Morality and God - Essay Example

? MORALITY AND GOD and number: submitted; Introduction Many things need to be considered to appropriately label a divine being as God. It would have to be all-powerful, all-knowledgeable, is everywhere and is all powerful. It is a realization that many people , both believers and non-believers doubt that the existence of God can be demonstrated or even argued about. Hence the need to ask, “Does God exists?” And is proof for the existence of God necessary? There have emerged various arguments to support the existence of God. First being the ontological argument that invokes the belief of the existence of a being that is all perfect, omniscient and powerful. It asserts that God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.” The second purported evidence that convicts the belief of the existence of God is the ‘cosmological argument’ which firmly asserts that something must have brought the universe in to being what it is; nothing can merely come into existence without having some force spurring it to existence (Murphy, 2011). The third purported truth is the argument from design which seeks to base the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered with forces and laws that complement each other giving support to the survival of human lives. This asserts that God made the universe with human being like us in mind. Another argument that seeks to prove the existence of God is the moral argument which asserts that we are all bound to act under some moral laws. Laws that tell us what to do. So who is it really that orders us to behave morally? The argument from design probably holds more water. Scientists have not even been able to come up with clear facts to explain evolution and how everything in the universe seems to co-exist naturally as though it was all pre-planned. It is therefore most likely that the creator intended to create a universe that could support life, because it could have had different matter laws to bar the existence but it didn’t. It thus preposterous to assert the existence of God impossible. The theory of evolution has been around for more than a century and has influenced the way people look at the world and proposes that they came in to being as a result of chance and they belong to a species group. The idea has gained momentum and the effects can be reflected in the development of bloody ideologies as people keep distancing themselves from the morality of religion. The theory of evolution has been put forward as an imaginary hypothesis and to this day has not been backed up by any scientific experiment. Trials for this confirmation have further proven its invalidity. Nevertheless, many people have accepted the theory as fact like the law of gravity. Modern science however has proven in regards with the complexity of the human structure that it is quite impossible for life to come about as chance or emerge from natural conditions. What is the meaning of human life? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Social feelings are a source of the crystallization of religion. The desire for guidance, love and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of providence who protects, disposes, rewards and punishes. The God who according to the width of the believers outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the human race, or even for life as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the moral conception of God. We often arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion is very different. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for very obvious reasons. The people that believe in science and that really take the hypothesis of causality seriously are thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a ‘being’ who interferes in the course of happening events. They have no use for religion of fear and equality and less for social and moral religion (SChulweis, 2004 ). The ideology that people cannot be good without professing a conviction in some supernatural being prevails in many societies worldwide. Question is how could anything originate from the opposite? How could truth come from error? Such genesis is perceived as impossible. Things of the highest value must have an origin of their own; a different origin. It is illusory that their source is in this paltry world but rather in the in transitory concealed God. Indeed to fully understand the assertions of a philosopher and why they settled on a particular argument, it is fair to ask” what morality does him or they aim at?” It is inconceivable to perceive a God that punishes and rewards (Mosser, 2008). Some people are under reason that a man’s doings are propelled by necessity whether internal or external so that in ‘God’s’ eyes he is tantamount to an inanimate object and hence he cannot take responsibility for any evil committed. Science has for this reason been charged with undermining morality. But this charge does not hold a firm conviction because a man’s ethics should be based effectually on social ties and education; this is regardless of a religious basis. Human beings do not need to belong to any religion or believe in God so as to do well or to be good. Having a sense of moral right is not dependent on God belief; moral rectitude is by far natural rather than predicated on any supernatural faith. God has given the human race free will where they are not forced to love him and hence given the ability to do evil. Religion asserts that God created both darkness and light. He created both goodness and evil. All in all God does not directly will evil, in fact his omnipotence and goodness is such as to bring good out of evil. He who made the universe out of nothingness has a plan to make good out of the disorder of evil. The answer to the question whether God and evil can be reconciled is an unequivocal yes. He does not obliterate sinners or destroy them because of their choices to turn away from him. He however embraces them and forgives their transgressions and gives people more chances to make better choices. This is how human free will is reconciled to God’s omniscience. Humans have free will to do as they choose. Although God in his omniscience knows what our free choices will be and the impact of the choices, our choices are ours and are still free (Theodre, 2009). Initially ideologies in philosophy, theology and natural law coexisted in harmony. That tranquility today has turned into Science and religion being strong antagonists for quite some time. Still others do maintain that science and religion support each other while others strongly oppose this notion. Scientific minds have peculiar religious feelings of their own but this feeling is quite different from the religion of the naive man. For them God is a being in which one benefits from his care and whose punishment one fears; a being that one can stand to some extent in personal relation. On the contrary the scientist is utterly consumed by the ideology of universal causation, this being the guiding principles of his life and work. According to Scientists, the past very certainly determines the future and that there is nothing godly about morality, it’s simply a human affair. His assertions are contented by the belief of natural law. The hostility arises under the claims that if scientific theories are wrong then religious theories are true and vice versa. The claim further depicts that the opponent is not simply wrong but is also operating under great delusions. There are various arguments that arise from atheism. One kind of argument that can be deemed rational is the evidential argument from severe evil or catastrophe in the world as strong evidence against the existence of God. This is a tangible argument critisizing why God allows bad to happen to people. Other arguments which depicts the scope of nonbelief or which attempts to show that the [proposition of God’s existence is logically incompatible with some contingent fact about the world does not clearly or truthfully reflect the truth about atheism. They oppose religion beliefs by delivering merely possibility claims. Philosophy theism asserts that God’s existence is contingent to imply that it is possible for Him not to exist; notion that is also not firmly grounded. Everything in the universe can be regarded as contingent; God however is independent of anything to exist (Wainwright, 2005). The debate about the existence of God is one of the oldest in history with some people asserting this belief as a delusion propelled by the need of people to feel connected to a greater power. Religion seeks to clarify that God exists in Himself and will always exist in the present. Indeed the idea of God not existing is logically contradictory. The idea that God does not depend upon anything for his existence means that God exists necessarily. Therefore, it is by a firm argument that it isn’t by any whit possible for God not to exist. We can conceive of the non- existence of things, but not of God! References Mosser, K. (2008). Necessity & possibility: The logical strategy of Kant's critique of pure reason. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press. Murphy, M.C (2011). God and moral law: On the theistic explanation of morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SChulweis, H.M. (2004). Evil and the morality of God. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. Theodore S. J. (2009). Morality Requires God ... or Does It? . Toronto: Nelson Education. Wainwright, W.J. (2005). Religion and morality. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Read More