|
Philosophy of Religion websites | blogs | magazines | photo galleries | my books | notes for students | home |
||
|
Select resources by subject:
|
Discussing matters of
religion with two friends the other day (one a senior
Anglican clergyman, the other a retired Professor), it
was commented that... 'To ask if God exists is to
ask the wrong question.'
[Either answer to that
question has to be wrong, if the question is taken
literally. A god who 'exists' in a literal sense cannot
be God. To deny any sense of god is to turn away from a
whole world of religious experience and expression,
touching the depths of human nature and our relationship
with the universe. To affirm an existing god is to make
the whole question superficial, and to create a god in
our own image.] Back in 1985, Hugh Montefiore,
then Bishop of Birmingham, wrote a book entitled The
Probability of God, published by SCM Press, and in an
article for The Times, argued for the improbability
of atheism. Having reviewed the traditional 'anthropic
argument' - namely that the fine tuning required to produce
a universe in which we are possible is so unlikely as to
require some explanation - he argues against the idea that
the present universe has come about by random (see the quote
on the right). Many of his arguments are familiar in books
to this day.
But what is interesting is
the way in which Richard Dawkins pointing out the way in
which evolution makes progress by building on positive
possibilities, rather than by selection in an absolutely
random fashion, has change the force of the arguments. The
option is not between absolutely unlikely random chance on
the one hand and an intelligent purpose on the other -
because the slow building up of changes leaves us in the end
at a point (at the top of 'Mount Improbable' to use Dawkins
terms) from which the process of gradual change seems
utterly unlikely. Whereas it is still possible
to argue that, emotionally and personally, the best way to
cope with the dimensions and contingency of the universe of
which we are a part, is to think of our relationship with it
in personal terms (whether conventionally in terms of 'God'
or as a sense of natural spitiatuality), what no longer
seems at all viable is Montefiore's argument that the choice
is between purpose and random chance. In a developing
universe, things are never entirely random, anyway; some
might argue that they are determined by physical forces and
therefore not random at all. I prefer the view that a
sense of hidden purpose or a sense of random chance, are
equally the result of our lack of knowledge of the causes
and conditions which bring things about. and for more recent
discussions... Dealing with God
Discussion about what ‘God’
means, or whether God exists is clearly central to the
Philosophy of Religion. Frustratingly, much recent debate
(especially between religious and scientific
fundamentalists) is superficial on the question of God.
It is therefore refreshing to
find a book which takes, almost as an obvious starting
point, that God certainly does not ‘exist’ in the literal
way that things in the universe exist, and therefore that –
if we are going to appreciate the word ‘God’ and what it
refers to – we need to probe something of its history. Karen
Armstrong’s The Case for God is a particularly
valuable book in that it provides a clear overview of the
whole set of issues surrounding God. But I have also found it
useful to look at two books – one presenting the position of
philosophers who do not accept belief in God (Philosophers
without Gods, 2007) and an answering volume Philosophers and
God, 2009. Apart from one or two rather sad lapses into
polemic in the first of these volumes, both present what
belief in God means with clarity and sensitivity.
We can set aside the crude,
supernatural notion that God exists as an external object
within (or beyond) the world – that would be idolatrous for
a monotheist. But how does one square religious practice and
language with the conviction that God is a human construct;
an image used to probe the meaning of human life within the
universe? There is still a mismatch between what
theologians and philosophers say and what popular religion
appears to proclaim - and while that mismatch continues,
religious beliefs of all sorts will be rightly vulnerable to
the less-than-sensitive criticisms of a newly vocal but
rather superficial form of atheism.
The challenge... and my personal view
In the introduction to his book A
History of Modern Britain, 2007, Andrew Marr, political
commentator and shrewd observer of the modern mores,
comments on the experience of living in Britain since the
Second World War:
‘In the period covered by this book, the
dominant experience has been acceleration. We have lived
faster. We have seen, heard, communicated, changed and
travelled more. We have experienced a material profusion and
perhaps a philosophical and religious emptiness that marks
us off from earlier times.’ p. xxxi
If his comment is right – and I believe
it is, minus the 'perhaps' – then there is no more important
challenge today than to get to grips with the Philosophy of
Religion. Philosophy should not be an obscure or exclusively
academic subject. At its best, it is simply the willingness
to think carefully about what it is we know and what it is
we value. It is the process of bringing reason and evidence
to bear on the assumptions of everyday life.
