Do gods exist?
(Saturday, June 29, 2002)
In order for it to be true that America is "one nation, under God", it must first be shown that God exists. However, this is a very difficult thing to show; it might not even be possible. Even if the evidence could be shown to be consistent with the existence of gods, it wouldn't necessarily be the case that the particular deity known by the name of God is one of those gods that exist. But in actuality, the main arguments that have been proposed as evidence for the existence of God are fundamentally flawed. Thus, it's unreasonable to act as if the existence of a god or gods has been verified in any way. Believers are left to rely on faith.
Clearly, being an agnostic myself, I can't claim to have any kind of unbiased view on these matters. But then, I don't believe that anyone really can. The danger is that the popular views are threatening to overwhelm minority views, even though there is no indication of whether the popular views are correct. I strongly believe that it is always critical to have access to points of view that challenge one's own beliefs, as no one is perfect. Can anyone claim to have true freedom of thought if they merely believe the first opinion they hear?
Arguments for theism
Philosophical arguments for the existence of a god or gods share a common weakness. Once the final step has been reached and the existence of a particular abstract entity has been "proven", it is simply assumed that this entity qualifies as a god. The question of the existence of gods is complicated by this confusion of terminology. It would be clearer if the word "god" is reserved for a particular type of being, using specific terms such as "first cause" and "perfect being" for the philosophical entities. It is possible that all these terms refer to the same being, but this connection must be supported by specific arguments rather than merely assumed to be true. For the purposes of this page, I reserve the word "god" for referring to a personal, creator god, excluding impersonal forces of nature and beings not directly connected with the creation of life in general, or human life specifically.
Specific philosophical arguments have additional weaknesses. Without going into excessive detail (since the case for philosophical arguments in general is weak), I will briefly summarize a few popular arguments, pointing out some of their weaknesses.
The cosmological argument
The basic idea behind the cosmological argument is that there must be a first cause. This follows from a set of assumptions that seem reasonable, if not necessarily true. One weakness of this argument is that there is no very good reason to exclude the possibility of more than one uncaused entity. Once multiple "first" causes are allowed, it seems entirely reasonable that these causes might be individually unremarkable, even practically insignificant when taken one by one. Atomism, a metaphysical view known to ancient Greek philosophers, assumes the existence of countless tiny particles, each one of which is eternal and changeless, which interact in complicated ways. Thus, the "first cause" argument provides no solid evidence for the existence of gods.
The ontological argument
The ontological argument is essentially an attempt to define a god into existence. The idea is to assume that God is the most perfect being, and that existence is more perfect than non-existence. The problem is that this assumption doesn't fit with observed reality. A perfect being has never been observed in actual existence. On the contrary, things that actually exist all seem to be imperfect in one way or another, while there are numerous ideas of perfect things that, so far as we know, don't actually exist. Thus one of the primary assumptions of this argument is questionable at best. Additionally, it seems absurd that an absolutely perfect being would be capable of creating even the slightest degree of imperfection, so this perfect being (even if it exists) is probably not a god.
The argument from design
The essence of the argument from design is that the universe (and life in particular) is too complicated to have formed without the assistance of a god. The analogy is that the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker. This is probably one of the strongest arguments for the existence of gods, although the question inevitably arises: who made the watchmaker? The strength of the argument is largely due to the fact that the alternative view seems implausible at first glance. Nevertheless, it's becoming increasingly clear that natural forces can account for all kinds of complex events. The mere possibility of biological evolution producing the immense diversity of living things over the course of a few billion years is enough to throw the argument from design into question. But in fact, the vast quantities of evidence in favor of this view of evolution imply that the designer, if one existed, must have intended to make the creation appear to have evolved naturally.
Pascal's wager
The French philosopher Blaise Pascal once argued that we're better off acting as if God exists, even if that belief turns out to be false. Assuming that the flaws in Pascal's wager could be repaired, it might be a justification for developing a belief in God, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not God actually exists.
Arguments for atheism
A principal weakness of arguments for atheism is the strong emphasis on arguments against monotheism; in particular, the sort of monotheism associated with major religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Even in their arguments against monotheism, atheist arguments have a tendency to focus on pointing out the holes in theological arguments, rather than building an argument that nature is self-sustaining, and any hypothetical god would be superfluous. But monotheism is far from the only religious system; it just happens to be the one with the most popularity. Clearly, if the atheist point of view is correct, popularity is no guarantee of accuracy.
Conclusion
When there are so many alternative points of view with regard to the existence of God, all firmly held by their adherents, and none with any conclusive arguments in their favor, it's premature to decree that the United States of America is "one nation under God". Certainly, the mere presence of this phrase won't alter anyone's fundamental beliefs. It's the underlying attitude of hostility towards anyone out of the mainstream of religious thought that is the real problem.
Back to the Uncommon Nonsense page.
