Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

From World to God?: or, New Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
From World to God?: or, New Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
From World to God?: or, New Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Ebook193 pages2 hours

From World to God?: or, New Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

This book consists of a series of dialogues on the relationship between belief in God and the world of nature. One participant is a Christian who believes one can base belief in God on reason and science, one is a Christian who thinks looking for such a base is unnecessary and even undesirable, and the third is an atheist. As the argument goes back and forth, it touches on such topics as the origin of the universe, various alleged pieces of evidence for design, and the existence of laws of nature. The dialogues do not aim to "settle anything but rather to take readers far enough into an issue to understand some of its complexities and, hopefully, to set them thinking.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateJan 1, 2007
ISBN9781498276214
From World to God?: or, New Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Author

Richard L. Sturch

Richard Sturch is a former rector of Islip, Oxfordshire, England, and Senior Lecturer in religion and philosophy at the University of Nigeria and at the Lodon School of Theology. He is the author of The New Deism (1990), The Word and the Christ (1991), and Four Christian Fantasists (2001).

Related to From World to God?

Related ebooks

Christianity For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for From World to God?

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    From World to God? - Richard L. Sturch

    9781556350535.kindle.jpg

    From World to God?

    or

    New Dialogues Concerning

    Natural Religion

    Richard Sturch

    B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil.

    2008.Resource_logo.jpg

    FROM WORLD TO GOD?

    or, New Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

    Copyright © 2006 Richard Sturch. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf & Stock, 199 W. 8th Ave., Eugene, OR 97401.

    ISBN 10: 1-55635-053-8

    ISBN 13: 978-1-55635-053-5

    EISBN 13: 978-1-4982-7621-4

    Manufactured in the U.S.A.

    Table of Contents

    Title Page

    Introduction

    Dialogue I—The Origins of the Universe

    Dialogue II—Alleged Evidence for Design within the World

    Dialogue III—Alleged Evidence for Design of the World as a Whole

    Dialogue IV—The Idea of a Law of Nature

    Dialogue V—The Coherence of Laws of Nature

    Dialogue VI—Beauty in Science, and the Usefulness of Mathematics

    Dialogue VII—The God of Natural Theology and the God of the Bible

    Bibliography

    Dedicated to the memory of

    William Buckland

    D.D., F.R.S.

    Late Professor of Geology

    at Oxford University,

    first President of the British Association

    for the Advancement of Science,

    author of

    On Geology and Mineralogy

    Considered with Reference

    to Natural Theology

    Dean of Westminster, and Rector of Islip

    Introduction

    2 David Hume’s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, written in 1761 but not published until 1779, after his death, remain, and rightly, one of the most celebrated of all writings on this subject. No one venturing to write about natural theology can afford not to read and use them, whether to agree or disagree. Indeed, some seem really to think that they said the last word on the subject. The present work, though it too purports to be a set of dialogues concerning natural religion, or natural theology, covers a rather different area from that of Hume’s work. Ostensibly, Hume was only concerned to discuss the possibility of reasoning from the world about us to the attributes of God, not to His actual existence. Occasionally, indeed, he does depart from this, for instance in the discussion of what he calls the "a priori argument (what we should nowadays call the cosmological") in Dialogue IX. To a great extent he succeeded in making his ostensible point; most modern treatments of the subject, however favorable to natural theology they may be, are reluctant to argue for more than the bare existence of a God from what can be seen in the world. His attributes have to be known some other way.

    The present essay follows the same line. It can perhaps claim to be a more balanced set of dialogues than Hume’s. Of Hume’s three speakers, Philo has nearly all the good arguments, and Demea is largely a figure of fun. This is not to accuse Hume of intellectual dishonesty. He was simply following in an old tradition. Most of Plato’s dialogues are equally one-sided; so are those of Berkeley.

