Every time one is forced to defend his belief in a debate the arguments will be one of two simple types: The defender will either try and prove the correctness of his own claims or the fallacy in his opponents. In the case of religious arguments this is equally true and yet naturally more complicated. Following from this rule, just about all of the arguments theists bring forward in a debate fall into one of three major categories:
1. Arguments toward the existence of God or the truth of their religious beliefs. These usually include mention of the physical world, trying to show the world was deliberately created. Though I find this to be the most noble way to argue for ones religion, the advocate has his work cut out for him. He must both show the world was created by a supreme being, and then show that it was his specific supreme being that did so. God may have created the world. But which God?
2. Claims about the usefulness of religion. In these cases it is usually argued that religion makes people more moral or that prayer is shown to be good for your health. None of these arguments, of course, bare any relevance to the truth of the religious claims. Faith may be the best thing in the world for the human condition and religion would still not be true.
3. Attacking Atheists. Usually taking the form of trying to debunk evolution, cosmology and geology. Often it is claimed that a lack of belief in a higher power is damaging. How are people supposed to do the right thing, it is asked, when they know they won’t be punished if they don’t? You may have noticed this is also an argument toward the usefulness of religion, though it usually takes a very different tone. Once again, one may disprove evolution and prove Atheists are intrinsically immoral, and yet have taken no step toward arguing for the existence of God.
There are few arguments a religious advocate can make to convince a non-believer, that do not rely on evidence or reason. And yet there are countless arguments that might as well be wrapped in evidence and drenched in logic which would just as easily be dismissed by a theist. The root of belief is not based in the natural world but in personal feeling. And as any man who has ever been in a relationship with a woman can attest, feelings are difficult to dismiss. However, I find that all cases can be made. Be it an argument based in feeling or reason, logic or evidence, a perfectly good answer can be given. One that would make anyone pause and think.
There is one argument that does not fit into any of the three categories I mentioned above. It is Pascals Wager. A pragmatic argument that will be the first to be mentioned as I begin to discuss specific claims in the next installment.
1. Arguments toward the existence of God or the truth of their religious beliefs. These usually include mention of the physical world, trying to show the world was deliberately created. Though I find this to be the most noble way to argue for ones religion, the advocate has his work cut out for him. He must both show the world was created by a supreme being, and then show that it was his specific supreme being that did so. God may have created the world. But which God?
2. Claims about the usefulness of religion. In these cases it is usually argued that religion makes people more moral or that prayer is shown to be good for your health. None of these arguments, of course, bare any relevance to the truth of the religious claims. Faith may be the best thing in the world for the human condition and religion would still not be true.
3. Attacking Atheists. Usually taking the form of trying to debunk evolution, cosmology and geology. Often it is claimed that a lack of belief in a higher power is damaging. How are people supposed to do the right thing, it is asked, when they know they won’t be punished if they don’t? You may have noticed this is also an argument toward the usefulness of religion, though it usually takes a very different tone. Once again, one may disprove evolution and prove Atheists are intrinsically immoral, and yet have taken no step toward arguing for the existence of God.
There are few arguments a religious advocate can make to convince a non-believer, that do not rely on evidence or reason. And yet there are countless arguments that might as well be wrapped in evidence and drenched in logic which would just as easily be dismissed by a theist. The root of belief is not based in the natural world but in personal feeling. And as any man who has ever been in a relationship with a woman can attest, feelings are difficult to dismiss. However, I find that all cases can be made. Be it an argument based in feeling or reason, logic or evidence, a perfectly good answer can be given. One that would make anyone pause and think.
There is one argument that does not fit into any of the three categories I mentioned above. It is Pascals Wager. A pragmatic argument that will be the first to be mentioned as I begin to discuss specific claims in the next installment.
No comments:
Post a Comment