I attended a debate on whether God exists last Tuesday at Ryerson. My friend helped organized it. You might have seen a bunch of posters around school advertising the event. Dr. Kirk, a professor at Guelph, argued for the existence of God and Dr. Brown, a professor of philosophy at UT, argued against it.
Dr. Kirk brought up the 'first mover' argument. Namely, given that the universe had a beginning, a timeless, all-powerful entity must have existed to set it in motion. He also brought up the principle of Occam's Razor. That is: given two equally plausible theories, choose the simplest one. Dr. Brown on the other hand challenged that the existence of evil is incompatible with an all-loving God. He said given God is all-loving and all-powerful, He surely would be capable and would want to teach us moral values free of pain.
At the end of debate, there was a Q&A session with audience members. My friend asked Dr. Kirk, if what he said about there being a moral, all-loving God that created the universe, couldn't it be equally possible an evil God was responsible? His reply was that you must have faith. Of course, this question could not have had any other answer. Faith is the belief in something lacking in evidence whereas proof uses evidence to substantiate a case. The two are opposites of each other. There's no way around it. A debate on faith is over before it even started - end game, check mate, finito... whatever you want to call it.
In line with that thought, I asked both of them how a debate on God can exist if we cannot prove absolute truth exists. I pointed out that there is evidence things may not necessary have to be true or false. One example is fuzzy logic where answers can be partially true. I also mentioned Plato's allegory of the cave. It describes a person raised in a cave. Furthermore, this person is tied to a chair facing the back where all he sees are shadows casted on the wall created by puppets held in front of a fire behind him. Now, consider what happens if this person managed to escape from their bonds. They would realize that shadows are merely caused by 3-dimensional objects held in front of light from a fire. Hence, a greater truth is obtained and the person's previous reality is rocked. Now, imagine they stepped outside the cave. They would see trees, animals and light emanating from the sun. In this context, they would realize they have been living in a cave their whole life. Again, a greater truth is obtained.
The debate reaffirmed my belief that under the masquerade of science-based claims that God do or do not exist, it is still a debate between idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I totally agree haha .. well for most parts. In the end it's all about what we choose to beleive in and there's not denying the fact that we all beleive in something, weather it be in ourselfs or some god or even aliens. In beleiving in something we tap into in things that makes us think a certain way in order to accomplish more or to get thru tough times.
maybe i don't make sense.. or maybe i'm crazy..
it doesn't matter.. life's bitch.. just gotta deal with it.
If there are no absolutes then there is no truth. If there is no truth, then can the claim, "There are no absolutes," be true? No absolutes also meas no logic and the 'law of non contradiction' would not apply. In others words, something can be true AND false at the same time in the same context, which is of course absurd, especially when using mathematical logic.
Even the statement, "There are no absolutes" is a self contradicting statement. I have never in my life met a person who have lived their life as though that statement were true. Everyone lives as though absolutes exists. It's a good thing too becuase we don't want gravity to be turned off all of the sudden and for us to be hurled into deep space.
A person has the freedom to believe whatever they choose. I can respect that. However, not all beliefs are correct. Allow me to demonstrate. I believe that drinking and driving is good, that raping women is acceptable, and that Adolf Hitler is a good example to follow.
And to whom am I responding??
You make some very good points. Unfortunately, you seem to be arguing against something I never said. I didn't say there is no absolute truth. I said it cannot be proven. To proclaim that there is no absolute truth is equally presumptuous as saying God exists ;)
You said, "everyone lives as though absolutes exist." Yes, we make certain assumptions to make our life coherent. Or else as you said, we would be afraid of going outside for fear of gravity being suddenly missing. However, there's a difference between people that believe gravity will always exists and people that leave a bit of doubt, however small.
"...not all beliefs are correct."
Says who? You gave me a list of things you consider bad but you have yet to proven it's bad. You seem to be trying to demonstrate because I along with most other people think it's bad, then in fact it's bad. However, general consensus does not equate to truth. So, is it bad if you steal medicine if you can't afford it? Is it bad if you refuse to donate a kidney to save a stranger? It's not so black and white anymore eh?
Brian makes an excellent point that general consensus does not equate 'truth'. I agree.
If a morally perfect being does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes. No one can say murder is wrong. No one can say stealing is wrong. Why? Because without something perfect to measure ourselves against, there is no absolute law. Words like 'good' and 'evil' no longer has significant meaning because it is relative to each person, each society, or nation. To some people, raping women is 'good' and who are we to put them in jail? Murder is acceptable to some people in their reality so who are we to punish them? What’s wrong with robbing a bank so that you can buy a big house? Who’s to say it’s wrong? By who's authority?
However, if a morally perfect being does exists, then we can know what is 'right' and 'wrong' because there is something to measures ourselves against.
Does a perfectly moral being exist? The answer can only be a 'yes' or 'no'. One of them is the correct answer. It’s ironic that such a controversial question has such a simply answer, isn't it. Unfortunately, there is only one way to give 100% proof of the answer, and that is to die. In the mean time, we will have to settle for 95% confidence, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
There are many things in this world we humans have no answers for. There are many grey areas, especially concerning moral issues. If God really exists, we must let a perfectly moral God be the ultimate judge, especially on blurry issues, not imperfect humans.
Post a Comment