Christopher Werry Dana Nelkin 3-20-2012 Topic 1: Debate the existence of an omni-being. word count: 1236

Topic 4: Adjudicate the debate over NOMA. word count: 1999

Topic 1: Debate the existence of an omni-being. An omni-being is defined as being several things: all-knowing, all-good (omnibenevolent), all-powerful (omnipotent), and omnipresent. Given the limitless power that such a being would have, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of one with complete certainty. We can however, rationally examine the probability of such a statement. One way to do this is to consider the implications of the existence of such a being. We proceed by raising a few important questions: 1) For what reason(s) do we propose the existence of a deity? 2) If such a being is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, what are the reasons for the world to contain suffering? 3) If a deity created mankind, what was its purpose in doing so? I will proceed by thoroughly examining each question using my own arguments and those presented by others. I intend to expose the weakness present in the claim of an omni-being. 1. A deity is often used to explain why the universe exists; resolving the problem of how something could come from nothing. This does not solve the problem however, but raise another marginally difficult one about the origin of the deity itself. Now instead of questioning the origin of the universe we are left to question the origin of the deity. This further complicates the issue. Instead of dealing with an empirical, observable universe whose creation is an ongoing puzzle, we are now dealing with a deity many theists will define as being outside the observable bounds of nature. This is not a solution, merely an avoidance of responsibility to answer a very important question. 2. The justification of evil in the world is an argument attempted by many theists through what are called theodicies. The rather optimistic theodicy presented by Leibniz claims that an omni-God exists, and such a God would have made the best possible world; therefore this is the best possible world. Starting with the existence of God as a premise does little to support the authority of his claim. Leibniz is also doing little more than shifting the responsibility of the answer to an omni-being a rather unfair copout to what is a very important question. Other theodicies such as one presented by Richard Swinburne, a theist and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, postulate that there is no unnecessary evil. The idea here is that evil is used to bring about a greater good. Swinburne illustrates this point quite grotesquely in his book The Existence of God (2004) Suppose that one less person had been burnt by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Then there would have been one less opportunity for

courage and sympathy (p264). This attempt to justify such obviously horrendous torment exposes insensitivity of both the philosopher and the omni-being he attempts to rationalize. The theologian John Hick claimed that earthly trials are part of Gods process of creating perfect souls from our non-perfect beginnings, so that we may be ready to enter the kingdom of heaven. All of these arguments strike one very obvious chord, and it is the one of frantic defense. The ineffability of justification for so many problems involving an omni-being should conjure doubt in ones mind, as it does mine. 3. Some faiths claim to be God centered, i.e., we are created for the enjoyment of God. Many believe that God derives happiness from his everlasting love for us. Such a proposal conflicts with events of earthly suffering, leading us back to the debate discussed above. The easiest reason given to Gods transcendence is to say that it is simply beyond our comprehension, and moreover it is not our place to know the answer. To me, this is another prime example of the popular theist tactic of avoiding responsibility of answering a difficult (or perhaps unanswerable) question. I will now further expand my scope to that of a god, not necessarily of the omni variety. A widespread idea for believers is that a god is responsible for the creation of the universe. The use of a god to explain the big questions such as initial creation is a topic hotly discussed by atheist Richard Dawkins and theist Francis Collins in a debate over God vs. Science. At one point, Collins explains that God does not require a creation story for himself, and that his existence provides the answer to all of the how it came to be questions. To which Richard replies: It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this. Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, We're working on it. We're struggling to understand. [1] Science does not rely on varying accounts of philosophized defenses. Science is the progression of knowledge through observation and trials. For scientific knowledge, the answers do not come from our own postulations which vary on belief. The knowledge is absolute, whether you believe it or not. Even then, scientists possess humility by labeling thoroughly tested rules as theories. For science is still an inductive process, and as scientists admit, nothing can be known with complete certainty.

I will continue by examining what I believe to be the strongest the case for theology, presented by Richard Swinburne. Swinburne relies on the culmination of several arguments to bolster the probability of God. One of Swinburnes stronger arguments is his argument from design. He begins by examining the temporal order present in the universe. We observe this order through natural laws of the universe. However, these natural laws are irreducible. There must be a reason for this all-pervasive order, and that is an all-pervasive being: God. This is quite a leap to a rather unjustified conclusion. Swimeburne doesnt only assume that there must be an answer to the temporal order to the universe, but makes a leap of ignorance in possibility by assuming that the answer must be a divine being.. Swinburne provides further theistic justification in his fine-tuning argument. There exist approximately six universal constants which explain allowed the universe to develop into what it is today. If of these constants were slightly different, the universe would not have expanded in such a way to develop life. Swinburne argues that the fact that the constants happened to be finely tuned for life provides evidence for a fine-tuner, God. One of the ways to break down this argument is to propose the idea of the multiverse, in which our universe is just one of many. Most of these universes do not yield life due to their constants being off. However, with enough universes in existence, one was bound to get the constants right and yield life. Swinburnes refutes this idea by saying that this would require some sort of method to create random universes, which would require an intelligent designer. This is a prime example of jumping to conclusions by ignoring the possibility of a scientific explanation for universe creation. The other way to retort the fine-tuning argument is with the consideration that these universal constants may not be as free to change as we believe. For these reasons, I think the possibility of the existence of a deity is very unlikely. I am not completely closed off to the possibility, but currently there is no reason to entertain the idea of a god hypothesis.

