V časopisu Philosophy Now je Steven Anderson, profesor filozofije v Londonu, Ontario, Kanada, priobčil razmišljanje, v katerem napada ateizem kot filozofsko neutemeljeno pozicijo. Povzemam njegovo razmišljanje in ga kritiziram.
Minil je čas, ko smo z ateizmom delali v rokavicah, pravi pisec. Kar je bila nekoč radikalna, heretična pozicija, je danes preplavilo izobraževalne in kulturne institucije, je ortodoksija, samoumevnost. Naloga filozofije pa je prespraševanje samoumevnosti. Ateizem je nova ikona, filozofija pa je ikonoklastična. Zares pogumno filozofsko dejanje danes je izzvati ateizem, pokazati, da ni utemeljen.
Ateizem je treba spodbijati v njegovi čisti obliki. V čisti obliki ateizem trdi, da ni Boga (bogov), nikakršnega, v nobeni obliki; ni najvišjega bitja. "Nečista" oblika ateizma je agnosticizem, s katerim se ni treba ukvarjati, ker izraža zgolj osebno negotovost. Agnostik se ne more odločiti, ali bi trdil, da Bog je, ali da ga ni. S tem, po S., izraža zgolj osebni dvom v obstoj Boga, ni pa to kategoričen dvom, ki bi veljal za vse. Lahko vprašamo pisca: ali trditev, da Bog je, ni njegova osebna trditev? Kako to, da je trditev "Bog je" kategorična in ne osebna, trditev "ne vem, ali Bog je ali ni" pa zgolj osebna? Morda zato, ker agnostik izrazi svojo osebno negotovost "ne vem"? Teist pa je implicitno osebno gotov, da ve. Svojo misel bi lahko izrekel takole: "Prepričan sem, da Bog je". Skratka, pisec ne uporablja istega merila za presojo dveh trditev. A to je tukaj postranskega pomena.
(Lahko vprašamo, ali je Descartesov "dvomim, torej sem" osebni ali kategorični dvom. Zgodovina filozofije kaže, da so ga pojmovali kot kategorično postavko. Zakaj ne kot zgolj osebni dvom, na katerega se ne gre ozirati? Pisec čuti, da je razlikovanje med "osebnim dvomom", ki velja le za eno osebo - ki je njena muha - in "kategoričnim dvomom", ki naj bi veljal splošno, vsaj v tem primeru neumestno. Zato se potrudi z dodatnim primerom. On osebno še ni bil na Danskem. Nobene neposredne izkušnje nima z Dansko. Kar se njega tiče, dvomi, da Danska je; ne more utemeljiti, da je. Ali to pomeni, da Danske ni? Ne, seveda ne, pravi: drugi so bili tam, torej je. Le on osebno dvomi, da je. Se pravi: hkrati ve, da je in dvomi, da je. Kako torej, doktor filozofije? Agnostik, lahko izpeljemo njegovo zamolčano ne-misel, dvomi, da Bog (Danska) obstaja (to je njegov osebni dvom), mnogi drugi pa vejo, da Bog (Danska) obstaja (kategorična gotovost), torej Bog obstaja. Ej, ej!)
Profesor zatem zavrne enega od argumentov, na katerega ateisti (večinoma) opirajo svojo sodbo, da ni Boga. Če bi bil (vsemogočni milostni) Bog, pravijo, ne bi dopuščal zla. Ker zlo je, torej Boga ni. Ta argument izključuje samo dobrega Boga, ne Boga nasploh. Bog je lahko zel ali ravnodušen. V tem ima pisec prav. Ob tem ne gre spregledati privoščljivosti in triumfalizma, s katerim zavrne ta argument ateistov. Pa občutek zmagoslavja ni upravičen. Predstava neskončno usmiljenega, dobrotnega Boga je prevladujoča predstava Boga. Zavrniti to predstavo z argumentom "ker je zlo, ni Boga", pomeni zavrniti prevladujočo predstavo Boga. To ni malo. Kdo si predstavlja zlega ali indiferentnega Boga; čemu naj bi kdo veroval vanj?
