might argue that the faith of a
scientist is quite different from of a religious person, and that while our belief in an
orderly universe is confirmed by experience every day, we struggle to find consistent
signs of God’s love for us.
? 1. How is the faith of a scientist similar to the faith of a religious believer? How is it
different?
2. Do you think that having faith in something necessarily means that one is religious?
?
Pascal’s wager
The philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) argued that a rational person ought to bet
on the existence of God. The argument runs as follows. Since we do not know whether
or not God exists, let us assume that the odds are 50–50. Now consider the gains and
losses of betting on God’s existence or non–existence. If you bet that God exists and you
are right, you hit the jackpot–heaven. And if you are wrong–well, you have not really
lost anything. If you bet God does not exist and you are right, you win nothing. But if
you are wrong, it’s bad news – hell. Given this distribution of potential gains and losses,
Pascal concluded that a rational gambler ought to bet on the existence of God.
You bet that God exists
You bet that God does not exist
God exists
You win everything
You lose everything
God does not exist
You lose nothing
You win nothing
Is faith irrational
…some religions claim that faith is irrational, faith without evidence is stronger than faith
with evidence…our core intuitions about the nature of reality, we have no choice but to
appeal to faith…
Life is not a dream
Other people have minds
The laws of physics will not break down tomorrow
The past really happened
Leap of faith
The varieties of religion
For much of what we have spoken as if there is some one thing called religion; but
there are, of course, many different religions in the world. The four biggest are:
Christians
2 billion
Islam
1.3 billion
Hinduism
900 million
Buddhism
360 million
Other major world religions include Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Judaism, Sikhism
and the Baha’i faith. If we take what different religions say at face value, then they
clearly contradict one another. For there are many different views about such things as
the nature of God, what happens when you die, and which prophets and holy books
contain the truth.
? Compare and contrast the beliefs of two different religions about the following topics:
a. How the universe came into existence
b. The existence of suffering
c. What happens when you die
1. One religion is true and all the rest are false
This approach has the attraction of simplicity, but it raises the question of how we
should determine which religion is true and which are false. The problem is complicated
by the fact that within each religion there are many different sects each claiming that it is
the sole guardian of the truth. For example, in North America, there are more than a
thousand different Christian groups, many of which believe that they alone are the one
true church.
There are some religions that teach that if people do not believe the way they do, those
people are doomed.
? 1. What reasons, if any, are there for believing that some religions are superior to
others?
2. If it does turn out that one religion is true and all the rest are false, what do you
think the consequences will be for good people who happen to have followed the
wrong religion?
?
2. All religions are false
The second option, favored by atheists, is to take the variety of religious beliefs as
evidence for their all false. Several related points can be made here.
a. Since any evidence in support one religion counts as evidence against every other
religion, and since every religion puts forward in support of its doctrines, the
balance of evidence and the counter-evidence for any particular religion would
seem to cancel out.
b. We cannot appeal to the passion of the faithful to decide between different
religions because the faithful of all religions hold their religious beliefs
passionately
c. The fact that, in practice, the vast majority of religious people follow the beliefs of
the community they grow up in might suggest that they are simply the religion of
their community
? 1. To what extent do you think your religious believes have been affected by the
society you grew up in?
2. If a religious person’s beliefs are the result of indoctrination, could the same be said
about an atheists beliefs?
?
3. All religions point towards the same underlying truth
A third possible response to the fact that different religions contradict one another is to
argue that, despite superficial differences, they are all pointing towards the same
underlying truth. An analogy that is sometimes used to illustrate this idea is that of the
blind men and the elephant. One blind man holds the elephant’s leg and thinks that the
elephant is like a big tree; a second grabs the trunk and insists that it is like a large snake;
a third touches its side and concludes it is like a huge wall. While each of the blind men
is convinced that he is right and the others are wrong, they are of course, all touching the
same elephant. Perhaps in a similar way, different religions have captured different
aspects of the same underlying truth.
Underlying truths are very similar, the surface is different
Religious pluralism
Perhaps not surprising, pantheism –the belief that God and nature are one– seems to be
particularly popular among scientists. For example, although Einstein (1879 – 1955) explicitly denied he believed in a God ‘who concerns himself with the fate and actions of
human beings’, he often spoke of his sense of awe in contemplating the universe, and he
once wrote to a colleague: ‘I have found no better expression than “religious” for
confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason.’