1. http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/regions/profiles/Region_23_1.asp

Topic 4: Adjudicate the debate over NOMA. An ongoing debate shared between theists and atheists alike is the debate over NOMA, or nonoverlapping magisteria. The question asked is: Do science and religion conflict, or, do their magisteria (area of authority) overlap? Those who believe that science and religion have separate domains support NOMA. For those who believe that there is competition between the two, are against NOMA. My personal belief is that some parts of religion overlap with science and other parts do not. In other words, I reject NOMA. Conflicts arise between science and religion when religion attempts to provide explanation for phenomena that has been (or is capable of being) proven by science. Many biblical events fall under this overlap; events such as the rebirth of Christ, the miracles of Christ, the flooding of Earth, the parting of the red seas, the virgin birth, the plagues, etc. It does not take an impressive mastery of science to know that these events conflict with the widely accepted laws of nature. A more general definition of this overlap is that if any part of religion conflicts with scientific laws and principles, then overlap is present. When religion claims that Jesus turned water into wine, it falls under scientific scrutiny. When I address religion as a whole, I cannot single out the Christian divisions of faith. Thus it is important to state that the most prevalent religions believe in at least one supernatural deity and supernatural divine occurrences [1] The one major religion that (mostly) avoids the scientific magesteria is Buddhism, which is mostly based on meditation and deeper questions of self. This is where science and religion do not overlap. From our current scientific vantage, the questions of reason for existence, purpose of humanity, and afterlife are unanswerable. There may be a time when science has advanced to the point where we can begin to answer these questions, but as it stands there is no overlap. Neil deGrass Tyson summarized religion as an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. For the most part, I agree with this, though I do believe that some questions lying deep in the pocket may be unanswerable by science. Although, this does not mean that religion will provide the answers. A popular argument given by theists in support of NOMA is that God is outside of the bounds of the natural world, and thus God can bend or break these laws to his will. According to this belief, this is not something that science can disprove, for science can only observe unbroken laws that may be shifted according to Gods will. This is used to justify the occurrence of miracles while also accepting scientific principles. The well-established scientist, Francis Collins, holds this belief. In a debate about science and religion with Richard Dawkins, Collins states when asked about miracles: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to

invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? [2] This basic argument attempts to circumvent the issue of overlap. A weakness to this argument is exposed when one questions why there is no proof of Gods miracles. There is no geological evidence that would suggest water erosion from the great flooding in Genesis. Nor is there anything but solid proof against the creation miracle suggesting the six-thousand year age to the universe. Since there is no scientific evidence in support of religion, theists want science and religion separate. However, as Dawkins points out in his book The God Delusion (2006), if there was scientific evidence that could somehow show that Jesus Christs DNA was such that indicated evidence of no biological father, the whole issue of NOMA would be dropped and not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.(p 83) This enforces the idea that NOMA is religions attempt to escape the incongruity with scientific principles, not to support the idea of the two belonging to separate domains of faith and empirical observation. Perhaps a stronger case for NOMA is given by the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Gould, who argues that religion and science provide two different realms of inquiry. In his book, Rocks of Ages (1999), he presents his belief that science covers the realm of the empirical universe through fact and theory while religion covers the realm of moral and spiritual meaning and value. He believes that these two areas of knowledge do not overlap. This may appear similar to my views presented thus far. However, Gould ignores the overlap that does exist when religion conflicts with science through miracles and other supernatural occurrences. Gould attempts to strengthen NOMA with the following definition of competition. He states that competition requires both overlap of aims and conflicting content. According to Gould, religious explanation has a different aim than science, i.e., religion attempts to provide explanation in order to convey Gods meaning, while science provides explanation in order to model the empirical universe. Since these aims do not overlap, there is no competition between science and religion, and therefore NOMA is valid. Dawkins analyzes Goulds argument in The God Delusion, stating that many religious moral values are in fact immoral, such as the biblical views on racism, sexism, and homophobia. Therefore, religion should not be granted a separate magisteria of moral values, for it is providing false answers. He also mentions a fundamental point, that not every question is legitimate and possesses an answer. Just like asking what is the colour of abstraction? the questions of human meaning or moral conception may not have

answers at all. Religion attempting to provide answers and use such as justification for faith is extraneous. (p80) Personally, I do not believe questions pertaining to moral and pragmatic values should be ignored, even though there may not be any truth value to their answer. This is when religion is useful: as a philosophical set of ideals providing exploration for answers pertaining to the important questions of self, such as ones purpose in life, what happens in death, or their outlook on life. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case in religion. What does it mean to claim that science and religion conflict? For one it means that we cannot accept all religious claims at full truth value. If a religion has conflicting tenants with science, it lowers the legitimacy of its non-conflicting claims as well. Therefore we must approach religion with a more skeptical view. One conclusion that could be reached is that by accepting the competition between science and religion, with science coming out on top in the conflicting regions, religion must be limited to non-conflicting areas. According to Dawkins, this is the area of consolation. For me, the nonoverlapping region of religion covers those deeper questions discussed above. Any religion attempting to explain phenomena as the beginning of the universe falls under scientific scrutiny. If religion is redefined to answer questions that science cannot, then religion and science may coexist without conflict.

1. http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/regions/profiles/Region_23_1.asp 2. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047-god-vs-science-a-debate-between-richard-dawkins-andfrancis-collins