This is a paper I wrote for my 12th grade Bible class. It's only the rough draft version, so know ahead of time that some sections don't flow too well yet. Also, you'll notice my seriousness fluctuate throughout the paper; that's just me hating the assignment.
Edit: I tried to make the essay more readable my spacing things out. I'm not sure how much it will help.
Note: I apologize ahead of time for the lack of spacing. When I transferred this document over from Word the double spacing was compressed. Anyone know how to put this into double spacing? -------------------------------------------------
An Inquisition of the Divine: Does God Exist?
The young man mourns over the grave of his mother. As he is doing this, the young man coughs up mucus incessantly-his lungs ridden with a debilitating case of cystic fibrosis- precipitating a staggering of the words he spouts out in a sloppy, quivering emotional plea to God. The young man's friend kneels at his side and tells him that the cemetery is soon closing and that they must leave. The two men step into the back of a yellow taxi, the doors checkered with an alternating white-and-black. As the taxi turns out of the cemetery, a large, speeding truck collides with the driver's side of the taxi, killing the taxi driver and mortally wounding the young man's friend. Blood pours onto the young man's hands as he tries to aid his friend, but within the better half of a minute his friend has already passed. The young man screams in heartache at the sight of his friend's lifeless body, entertaining ideas of hatred towards God. The young man opens the glove box of the taxi, revealing a loaded revolver. His fingers moist with crimson blood, the young man hesitantly angles the revolver at his skull. And in an instant, the young man's sorrow is over.
Naturally, one is saddened after hearing this story. Why would God let such dire circumstances befall a man who clearly pays homage to Him; who prays for aid; who is an uncritically faithful believer? For millennia this question has plagued the minds of humans the world over, and despite the vast growth mankind has witnessed over the ages, Christians still look into the distance wondering, "Why God? Why me? What did I do?"
Obviously, this predicament leads one to question the will and willpower of an Omnipotent and Benevolent being. Nearly four centuries before Christ's birth, the Greek philosopher Epicurus posed a similar ontology: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Then why call him God?" Perhaps Epicurus was before his time, but he was definitely foreshadowing the modern day divine dilemma. Further, if one believes that God is both willing and able to soothe mankind's suffering, then what the hell is God doing? Does He laugh at creation? Is mankind merely a novelty hatched simply to amuse God? All of these questions are valid in themselves, their theological value is worthwhile, yet even further down the rabbit hole, one must ask, "Does God exist?" Quite saliently this question has pervaded the minds of all human beings who have not yet exiled their reason in trade for blind faith; and it has forced those with a mind of vigilance to consider the criticism of God's detractors, either leading to a staunch agnosticism, or perhaps to the two extremities: devout theism or fearless atheism. Yet no matter the words of others, one must independently (and objectively) question God's existence, because after all, belief or unbelief in God carries large, undeniable (and even eternal) consequences.
The Reality of Surreality
"We are so accustomed to the apparently rational nature of our world that we can scarcely imagine anything happening that cannot be explained by common sense"
--Carl Jung
The world over, thousands of individuals claim God is real based purely on ideas derived a priori. Although it is true that something that what is concluded without evidence can be discarded with evidence, it is essential that one observes the potential reality of this seemingly surreal idea. Christian aficiando C.S. Lewis has written extensively on the subjects of religion and God. In his book, The Problem of Pain, Lewis faces a dilemma coincidental to to the one posed above: "If God is good and all-powerful, why does he allow his creatures to suffer pain?" Lewis says that before even posing the question of God's existence, one must acknowledge the undeniable anomaly of history: that mankind has attributed the work of creation to a benevolent God despite the evil corollary of man's existence-- suffering. Lewis posits that "the spectacle of the universe as revealed by experience can never have been the ground of religion: it must always have been something in spite of which religion, acquired from a different source, was held." It can thusly be stated that 'that which has been in spite of religion' is God.
Many skeptics would contend that man has simply applied his own anthropomorphic tendencies once again: mankind simply confabulated God. But, in synchronization with Lewis, it seems illogical that the early predecessors of modern day mankind would consciously entertain false ideas, especially if one were to consider the ample supply of evil present in this universe. Although Lewis' reasoning is not conclusive, he is surely onto something.
North of the Galapagos
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin
Ever since Darwin's publishing of On the Origin of Species 1859, fundamentalist Christians worldwide have found themselves in the heated war of science versus religion. Yet despite the illusion that the evidence is stacked in favor of evolution, the Christian consensus is that intelligent design provides a compelling case for God's existence. Many Christian scientists, such as Michael Behe, claim that there are living structures that are irreducibly complex, which, according to Darwin himself, undermines the entire theory of evolution. Perhaps the most widely known example of irreducible complexity is the human eye. Due to its physiological structure, take away any one part of the eye and it loses its function. Clearly the eye must have been designed by God, or perhaps modern science is too immature for the task of explaining the eye's complexity. No matter what one may conclude, it is indubitable that the eye's irreducible complexity violates (thereby providing solid contradictory evidence) the fundamental mechanism of evolution: natural selection. Natural selection operates by weeding out organisms who carry deleterious traits or disadvantageous structures, thereby leaving only the more evolved, advanced organisms to reproduce. It follows that logically that the human eye would have been weeded out by natural selection, since at any one of its earlier stages the structure would have been inoperable.
