Morality

The argument for morality is quite a popular argument for Theism.. In the most basic form, the argument goes like, there seems to be a moral law. If there is a Law, there must be a Law Giver, namely God.

Now, in order for this argument to be valid, the assumption must first be verified. Namely, that there is a Moral Law. We get a hint of it in the arguments of people. When people argue over who gets to take the seat (granted, in more gracious society, people don't do that, but the argument happens in their hearts often too), they say things like "I got here first, so I should have the seat" and so on. And after that, there comes the cry "its not fair!" These remarks are quite telling of the Law they seem to appeal to. They appeal to a certain standard of fairness which they expect the other party to adhere to. And interestingly, few people would reply "to hell with your standards". Rather, they would argue about some other factors that are more important than "being there first" etc. This brings us to the first observation. In dealing with people, people always have a certain standard to follow which they themselves believe should be followed, and expect others to follow. We shall for the moment leave aside discussions of whether the standard is exactly uniform, or what exactly is expected. My point is firstly that this standard is appealed to.

The second thing I would like to point out is the surprising uniformity of this particular standard which we appeal to. What is common between Confusious, Muhammad, Moses, Socrates, Plato and Jesus is quite substantial. You may argue about whether you should have only 1 wife or 4 or 1000, but almost all would agree that you cannot just have any woman you want. You would also be hard pressed to find a society which applauds cowardliness or liars. Even if you did find one, you would probably find that the one who is being lied to, when found out, will not be pleased with the liar, even if the rest of the society is (I am of course, meaning a lie with no "good" purpose, not a "white" lie). Such ideas are as alien to us as the shape of dogs in Pluto.

The third thing is the universal failure of people to keep this standard which they had set for themselves. Unless one really moves the standard to suit your own needs at that point of time, you would find that none is as charitable, as brave, as honest as he believes that he (or other people) should be.

The fourth thing is that people do actually compare their standards with that of other people's. And they do so quite "righteously". We look at the Nazis and say that their code of morality (with regards to exterminating Jews and the likes) are really sub-human. As though our own set of morals are "higher" than theirs. We are saying that they "should" not exterminate innocent people. But here comes a curious point. On what basis do we say this? We are almost saying that there is a "correct" way to behave, that all men should conform to, that is not dependent on the society.

All these put together seem to suggest a real standard that exists outside of human creation.

But before we move to that conclusion, let us look at some other arguments. It had been proposed that morality need not come from within or from above, but can be the result of human convention. Now, I am not really interested in the form of how it came about. Sufficient to say that there had been some ideas that are possible ways that the moral code had developed. Whether or not they are true is of course, another matter, and little evidence had been given to show why this other way is more probable than that of a absolute standard. (I would stand corrected if anyone does show me some argument or evidence that this is more probable. Don't bother about David Hume's argument about miracles for the moment though, I will get to that in a later post)

What I am interested in, is the logical conclusion of such a belief. It does mean that we may no longer say to other people that their standard is wrong. The Nazis have as much a right to do what they believe. And so does the thief. And the liar. And the murderer. None have a right to say you "should not". At most, you can say you "will be well advised not to" or that "you will be punished severely" or that "you will cause great inconvenience to others". But there is no such thing as "should not". Afterall, they are conventions.

(Hmmm.. I think there is a better logical conclusion, but its quite illusive to me for now.. This seems fairly weak. Nevermind, I will come back to it next time when I can remember my thoughts)

I suppose you can eventually take this position. But you cannot reject the absolute morals and at the same time, demand that people follow your own standard. On what basis should they?

First Cause

We shall now move on the the Cosmological argument, more popularly known as the argument from First Cause. Other words associated with it is "Prime Mover", efficacy, and contingency. What all these means, however, is quite un-necessary for purpose of discussion.

The form by which this argument is popularly known is this: Everything has a Cause. For instance, if you ask what causes the light, it will be the sun, which is caused by the Hydrogen fusing to Helium, which came together by gravity... And so on. In other words, there is a direct reason for everything. The next step of the argument is that, there must be a beginning at this whole chain of cause - otherwise you will get an infinite regression. And the last step of this argument is that the First cause is God.

