The Existence of God
For centuries, the idea of God has been a part of man's history. Past and present, there has always been a different integration consisting of the believers and the non-believers of God. The group of those who have "faith" in God tend to be related to one religion or another. On the other hand, the skeptics find the existence of God somewhat puzzling and try to seek the answers through scientific methods. Even as of today with all the modern technologies and the development of sciences, we still do not have a definitive answer to the question "does God exist?"
Among many philosophers and scholars who have tried to answer this question, we shall look upon Rene Descartes' theory on the existence of God. In terms of believers and non-believers, Descartes would be one of the believers. Before we go any further, we must ponder upon several questions. What is God? Does God exist? If such God does exist, then where does this being come from? Why do believers and non-believers hold on to their beliefs as they do? What significance does the existence of God have upon mankind? These are only the tip of the iceberg amongst the vast array of unanswered questions related to God.
Though there are so many uncertainties as we have just mentioned, the existence of all other uncertainties in our world may explain why the existence of God is so real to many people. For the believers, God provides a convenient answer to all these questions except for the answers regarding God itself. The following are some of the general arguments for the existence of God.
The first argument comes from the theory of design; there are orders in the universe which can't be occurring by mere chance. Secondly, the existence of God explains the arguments regarding the efficient causality; as the world exhibits orderly causal sequences, something had to start it all up. Thirdly but not the least, God provides an answer to the question of the origin of life and its destination after death. ( For the sake of convenience, we shall borrow some theological ideas from Christianity, the Christian God, to exemplify our comparisons.) As an example, God is the creator of all, and there is a place in heaven, a kingdom of God, for those who have faith in God. This helps believers understand their identity and alleviate the fear of death.
Now then, let us look upon how Descartes responds to the question of what God is? Descartes' hypothesis on his theory starts with the idea of a God who is eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and perfect. In his earlier Meditations, he claims that God may be a deceiver; he, however, concludes later that God is a non-deceiver because an act of deceit would be an attribute of moral imperfection. According to Descartes, this idea of a supremely intelligent and supremely powerful being, who created everything that exists, can not and does not come from within him who is imperfect. Moreover, this perception did not originate from the experiences of the world, nor was this drawn from the senses. Rather, he believes that this perception of God is prior to his own perception, and it could only actually arise from a perfect being. Thus Descartes concludes the only remaining option to be that this perception was innate in him.
If we assume that God is perfect, then we may wonder why human beings, a creation of God, are created imperfect and liable to make mistakes? Since an imperfect creation was made by God, doesn't this mean that he is imperfect? Yet, Descartes claims that God gave humans no faculty for making mistakes, and we are constituted as a mediator between God and nothingness. The reasoning behind the justifications made by Descartes is related to "free will." Descartes states that the faculty of judgement is not infinite in human beings; human error is not dependent upon God but is rather a mere defect. On the other hand, free will is a freedom to choose which is infinite. Furthermore, he implies that the fact that the boundaries of will extending further than the finite intellect is the very source of human error.
From this discussion, it is clear that humans do have the capacity to err. Even if we considered that the above statements were true, couldn't we make an argument about why God has created such imbalance between the magnitudes of the will and the intellect? Then this imbalance can be accounted as a defect no matter what the justification may be; moreover, this implies that God did indeed make a mistake by creating a being that has faculties that lack perfection. From this we can derive at the possibility that God may be imperfect, and this is a contradiction to Descartes' argument of God as a perfect being.
In the " Meditation Five," Descartes attempts to prove his hypothesis of the existence of God based on the theory of clarity and distinctness of perception. He begins this theory by mentioning that ideas of certain things which are outside of him have their own truth and natures. These ideas were not fabricated by him, and they have not entered him through the sense experience. Since he knows these ideas clearly, he claims that they are something and are true. Descartes states that those that he can clearly and distinctly perceive are the only things that fully convince him as being true. From this concept, he constructs a logic which supposedly proves his hypothesis; the clear and distinct perception of the undoubted existence of God means that existence is inseparable from God.
