Theists have been trying to play by the philosophers’ rulebook for some time now. If their aim was to beat the philosophers at their own game, they have failed spectacularly. It could not have been any other way, for the philosopher’s chessboard is heavily stacked against the theist. In its rules, the theist’s most potent move– his argument from human nature– has been declared illegal. He was thus bound to lose every single time.
The theist should not have given up his strongest line of reasoning in the first place. Any argument based in human nature– in fact, the mere mention of nature– was consistently greeted with such derision by the atheists however, that the theist thought it best to dispense with it. It turned out to be a disaster: Deprived of his solid foundation, he resorted to philosophical, logical or scientific axioms for fundamental questions. By agreeing to play the atheist’s game, he had played right into the hands of the latter. For when he tried to invoke (for example) causality as an argument for God as the prime mover, the atheist turned the tables on him by demanding to know what had caused God then. Other such arguments failed equally miserably. By making the theist feel embarrassed for subscribing to the notion of human nature, the atheist had effectively neutralized him.
The atheist has several tricks up his sleeve to bully the theist into abandoning arguments from human nature. One such technique is the repudiation of morality by blurring the boundary between man’s nature and his instincts. He claims that left on his own, an individual cannot help heeding his impulses, unless his fear of getting caught is stronger. The atheist conveniently sweeps under the carpet the facts that many men remain true to their natures, defying their desires and passions; and that even when they do succumb to these temptations, they stand chastised by their natures. The fact that man has his animalistic tendencies by no means rules out his human nature. The distinction between the two is crystal clear. Nobody has any difficulty in judging a hungry man who steals bread differently from a thief who has no such excuse.
In their sermons, professional as well as amateur philosophers may ridicule human nature all they want. Their actions tell a completely different story though. They cannot stop their nature (which they reject so categorically) from manifesting itself in the way they live their lives. There is no escaping human nature in practice, even if one pretends (in thought or word) that no such thing exists.
The theist needs to reclaim the solid ground that he was foolish enough to relinquish in the first place. That would amount to re-adopting human nature as the soundest basis for all his arguments on fundamental issues. To that end, he must first recognize the philosophers’ mumbo-jumbo for what it is.
It is true that in his armchair on lazy afternoons or at conferences, a philosopher is likely to wonder whether a man is responsible for his acts or merely a puppet in the hands of forces beyond his control. Or to press into service (say) scientific reports of brain tumours causing individuals to suddenly start doing things out of character. In practical life however, the philosopher flawlessly tells apart forced and free acts and judges people accordingly– exactly as the rest of us do. In blame and credit, punishment and reward, promotion and demotion, all social dealings, the penal code: free will is believed by everybody – the most ardent of philosophers included.
Abandoning simple, natural reasoning and good old common-sense that has been serving man so well for so long exacts the heavy price of loss of consistency: it inevitably results in contradiction of epic proportions between a man’s word and deed. Those who are accustomed to say, usually with an air of superiority, that one cannot be certain of anything are awfully certain of this view. The belief that knowledge of the world is impossible does not stop those who hold it from making this knowledge claim about the world. Those who say that language does not have the capacity to convey ideas and therefore the meaning of text cannot be understood, write profusely to convince others of this idea.
Those who are fond of saying that life could very well be a dream for all anybody knows, demonstrate every day a perfect ability to differentiate between dream and reality. What somebody says is a very poor indicator of what he believes. There is no limit to the absurdities that can be given voice to in the name of high philosophy. The only world view that can be implemented in real life however is one that admits human nature and is based on it.
Consider such a world view for a moment. The man who subscribes to it acknowledges that his senses do sometimes deceive him, and that his knowledge falls into the categories of certain and probable (or otherwise) in varying degrees. Instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater however, he trusts his senses and his ability to differentiate between them. He maintains that man is a moral creature who possesses the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and the freedom to act accordingly, unless his hand is forced – in which case there is no blame on him. What is there in any of it to be apologetic about?
There is no reason why the simple, sensible stance that serves man so well in practical life should suddenly stop being good enough while philosophising. The philosopher lives his life based on common sense, just like the rest of us do. He must! Of what use, then, are philosophies that cannot help being at odds with how one lives? There is no basis for feeling overawed and intimidated by unfathomable and even impractical philosophical musings based on convoluted logic.
The theist needs to reclaim the solid ground that he was foolish enough to relinquish in the first place. That would amount to re-adopting human nature as the soundest basis for all his arguments on fundamental issues. To that end, he must first recognize the philosophers’ mumbo-jumbo for what it is.
