The existence of God is a question which has caused much debate for many years. A vast number of philosophers, such as Pascal, have attempted to resolve the issue but, so far, none has managed to convince enough people either way.
The Design Argument claims that an Higher Intelligence exists which designed and created the Universe (IEP, 2012). Pre-Darwin, the Design theorists claimed that evidence for this was in the apparent design of nature. Following Darwin’s theory, the Design Argument was revised to agree that the process of Evolution took place, but that an Higher Being set it off (IEP, 2012). There is plenty of evidence of divine design on planet Earth. The intricacy of design and processes in the world is massive. When considering this, it is easy to see how it must have been ‘designed’ by an Higher Intelligence. However, Darwin’s theory of evolution explains the intricacies in the world without the need for a divine force.
Whether or not to believe in a God has been a subject of debate for centuries. Pascal’s Wager stated that although the existence of God cannot be proved, a person should wager as though God exists, because living a life with the belief of God has much to gain and nothing to lose (Stanford, 2008). James’ theory is similar in that he claimed it is better to believe in God even if there is no God and no afterlife (Stanford, 2009). He argued that if neither exist, nothing has been lost in believing; however, people can gain valuable moral and social attributes from believing. According to James, it is better to believe in potential falsehoods, such as the existence of God, as this belief will enhance a person’s life and not take anything away from it.
Many people question that if there is a God, how can He allow such suffering to take place (Johnson). St Augustine defends this argument. His argument claims that human evil occurs when humans use their (God-given) free will to turn away from God. Another important element of Augustine’s argument is that man’s view of the world is too limited for us to understand or judge its overall goodness (Shoulder, 2012).
Richard Feldman claims that where two people with the same evidence differ in opinion, a decision can be suspended. Regarding living a life with or without God, a decision has to be made as the answer is, in theory, all encompassing. However, Feldman’s theory can be applied to scientific matters. Therefore if the question of God’s existence is viewed as purely scientific, then James could be wrong. There are millions of agnostics in the world doing just that: suspending judgement.
On the one hand, the truthfulness of a belief is not found by referring to its popularity among a group of people. On the other hand, the concept of ‘free will’ is fluid – it could mean different things to different people. Therefore, if people believe that they have free will, it’s conceivable that they do. It is popular to believe that what most people believe must be right. However, popularity does not add truth to a claim. A majority of people can be wrong as that majority is made up of individuals.
Much debate has been dedicated to the question of whether God exists. However, claims about God don’t appear to be verifiable or falsifiable. Despite the views of various philosophers such as Pascal, James and St Augustine, the matter is unlikely to ever be resolved.
Johnson. Why Doesn’t God Intervene and Pascal’s Wager.
IEP. (2012). Design Arguments for the Existence of God. Retrieved from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
Shoulder, K. (2012). Augustine’s View of God. Net Places. Retrieved from
http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy/early-medieval-philosophy-st-
augustine/augustines-view-of-god.htm
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (2009). William James. Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (2008). Pascal’s Wager. Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