From this assumption, Descartes jumps to the conclusion that God does indeed exist; however, can this be considered as a legitimate reasoning and be accepted as a proof beyond reasonable doubt? Must everything that Descartes perceives be true as long as it is clear and distinct? Isn't he revolving in a loop of circular reasoning by assuming as true the very point that he is trying to prove? Let us ponder upon what Descartes has said before for the sake of argument. In "Meditation Four," he clearly states that " the will extends further than the intellect " (p85.) He also stated that the faculty of choosing, his will, is finite. If this is so, then the faculty of knowing the truth, his intellect, must be also be finite. Furthermore, Descartes himself acknowledges the fact that he is not perfect. From these premises, I believe that we have the grounds to speculate that the perceptions based on his finite faculties of knowledge hold the potential of having mistakes.
In the above discussion, I was trying neither to prove nor disprove the existence of God; I was, however, trying to offer some skepticism upon statements which many people have claimed about the existence of God. Although Descartes embraces quite a grand statement on the issues of God, I felt that his beliefs were biased towards his own perception and lacked evidence in proving that God exists to the point beyond reasonable doubt.
I believe that neither Descartes nor modern science have been able to successfully prove whether God exists or not.
What's really important, no matter whether such a being exists or not, is that the ideology of God has certainly existed throughout the history of man. Moreover, the power of this ideology of God has proven to be overwhelming among the believers who have faith in its religion. Even for the non-believers or so called atheists, the ideology of God has an affect and/or an influence on them in one way or another. On a larger scale, it is not an exaggeration to say that our society is built on the ideology of God. What is your opinion? "In God we trust?"
Sunday, 30 December 2012
EXIST
For centuries man has grappled with the riddle of what it means to be a
person. But the questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? are
still unanswered. Yet, while man is still a long way from arriving at any
acceptable definitions, there is deep within everyone the hint of an idea of
what it means to be a whole person, that is happy, functioning and fulfilled.
So, throughout history man has made a continuous search to find out what
makes him whole. Every person is different so the special situation in which
one person finds fulfillment can't work for everyone. But in the lives of those
who have found fulfillment there is a universal pattern. The universal pattern
is that those who have found fulfillment have had a willingness to accept
change and take risks. Conversely, those who have not found wholeness are
characterized by an unconquerable desire to be safe, to be out of danger and
to avoid risk.
The first step in the search for identity is to answer the question, How
do you see yourself? In the play No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre Estelle loses
sight of her identity. She says "When I can't see myself, I begin to wonder if
I really and truly exist." What a man sees himself as in the mirror largely
determines his actions during the day. Estelle had to look into the "mirror" of
men to confirm her identity. A man is the number one determining factor in
discovering who he is. Each individual must understand that he is responsible
for his own pain, misery, unhappiness, or for his own joy. Man is not a
product of what people have done or are now doing to us. Man has the
power to become whatever he wants to be; to feel as much love or anger or
joy as we want to feel. Another subsequent factor in determining our identity
is the image, name, or label given to us by society. In other words, what we
believe other people think of us. Most people participate in many groups
friends, school, family, jobs, clubs, churches and more each contributing to
our identity. We have to accept the death of the superman who is alone
needing no one, inner directed and indifferent to his surroundings. We see in
Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment that when Raskolnkov separates
himself from humanity by committing murder that he could not survive. A
person needs to understand that they are responsible for their own choices but
they cannot discount the fact that there will always be a group that is essential
to understanding their identity.
There is a far more important area than how man sees himself or how
society sees him, this area is where he has the most control over his own
identity. The area in which he has most control over his own identity is in the
area of what he is actually doing. In other words, man determines himself by
the choices he makes. Having this freedom of choice entails commitment and
responsibility. Since individuals are free to choose their own path they must
accept the responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. In
the play No Exit by Sartre the characters Estelle and Garcin thought of
themselves as being nobler than what they were, when in reality the choices
they made determined one to be a boy toy and the other to be a cruel coward.
The Bible also gives us some insight on this point. What made Moses
Moses? The fact that he made the choices he did. If Moses had stayed in
Pharaoh's court, if Moses had stayed in the desserts of Midian, or if Moses
had refused to go to Pharaoh, then he would not have been Moses. We have
the freedom to choose and we become what we choose to do.
Far to many people are locked into set patterns of thinking and living.