A vse to je še vedno postranskega pomena. Poglavitni argument proti ateizmu je v odgovoru na vprašanje, na kakšno evidenco se opira ateizem, ko zavrača obstoj Boga? Evidenco, "dokazno gradivo", pojmuje S. A. kot empirično, znanstveno evidenco, iste vrste kot fizikalne dokaze, da obstaja "težnost". Pisec napada trditev, da "ni Boga", zato ne bomo hudobni in ga ne bomo pozvali, naj najprej navede evidenco, da Bog je. Pustimo mu veselje ob sklepu, do katerega bo prišel, namreč sklepu, da ni mogoče navesti dokazov, da nečesa ni. Kdor bi hotel dokazati, da ni Boga (ki si ga pisec v tem argumentu predstavlja kot nekaj otipljivega), bi moral preiskati Zemljo in podzemlje, višine neba in globine morja, pretekle, sedanje in prihodnje čase in če ga ne bi našel bi upravičeno trdil, da ga ni. Tega človek ne more storiti. Če bi to lahko storil, bi bil Ateist sam Bog. (Profesor triumfira.) Torej: ateizem nima osnove. Huda past. Dokaži, da zlato runo ne obstaja. Dokaži, da na svetu ni krave z (naravno zraslimi) zlatimi rogovi. Dokaži, da v resnici ni Spidermana. Misija nemogoče. Izmislim si Minotavra, ti pa dokaži, da ga ni. Profesor nas je hudo zadel. Izmisli si neobstoječo reč (za katero on verjame, da obstaja), jaz pa naj dokažem, da je ni. Naj on izvoli dokazati, da je. Naj uporabi svojo metodo iskanja otipljivega Boga na nebu in na Zemlji. Ne bi bil prvi, ki bi to poskušal. Ko je Jurij Gagarin, kot prvi astronavt poletel v vesolje, ga je generalni sekretar Komunistične partije Sovjetske zveze, Nikita Hruščov, po radijski zvezi vprašal: Palkovnik Gagarin, Vi videli Boga? In Gagarin mu je odgovoril: Njet, tavarišč, generalni sekretar. To je bil za vesoljno Sovjetsko zvezo pedagoški dokaz, da Boga ni.
Najmanj, kar bi zdaj pričakovali od našega profesorja, bi bilo, da bi priznal agnostično pat pozicijo. Empirično, z znanstveno metodo ni mogoče ne dokazati ne ovreči obstoja Boga. To bi lahko storil samo Bog, ki bi se sam izbezal iz svoje luknje. V resnici profesor omeni to možnost. Tokrat agnosticizem ni več zaseben dvom, ampak je očitno kategoričen.
Vsekakor profesor triumfira: ateizem je iracionalen. O teizmu ob tem ne bev ne mev. Tudi ta je namreč, po isti poti dokazovanja, iracionalen.
Profesor zanosno razglasi "veliko ponižanje ateizma". Za povrh navede izrek meni neznanega Tanakha (morda kak indijanski vrač): "Bedak pravi v svojem srcu: ni Boga." Res je, zaključi profesor, ateizem je bombastično zatrjevanje, da ni Boga, brez evidence in logike. Kaj ni to neumnost?
Mirno lahko sklenemo, da tega profesor ni dokazal. Dokazal je, da trdna vera premaga vsako logiko.
Vir:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Atheism_on_Trial
In the magazine Philosophy Now Steven Anderson, a professor of philosophy in London, Ontario, Canada, published an article, in which he tries to prove, that atheism as a philosophical position is unfounded. I summarize his thinking and point to its contradictions and unsoundness.
The time when atheism was treated with gloves has passed, says the author. What once was a radical, heretical position, now has flooded the educational and cultural institutions; and has become an orthodoxy, an untested common sense. The task of philosophy is to question what seems obvious. Atheism is a new icon, and philosophy is iconoclastic. The really brave philosophical act of today is to challenge atheism, to show that it is unfounded. (Would the professor - referring to the same high philosophical stance - challenge atheism when it was not the mainstream?)
Atheism should be challenged in its pure form - so goes the thought. In its pure form atheism asserts that there is no God (gods), God in any form, no Supreme Being. The impure form of atheism is agnosticism, which we don't need to bother with because it reflects only the personal uncertainty of an agnostic. An agnostic can not decide whether to claim that God exists or to claim, that it does not. Thus, according to S. A., an agnostic merely expresses personal doubts as to the existence of God, which cannot be regarded as the categorical doubt that would apply generally. We could ask the writer: is the claim that God exists not his personal utterance? How is it that the assertion "God exists" is categorical and not personal, while the word "I doubt, that God exists" is merely a personal whim? Is it maybe because the agnostic expresses his/her personal uncertainty, saying "I do not know whether..."? Implicitly the theist expresses his/her personal certainty. He/she could say: "I am convinced that God exists". Both utterances are personal; one expresses the uncertainty and the other expresses the certainty regarding the existence of God. In short, the author does not use the same criterion for the assessment of the two arguments. But this is of secondary importance here.
