Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism and Theism 127
that there could be no sound reasoning to the conclusion that there is a God.
Others maintain that while it is not absolutely inconceivable that there could
be such a proof the facts of the matter allow us to reject them in advance
because we know from independent reasoning that there is no God. In this
section, then, I want to consider some issues involved in these agnostic and
atheistic responses.
Showing That and Showing What
Let me begin by saying something about the way in which, following Aquinas,
I see philosophical reflection as leading to the existence of God. Famously,
St Paul claims:
What can be known about God is plain to [men] for God has shown it to
them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his
eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been
made. (Romans 1: 19–20)
When people discuss the existence of God they usually have, or think they
have, a clear enough idea of the kind of thing the possibility of whose existence
they are considering. In Western contexts these ideas are generally
informed by one of the great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity
and Islam. In their sacred scriptures and in their historic doctrines these
religions purport to say a good deal about God, even though they acknowledge
the mystery of divinity and the limitations of human comprehension.
It is natural, therefore, that the religiously informed think of the question of
God’s existence in terms of a certain preconceived Divine identity – as if to
say ‘we know what God is supposed to be like, the question is whether there
is such a thing’.
This doctrinally-informed starting point is not that of St Paul and nor is it
that of the natural theology practised by Aquinas. When Paul claims that
God’s invisible nature (‘his eternal power and deity’) has long been perceptible
in the things that have been made, he is not supposing that anyone who
might come to recognize this must see in it confirmation of prior religious
claims. Rather he is asserting that even those who do not already have an idea
of God are in a position to determine that God exists simply by reflecting on
the natural order. The point is an important one for understanding both the
classical proofs and that which I introduced earlier which argues from the intentionality
of thought and action to a transcendent source of mindedness.
In the Summa, Aquinas (following Aristotle) distinguishes two kinds of
causal arguments: first, those in which one reasons from an understanding
of the nature of a substance to its effects, thereby explaining their occurrence