Proof of God
Although the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, many claims made about God or in his name can be tested. The age of the universe is open to scientific enquiry. The origin of man is open to scientific enquiry. Large scale historical events such as floods which wiped out almost all of mankind can be scientifically studied. There are many claims which are made in the Bible and other holy books which can be scientifically studied. When claims about the physical world made in holy books are tested, they invariably prove to be false. The biblical age of the universe is false, the story of man’s creation is wrong, there was no worldwide flood that wiped out all humans apart from one family. These claims are wrong. If the stories are allegories and metaphors it doesn’t matter that they are wrong. If the bible is the word of God, it does.
As with the comparison of science and social science, it is still worthwhile to test the validity of things which cannot be scientifically tested. How then do you test the wider, less specific claims of religion? One way is by comparison between religions which developed without contact with each other.
If there is a God who interacts with man through revelation, the revelations between religions should be the same. The rules of life should be the same. Again, religions fail this test for most of their revelations and rules. Morals do vary between religions. Worship varies. The number and nature of Gods vary. Nothing suggests that there is one God with a consistent set of rules for man to follow.
Where moral rules have been created through revelation, they are very different in their treatment of fellow worshippers and people of different faiths. In practice, this has historically meant a difference between members of the same community and other communities. You must not kill, is often ‘you must not kill members of your own community’. You must not steal is often ‘you must not steal from members of your own community’. The rules around how you treat members of other communities and other faiths is often very different and very brutal. Religion has historically been a group identity and a set of rules for helping member of that group live together in a community.
As with the comparison of science and social science, it is still worthwhile to test the validity of things which cannot be scientifically tested. How then do you test the wider, less specific claims of religion? One way is by comparison between religions which developed without contact with each other.
If there is a God who interacts with man through revelation, the revelations between religions should be the same. The rules of life should be the same. Again, religions fail this test for most of their revelations and rules. Morals do vary between religions. Worship varies. The number and nature of Gods vary. Nothing suggests that there is one God with a consistent set of rules for man to follow.
Where moral rules have been created through revelation, they are very different in their treatment of fellow worshippers and people of different faiths. In practice, this has historically meant a difference between members of the same community and other communities. You must not kill, is often ‘you must not kill members of your own community’. You must not steal is often ‘you must not steal from members of your own community’. The rules around how you treat members of other communities and other faiths is often very different and very brutal. Religion has historically been a group identity and a set of rules for helping member of that group live together in a community.
posted by craig fotheringham at 12:07 PM
2 Comments:
Nice and thoughtful blog you have here. I notice you use a capital "G" when referencing a god or gods. Isn't "God" a proper name referring to a particular god?
This is something I have thought about, so it's good to know it isn't just me. Yes, you are right. My thoughts usually take place in relation to specific religions, which is why I use the capital "G" as that more accurately reflects the thought process, but grammatically it should be "g". In some of the early posts it was a small "g". This is one subject that I am still agnostic on.
Post a Comment
<< Home