Abstract
The various models of God that we have considered do not exclude one another and we will draw elements from them in understanding what God is like in our final chapter. But they do agree that God exists not as another object in the world but as the ground of all. He is an objective Being who manifests himself in the world yet is transcendent. The scriptures assume his existence and it was left to the various philosophers and theologians of each faith to argue for it. We will consider some of these arguments in this chapter. Philosophers, sociologists and psychologists have seen God as a projection of man (Feuerbach), the opium of the people (Marx), the illusion of those who have remained infantile (Freud), and the symbol of society (Durkheim). Such scepticism is not a particular symptom of modernity for Gibbon pointed out that the various modes of religion which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.
If from the indubitable fact that the world exists, someone wants to infer a cause of this existence, his inference does not contradict our scientific knowledge at any point. No scientist has at his disposal even a single argument or any kind of fact with which he could oppose such an assumption. This is true, even if the cause — and how could it be otherwise — obviously has to be sought outside this three-dimensional world of ours.
Heisenberg
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
W. L. Craig, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. Macmillan, 1980, p. 152.
Cf. Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind. Collins, London, 1969, p. 385
John Hick (ed.), The Existence of God. Macmillan, New York, 1973, p. 9
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics. Dent, London, 1983, p. 168
Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science. SCM, London, 1990, p. 25
A. R. Peacocke, Theology fora Scientific Age. SCM, London, 1993, p. 119ff
John M. Templeton, Evidence of Purpose. Continuum, New York, 1994, p. 114
K. Ward, God, Chance and Necessity. One World, Oxford, 1996, p. 172
N. Smart, Philosophers and Religious Truth. SCM, London, 1969, p. 25f. We might make a point concerning the naturalist interpretation of miracles, that is, that they still show the amazing insight of Jesus. In the story of the widow’s son who seemed to be dead Jesus approached the bier and told the young man to rise. It is possible, since the climate demanded quick burial, that he was in a cataleptic trance and Jesus saved him from being buried alive. There is evidence from the tombs in Palestine that many were buried alive. In the story about the daughter of Jairus, the president of the synagogue, Jesus said: ‘She is not dead but sleeping’, which provoked the laughter of the crowd. In both cases there is a miracle of diagnosis which shocks and surprises the people (Mk.5.22–43; Lk.7.11–16).
Michael Fuller, Atoms and Icons. Mowbray, London, 1995, p. 32
Russell Stannard, Doing Away with God. HarperCollins, London, 1993, p. 122. We would stress that miracles must be scrutinised for there is much credulity. Village Hinduism has a belief in miracles and there have been reports of statues drinking milk in temples similar to stories of the statue of the crying Virgin Mary. The Hindu philosophers admit that their faith includes miracles but point out that the stress is on moral truths. However, the abuse of miracle does not mean that it is false just as the abuse of belief in God does not prove his non-existence.
T. S. Kuhn, The Structures of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1970, p. 52ff
Arvind Sharma, A Hindu Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion. Macmillan, London, 1990, p. 108
N. Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind. William Collins, Glasgow, 1969, p. 366f
S. Brown, ‘Secular alternatives to Religion’, Man’s Religious Quest Units 22–23, OU Press, Milton Keynes, 1981, p. 73
Peter Berger, A Rumour of Angels. Penguin, London, 1970, ch.3
D. Cupitt and D. Z. Phillips, Is God Real? ed. by J. Runzo, Macmillan, 1993, London, p. 199f. To say that there is no objective reality corresponding to God avoids the problem of transcendence but in what way does it differ from humanism? There is a dispute between Phillips and Cupitt regarding language as how it might refer but both appear to make God into a personification of our ideals. It is possible to pay attention to language and yet hold with God as a transcendent Reality as seen with Barth. With him, theology is similar to what Wittgenstein calls logical ‘grammar’ for it seeks to elucidate the conceptual structure of biblical language and reveal the inner logical connections. The tests to be applied to any theological statement are internal: scripture, the community, and so on. But we cannot be content with a plurality of unrelated languages and Wittgenstein did speak of family resemblances as well as family differences.
B. McGuinness, Wittgenstein: A Life: Young Ludwig (1889–1924). Duckworth, London, 1988, pp. 255, 273
Copyright information
© 1997 Robert Crawford
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crawford, R. (1997). Does God Exist?. In: The God/Man/World Triangle. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230509221_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230509221_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-80400-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50922-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)