Golden Rule in Confucianism:
do to you.”
“Do not do to others what you would not want them to
? How good do you think the analogy of the bland man and the elephant is? What are its
main strengths and weaknesses?
?
Pantheism
Perhaps not surprising, pantheism –the belief that God and nature are one– seems to be
particularly popular among scientists. For example, although Einstein (1879–1955) explicitly denied he believed in a God ‘who concerns himself with the fate and actions of
human beings’, he often spoke of his sense of awe in contemplating the universe, and he
once wrote to a colleague: ‘I have found no better expression than “religious” for
confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason.’
Conclusion
Our discussion of religion has raised many of the big questions about the meaning and
purpose of life. While some people turn to religion to find the answers to these questions,
others believe that religion raises more questions than it answers. If anything has come
out of our discussion, it is that there are no easy answers. If anything has come out of our
discussion, it is that there are no easy options in this area. Perhaps, religious believers
and atheists can at least agree that we are not gods and that –in this life at least– we will
never have the answers to the deepest mysteries. And perhaps if we can learn to hold
even the deepest beliefs with a degree of humility, we will be less likely to kill one
another in the name of things we do not fully understand.
Key points
1. Religions are concerned with questions of meaning and purpose which trouble all
human beings.
2. If we try to define God, we are in danger of falling into anthropomorphism or running
into paradoxes, but this does not mean that religious language is meaningless.
3. All religions are founded on a bedrock of intense personal experiences, but opinions
differ about how such experiences should be interpreted.
4. The argument from design sees the order and harmony of the universe as evidence
for the existence of God, but critics argue that there are natural explanations for
such order
5. The cosmological argument says that, since everything has a cause, the universe must
have been created by God; but we might then ask ‘who created God?’
6. Some see the existence of suffering as incompatible with an all-powerful and allloving God; but it could be replied that much of the suffering in the world is a
consequence of human free-will.
7. Faith plays an important role in religion, but people have different views about what
faith is and whether or not it is rational.
8. The fact that there are many different religions in the world raises the question of
whether they all contradict one another or whether they all point towards the same
underlying truth.
9. Some people are attracted by the pantheistic belief that God and nature are one; but
critics argue that pantheism is simply a polite form of atheism.
10. Since we will never have the answers to the deepest mysteries, it may be wise to hold
our religions beliefs with a degree of humility.
Terms to remember
agnosticism – the belief or intellectual attitude of agnostics, is the philosophical view that
the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding
theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is
unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove
or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism.
anthropomorphism – is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human
creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and
objects or abstract concepts. Subjects for anthropomorphism commonly include
animals and plants depicted as creatures with human motivation able to reason and
converse, forces of nature such as winds or the sun, components in games, unseen
or unknown sources of chance, etc. Almost anything can be subject to
anthropomorphism. The term derives from a combination of the Greek, "shape" or
"form the act or practice of attributing human form or qualities to gods, animals, or
things.
argument from design – is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on
perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction — or some combination
of these — in nature. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos,
meaning "end" or "purpose". Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or
directive principle in the works and processes of nature.
atheism – the belief that there is no God. as an explicit position, can be either the
affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined
more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or non-theism.
cosmological argument – is an argument for the existence of a First Cause to the
universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of God. It
is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument
from first cause, the causal argument or the argument from existence.
Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each
with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from causation, in esse and in
fieri and the argument from contingency.
The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
Compared to the Big Bang Theory
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", while in esse is generally translated as "in
existence". In fieri, the process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is
built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord. (It may require occasional
maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument.)
In esse (in existence) is more akin to the light from a candle or the liquid in a vessel.
George Hayward Joyce, SJ, explained that "...where the light of the candle is
dependent on the candle's continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in
a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination
is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape
from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides
withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant." This form of the argument is
far more difficult to separate from a purely first cause argument than is the example
of the house's maintenance above, because here the First Cause is insufficient without
the candle's or vessel's continued existence.
