Another interesting argument is offered by Douglas Walton and explains that the God traditionally believed in must be all-virtuous, but certain virtues (like courage) can only be developed in the context of flawed, fallible creatures. Ergo, a perfect God cannot be all-virtuous. Here's the formal statement of his argument:
- God is (by definition) a being than which no greater being can be thought.
- Greatness includes greatness of virtue.
- Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous.
- But virtue involves overcoming pains and dangers.
- Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.
- A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one than which no greater being can be thought.
- For you can think of a greater being, that is, one that is nonsuffering and indestructible.
- Therefore, God does not exist.
Something interesting about this argument which Walton does not go into is its relationship to the Argument from Evil. Many theists attempt to refute the Argument from Evil by claiming that suffering, privation, destruction, etc. exist because, without them, we would never develop virtues like courage and charity. Theists grant that the evil in the world is bad, but argue that the development of virtue is worth all that evil.
This means that their god must not have those virtues because their "perfect" God is, by their own definition, incapable of developing virtues like courage. There are a number of possible conclusions we can draw form this, none of them very good from the theist's perspective.
Perhaps we humans possess good attributes that God can't have — but that would make us better than God on certain levels. Perhaps these virtues really aren't so great after all, and thus we aren't better than God — but that would undermine the above theodicy which argues that these virtues are so wonderful they make all the evil worthwhile. Or, perhaps, God does have these virtues because God isn't perfect either — but an imperfect God wouldn't be as worthy of worship as believers claim.
Bottom Line
I wrote above that this book could be a "possible" antidote to the general ignorance about the arguments and ideas that are out there, but why only "possible"? Because it won't work if people don't read it and I'm pessimistic about how many people will pick it up.
The Impossibility of God, edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier
Some of the arguments here are a bit technical and perhaps beyond the average reader, but there are many more that are understandable and they more than make up for the technical ones. Moreover, the editors provide good summaries and explanations of many of the most important points being made. I doubt that a strong religious believer would be swayed simply from reading this book, but if they read it with an open mind they come away thinking a bit more critically about some of the things they have been taught.
« Back...
