Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 43<br />
‘sempiternal’ side. Kneale suggests that the ‘eternal’ conception was naturalized<br />
in Christian theology through Boethius. According to this conception<br />
God is outside time altogether. On the other h<strong>and</strong> there is talk of God as<br />
a living being <strong>and</strong> as performing actions. This suggests sempiternity. My<br />
difficulties about the notion of sempiternity make me wish to advise the<br />
theologian (I hope without being a devil’s advocate) to go the ‘eternity’ way.<br />
How would an eternal being act on the world? Perhaps in this way: a certain<br />
relation between the atemporal God <strong>and</strong> a temporal act (say someone’s prayer)<br />
is correlated with another relation, say between the atemporal God <strong>and</strong> a<br />
temporal state of grace or whatever. Some such answer might be given as to<br />
how John Leslie’s axiarchic principle could act on the world or bring it into<br />
existence. There would be some sort of relation between an atemporal thing<br />
(as I conceive that an axiarchic principle, proposition or rule must be) <strong>and</strong><br />
a space–time universe. One other problem with Leslie’s idea of an axiarchic<br />
principle actually bringing the world into existence is analogous to those<br />
brought up a few pages back. This is that we can ask what explains the<br />
existence of the axiarchic principle. Leslie holds that the axiarchic principle is<br />
a necessary proposition, but need the existence of a necessary proposition<br />
itself be necessary? Perhaps it is if the existence of universals is necessary, but<br />
I have noted that this is at least controversial.<br />
Once more the atheist may feel grateful for being excused from such<br />
conundrums, fascinating intellectual problems though they are.<br />
9 The Argument from Religious Experience<br />
With the argument from contingency philosophers <strong>and</strong> theologians were<br />
endeavouring to argue for a creator God, not merely a finite ‘big brother’<br />
God. The latter would merely be a higher part of the universe though not<br />
immediately observable, which we can assist in the fight against evil. 81 The<br />
same might be said about the argument to design, even though strictly speaking<br />
this argues only for a designer who works on already existing material.<br />
Those who argue from religious experience could be arguing for the creator<br />
<strong>and</strong> designer God of the great monotheistic religions, though some might be<br />
arguing only for a ‘big brother’ God. Let us examine the argument.<br />
The argument is that since many persons report that they have experiences<br />
as of acquaintance with God this raises the probability that God exists. Religious<br />
people usually talk of ‘certainty’, not of probability. This claim to certainty<br />
would not necessarily be conceded by an inquiring person who heard the<br />
reports. Such a person would be pleased with a mere raising of probability.<br />
However, William James considered the question of whether a believer’s<br />
religious experience could give a good reason for his or her own religious