Bertrand Russell, a renowned analytic philosopher, argues about the existence of God in his article “Is there a God?” (1952). For most of his life Russell held the opinion that religions are meant to instill distress and helplessness into people’s minds and belief in religion is the major cause for all the deadly conflicts that have occurred in the past. In his article “Is there a God?” Russell discusses how theologians have been presenting their arguments to prove God’s existence and then gives his own reflection on their thoughts. Questioning God’s existence and giving arguments that refute such beliefs could turn into a controversial discussion and many theists, who have blind faith in God’s existence, find such arguments offensive to their beliefs. Taking the sensitive nature of this subject into account, Russell’s article does not display any offensive characteristics and the way he dealt with this issue by taking a neutral stance should be appreciated. Most of his arguments are remarkably convincing, even for theists, and make the reader think about God’s existence rationally. His way of dealing with the issue through rational means is what makes this article suitable for both theists and atheists. However, at some instances, Russell’s bias towards atheism can be observed by pointing out fallacies in his arguments.
Russell starts off by stating how polytheistic views turned into monotheistic views. Throughout his article, Russell considers theologians’ unaided reasoning and then refutes their arguments through rational means. In the end Russell concludes, on the basis of his response to many theological arguments, that he could not find any valid reason to believe in God’s existence.
The first argument, considered by Russ...
... middle of paper ...
...arguments to be understood. He, again, displayed an illogical characteristic of theism by pointing out God’s special attention towards our planet. Also, Russell highlighted the fact that religious people believe blindly in their faith and ignore logical arguments that question their beliefs. Furthermore, he showed how theists ineffectively linked happiness with religion and then refuted their irrational ideology by providing logical reasoning. However, at some instances, Russell’s article showed signs of bias towards theism and ignorance of certain theistic beliefs which made some parts of his arguments somewhat ineffective. To conclude, Russell provided the reader with strong rational arguments that possibly made the reader doubtful about God’s existence or, at least, think about the degree of God’s credibility.
Works Cited
"Is there a God", Bertrand Russell
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski uses clever and unique critiques of militant atheism and its devotion to scientism. Ten in depth chapters shed light on the dogmatic stance of many of today’s popular “new atheists.” According to Berlinski new atheism poses itself as the sole holder of truth through science, “And like any militant church, this one places a familiar demand before all others: Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (10). Berlinski (a secular Jew) approaches ideas with his own mixture of intelligence and thought filled logic; exploring the world as well as important philosophical questions pertaining to “new atheism”. Thus providing the information needed to explore the sides for both and existence and nonexistence of God.
H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article.
H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society is self-sufficient; therefore God is not needed for survival. Therefore how could he exist? The position that I will argue in this paper is the pessimistic idea of protest atheism.
In the text “God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist” Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and William Lane Craig, an atheist and a theist philosopher respectively, debate the existence of God. They present their informed opinions on controversial topics to prove God’s existence, such as arguing the problem of evil, which I will be focusing on. In this paper I will argue that the idea of God is possible, however, given then problem of evil, the idea of a traditional, monotheistic God is not. When I refer to a traditional, mono-theistic God, I mean the characteristics of God depicted in the mono-theistic religions of today, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. This will be shown through exploration of the problem of evil as presented in the text,
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
I have tried not to simply re-write what Russell has said, but rather endeavoured to explain, in an original way, each part of Russell's theses, and in the order that they are found in the article.
Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald. “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God.” Intervarsity Press, 1994. Web. 27 April 2014.
Russell, Bertrand. “Why I Am Not a Christian.” The Writer's Presence . Eds. Donald McQuade and Robert Atwan. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2003.
This paper will try to discuss the three Philosophical Positions on the Existence of God namely, the Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Why do they believe? Why don’t they believe? How do they believe? What made them believe? Who helped them believe? These are just some of the questions that this paper will try to give answers and supply both believers and non-believers the enough indication that whatever their position may be, the responsibility in their hands of whatever reason they have must be valid and intellectual.
In some ways the arguments for the existence of God combat each other, in asking which one is more convincing. There are two types of arguments, there are empirical arguments along with a rationalistic argument. Anselm, Paley, and Aquinas are the three significant leaders in the philosophy world for finding an argument for the existence of God. The question that is being posed is which is more convincing, Anselm’s rationalistic proof, or the empirical arguments?
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience.