Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Further Reflections on <strong>Atheism</strong> 205<br />
more detail at Findlay’s argument. This will lead on to a further look at the<br />
notions of necessity <strong>and</strong> possibility.<br />
4 A Putative a priori Disproof of the Existence of God<br />
Findlay in his article: ‘Can God’s Existence be Disproved?’ 8 recognises that<br />
there are all sorts of concepts of God which a sensitive religious person would<br />
regard as inadequate, such as that of ‘some ancient, shapeless stone’ or ‘the<br />
bearded Father of the Sistine Ceiling’. He is concerned with the concept of<br />
God according to which he would be ‘an adequate object of religious attitudes’. 9<br />
He describes a worshipful attitude ‘as one in which we feel disposed to bend<br />
the knee before some object, to defer to it wholly, <strong>and</strong> the like’. 10 Even those<br />
who worship stones or trees suppose that they are not ordinary stones or trees<br />
but have some magical powers. But now, Findlay asks, following many theologians,<br />
whether it is ‘not wholly anomalous to worship anything limited in any<br />
thinkable manner’. 11 Findlay is therefore led on to ‘dem<strong>and</strong> that our religious<br />
object should have an unsurpassable surpremacy’. (In fact we have seen that<br />
Plantinga thought of God as a being of unsurpassable greatness <strong>and</strong> excellence.<br />
And Anselm defined the concept of God in this way.) Findlay says that<br />
such a being would ‘tower infinitely above all other objects’.<br />
Such language is characteristic of proponents of the ontological argument,<br />
but Findlay, like a ju-jitsu wrestler, is going to turn against them what the<br />
proponents of the ontological argument think of as their strength. Findlay,<br />
indeed, here agrees with philosophers such as Anselm <strong>and</strong> Plantinga that we<br />
can’t help feeling that ‘the worthy object of our worship can never be a thing<br />
that merely happens to exist’ <strong>and</strong> that we require that an adequate conception<br />
of God should be one whose nonexistence is inconceivable. He holds that such<br />
a conception makes no sense. Findlay says that a being that possessed all the<br />
desirable qualities merely contingently 12 would not be the object of an appropriate<br />
religious attitude. Moreover, worship of a being that just happened to<br />
exist would be a case of idolatry. Such a God would be an improvement on a<br />
magical stone, but nevertheless would not meet the theological requirements.<br />
Such a God would be just another (albeit admirable) thing in the world.<br />
Certainly such an in-the-end contingent God would not satisfy by constituting<br />
an answer to the unanswerable question ‘Why does anything exist at<br />
all?’ which arises from philosophical worry about why anything exists at all<br />
<strong>and</strong> which I mentioned on FE p. 32. So God’s necessary existence could not<br />
be logical necessity. It would not even be physical necessity, which i implication<br />
by laws of nature plus boundary conditions. This is for two reasons,<br />
namely that God would as creator antecedently (in a non-temporal sense of<br />
‘antecedently’) fix both boundary conditions <strong>and</strong> laws. Findlay’s conception