Religion

[silverchris9]

Could you give some examples of evidence for God?

How foundational? Can you give it to me briefly? I've never read nietzsche, tho I'd like to at some point.

Evidence for God:

1) Cosmological argument: if you accept the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, then since the universe began to exist (per the Big Bang), it must have a cause. The first premise ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") may sound like bs, but really, it's as inductively likely as anything established to be true by a science, since I can provide a buttload of things that begin to exist that have a cause, whereas I can't think of any that begin to exist that don't have a cause. The argument turns on whether or not you're OK with the idea that things that don't begin to exist have a cause, but I think this is a reasonable claim to assent to, because otherwise you have infinite regress (x caused the world, y caused x, z caused y, a caused z, b caused a ad infinitum).

So, I tend to reformulate the argument like this: something has to be eternal. According to the Big Bang Theory, that eternal thing isn't the world. So it's probably an immaterial (since matter was created/began to exist at the Big Bang), extraordinarily powerful (since it created the world out of nothing, or at least nothing material), and eternal/atemporal being. An immaterial, incredibly powerful, eternal being pretty much fits the bill for "God".

2) Teleological argument: basically, intelligent design, but it has to do with stuff like how earth is a certain distance from the sun, the sun is a certain type of star, the cosmic background radiation is a certain wavelength, gravity is of a certain strength, etc., and without all this stuff, life couldn't exist. The probability of this happening randomly is fairly low, so it seems likely that there is a God that made all these things happen in this precise way.

3) Moral argument: alright, this is where the foundational bit comes in. If you believe in objective morality, there has to be an objective standard for that morality. But where does the standard come from? It can't come from individuals, because then the right thing to do is whatever each individual thinks it is (solipsism). It can't come from cultures, because then the right thing to do is whatever each culture does (cultural relativism). This might seem to be okay, until you remember that this means that slavery in the United States, the gladiatorial games in Rome, this practice, known as widow-burning, are all okay because they were sanctioned by the cultures where they took place, to say nothing of Nazi Germany. So, what standard can there be for morality besides people and society? Maybe you could argue the earth as source for morality in some way, but then you get into arguments like "it is the law of the earth that the weak dominate the strong; I am strong; therefore I am justified in dominating you who are weak." So, it seems likely that there is a source for morality that transcends the individual, culture, and the world. This would appear to be God.

4) Ontological argument: somewhat bs argument, but some thinkers have argued that God is true-by-definition, because God is that of which no greater can be conceived, and since it is greater to exist than not to exist (existence is a perfection), it follows that God must exist.

Side note: people try to counter that argument with the "perfect island" or "perfect unicorn" argument, (a perfect unicorn must exist for the same reasons as God must, according to this argument), but that is a terrible counterargument, because, quite frankly, that perfect unicorn would be God, and would not have all the properties of a unicorn. For instance, it is one of the properties of all things that have physical existence on earth that they come into being and go out of being. One could argue that if one did not have this property, one could not be considered a thing with a purely physical existence on earth. So then the "perfect island" has a characteristic that islands cannot have, insofar as the "perfect" island would not be generated and could not be destroyed. Also, islands and unicorns both have defined physical limits, can move at finite speeds, etc., and both of these things seem like they would not belong to the greatest possible being. So yeah, that counterargument is crap.

Some random other stuff:

-Descartes and Augustine both think that the only proof that we are not in a matrix-like situation is a benevolent God who would not want to deceive us.
-There's a guy named Alvin Plantiga who has a book called "God and Other Minds" that argues that we have as much reason to believe that God exists as we have to believe that other people have minds.
-Historically, there's the problem of the transformation of the disciples, how and for what reason the disciples stopped being afraid of their hostile governments and started building the Christian church. This only works if you accept the account of the Bible, I suppose, but there are more manuscripts of the Bible closer to the original date of production than any other ancient document, for what that's worth.
-Regarding Nietzsche, I dunno really. It's just that he has this vision of the world as, essentially, the strongest survives, lets quest after that which most enlarges life, i.e., the pursuit of glory, the pursuit of permanent achievements, etc., all regardless of morality. He would laugh at the idea of the special olympics, because for him it's absolutely uproarious that we would celebrate a group of people for being "good" at something when they are all, relative to the non-special olympics, very very bad at all of those things. This is the world without God, because the best thing after God is human life, but without God there is no obligation for someone to protect anybody else's life, rather than pursuing the fullness of life for themselves. Also, while many people pretend to be perfectly fine with the idea of personal extinction being the end of life, as Nietzsche and all of the existentialists after him realized, it causes hella problems with the meaningfulness or lack thereof of life.
-Also, if you want to see the same arguments presented in a better form than I know how, you might look up these people: William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantiga, Richard Swineburn, and maybe even David Bentley Hart and his book "Atheist Delusions".

Speaking as someone who has a strong personal belief in the existence of God...there exists no indisputable evidence for God or any objective evidence that would and could be recognized universally by humans, period. You either believe it or don't for your own reasons.

Technically, I agree with this. I don't think you can establish fully rationalist proof for anything. But I don't think God is any less reasonable to believe in than anything else, and some people think that God is less reasonable to believe in than what is available to their senses, which, from a rationalist perspective, is 100% wrong, since we can't furnish any proof for the veracity of sense experience, and certainly not any scientific proof.

God is a pillow for people who want to sleep through life.

1. Most conceptual systems of the world are.
2. Yes, for some people, but I would argue that those people haven't been reading very deeply in their sacred texts. The Bible, at least, is a very disturbing book to pretty much anyone. It shouldn't make you comfortable.

Regardless, your history with religion is very interesting (and seems to provide some good reasons not to believe) and it is definitely a question worth asking what the difference is, if there is any difference, between the personal religious ecstasy to which you inspired yourself (presumably), and "true religion" (if that exists). Also, you're a pk (preacher's kid). That explains everything. . I also "grew up in the church." My stepmom's a preacher, although not full-time or anything, and both my stepmom and my dad have worked at one of those "megachurches" since I was really really young, so I've been around pastors and the like since forever. Not really relevant to the discussion, but I figured I'd talk about it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The problem with these arguments is that they 'prove' god when they have apparently found something which allegedly cannot be explained satisfactorily by other means.

