belief in god reasonable?
...as Aquinas illustrates this when he says “ the harmony of nature calls for an explanation and the only sufficient explanation is that a divine designer planned such harmony. William Paley’s watch analogy portrays this idea very well. Paley asks us to consider a watch lying on the ground. We would be certain that the watch had a maker who formed it for a purpose, who comprehended its construction and designed its use. Any ignorance by us of how the watch was made only increases our opinion of the artist’s skill, but raises no doubts in our minds about the existence of the watchmaker. Nature is also extremely complex, even more so in fact, so objects such as the human eye must have a designer too. There are three main objections to this theory. The first is that this theory is guilty of anthropomorphism (the attribution of a human form or personality to a god.) David Hulme argues this through the character of Philo: “Intelligence of man is only part of the universe. You cannot draw conclusions from parts to a whole.” Philo also says that it is insulting to apply human features to a Supreme Being. However we know of no other mind than human. Admittedly God’s brain may be more similar to another life from on another planet’s brain, but the fact that it is capable of design is undoubtedly similar. The second argument against the teleological theory is the problem of evil. We cannot ignore the fact that our world is not all good. Yes, it does have beautiful scenery, grand designs such as the eye and humans who do great things, but what about the poverty, wars, illness and natural disasters? If a perfect world is one with free will in it, then it must include evil. Evil gives us the chance to help other people, either to avoid suffering or help with the consequences of their suffering. We can perhaps learn with time how to prevent some evils by inventing warning systems for tsunamis and cures for cancer. However, who is to say that new evils will not just keep on developing as Aids has done. The third argument against the teleological theory is Darwin’s theory of evolution. This appears to explain how objects like the eye may evolve through natural selection without the need of a designer. However, there is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. Evolution only introduces a longer time frame into the question of design. Referring back to Paley’s analogy, if we could prove that a watch found on the ground was made in a factory, would that not just suggest an even more talented designer? Thirdly I will discuss the ontological argument. This a priori argument claims that the idea of God not existing is just as absurd as the idea that a four-sided triangle exists. Saint Anselm of Canterbury gave the first clear formulation of the ontological argument, which in summary is: 1) We have a concept of a perfect being, which we call God. 2) God is a being of which none greater can be conceived. 3) However God could be a better thing if he existed in reality, not just as an idea. 4) Therefore God must exist in reality, not just as an idea. One of Anselm’s contemporaries, a monk named Gaunilo argued that it is possible to construct an argument using the same logic as the ontological argument which proves the existence of a perfect island: 1) We have a concept of a perfect island. 2) A perfect island is one of which none greater can be conceived. 3) However the island would be a better thing if it existed in reality and not just as an idea. 4) Therefore, a perfect island must exist in reality, not just as an idea. The response to this is that for any given island there will always be a better one, with more beaches and more palm trees. There is no maximum number of beaches or palm trees an island can have. Therefore there can be no such thing as a perfect island. There can, however, be such thing as a perfect being. God is said to be all knowing, all-powerful and all good. All of these qualities have an upper limit. Finally I will look at the argument for God’s existence based on religious experience. This is the argument from the experience of God to the existence of God. The religious experience argument asserts that it is only possible to experience what exists, and so religious experience demonstrates the existence of God. People experience a God; therefore there must be a God. F.C. Copleston describes religious experience as “ a loving, but unclear awareness of something transcending the self, something transcending all the normal objects of experience, something which cannot be pictured or conceptualized, but of the reality of which doubt is impossible - at least during the experience.” C.D. Broad likens religious experience to having an ear for music. Just as there are differing degrees of musical ability; there are differing degrees of religious experience. Founders of religion and saints often claim to have had direct contact with God, and to have seen and spoken with him. On the other hand, an ordinary religi...