Is Belief In God Reasonable?

Scholars such as Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman and William Paley to name a few,
present many different arguments for Gods existence. Some people find these arguments
convincing, however others would dismiss them as irrelevant. The Theological argument
argues there is a designer who created everything, the cosmological arguments suggests that
there must have been someone (God) who started everything off. Other arguments are the
Moral argument, Pascals Wager and the Cumulative argument. There are also many scholars
that counter these arguments, such as Charles Darwin, J.L Mackie and Sigmund Freud. Belief
in God may be reasonable however there are many arguments to consider.
The Theological Argument (Design) is one of the main arguments for Gods existence, and
was invented by William Paley. Many other scholars have attempted to counter it, such as
Charles Darwin, however it still remains one of the strongest arguments for Gods existence. It
argues there is evidence all around us of a Gods work, animals, plants, the planets as they are
all intricate. One of the Analogies it relies on is well known by philosophers. The
Watchmakers Analogy, Paley’s analogy leads us to compare a watch to our world which
many atheists consider its major flaw as they are completely different things. It contemplates
the idea of a designer creating our world similar to how a watchmaker would engineer a
watch. Everything around us has a purpose, similar to the gears in a watch. However it
commits a major fallacy as we observe many things around us, which appear to have little or
no purpose. For example what is the point of natural disasters, why does disease exist, why
do humans have a blind spot. A biblical response to this, is that the world is corrupted, and
this is the reason for all things bad in the world (Genesis 3). Charles Darwin’s Theory of
Evolution to many people proves this argument wrong, suggesting we have actually adapted
over millions of years, and so it appears to be perfect design. Although people such as
Charles Darwin point out flaws with the argument, Paley concludes intelligent life such as a
God must have designed the world, arguing pure chance could not have designed something
so complex as our planet. Many people believe the Design Argument is great despite the
evident fallacies it commits. Religious narratives such as the bible address these matters,
although some atheists are not convinced. Some theists even believe God could have started
Evolution, arguing both opinions could work together, and Darwin even states this in one of
his Books.
‘To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied
moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book
of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men
endeavour an endless progress or proficiency in both’
Another Argument for Gods existence is the Moral argument, two scholars are associated
with this argument, John Henry Newman and Immanuel Kant. The Moral argument explores
our morals and conscience, something we still know very little about. The idea that our guilty
conscience and morals were put in our head by God is very compelling to some, and is the
foundation of the moral argument. ‘We all have a sense of innate moral awareness – from this
we are under obligation to be moral’ Immanuel Kant also believes that we will be rewarded
for being good but not in this lifetime. Sigmund Freud, counters this however saying that our
morals are simply the voice of the moral lessons we were taught when we were young and
these lessons have become part of our unconscious mind, forming our conscious. Other
atheists may argue that not everyone appears to have morals, what about serial killers, or
rapists that do not show any signs of guilt for their actions. Edward Wilson claims that our
morals are what we have learnt as a species over millions of years, that we do not have god
given morals, we just know co-operating is better for us as a species. A theist may argue
although some people show no morals, there is no evidence a serial killer doesn’t feel terrible
after killing someone, it may just be their greed has overcome their morals.
The cosmological argument formulated by Thomas Aquinas is composed of 3 main points.
The question he seeks to answer, is why Is there something rather than nothing? His 3 main
points revolve around this question, they are arguments for, motion, causation and
contingency. The argument for motion asserts the idea that everything is in motion, therefore
something must have put motion into the world, for Thomas Aquinas this figure is God, the
Unmoved Mover. His argument for causation is that everything is caused by something, god
must be uncaused. An analogy to explain this is the domino analogy, if you have 5000
dominos in a room, you need something to start it of and so a series of cause and effect starts.
He rejects infinite regress and states for his final argument, argument for contingency, ‘there
are contingent things, contingent things cause other contingent things.’ He concludes there
must be a non - contingent thing to start everything off. However critics argue that someone
must have made god, Aquinas claims to reject infinite regress by just saying god started it.
Although this is a good counter, does the Big Bang do any better a job, claiming that
everything came from nothing? In many peoples eyes a God just makes more sense, and
who’s to say God didn’t start the Big Bang?
Pascals Wager is famous among both atheists and theists, and doesn’t argue for Gods
existence but merely states that the pros outweigh the cons. This argument by Blaise Pascal
provides a good argument for why belief in God is reasonable. It considers both sides and
concludes that believing in God has more pros than cons. For example, if heaven does exist
Believers will receive infinite luxuries and if it doesn’t finite losses, whereas an atheist would
have finite gains and infinite losses if hell were to exist. He states the it is only rational to
believe in God. However is it really religion if you only believe it for the gains?
When all is considered, belief in God is reasonable. Taking into account all the discussed
arguments, it is evident that although there are some underlying flaws, they all presents a
good case for Gods existence. Many atheists scholars give great ideas against each argument,
however overall these only lessen the arguments effectiveness and do not completely wipe
out the evidence. Belief in God cannot be dismissed as irrelevant, and this is even admitted
by major atheists such as Charles Darwin. If anything it is irrational to label religious beliefs
as being madness, because many atheist viewpoints also have flaws and it is impossible to
determine the existence of a God purely on evidence, many people may have had personal
experiences which they cannot explain. As shown in Pascals Wager some people simply
believe the pros outweigh the cons. The Design, Cosmological and Moral arguments only
attempt to explain how there could be God, and it is very much up to opinion.