Evidence for God:

1) Cosmological argument: if you accept the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, then since the universe began to exist (per the Big Bang), it must have a cause. The first premise ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") may sound like bs, but really, it's as inductively likely as anything established to be true by a science, since I can provide a buttload of things that begin to exist that have a cause, whereas I can't think of any that begin to exist that don't have a cause. The argument turns on whether or not you're OK with the idea that things that don't begin to exist have a cause, but I think this is a reasonable claim to assent to, because otherwise you have infinite regress (x caused the world, y caused x, z caused y, a caused z, b caused a ad infinitum).

So, I tend to reformulate the argument like this: something has to be eternal. According to the Big Bang Theory, that eternal thing isn't the world. So it's probably an immaterial (since matter was created/began to exist at the Big Bang), extraordinarily powerful (since it created the world out of nothing, or at least nothing material), and eternal/atemporal being. An immaterial, incredibly powerful, eternal being pretty much fits the bill for "God".

If time is merely a property of this universe, then why does anything necessarily precede it? If time existed before the universe, then how do you show it? If there has always been time, then why is it not plausible that out of everything came nothing with no need for a cause?

3) Moral argument: alright, this is where the foundational bit comes in. If you believe in objective morality, there has to be an objective standard for that morality. But where does the standard come from? It can't come from individuals, because then the right thing to do is whatever each individual thinks it is (solipsism). It can't come from cultures, because then the right thing to do is whatever each culture does (cultural relativism). This might seem to be okay, until you remember that this means that slavery in the United States, the gladiatorial games in Rome, this practice, known as widow-burning, are all okay because they were sanctioned by the cultures where they took place, to say nothing of Nazi Germany. So, what standard can there be for morality besides people and society? Maybe you could argue the earth as source for morality in some way, but then you get into arguments like "it is the law of the earth that the weak dominate the strong; I am strong; therefore I am justified in dominating you who are weak." So, it seems likely that there is a source for morality that transcends the individual, culture, and the world. This would appear to be God.

Not all people believe in objective morality, does that mean that god only partly exists?

4) Ontological argument: somewhat bs argument, but some thinkers have argued that God is true-by-definition, because God is that of which no greater can be conceived, and since it is greater to exist than not to exist (existence is a perfection), it follows that God must exist.

Side note: people try to counter that argument with the "perfect island" or "perfect unicorn" argument, (a perfect unicorn must exist for the same reasons as God must, according to this argument), but that is a terrible counterargument, because, quite frankly, that perfect unicorn would be God, and would not have all the properties of a unicorn. For instance, it is one of the properties of all things that have physical existence on earth that they come into being and go out of being. One could argue that if one did not have this property, one could not be considered a thing with a purely physical existence on earth. So then the "perfect island" has a characteristic that islands cannot have, insofar as the "perfect" island would not be generated and could not be destroyed. Also, islands and unicorns both have defined physical limits, can move at finite speeds, etc., and both of these things seem like they would not belong to the greatest possible being. So yeah, that counterargument is crap.

If the "perfect island" counterargument can't be used, and those who spout the ontological argument insist on doing so, then the next line of attack is to ask such people to prove that existence does in fact exist as a property. It's all very well god existing, but what about us?

Technically, I agree with this. I don't think you can establish fully rationalist proof for anything. But I don't think God is any less reasonable to believe in than anything else, and some people think that God is less reasonable to believe in than what is available to their senses, which, from a rationalist perspective, is 100% wrong, since we can't furnish any proof for the veracity of sense experience, and certainly not any scientific proof.

We may not be able to prove definitively that our senses exist, but surely it's better to go along with what our senses are telling us than not to do so?

[silverchris9]

The problem with these arguments is that they 'prove' god when they have apparently found something which allegedly cannot be explained satisfactorily by other means.

...not all of them. The cosmological argument isn't concerned with something that cannot be explained by any other means. If you accept premise one ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") and premise two (basically, the big bang), premise three isn't "the best possible explanation" it's the logical conclusion: an immaterial, super-powerful, atemporal thing. You don't have to call it God, but that seems to be the best name for it that we have. Granted, this does not prove a personal God, a loving God, a good God or any of that; it basically proves a deistic God, if you assent to the first two premises.

If time is merely a property of this universe, then why does anything necessarily precede it? If time existed before the universe, then how do you show it? If there has always been time, then why is it not plausible that out of everything came nothing with no need for a cause?

Hmmm... that's a good thought. I suppose the implication is that causation is not necessarily dependent upon temporality. The argument is not that there was time before the big bang. The argument is that there was causation before there was time.

Not all people believe in objective morality, does that mean that god only partly exists?

No. It means that people who do believe in objective morality (which is most people, including most of those who claim that they do not) need God (or at least a "source of morality that transcends the individual, culture, and the world") to make their belief system coherent. The argument takes it for granted that objective morality does exist.

If you're interested, the formal version of the argument is something like "If objective morals exist, then they have a source that transcends culture, the individual, nature, etc. Objective morals do exist. Therefore, there is a transcendent source." Premise 2 is hard to prove, so generally when using this argument, Christian apologists just rely on the assumption that most people hold that objective morality exists.

If the "perfect island" counterargument can't be used, and those who spout the ontological argument insist on doing so, then the next line of attack is to ask such people to prove that existence does in fact exist as a property. It's all very well god existing, but what about us?

Ah, good point. This is where the rationalism breaks down (the limits of pure reason, if you will), because we cannot prove our own existence satisfactorily, except perhaps to say something equivalent to "I think therefore I am" (that is, I cannot doubt that I exist, because even if I were to doubt that I exist, I would still be doubting). Still, I doubt you're going to find very many people willing to disbelieve in existence is indeed a property, a thing, that it is possible to have.

We may not be able to prove definitively that our senses exist, but surely it's better to go along with what our senses are telling us than not to do so?

