I've just read the essay by Bertrand Russell Why I Am Not A Christian and have a couple of questions...

The "traditional" proofs arguing in favor of the existence of God, these are not meant to be solid proofs are they? But rather point to the reasonableness of God, right?

Also, he claims that in the end what really moves people into believing is that they were born into the religion, or that we need a sense of security and comfort.

I don't really like the idea of simplifying faith to merely a crutch. But even then, should there be a true faith would not the sense of security be a characteristic of that faith. Basically showing how useless that argument is?

-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004

Answers

All of us are "broken". But some are too proud to use a crutch, so they try to struggle around on their broken legs, injuring themselves further. I recall someone reading that essay and saying "If this is the best argument that a great modern philosopher can come up with for not being a Christian, then you can count me IN!"

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

Hi Jacob I dont know if this discussion from another board will be of any use to you but if youre interested...

http://ilx.p3r.net/thread.php?msgid=5293840

Peace

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

There are two arguments here. One is the logical one based on the principle of cause and effect - that's the basis for all the classic proof for the existence of a God (a God that has to be one, spiritual, all powerful and omniscient).

This is the God of Plato and/or Aristotle - although Aristotle typically goes further than Plato in delving what attributes this God must have, almost to the point of recognizing God as necessarily our friend (cf. Nicomachean ethics).

Then there is the human or psychological proof for the existence of a God... this typically is what Bertrand runs off into and this was the angle that the German philosophers tried to score points for atheism by claiming God was a projection of our mind, or of weak minds, or an excuse, etc.

In my dealings with atheists I have used the causal/phenomenological proof based on what they definately know as true and back track to what must be the cause of this phenomena.

For example - if you are reading this email you understand English - that is, words are not tjk;ajhg;kdjrfhg;ajkrg but symbols that MEAN something.

Now this means that in the mind of man there are not just perceptions but also conceptions - knowledge thus is not just material but conceptual.

But if the materialist claims all is atoms and energy, parts, how could you explain the brain's effect of non-material, non spatial thoughts?

Because we definately DO have conceptual thoughts which are non spatial, non-material, (justice, love, "if", "No" etc.) the mind can't be co-terminous with the brain.

Reason: the effect is either equal to or less than the cause. We know the brain is spatial and material, it has parts. But we KNOW things which are neither spatial nor material, hence there must be something in our minds, our consciousness that is a cause of such thoughts and this thing can't be itself composed of parts or materials.

OK, so we conclude based on known phenomena that the mind is not the brain and the mind is not material but...sprititual.

OK but we know the body of man is procreated by our parents... but where does this non-material mind which is spiritual come from?

It can't come from our parents through sex... so there has to be some cause equal to or greater than the human spiritual mind to cause it.

Spinoza concluded that there was some amorphous world spirit, like a Matrix uploading knowledge into every head. That's just stupid. If it were true we wouldn't need to communicate with one another and we definiately wouldn't argue with one another! But since we do....we have to conclude that the cause of our mind is not running our mind.

I could go on. Shall I?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.