These are the standard objections to argument #17 on the list provided here...
The argument is stated as follows:
1 There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
2 Therefore there must be a God.
3 You either see this one or you don't.
Standard Objections to this argument
It's hard to tell if the authors are being serious. This is a (perhaps tongue in cheek) version of The Argument from Beauty, with a closing statement that implies the reader must be deficient in some way if they can't see the truth of the argument. This is the fallacious logic demonstrated in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. Two conmen promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to people who are stupid or incompetent. In fact, there are no clothes - the Emperor is naked. It is also a variation on the argument from design (the existence of Bach's brain is improbable therefore it was designed by God).
The conclusion (2) is stated as following from the premise (1) without any justification, other than a suggestion (3) that you either see the logic in the argument, or you don't.
The argument can be restated to justify any opinion of God. The following arguments are equally fallacious...
There are the books of Richard Dawkins
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don't.
There are parasites that kill innocent children
Therefore there must be a God
You either see this one or you don't.
There are parasites that kill innocent children
Therefore there can't possibly be a God
You either see this one or you don't.
There is something that you find beautiful (even if other people don't)
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don't.
There are Bible stories where God kills women and children
Therefore God is malevolent.
You either see this one or you don't
There is M-theory
Therefore God is not necessary to create a universe.
You either see this one or you don't
…and so on
If the last line of the argument is not a joke , then the argument is based on the fallacious argument of The Appeal to Faith.
There is no logical basis for the argument, unless the argument is based on the assumption that anything we consider to be beautiful can only come from God, therefore God exists. This is a circular argument.
Beauty is subjective. There are people who dislike the music of Bach.
The works of Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Da Vinci (or any artist whose work appeals to you) are indeed sublime (in the opinion of many people). In fact the list of great artists would fill hundreds of pages. But these works are sublime if God exists and they are sublime if God doesn't exist. Great works of art do not prove the existence of God; they prove the existence of artists.
It can be argued that the existence of works of art created by humans is evidence that God does not exist. There are no known examples of literature, poetry, music, paintings or sculptures created by God, but an endless list of such things produced by people.
"I also pass over the relatively crude contrivances of this Creator in the aesthetic field, wherein He has been far surpassed by man, as, for example, for adroitness of design, for complexity or for beauty, the sounds of an orchestra"
-H. L. Mencken
No comments:
Post a Comment