Certainly. But if you accept this, then you've already departed from pure rationalism. If we can accept the veracity of the senses on grounds apart from scientific verification or logical verification, what separates the intuitive acceptance of the proposition "sense experience is reliable" or at least the assumption that it is good to live in a way that acts as though sense experience is reliable, from the intuitive assumption that "God exists" or that "nature did not arise by chance"? I just bring up the sense experience point to demonstrate that pure rationalism doesn't work, and at some point we must accept non-rational (not necessarily irrational, but non-rational) criteria for assenting to propositions (not just "sense experience is reliable" but "cause and effect exist," "time exists," etc.), as many Christians and other religious people do. Lots of people make arguments that I don't like very much about how its foolish to believe in God because we cannot test for His existence or prove him scientifically (falsifiability and all that jazz), and the argument that sense experience is in the category of things for which no firm rational or scientific proof is necessary for assent establishes that there is such a category. It follows that God "could" be such an entity.

[Not A Communist Shill]

...not all of them. The cosmological argument isn't concerned with something that cannot be explained by any other means. If you accept premise one ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") and premise two (basically, the big bang), premise three isn't "the best possible explanation" it's the logical conclusion: an immaterial, super-powerful, atemporal thing. You don't have to call it God, but that seems to be the best name for it that we have. Granted, this does not prove a personal God, a loving God, a good God or any of that; it basically proves a deistic God, if you assent to the first two premises.

"everything that begins to exist has a cause" is used by many as the best way to determine how things came about. It is not a proof in itself. If an alternate methos method was used to determine how things came about and just so happened to draw the same conclusions as the first, which would you believe was the most valid?

"everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a maxim by which many humans try to establish how things came about - the conclusions we draw may not be an actual explanation of what happened.

Therefore, I cannot trust your apparent logical conclusion of "an immaterial, super-powerful, atemporal thing" being the creator of this universe. If such a creator is independent of the rules of this universe, then I would think it would be at least as plausible to say that out of nothing, came everything.

Hmmm... that's a good thought. I suppose the implication is that causation is not necessarily dependent upon temporality. The argument is not that there was time before the big bang. The argument is that there was causation before there was time.

You can't have causation independent of time.

No. It means that people who do believe in objective morality (which is most people, including most of those who claim that they do not) need God (or at least a "source of morality that transcends the individual, culture, and the world") to make their belief system coherent. The argument takes it for granted that objective morality does exist.

If you're interested, the formal version of the argument is something like "If objective morals exist, then they have a source that transcends culture, the individual, nature, etc. Objective morals do exist. Therefore, there is a transcendent source." Premise 2 is hard to prove, so generally when using this argument, Christian apologists just rely on the assumption that most people hold that objective morality exists.

This argument seems to be "It is because it is". Does a triangle have three sides because it does, or does it have three sides because it has been defined that way?

Also, which is the greater objective evil?: the act of murder or the lack of belief in a particular god? The major god-based religions say that murder is a sin against god, and yet not believing in a particular god is generally considered the greater evil. If not believing in god is not an objective evil, why not? It seems you are saying that there are many who believe in objective evil and do not commit objective evil, and yet think that others who believe they should not commit objective evil should be punished for all eternity for their subjective inklings. If there is any such thing as an objective evil, then holding such a belief must be it incarnate.

Why is it so hard to believe that there are those who do not go round killing people indiscriminately because they fear reappraisal, or simply because it's not something they are fond of?

Ah, good point. This is where the rationalism breaks down (the limits of pure reason, if you will), because we cannot prove our own existence satisfactorily, except perhaps to say something equivalent to "I think therefore I am" (that is, I cannot doubt that I exist, because even if I were to doubt that I exist, I would still be doubting). Still, I doubt you're going to find very many people willing to disbelieve in existence is indeed a property, a thing, that it is possible to have.

Some people do doubt their very existence , and I find the notion of a god who would punish for all eternity those who do not believe in that god AND scrupulously follow all the tenets of whatever religion to be immoral.

Certainly. But if you accept this, then you've already departed from pure rationalism. If we can accept the veracity of the senses on grounds apart from scientific verification or logical verification, what separates the intuitive acceptance of the proposition "sense experience is reliable" or at least the assumption that it is good to live in a way that acts as though sense experience is reliable, from the intuitive assumption that "God exists" or that "nature did not arise by chance"? I just bring up the sense experience point to demonstrate that pure rationalism doesn't work, and at some point we must accept non-rational (not necessarily irrational, but non-rational) criteria for assenting to propositions (not just "sense experience is reliable" but "cause and effect exist," "time exists," etc.), as many Christians and other religious people do.

Ah, but it isn't my belief that humans can be purely rational beings - and I can also forgive humans for not being so...my real issue is that many gods require humans to make determinations about the way things are through either an incomplete and rational process or through irrational means (how ever defined), and punish those who do not come to the right conclusions.

I prefer my approach which is forgiving and just and which seemingly results in progress (which is why I follow it).

[Jarno]

Awesome that some people think they can defend religion.

[Waddlesworth]

Awesome that some people think they can defend religion.

They can and they do. Your arguments seem equally wrong to me. As a matter of fact, in my opinion your perspectives are the most dull, uninspired, boring, worthless, tiresome one's on the forum. You make a point to argue against religion but you don't even respect its origins or understand its motives. Your knowledge about religion and its many manifestations/common lineage almost seems more shallow than my own!

Of course my posts also suck and I am equally annoying if not more-so, etcetera. But still, if I had to choose the biggest numbskull on the forum, it would be you. Counted myself out, of course, because I am obviously the biggest numbskull on the forum for many obvious reasons we need not get into.

[Jarno]

They can and they do. Your arguments seem equally wrong to me. As a matter of fact, in my opinion your perspectives are the most dull, uninspired, boring, worthless, tiresome one's on the forum. You make a point to argue against religion but you don't even respect its origins or understand its motives. Your knowledge about religion and its many manifestations/common lineage almost seems more shallow than my own!

Of course my posts also suck and I am equally annoying if not more-so, etcetera. But still, if I had to choose the biggest numbskull on the forum, it would be you. Counted myself out, of course, because I am obviously the biggest numbskull on the forum for many obvious reasons we need not get into.

ow actually I do acknowledge the use of religion, for example, I've read an experiment in which religious people kept there cool better because of their (unjustified) reliance on a god to help them out.

Yet defending religious is like defending santa claus. You can always come up with arguments like, he exists you just can't see him because he's invisible etc.

Santa claus is easy defendable too. But yet, deep inside, we all know that he's only a myth.

