Let's defeat some arguments

[Guest guest]

Some weaknesses of "A Disproof of God's Existence (1970) by Michael

Martin"

 

by bh. Jan (www.veda.harekrsna.cz)

 

"Prabhupada once humorously compared himself to a karate expert who

knew how to push on the weak spot of the opponent. He was not a

belligerent preacher looking for a fight, but he did see major

weaknesses or hypocrisy in many who claimed to be following religion,

and so he would always press on those points to bring out the

falsity." (Srila Prabhupada Meditations 1.6 by Satsvarupa Das Goswami)

 

So let's point to several obvious weaknesses in Mr. Martin's Disproof.

One could say they are not actually his but belong to those who came

up with such weak arguments - and he is just taking advantage of them.

 

The first one is judging God by human criteria, a common mistake. "I

cannot run 100 m under 10 seconds - so no one can!" God doesn't need

to obey a morality set for humans. Actually, morality is defined by

His actions.

 

The second weakness consists of basing his argument on limited

resources: "God = as described in Bible". This is expected since he

probably interacted only with Christians. However, using a limited

version of something one can certainly find incompleteness and

discrepancy. If an foreigner uses a pocket dictionary, on many

occassions it will be insufficient. The problem arises when he thinks

that there are no larger dictionaries available or judges them from

the point of view of a small dictionary: "Hey, it's not an English

word - I can't find it in _my_ dictionary!"

 

Dr. William Deadwyler (Ravindra Svarupa Dasa) wrote about this:

 

"...sometimes critics of some established notion of divinity should be

understood as not denying God or the divine as such but merely a

particular, faulty conception of God. I agree. Socrates, for instance,

was accused of atheism. But his 'atheism' was really a symptom of his

higher realization of God. People sometimes mistakenly think even of

themselves as atheists when at heart they are not. People have told me

'I don't believe in God', and when they explained to me what they

meant by 'God', I could truthfully say to them 'Well, I don't believe

in the same God you don't believe in.'

 

"Nietzsche, the great evangelist of the dead God, was not, in my

understanding, a true atheist. For he once remarked, 'I should be able

to believe in a God who could dance'. As a believer in Krishna, who is

known as Nataraja, the great dancer, I see that Nietzsche's faith was

unfulfilled and frustrated by the idea of divinity available to him.

But unfulfilled faith is not atheism."

 

Text with source and more info on Nietzsche's Vedic inspiration:

 

veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/philosophy1.htm#2

 

>From this stems the third weakness, the wrong premise that God doesn't

have certain experiences. He has them but in their pure forms. This is

called lila, a spiritual experience/pastime. He doesn't need to

experience the feelings in their imperfect form (i.e. contaminated by

matter) as matter-conditioned beings do. The matter covers our sensual

perception. Thus our current sensual experience can be compared to

seeing thru dark glasses, hearing thru earplugs, smelling thru a

gasmask or touching thru gloves. Or a sex in a diving suit. Who in

their sane mind would claim it to be the best or the only way?

 

Still, God is not bereft even of the material experience which He gets

through His parts and parcels - us. How? The Upanisads give an analogy

of two birds sitting on a tree. One bird (a conditioned being) enjoys

the fruits (karma) of the tree (material body) while the second bird

(an aspect of God called Paramatma, in the heart) witnesses his

actions. He is a direct and close witness of everything we do, like it

or not.

 

Vedas describe three types of learning experience. The first is to

hear and follow. This is the best and recommended way. The second way

is to see another person's mistakes and learn from them. The third way

is to disobey and be punished for that. This is the learning process

for fools. So when M. Martin equates "experiencing" with "succumbing

to" (since that's how humans usually experience such negative

feelings) he proposes the lowest type of experience which results in

person's punishment by karmic reactions.

 

By using this example Mr. Martin also shows his own position. Interest

only in how to eat, how to sleep, how to have sex, and how to protect

oneself is common to humans and animals. But the Vedas suggest humans

should aim at higher goals, ultimately leading to a non-material

self-realization.