    Hume himself defended a dialogue form on the grounds that opposite sentiments, even without any decision, afford an agreeable amusement. But what follows here is more of a dialogue within myself, and I hope it is fair to all three participants. Although to a certain extent each character descends from one of Hume’s three, each also represents, to a much greater extent, my own views, thoughts, and doubts. Leslie, who descends to some extent from Cleanthes, is as a rule the closest approximation to myself. But much of the time Geoffrey, who is a kind of more pedestrian Philo, represents my doubts, and my own awareness of weaknesses in the theistic arguments. He is, if you like, my attempt to be honest with myself. He also from time to time gives a voice to other atheist or agnostic views with which I have no personal sympathy but which obviously ought to be mentioned; as a rule Geoffrey introduces these with a note of doubt in his voice.

    Myra, on the other hand, is not meant to be the butt that Demea is, though, like him, she takes less part in the dialogue than the other two (until near the end). She chips in mostly when Geoffrey starts attacking, not Leslie’s arguments, but Christianity or theism itself. She really stands for my doubts in the opposite direction to Geoffrey. Both she and Leslie fully acknowledge the Christian revelation; but Myra is not very much bothered with either Leslie’s arguments or Geoffrey’s counters, except, as I have said, when the latter tries to show that theism is not merely unproven but false. She takes the Biblical picture of God as basic; she sees the world, not as a foundation for belief in Him, but as a place in which His handiwork can be seen, because we know it is His handiwork before we look.

    A second difference is that these dialogues, as they go on, move more and more in the direction of a discussion of the implications of modern science, which was not the case with Hume’s. Questions about evolution and the big bang have brought actual scientific theories into the contemporary debate far more than their predecessors did in the eighteenth century. It will be fairly obvious to readers that in scientific matters I have depended entirely upon the popularisers, and the gratitude that I owe them is great—for a great deal of fascinating reading as well as for their unwitting help in producing these dialogues. Echoes of their ideas will occur over and over again. At times, so as not to misreport them (especially when I disagree with them) the echoes are more like echoes of their words than just their ideas. I hope it need not be said that none of these writers is in any way whatever responsible for the use (or misuse) made herein of anything that they wrote; still less for anywhere I have failed to understand what they were getting at. I also hope that they will forgive me for not encumbering the text with exact references to their remarks. I have however included brief references and further reading notes at the end of each Dialogue, and a bibliography at the end of the whole.

    Dialogue I

    The Origins of the Universe

    Dialogue I introduces the characters. The discussion is to be concerned, in the first place with arguments for the reality of God based on the existence of the universe, and in the second with those based on particular features of the universe. We begin with a discussion of whether big bang theories of the origin of the universe, or other theories which ascribe a beginning to it, imply that there was a Cause for that beginning.

    Failing that, can we say that the universe, whatever its origin, requires a first cause? Or that if it consists of contingent beings, which might or might not have existed, there must be a necessary being which could not not-exist? Or that the universe requires an explanation?

    Alternatively, is it possible that the universe exists by chance? Can we say that explanation in terms of a God is in some way simpler than any alternative?

    The scene is a radio station’s studio. Leslie, Myra, and Geoffrey are sitting rather nervously at a table.

    voice of an announcer

    As part of our series of Controversies, we have in our studio this evening three well-known amateurs in the long-running debate over science, religion and the reality of God. Leslie Clentham is Lecturer in Philosophy at Highgate Theological Seminary; Myra Dearman is Principal of St Mildred’s School, Wenlock; and Geoffrey Philpotts is the author of The Sceptical Eye. They are here to hold a series of broadcast Dialogues on the theme From World to God? Ms. Dearman?

    myra

    Hello, and welcome. I have been asked to act as a kind of moderator to the discussion, should such a functionary be needed, as being the nearest thing we have to an impartial arbiter. This is because while I am myself a Christian believer, I am decidedly doubtful about the usefulness of natural theology, the attempt to argue for the reality of a God from premises that ought to be common ground to all, believers or not. On the other hand, Leslie here does think natural theology worthwhile, and our friend Geoffrey, the third member of our party, is not a believer at all, but an atheist.

    (Turning to the others.)