Now, there are flaws in this argument. I would however, like to say that I do not believe the flaw to lie in the second step (in other words, the step which rejects infinite regressions). It does not really make sense to me for there to have infinite time behind us. Afterall, how do we reach today if the past was an infinite length of time? Furthermore, science had always upheld the second law of thermodynamics, which is that Entropy (chaos) will always increase. The effect of this is that it gives the Universe a limited lifespan, because one day, the entire Universe will have maximum Chaos, and all will be even and cold... But if that is the future of the Universe, it will mean that there was a time in which the universe was singularly orderly (or at any rate, much more orderly than now). It cannot be infinitely orderly, because that is quite nonsensical (I mean, order is something that relates to things, not to infinities). In other words, there must had been a beginning. More modern discoveries also support this in the form of the Big Bang Theory, which also suggests that there was a beginning for the Universe, and for Time itself.

The more correct objection to this argument lies in the premise that everything has a cause behind it. But if that is the premise, surely that applies to God as well. Which leads to the question, who created God? And if that is the premise, it is a valid question. The other objection brought out is that, why is there a need to put God into the equation? Why can't the entire Universe itself be the First Cause, the Big Bang be the start of everything?

Which is why, the argument needs a little bit of modification. The premise used should had better been that everything is either Caused or Not Caused. This is valid because it is just a simple statement that means something like, everything must either be a square or not a square. It does not say much, but it is true. The second step would be that the entire Universe is a Caused object. This is derived from the idea that the entire universe is changing all the time. And change is a property of Caused objects (I mean, something that is not Caused won't be changing right?)

The next step is that caused objects can't cause itself (I agree with this for reasons stated above). And thus, the conclusion is that there must be an object that is Not Caused, and the popular name given to this is God.

Hmmm.. I do believe this to be a fairly workable argument. If there be any detraction it would perhaps be that the Universe is itself a Caused object. That might be open to arguments. The usual backing for this is the idea that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and the Universe, if it started from the big bang, could not had been from "nothing".

But there are limits to this argument. It does not tell us anything at all about the properties of this "First Cause", except that it is Un-caused, eternal, and unchanging. Not bad for a start, but seriously, not exactly a good place to end if you are looking for ultimate truth.

Of course, this argument cannot tell us conclusively that "God" does not exist. At the most, if this entire argument is found to be false, it just means that it cannot tell us anything about God.

Ontological Argument

Now, the God that the Christians (as well as the Jews and Muslims) had always talked about is said to be the most perfect being, or a being the possess all perfection. Someone then attached an idea that Existence is a perfection. As such, the conclusion is that God exists - because he possess all perfection.

Needless to say, this argument had received much criticisms. The best reason I heard so far (in my opinion) explaining why this argument is faulty, is that Existence is not so much a perfection, as much as it is a property. In other words, to exist is not so much "better" than not to exist, but rather, it is the basis on which you can discuss any question of value.

That of course, throws this argument out of the window.

Honestly, I do wonder why people come up with arguments like this.. It does make the case for Christianity seem a little desperate.. Though it was in the midst of a Christian nation (or at least, one where Christianity had gotten some foothold..)

Introduction

Ever since the chat with my friend about Philosophy, especially with regards to God, I had wanted to write more fully about this topic.. so.. here goes nothing. Basically, here, I will attempt to look at the most commonly used arguments for and against God, and examine them in their merits and failings. They will mostly start from the more general form (a higher power, a general God), and then slowly proceed towards Christianity itself (the faith that I profess).

Now, this is not to be confused with Christianity itself, as you will largely find that you will neither become more charitable nor will you Love God any more simply by reading all of these (unless of course, it is God who works). That is not my intention. It should however, hopefully be able to clear away some of the musty air that is around the arguments about God.

By the way, this is written by laymen, for laymen, so pardon me if some people more advanced in philosophy believes the terms used to be faulty, or if some don't like the.. style =p

I have no plan as of now about where and when and how this will proceed, but.. here we go ;)