An essay by Kenan Malik and shared by Dr. S. Ehtisham.
There are three kinds of arguments that an atheist can make in defence of the insistence that no God exists. First, he or she can argue against the necessity for God. That is, an argument against the claim that God is necessary to explain both the material reality of the world and the values by which we live. Second, he or she can argue against the possibility of God, against the idea that a being such as God is either logically or materially possible. And third, an atheist can argue against the consequences of belief in God. This is the claim that religious belief has pernicious social, political or moral consequences and that the world would be better off without such belief.
Historically, much of the discussion of God has been about the possibility of God. Christian apologetics grew out of the attempt rationally to defend the possibility of God’s existence, while atheists wanted to show that the idea of God made no rational sense. Much of the contemporary debate is about the consequences of religious belief. The so-called New Atheists, in particular, have been scathing in their attack on what they see as the wicked and malevolent social consequences of faith – from the harassment of gays to mass suicide bombings. I, too, am sceptical of the possibilities of God. And, while I do not think, as many do, that faith is, in and of itself, pernicious, I do believe that there are often social and moral problems that arise from religious belief. What I want to concentrate on today, however, is on the first type of argument. And that is because for me, as it is for many other atheists, this is the primary motivation for my atheism – I simply do not see the necessity for God.
There are three kinds of reasons often given for the necessity of God. First, there is the claim that God is necessary to explain Creation and the maintenance of the cosmos. Second, that God is a necessary source of moral values; that without God we would fall into the abyss of moral nihilism. And third, that without belief in God, there can be no purpose or meaning to life. Let us look at each of these claims in turn.
The Christian idea that God is necessary for the creation and maintenance of the universe can be traced back to pre-Christian, pagan philosophy, to the Greek tradition, and in particular to Aristotle. Aristotle argued for the existence of a First Cause or Uncaused Cause to the universe. The universe, Aristotle argued, is forever in a state of flux. Behind every change must lie a cause, and indeed a chain of causes, that brings about that change. But such a chain of causes cannot stretch out for ever because it is impossible to have an infinite regress of causes. The first link in the chain, as it were, was what Aristotle called he Unmoved Mover, the prime cause of all change in the cosmos, but which itself was not caused by anything. This Unmoved Mover Aristotle called ‘god’, not as an entity to be worshiped, but as ‘a supreme and eternal living being’, the most powerful, intelligent and beneficent creative force in the cosmos.
This argument, which came into the Christian tradition via the Kalam school of Muslim philosophy, lies at heart of the first three of Thomas Aquinas’ famous ‘Five Ways’ of proving the existence of God. It is often called the cosmological argument, though strictly speaking this refers only to Aquinas’ third proof, which was so labelled by Kant. The cosmological argument is of this general form:
1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2 The universe began to exist
3 Therefore it has a cause
There are many variations of this general argument. For instance, what is often called the contingency argument, states that
1 Whatever exists must have a cause
2 The universe exists
3 Therefore the universe must have a cause
Let me ask you a question for the fun of it! Biology tells us that reproductive system creates a living independent entity, sperm. The question is whether the human mind has a part in it. Could this analogy be applied to the creation?
The question asked by Mr. Nathan is not clear to me, could he or some one else please elaborate?
“Human mind has a part in “it”…in what?
Is he asking if the independent living entity (created by reproductive system) evolves its mind itself? Is it implied that since mind is immaterial (separate from brain) hence reproductive system alone is not enough to create a new living being? If so, all I have to say is that mind is nothing other than thoughts emerging from brain. Brain dies, the mind is dead or doesn’t exist anymore….thoughts can live on having been conveyed to others.
What analogy is being considered applied to the creation?
Sorry, I did not get the question at all.
Babar
The main topic is Who Needs God, but here the question posed by Mr. Nathan, though not related to the original article, still needs to be answered or discussed. Man, as we see him now, is not only amazingly different from the animals and other creation, but also is a distinct species. Animals are programmed by nature and cannot evolve further. Animals reproduce instinctively guided by the nature according to the seasons. They live and operate within a framework of an invisible code or a kind of software from which they are unable to escape. Humans, have no season, no phenomenal or environmental programming to mate and reproduce. They reproduce thoughtfully. They love to have a family. Their aim is to have children and they plan to reproduce and keep within their protection their spouses and offspring.
