Richard Dawkins created a whole new wave of pro-Religion thinking and writting. His polemic attitude woke up many people who believed in humans not being just bones and blood and made them take the path of expressing their beliefs publickly. And guess what. He struck again! 🙂
Dawkins recently said that “Ignorance is no crime. There are all sorts of things I’m ignorant of, such as baseball, but I don’t regard it as insulting if somebody says I’m ignorant of baseball, it’s a simple fact. I am ignorant of baseball. People who claim to be Creationists are almost always ignorant of evolution. That’s just a statement of fact, not an insult. It’s just a statement. But it sounds like an insult. And I think that accounts for part of what you’ve picked up about my apparent image of being aggressive and offensive. I’m just telling it clearly” (!!!). [1]
Nice huh? Something like the “its ridiculous” argument… [2]
Dawkins claims to know the truth (a notion the mere existence of which is also in question by philosophers) and – moreover – that his opinion upholds the truth. I am noy standing to the “creation” case he refers to above. Dawkins has the same attitude regarding ANYTHING he says and writes about.
Who can actually claim that he is “RIGHT” ?
If you start from the axiomatic thesis that you are right and the others ignorant, then how can you ever doubt your self?
Religion has been preaching moral and ethical values for thousands of years. Does it have the right to claim that what she says is “right”? Well, it could. Who can argue that “do not kill” is wrong? And yet, if we are to say that religion cannot claim that even such simple truths are not to be held “right”, how can we be so arrogantly certain that our limited understanding based on recent scientific theories is “right”? The mere nature of scientific theories is to create models for interpretation. And EVERY theory is doomed to be replaced. Do we really want to leave the right to be “right” to such creations? (I will not go fully into the Religion vs. Science debate here – start from Religion & Science unification and you will see my point clearly)
Intuition and illogical thinking rules our lifes. We do not even know why we are alive. We do not know where we go. And yet some few of us claim to “know” all too many things. Do they have the right to do that? Does a man have the right to hybris? How many things must we discover that we do not know, before we stop claiming that we “know”?
Many thinkers have attempted to prove the existence of an all-powerful being (like the one religions use to call “God”). These attempts are interesting not because they prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt (there are indeed logicians who think they are correct, but there are also others who think otherwise), but because the show that logic can be a tool that leads to God.
Gödel’s ontological argument
One of the greatest logicians of all times, Gödel, has made such an ontological argument which you can find at the book “Types, Tableaus, and Gödel’s God” (1) (3).
The argument can be summarized as follows.
We first assume the following axiom:
Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: “Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)… It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)” (Gödel 1995)
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying “the positive properties form an ultrafilter”):
Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, …, Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 … AND Pn) is positive as well.
Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Finally, we assume:
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in the respective Anselm’s ontological argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the “God-like” property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.
With the above reasoning, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God. Then he went on proving that since a Godlike object exists in ONE possible world, then it necessarily exists in ALL OTHER possible world (since “necessary existence” is one of its positive properties).
Thus, God exists.
The symbolic summarization of the above logical syllogism can be seen in the picture below (2), where Ax refers to Axioms, Th to theorems and Df to definitions used in the syllogism.
Gödel’s ontological proof symbolic notation
There are numerous objections with the above argument, the main of which are summarized in the next section.
Criticism to Gödel’s proof
The logic of the argument is not easily refuted. Of course as in any other argument there are counter-arguments and then arguments which counter those counter-arguments (4).
However the Achilee’s Heel of the argument (as that of any argument per se) is its foundations. The axioms that are innevitably stated when formulating an argument are considered as true based on the opinion of the author of the argument and, thus, can be refuted by others as simply invalid.
Gödel’s proof v2.0
In an attempt to clear things out regarding the proof, I have made a small addition to the debate on the validity of Gödel’s axioms so as to solve the issue once and for all: If some people argue that Gödel had defined “positive” too vaguely or that Gödel’s definition of “positive” is wrong altogether, then why not just accept their objections?!
And by doing that let’s say for a second that “existence” is indeed a “negative” property (and not a positive one as Godel claims in his axioms). Having that as granted, then the problem of God might not be solved but another similarly important is: All people should stop worrying about dying, since “not existing” is something good (i.e. a positive property)!
