Q. Is there a way to answer atheists who rely on the rules of argument when they refute the existence of God? Atheists say that theists resort to:
Ad hominem, Straw Man, Red Herring etc
when trying to prove God’s existence.
(Editor’s note: The dictionary defines these terms as follows:
ad hominem — appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
Straw Man — weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily refuted
Red herring — something that distracts attention from the real issue
Answer by Romapada Swami: Absolute Truth or the Supreme Being – if there is One – must be, by definition, transcendental to man-made rules of argument and logic.
This statement itself is quite logical, isn’t it? And yet faith in the existence of a Supreme Personality is in fact quite logical, not an irrational belief or sentiment.
The contention that theists don’t have a strong intellectual basis for their faith is simply not true; many distinguished devotees throughout the millennia have been exceptionally learned scholars and intellectuals, who have written outstanding literatures that present sound logic and reason to corroborate the existence of God. Saintly teachers in our line such as Jiva Goswami, Bhaktivinoda Thakur or Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati would regularly raise within their writings every conceivable argument the atheistic opposition might present — not just some cursory weak arguments — and then very systematically and vigorously refute each of them, establishing the devotional conclusions.
I invite you to scrutinizingly study some of the famous dialogs and conversations that Srila Prabhupada had with his students as well as many distinguished guests — especially those presented in books such as “Life Comes from Life”, “Beyond Illusion and Doubt”, “Perfect Questions Perfect Answers” and “Science of Self Realization” etc. You will come to appreciate the penetrating logic, common sense and intellectual acumen in these arguments. Prabhupada’s arguments were so cutting and brilliant that eminent scholars, philosophers and professors were often left speechless and had to concede to him with due admiration.
Going in the other direction, it could easily be demonstrated that many of the modern atheistic scientists and impersonal philosophers are invariably guilty of these very same faults that they charge the theists with. Srila Prabhupada himself would often expose this. Very often it is seen that when presented with direct evidences and contentions that are irrefutable and inexplicable within their theoretical framework, they resort to these very measures to sidestep the issue.
A look into the question of origin of the universe or the origin of life is a case in point. While presenting bombastic theories of how everything has come into existence by chance, when it gets down to the details, the scientific body is completely at a loss to explain the intricate organization and complexities of life forms and so on. And yet, even as they are grappling hard to answer some of these basic questions, they profess as if they have explained everything by means of a few high-sounding formulas and theories, which simply throw a smokescreen on the eyes of simple laymen and lead them to believe that there is now no need to invoke God to explain these questions.
It is true that there are many common people who may be instinctively devoted to God but are not quite conversant or adept with logical arguments and reasoning, and may not be able to stand up to a sophisticated debate. But even a casual study of the learned acharyas would prove how consistent and unbeatable their logical conclusions are. By making yourself familiar with the lines of reasoning as found in these discussions referred to above, your own convictions will be systematically strengthened and you will also be able to present them in a consistent manner to someone who is sincerely trying to probe into a scientific understanding of the existence of God.
However, it should be mentioned that devotees are not very much interested in debating with convinced atheists nor are they interested in endless arguments just to prove their point or defend their position; neither is it possible to understand God merely by logic and argument. One of the Names of Krishna is “Ajita”, meaning ‘The Unconquerable’, because He cannot be known by the intellectual wrangling of insignificant human beings. He reserves the right of not being exposed to those who do not have the right disposition towards Him. He discloses in the Bhagavad-Gita that He is covered by the curtain of yogamaya, and without His mercy, one cannot possibly conceive of His existence even by prolonged speculation. One will simply be repeatedly baffled in such attempts.
As mentioned in our opening statement, this conclusion itself is quite logical — for even within our experience we can understand that it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for a subordinate to fully understand a superior, or for a child to fully understand about his forefathers, unless someone discloses such knowledge to him, what then to speak of knowing God. If we could expect to reach up and capture an understanding of God merely by mundane exercises of logic and reason, then our intelligence would prove to be superior to God, which is contradictory. There is, of course, a scientific process of approaching God viz. when one becomes genuinely humble and submissive, when the purpose of one’s inquiry into the existence of God is to serve Him and not to exploit or challenge His authority, then God reveals Himself to such a gentle soul.
Once again, this is not to sidestep the issue or to say that there is no sound logic behind a vaishnava’s conviction in the existence of God. Rather, the idea is that logic and reason alone are insufficient to understand God, one has to rely upon a different approach for conclusive knowledge. Despite the best evidences and proofs and in fact even if God Himself were to come and stand in front of them, those who harbor deep aversion or envy towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead will be unable to understand Him! Krishna confirms in the Bhagavad-gita that there will always be two classes of people within this material world — atheists and theists. (Bg 16.6) Therefore, when devotees do present logical arguments, it is not so much to convince the atheists as much as to expose the flaws in their arguments and thus strengthen the intelligence of those that are innocent but are misled by the atheistic propaganda.
One final point: quite naturally, the theistic presentation of a devotee appeals not merely to the intellect but to all aspects of our existence – including our emotional faculties and our social, cultural and practical aspects of living. This is only natural and a great merit rather than being a flaw — a philosophy that simply concerns itself with dry intellectual arguments is neither complete nor beneficial; it merely makes people hard-hearted. Indeed, a thoughtful person can readily see how such so-called rationalism has caused havoc in the ethics, values and finer instincts of human society and its devastating effects on the quality of life in general. Of course, religion without sound philosophy is also sentimental and fanatical; but atheistic rationalism is not the remedy for that – one mistake cannot be corrected by another.
The philosophy of Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavatam is simultaneously devotional as well as philosophically sound. It is very scientific, systematic, consistent and simultaneously very touching to the heart and brings out the finest qualities of a human being. As Krishna promises in Bhagavad-Gita, simply by hearing this philosophy with an open mind, and by practicing this yoga in full consciousness of Him, one can factually come to know and understand God in full, free from any doubt. (Cf. BG 7.1)