[silverchris9]

"everything that begins to exist has a cause" is used by many as the best way to determine how things came about. It is not a proof in itself. If an alternate methos method was used to determine how things came about and just so happened to draw the same conclusions as the first, which would you believe was the most valid?

"everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a maxim by which many humans try to establish how things came about - the conclusions we draw may not be an actual explanation of what happened.

Therefore, I cannot trust your apparent logical conclusion of "an immaterial, super-powerful, atemporal thing" being the creator of this universe. If such a creator is independent of the rules of this universe, then I would think it would be at least as plausible to say that out of nothing, came everything.

Interesting angle. So you're arguing that because "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an abstraction (that is, a general principle derived from particular occurrences), it cannot be absolutely trusted to reflect reality, and as such cannot be used in a logical proof? That's an interesting opinion, but basically it completely destroys rationalism, because building logical proofs and arguments and such *only* works if we have a shared set of agreed upon assumptions. That's why Socrates starts all of the dialogues by getting his dialogue partner (i.e., interlocutor) to agree to a few common principles. You can't do philosophy in any other way, or think, really. We necessarily rely upon abstractions to organize and allow any thought (or logos as rational discourse) whatsoever. Brief socionics aside: this is how Ni is as basic to human consciousness as extroverted sensation or extroverted feeling; Ni is the function of abstraction. Anyway, you're right, I don't know that "anything that begins to exist has a cause" as a concept accurately reflects reality. But I know that it seems to, and the bridge from seems to is, is much better traveled than most people want to admit.

You can't have causation independent of time.

Prove it.

This argument seems to be "It is because it is". Does a triangle have three sides because it does, or does it have three sides because it has been defined that way?

Can you explain this further?

Also, which is the greater objective evil?: the act of murder or the lack of belief in a particular god? The major god-based religions say that murder is a sin against god, and yet not believing in a particular god is generally considered the greater evil. If not believing in god is not an objective evil, why not? It seems you are saying that there are many who believe in objective evil and do not commit objective evil, and yet think that others who believe they should not commit objective evil should be punished for all eternity for their subjective inklings. If there is any such thing as an objective evil, then holding such a belief must be it incarnate.

Why is it so hard to believe that there are those who do not go round killing people indiscriminately because they fear reappraisal, or simply because it's not something they are fond of?

So in general your objection to God is rooted in (or at least strongly related to) your (moral) aversion to the doctrine of hell, especially as espoused by most protestant pastors on Sunday morning, inspired to win souls by their reading of Jonathan Edwards in seminary? Well, that's legitimate. I *really* don't want to get into a full-scale discussion of Christian views of hell and the legitimacy and illegitimacy thereof, but perhaps we could do that later. As it stands though, your objection is somewhat reasonable, but not really applicable to the concept of God as a whole. We're not talking about the Christian God and the doctrines thereof, remember. We're just talking about generalized theism. So, if it were possible to have a God who did not punish or judge, how would you feel about the existence of that God?

Also, vis a vis that last bit, we would probably want to ask why that person isn't fond of killing people, and the answer would probably end up being a fundamentally moral assumption: it is better to not kill people than to kill people; not killing people belongs to the good life. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to separate the notion of "what is preferred" from the notion of "what is to be preferred."

Some people do doubt their very existence , and I find the notion of a god who would punish for all eternity those who do not believe in that god AND scrupulously follow all the tenets of whatever religion to be immoral.

Ah, but it isn't my belief that humans can be purely rational beings - and I can also forgive humans for not being so...my real issue is that many gods require humans to make determinations about the way things are through either an incomplete and rational process or through irrational means (how ever defined), and punish those who do not come to the right conclusions.

I prefer my approach which is forgiving and just and which seemingly results in progress (which is why I follow it).

Right. I totally agree that humans can't be purely rational beings. I think that Christianity is more beautiful than it is ugly. That is an act of faith. If I were stronger or a better person, I might be able to demonstrate to you why I hold that article of faith in a profound or effective way. As it is, I cannot, unfortunately.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Interesting angle. So you're arguing that because "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an abstraction (that is, a general principle derived from particular occurrences), it cannot be absolutely trusted to reflect reality, and as such cannot be used in a logical proof? That's an interesting opinion, but basically it completely destroys rationalism, because building logical proofs and arguments and such *only* works if we have a shared set of agreed upon assumptions. That's why Socrates starts all of the dialogues by getting his dialogue partner (i.e., interlocutor) to agree to a few common principles. You can't do philosophy in any other way, or think, really. We necessarily rely upon abstractions to organize and allow any thought (or logos as rational discourse) whatsoever. Brief socionics aside: this is how Ni is as basic to human consciousness as extroverted sensation or extroverted feeling; Ni is the function of abstraction. Anyway, you're right, I don't know that "anything that begins to exist has a cause" as a concept accurately reflects reality. But I know that it seems to, and the bridge from seems to is, is much better traveled than most people want to admit.

I simply recognise that subjective beings such as myself cannot make definitive statements on the infinite and\or invisible. That does not mean that I cannot live a reasonable life and cannot communicate with other beings who I deem subjective, even if they consider some or all of their beliefs objective.

Prove it.

If one thing causes another, there must be time for the duration of that process because how else could one thing succeed another?

Can you explain this further?

I could just as easily say that everyone has whatever "morals" they have because they have whatever "morals" they have. People and cultures choose their "morals" for different reasons, and if you for example say "murder is considered to be wrong by all people" (which you'd be wrong to believe), it would seem quite obvious by the very definition of the word 'murder' (in that sense that a murder is "an unjustified and deliberate killing".

So in general your objection to God is rooted in (or at least strongly related to) your (moral) aversion to the doctrine of hell, especially as espoused by most protestant pastors on Sunday morning, inspired to win souls by their reading of Jonathan Edwards in seminary? Well, that's legitimate. I *really* don't want to get into a full-scale discussion of Christian views of hell and the legitimacy and illegitimacy thereof, but perhaps we could do that later. As it stands though, your objection is somewhat reasonable, but not really applicable to the concept of God as a whole. We're not talking about the Christian God and the doctrines thereof, remember. We're just talking about generalized theism. So, if it were possible to have a God who did not punish or judge, how would you feel about the existence of that God?

