All posts © Rosa Rubicondior. Contents may be reproduced without permission provided credit is given to the author, it is not altered in any way, the context is made clear and a link is provided to the original.

Income generated from ads will be donated to various charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations. Hopefully religious and other offensive advertising content has now been blocked from this site. Please let me know if you see any.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

Favourite Fallacies - The Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument was invented by Anselm, an 10th century Archbishop of Canterbury who was later made a saint. Anselm 'reasoned' that you can conceive of a perfect god and an essential element of perfection is existence, so a god must exist.

Er... and that's it.

No. Really!

Of course, it went without question that the only perfect god was the Judeo-Christian one, so the Ontological Argument could only be an argument for the Judeo-Christian god, and no other.

Anselm has been féted through the centuries by Christian apologists for this 'proof' of their god. You still see and hear them trotting out this 'killer proof' at regular intervals and then sitting back in smug contentment as their opponent struggles. What they don't seem to grasp though is that the thing their opponent is struggling with is to understand just how they imagine they've proved anything with it.

And of course, there is always the blissful ignorance, feigned or genuine, that, if it were true, it would apply to any god which would be conditioned on the cultural ideas of perfection being used, one of which might even be non-existence.

So, if you're tempted to believe there might be something in this argument, put it to the test. Go to your window and 'conceive of' (i.e. think about) a perfect car outside.

Did one appear?

Maybe it takes a day or two to work, so if you want to wait a while and check later, please feel free...

Well, okay! Let's put these practical considerations to one side and enter the fantasy world of philosophers and religious apologists for a moment. Let's play with the Ontological Argument to see what we can do with it.

Try conceiving of any perfect thing you like, no matter how ludicrous. Does it exist? According to the Ontological Argument it must do. All you need is to conceive of something and it shall be yours...

I can conceive of a perfect universe. To me, a perfect universe is one where everything about it is amenable to reason; one in which, given the right tools, the right technology and the right understanding, everything can be understood in materialist terms. A perfect universe to me is fully understandable without the need for supernatural explanations. A perfect universe is one in which there is no need for gods or mysteries. A perfect universe is a god-free universe. Exactly like the one we live in, in fact.

According to Anselm of Canterbury, such a universe must exist.

Oops! St Anselm has now proven there is no god.

So, how can Christianity's favourite 'proof' of god prove gods don't exist? How can the same logic lead to two mutually exclusive conclusions?

Because, by simple logic, using a simple mind experiment, we've now proved the Ontological Argument to be the nonsense it always was. The Ontological Argument is like a conjuring trick where even the rabbit is imaginary, or, to put it another way, The Emperor's New Clothes. Who in their right mind was going to put their hand up and say, "Er... rihthámsócn, úre Ár, ðu bist gemaðel sceallan!" ("Er... actually, your Grace, you are talking bollocks!", as a 10th century Englishman would have said it). And who would have listened to them before they went to the stake?

Anselm's Ontological Argument is nothing more than our old friend, anthropocentric arrogance. It's nothing more than the idiotically arrogant argument that a god must exist because I believe it does; that somehow human imagination controls reality in an obedient universe which exists merely to serve the needs of humanity, so 'faith' is enough.

And that of course was exactly the universe which Anselm imagined he lived in and why he and others who shared his arrogant ignorance found his argument so convincing.

I wonder why modern theologians have never managed to update their view of the universe from that of a 10th century cleric who thought the earth was flat, the centre of it all, and all made especially for him.


Share
Twitter
StumbleUpon

Reddit
submit to reddit

Sunday, 13 November 2011

Xeno's Religious Paradox

Xeno (pronounced Zeeno and often spelled Zeno) was a 5th Century BCE Greek philosopher who specialised in paradoxes.

One such, known as Xeno's Paradox, says that Achilles (a legendary Greek runner) should not be able to overtake a tortoise if the tortoise is given a head start in a race. By the same reasoning, it should be impossible for an arrow to hit a running rabbit.

This neatly illustrates how 'philosophy' can be used to confuse people and explains how it can be used with equal success to 'prove' whatever dishonest (or maybe, to be charitable, just not very bright) philosophers want you to believe, usually for money, and often to 'prove' diametrically opposite conjecture simultaneously, especially in different cultures. More of that later. Now back to Xeno...

Xeno's reasoning was this:

Let's assume the tortoise is given 100 meter start and Achilles can run ten times as fast as the tortoise. (The actual figures don't matter so long as the slower thing starts ahead of the faster one).

When Achilles has run to the point where the tortoise started from, the tortoise will have travelled 10 meters and will still be ahead of Achilles, now by ten meters. When Achilles has run the next ten meters, the tortoise will be one meter ahead. After the next meter, the tortoise will be one tenth of a meters ahead. And so on. In this way, Achilles can never overtake the tortoise because every time he gets to where it was, the tortoise will have moved on.

The gap continues to close but never reaches zero.

But, we can see that any runner can overtake a tortoise. We can also see that an arrow can hit a running rabbit. Why does the observation not match the theory? Is it the observation which is wrong, or is it the theory?