Thus, Aristotle's argument is in fieri, while Aquinas' argument is both in fieri and in esse
(plus an additional argument from contingency). This distinction is an excellent
example of the difference between a deistic view (Aristotle) and a theistic view
(Aquinas). Leibnitz, who wrote more than two centuries before the Big Bang was
taken for granted, was arguing in esse. As a general trend, the modern slants on the
cosmological argument, including the Kalam argument, tend to lean very strongly
towards an in fieri argument.
leap of faith – in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something
without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated
with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of
piety.
logical positivism – is a school of philosophy that combines empiricism, the idea that
observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of
rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and
deductions in epistemology.
metaphysics – is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending
those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of
metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the
world. "Metaphysician" is, counterintuitively, the name of someone that studies
metaphysics, not metaphysicist.
The word derives from the Greek words (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and
(physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by
Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in
Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics", in
posthumously edited collections. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there
"first philosophy.”
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of
things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The
metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the
world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and
possibility.
Omniamorous – all loving.
omniscient – is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can
be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In
monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. This concept is included in the
Qur'an, where God is called "Al-'aleem" on multiple occasions. This is the infinite
form of the verb "alema" which means to know. In the Bible, God is referred to often
as "The Great I Am," among other similar names, which also incorporates His
omnipresence and omnipotence. In Hinduism, God is referred to as sarv-gyaata
(omniscient), sarv-samarth (omnipotent) and sarv-vyapt (omnipresent) gyaata
(knowing).
Omnipotent – is unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence
only to God.
In the philosophy of most Western monotheistic religions, omnipotence is listed as one of
God's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and
omnibenevolence.
Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the
term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These
positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do.
2. God is able to do anything that God chooses to do.
3. God is able to do anything that is in accord with His own nature (thus, for instance,
if it is a logical consequence of God's nature that what God speaks is truth, then
God is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent
for God to go against His own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
5. God is able to do anything that corresponds with his omniscience and therefore
with his world plan.
6. God is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible. This view was
held by Descartes.
Pantheism – (Greek: ( 'pan' ) = all and ( 'theos' ) = God, it literally means "God is All"
and "All is God") is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent
abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed
definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe
(the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological
principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any
kind. This is the key feature which distinguishes them from panentheists and
pandeists. As such, although many religions may claim to hold pantheistic elements,
they are more commonly panentheistic or pandeistic in nature.
paradox of omnipotence is a family of related paradoxes, having to do with the question
of what an omnipotent being can do. These paradoxes pose the question whether it
makes sense to attribute omnipotence to anything, usually a being of some sort, or
whether such an attribution is meaningless. The argument states that if the being can
perform such actions, then it can limit its own ability to perform actions and hence it
cannot perform all actions, yet, on the other hand, if it cannot limit its own actions,
then that is—straight off—something it cannot do.
Pascal’s wager – is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even
though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should
"wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain,
and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a
posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he
worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. Historically, Pascal's Wager,
groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the
first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of
decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and
voluntarism.
problem of suffering – in the religious context, explaining how an all powerful God could
allow his creation, humans, to suffer.
religious pluralism – is a loosely defined expression concerning acceptance of different
religions, and is used in a number of related ways:
 As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and
exclusive source of truth, and thus that at least some truths and true values exist in
other religions.
 As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth
claims are equally valid. This posture often emphasizes religion's common aspects.
 Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, cooperation, and improved understanding between different religions or different
denominations within a single religion.
 And as a synonym for religious tolerance, which is a condition of harmonious coexistence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
theism – in its most inclusive usage, is the belief in at least one deity. Some narrower
usages specify that the deity believed in be a distinct identifiable entity, thereby being
contrasted with pantheism. Other narrower usages specify that the deity (or deities) be
an active, immanent force in the universe, thus excluding some forms of deism.
Theism can be categorized into more particular types, such as monotheism (in which
case the word God is capitalized) and polytheism.
Ian Sample Guardian 431 85% of Americans believe in God
98% of Nigerians
90% of Indonesians would die for their God
87% of Irish
Todd Murphy frontal & temporal lobes
Pascal Boyer religious beliefs encouraging bonding
VS Ramachandran people with temprol lobe epilepsy reported religious experiences
Violence & sexually charged word did not produce reaction religious icons did
Andrew Newberg A meme (pronounced /mim/, rhyming with "cream") is a postulated unit of cultural ideas,
symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing,
speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. (The word is a blend of "gene" and
the Greek word μιμητισμός (/mɪmetɪsmos/) for "something imitated".) Supporters of the
concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and
respond to selective pressures.
Paul Davies -