Human sperm that gives birth to a new life—though one out of thousands succeeds to the point of fertilization—is brain-child of human mind. Man is very possessive of his genes carried by his sperm and that is why he keeps his wife well protected within his walls. Man’s sperm is a human being’s identity. I don’t think it is biologically independent, as it cannot become any other being except a human being. However, the mind which is encoded in the sperm is independent. The sperm carries all the potentialities of human being to grow and evolve physically as a man or a woman, but intellectually as an independent individual, who educates herself/himself for life, and embarks on a personal history of which nobody can say how and when it will end. That is why we find each person intellectually different from each other.
Mirza Ashraf
First I didn’t get the question asked by Nathan, and now I don’t get the biology and evolution presented by Mirza Sahib. What I do get is that evolution must be very complex and hard for religiously inclined people and not as simple an idea as I found it to be.
“Sperm a brain-child of human mind” : I can not understand this statement and will be much obliged if explained to me. Not “thousands” of sperm cells race to the egg cell – 200 ~ 600 million sperm cells race per ejaculation is my information. Sperm cell contains one half of the “parts” needed to reproduce a new life, the other half comes from the female egg cell and this should put man’s claim and arrogance in its place (ref. man keeping woman under guard). Humans amazingly distinct seem to only those who never paid attention to the “amazing” similarities of all life, no biologist will ever endorse the amazingly distinct status of man from other “animals”… well, man IS an animal.
Man’s sperm if reproduces humans only is nothing to boast about, monkey and every other mammal will match this hands down.
Sperm carrying unique ability to become intellectual is wrong too, actually a racist statement, any individual has the capacity to be intellectual to the extent of education received, opportunities available etc. humans are not destined to be dumb or intellectual by the pre-loaded sperm.
Animals are enslaved by invisible code (due to seasons and environment) whereas humans reproduce “thoughtfully” is also an arrogant understanding, no wonder religious people consider it to be their divine right to slaughter and eat animals.
I strongly recommend that basic biology and evolution should be taught to children before the damage is done.
Babar
It is fashion to speak loudly the subject of ‘No God.’ In my opinion it is waste of time and energy by those who deliver lectures, write articles to propagate that there is no God. To believe or not believe, makes no difference. It is MAN, who is more complex, and it is man the cause of all trouble we have to face. I would suggest, let us discuss man, rather than focusing on the arguments for the existence of God. Here we have three interesting opinions:
Russell the agnostic said, the desire for power in man is so strong that, if it were possible man would have been God. Rumi the spiritual said, when I first saw Shams, what I had thought of a God, I saw in a man. Scriptures say that God is nearer to man than his jugular vein. For an intellectual it is simple and easy to understand what is God, and where does He exist.
Michael Shermer, editor of the eSkeptic, in his very recent book ‘The Believing Brain’ discloses that in a 2009 Harris Poll of 2,303 adult Americans: 82% believed in God, 76% believed in Miracles, 75% in Heaven, 73% in Jesus, 72% in Angels, 71% survival of the soul after death, 70% in resurrection of Jesus, 61% in Hell, and 45% in Darwin’s theory of evolution. He writes: “More people believe in angels and devil than believe in the theory of evolution. Disturbing. And yet, such results do not surprise me, as they match findings in similar surveys conducted over the past several decades, including internationally.” (page 2-3 of the said book).
Instead of asking Who Needs God, rather it should be God Needs Man. This is what God says: “I was a hidden treasure, I wanted to be known, so I created humankind.” Discussing that God did not create man, because He does not exist, we need to discuss man who has his finger on the key of mass destructing weapons–he can be a believer or a non-believer. WHY MAN IS HOMOCIDAL? Why he is the devastator?
Mirza Ashraf
I would like to apologize first for the bad choice of words at the end of my previous comments. Damage was the wrong word, I meant that before the ideology/belief in supernatural was so hardened as to resist knowledge contrary to it (evolution and basic biology must be taught).
I appreciate Mirza Sahib’s proposal to end debate over God and instead ponder over man.
It will be a good idea to start analyzing man/humans by putting humans under the microscope, literally, before we jump the gun and start elaborating with poetry our own image, in our own eyes.
