Why Some Eminent Philosophers
Believe in God [2]
One of the assumptions in theism-vs-atheism debates is that one
probably passes from non-belief to belief (and vice versa)
*rationally*.
A cursory reading of the biographies of eleven leading
contemporary philosophers in Kelly James Clark (ed.) *Philosophers
Who Believe* (IVP, Illinois, 1993), tells a different story.
I’m posting this in three stages, to make it easier to read/
digest/respond.
‘Some people are led to deepen their religious commitment by
*thought* – by reflection on the rational fabric of theological
deliberations. Others are impelled by *experience* – by a
reception of some sort of sign or signal. In my own case, however,
it came by way of *feeling* – through awe and wonder at the
mystery of existence and, no less importantly, by a sentiment of
solidarity with those whom I admired and respected as part of a
community of faith transcending the boundaries of dogma and
doctrine…’ (p.133).
– Nicholas Rescher, professor of philosophy and history and
philosophy of science at the University of Pittsburgh.
‘I came to realize that I lack in myself even the resources to
accept God. My very faith, my very acceptance of God, is not in my
power. It is a gratuitous gift of God, and I struggle to make that
realization more than episodic in my life. Because of all the
abuse [from my father], the suffering, I don’t really trust love.
I don’t believe in love. But God is love… I must learn to trust
God if I am to learn to love.
‘Meanwhile I continue seeking to follow God and Christ – but with
fits, starts, doubts, backsliding and much self-incrimination. My
feeble efforts are humbling. My sinful past alone should be
humbling. Yet there is hope…
‘I am coming to see that my self-doubts, my insecurities, are a
gift from God. *They* are the seeds of humility.’ (pp.176-177).
– Frederick Suppe, professor of philosophy, University of
Maryland.
‘As far back as my memory stretches, I recall having thought in
Christian terms; and from early years I recall having prayed.
Since neither of my parents was Christian, any human contribution
to this process must be attributed to my early schooling. By the
time I had… come up as an undergraduate to Oxford University in
1954, being a Christian was, I claimed to myself, the most
important thing in my life
‘The basic idea of [my book] *The Existence of God* is that the
various traditional arguments for theism – from the existence of
the world (the cosmological argument), from its conformity to
scientific laws (a version of the teleological argument), and so
on – are best construed not as deductive arguments but as
inductive arguments to the existence of God. A valid deductive
argument is one in which the premises (the starting points)
infallibly guarantee the truth of the conclusion; a correct
inductive argument is one in which the premises confirm the
conclusion (that is, make it more probable than it would otherwise
be). Science argues from various limited observable phenomena to
their unobservable physical causes, and in so doing it argues
inductively. My claim was that theism is the best justified of
metaphysical theories. The existence of God is a very simple
hypothesis that leads us to expect various very general and more
specific phenomena that otherwise we would not expect; and for
that reason it is rendered probable by the phenomena. Or rather,
as with any big scientific theory, each group of phenomena adds to
the probability of the theory – together they make it
significantly more probable than not…’ (pp. 179, 188-189).
– Richard Swinburne, Nolloth Professor of the Christian Religion
at Oxford University.
More soon…
Rowland Croucher