People resist change vigorously satisfied with the dull normality of the same
routines. One of the most vital ingredients to any fulfilling life is the ability to
accept change and choose to risk. Change for most people does not always
feel good but it is an important part in growing. Most people fear change
because they are afraid of the risks that it will bring. When people do not
conquer their fear all growth stops. The fear of growing of old is what kept
Estelle from being more than mere a boy toy. The fear of dying kept Garcin
from being a great pacifist journalist. If a Congressional Medal of Honor
winner had not conquered his fear of death, to jump out of a trench to save his
buddy, his friend would be dead. If Moses had not conquered his fear of
losing a comfortable life, Israel would still be slaves to Egypt. If Columbus
had not conquered his fear of falling off the earth, America would not have
been settled. If my Dad had not conquered his fear of rejection, I would have
never of been born. People need to look at their fear, consider all the options
then move out and act boldly. People can stand outside their fear indefinitely
and nothing will change. But everyone has within themselves the resources
and the strengths to face and confront their fears, and to become the whole
person they want to become, they have to do it.
The questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? may
never be answered in our lifetime. But people can begin to lead more
fulfilling lives by understanding and applying three closely related principles.
People must begin to see themselves as being their own self and not just a
product of society. After people realize that they are their own self they must
realize they are what they do. The final step in living more fulfilling lives is
to be open to change and risk. Breaking from this paralyzing fear will allow
people to realize life is a gift and they will try to live every day to the fullest.
person. But the questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? are
still unanswered. Yet, while man is still a long way from arriving at any
acceptable definitions, there is deep within everyone the hint of an idea of
what it means to be a whole person, that is happy, functioning and fulfilled.
So, throughout history man has made a continuous search to find out what
makes him whole. Every person is different so the special situation in which
one person finds fulfillment can't work for everyone. But in the lives of those
who have found fulfillment there is a universal pattern. The universal pattern
is that those who have found fulfillment have had a willingness to accept
change and take risks. Conversely, those who have not found wholeness are
characterized by an unconquerable desire to be safe, to be out of danger and
to avoid risk.
The first step in the search for identity is to answer the question, How
do you see yourself? In the play No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre Estelle loses
sight of her identity. She says "When I can't see myself, I begin to wonder if
I really and truly exist." What a man sees himself as in the mirror largely
determines his actions during the day. Estelle had to look into the "mirror" of
men to confirm her identity. A man is the number one determining factor in
discovering who he is. Each individual must understand that he is responsible
for his own pain, misery, unhappiness, or for his own joy. Man is not a
product of what people have done or are now doing to us. Man has the
power to become whatever he wants to be; to feel as much love or anger or
joy as we want to feel. Another subsequent factor in determining our identity
is the image, name, or label given to us by society. In other words, what we
believe other people think of us. Most people participate in many groups
friends, school, family, jobs, clubs, churches and more each contributing to
our identity. We have to accept the death of the superman who is alone
needing no one, inner directed and indifferent to his surroundings. We see in
Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment that when Raskolnkov separates
himself from humanity by committing murder that he could not survive. A
person needs to understand that they are responsible for their own choices but
they cannot discount the fact that there will always be a group that is essential
to understanding their identity.
There is a far more important area than how man sees himself or how
society sees him, this area is where he has the most control over his own
identity. The area in which he has most control over his own identity is in the
area of what he is actually doing. In other words, man determines himself by
the choices he makes. Having this freedom of choice entails commitment and
responsibility. Since individuals are free to choose their own path they must
accept the responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. In
the play No Exit by Sartre the characters Estelle and Garcin thought of
themselves as being nobler than what they were, when in reality the choices
they made determined one to be a boy toy and the other to be a cruel coward.
The Bible also gives us some insight on this point. What made Moses
Moses? The fact that he made the choices he did. If Moses had stayed in
Pharaoh's court, if Moses had stayed in the desserts of Midian, or if Moses
had refused to go to Pharaoh, then he would not have been Moses. We have
the freedom to choose and we become what we choose to do.
Far to many people are locked into set patterns of thinking and living.
