The question of
whether or not god exists is still, amazingly, being
asserted in the affirmative, even by some very
intelligent men and women. In other areas of their
thought, their living, they would not normally consider
accepting assertions of a different nature, other than
the assertion that god exists, without being convinced by
evidence. Usually, the god in question is the god
worshipped by adherents of the three monotheistic
religions of Islam, Judaism or Christianity.
As I have argued before, most of us, in living our lives,
have come to realize that, in the case of our own mental
performance, we perform much better in one or more areas
than in some other areas. And so we have the student,
say, that is brilliant at mathematics but performs badly
in another part or parts of his or her intelligence.
Perhaps many minds do not handle well the choice of
believing or not believing religious dogma. Perhaps one
day science will find the answer to the puzzle.
And, indeed, in recent times, the present writer heard on
the radio that some psychologist group believes that that
may be the case. It is not surprising that the writer has
not heard any more on the topic, religion always having
been widely protected from scrutiny. On that matter,
however, things are slowly improving.
Were they asked to provide proof that god exists,
believers could not provide that proof. It is no answer
to demand that the atheist has to prove that god does not
exist. Is one able to prove a negative, in any case?
We know of the indoctrination of children, a process that
occurs in churches, mosques and synagogues. It occurs in
homes and schools, and a part is played by the media.
Truth is so important! Truth is sacrificed. The
indoctrination of religious belief is brainwashing
exemplified. It is a widespread and disastrous practice
throughout most of our world, producing terribly harmful
effects. The world of Islam is probably the leader in
that regard in these times. Will the harm done by
religious belief ever stop?
Children come into this world and are called Christians,
Muslims or whatever, even though, as English philosopher,
John Locke (1632-1704), an empiricist, argued, at birth
the mind is devoid of innate knowledge. He compared a
child’s mind at birth with a blackboard without any
writing on it. (He believed in god, even though many of
his opinions would persuade the reader to believe
otherwise. But, then, note the years in which he lived).
That is, children at birth have no religion, but have it
foisted upon them as already mentioned. In this area, the
Jesuits, especially, have a huge reputation. But even
they, it may well be the case, are surpassed by their
equivalents in the indoctrination of Islamic beliefs.
Bertrand Russell made the point that since the several
major religions disagree in important respects, it is a
matter of simple logic that not more than one of them can
be true. An atheist, he believed that not one of them is
true. He also argued that a statement or opinion may be
regarded as true if it is in accord with fact. Is it a
fact that god exists?
Most believers do not concern themselves, of course, with
opinions that are contrary to their own. Myths and angels
and fairy tales are more in their line.
Belief in a supreme being, one can understand, might well
arise in the early centuries of humankind’s
existence and continue as it has (no doubt there have
always been some unbelievers) because general ignorance
prevailed about the world, the understanding of that
world, and its relationship with the contents of a vast
universe.
Despite their huge intellects, men of the great Greek
civilization, Plato, for example, were ignorant of many
things that even school children have known for a long
time now. Examples are hardly necessary. Plato was, of
course, not an adherent of one of the three monotheistic
religions, but he was religious as is confirmed by his
words on the first page of his Republic:
'I wanted to say a prayer to the goddess.'
There is no valid argument that proves that god exists.
That means that at least those three religions are
without a sound basis for their belief systems.
Charles Darwin and his evolution findings destroyed what
was once, probably, the best argument: the argument from
design. English clergyman and theologian, William Paley,
(1743-1805), early in the 19th century, in his writings,
did much to reinforce the argument for the existence of a
supreme being. His book, View of the
Evidences of Christianity was
extremely influential.
Aristotle’s first cause argument (he, of course, was
not a Christian, and Russell wrote of the great
philosopher’s 50 gods), and others like it, the
contingency argument, for example, is destroyed by the
question, ‘If there has to be a first cause, then
who caused God?’
Finally, (there are others, in varying degrees of
weakness,) the ontological argument, which Bertrand
Russell explained briefly as follows: ‘God, being
the greatest object of thought, cannot lack existence,
else he would not be the greatest,’ Not a convincing
argument, is it?