This problem taxed the brains of philosophers and mathematicians for centuries. There seems to be nothing wrong with the theory; the maths looks impeccable; the logic appeared to be sound. Yet runners can overtake tortoises and arrows can hit running rabbits.

Well, although no mathematician could prove it, because they lacked the mathematics, the theory is clearly wrong. A theory which produces a different outcome to reality is clearly wrong. But it wasn't until calculus was discovered (independently by Newton and Leibniz) that it could be shown mathematically.

The fundamental error in the theory is now obvious: Achilles and the tortoise are moving independently through space-time. Achilles' position is not dependent upon that of the tortoise. Achilles overtakes the tortoise when his trajectory crosses that of the tortoise. The only problem was in calculating the precise point in time when that happened. The wrong math was being used to calculate it so it could not give the correct answer. In fact, things were more complicated than Xeno was allowing for, and this shows the danger of relying on intuition to assess reality. The logic seemed sound because it was intuitive. The maths tells us intuition was wrong.

So what has this to do with philosophers 'proving' to people whatever they want to prove?

Let's take one of the philosophical arguments often used to justify belief in a god or gods: that of the origin of morality. The argument goes that there must be a god (or gods, according to the culture in which the argument is being used) otherwise there could be no origin for human morality. The argument goes that humans have no way to tell right from wrong unless a god (or gods) have told us what it is; that there is no objective right and wrong, only a set of rules handed down on the arbitrary whim of a capricious god. To behave 'morally' all we need do is learn the rules and obey the commands. The consequences of our actions are no concern of ours since they are the 'will of God'.

But, as with Xeno's Paradox, where does this lead us? Is the theory supported by what we can see for ourselves? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the one true god is the Christian god of the Bible, and that this god is perfect, omni-benevolent and inerrant, like Christians claim. If the theory is correct we should expect to see all non-Christians, and non-Christian cultures behaving in a chaotic and inhumane way towards one another, with no sign of any morality or ethics, whereas all Christians and especially Christian cultures should all be paragons of virtue with everyone behaving with impeccable morality and ethic and everyone would be doing unto others only and exactly what they would have others do unto them.

Is this what we see? Well, is it?

It would take an extreme form of parochial ignorance to believe that this is indeed the real situation. Anyone who has been to another country, or even seen television pictures of life in one, or met someone with another faith or no faith at all, could not fail to notice that, by and large, they behave at least as well, and often much better, towards others than do very many Christians.

Indeed, a moments thought, let alone seeing with your own eyes, should tell you that no society could succeed without the morals and ethics which ensure a more-or-less cooperative society which operates according to accepted rules of inter-personal behaviour and the necessary mechanisms for dealing with those who transgress them.

Any objective observation will tell you that Christian societies are not more moral than non-Christian ones and are frequently actually worse. Any reading of history will show you that Christian countries did not behave any more morally than non-Christian ones, and often behaved far worse. It will also show you that acceptable standards of behaviour have changed over time; that Christian societies changed their minds about right and wrong - slavery, female emancipation, burning heretics, etc. Generally we can see that the more fundamentally religious people and societies are, the LESS morally they tend to behave towards others.

The other possibility, which you've probably thought of already, is that a god has handed down morals to all societies, just in different ways. If THAT were true, we would all share exactly the same moral codes wouldn't we? And yet we can barely find two countries, or even two areas in the same country, which have exactly the same customs and traditions of behaviour towards one another, to women, adolescents and minorities; to ideas of appropriate punishment for crime, of political freedom and emancipation; of the age of consent, of contract and hospitality, or of the boundary between individual and collective interest and freedom.

Manifestly, we do NOT share a common set of detailed ethics and yet manifestly we have many morals in common. Our moral codes are like a wide-spread biological species - subject to regional variation and varieties - just like the human species.

And is it really the height of human morality to just obey orders? Does being moral really mean we have no concern for the effects of our actions on others, as long as we behave like a Nazi Auschwitz guard and obey the rules?

Just as with Xeno's Paradox, religious philosophers through the ages have debated this conundrum ad infinitum and never reached a consensus. And none of their different conclusions has managed to come close to describing observable reality - not that that has been seen as much of a problem.

So what's happening here, and what has this to do with Xeno's Paradox?

Quite simply, the god-given theory is wrong. We know it's wrong because the outcome it predicts is different to what we can see to be the reality. The reality is, of course, more complex than religious apologists would have us believe.

The theory is wrong because, like Xeno's Paradox, the basic assumption behind it is wrong: we do NOT get our morals from a god or gods. We get our morals from our cultures where they have evolved and developed over time.

If we apply THIS theory we can easily see why morals and ethics in different places and different cultures have many things in common yet differ in detail, and why they have changed over time.

Because the theory is correct it now equates to observable reality. And this is how we know the theory is correct.

Morality is not an argument for gods; it is an argument against them. (Tweet this)





submit to reddit




ShareThis

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics