Objectivism 101

Lesson 3: Reason Applied to the God-Concept

Theoretical arguments (part 1)

We will now examine four theoretical arguments commonly advanced to prove that gods exist, and see how they stand up to reason.

The first, and probably most common amongst unsophisticated believers, is the argument from religious experience. Sometimes personal experiences are invoked, of the type "my life was in shambles until I got religion...". Sometimes miracles are invoked. Sometimes it is faith which is brought as proof. Sometimes it is the popularity of god-belief.

These arguments may seem very different, but they all share the same premise : the idea that faith, and not reason, is our means to knowledge. It is not that the facts of the matter are in question. People do turn around their lives after getting religious, do say they witness miracles, do have faith in gods, and the popularity of god-belief is also obvious.

In the case of faith, the answer is obvious. Reason is our best means of knowledge, not faith. Believing something on faith is tantamount to an admission of falsity.

In the case of popularity, we already have a logical fallacy to answer it - the appeal to popularity. That most people believe something does not ensure veracity. Reality is not influenced by one mind, or by a billion minds. However, it does mean that there are widespread motives to believe.

In the case of people turning around their lives, the testimonies presented are based on the feelings of the converted. They never attempt to trace the causes of their rebound, preferring to "give glory to God". However, most people who turn to religion are already in an extremely bad situation, and have no way to go but up. Furthermore, religion (notably thru its social networks) is an additional motivation to get better.

Finally, witnessing miracles is once again a very personal thing. Unless we have independent evidence of miracles, we cannot accept them on mere say-so.

Another commonly used argument is Pascal's Wager. It was first presented by Blaise Pascal, who said :

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.

There are a number of problems with that argument. The most obvious is that the argument is circular. It supports belief by assuming that God could exist. But it is this very assumption that is under question. If there is no possibility that God exists, then there is no such option. Pascal should have tried to justify his bet by referring to something else than the assumption that God exists.

The other main problem is that the Wager is not very rigorous. It only presupposes the existence of the Christian God, and no others. But there are many religions, each with the same level of evidence. Which one do we choose ?

Obviously, we need some kind of decision-making strategy. And if we concentrate on gains and losses, we would want to choose the god with the best heaven (to get in) and the worst hell (to not be thrown in if we lose). This kind of calculation would probably lead us to Islam (after all, who can beat houris ?).

For a longer refutation, including a quote from Pascal, see Atheism : The Case Against God p182-184.

  1  2  3  4  5  6