A god who did not punish or judge would be somewhat irrelevant to me, unless there was something I found particularly interesting about such a god. I would not belief in such a god any more than any other gods - I would need at least some evidence, and obviously a hypothetical god who did not punish or judge has less evidence going for him than a hypothetical god who does punish or judge.

Also, vis a vis that last bit, we would probably want to ask why that person isn't fond of killing people, and the answer would probably end up being a fundamentally moral assumption: it is better to not kill people than to kill people; not killing people belongs to the good life. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to separate the notion of "what is preferred" from the notion of "what is to be preferred."

That simply isn't true. There are people who are against the existence of the whole human race and not just for 'bad' reasons! As for myself, it is clear that humans are using up the Earth's resources faster than they can be replenished and that the Earth's human population is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Some people think that abortion is murder - I for one do not - and it is my belief that it is better for expectant mothers who have made a reasoned decision to have abortions if they are concerned about the unsustainable rise in the human population. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!

From my point of view, I think the human race can be a worthy cause, and that most people are good, and are able to manage the bad, which is a reason why I don't go round killing people (apart from that it's risky and I can't be bothered). I don't think this means that I don't kill for moral reasons. You can call it that, but in actual fact, I am a modern being who tries to avoid murdering people out of common sense.

Right. I totally agree that humans can't be purely rational beings. I think that Christianity is more beautiful than it is ugly. That is an act of faith. If I were stronger or a better person, I might be able to demonstrate to you why I hold that article of faith in a profound or effective way. As it is, I cannot, unfortunately.

Why not take all the best things from Christianity, and reformulate it and make it your own, so as to remove all the negative baggage that Christianity has (whether deserverdly or not)? To me, the good things about Christianity concern how one should act in relation to other human beings while the bad things concern human beings fighting viciously over what supposedly happens in the afterlife. Such people do not suffer the circumstances because either they believe they are right or because if they realise they are wrong, they can ask for forgiveness and still have all eternity in paradise...those who do not believe in the afterlife just put up with it and die!

[Azeroffs]

Evidence for God:

1) Cosmological argument: if you accept the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, then since the universe began to exist (per the Big Bang), it must have a cause. The first premise ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") may sound like bs, but really, it's as inductively likely as anything established to be true by a science, since I can provide a buttload of things that begin to exist that have a cause, whereas I can't think of any that begin to exist that don't have a cause. The argument turns on whether or not you're OK with the idea that things that don't begin to exist have a cause, but I think this is a reasonable claim to assent to, because otherwise you have infinite regress (x caused the world, y caused x, z caused y, a caused z, b caused a ad infinitum).

So, I tend to reformulate the argument like this: something has to be eternal. According to the Big Bang Theory, that eternal thing isn't the world. So it's probably an immaterial (since matter was created/began to exist at the Big Bang), extraordinarily powerful (since it created the world out of nothing, or at least nothing material), and eternal/atemporal being. An immaterial, incredibly powerful, eternal being pretty much fits the bill for "God".

This doesn't mean God is necessary, but God is possible.

2) Teleological argument: basically, intelligent design, but it has to do with stuff like how earth is a certain distance from the sun, the sun is a certain type of star, the cosmic background radiation is a certain wavelength, gravity is of a certain strength, etc., and without all this stuff, life couldn't exist. The probability of this happening randomly is fairly low, so it seems likely that there is a God that made all these things happen in this precise way.

Considering the vastness of space it's very likely that the circumstances would occur somewhere.

3) Moral argument: alright, this is where the foundational bit comes in. If you believe in objective morality, there has to be an objective standard for that morality. But where does the standard come from? It can't come from individuals, because then the right thing to do is whatever each individual thinks it is (solipsism). It can't come from cultures, because then the right thing to do is whatever each culture does (cultural relativism). This might seem to be okay, until you remember that this means that slavery in the United States, the gladiatorial games in Rome, this practice, known as widow-burning, are all okay because they were sanctioned by the cultures where they took place, to say nothing of Nazi Germany. So, what standard can there be for morality besides people and society? Maybe you could argue the earth as source for morality in some way, but then you get into arguments like "it is the law of the earth that the weak dominate the strong; I am strong; therefore I am justified in dominating you who are weak." So, it seems likely that there is a source for morality that transcends the individual, culture, and the world. This would appear to be God.

I agree that an objective standard of morality would be a strong indicator of a God. I however, disagree with absolute morality. What is right/wrong depends on desires and feelings. The only moral theory that makes any sense to me is utilitarianism.

If there is some other objective morality, we have no way of knowing what it is.

4) Ontological argument: somewhat bs argument, but some thinkers have argued that God is true-by-definition, because God is that of which no greater can be conceived, and since it is greater to exist than not to exist (existence is a perfection), it follows that God must exist.

Side note: people try to counter that argument with the "perfect island" or "perfect unicorn" argument, (a perfect unicorn must exist for the same reasons as God must, according to this argument), but that is a terrible counterargument, because, quite frankly, that perfect unicorn would be God, and would not have all the properties of a unicorn. For instance, it is one of the properties of all things that have physical existence on earth that they come into being and go out of being. One could argue that if one did not have this property, one could not be considered a thing with a purely physical existence on earth. So then the "perfect island" has a characteristic that islands cannot have, insofar as the "perfect" island would not be generated and could not be destroyed. Also, islands and unicorns both have defined physical limits, can move at finite speeds, etc., and both of these things seem like they would not belong to the greatest possible being. So yeah, that counterargument is crap.

I've heard the ontological argument, and it I was almost convinced, but there are holes. I think the biggest problem is with the word "perfect."

per⋅fect
  /adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Show IPA
Use perfect in a Sentence
See web results for perfect
See images of perfect
–adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.
6. thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.
7. pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.

A perfect being is just be something that fits the criteria of the word "being" exactly. Since being is such a general term, any person could be a perfect being.

In the case where you say "a being without flaws." Well then you just have to define "flaw," but a thing can't be objectively flawed. A thing is flawed only if it does not meet specified criteria.

For something to be perfect there must be a set standard of criteria. You can't just say an absolutely perfect X must be god because something cannot be perfect unless there is criteria to fit it to. Nothing is objectively perfect. Or, everything is objectively perfect depending on how you want to define it.