(One could ask whether Descartes's "I doubt, therefore I am" expresses personal or categorical doubt /certainty. The history of philosophy shows that his maxim was regarded as a categorical sentence. Why - proclaiming of a doubt (thought) as the fundament of existence - has it not been regarded as Descartes's personal whim? The author feels that the distinction between "personal doubt" which is only valid for one person, and "categorical doubt" which applies generally, is inappropriate in this case. Therefore he makes efforts to further the case. He personally has yet to go to Denmark. He does not have any direct experience in Denmark. He clearly could doubt that Denmark exists. Does it mean that Denmark does not exist? No, of course not, says the author, others were there, reporting their experience, that it exists. Only he personally, lacking that experience, doubts that. Then: he knows that Denmark exists and doubts that at the same time. Agnostic - this is the implicit thought behind the example - doubts that God (Denmark) exists (this is his personal doubt, his personal whim), many others know that God (Denmark) exists (categorical certainty), therefore God exists. Hey, hey!)
The professor then rejects one of the arguments on which atheists (mostly) base their judgment that there is no God. If there was (almighty, graceful) God, they say, he would not allow evil to exist. But evil exists, therefore, there is no God. The author is right: this argument excludes only a good God, not a God in general. God could be evil or indifferent. The feeling of triumphalism accompanying the rejection of the atheist argument is not justified. The image of an infinitely merciful, benevolent God is the dominant idea of God. The argument "because evil exists, there is no (benevolent) God" rejects the prevailing idea of God. This is not little. Who believes in an evil or indifferent God?
But all this is still of marginal importance. The main argument against atheism concerns the evidence based on which the existence of God has been rejected by atheists. S. A. conceives "evidence" as an empirical, scientific record of the same type as the physical evidence that "gravity" exists.
Let's leave to the author the pleasure of the conclusion to which he will come, namely that the evidence that something does not exist cannot be given. Anyone who would want to prove that there is no God should investigate the Earth and the underworld, the height of the sky and the depth of the sea, past, present, and future times, and only then, if God is not found, would rightly argue that it does not exist. No man can do it. If any Atheist could do it, he/she would be the God himself. So, atheism has no basis. This is a very severe trap. Prove that the Golden Fleece does not exist. Prove that there is no cow with (naturally grown) golden horns in the world. Prove that Spiderman does not exist except in fairy tales. Imagine the Minotaur and ask me to prove, that it does not exist. The professor has hit us badly. Imagine a non-existent thing (of which he believes exists), and ask me to prove that it does not exist. Mission Impossible.
The professor is not the first to propose of seeking a tangible God, existent or not existent, with scientific means. Yuri Gagarin, the first astronaut in space, was asked by Nikita Khrushchev, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, whether he had seen God there over any conceivable clouds. The colonel answered: Njet, tavarišč generalni sekretar. His answer was broadcast over the vast country as the pedagogical proof of the non-existence of God. It was an easy task compared to the demand of Professor S. A.
We will expect now from our professor to admit fifty-fifty, an agnostic position to be more than a personal whim. Empirically, with the scientific method, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. This could be done only by God himself, who alone could flush out of his hole. In fact, the professor mentions this possibility. Agnosticism could no longer be a private doubt it would be categorical.
But the professor concludes: that atheism is irrational. About theism - nothing; not that using the same method of proving turns out to be irrational too. Instead, the professor enthusiastically declares a "great humiliation of atheism". To stress this he adds a saying of a Tanakha (perhaps an Indian witch doctor): "A fool says in his heart there is no God." True, the professor concludes, atheism is a bombastic assertion that there is no God, assertion without sense and logic.
We can safely conclude, that this is what the professor has not proven. He has proven, that firm belief defeats all logic.
Source:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Atheism_on_Trial
In the magazine Philosophy Now Steven Anderson, a professor of philosophy in London, Ontario, Canada, published an article, in which he tries to prove, that atheism as a philosophical position is unfounded. I summarize his thinking and point to its contradictions and unsoundness.
The time when atheism was treated with gloves has passed, says the author. What once was a radical, heretical position, now has flooded the educational and cultural institutions; and has become an orthodoxy, an untested common sense. The task of philosophy is to question what seems obvious. Atheism is a new icon, and philosophy is iconoclastic. The really brave philosophical act of today is to challenge atheism, to show that it is unfounded. (Would the professor - referring to the same high philosophical stance - challenge atheism when it was not the mainstream?)
