In Proof of God: An Ontological Adventure, a non-believer’s (lack of) faith is tested as he tries to solve a case. Will this metaphysical mystery-suspense science fiction novel make you a believer?
While investigating a missing person’s case involving a philosophy professor who was working on proof of God’s existence, atheist Detective O’Shea’s beliefs are called into question. As O’Shea searches for the missing professor and the proof of God, strange characters, troublesome clues and altercations with nefarious people all stand in the way of the solving the mystery. Will O’Shea find the missing professor…or proof of God that could change his life forever?
Proof of God will appeal to fans of crime novels, along with those interested in philosophy, metaphysical questions about God, the supernatural, and science fiction.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
How Do We Come to Believe?
The following post is an adapted excerpt from Proof of God: An Ontological Adventure, chapter 3, titled "Routines, the Glass Eye and the Will to Believe". This chapter explores the concepts and constructs of faith and the will to believe. In effect, we chose our faith and our beliefs as an act of will.
On the other side, if you chose to wager that God does not exist, and he does, there is hell and damnation in the wake. If you are correct and God does not exist, you face the same fate as the believer who is wrong -- oblivion. Pascal suggests believing in God is your best bet based solely on the expected outcome. The truth and veracity of the results are still in question, but we are still likely to believe solely on the anticipated positive outcome associated with the belief. There is no benefit is God exists in this wager against God view. The benefits are great only if you believe that God exists, if you wager correctly and a large wager is likely made accordingly.
This discussion is expanded in my soon to be published book, Proof of God: An Ontological Advantage. There is physical and scientific support for atheism. Atheism is supported by facts found in experience of the natural world. Metaphysical naturalism, a belief that many atheist hold, explains existence through science and the natural world. This is a belief not based on a desirable outcome but a belief based on cold and hard scientific facts. The outcome is cold and indifferent. What does one look forward to with this belief? If you all you can look forward to at death is non-existence, a negative expression of Descartes "cogito ergo sum", or in English "I think therefore I am", with thinking being proof of one's existence, may be called the “anti-cogito” as it can be described and stated as such, “I do not think therefore I am not.” This anti-cogito is inconceivable to most, because most cannot imagine themselves as a non-existent and this is not a favorable outcome for the believer, so not accepted, or even comprehended by most. I am not sure non-existence is a possible state to comprehend, because you still can only imagine yourself -- see yourself -- in a non-existing place or space which is still somewhere and, if you are imagining yourself somewhere, you still exist in that place even if the place is oblivion or a void of some kind. Furthermore, as we are always thinking, we cannot imagine not thinking, because if we did we still would be thinking of not thinking. The permanence associated with our own existence gives way to the desire to believe in an after life, a favorable concept and outcome, the desire to exist even beyond death which is comprehensible to most.
Faith is to believe in something as an act of will. Will is to desire something and make it happen. Therefore, faith is founded on the will to believe. Will has created massive structures like the Hoover Dam, initiated world wars, forged technology where telescopes view the universe back to the first moments of creation, and created philosophical works that fostered revolutions in scientific, practical and speculative thought. All we experience, all of existence is the effect of natural forces and the will and its subsequent actions from conscious beings. Action is the vehicle of the will.
The philosopher, William James, in his work "The Will to Believe" suggests that we believe based on certain criteria, criteria not necessarily based on evidence. We are apt to believe based from our will to believe based solely on the outcome of the belief. He cites the case of "Pascal's Bet with God". It is not a proof of god so much, but a wager on God's existence. Accordingly, the odds are fifty/fifty, God exists or he does not. But what are you willing to wager knowing that believers go to heaven with all the perks and benefits of everlasting life. If you are wrong and God does not exist, oblivion abounds. On the other side, if you chose to wager that God does not exist, and he does, there is hell and damnation in the wake. If you are correct and God does not exist, you face the same fate as the believer who is wrong -- oblivion. Pascal suggests believing in God is your best bet based solely on the expected outcome. The truth and veracity of the results are still in question, but we are still likely to believe solely on the anticipated positive outcome associated with the belief. There is no benefit is God exists in this wager against God view. The benefits are great only if you believe that God exists, if you wager correctly and a large wager is likely made accordingly.
This discussion is expanded in my soon to be published book, Proof of God: An Ontological Advantage. There is physical and scientific support for atheism. Atheism is supported by facts found in experience of the natural world. Metaphysical naturalism, a belief that many atheist hold, explains existence through science and the natural world. This is a belief not based on a desirable outcome but a belief based on cold and hard scientific facts. The outcome is cold and indifferent. What does one look forward to with this belief? If you all you can look forward to at death is non-existence, a negative expression of Descartes "cogito ergo sum", or in English "I think therefore I am", with thinking being proof of one's existence, may be called the “anti-cogito” as it can be described and stated as such, “I do not think therefore I am not.” This anti-cogito is inconceivable to most, because most cannot imagine themselves as a non-existent and this is not a favorable outcome for the believer, so not accepted, or even comprehended by most. I am not sure non-existence is a possible state to comprehend, because you still can only imagine yourself -- see yourself -- in a non-existing place or space which is still somewhere and, if you are imagining yourself somewhere, you still exist in that place even if the place is oblivion or a void of some kind. Furthermore, as we are always thinking, we cannot imagine not thinking, because if we did we still would be thinking of not thinking. The permanence associated with our own existence gives way to the desire to believe in an after life, a favorable concept and outcome, the desire to exist even beyond death which is comprehensible to most.
