DOCSLIB.ORG

(And Christian) Theism Raphael Lataster1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(And Christian) Theism Raphael Lataster1 Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 25.1 (2017) 53–68 ISSN 1522-7340 (print) ISSN 2052-8388 (online) https://doi.org/10.1558/eph.32240 The (Overwhelming) Improbability of Classical (and Christian) Theism Raphael Lataster1 University of Sydney [email protected] Abstract In the analytic Philosophy of Religion, much ink has been spilt on the existence of some sort of supernatural reality. Such work is usually done by theists; those that find classical theism to be probably true. It is my contention that theism (and especially Christian theism) is unjustly privileged by many in the field (including non-theists), even when su- pernaturalism has been—competently or incompetently—argued for. As such, I present a series of challenges for the theist, finding them to be insuperable at present. The first such challenge concerns the challenge of polytheism. Polytheism is often very casually overlooked on the basis that monotheism is “simpler.” Recognising that such simplicity is not neces- sarily truth-conducive, I argue that polytheism, as a catch-all hypothesis, ought to be preferred. The second challenge proceeds from an assumption not only of supernaturalism, but also of monotheism. There are infinite- ly many monotheistic alternatives to theism, which can be conceived by simply tweaking the typical attributes of God. Again, simplicity is typi- cally appealed to, and again found to be unhelpful. Furthermore, there are the deistic alternatives to consider also, many of which are seemingly more probable than theism. Finally, I consider the pantheistic god mod- els, deciding that pantheisms are generally more robust and make fewer ad hoc assumptions about the world. As an aside, I concisely discuss the difficulties in moving from theism to Christian theism, which includes an argument against miracles, and a brief explanation of the increasing trend of questioning Jesus’ historical existence. Keywords Analytic Philosophy of Religion, classical theism, God’s non-existence, atheism, non-theism, polytheism, alternative monotheisms, deism, pantheism, Jesus’ non-existence 1. This article is based on my doctoral dissertation, and on a paper that was recently pre- sented at the University of Oxford. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2017, Office 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX 54 The (Overwhelming) Improbability of Classical (and Christian) Theism Introduction Many analytic Philosophers of Religion have analysed and scrutinised the common arguments for the existence of at least one god, and found them wanting (Sobel 2004; Oppy 2006; Philipse 2012). I have come to the same conclusion in my doctoral dissertation. There are also good arguments for nat- uralism, which necessitates that we weigh up the evidences for and against, in a thorough and transparent (epistemic) probabilistic analysis.2 While personally attempting such an analysis, it became clear to me that classical theism (to say nothing of Christian theism) is not the only alternative to naturalism. I con- tend that many of these alternatives are so obviously problematic to the case for theism, that any reasonable probabilistic case here would firstly reveal that theism has not been properly argued for as probable, and secondly (more con- tentiously) that theism is outright implausible. In order, we shall briefly con- sider the many challenges to theism’s probability: the inadequacy of the case for theism; the powerful arguments for naturalism; the problem of polytheism; the problem of alternative monotheisms; and the problem of pantheism. Theism Theism, or classical theism, is not simply the belief in some god or gods. It is the belief in God. To theistic philosophers of religion, such as Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig, God is a specific, person. Richard Swin- burne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omnisci- ent, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology. Since moral goodness is a great-making property, the greatest conceivable being must be morally perfect, as well as have the other superlative properties listed by Swinburne (Craig 2011). To this clearly monotheistic interpretation (Craig 2008, 155, 300), we can add that God is also revelatory (Craig 2008, 249, 258), transcendent (Craig 2008, 50, 108, 111, 152, 264), immutable (Craig 2008, 152‒154, 254), and his intentions are inscrutable.3 Such theistic philosophers present arguments for the existence of God, which non-theistic—and even some theistic—phi- losophers find unconvincing, for a plethora of reasons. Arguments from con- tingency, for example, tend to simply assume that the world is contingent 2. In probabilistic reasoning, we refer to the inherent plausibility of the theory as the “prior probability,” the likelihood of the evidence on the theory as the “likelihood” (or the “consequent probability”), and the overall result as the “posterior probability” (or simply, the “probability”); see Lataster 2013. 3. Craig links this to God’s being “free” (See Craig 2008, 275‒276; Craig 2010, 158‒161). © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2017 Raphael Lataster 55 and that there exists a necessary god. They also imply that the existence of the world is a surprising fact; one that cries out for an explanation. However, forward thinking philosophers wonder, “Why is there nothing rather than something?” (Bilimoria 2012, 509). Cosmological arguments also assume much about the world that many critics would not yet accept. Philosophical reasons for supposing that the universe began to exist tend to rely on tensed views of time, while philosophers of time (and even philosophers of religion) often favour tenseless models (PhilPapers “All Respondents”). Theists’ scien- tific reasons generally rely on misunderstandings about what the evidence reveals. For example, the Big Bang Theory does not prove that all things came into existence, from nothing, around 14 billion years ago. Rather, it says that around 14 billion years ago, the localised universe as we know it underwent a period of expansion.4 Fine-tuning arguments for theism too quickly dismiss naturalistic possibil- ities involving chance and necessity, while claiming intelligent design, despite a lack of direct evidence (for either possibility). Some philosophers have even argued that natural fine-tuning does more to argue against God’s existence (Sober 2005). Moral arguments simply assume—by ironically appealing to our subjective notions—that objective morals exist, and, more importantly, further assume that they exist because of God. Ontological arguments are logically flawed, and also make assumptions about what a maximal being is, whilst arguments based on personal religious experiences face the problems of credulity and metaphysical excess. Please note that