Philosophy

Lately, I have left science on one side and have been reading some philosophy because this is the field which has always fascinated me. I admire philosophers because they are deep thinking and ultra-smart people. The way you can disprove or make someone think about what they are saying using principles of philosophy is truly fascinating. And when it comes to atheism side of things, I have always found it fascinating that there are people who believe that they can – well, disprove claims of theism without even invoking 'evidence', by using philosophy, by thinking and reasoning deeply about their claims. 

This blog post series "What I know so far" will be focusing on the state of awareness about religious arguments and the objections to them at the time of writing the post. I fully acknowledge there is much, much more to learn and to think about when it comes to these concepts, so this post is kind of a snapshot of the things I have read so far about this argument. The plan is to do this for all arguments and even revisit them from time to time. So, let's get into it.

One of the arguments put forward for the existence of God is Anselm's Ontological Argument. This is an argument that tries to "prove" to us the existence of God by showing us that it is basically impossible to deny that a greatest possible being – God exists.

It is really an interesting argument because it tries to get to God using only rules of logic to show us that it's contradictory to think that God doesn't exist. As such, even as an Atheist, I have to say this is one ... dare I say it ... impressive argument precisely because it doesn't need anything empirical. All other arguments start from something – the fact that species exist, or that the universe exists, or that the morality exists and build from there. This argument is different. It starts with mere concepts.

Be careful when using this argument.

Atheists make weak arguments too. This is one of them. While it may seem bullet-proof at the first glance, let's see why it's not. So, if you use it, you will most likely lose to any non-trivial opponent. Let's get into it.

One of the arguments I do not particularly like is the so-called - not as bad as - argument. I am sure you have it seen all over the internet.
It can take many forms in many situations, for example:

• Religion is very influential, but not as influential as in Saudi Arabia
• Trump is a dictator, but nothing compared to Stalin
• Women are paid less than men, but children are starving in Africa
• Women do not have equality in Europe, but women in Saudi Arabia have it even worse

Is this a good argument? Certainly, at the first glance, it could see that way, especially if applied to issues that are connected, for example, the status of women in the western world when compared to the status of women in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or somewhere else. It kind of does seem to have some argumentative power. But, does it really?

Every so often it is possible to come across some right-wing blog or Facebook post which claims to have proof that women on average are less intelligent than men, or that black people are less intelligent than white people or that one nation is more intelligent than other. Naturally, if you’re a decent human being and a good person, your first instinct will most likely be to try and deny the factual basis of those claims and thus ending up in a flame war.

Sometimes I get the feeling people do not really understand what this whole democracy business is all about. I am sure that you too many times have seen arguments like „that is what majority wants, so we have to do it that way“, or „religion is in schools because the majority is religious“. So, let us see if these kinds of arguments have any merit or make sense.