Apology #2: Engaging an American Atheist
Construct an essay that demonstrates your understanding of the excerpt from Madalyn Murray O’Hair that we read together in class. Your essay should follow the structure below.
(minimum of 21 sentences)
1. Introduction (1)
2. Citing specific examples, what do you notice about the tone of Ms. O’Hair? (3)
3. From what we’ve discussed in class: what is wrong with Ms. O’Hair’s claim about
“religionists” and “self-evident truths”? (1)
4. What name do we have for the cosmological and teleological arguments Ms. O’Hair
seems to disprove? (1)
5. What errors of judgment (premises) and fallacies (arguments) are present in Ms.
O’Hair’s discussion of the cosmological and teleological proofs? (5)
6. If you were confronted on the street by Ms. O’Hair and she began her refutation of the
arguments for God’s existence,
a. What would your first reaction be? (1)
b. What would your plan of action be? PRACTICAL TOOLS!
1. Short-termàif this was the only chance you had to talk to her. (4)
2. Long-termàif you would have the opportunity for frequent contact
with Ms. O’Hair for the next few years of your life. (4)
7. Conclusion (1)
Typed, double-spaced, 12 pt font
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, American Atheist
The fourth group of arguments has to do with rational and/or logical proofs. The Roman Catholic Church was the longest holdout turning to this group. But even now that church expects arguments to be logical. The kicker in the woodpile is that these so-called rational or logical proofs are based simply on a priori grounds. This is a so-called high fallutin' way of saying that the religionists start out with so-called '''self-evident truths." One of these is "In the beginning was the word." One then gets into nonsense for that sentence has absolutely no meaning at all. Understanding this we can proceed tongue in cheek. Rational arguments can be reduced to three main categories also: the cosmological, the teleological, and the ontological. Let's just look at these jawbreakers for a moment.
The cosmological argument is the most popular. This is the oldest argument and was advanced by Thomas Aquinas. It is based on the principle of cause and is called the principle of "causality." It holds that everything requires a cause to account for its existence. John Stuart Mill is the person who is credited with having put the K.O. to this argument. He tells the story that it was his little child who revealed the truth to him.
He was holding forth on his argument one day about everything needing to be caused, and his pre-school age child was listening. He said that since everything had to be caused, god caused everything. His child interrupted and said, "Daddy, if everything is caused, who caused god?"
At first sight, of course, this argument does sound convincing, but a very brief consideration reveals that it offers no real proof at all. That is, the theorist cannot solve his dilemma by postulating an uncaused first cause, when by his first premise everything must have a cause. That is to say, who gave god the wherewithal to begin everything? Who caused god? Who is god's mother? The cosmological argument is worthless.
The old Indian myths were that the world rested on an elephant, and the elephant rested on a tortoise (a huge turtle) and then a little Indian boy who tended elephants said, "Well, what does the turtle rest on?" and the great religious philosophers there said, "Let's change the subject."
The Atheist is very practical about this. We say simply, we do not know how the universe came into being, or what caused life at all. Let us all admit our ignorance and attempt to find out the answer through science and research. .
Be man enough to say with us, “We don’t know either.”
The second argument, the teleological argument, is also known as the natural law argument. This was the favorite of the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and the cosmographists. Generally it goes this way: as we look at the world around us, we observe an order and design which makes the assumption of a planning intelligence unavoidable. Look at the stars, the moon, the plants, the seasons, day and night, with rhythm. Actually, though, the teleological argument lies open to such easy attack that the modern theologians avoid it. What very little evidence there is of a purpose in this world, is overwhelmed by the conspicuous lack of benevolent purpose. The most unprejudiced mind can only allow that the universe appears indifferent to the life that swarms over it. Surely only a very evil deity, a very evil god, would create and smile upon the diseases of man, on war, earthquakes, defective children, floods, drought, hurricanes, polio. The teleological argument is worthless.
The ontological argument is the chief hope of the theologians. This holds that god's existence is implied by his nature, which the theologians define. This is an argument by definition. If we can define perfection, then it must exist, Oh, come now! It is impossible to prove existence merely by the process of definition. If I try to describe an elf to you, or a leprechaun, no matter how much detail can be given, this does not make that elf exist. Dickens could describe his characters like no other author. Yet this did not make David Copperfield become a real-live person. The ontological argument is worthless.