The fact of natural and moral evil makes belief in a providential power difficult. But it also makes belief in man and human progress difficult. There is the opium of religion, but also that of future-oriented utopian naturalisms such as Marxism. Why is utopian opium less narcotic than the religious variety?
And isn’t it more difficult to believe in Man than in God? We know man and his wretchedness and that nothing much can be expected of him, but we don’t know God. Man appears impotent to ameliorate his condition in any fundamental way. We have had centuries to experience this truth, have we not? Advances in science and technology have brought undeniable benefits but also unprecedented dangers. The proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, their possession by rogue states and their terrorist surrogates, bodes ill for the future of humanity. We know our ilk and what he is capable of, and the bases of rational optimism seem slim indeed.
There is also the scarcely insignificant point that there is no such thing as Man, there are only men at war with one another and with themselves. But God is one. You say God does not exist? That may be so. But the present question is not whether God exists or not, but whether belief in Man makes any sense and can substitute for belief in God. I say it doesn't and can’t, that it is a sorry substitute if not outright delusional. We need help that we cannot provide for ourselves, either individually or collectively.
There may be no source of the help we need. Then the conclusion to draw is that we should get by as best we can until Night falls, rather than making things worse by drinking the Left's utopian Kool-Aid.
This post is a gem, and states pretty much my views on religion better than I could say it myself. It's not so much that I can prove God, but that I can definitely disprove man. One can occasionally doubt the existence of God, but never the existence of the Devil.
Does this make me a Kantian? (Insert smiley face).
Cheers,
David
In the Preface to the 2nd ed. of CPR, Kant says that he has found it necessary to deny reason in order to make room for faith. His showing -- if indeed he has shown it -- that God cannot be proved is also a showing that his nonexistence cannot be proved either. Kant installs God in a region where he is safe both from theoretical proof and theoretical disproof. Whether this will 'soften you up' for Kant, I don't know.
I once again congratulate you as the Pithy Maverick. I admire what you can get across in a few paragraphs.
I agree with the gist of David's comment. Being flesh and blood, it's hard not to doubt God's existence at times, but a belief in God never contradicts what I know to be true. However, a belief in Man requires a willful ignorance or an outright embrace of contradictions.
Hence the brutality of the utopian projects of the believers in Man as they try to hammer the square pegs of humanity into the round holes of their false paradises.
Regards, Bill
I suppose the resident atheist at this point would deploy the Problem of Evil. What is your take on it? I've found it self-defeating, because if you grant that evil has the "metaphysical heft" necessary to disprove God, then you've opened the door to metaphysics in general. The atheist opens the door to metaphyics to kick out God, but he finds instead that in walks Aquinas and his Five Ways, who proceeds to kick out the atheist instead.
Thanks. Pith is king. And 'pith' is pithier than 'pithiness.' Just popped in at your blog. You've got some good posts up. I finally added you to my blogroll. Sorry to have been so remiss in this regard.
To argue from evil to the nonexistence of God one must assume an objective distinction between good and evil -- and this may provide the theist with a way of turning the tables. I need to develop this in detail.
Thanks for the thumb's up.
Bill T
It may (or may not) be interesting that chapter two, "The Maniac", of G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy--especially the opening couple of paragraphs--very much agrees with what you say here, Bill. (Chesterton says elsewhere that "the man who denies original sin believes in the Immaculate Conception of everybody.")
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.