Let's defeat some arguments

[Guest guest]

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

> Martin"

 

I found that a real good article.

 

ts, jdd

 

> 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.