In that way all great philosophical problems of humans will be solved in a strange way. Philosophy does work in mysterious ways…
The problem of the existence of God is then solved indirectly: Since non-existence is a good thing, the phrase “God does not exist” takes a weirdly positive effect that could puzzle the greatest of atheists…
Instead of a Conclusion…
All in all, one might disagree with that argument. But the critical point here is that some other logicians agree! So even though this argument has not solved the great mystery of them all, it has given us a great lesson: Logic is not a tool for atheism only, it is a tool for theism as well…
References
Types, Tableaus, and Gödel’s God, Springer, Series: Trends in Logic , Vol. 12, Fitting, M., 2002, 196 p., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-1-4020-0604-3.
Gödel’s ontological proof, Wikipedia article, retrieved from here on 2021-02-04.
Graham Oppy, 1996, Godelian ontological arguments, Analysis 56(4), DOI: 10.1093/analys/56.4.226.
Curtis Anthony Anderson, 1990, “Some Emendations of Gödel’s Ontological Proof”, Faith and Philosophy. 7 (3): 291–303. doi:10.5840/faithphil19907325.
Many times people discuss about philosophy. And “religion vs. atheism” issues are one of the favorite topics of all times. This article will present simple things one has to do in order to win the debate in favor of both religion and science!!! Because they are both needed in order to understand the cosmos and each one has its own very specific scope…
Even though reading this article will provide you with some insight on the subject, the philosophical basis behind these rules are more complicated and are analyzed in the religion-related articles in this portal:
These articles are in constant update and will be glad if you read them and provided your own comments.
How to win a Religion vs. Science debate
Most debates can be won if one pays attention to specific simple things. Most of the times a lack of knowledge on very basic stuff is what makes the difference between someone who knows and someone who thinks he knows…
The purpose of this article is to set the proper foundations for a discussion about religion and science and not to answer every possible question an atheist might have concerning religion. For this, please consider reading the “How to debate atheists” article.
So let us begin…
1. Religion? What religion?
Socrates said that every time we talk about something we must first define it! So when one talks about religion he must first define it. Religion can be the “faith in the existence of a white-bearded man sitting in the clouds” or the “faith in the existence of a purpose in life” or the “faith in the existence of a First Cause which is the cause for the cosmos”. Stating your definition (and making your “opponent” state his definition) from the beginning will make it easier to handle the flow of the debate.
Religion for most people is anything BUT the stupid thing Dawkins thinks of and this is something you must point out from the start! Religion is about rules of being good, is about love, it is about faith in other humans et cetera. It is certainly NOT about replacing exact sciences! You never go to church to learn at how many degrees the water boils. Do you? On the other hand Science is for formulating models for predicting the behavior of physical systems. Not for finding out WHY we exist in the cosmos… Right?
2. Science? Which science?
When we talk about science we typically talk about “exact sciences”, e.g. physics, chemistry et cetera. Not all sciences can be used in favor of atheism. Science is the “systematic analysis of a sector” and not just measuring in a lab! There are many humanities sciences which recognize things that scientism-lovers would hate to see under the label “science”. For example Young’s theories about the collective subconscious are a nice example of someone who is a scientist but does not believe that we are just lifeless set of atoms. Atheists will try to convince others that Young is not a scientist and that is when you have to remember that science is not only about exact sciences!
3. Exact science and religion have limits!
A first thing to remember is that science (remember to your debator that we are talking about “exact science” only) has limits! It has a specific scope and more than a few limitations! (see the Limits of Science article in the list above). Exact science only works with things which are measurable. However not all things are! Actually the most important things in life (like love) are not! Exact science works with things that can be replicated in a lab! Not all things can! And so on and so forth… Science is important and helps us understand things! But not everything…
In the same way religion has limits on its own! It is more a philosophical system of ethics with the goal of helping people and not a system of analyzing how the solar system works or how whales travel under water…
4. Respect the scope!
Both religion and science can co-exist if they learn to respect their limits. This is a very good and valid argument and will certainly give you points against a hardcore atheist who claims that everything is science and nothing else is valid! Belief in absolutes is what makes someone dogmatic. Many great scientists can think scientifically and religiously at the same time. Even the Interacademy Panel (IAP – Global network of Science Academies) stated those limitations (see here).