So the challenge of studying the
Philosophy of Religion is to apply reason to religious
beliefs and values, and to do so in a way that is rigorous
(not being afraid to ask difficult questions) and also
sensitive, recognising the key importance that religion has
in the lives of very many people.
Sadly, there are plenty of religious
people who do not seem willing or able to use their reason
to examine what religion is about, preferring fundamentalist
acceptance of dogma. Equally, there are a good number of
really intelligent people (including top scientists and
philosophers) who seem particularly obtuse when confronted
with religious ideas, preferring to caricature and dismiss
them, rather than examine why people choose to follow them.
Hopefully, a grounding in the
Philosophy of Religion will be a useful antidote to both of
these narrow views.
There have recently been a whole range of books attacking the basis of religion, or presenting it as a natural phenomenon (on the assumption that most religious believers would not accept it as such). Three of them - God is not Great by Christopher Hitchins, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell and The End of Faith by Sam Harris all appear in the top 10 titles for Philosophy.
An apology for imbalance on the religion and science issue... Some books are readable yet utterly frustrating. God: the failed hypothesis by Victor Stenger wants to show that science has now advanced to a point at which it can show that God does not exist. Sadly, however good his science, Stenger's argument and logic is rather crude when it comes to philosophy and religious beliefs. In effect he has a 'no-gap-left-for-God' argument. I'm rather torn, because I find myself in agreement with many of his conclusions, and yet frustrated by the glib and faulty logic or some of his arguments. Richard Dawkins proclaims on the cover that he 'learned an enormous amount' from the book, which is rather sad. And while on the topic of Dawkins (whose work on science I find inspiring), here is a comment I posted for the Religion and Science page - as a warning to those tempted to assume that an eminent and articulate scientist will have a balanced and logical view on matters of religion... 'For those who, having admired his earlier work, are tempted to take Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as a seriously argued work of philosophy or science, should read The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath. This book, by a fellow Professor at Oxford who started his career as an atheist rather than a theologian and as a scientist, as a usefully negative function of showing just how far Dawkins has given up any pretence at serious argument in favour of re-cycling outdated atheist polemic. Although I was fearing an equally polemical theist tract, that was not the case. I found the book helpful, and a useful counterbalance to Dawkins.'
Those who are equally dissatisfied with militant atheism on one side and naive fundamentalism on the other would do well to read.. Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life by Mark Vernon. Blending clear argument with personal reflections, it offers a defence of agnosticism, from one who has moved from belief in God, through atheism to a position of positively embracing a level of uncertainty. 'Encouraging us to widen our imagination and to open our lives to a sense of wonder, Mark Vernon is convinced, in the tradition of Socrates, that we achieve this by avoiding the certainties of faith and the rigidities of atheism. Believers and non-believers will find this a richly rewarding read.' John Gladwin, Bishop of Chelmsford.
And if you enjoy this book, why not take a look at his website and blog: www.philosophyoffriendship.com
And for a background in the individual world religions, as an aid to appreciating the issues which are tackled within the Philosophy of Religion.... Teach Yourself: World Religions series Hodder Headline (Teach Yourself), 2003
The following religions are included in the Teach Yourself series: Christianity
- John Young
Dave Webster, who runs the Religion, Philosophy and Ethics course at the University of Gloucestershire, has a blog with an interesting range of entries and links. Take a look at www.r-p-e.blogspot.com
|
The big question, as posed 25 years ago... 'If there were an infinite ensemble of universes, one of them would be bound to be characterized by our set of coincidences. In the absence of such evidence (and there can be none) it is wildly improbable that these coincidences are random: it is more rational to assume they show evidence of 'purpose'. High Montefirore, then Bishop of Birmingham, writing on July 6th 1985
A new edition of my own 'Teach Yourself ' book Understand The Philosophy of Religion is now available
Doing A levels?
A list of suitable books is given under 'Further Reading' on my Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics page. Click here.
For AS and A2 level students, free outline notes are available from my lectures on the following topics:
►Augustine and the Problem of Evil ►The Goodness of God in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition ►Parapsychology and the debate about life after death
|
|
All material on this site is © Mel Thompson unless otherwise attributed |
||