    Can we clear a little ground first? This programme, as you heard, is called From World to God?, so I take it that some forms of natural theology, those which do not begin from the world, are not going to be included in it.

    geoffrey

    Yes, that’s right. There have been attempts, for example, to prove the existence of a God from purely abstract considerations—the ontological arguments—or from the existence of right and wrong. I shouldn’t mind taking Leslie up on such matters one day, but not here and now. They aren’t really arguments from the existence or nature of the world.

    leslie

    Though perhaps our sense of right and wrong might be regarded as a feature of the world, part of its nature? So might the existence of alleged religious experiences. But yes, the idea is to confine ourselves in these dialogues to the world apart from inner human experiences. Not of course apart from human experience altogether; without that we shouldn’t know there was a world at all!

    myra

    Kant maintained that there were only two ways one could even try to argue from the world to God: you could start from the detailed constitution of the world, or you could start from indeterminate experience, that is, from the existence of anything at all. More than that there are not, and more there cannot be. Perhaps we could use this as a starting-point?

    geoffrey

    That’s all right by me. I might add that Kant himself rejected both of them.

    leslie

    I think he rather oversimplified the situation, mind you.

    myra

    How do you mean, oversimplified?

    leslie

    Neither is one straightforward argument: rather, each is a group of more or less similar or related arguments. If you start from the detailed constitution of the world, what features of it are you interested in? And if you start from the existence of anything at all, well, is there really only one way in which theists have tried to get from that to a God? And some in each group are a lot stronger than others.

    myra

    Well, then, suppose you explain how one of them might be broken down into these groups of yours. I suggest trying the more general one first.

    The Cosmological Argument

    leslie

    Very well. This is what Kant called the cosmological argument—or group of arguments, I’d say myself. I should say it could be divided into three sub-groups; and in each of these you will find different people giving different versions.

    Firstly, there are those which argue that the universe must have had a beginning in time, and that this first event must have had a cause or reason for it; and the only reasonable candidate for this is the creative will of God. This argument was used extensively in the earlier part of the Middle Ages, by Jewish, Muslim and Christian thinkers alike. They felt that it suited well with what they believed anyway about the beginning of things. God, they knew, had in fact created the world at some point in the past; and surely it must be possible to show that He had.

    Secondly, there are those which argue that, irrespective of whether time had a beginning, you need a start to the chain of cause and effect that we observe around us, a First Cause—which we call God. This was the dominant form in the later Middle Ages, though it goes back to earlier times, to the fifth-century Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus. A variation of this argues that everything in the created world is a contingent being, that is to say, one which might or might not have existed, and that the existence of these implies that of a necessary being who couldn’t not-have-existed. (This is the form Kant had chiefly in mind.)

    And thirdly (it might perhaps be considered yet another form of the second, but I’d prefer to keep them distinct), you have arguments which seek to show that there has to be an explanation for the universe considered as a whole, as a unity. Causes within the universe can explain effects within it: they cannot explain the whole system of which they themselves are a part.

    The Beginning of the Universe?

    myra

    I hope we don’t need to go into the details of arguments from the early Middle Ages. Couldn’t we be more modern? After all, hasn’t your first sub-group enjoyed a new lease of life in recent days, with the development of so-called Big Bang theories of the universe, which seem to show that there really was a beginning of it all, something like 15,000 million years ago? What do you say, Geoffrey?

    geoffrey

    If this sort of theistic argument is to get off the ground, it needs to show, firstly, that the universe did indeed have a beginning in time, and secondly, that if it I did, this requires a God to explain it. I should query both of these assertions.

    myra

    A theory was popular at one time called the steady-state theory of the universe. The idea was that the universe would look very much the same at any time in its history, and that this history had no beginning. Now none of us is a scientist; we have to take these matters on trust from the people who are; but they seem almost all agreed that there really was a big bang, and that the steady-state view did not fit the facts.

    geoffrey

    Oh, no, that wasn’t what I meant. (Though of course scientific theories do change; you never know what may come next.) Like many other atheists and agnostics, I quite accept that there probably

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1