From World to God?: or, New Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
()
About this ebook
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
Human Consciousness and Its Evolution: A Multidimensional View Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBelief or Unbelief: The Mystery of God in the Light of Reason Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWorld Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Does God Exist?: Yes, Here Is the Evidence Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Pluralistic Universe Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFaith, God, And Modern Science: The Clash between Creationism and a Theological Compromise with Atheism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Barnes & Noble Library of Essential Reading) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Barnes & Noble Digital Library) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Father Confusors Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Idea of God as Affected by Modern Knowledge Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMaking Sense of “God”: What God-Talk Means and Does Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsParallel Trials Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings‘The Non-Personal Universe of Being’: An Intellectual and Moral Platform for the ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’ Person Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLife's Choices?: Why Is There Evil in the World? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGod's Gravediggers: Why No Deity Exists Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Pensées Catholiques: Volume 1 - Essais Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNaturalism and Religion Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Reasonable Christian Faith Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA User’s Guide—The Sequel: The Further Adventures of Religion and Science Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Conception of God: Philosophical Discussion concerning the Nature of the Divine Idea as a Demonstrable Reality Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDo We Live in Two Worlds?: Reconciling Science and Soul Second Edition Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFaith Vs. Science 3Rd Edition: The Unnecessary Dichotomy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFreedom and Sin: Evil in a World Created by God Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Wakeful World: Animism, Mind and the Self in Nature Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Material Mystery: The Flesh of the World in Three Mythic Bodies Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThings Atheists Say: That Simply Make No Sense Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5In His Image Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Human Creation Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCosmology and Theology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Christianity For You
Winning the War in Your Mind: Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Book of Enoch Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Purpose Driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love that Lasts Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mere Christianity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Good Girl's Guide to Great Sex: Creating a Marriage That's Both Holy and Hot Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Screwtape Letters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God's Promises, and the Exhilarating Future That Awaits You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Boundaries Workbook: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Present Over Perfect: Leaving Behind Frantic for a Simpler, More Soulful Way of Living Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Girl, Wash Your Face: Stop Believing the Lies About Who You Are so You Can Become Who You Were Meant to Be Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Changes That Heal: Four Practical Steps to a Happier, Healthier You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Wild at Heart Expanded Edition: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Boundaries Updated and Expanded Edition: When to Say Yes, How to Say No To Take Control of Your Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Four Loves Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Less Fret, More Faith: An 11-Week Action Plan to Overcome Anxiety Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Uninvited: Living Loved When You Feel Less Than, Left Out, and Lonely Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Pursuit of God with Study Guide: The Human Thirst for the Divine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Anxious for Nothing: Finding Calm in a Chaotic World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Decluttering at the Speed of Life: Winning Your Never-Ending Battle with Stuff Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Story: The Bible as One Continuing Story of God and His People Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5NIV, Holy Bible Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Lead When You're Not in Charge: Leveraging Influence When You Lack Authority Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Grief Observed Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Law of Connection: Lesson 10 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for From World to God?
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
From World to God? - Richard L. Sturch
From World to God?
or
New Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion
Richard Sturch
B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil.
2008.Resource_logo.jpgFROM 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