These are the standard objections to argument #19 on the list provided here...
The argument is structured as follows:
1 Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era.
2 Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3 It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4 Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.
Standard Objections
This argument has lost popularity since it was recognised as being a logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Common Belief. The basis of the argument is that belief in gods of some kind is instinctive and has been part of human society throughout human history. The argument suggests that the best way to explain the existence of such beliefs, is to assume that gods of some kind really do exist. Belief in a god or gods wouldn’t be so widespread if some kind of god or gods didn’t exist, therefore they/she/he/it must exist.
Premise 1 defines God as "that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due". But this is not how everyone defines God. And what does "properly" mean in this context? Do the worshippers of one God consider the worship of a different God to be non "proper"? If so how do we determine which God is the "proper" God? Given the vast array of gods in human history, the premise would be re-written so that it refers to "those beings which humans have revered and worshipped during the course of human history.
Premise 1 also assumes that reference and worship of God is common to almost all people of every era. This is factually incorrect. Currently about 18% of the human race do not worship any kind of god and the three major world religions disagree on the nature of their gods. There is also a problem with the word "common". Does this imply that it is common because cultures indoctrinated their children to believe or does it mean common because belief in a god is instinctive or innate? If it's due to indoctrination then it's possible people are being indoctrinated by a minority to believe something that is not true. If the belief was innate, then it would be present in our minds at birth. But this is not true as there are many people who don't believe in gods, and such belief has to be taught to children through specific instruction or indoctrination.
Also, there are more non-religious people now than at any time in history? Does that mean that God becomes less probable as time goes by? In that case, one would assume religious apologists would argue that the number of believers is not relevant to the probability of God's existence. And that's the exact opposite of the argument presented here.
Premise 2 sounds sensible but it is actually a false dichotomy because there is a middle ground between the two options given. The existence of ideas about gods may be explained by natural selection. Such ideas could have provided a valuable attribute which facilitated the survival and success of the human species. There are several advantages to religious belief so natural selection provides a simple explanation of why such beliefs exist - and it also explains why the range of beliefs is so wide and varied. This explanation overcomes the problem with the theological argument - if people believed in God because God exists, then they would all believe in the same God. But they don't. Natural selection explains why.
Premise 3 makes the false claim that the vast majority of people cannot believe in something that is wrong. History shows this is not true. The vast majority of people believed the earth was the centre of the universe. The vast majority of people believed the universe was created in 7 days. In fact the list of things that most people have believed to be true but which were not true, is a very long list.
The conclusion (4) is based on false or questionable premises, and so the argument fails.
No comments:
Post a Comment