Technically, I agree with this. I don't think you can establish fully rationalist proof for anything. But I don't think God is any less reasonable to believe in than anything else, and some people think that God is less reasonable to believe in than what is available to their senses, which, from a rationalist perspective, is 100% wrong, since we can't furnish any proof for the veracity of sense experience, and certainly not any scientific proof.

I agree. It comes down to faith either way because it's not knowable. At least at this point in time.

I am an atheist simply because I believe so. Since reasoning only gets me to "unknowable" I simply have to rely on what I believe. I don't see God as anything necessary to my life or existence. Maybe it is, idk. I have no problem with theists as long as they realize they might be wrong. And atheists who don't acknowledge that their belief is equal to a theist's are hypocrites. Anyone who ardently says God exists or does not seems to be only expressing ignorance in my opinion.

I do have problems with organized religion. I see that as a plague that humanity needs to rid itself of.

[silverchris9]

This doesn't mean God is necessary, but God is possible.

No, it means God is necessary, if you assent to propositions one and two.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

As per this argument, there *must* be an immaterial, timeless, and very powerful cause for the universe. There are a few more assumptions at play that get us to "God", such as things that cause other things exist, but by and large, the cosmological argument gets you to a necessary cause for the universe.

Now, that being said, my reformulation of the argument does not have such strong or clear bonds of necessity, partially because I was trying to anticipate the objection "but what caused God." And technically, the cosmological argument proves the existence of at least one god, rather than a singular deity, since the being that created the universe could have had a cause itself, and that cause could be eternal and uncaused. Nevertheless, I don't think you can escape the idea that the cosmological argument proves that there is at least one God without finding fault with the first premise, which, I confess, is not impossible to do (or the second premise, but people are usually disinclined to argue with science, for some strange reason ).

Considering the vastness of space it's very likely that the circumstances would occur somewhere.

I'm not so sure. I don't have exact numbers, but the universe is of a finite size, and it is possible that the number of planets is not sufficient to account for the fine-tuning business. I think the number of stars is somewhere on the order of 10^25, so planets are probably at the very most on a scale of 10^28, and fine tuning, because of its many factors, may establish probabilities in excess of 10^28. I don't know this for sure, but I think it's a possibility.

I agree that an objective standard of morality would be a strong indicator of a God. I however, disagree with absolute morality. What is right/wrong depends on desires and feelings. The only moral theory that makes any sense to me is utilitarianism.

If there is some other objective morality, we have no way of knowing what it is.

Yeah. That's a plausible denial to make. But it does leave you in some awkward positions that seem to deny many commonsensical assumptions, i.e., Stalin = bad, killing children = evil, saving lives = good. In fact, it's difficult to have a motive for action if some things are not finally good rather than bad. Otherwise, you live life on preference, without any higher goal. That might be OK, might not.

I've heard the ontological argument, and it I was almost convinced, but there are holes. I think the biggest problem is with the word "perfect."

A perfect being is just be something that fits the criteria of the word "being" exactly. Since being is such a general term, any person could be a perfect being.

In the case where you say "a being without flaws." Well then you just have to define "flaw," but a thing can't be objectively flawed. A thing is flawed only if it does not meet specified criteria.

For something to be perfect there must be a set standard of criteria. You can't just say an absolutely perfect X must be god because something cannot be perfect unless there is criteria to fit it to. Nothing is objectively perfect. Or, everything is objectively perfect depending on how you want to define it.

I agree, "perfect" is a problem. That's why in the original formulation of the argument, it was "that of which no greater can be conceived." Have you read the original? Argument here (and please ignore the medieval language). Explanation here.

Might fall into the same problems for you, might not.

I agree. It comes down to faith either way because it's not knowable. At least at this point in time.

I am an atheist simply because I believe so. Since reasoning only gets me to "unknowable" I simply have to rely on what I believe. I don't see God as anything necessary to my life or existence. Maybe it is, idk. I have no problem with theists as long as they realize they might be wrong. And atheists who don't acknowledge that their belief is equal to a theist's are hypocrites. Anyone who ardently says God exists or does not seems to be only expressing ignorance in my opinion.

Ah, and here is the big problem. Because theists, Christians anyway, cannot doubt, according to the New Testament. To think that one might be wrong is awfully close to doubting (they may be the same thing, may not). It's a difficult thing. But to return to my favorite example, you don't think that anyone who ardently says, "sense experience is reliable" to be expressing ignorance. Can't you allow for the possibility of non-rational proof for God as well?

I think that the rational proof can get you so far, but then a different kind of "proof" takes over, which is somewhat akin to the kind of proof that John Keats refers to when he says "Truth is beauty; beauty truth" although Christians would disagree that "that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." It's the proof of seeing positive results in the world, not just on an ordinary scale, but on an extraordinary scale. Like the revolution in morality that occurred as a result of Christianity. Or its mystical experience. Who knows? Either way, I think that one can reasonably be certain in the existence of God, because it is logically possible, maybe even likely, that he/she/it exists, and if, as I believe, the Christian God provides proof of Himself through his church, experiencing him (whatever that means), etc., then I think we're cool in giving a definite yes to the question "does God exist".

I do have problems with organized religion. I see that as a plague that humanity needs to rid itself of.

I could be more diplomatic here, but bluntly, this is my opinion: that opinion is probably largely founded on some erroneous assumptions, misinterpretations of some popular quotes, and several bad history lessons. Suffice it to say: the Catholic Church didn't kill Galileo, Christianity can be seen as the efficient cause of most of the moral opinions you (likely) hold today, and Freud didn't think that "the opium of the masses" was a bad thing, whatever Marx believed. Organized religion is not as bad as people make it out to be, and even if it wasn't around, people would've found reasons to fight. See: the centuries and centuries of history before Christianity.

[Azeroffs]

No, it means God is necessary, if you assent to propositions one and two.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

As per this argument, there *must* be an immaterial, timeless, and very powerful cause for the universe. There are a few more assumptions at play that get us to "God", such as things that cause other things exist, but by and large, the cosmological argument gets you to a necessary cause for the universe.

