About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Why do Skeptics doubt the existence of God?

From: Why I Am a Skeptic about Religious Claims

By Paul Kurtz

First, because the skeptical inquirer does not find the traditional concept of God as "transcendent," "omnipotent," "omnipresent," or "omnibeneficent" to be coherent, intelligible, or meaningful. To postulate a transcendent being who is incomprehensible to the human mind (as theologians maintain) does not explain the world that we encounter. How can we say that such an indefinable being exists, if we do not know in what sense that being is said to exist? How are we to understand a God that exists outside space and time and that transcends our capacity to comprehend his essence? Theists have postulated an unknowable "X." But if his content is unfathomable, then he is little more than an empty, speculative abstraction. Thus, the skeptic in religion presents semantic objections to God language, charging that it is unintelligible and lacks any clear referent.A popular argument adduced for the existence of this unknowable entity is that he is the first cause, but we can ask of anyone who postulates this, "What is the cause of this first cause?" To say that he is uncaused only pushes our ignorance back one step. To step outside the physical universe is to assume an answer by a leap of faith.

Nor does the claim that the universe manifests Intelligent Design (ID) explain the facts of conflict, the struggle for survival, and the inescapable tragedy, evil, pain, and suffering that is encountered in the world of sentient beings. Regularities and chaos do not necessarily indicate design. The argument from design is reminiscent of Aristotle's teleological argument that there are purposes or ends in nature. But we can find no evidence for purpose in nature. Even if we were to find what appears to be design in the universe, this does not imply a designer for whose existence there is insufficient evidence. The evolutionary hypothesis provides a more parsimonious explanation of the origins of species. The changes in species through time are better accounted for by chance mutations, differential reproduction, natural selection, and adaptation, rather than by design. Moreover, vestigial features such as the human appendix, tailbone, and male breasts and nipples hardly suggest adequate design; the same is true for vestigial organs in other species. Thus, the doctrine of creation is hardly supported in empirical terms. Another version of the Intelligent Design argument is the so-called fine-tuning argument. Its proponents maintain that there is a unique combination of "physical constants" in the universe that possess the only values capable of sustaining life, especially sentient organic systems. This they attribute to a designer God. But this, too, is inadequate. First because millions of species are extinct; the alleged "fine-tuning" did nothing to ensure their survival. Second, great numbers of human beings have been extinguished by natural causes such as diseases and disasters. The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 that suddenly killed over two hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children was due to a shift in tectonic plates. This hardly indicates fine tuning-after all, this tragedy could have been avoided had a supposed fine tuner troubled to correct defects in the surface strata of the planet. A close variant of the fine-tuning argument is the so-called anthropic principle, which is simply a form of anthropomorphism; that is, it reads into nature the fondest hopes and wishes of believers, which are then imposed upon the universe. But if we are to do this, should we not also attribute the errors and mistakes encountered in nature to the designer?

Related to this, of course, is the classical problem of evil. If an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibeneficent God is responsible for the world as we know it, then how to explain evil? Surely, humans cannot be held responsible for a massive flood or plague, for example; we can explain such calamities only by inferring that God is malevolent, because he knew of, yet permitted, terrible destructive events to occur-or by suggesting that God is impotent to prevent evil. This would also suggest an unintelligent, deficient, or faulty designer.

Part II soon.

8 comments:

Unknown said...

Hi, I found this via a topic search.

My only criticism is that Kurtz doesn't seem to understand that intrinsic finality doesn't require a designer.

The evolutionary changes in species through time can be accounted for by guiding forces other than chance mutations or design. It isn't either/or, in other words, although not too many people seem to even recognize this.

For example; if there is some relevant physical need for humans and carbon based life to arise to satisfy the need, then it will, and that's not an accidental occurrence, but it has nothing to do with god, ID nor chance.

CyberKitten said...

island said: if there is some relevant physical need for humans and carbon based life to arise to satisfy the need, then it will.

But how can life arise to satisfy a need if there is no life to recognise that need in the first place?

What need? How does the need arise itself? What do you mean by a 'need'?

Oh and welcome..... [grin].

Unknown said...

Well, a vacuum repesents something that literaly needs to be filled that doesn't require anything to recognize that the need exists.

I'll let this article give an example.

Thanks for the welcome... :)

Sadie Lou said...

Surely, humans cannot be held responsible for a massive flood or plague, for example; we can explain such calamities only by inferring that God is malevolent, because he knew of, yet permitted, terrible destructive events to occur-or by suggesting that God is impotent to prevent evil. This would also suggest an unintelligent, deficient, or faulty designer.

Humans are not responsible for natural phenoms; God is. Are natural phenoms "evil"? How can something natural be "evil"? Is cancer "evil"? Are deadly snakes "evil"? Skeptics want God to claim responsibility for evil but where do skeptics draw the line between natural occurences and 'controlled by God'?
It's not an unintelligent, deficient or faulty designer--it's man's inability to make concrete destinctions on what they expect from God.
I would venture to ask the author of this particular article to define what is "good" and what is "evil".
Because a natural weather condition might be "evil" if it takes lives and destroys property but it might also be "good" if the author benefits from it somehow, right?
You can't have it two ways and one person can not be the judge of what is good for all or evil for all.

CyberKitten said...

island: I'll check out the link when I get a chance. Thanks.

Sadie Lou- nice to see you back & Happy Birthday.

I didn't actually think much of some of the authors arguments. The calamities he spoke of (the natural disasters) are difficult to label as 'evil' because in my mind an 'evil' act is one in which maximum pain and damage is caused on purpose by someone who has a moral choice not to act in such a way.

I can see the point he's trying to make though. If an earthquake, for example, is a purely natural phenomena - it cannot be evil as it has no intent or choice. If the earthquake was deliberately caused by God in order to inflict maximum damage on innocent people it could then be called an evil act... Though such an attribution to God would be very difficult to prove. Pretty soon you get into the philosophical minefield of intent, what is meant by innocence, whether or not an evil act can produce an increase in goodness and so on - and no doubt debates on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - in other words pointless arguments.

Sadie Lou said...

well, at least we agree on some things.
Thanks for the warm welcome and the birthday wishes.

Unknown said...

Then there's teleology, which is a perfectly valid scientific explanation depending on what physics is actually in effect.

In this case, moral relativism is a manifestion of a higher purpose... ;)

CyberKitten said...

uberchap said: You either believe in God or you don't. Argument will not change belief either way. It is a matter of faith and personal experience.

I've certainly found this to be true. People who have faith & people who don't seem (at least in my experience) to be talking in completely different languages - even when they use the same words. I certainly don't think that you can easily transit from one PoV to the other through argument alone.