Atheism should be challenged in its pure form - so goes the thought. In its pure form atheism asserts that there is no God (gods), God in any form, no Supreme Being. The impure form of atheism is agnosticism, which we don't need to bother with because it reflects only the personal uncertainty of an agnostic. An agnostic can not decide whether to claim that God exists or to claim, that it does not. Thus, according to S. A., an agnostic merely expresses personal doubts as to the existence of God, which cannot be regarded as the categorical doubt that would apply generally. We could ask the writer: is the claim that God exists not his personal utterance? How is it that the assertion "God exists" is categorical and not personal, while the word "I doubt, that God exists" is merely a personal whim? Is it maybe because the agnostic expresses his/her personal uncertainty, saying "I do not know whether..."? Implicitly the theist expresses his/her personal certainty. He/she could say: "I am convinced that God exists". Both utterances are personal; one expresses the uncertainty and the other expresses the certainty regarding the existence of God. In short, the author does not use the same criterion for the assessment of the two arguments. But this is of secondary importance here.
(One could ask whether Descartes's "I doubt, therefore I am" expresses personal or categorical doubt /certainty. The history of philosophy shows that his maxim was regarded as a categorical sentence. Why - proclaiming of a doubt (thought) as the fundament of existence - has it not been regarded as Descartes's personal whim? The author feels that the distinction between "personal doubt" which is only valid for one person, and "categorical doubt" which applies generally, is inappropriate in this case. Therefore he makes efforts to further the case. He personally has yet to go to Denmark. He does not have any direct experience in Denmark. He clearly could doubt that Denmark exists. Does it mean that Denmark does not exist? No, of course not, says the author, others were there, reporting their experience, that it exists. Only he personally, lacking that experience, doubts that. Then: he knows that Denmark exists and doubts that at the same time. Agnostic - this is the implicit thought behind the example - doubts that God (Denmark) exists (this is his personal doubt, his personal whim), many others know that God (Denmark) exists (categorical certainty), therefore God exists. Hey, hey!)
The professor then rejects one of the arguments on which atheists (mostly) base their judgment that there is no God. If there was (almighty, graceful) God, they say, he would not allow evil to exist. But evil exists, therefore, there is no God. The author is right: this argument excludes only a good God, not a God in general. God could be evil or indifferent. The feeling of triumphalism accompanying the rejection of the atheist argument is not justified. The image of an infinitely merciful, benevolent God is the dominant idea of God. The argument "because evil exists, there is no (benevolent) God" rejects the prevailing idea of God. This is not little. Who believes in an evil or indifferent God?
But all this is still of marginal importance. The main argument against atheism concerns the evidence based on which the existence of God has been rejected by atheists. S. A. conceives "evidence" as an empirical, scientific record of the same type as the physical evidence that "gravity" exists.
Let's leave to the author the pleasure of the conclusion to which he will come, namely that the evidence that something does not exist cannot be given. Anyone who would want to prove that there is no God should investigate the Earth and the underworld, the height of the sky and the depth of the sea, past, present, and future times, and only then, if God is not found, would rightly argue that it does not exist. No man can do it. If any Atheist could do it, he/she would be the God himself. So, atheism has no basis. This is a very severe trap. Prove that the Golden Fleece does not exist. Prove that there is no cow with (naturally grown) golden horns in the world. Prove that Spiderman does not exist except in fairy tales. Imagine the Minotaur and ask me to prove, that it does not exist. The professor has hit us badly. Imagine a non-existent thing (of which he believes exists), and ask me to prove that it does not exist. Mission Impossible.
The professor is not the first to propose of seeking a tangible God, existent or not existent, with scientific means. Yuri Gagarin, the first astronaut in space, was asked by Nikita Khrushchev, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, whether he had seen God there over any conceivable clouds. The colonel answered: Njet, tavarišč generalni sekretar. His answer was broadcast over the vast country as the pedagogical proof of the non-existence of God. It was an easy task compared to the demand of Professor S. A.
We will expect now from our professor to admit fifty-fifty, an agnostic position to be more than a personal whim. Empirically, with the scientific method, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. This could be done only by God himself, who alone could flush out of his hole. In fact, the professor mentions this possibility. Agnosticism could no longer be a private doubt it would be categorical.
But the professor concludes: that atheism is irrational. About theism - nothing; not that using the same method of proving turns out to be irrational too. Instead, the professor enthusiastically declares a "great humiliation of atheism". To stress this he adds a saying of a Tanakha (perhaps an Indian witch doctor): "A fool says in his heart there is no God." True, the professor concludes, atheism is a bombastic assertion that there is no God, assertion without sense and logic.
We can safely conclude, that this is what the professor has not proven. He has proven, that firm belief defeats all logic.
Source:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Atheism_on_Trial
