| The philosophy of religion involves an attempt, by | | | | God as the first cause. Even by his own admission, |
| philosophers, to find a rational justification for their | | | | Thomas submits that there are some truths about |
| beliefs, and for others it involves an attempt to | | | | God that transcend human knowledge, but the causal |
| justify their disbelief. This article will explore the | | | | argument that he employs in the Summa Theologica |
| problem of religious knowledge as presented by Paul | | | | applies only to the world of sense experience. |
| Tillich, St. Thomas Aquinas and William James, and it | | | | So, it would appear that all arguments that attempt |
| will attempt to unravel whether their arguments are | | | | to prove the existence of God through ordinary |
| firmly grounded, or simply open the door to more | | | | knowledge tend to fall short in one way or another |
| questions. | | | | since they are entirely speculative and prove nothing |
| In all the major religions, the sort of information held | | | | of which we can be sure. With that being said, we |
| in high regard pertains to reported revelations of the | | | | will now turn our attention to arguments for the |
| word of God. Paul Tillich states that, "Scientific | | | | existence of God through revelation, or revealed |
| explanation and historical criticism protect revelation; | | | | knowledge. |
| they cannot dissolve it, for revelation belongs to a | | | | Proponents of revealed knowledge contend that the |
| dimension of reality for which scientific and historical | | | | existence of God cannot be proven through ordinary |
| analysis are inadequate". With this statement, we | | | | knowledge, but is based upon revelation. Revealed |
| immediately see that we are dealing with different | | | | knowledge is different from ordinary knowledge and, |
| criteria to establish truth regarding revealed | | | | as Thomas or William James would say, philosophers |
| knowledge and scientific or ordinary knowledge. | | | | have often failed to make this distinction. Revealed |
| In scientific knowledge, there is no serious | | | | knowledge would appear to be a stronger argument |
| disagreement as to what constitutes probable | | | | for the believer, since it is unaffected by the |
| evidence. However, this is not true with revealed | | | | criticisms leveled against the arguments that claim to |
| knowledge. Tillich maintains that there is a brand of | | | | establish the existence of God through reason. Even |
| religious certainty that transcends deductive certainty. | | | | if the believer cannot prove through rational means |
| Besides, scientific knowledge is arrived at within an | | | | that the revelation is genuine, he still has assurances |
| axiom or by "playing by the rules of the game". | | | | that settle this question as far as he is concerned. |
| Within this axiom, logical arguments can be proven, | | | | In his essay "The Will to Believe", William James |
| but outside it, there is uncertainty. Therefore, even | | | | argues that some people want to believe whether |
| the scientist must accept the starting rules of the | | | | there is adequate evidence or not. James insists that |
| game on faith. | | | | believing is different from knowing, and one believes |
| So, how can we tell if the Bible contains the word of | | | | in spite of the lack of knowledge if it is of sufficient |
| God? A fundamentalist would say that it is enough | | | | importance to him. James stresses the role of |
| that the Bible contains a sentence asserting that | | | | religious experience in human affairs and the |
| there is religious knowledge in the book. However, | | | | importance it has in many human lives. The point that |
| this assertion does not establish the truth-value of | | | | James tries to make is that the line between faith |
| the issue at hand. The standards that we apply to | | | | and reason is a lot thinner than we might think. |
| determine whether a scientific or historical proposition | | | | Now that we have broached the topic on the |
| is true appear to be completely different from those | | | | existence of God, we will turn our attention to the |
| which some apply to religious information. Instead of | | | | problem of the nature of God. Theories concerning |
| logical or empirical evidence, there is an element of | | | | the nature of God range from atheism, which thinks |
| faith or revealed knowledge. Instead of relying on | | | | that God is only a figment of human imagination, to |
| evidence contained within the previously mentioned | | | | fundamentalism, which interprets the Bible as literal |
| axiom, the basis for accepting the Bible as the word | | | | truth, with many gray areas in between both |
| of God is based on one's personal convictions or | | | | extreme views. |
| beliefs. | | | | Atheists tend to be just as vehemently critical of |
| Now we will turn to the question of whether the | | | | devout believers as vice-versa. However, many of |
| existence of God can be proven by means of | | | | the arguments that atheists use against religion can |
| ordinary or revealed knowledge, or by both; or | | | | be reflected just as effectively against them. Just as |
| neither. This is a question on which St. Thomas holds | | | | there can be no proof for the existence of God, |
| strong views and he writes extensively about it in | | | | there can likewise be no proof for the nonexistence |
| the Summa Theologica. Thomas believes that the | | | | of God. |