Following information is from the books by Daniel C. Dennett, a professor and philosopher, Director for the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, author of Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winning books, and Lewis Thomas, educated from Princeton, Harvard and served as Dean at Yale Medical School, also author of many books;
Dennett says, “What you are is an assemblage of roughly a hundred trillion cells, of thousands of different sorts. The bulk of these cells are “daughters” of the egg cell and sperm cell whose union started you, but they are actually outnumbered by the trillions of bacterial hitchhikers from thousands of different lineages stowed away in your body. Each of your host cell is a mindless mechanism, a largely autonomous micro-robot. It is no more conscious than your bacterial guests are. Not a single one of your cell that compose you knows who you are, or cares.
Lewis Thomas says, there is the whole question of my identity, and, more than that, my human dignity. I did not mind it when I first learned of my descent from lower forms of life. I had in mind an arboreal family of beetle-browed, speechless, hairy sub-men, ape like, and I have never objected to them as forebears. Indeed, being Welsh, I feel the better for it, having clearly risen above them in my time of evolution. It is a source of satisfaction to be part of the improvement of the species.
But not these things. I had never bargained on descent from single cells without nuclei. I could even make my peace with that, if it were all, but there is the additional humiliation that I have not, in a real sense, descended at all. I have brought them all along with me, or perhaps they have brought me.
It is no good standing on dignity in a situation like this, and better not to try. It is a mystery. There they are, moving about in my cytoplasm, breathing for my own flesh, but strangers. They are much less closely related to me than to each other and to the free living bacteria out under the hill. They feel like strangers, but the thought comes that the same creatures, precisely the same, are out there in the cells of sea gulls, and whales, and dune grass, and sea weed, and hermit crabs, and further inland in the leaves of the beech in my backyard, and in the family of skunks beneath the back fence, and even in that fly on the window. Through them I am connected; I have close relatives, once removed, all over the place. This is a new kind of information, for me, and I regret somewhat that I cannot be in closer touch with my mitochondria. If I concentrate, I can imagine that I feel them; they do not quite squirm, but there is, from time to time, a kind of tingle. I cannot help thinking that if only I knew more about them, and how they maintain our synchrony, I would have a new way to explain music to myself.”
Now this information was not available to the great intellectual giants whose poetry I am about to be told. Had they known who we really are there poetry and music might have been a little different.
The question Mirza Sahib asked above, about humans being homicidal and destructive, can clearly be answered with our reality in mind that I quoted above. If at all this behavior is a mystery, it is only when we believe ourselves to be special, and “Afzal – superior”, and custom made for a purpose separately by God. In fact Mirza Sahib, instead of asking this question better explain the design of creator with his understanding of what man is.
Babar
My response to Mirza Ashraf Sahib’s comments, sent on Apr 25, were not posted because the Editor advised me to put it on the comment section of the Forum’d web-site. So here it is :
Observations on the comments of Mirza Sahib.
1. The main topic is Who Needs God…….*Where’s the answer to this
question?*
2. Animals are programmed by nature and cannot evolve further……..*Not
true. Still evolving.*
3. Animals reproduce instinctively guided by the nature according to the
seasons……*.Again not true. Many mammals and lower species keep mating
all round the year.*
4. They reproduce thoughtfully……*.Not true. Ever heard of “Sowing the
wild oats ” ?*
5. Human sperm that gives birth to a new life—though one out of thousands
succeeds to the point of fertilization—is brain-child of human mind.
……
*.Brain child ??? Since when has the meaning of brain-child changed ?*
6. Man is very possessive of his genes carried by his sperm and that is why he
keeps his wife well protected within his walls.
……..
* It is culture; not biology Mirza Saheb.*
I can explain and respond each and every point in the light of philosophy, sociology, and science, only if these were comments. These are in fact Mian Aslam’s school-masterly corrections. I am glad to have been reminded of my time while I was a teacher in a High School. I used to make corrections the way I have been corrected; and I love this. It tells me that I am truly a student. I am happy to have found a master.
Though, it is very easy to pick up faults in the painting of an artist, it is something different to pick up a brush and portray or teach like divinity, “Who taught by the pen. Taught what he did not know.” Maybe the mistakes picked up by Mian Sahib are because of my lack of knowledge–which I did not know–and I am keen to gain and enhance knowledge at every step of my life. Please go ahead and explain each point how it is and what is the truth! It is not what once you referred Mirza Ghalib’s famous verse which I present with changes–to be respectful to my teacher as:
keh hi dey ab janoon mein sub kuch
kuch to smjhay Khuda karay Ashraf. . . . . . . . Oh! my short wit.
Please criticize and comment freely and do not be afraid of the word “Khuda karay” which I have invoked for myself.
Mirza Ashraf