Lance Chua and Brendan Martin, Opinions Contributors
Lance: Human beings have this innate sense of curiosity, wherein people have the desire to understand and explain the world around them. Science has helped us explain the natural world, but even science has failed to explain certain questions that fundamentally define human existence. Questions such as our purpose as beings on this earth and what happens to us when we die have tormented the minds of numerous peoples from countless walks of life. One way that these questions have been answered is by turning to belief in the divine so as to explain human purpose.
Let me posit to you a scenario wherein in your travels, you discover a box. Within this box, you discover incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist, and that this life on this earth is indeed it. You therefore have two options: you can either release the contents of the box to the rest of the world, or you can destroy the box and the evidence contained within. I will argue that you have the responsibility to destroy that box.
By releasing the contents of this box, you commit a grave moral injustice against society. Some people have crafted their existence and identities around their belief or interpretation of the divine. People believe that their existence is meaningful and that there is a Being who knows who they are and fundamentally cares for them because of who they are. By releasing the contents of this box you remove the sense of importance, worth, and purpose that is felt by many.
Brendan: It is telling that Lance opens this debate with the shortcomings of science. The problem with arguing from that perspective is that science is a very humble creature indeed. Science knows she doesn’t know everything, but that doesn’t give you license to fill in the blanks with whatever you want without any burden of proof. Lane’s argument fallaciously places religion on par with science. But because it refuses the burden of proof that defines science, the argument becomes dogmatic and ultimately damaging.
To argue that this is unjust because it removes people’s purpose is to forget that purpose is fungible; it can be easily replaced. Once the box has been opened, no one will be much bothered about their former beliefs; they will move on. Truth, however, is not so fungible.
It is a moral imperative that humans be allowed to discern truth for themselves; to construct their own meanings not have them be dictated to them. The only way to achieve this is to erase our preconceptions.
Lance: In no way am I saying that religion and science have equal bearing in describing and explaining the universe. Instead I argue that a belief in the divine, due to its very nature, can and does serve as a centerpiece in peoples’ moral and ethical understandings.
By releasing the evidence that discredits the existence of god this moral comfort that people feel is essentially yanked away from them. No individual has the right to take that sense of security or moral self-worth (whether it be founded on fact or not) from other people. Releasing the contents of the box fundamentally forces millions (if not billions) of people to undergo an existential crisis, wherein they realize that every sacrifice that they have made or every action that they have done is for naught.
Brendan: You overstate dramatically the affect this will have, because you’re acting with a pre-box mindset. If this artefact works as you says it does, people will feel at a bit embarrassed about having, in their new perspective, wasted their lives but they’ll adapt. That adapting is what the box causes. To argue that the transition is traumatic is to forget that by opening the box the transition has been accomplished.
Your nihilism is also for naught; it is a rare person who is capable of sustained despair. The overwhelming majority will find new meaning beyond the artificial, arbitrary boundaries of religion. Freedom from the threat of eternal damnation will allow people to live their lives how they see fit.
Lance: I don’t question the fact that human beings are resilient creatures. However, what we have survived are gradual shifts in the nature of our society. The scenario of the “god box” is such that the shift is so dramatic and so sudden that it would shake people to their very foundations. The very concept of death is bearable for some people because they are able to look forward and believe that they will be with their loved ones in the afterlife. If you remove that sense of comfort, then death becomes a period instead of a comma. That is something that I believe people will have a very difficult time coming to grips with.
Revealing the contents of this box to the world also means that any institution that bases their power upon some “divine right” would be shaken to its foundation. This does not only include theocratic regimes that are found all over the globe but even among democratic states. A key example would be the conception of human rights, particularly in the United States. The US Declaration of Independence states that “All men are created equal”. The evident question becomes “created by whom”?
Since there will be no adequate answer to respond to this question then the very legitimacy of this invaluable document becomes questionable. Society would be thrown into chaos by the information found in this box; it therefore becomes imperative that this box and all its contents be destroyed.
Brendan: Any argument that follows the form “Religion results in x and therefore x is good which therefore means religion is good” (such as the last argument in the previous paragraph) is self-defeating. This is because the argument is only valid if the goodness of x is derived solely from God. If God really doesn’t exist, then losing these things won’t matter; we’ve been judging them incorrectly.
Lance Chua and Brendan Martin are both members of Sodales, the debate society of Dalhousie. Debaters are individuals who are at times forced to argue for things that they do not necessarily believe in. Therefore the opinions expressed in Point/Counterpoint are not necessarily those that are held by the aforementioned debaters, Sodales, or the Gazette.
If you are interested (or simply curious) about debating, want an avenue to express and share your opinions and beliefs check out Sodales. Sodales meets every Tuesday and Wednesday at 6pm. Meetings are held at LSC 220.
Recent Comments