"ELEMENTARY, MY DEAR WATSON !"

Mr Holmes always found enough indisputable evidence to solve the mystery and prove the guilt of even the craftiest of criminals.  He made it seem easy, obvious, elementary.

We accept all sorts of things without proof.  Besides subjects of debate and controversy such as the human factor in climate change, to say nothing of our political and racial prejudices which often replace rational judgement, we accept on faith, without proof, that the food we are being served in a restaurant or which we purchase in a store is not dangerous, that the pilot of our plane is not on drugs and that the banker, insurance salesman or the vendor at the door can be trusted.  We prefer proofs, but often have to take somebody's word for it and hope for the best.

When it comes to religious belief - the existence of God, the reality of an after-life or the divine inspiration of the Bible - most people believe because they have been told that such things are true.  Most intelligent people admit that you cannot prove either that God exists or that He doesn't.  There are, however, some theologians who continue to trot out the Five "Proofs" of St Thomas Aquinas, and even some who expect and challenge atheists to "prove" the non-existence of God.  (Atheists, of course, do not need to even try to disprove God's existence, any more than anyone can be expected to prove that leprechauns do not exist.)  The dialogue of the deaf about God's existence has ceased to interest me entirely.  I can understand why some people would consider many physical phenomena, including the beauty and complexity of "creation", as irrefutable indications if not proofs of a divine First Cause and Intelligent Designer, why others attribute to God certain extraordinary, unexplainable events which they believe are "miracles", or perhaps less spectacular occurrences in their own lives as direct, divine answers to prayers, and, finally, why some believers' unshakable faith is based on a quasi-mystical personal experience.  I have already suggested in previous Reflections that I am prepared even to accept, for the sake of discussion, that God in fact does exist, but that even if He did I would still find theological elucubrations so incredible and religion so ridiculous that I believe we should live our lives as if He didn't.

No one has ever "proved" or will ever "prove" the existence of God.  For me to accept the practice of religion, I would need proof of what is at the heart of religious belief : that we have an immortal soul, and that what purports to be Sacred Scripture is the revealed word of God.  These are the foundations of Christian faith.  I have spent my life examining them and found them not only unbelievable but pure fantasies of human invention and wishful thinking.  I do not share Sherlock Holmes' arrogance, but without calling it elementary, I would dare to affirm that the conclusion is inescapable :

                                                              DELENDA   RELIGIO

Comments

[thom]

Maintaining the distinction/separation between Theism and Religion can become difficult at times as recent squabbles on this blog (Last Post) have demonstrated. It would be fair to say that I have little current interest in the Theism dialogue. Indeed it can be conceded that one can believe in God and still not be interested at all in the wider claims of most Religions. I prefer to not believe in God and exhort others to be more thoughtfully wary of the wider claims of Religions - an easier task by far. Some earlier correspondents who seem to have disappeared urged me to read Edward Feser. He is a conservative Catholic philosopher who has established an enviable reputation as a populariser of philosophy - at least in some quarters. His mission seems to be directed to a re-examination of Aristotle with a view to resurrecting Thomism. I confess that I haven't read any of his books but I have viewed some of his talks and have seen what some others have to say about him. My disinterest derives in the main from my understanding that his main interest is Theism which really doesn't interest me any more. The arguments have been hashed and rehashed so many times over the centuries that I am confident no really new light will be shed - in decades and centuries to come the then current new-kid-on-the-block will still be recycling the same arguments. Bertrand Russell famously said of Aquinas "He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the results of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophise, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on Revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy; but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times". I have quoted this in full because I believe it could be applied with equal justification to Feser. If any readers are interested in a different view of Feser they might find some light but nevertheless enlightening reading at www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/ed-fesers-temper-tantrum/

The views of a good friend of mine, an eminent Professor of Geology and like me an atheist, were dismissed recently as being those of a mere geologist. "What would he know of philosophy" was the question imprudently asked. Lawrence Krauss is an eminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist and atheist. One suspects that he might therefore know more about the cosmological argument for God's existence than a mere philosopher like Feser. But I can't see any mileage in pursuing that line of argument. Krauss and Feser will never agree and neither has any hope of persuading the other that his beliefs are wrong.

But the silliness of the broader beliefs and practices of all religions should be apparent after even the most superficial inquiry. A respected Bishop said of his belief in the Assumption of Mary's body into heaven that he believed it because his mother had told him so. One can only shake one's head in disbelief.