Now, that being said, my reformulation of the argument does not have such strong or clear bonds of necessity, partially because I was trying to anticipate the objection "but what caused God." And technically, the cosmological argument proves the existence of at least one god, rather than a singular deity, since the being that created the universe could have had a cause itself, and that cause could be eternal and uncaused. Nevertheless, I don't think you can escape the idea that the cosmological argument proves that there is at least one God without finding fault with the first premise, which, I confess, is not impossible to do (or the second premise, but people are usually disinclined to argue with science, for some strange reason ).

There are other possibilities. Maybe there is an infinite amount of material causes. Maybe not everything really has a cause. Maybe the universe just blinked into existence. Maybe there is some big universe making machine. Who the fuck knows. The argument doesn't necessitate God and the argument itself may not be sound.

Yeah. That's a plausible denial to make. But it does leave you in some awkward positions that seem to deny many commonsensical assumptions, i.e., Stalin = bad, killing children = evil, saving lives = good. In fact, it's difficult to have a motive for action if some things are not finally good rather than bad. Otherwise, you live life on preference, without any higher goal. That might be OK, might not.

What if killing children is necessary for the survival of the human race. Is it still bad? What if saving lives means that they will suffer in pain for the rest of their lives. Is it still good?

Happiness is the only objective measure of right/wrong imo.
Happiness is the only good. Pain is the only bad.

I agree, "perfect" is a problem. That's why in the original formulation of the argument, it was "that of which no greater can be conceived." Have you read the original? Argument here (and please ignore the medieval language). Explanation here.

Might fall into the same problems for you, might not.

I didn't read through it. I'm being lazy, but "greater" is still a relative term that requires criteria. If God is the greatest thing you can conceive of, what is the second best? What is the worst? Why?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Ah, and here is the big problem. Because theists, Christians anyway, cannot doubt, according to the New Testament. To think that one might be wrong is awfully close to doubting (they may be the same thing, may not). It's a difficult thing. But to return to my favorite example, you don't think that anyone who ardently says, "sense experience is reliable" to be expressing ignorance. Can't you allow for the possibility of non-rational proof for God as well?

That is one of the major reasons why I think organized religion (at least in the case of christianity) is a plague. It breeds blind faith. A bunch of non-thinking sheep.

Sense experience is as reliable as it gets. It might not be 100%, but it's all we have. We have to rely on it whether we like it or not. To not means to die.

Non-rational proof seems to contradict itself.

I could be more diplomatic here, but bluntly, this is my opinion: that opinion is probably largely founded on some erroneous assumptions, misinterpretations of some popular quotes, and several bad history lessons. Suffice it to say: the Catholic Church didn't kill Galileo, Christianity can be seen as the efficient cause of most of the moral opinions you (likely) hold today, and Freud didn't think that "the opium of the masses" was a bad thing, whatever Marx believed. Organized religion is not as bad as people make it out to be, and even if it wasn't around, people would've found reasons to fight. See: the centuries and centuries of history before Christianity.

History is only part of it. A small part in fact. If organized religion changed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm not saying that it is/was completely useless. I would just prefer that organized religion be replaced with philosophy. Religion essentially is philosophy, just very narrow minded. It's the narrow mindedness that I have a problem with.

[silverchris9]

There are other possibilities. Maybe there is an infinite amount of material causes. Maybe not everything really has a cause. Maybe the universe just blinked into existence. Maybe there is some big universe making machine. Who the fuck knows. The argument doesn't necessitate God and the argument itself may not be sound.

Those are fine claims to make. But that's not really going where the evidence leads. I mean, I think your position is totally valid, because I'm not a rationalist anymore, but I think the rational thing would be to assent to the argument that demonstrates at least some likelihood of a given thing (since you agreed that the cosmological argument demonstrates the possibility of a deity), rather than these "other possibilities" for which there is no evidence. But w/e.

What if killing children is necessary for the survival of the human race. Is it still bad? What if saving lives means that they will suffer in pain for the rest of their lives. Is it still good?

Happiness is the only objective measure of right/wrong imo.
Happiness is the only good. Pain is the only bad.

Raping women makes rapists happy. Gang rape makes several men happy and one woman sad. So gang rape is good, right, because it maximizes happiness? The happy-sad balance is in the "happy" direction.

Or, to go in the Peter Singer direction, a baby doesn't have all of its cognitive functions fully developed yet (I'm not talking fetus, I'm talking a six-month-old or something). So, can it really be considered to be as "happy" as a twenty-five year old? If it can't, then we're completely justified in killing that baby if it makes the twenty-five year old happy.

Consequentialism/utilitarianism is not a terrible system, it just has a lot of flaws, like determining when the consequences stop (an action that makes one person happy today may make four thousand miserable on down the line, and we have no way of knowing, because there's too many factors), and accounting for cases in which moral intuitions really don't fit with pain and pleasure reactions.

That being said, I think there's a way to formulate a Christian utilitarianism that I might agree with. But as you have it here, it seems to violate a few of the general moral assumptions people have.

I didn't read through it. I'm being lazy, but "greater" is still a relative term that requires criteria. If God is the greatest thing you can conceive of, what is the second best? What is the worst? Why?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Honestly, I don't really understand it fully either. I think I could still make an argument here, but I'm too lazy to. Maybe I'll come back to it later.

That is one of the major reasons why I think organized religion (at least in the case of christianity) is a plague. It breeds blind faith. A bunch of non-thinking sheep.

In this case, I agree with you somewhat. And it's not so much the people with blind faith that bother me, because in some situations, the blind faith is right and the evidence (as currently interpreted) is wrong. It's the leaders with unrefined understanding that should notice the logical cracks in their thinking and move to address them.

Sense experience is as reliable as it gets. It might not be 100%, but it's all we have. We have to rely on it whether we like it or not. To not means to die.

But you have no rational reason for believing this. You take it on faith. Religious people take it on faith that God is as reliable as it gets. Even if he isn't 100%, he's all we have. We have to rely on him whether we like it or not. To not means to die. There is no firm boundary of logical superiority between the two claims.

Now, since we're not asking for rational proof of something, I guess it's fair to explore other avenues. And yes, sense experience does present itself to us with immediacy and forcefulness. But you'll find plenty of religious people who claim to experience God with equal immediacy and greater force. Is it OK for them to believe in God and not others?

Non-rational proof seems to contradict itself.

