 |
Search this site |
 this page last updated August 7, 2008 All Rights Reserved Text: World Copyright GWBAA Copyright of pictures acknowledged where possible |
Who knows? Who cares? Life's really big questions By © Martin Foreman Word Count: 798 words Publication date: March 19, 2006 There is some gold among the widespread dross promoting religion and atheism on the web. One of the most interesting sites is an ongoing debate on infidels.org. In the blue corner stands Richard Carrier, historian, philosopher and author, defending atheism (which he defines as ‘naturalism’). In the red corner, step forward Tom Wanchick, accountant and Christian apologist. Wanchick maintains that philosophy, history, science and human experience can show that the existence of God is more probable than His nonexistence. Carrier argues that there is no sufficient reason to believe that any phenomenon, including gods and spirits, exists outside the observable universe. The debate is formal and clearly structured with each argument closely analyzed by both proponent and opponent. To give a flavor… Wanchick’s opening statement includes: ”Every substance that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.” To which Carrier replies: “Wanchick doesn't have evidence that every "substance that begins to exist has a cause" in every possible circumstance, … since we only know of causes in time, we have no reason to believe causes can exist outside time.” [italics in original] Meanwhile Carrier’s opening statement maintains: “We should believe any proposition that follows from the findings of more reliable methods over any proposition that follows from the findings of less reliable methods. [Naturalism] is the only worldview that follows from the findings of the most reliable methods. Therefore, we should believe [naturalism].” To which Wanchick responds: “This … begs the question as to why [science, history, and ‘critical investigation’] would be the ‘most reliable methods’ for inquiry.” There’s plenty more where that came from… The discussion is impressive on several levels. It provides a succinct analysis of almost every argument for or against God that has been put forward in the last two thousand years. The participants are evenly matched and equally comfortable with the depth and style of the discussion. And although no punches are pulled, the debate, so far, appears without rancor. Who’s winning? it’s hard to say. I admire Wanchick’s arguments, but I find many of them hollow. Meanwhile his arguing for the probability, rather than proof, of God leaves his thesis stillborn. I find Carrier more persuasive, but it would be surprising if I did not. I suspect that neither believers nor rationalists will be convinced by the opposing arguments and only the undecided will be given real food for thought. That does not mean the debate is worthless. It is, in fact, entertaining, challenging and thought-provoking and any sincere attempt to extend our understanding of the world we live in can only benefit us all. But in every philosophical discussion there quickly comes a point where the issues under examination are so far removed from human reality as to be irrelevant. And that point is quickly reached here. Take the discussion of the origins of the universe. As noted above, Wanchick argues that it could not exist without a creator; Carrier replies that the notion of cause may not be relevant in such circumstances. Who is right? If Wanchick’s premise is correct, then he is; if Carrier’s premise is correct, then he is. But the truth is that we can prove neither one nor the other. The reality is that given the limits of our brains and our senses and the fact that we exist within the phenomenon we are trying to observe, it is likely that the human race in its present form will never fully understand how the universe came into existence. And even if we had that knowledge, so what? While it is fun to investigate and debate Life's Really Big Questions, such as the origin of the universe, neither the Question nor the Answer makes the slightest difference to our happiness or health. Nor do they stop violence in Iraq, reduce our addiction to fossil fuels or feed the starving. The same is true for God. Without scientific proof of his existence, believers have to resort to theological nitpicking. Wanchick is typical, basing one of his arguments on the possibility that God does not have to be morally perfect. Since it makes no difference to me, I feel like responding. Okay, you win. God has copyright on the universe and his contract allows him to kill off unbelievers. Now, can I get back to making dinner? We should have these debates. Let’s televise them like wrestling or the Superbowl. We'll all put our feet up, open the beer, soda and popcorn and spend a couple of hours watching Wanchick and Carrier or whoever slug it out, cheering every time as our side lands a point. Great fun, but like football or the WWF, let’s not fool ourselves that the outcome means anything. As we all know, Life's Really Big Questions are actually the least important.
Custom Search
Email us, pasting the URL into your letter with the comment This account is protected by Spamarrest. You will receive a one-off request to verify your email before it is delivered. |
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist. What is the difference between science and faith? science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything faith is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing Which do you trust? "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God" ??? Check the answer |
|
Supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for The Atheist God. Clicking on advertiser links may allow these companies to gather and use information about your visit to this and other websites to provide you with advertisements about goods and services presumed to be of interest to you. |