Day 37 – the first two arguments reviewed
The issue is whether the world is explicable solely in terms of itself, i.e. is the world itself ultimate, or is there a being other than the world to which the world is related? –DAVID H. FREEMAN
Before we proceed to my third argument for the existence of God, let's pause and summarize the two we have examined thus far. The first, usually referred to as the Argument from Design, focuses on the universe’s design and infers from it the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The strength of this argument, we have seen, is its simplicity and its appeal to common sense, for hardly anyone has a problem understanding that there must be a creator (for example, a watchmaker) behind an organized structure (in this case, a watch). The only recourse for the atheist is to assert that the universe is either eternal or illusory (and, therefore, in no need of a Creator) or to try to divert attention from the subject at hand by pointing to the presence in the universe of evil, pain, and suffering, all of which call into question God's character, not His existence.
The second defense, what I call the Argument from Fairness, emphasizes the tendency every person has to designate things as fair/unfair and right/wrong. It asserts that our sense of justice and morality must originate from a source above and beyond nature, a supernatural source. It likens the rules of right and wrong to the notes on a sheet of music, giving the “pianist” (humanity) directions on how to behave on the “keyboard” (earth). The atheist responds by saying that there is no such thing as fair/unfair and right/wrong in a universe that is based on pure chance. The problem is that he does not act consistent with his worldview. In fact, when confronted with life's misfortunes, he is quick to call his lot unfair and his cause right. Atheists, therefore, attempt to deny the universe any justice and morality and then try to impose on the universe their own brand of each. The contradiction here between thought and practice is blatantly obvious.
The simplest deductions from the two arguments above would be:
1. The presence of design in the universe demands the existence of a supernatural Designer.
2. The presence of fairness/morality (i.e. a Moral Law) in the universe demands the existence of a supernatural Lawgiver.
These are the conclusions I and a multitude of others, many of them former atheists, have reached on our religious journeys. If you are not yet convinced, perhaps the next argument will compel you to join us.
Daily Quotation
David Hugh Freeman, A Philosophical Study of Religion (Nutley, NJ.: Craig, 1964), 78.
No comments:
Post a Comment