Well... it's a difficult thing, because it introduces lots of error into the process, but I think between internal evidence and external evidence of long-term change in the person, one can be fairly confident of things that one believes for non-rational reasons. I don't understand how "non-rational proof" contradicts itself. It's just insight, or intuition or whatever you want to call it.

History is only part of it. A small part in fact. If organized religion changed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm not saying that it is/was completely useless. I would just prefer that organized religion be replaced with philosophy. Religion essentially is philosophy, just very narrow minded. It's the narrow mindedness that I have a problem with.

Two things:

1) Yeah, but philosophy generally can't help people live their lives, inspire people to charity, etc.
2) It's really not that bad. There's lots of people operating in organized religious traditions who are very broad-minded, and their assent to some core propositions about God and the church doesn't mean that they've lost that. Everyone has to assume core propositions (especially philosophy), and after enough proof (rational or otherwise) I think it's fair for Christian thinkers to assume Christianity, and go on thinking about the world from there. God didn't limit Augustine's ability to do philosophy or theology, or many other thinkers' (Augustine is just my favorite).

[Azeroffs]

Raping women makes rapists happy. Gang rape makes several men happy and one woman sad. So gang rape is good, right, because it maximizes happiness? The happy-sad balance is in the "happy" direction.

Or, to go in the Peter Singer direction, a baby doesn't have all of its cognitive functions fully developed yet (I'm not talking fetus, I'm talking a six-month-old or something). So, can it really be considered to be as "happy" as a twenty-five year old? If it can't, then we're completely justified in killing that baby if it makes the twenty-five year old happy.

Consequentialism/utilitarianism is not a terrible system, it just has a lot of flaws, like determining when the consequences stop (an action that makes one person happy today may make four thousand miserable on down the line, and we have no way of knowing, because there's too many factors), and accounting for cases in which moral intuitions really don't fit with pain and pleasure reactions.

That being said, I think there's a way to formulate a Christian utilitarianism that I might agree with. But as you have it here, it seems to violate a few of the general moral assumptions people have.

True, it starts getting tricky, but in the case of rape it's very short term happiness at the price of a lot of long term pain. I've yet to come to a circumstance where utilitarianism doesn't work if you take into account time and probability.

A baby has it's whole life to live and therefore a greater capacity for happiness than any other single human being.

True, the major problem with consequentialism is not knowing the future, but we act as consequentialists in the non-moral sense all the time. To deny it's importance seems ridiculous. Probability, again, is an important factor.

In this case, I agree with you somewhat. And it's not so much the people with blind faith that bother me, because in some situations, the blind faith is right and the evidence (as currently interpreted) is wrong. It's the leaders with unrefined understanding that should notice the logical cracks in their thinking and move to address them.

Blind faith can be right, but not thinking for yourself or analyzing at least some aspects of your life intellectually are huge character flaws in my book. You can get through life without them, but you can create so much harm to yourself and others unintentionally if you don't do these things. Could just be my own subjective values.

But you have no rational reason for believing this. You take it on faith. Religious people take it on faith that God is as reliable as it gets. Even if he isn't 100%, he's all we have. We have to rely on him whether we like it or not. To not means to die. There is no firm boundary of logical superiority between the two claims.

The difference is that you will actually die if you don't rely on the senses. I don't believe in God, and yet here I am.

Now, since we're not asking for rational proof of something, I guess it's fair to explore other avenues. And yes, sense experience does present itself to us with immediacy and forcefulness. But you'll find plenty of religious people who claim to experience God with equal immediacy and greater force. Is it OK for them to believe in God and not others?

I don't see how a belief in God can be harmful. There are other things associated with religion that can be, but I can see how a belief in God can actually be beneficial to some.

Well... it's a difficult thing, because it introduces lots of error into the process, but I think between internal evidence and external evidence of long-term change in the person, one can be fairly confident of things that one believes for non-rational reasons. I don't understand how "non-rational proof" contradicts itself. It's just insight, or intuition or whatever you want to call it.

But then it's not proof, it's just a hunch. Sometimes that's as far as you can get though.

Two things:

1) Yeah, but philosophy generally can't help people live their lives, inspire people to charity, etc.
2) It's really not that bad. There's lots of people operating in organized religious traditions who are very broad-minded, and their assent to some core propositions about God and the church doesn't mean that they've lost that. Everyone has to assume core propositions (especially philosophy), and after enough proof (rational or otherwise) I think it's fair for Christian thinkers to assume Christianity, and go on thinking about the world from there. God didn't limit Augustine's ability to do philosophy or theology, or many other thinkers' (Augustine is just my favorite).

With philosophy you can reach most if not all of the same conclusions as religion and so I would think that philosophy can do whatever religion can do.

True, there are many that get by fine, but then there are others. I have to play the religious radicals card.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I could be more diplomatic here, but bluntly, this is my opinion: that opinion is probably largely founded on some erroneous assumptions, misinterpretations of some popular quotes, and several bad history lessons. Suffice it to say: the Catholic Church didn't kill Galileo, Christianity can be seen as the efficient cause of most of the moral opinions you (likely) hold today, and Freud didn't think that "the opium of the masses" was a bad thing, whatever Marx believed. Organized religion is not as bad as people make it out to be, and even if it wasn't around, people would've found reasons to fight. See: the centuries and centuries of history before Christianity.

Some points:

- Perhaps the Catholic Church didn't kill Galileo because he 'recanted'? The Catholic Church excommunicated many people like Galileo (and of course killed them) - I think at least some progress must have been lost simply because people did not want to be excommunicated or killed.

- Although all people (presumably) die, the worldwide average life expectancy at the time of the supposed time of Christ was about 20 years. Because of scientific progress and increased knowledge and all that, the life expectancy in Swaziland is now 31.88 years.

- I hardly think Freud is a good person to cite here considering he was an opium addict and that he had a fair few odd beliefs .

- Alternatively, see now, a time which supposedly has fewer homicides per capita than at any another point in history. Perhaps this is more to do with a post-imperial world, the deterrent of weapons at the state level, and international laws?:

When the criminologist Manuel Eisner scoured the records of every village, city, county, and nation he could find, he discovered that homicide rates in Europe had declined from 100 killings per 100,000 people per year in the Middle Ages to less than one killing per 100,000 people in modern Europe.