In the same view of rational thought, proof of God may be supported by the logical proofs constructed by many philosophers throughout the ages. Philosophy offers logical proofs of god's existence -- the ontological proof and "The Five Ways" are examples -- proofs based on reason both a priori (from pure reason) and a posteriori (from only our experience). In contrast, many, if not most, believers prefer proving God's existence through revelation of the word and the invocation of the holy spirit --nothing to do with reason. Our will to believe is often founded on some basis –our outcome based will to believe, our faith in what is a desirable outcome --no matter how weak or strong the evidence is to support another view.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Why did I write Proof of God?
I wrote Proof of God because I wanted to explore the philosophical logical proofs of God given by Saint Thomas Aquinas and others that I had been studying as part of my reading. I wanted to share my discoveries with an audience; an audience that if not like-minded, they would at least follow the concepts as part of a story. I decided on a story about an atheist missing person's detective charged with finding a missing philosophy professor who has come up with the perfect proof of God that is missing too. I thought the irony of an unwitting non-believer looking for the proof of God would provide a good story line -- find the missing professor, find the proof of God. For an atheist, this would provide for some major conflict within, and major challenges to, his well founded belief system as an atheist. And that conflict, along with the charge to find the missing professor, where strange characters, troublesome clues, and altercations with nefarious people all add to the mystery and suspense. To add to his conflict, O'Shea's atheism is contrasted to the Christian beliefs of his mother throughout the story.
How is philosophy used to further a case? Within the story, the understanding what a proof of God is and how they are constructed is laced within the dialog and story. It turns out that philosophy is as important to solving the mystery as is finding the missing. This is the first case atheist Detective Shamus O'Shea ever used his philosophy education. He has a masters degree in philosophy and he has been studying it privately for over 25 years as well. He knows this stuff and has the knowledge to move this odd case along as it turns out.
Through Proof of God: An Ontological Adventure, I was able to incorporate ideas of philosophical interest in a very readable and understandable way thereby having the reader ingest the philosophical concepts, questions and issues in digestible portions, adding a degree of spice to an otherwise often bland intellectual diet. "If I could ingest just one small portion of nutritious knowledge into my diet every day, I would give up my empty-calorie diet of fast food knowledge and lose weight in the process."
So from this philosophical vantage point, seen within the confines of a detective story and crime novel, O"Shea uncovers the concepts and questions surrounding God, ontological questions about being and existence, and questions of how and why we believe: How do we prove God's existence? What kinds of things exist in the world? What can we know of the things that exist? Can and do atheists have faith? How much of what we believe is based on our will to believe what we do? How do our beliefs shape how and what we experience? How have philosophers answered these questions through the ages? How does religious faith differ from other kinds of faith? (Yes, there are other kinds of faith besides religious or are there?) How is the atheists views compared and contrasted to religious views? These are just some of the questions to be answered and explored in Proof of God: An Ontological Adventure and in this blog.
This blog will discuss and expand on these questions and others providing meaningful discussion of these important metaphysical and ontological topics and concepts. In doing so we will give meaning to the philosophy of God, being as such, and existence in general, and perhaps, challenge or change our own beliefs in the spiritual, the supernatural and the metaphysical world -- an expanded world encountered through new discoveries. Are you ready to have your fundamental beliefs and your unwavering faith shaken?
The Proof of God book link is http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/ProofOfGod.html
How is philosophy used to further a case? Within the story, the understanding what a proof of God is and how they are constructed is laced within the dialog and story. It turns out that philosophy is as important to solving the mystery as is finding the missing. This is the first case atheist Detective Shamus O'Shea ever used his philosophy education. He has a masters degree in philosophy and he has been studying it privately for over 25 years as well. He knows this stuff and has the knowledge to move this odd case along as it turns out.
Through Proof of God: An Ontological Adventure, I was able to incorporate ideas of philosophical interest in a very readable and understandable way thereby having the reader ingest the philosophical concepts, questions and issues in digestible portions, adding a degree of spice to an otherwise often bland intellectual diet. "If I could ingest just one small portion of nutritious knowledge into my diet every day, I would give up my empty-calorie diet of fast food knowledge and lose weight in the process."
So from this philosophical vantage point, seen within the confines of a detective story and crime novel, O"Shea uncovers the concepts and questions surrounding God, ontological questions about being and existence, and questions of how and why we believe: How do we prove God's existence? What kinds of things exist in the world? What can we know of the things that exist? Can and do atheists have faith? How much of what we believe is based on our will to believe what we do? How do our beliefs shape how and what we experience? How have philosophers answered these questions through the ages? How does religious faith differ from other kinds of faith? (Yes, there are other kinds of faith besides religious or are there?) How is the atheists views compared and contrasted to religious views? These are just some of the questions to be answered and explored in Proof of God: An Ontological Adventure and in this blog.
This blog will discuss and expand on these questions and others providing meaningful discussion of these important metaphysical and ontological topics and concepts. In doing so we will give meaning to the philosophy of God, being as such, and existence in general, and perhaps, challenge or change our own beliefs in the spiritual, the supernatural and the metaphysical world -- an expanded world encountered through new discoveries. Are you ready to have your fundamental beliefs and your unwavering faith shaken?
The Proof of God book link is http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/ProofOfGod.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)