Before submitting this entry, I had begun by writing a couple of paragraphs on the problem of evil and the so-called Euthyphro's dilemma (based on a dialogue by Plato), but then regarded them as both archaic and somewhat obsolete compared to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkin's arguments.
There exists in my opinion the most compelling and eloquent arguments yet: those of Richard Dawkins. He brings to surface qualities which a God, if one exists, might value. These include an analysis and eventual rejection of Pascal's wager, which states that one won't lose anything by either believing or not believing. If one believes, says Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), in God and it turns out that there is a God then one can only gain something, namely entrance into heaven. If there isn't a God then there is nothing to lose. If, however, one doesn't believe and it turns out that there is a God then one can only suffer eternal damnation. If there is no God and one doesn't believe then, again, there is no problem. This is of no use, says Dawkins, because "why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him?" (The God Delusion, 2006, p. 104). Dawkins goes on to talk about Bertrand Russell and how he would reply upon encountering a God after death. Russell said that he would point out the absence of evidence in God's favor. Commenting on Russell's case, Dawkins says, "Mightn't God respect Russell for his courageous scepticism (let alone for the courageous pacifism that landed him in prison in the First World War) far more than he would respect Pascal for his cowardly bet-heding?" (p. 104).
Dawkin's arguments, among many other elaborate and well-thought-out ones in his book, also include the notion of a burden of proof. Who does it rest with? Unequivocally, with the believer. We don't feel an obligation, argues Dawkins, to disprove any of the millions of "far-fetched" deities, such as Zeus, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apollo, a celestial teapot, Amon, Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf. "I just go one god further" (p. 53).
-Pablo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
you forgot the flyng tampon, thats a good deity rigt there!
n___n
Yeah - there seems to be a move to shift the burden of proof away from the believer: I think this is usually very poor arguing. If you are going to go around postulating omnipotent beings, at least have hte good grace to accpet that people might want some reason to agree with you!
Nice post!
d.
Post a Comment