People resist change vigorously satisfied with the dull normality of the same
routines. One of the most vital ingredients to any fulfilling life is the ability to
accept change and choose to risk. Change for most people does not always
feel good but it is an important part in growing. Most people fear change
because they are afraid of the risks that it will bring. When people do not
conquer their fear all growth stops. The fear of growing of old is what kept
Estelle from being more than mere a boy toy. The fear of dying kept Garcin
from being a great pacifist journalist. If a Congressional Medal of Honor
winner had not conquered his fear of death, to jump out of a trench to save his
buddy, his friend would be dead. If Moses had not conquered his fear of
losing a comfortable life, Israel would still be slaves to Egypt. If Columbus
had not conquered his fear of falling off the earth, America would not have
been settled. If my Dad had not conquered his fear of rejection, I would have
never of been born. People need to look at their fear, consider all the options
then move out and act boldly. People can stand outside their fear indefinitely
and nothing will change. But everyone has within themselves the resources
and the strengths to face and confront their fears, and to become the whole
person they want to become, they have to do it.
The questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? may
never be answered in our lifetime. But people can begin to lead more
fulfilling lives by understanding and applying three closely related principles.
People must begin to see themselves as being their own self and not just a
product of society. After people realize that they are their own self they must
realize they are what they do. The final step in living more fulfilling lives is
to be open to change and risk. Breaking from this paralyzing fear will allow
people to realize life is a gift and they will try to live every day to the fullest.
Exestentialist View on Human Condition
Existentialist View of Human Condition
Two of the main principles of Existentialist Human Condition are: That man exists and then creates himself and what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else as well. Lets examine the first principle: man exists and then defines himself. What it means is that man is created on this earth and is nothing but a body, blood and guts. What he chooses to do and to be is what makes him a man. If a man comes into this world and chooses to steal, cheat, kill and lie then that is what that man has made himself to be. While society may see him as a "evil" person, that is what is right for him. Now on the other hand if a person chooses to be generous, kind, honest and loving, society may see him as a "good" person while it is still right for him. According to the Existentialists, a person is placed on this earth with no predisposed "good" or "evil" values, one man is not created with any more good or evil than the next. By the decisions we make in life we create ourselves. Next the second view, what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else. This is a view I really believe in. Everything we do in life effects someone else, whether we no it or not. Every time we drive our car. Every time we eat something, spend money, go for a jog someone else is effected. For an example: a man goes to the store and buys a stereo.
First of all the clerk the clerk is effected because they have to check you out, so you have taken some of their time. The store is effected because they are minus one radio from their store. The manufacturer now has to make one more to replace the one that was bought from the store. The manufacturing employees are effected because put the radio together, and so on. On the other hand a man who chooses to steal that same stereo will effect even more people. If he get caught the store, the manufacturer, the police, the courts, the jails and all the people who are involved with those organizations. So now the question is raised "what if everyone acted the same way that man did?" Well there could be nothing but anarchy, no laws, or government. Basically we would revert to a type of Neanderthal type state. This is why many classic philosophers have problems with the Existentialist point of view, because of the "what if" questions.
Two of the main principles of Existentialist Human Condition are: That man exists and then creates himself and what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else as well. Lets examine the first principle: man exists and then defines himself. What it means is that man is created on this earth and is nothing but a body, blood and guts. What he chooses to do and to be is what makes him a man. If a man comes into this world and chooses to steal, cheat, kill and lie then that is what that man has made himself to be. While society may see him as a "evil" person, that is what is right for him. Now on the other hand if a person chooses to be generous, kind, honest and loving, society may see him as a "good" person while it is still right for him. According to the Existentialists, a person is placed on this earth with no predisposed "good" or "evil" values, one man is not created with any more good or evil than the next. By the decisions we make in life we create ourselves. Next the second view, what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else. This is a view I really believe in. Everything we do in life effects someone else, whether we no it or not. Every time we drive our car. Every time we eat something, spend money, go for a jog someone else is effected. For an example: a man goes to the store and buys a stereo.
First of all the clerk the clerk is effected because they have to check you out, so you have taken some of their time. The store is effected because they are minus one radio from their store. The manufacturer now has to make one more to replace the one that was bought from the store. The manufacturing employees are effected because put the radio together, and so on. On the other hand a man who chooses to steal that same stereo will effect even more people. If he get caught the store, the manufacturer, the police, the courts, the jails and all the people who are involved with those organizations. So now the question is raised "what if everyone acted the same way that man did?" Well there could be nothing but anarchy, no laws, or government. Basically we would revert to a type of Neanderthal type state. This is why many classic philosophers have problems with the Existentialist point of view, because of the "what if" questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)