• Mackensie
    7
    In the conclusion of Bertrand Russel’s “Is There A God?”, he makes a final analogy about a China teapot orbiting between the Earth and moon. The teapot is too small to be seen by a telescope, and he is the only one to have seen it. And yet, no one can disprove his assertion and it must be taught as sacred scripture.

    A common counter argument that Russel addresses is that the difference between theism and the teapot is that many people have had religious experiences, thus proving that many people have seen this tea pot.

    This sets the scene of the argument I am going to address. Russel attacks the idea the widespread belief does not mean it is a reasonable belief. He provides many examples, one of which was the Soviet Union. I took the liberty of making the implicit claims explicit in the regimentation of Russel’s final argument:

    1. If a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable in believing in it.
    2. The Soviet Union had widespread beliefs.
    3. These beliefs resulted in many atrocities against other human beings.
    4. When a belief causes widespread harm to other people, it is not reasonable.
    5. Therefore, even if a belief is widespread, it is not always reasonable.
    **link to Russell’s essay http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/isThereGod.htm

    A regimented summary of my argument is as follows.
    1. When a belief is widespread, it is not inherently unreasonable.
    2. It is a widespread belief to stop, drop and roll if your clothing catches on fire.
    3. It is reasonable to not want your clothing to be on fire.
    4. Not all widespread belief is inherently unreasonable.

    Some reasons why theism, a widespread belief, is not unreasonable.
    The Soviet Union as a generalization of an unreasonable, widespread belief is not a proper analogy to theism.

    It is reasonable not to hurt people. Religion born of theism is a way of life; it is a philosophy on how to best live life. By looking to Christianity, we can see that one of the commandments is not to hurt others: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind, this is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Matthew 22:37-9). While there are events that warped the Christian message, bringing about events such as the Inquisition, at its core Christianity does not command the harm of others. The same goes for other religions, such as Islam and Buddhism. While there have been individuals that warped the message, these religions are peaceful and also do not call for violence against others. By evaluating a wide variety of religions, we can see through inductive reasoning that theism as a whole generally does not call for violence against others.

    A belief can be reasonable when it is accepted in a multitude of cultures. Theism is not limited to a single nation, but rather it is widespread throughout the world. There have always been theists over the course of time. The concept of a deity has grown and changed over the course of human existence. By looking at Christianity as an example again, the belief in God remained, even after two thousand years of scientific and philosophical advances. It is also practiced in six of seven continents today, meaning that the same religion can thrive is a multitude of different cultures. Additionally, considering that the Christian God is the same God as Judaism, then the same concept of the same deity has remained for even more centuries. The theism of Christianity and Judaism has survived and thrived in the face of change and continuity over time.

    [Mod Edit: This discussion was merged into God and Religion Arguments [Mega-Thread]]
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.