An even more constraining fabric of the evidence leaning towards God's existence is the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion is the "geologically sudden appearance in the fossil record of the ancestors of familiar animals, starting about 542 million years ago (Mya)." This large gap in the fossil record indicates a catastrophic event of an unprecedented nature: this blatantly defies the theory of natural selection, thereby implying that something outside of nature's power may have intervened. But perhaps mankind is simply not far enough in its own evolution to explain the seemingly God-proving evidence. As will be seen presently, this universe is replete with an equivalent amount of evidence that shades the improbability of God.
Disproving the Indemonstrable
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man – living in the sky – who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time...But he loves you!"
--George Carlin
The world over, individuals who consider themselves to be rational thinkers give a harsh contention to the a priori case for God's existence. The medieval philosopher Anselm of Canterbury was the first known intellectual to postulate the Ontological argument for God's existence- an a priori case for proving God's existence. According to Anselm, God exists simply because we can imagine him. Conversely, one can imagine that God does not exist, thereby defeating any circular reasoning that may be utilized as "evidence" for God's existence.
Another prominent argument based purely on reason is that of the Cosmological argument: that to all things there is a beginning; to all effects a cause; that the universe was created by a First Mover. A premiere reaction to this argument may precipitate a believing ego, yet a blunt paradox manifests itself in the presence of the Cosmological argument: if God created the universe, then who created God? And who created the creator of God? And who created the creator of the creator of God? And so on and so on, ad infinitum. The Cosmological argument grants little credence to God's existence; if anything, it elucidates the exquisite ignorance one must employ in order to conclude on God's existence a priori. "But what about intelligent design? Doesn't it prove that mankind was created by God?" It does if intelligent design is, in fact, how this universe was founded, but if one pursues this case even further with the utmost sense of honest, fearless inquiry one will find that the evidence may indeed be leaning towards an evolved world.
Talking Monkeys
"The world becomes full of organisms that have what it takes to become ancestors. That, in a sentence, is Darwinism."
--Richard Dawkins
The modern scientific community, dubbed the secular clergy by high school science teacher Paul Laywell, concedes that the theory of evolution is imperfect, yet in spite of its depravities the evidence supporting evolution trumps that of intelligent design. Evolution admits that the universe is imperfect; it is replete with flaws and grotesque mutations. Yet contrary to this, intelligent design claims that the universe is perfect, a caricature of God's flawlessness and awe-inspiring abilities. A simple glance at the thousands of people born with morbid disabilities and unpleasant diseases easily dwarfs the audacity of such a claim. Given even the seemingly impenetrable theory of irreducible complexity one may discard any past subscription to intelligent design due to the contrary evidence. For example, biologists such as Richard Dawkins have provided evidence which clearly demonstrates the evolution of creationism's most prolific constituents of its repertoire: the eye and the flagellar motor. (A scientific explanation articulating the evolution of these two structures would be purely exhaustive. It is beyond the scope of this paper to digress into a complex exegesis of evolutionary biology, so these statements will be left at assertion.) Furthermore, creationism lacks a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe. Science, however, has suggested a theory based upon substantial evidence: the Big Bang theory. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe spontaneously birthed out of a combustion of highly dense, highly heated singularity of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory, in comparison the God hypothesis, at least presents a minimal amount of evidence (some evidence at all) to back up its claims. One can perceive with the utmost clarity that an unbiased investigation of the origins of the universe and mankind will find that the theories proposed by the scientific community are definitely more believable, albeit provisional, than those posed by creationism.
Does God Exist or Not Exist: That is the Question
"A belief is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person's life"
--Sam Harris
Despite the towering mounds of evidence supporting either answer to the question of God's existence, it is still difficult to arrive at a conclusive end. As has been demonstrated above, one may deliberate, questioning the probability of God's existence or nonexistence; one can peruse through countless research articles providing a massive store of evidence for evolution; one can sift through hundreds of pages of scripture, only to find oneself still looking off into the distance, wondering, "God, are you really out there?" So, in spite of mankind's perpetual quest for God, the answer to the question of God's existence still remains. Inevitably, mankind must base its beliefs (or lack of) upon its subjective experiences; any other method of inquiry results in an inexorable antinomy. One must know, though, that beliefs imply behavior, so, it is wise to consider beliefs with the utmost scrupulousness. At the end of man's quest, though, one must look within for the answers. As was once said by Andre Malraux, "What is man? A miserable little pile of secrets."
Edited by vigilant_mind (04/12/07 07:42 PM)
|