Sorry about the late post on chp 5

In this chapter the author sets out to not prove man was created by god, but to merely disprove the notion that the universe came into existence from nothing. He did a very good job explaining his facts. I sat for around an hour throwing ideas back and forth in my head trying to grasp this idea and put it into play in regards to the ideas set forth in the bible.

            When I try to relate what I read to what I know and understand. I could not help but think of the question; what came first the chicken or the egg? This relates to the idea of infinity because the argument could go on forever either way. However, at some point one had to exist or be “created” first. This is the basic argument of the chapter; that the universe at some point had to be created because something cannot merely form from nothing. The universes could not have always existed because then you could not add or take from it.

            This is directly tied to the idea of where and when did we come into existence. I came to the conclusion that the point of this chapter doesn’t impede on the ideas of evolution but instead on only the existence of the universe. This chapter does not relate the idea of creation to the earth or even humans.  When I finally came to grips with this idea I only had more questions. Does this mean that the creation in his image only applies to the universe? With the idea that the universe was created and ever expanding, or the oscillating theory; are we only a mere step in the process?

            Did this mean that god created a scenario that would play out and have purpose? This mirrors or impart is connected to the teleological argument. In short the universe had to have a creator. This once again raises the question did god only create the universe? Which would mean we are merely a byproduct, or was his plan for us to be created by the creation of the universe.

            This like all other discussions we have tended to answer one question but in turn open up more. The problem with this is that we are left with more questions than answers and are back to square one. Granted if what the author has proved that the universe was created by a personal being, we are still left with the questions I have stated before. I hope that the ideas I have presented about our beginnings are not upsetting to anyone’s beliefs but I think it is a reasonable question. 

Humanity's Gain from Unbelief

Religion is always changing. Over time, religion is modified and practiced by people and something new in religion is always discovered. Bradlaugh says that new discovery in religion destroys part of the belief and that the religion will become outgrown and ultimatily rejected. Bradlaugh also believes that this will lead to man's happiness and well-being.
Bradlaugh asks the question, 'What is Christianity?' and says that is is gathered from the Old and New Testaments. Sometimes, the Old Testament has been called barbaric and wants it removed from Christianity.
Progress of the world are due to Christianity and many servents of humanity have been Christians. Christianity also had a part in stopping slavery.
Bradlaugh claims that 'the teaching of Christ' has been changing over the years and that "the conscience of the Christian is in quantity and quality made fitter for human progress by the ever-increasing additions of knowledge of these later and more heretical days." Religion changes so that it is more adapt to humanity.

God is not Great?

Bertrand Russell joins a veritable 'tradition' of philosophers, scientists, and others who consistently make the claim that if we were to way the benefits of religion and religious belief on a scale, it would tip very heavily in the negative direction.  This tradition, which is not new (he mentions Lucretius, a Roman philosopher and there are those in both Eastern and Western traditions who railed against religious 'superstition') has taken center stage in contemporary debates between religious apologists and the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hutchens, Sam Harris, and Bill Mahr, just to name a few.

Take for instance Christopher Hutchens and his book God is not Great.  In his book, Hutchens argues that "There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking".

Like Hutchens, Russell particularly attacks the relationship between religious belief and sexual morality/repression.  Unlike Hutchens, Russell focuses considerable time and space analyzing the emotional undertones of religious belief and religious faith, something that we will discuss in greater detail with Sartre and Braudlaugh.  Is Russell right that religion has a negative impact on our emotional lives and on our views of sexuality?

What about Russell's claim, which he shares with Lucretius, that religion is like a disease?  Why does he compare it to a disease?  Is he right?  What criteria do you think Russell is using to evaluate religion?

Obligation in a God and Godless World

This has been posted on behalf of Zeke Stevenson.

In Mavrodes article, “Religion and the Queerness of Morality,” he uses the theory of Bertrand Russell that describes a world that is Godless. In which men occur as accidental atomic collections and exist only until the point of death as a basis for claiming that secular morality is an inadequate method for providing reasons for people to be moral.  He calls this world the Russellian world where there are Russellian benefits such as; a long and content life that is filled with sexual pleasure and a good reputation amongst peers. However these “Russellian” benefits exist outside the Russellian world. At the same time this world created by Russell does not have spiritual benefits, aka heaven and the life after death theory.  Therefore in this world that Russellian created the only benefits and losses are of those that Russell also created.  Mavrodes then identifies that Russell makes it quite clear that some moral obligations are consistent with the real world and would end with a bad moral result, such as paying off a debt. Further Mavrodes states that since there is no afterlife and no higher judgment that there is no real incentive to be moral. Mavrodes brings up several arguments that come across him. He states that one is, that it would be in everyone’s best interest for everybody, including oneself, to be moral. However in a Russellian world it is only the best interest to be moral if everyone else is also being genuinely moral. It would be ideal if everyone in the world was to act morally, however that is not, and will never be the case. And although your efforts of being moral may be great, you cannot control the actions of others through the hardest of efforts.

