The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecomes indistinguishable from evil.... Or, worse luck, there must be no good at all. For without the ability to distinguish, there can be neither one nor the other, neither good nor evil. Ethics disappears (Sire, 1988, pp. 54-55, first emp. added, last two in orig.). Fifth, deism became the easily crossed bridge from theism to out-and-out naturalism—the view that there is no God and that “nature” is all that exists. Sire summed up this fact when he wrote: Deism did not prove to be a very stable world view. Historically it held sway over the intellectual world of France and England briefly from the late seventeenth into the first half of the eighteenth century. Preceded by theism, it was followed by naturalism (1988, pp. 56-57, emp. added). Roger Dickson has pointed out that for many of its adherents, “deism was the first step toward naturalism” (1979, 121[8]: 118). In his monumental work, Does God Exist?, Hans Kung summarized the situation as follows: This Deism, not accepted by theology, which still needed God in the physical world...now developed consistently into a scientific atheism, which did not need God either physically for the explanation of the world or even morally for the conduct of life (1980, p. 91, emp. in orig.). Today, it is rare to find a genuine deist. I mention the concept here, however, not merely from a historical perspective, but also to document the end result of accepting it. As Kung poignantly noted, deism “developed consistently into a scientific atheism, which did not need God.” PANTHEISM In the above section on deism, Hans Kung observed that eventually deism led to scientific atheism. However, he also noted that it did not necessarily follow a direct path. He went on to say: -39
Almost imperceptibly, over a long period, a significant change had come about in the intellectual climate and with it also a change in the understanding of God: away from the deism of the Enlightenment to a basically pantheistic attitude (1980, p. 133, emp. in orig.). I now would like to discuss the concept of pantheism in this context. Both theists and deists hold to a view which suggests that God is “out there.” In other words, He is transcendent—i.e., beyond the world. Pantheism (pan, all; theos, God), on the other hand, teaches that God is “in here.” He is not in the least transcendent, but merely immanent—i.e., in the world. Put in the bluntest possible terms, “God and the world are so closely intertwined that you cannot tell them apart” (Corduan, 1993, p. 92). The central tenet of pantheism is that all is God and God is all. The seventeenth-century philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), was an outspoken advocate of the concept. In commenting on Spinoza’s influence in this regard, Kung wrote: Spinoza’s God does not live apart from the universe: God is in the world and the world is in God. Nature is a particular way in which God himself exists; human consciousness is a particular way in which God himself thinks. The individual self and all finite things are not autonomous substances but only modifications of the one and only divine substance. God, then, all in all—[is] a purely immanent, not a transcendent God (1980, p. 133, emp. in orig.). While pantheism long has been associated with eastern religions such as Hinduism, Taoism, and some forms of Buddhism, in recent years it has made serious inroads into western thinking, as is evident from the teachings of the Christian Science religion, Scientology, and certain others. Its bestknown public forum today is the teachings of the New Age movement, most noticeably the writings of Oscar-winning actress, Shirley MacLaine. In her book, Out on a Limb, she told of her discussions with a friend by the name of Kevin -40
Page 2 and 3: APOLOGETICS PRESS
Page 4: CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPT
Page 7 and 8: For example, when Joshua—who had
Page 9 and 10: the truth, but they will not. The s
Page 11 and 12: obliged to acknowledge that it was
Page 14 and 15: 2 THE MANY FACES OF UNBELIEF Throug
Page 16 and 17: Impossible task, that—since one w
Page 18 and 19: Neither of these tasks is simple (n
Page 20 and 21: foundation, not in divine guidance,
Page 22 and 23: are monkeys” (see Leonard Huxley,
Page 24 and 25: Such a premise is flawed internally
Page 26 and 27: The development, over the past four
Page 28 and 29: Thus, in the end the skeptic does n
Page 30 and 31: le plethora of men and women who ma
Page 32 and 33: include “Hell” and “Some Mist
Page 34 and 35: In fact, in the late 1970s, while I
Page 36 and 37: future state of rewards and punishm
Page 38 and 39: tion to function on its own; some b
Page 40 and 41: Deism...refers to what can be calle
Page 42 and 43: a God strong enough to create the w
Page 46 and 47: Ryerson who allegedly was able to
Page 48 and 49: ...Every action, under certain circ
Page 50 and 51: tes 12:7). The writer of the book o
Page 52 and 53: the Lord struck him, because he did
Page 54 and 55: ook, Apologetics in the New Age: A
Page 56 and 57: at ease. Yes, it is! Therefore, in
Page 58 and 59: What should be the response of Chri
Page 60 and 61: principle of causality. In its pict
Page 62: a better world, but is limited by t
Page 65 and 66: every citizen enjoys. Or contemplat
Page 67 and 68: since that time that it has very gr
Page 69 and 70: cuse. Man’s failure to see this g
Page 71 and 72: With reference to men the use is pr
Page 73 and 74: in philosophy and science. Life has
Page 75 and 76: Indeed, it may “not be irrelevant
Page 77 and 78: The shock received by the inexperie
Page 79 and 80: there have been those from politics
Page 81 and 82: from the only God ye seek not?,”
Page 83 and 84: This is the first age, I think, in
Page 85 and 86: tle John brought the book of Revela
Page 87 and 88: self, but the fact that “[i]t is
Page 89 and 90: As this section on immorality as a
Page 91 and 92: Democratic Way of Life, a formal st
Page 93 and 94: But science is no synonym for spiri
Page 95 and 96:
ate student asked: “Hundreds of t
Page 97 and 98:
ather bluntly: “In contrast to th
Page 99 and 100:
a joy to tell him that he does not
Page 101 and 102:
is Steven Weinberg, author of Dream
Page 103 and 104:
At Noel’s funeral, the minister b
Page 105 and 106:
Again, time and space would fail me
Page 107 and 108:
sin? No, they were no worse sinners
Page 109 and 110:
Just as suffering is real, so are t
Page 111 and 112:
The corruptions, or shortcomings, o
Page 113 and 114:
UNJUST ACTS COMMITTED BY BELIEVERS
Page 115 and 116:
million-dollar reward to anyone car
Page 117 and 118:
ted. For example, when law-enforcem
Page 119 and 120:
tain actions are sanctioned by God
Page 121 and 122:
of unbelief. I suppose that some wo
Page 124 and 125:
4 CONCLUSION Every person familiar
Page 126 and 127:
This latter observation needs a lit
Page 128 and 129:
REFERENCES Abelson, Phillip (1964),
Page 130 and 131:
Durant, Will (1980), “We Are in t
Page 132 and 133:
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1896), Darwin
Page 134 and 135:
Raymo, Chet (1998), Skeptics and Tr
Page 136:
Watkin, Edward I. (1936), Theism, A
show all

The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?