| existence of God can be proven through rational | | | | The next step away from atheism would probably |
| means although he does submit that the human | | | | be agnosticism. While the agnostic believes that he is |
| intellect is inadequate to comprehend the divine | | | | being reasonable by leaving the question of God |
| substance. Here, we are dealing with questions that | | | | open, William James would contend that this in itself |
| concern the existence of God and the nature of God. | | | | is a decision of passion, and is attended with a risk of |
| The argument with which I am most familiar that | | | | losing the truth. James thinks that there is danger in |
| claims to prove the existence of God through rational | | | | "shunning error"-to make no commitment is to never |
| means is the argument from design. This argument | | | | grow. However, would not making a commitment to |
| claims that if we study the world around us, we will | | | | one side or the other entail the same danger of |
| undoubtedly become increasingly impressed with its | | | | losing the truth? What if we pick the losing side? On |
| complexity and intricacy, and then we will come to | | | | the other hand, perhaps there is no winning or losing |
| the undeniable conclusion that there had to be a | | | | side since the application of these criteria is within our |
| designer. Metaphorically speaking, it is impossible to | | | | realm of understanding, and few would argue that |
| throw bicycle parts up into the air and have them | | | | the concept of God transcends human understanding. |
| land as a perfect bicycle. Therefore, there must be | | | | I believe that there is no more danger of losing the |
| an intelligent being who assembled it. | | | | truth through agnosticism as there is through atheism |
| The most obvious flaw of this argument is addressed | | | | or devout religiosity. All contain an equal opportunity |
| by the philosopher David Hume, who points out that | | | | of losing the truth. |
| natural effects do not resemble man-made effects | | | | There are many other theories that purport to |
| to the point where we can assume that both must | | | | explain the nature of God. One of these is deism, |
| have had similar causal factors. There is a vast | | | | which maintains that a divine being created the world, |
| difference between assembling a Schwinn and | | | | but now has nothing to do with any form of |
| creating a universe. Hume makes clear that the | | | | interaction in it. Another theory is theism, which |
| causes that we observe which effect human | | | | believes exactly the opposite; that God has a direct |
| achievement are not necessarily the governing | | | | personal relationship with human beings. There are so |
| principles of the universe. Furthermore, given the | | | | many theories on the nature of God that one |
| undesirable events that we witness in nature, one | | | | scarcely knows where to turn. Is God a being of |
| would be hard-pressed to believe that the design of | | | | wrath and vengeance as in the Old Testament, or is |
| the universe is benevolent, or that a wise architect | | | | he a loving and forgiving God as in the New |
| designed it. | | | | Testament? Alternatively, should we believe |
| The argument that St. Thomas relies on in the | | | | Nietzsche when he proclaimed that God is dead? I |
| Summa Theologica is similar to the argument from | | | | now see that the original thesis statement was vain |
| design, but with a new twist. Thomas' argument, | | | | in claiming an attempt to unravel the mysteries of |
| often called the causal argument, asserts that there | | | | religious knowledge, because it has failed miserably. |
| must be either a cause of a prior event, or a reason | | | | However, I can take solace in the knowledge that |
| for the occurrence of the event. This ultimate cause, | | | | scholars, who are far more brilliant than I have |
| according to Thomas, is God. The conclusion is that | | | | written mountains of essays on the same subject |
| there must be a first cause of events. | | | | that, in the end, also fail miserably. |
| However, Thomas seems to be applying much of the | | | | So, my conclusion is that there is no conclusion |
| same criteria as the proponents of the argument | | | | except to say that no rational comprehension or |
| from design. Specifically, those non-observable events | | | | satisfactory explanation exists to explain, defend, or |
| must fall under the same governing principles of | | | | attack the problem of religious knowledge or the |
| worldly observable events. Hume would contend that | | | | existence or the nature of God to an adequate |
| observable causes and effects require no ultimate | | | | ending. We may be best served by following the lead |
| beginning since they can be conceived of indefinitely. | | | | of William James in observing the character of |
| Nowhere is it written that the laws that govern our | | | | religious experience and its effect on human affairs |
| world and our tiny speck in the cosmos are the laws | | | | rather than trying to unravel and comprehend the |
| that govern the entire universe. If we accept this | | | | mysteries of the universe. But then again, the |
| principle, then Thomas' argument loses much steam. | | | | attempt to know the unknowable is one of the |
| Therefore, the proposition that the universe is its | | | | qualities that make us uniquely human. |
| own cause is just a plausible as the proposition of | | | | |