Many argue that secular morality does not work, and that with it there cannot be real morals with no God (higher judgment) to “enforce” these laws. The say that secular morality is based on negative motivation and negative motivation will not get people to follow rules. Mavrodes argues that religious morality is also based on negative motivation, a different light is just shined down in it, giving it a different, brighter glow.  Mavrodes argues that if secular morality runs on negative motivation so does religious morality. In the sense that Christians, or people of religious morality follow there morals in fear that they will be condemned by their God, that they will be cast into hell for eternity, they fear that the will be damned, or forced into undesirable conditions of purgatory before making the cut into heaven.  Mavrodes point is that it could be argued that secular ethics are replacing religious ethics in most people’s everyday life. Although many people may say that their ethical and moral behaviors stem from a religious background, Mavrodes states that his is not the case, and those principles stem from another place entirely. Most commonly from egoism, whereas the decisions made by an individual are made because they will provide results that are best for the individual making the decisions… 

"The Five Ways" - Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas is trying to prove the existence of God in five ways. In Robinson's book, it talks about the First and Third articles. The First Article considers the question of whether God's existence is self-evident, meaning that the Five Ways are not necessary. The Third Article is the question of whether God exists, using the Five Ways as proof.
In the First Article, Aquinas says that “God exists” is self-evident in itself, but not to us, and thus requires demonstration and says that the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in everyone.
In the Third Article, Aquinas's Five Ways to prove God's existence:
1. The Way of Motion: In the world, something things are in motion.
2. The Way of Causation: The nature of efficient cause.
3. The Way of Contingency: Possibility and necessity
4. The Way of Goodness: The gradation to be found in things.
5. The Way of Design: The governance of the world.

In the recommedned reading, "Cosmological Argument" - Brian Davies, the Cosmological Argument is saying that the existence of the universe is strong evidence for the existence that there is a God who created it.

Teleological Argument

The teleological argument compares how things were made in nature to the things built by man. Since the things built by man require a creator, then the things in nature must require a creator as well. Paley gives an example of the teleological argument through the watch example. The example is of him walking and stumbling across a stone, and then being asked how the stone came to be there. Paley said, “I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever...” Paley then goes on to say that if he had found a watch on the ground and asked how the watch happened to be in that place? Paley says that he would not have to think about it how it got there but that the “watch might have always been there.” Now you might question why the answers are different for the stone and watch. Paley’s idea as I understand it is that the watch has a purpose-it is made from small parts and therefor the creator or designer made the watch to serve a purpose. Whereas the stone is not made from smaller parts and therefore does not have a designer or creator.

The main question Paley is asking is whether the object was designed or not? He uses contrivance and contriver as proof of design, but no designer. Paley says there must be a designer for the universe based on the watch example and how things are made with a purpose. The strength for this argument is that most can agree with this idea. It is believed in religion that we are made in God’s image so for us to have a purpose in life makes sense. It also makes sense that God created the things in nature to have a purpose because otherwise, why would God put useless things on this earth. Are there weaknesses to this idea? It depends on the person because that person would either believe there is a creator or there is no creator. If there is no creator, then where did the things in nature come from?

In recommended reading, Davies states two arguments about the divine design. The first says the universe displays design in the sense of purpose. The second argument is that it (being the universe) displays design in the sense of regularity. Paley’s example of finding the stone and watch is the example of the universe displaying design as a purpose. Davies goes on to suggest that Paley says “the universe resembles a watch and must therefore be accounted for in terms of intelligent and purposive agency.” I agree with Paley’s idea that we are created with a purpose as the watch, was designed for a purpose to tell time.

 Another idea about the design argument. The article explains that the teleological argument is wrong and that we were designed from science such as through natural selection. What do you think about article, are we contraptions? I believe this article makes sense in some ways, but I believe there is a creator who designed the universe.

Miracles

I would like to start off with Hume’s perspective on Miracles.  Hume starts off by defining what a miracle is; he says that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. This means that events such as people dying and fires are found agreeable to nature, and in order for them to be a miracle a violation is required to prevent them and make them not agreeable to nature, Hume uses the example of a dead man coming back to life. The whole second paragraph Hume explains his view more strongly he says that the probability that a person’s testimony of a miracle being wrong outweighs the probability of that person testimony of a miracle being right.

 Swinburne on the other hand I feel believes that miracles are more likely to happen than Hume does.  Swinburne talks about what he thinks miracles would be, and they are things; such as Levitations, Resurrection from the dead in full health of a man whose heart has not been beating for twenty four hours, water turning into wine without the assistance of chemicals, and then a man getting better from polio in a minute. In Swinburne’s piece he also talks about Hume’s perspective. He starts off with a scenario, if there were two hundred people to have witnessed the same event which was a non-repeatable event, and that these people would be willing to prove that the event did not occur if there were grounds to do so. He next asks the question does the combined evidence prove that the event in fact did happen. Swinburne tells us that Hume’s answer would be no, which would be getting to the point that Hume’s standards of evidence are too high.

 I believe that Swinburne is trying to show us that he himself believes more in miracles than Hume does. It seems to me that Hume doses not believe in miracles at all. Swinburne examples of miraculous events are pretty close to what the Bible says a miracle is. To me this also shows that Swinburne is more of a believer.