Actually, there is a somewhat complex philosophical argument purported by Descarte that follows this "God-shaped hole" line of reasoning. Not so much "everybody thinks there is one" but more, the mere fact that the humans' capability to fathom a perfect creator exists at all -- if there weren't a creator, would we have the ability to wonder?Far be it from me to argue with the man who brought us "I think, therefore I am", but the brief summary of the complex argument looks like baloney. I'm not a philosopher, but I don't see how our capacity to do any particular thing can be seen as evidence of God (or lunch). We're not babel fish. To my mind, considering the possible existence of a creator is pretty pedestrian compared to some our other thoughts, and this "look what we can do" thing sounds a bit too much like "dude, we are so! awesome! that our creator can be none other than the awesomest ever." I reject that argument too, primarily because of what it implies about me, given some of the supremely stupid things I've created. It's not a rigorous refutation, I'll grant.
Um, anyway, where was I? I think that belief in God comes only through faith. There is no logical argument to prove or disprove, and applying logic to the problem is kind of like trying to catch a pound of sailing mercury with tweezers (except more fun, like Pac-Man).
4 comments:
Perhaps that's what makes strong religious belief positive, the fact that faith requires a bold personal commitment that can't be explained. Trying to explain it away trivializes the act of having faith and renders it something less than faith.
Also interesting that the anonymous user, and I gues Descarte, for that matter, contend that the ability to believe in a creator is so complicated when the historical development of religion resulted from the desire to explain something complicated that could not be explained, i.e. a simple answer for a complex question.
"...when the historical development of religion resulted from the desire to explain something complicated..."
One of my current Sociology instructors has already covered with us that religion was created as a result of a need of the upper class to explain why they are more privledged than the rest of society and to institutionalize/perpetuate their status in society.
But what about religious practices that pre-date an organized economy? Paganism isn't really religion, technically, but their "beliefs" show evidence of evolving into actual religion. Of course part of that pagan belief system involves the idea that forces of "good" brought favor to a tribe/nomadic collective/etc and that forces of evil brought problems. This would reasonably lead to the idea that good things happen to those aligned with "good" forces whom we might assume were people of privilege which I guess justifies what your instructor says on some level. Because it is relevant and I am a pain, I will post this to the other, more recent post that also addresses this idea.
All things bright and beautiful...
the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate..
While there is evidence of religious doctrine supporting inequality I always thought the main reason for religious belief, belief in God, was a comfort blanket, as has already been suggested. As society throws up ever more complex relationships and meanings this could account for the current rise in religious belief.
There is also evidence that many people reject religion in moments of rationality and calm and accept it in moments of irrationality or heightened emotion.
In a recent post on my blog - Beards Make Bombs? - I referred to a UK documentary series in which Professor Richard Dawkins, an eminent English evolutionary biologist, suggests that athiests and scientists should do more to challenge fundamentalist religious belief, contesting, with a fair amount of evidence, that this is the source of far too much conflict in this world.
While believing in religion can clearly be harmless in many cases and even provide a source of goodness within communities when promoting positive values it is the status given to its leaders and the demands often made on 'followers' to accept 'faith' or 'irrationality' and even take up 'violence' which is the cause of concern for Dawkins and many others..
Post a Comment