5. Hidden Axioms are dangerous…
Atheist scientism-lovers are too much attached to the “truthness” of science that they cannot see a very simple but very annoying truth: Everything is based on AXIOMS! And BY DEFINITION, an axioms is something we take for granted even though it is not proved it is correct! Everything, from mathematical logic to modern quantum physics, is based on such axioms! You will be surpsised on how many things we take for granted! Mathematical Logic for example is based on the postulate that “a logical proposition is EITHER true or false”. Someone might say that this is evident. But it is not! Dialetheism uses another axiom, that “a logical proposition can be BOTH true and false at the same time”! And based on that axiom it has created a whole new WORKING mathematical logic! Russell tried so hard to set sound foundations for logic and he completely failed. Axioms change whenever we like them to! They are not based on anything (no matter what atheists might say to you – just tell them the definition of an “Axiom” again and again) like many people think! Non-Euclidian geometries were surely also “illogical” for their time… Read the related to “dogmatism” and “axioms” articles in this portal for a more in-depth insight on these matters (you would be surprised to know that “time”, the notion of “change” are also dogmas we believe in).
6. The Logical arguments
If the person you are talking with is too much “stuck” with Logic, then you must tell him that the FOUNDER of Logic, Aristotle, had logical arguments in favor of the existence of a “First Cause” for the cosmos. This argument has its opponents of course. But which argument doesn’t?!?!? EVERY argument has people who do not believe it is logically sound. However REMIND your opponent that Logic is based on axioms. Depending on the axioms you choose, another “logic” appears! Who is more “valid”? Mine? Yours?
For example we see about a dozen parameters of the Universe have a specific value to make it able to sustain life. One “solution” is to consider that by design. Another “solution” would be to consider that pure “luck”! Which one sounds more logical? Please… Atheists will claim that “the universe may exist just… because!” but this is hypocrisy. Science continually searches for the cause of everything. How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching? [See Religion and Science Unification article for more on that] Accept the thinking of the other person if you want him to accept yours!
7. Science does not deal with the “important things”
The most important things in life are your relationship with other people. And modern science is too materialistic and agnostic to see that. It only deals with lifeless things. Why then have it so much in estimation when it does not help you at all with the things that matter? On the other hand good religion practitioners will try and help you with your personal problems, will try and provide you guidance with your problems. Will support you when in need. In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not “science”…
8. The dark side of technology
Many times your friend might argue “but we have cd-players and Internet!” Isn’t that “progress”?!? Yes and No is the answer. The technology we have today helps us in many everyday things but again it does not deal with the IMPORTANT THINGS! I would prefer not to have a GPS and have love! What about you? Human problems are problems of trust, problems of personal communication. Sadly enough they are not solved through e.g. the Internet, as we now know… And what is more, it is important to remember that technology inventions are something different than science! Science is there to provide “models for prediction” not inventions! Most inventors were not even scientists at all! We may not have a complete quantum theory but the CD-player is working! And guess what! When the current theories will change, it will still continue to work no matter what!
Atheists will try to claim that modern Medicine is a great progress of man and that science is the one to thank for! But this is more false than you can imagine! See Why Medicine is NOT a pro-science argument. Religion is much closer to medicine than science!
10. The importance of intuition
Scientism addicts cannot stand any mention to “intuition”. They think everything is based on “logic” (which as we saw above is based on axioms) and evidence. However we have intuition as well. And intuition is much more fundamental than any other thing! It is intuition we rely upon in order to formulate the initial axioms we use in science! Both scientists and religious people use intuition. And we would be hypocrits if we denied its very existence…
11. The Arts argument
People like arts. In a way this is one of the few things which defines us as humans. How can science understand that? How can it understand why you may cry when you hear a loved song or why you could be thrilled when you see a painting? Being human is more about painting and poetry than it is about making microchips…
All in all, people who believe that everything exists for no reason, that random mutation generate new useful information, that consciousness stems from the brain (remember the TV analogy! – read Harmonia Philosophica!), that love is only hormones, that we are just flesh and bones etc, must prove their case. Do not accept anything just because “science says so”. You must listen to the specific arguments. Most of the times people just repeat things they have heard somewhere without knowing any real argument in favor of what they support. Examine everything. Spare no one. Most of the times a simple innocent “Why?” will make the other guy stop being so arrogant and start searching on his own for answers.
Conclusion
Science and religion are two sides of the same coin, both seeking for the truth but from different perspectives. (Read Religion and Science unification for more on this) I could add much more arguments but I trust you will read them in the articles in this portal. For example many think science is good because it helps us gain “control” and I will be glad if you read Control-mania and Scientism… to see why this is wrong…
In a sense all it takes to win such a debate is to remember that you are human and remind your co-debator that even though science is a useful and important tool in searching for some aspects of the cosmos, anything important that makes us humans has nothing to do with science per se… As simple as that.
Continue your reading!
Go to Navigate Harmonia page to see some how to find interesting posts!
Browse the Articles List to see a list of the main articles.
Go here to see the Facebook community of Harmonia Philosophica!
