In the last couple of days some really bad arguments for religion have surfaced yet again. These are the same tired old arguments we went over in 2005. Let’s do some quick chazarah though.
1. The argument from love
The argument from love comes in a few different flavors, but it generally goes something like this: "Can you prove you love your wife? No! So why do I need to prove that God exists?"
2. The argument from faith
This one goes like this: "Everyone believes everything on faith. You skeptics believe in Science, I believe in Chazal. There’s no difference!"
Both these arguments fail miserably. In fact they don't even start.
1. Argument from Love
This fails for a few reasons, depending on the intent of the argument. What does it mean to prove your love? It could mean (a) prove that your love is justified, or (b) prove that you are actually in love, or (c) prove the person you love actually exists.
Let’s consider (a) prove that your love is justified. Well, obviously ‘justified’ love is entirely subjective, and depends what you are looking for. But let’s say you had a well defined list of what you are looking for, for example a caring, intelligent RW MO woman who you find attractive and are compatible with, and you find someone with all those attributes, then it seems reasonable to assume that your love is justified. Of course even the best marriages can falter due to strains and stresses, so to assume that just because you found the woman of your dreams it means you are set for life is foolish. Marriage requires constant work. What any of this has to do with whether God exists is a mystery to me.
Now let’s consider (b) prove that you are in love. Well, it’s impossible to really know what another person is thinking or feeling. A really good actor can always pretend. The news is full of con artists who can fake anything. But assuming an honest person, who is in touch with their emotions, love should be reasonably simple to figure out. You feel a sense of elation when the person is around, you miss them terribly when they are gone, you admire and respect them etc etc. If you feel all those things, then you’re in love. If not, then probably not. Again, I don’t see what any of this has to do with God.
Perhaps the argument means that just like people feel intensely in love even though there’s no way of scientifically measuring that, yet we accept their love feeling, likewise if people believe in intensely in God then we should accept their belief feeling. And of course I do. In exactly the same way I accept that someone who honestly claims to be feeling intensely in love, is in fact feeling intensely in love, likewise someone who claims to be feeling (or thinking) a passionate belief in (or connection to) God, is presumably feeling (or thinking) a passionate belief in (or connection to) God. Of course that says nothing about God, it just tells us that the person believes in God, or feels close to God, or loves God. But then we knew that already! Does being love with something in any way prove that the “something” must exist? Hardly. You could be in love with an imaginary thing.
Imagine if you claimed to love your wife, but were in fact single, and no wife could be found. Would your love prove that your wife exists?! Hardly, but it might prove you are delusional.
2. Argument from faith
This one fails because all faith should be justified, where possible. There must be some reason why you have the faith. Otherwise anyone could just have faith in anything and it would be nuts. Of course all religious people do indeed attempt to justify their faith, usually with an argument about an ancient heritage or unbroken tradition or some such. The only problem is that this justification is pretty poor, since many religions claim the same justification, and many of them contradict each other, so clearly this justification is simply not reliable.
On the other hand, people have faith in Science for good reasons – it works, everyone agrees to it (at least to the proven parts), and there is a good system in place for gaining agreement, for reviewing people’s work, for gaining more knowledge etc etc. Contrast this with religion where the system quite literally stinks (as far as gaining knowledge goes). The beliefs are set in stone, and if you consider other possibilities you are damned to hell. Hardly a fair system conducive to gaining true knowledge!
Believers sometimes argue that we unfairly privilege science over religion. Or they claim that it’s unfair to judge religious beliefs by scientific standards. Or else they claim that there are other methods to knowledge besides science and that it’s unfair to insist that everything must be scientific.
I say, fine! I’m ok with any system of knowledge you want to propose. Tarrot cards, spiritual knowledge, divination, whatever the heck you like! As long as it works reliably, I have no problem with it. The reason I trust Science is not because I intrinsically trust Science and reject everything else , but rather because it works reliably. If it didn’t work reliably, I wouldn’t trust it! And neither would anyone else.
If the science world was full of warring factions of scientists, each of them claiming to have the one true science, and none of it worked reliably (at least as far as we could tell), then nobody would trust science either!
All this is poshut. And is at a level of sophistication (or rather un-sophistication) way, way below where I would like to be. And the people arguing this stuff are supposedly mature adults! Sad, very sad. There probably are some interesting things to debate on this topic, but these are not it.
I think the best that can be said here is that humans have a complex range of emotions, and one of them is spirituality. In the same way we celebrate our love, we should also celebrate our spirituality. Since most people do have a strong feeling that there is “something” out there, it seems legitimate to go with this feeling. I don’t see any valid reason to declare such a feeling to be ‘forbidden’. But I would certainly caution against taking things too far.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