this is not intended as a thorough refutation of such argu- ments, which, as we shall see, is not necessary in arguing for theism’s over- whelming improbability. Also note that recent work has demonstrated that theists likely overestimate the persuasiveness of these arguments (De Cruz 2014; Tobia 2016), and that the influential and respected William Lane Craig effectively admits that his faith trumps reason and evidence (Craig 2008, 47‒48). In any case, let us now turn to the arguments against God’s existence. Naturalism None of the arguments for God’s existence are compelling, largely because the evidence appealed to is at least equally expected on naturalism/s. Further- more, just about all of the arguments can be altered, with related evidence, to form good arguments against theism.5 To make the point about natu- 4. It is also entirely plausible that the universe is eternal, as agreed by several physicists, particularly those who—recognising that the classical laws of physics that predict the singularity actually break down the closer we get to it—doubt the existence of the singu- larity and the big bang as we know it (see Ali and Das 2015). 5. See the comments about the fine-tuning argument above. I argue for this more thor- © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2017 56 The (Overwhelming) Improbability of Classical (and Christian) Theism ralism’s probabilistic superiority, however, we shall consider only two good arguments against God’s existence. The first: If God exists, gratuitous evils do not. Gratuitous evils exist. Therefore, God does not exist. That an all-good God would allow so much gratuitous evil or suffering has long troubled theists and non-theists alike (Rowe 1979, 337). God has the knowledge that this gratuitous suffering occurs, the will to ameliorate it, and the power to do so as well. It is thus fairly inexplicable why the gratuitous suf- fering continues when God exists, so that this suffering is good evidence that God does not exist. Theodicies can overcome the logical problem of evil, but, being entirely speculative, do not overcome the evidential or probabilistic argument from evil. Appealing to God’s inscrutability is also counter-pro- ductive, as it ends a probabilistic case, and allows anybody to proclaim her or his hypothesis as preferable.6 While this argument certainly does not prove that God does not exist, it provides a probabilistic point against. It is simply that such evidence is more expected on the view that God does not exist. The second: If God exists, God would make God’s existence obvious
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russell, Infinity, and the Tristram Shandy Paradox
    RUSSELL, INFINITY, AND THE TRISTRAM SHANDY PARADOX by Shandon Guthrie INTRODUCTION Mathematicians have puzzled for centuries what precisely we mean when we refer to the concept of infinity . Some have suggested that infinity is merely something that exists in the mind. Yet others maintain that infinity possesses some ontological status in the real world. In an attempt to demonstrate the difference between the reality of an infinite and the idea of an infinite, Aristotle had suggested the terms actual infinite (the completed whole value of infinity) and potential infinite (susceptible to infinite addition). (1) Analytic philosopher Bertrand Russell believed that an actual infinite could be achieved as long as the counter possessed an actually infinite number of years to do it. In the example given in Sterne's novel, we have the example of Tristram Shandy. (2) Sterne writes about Tristram Shandy as an individual committed to writing an autobiography. However, he is so slow that it takes him one year in order to complete only one day. This means that the most recent event that could be recorded is the day that occurred one year ago. As Shandy writes an additional day, it takes him an additional year to complete the events of that day. Russell uses this example and believes that an actual infinite can be achieved through successive addition only if Shandy has an infinite number of days to complete it. RUSSELL'S ASSESSMENT OF THE TRISTRAM SHANDY PARADOX Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) suspects that the Tristram Shandy paradox can be solved. For Russell, it is the individual who possesses an infinite number of days.
    [Show full text]
  • An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 3 7-1-2020 An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity Katherin A. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rogers, Katherin A. (2020) "An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 37 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.3.3 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" AQ1–AQ5 AN ANSELMIAN APPROACH TO DIVINE SIMPLICITY Katherin A. Rogers The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is an important aspect of the clas- sical theism of philosophers like Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Recently the doctrine has been defended in a Thomist mode using the intrin- sic/extrinsic distinction. I argue that this approach entails problems which can be avoided by taking Anselm’s more Neoplatonic line. This does involve AQ6 accepting some controversial claims: for example, that time is isotemporal and that God inevitably does the best. The most difficult problem involves trying to reconcile created libertarian free will with the Anselmian DDS. But for those attracted to DDS the Anselmian approach is worth considering.
    [Show full text]
  • On God's Existence
    Scholars Crossing SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations Summer 2001 On God's Existence W. David Beck Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Epistemology Commons, Esthetics Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Other Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Beck, W. David, "On God's Existence" (2001). SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations. 167. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/167 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. W. DAVID BECK 49 compared to the energy involved in the entire act of, say, raising one's hand to vote. When an engineer throws a switch to release the water behind Hoover Dam, the vast amount of potential energy unleashed by the moving water is overwhelmingly greater than that involved in the engineer throwing the switch. It may be the same with libeliarian acts. Perhaps the energy released in the exercise of active power is miniscule compared to the poten­ tial energy released in the body as part of the relevant causal pathway. I just don't lmow. Second, even if one opts for this second option (the release of energy is virtually undetectable), it doesn't follow that the resulting gap would not be detectable, since the effects of a libertarian act could still be quite different in a "gappy" way from what would have followed in the absence of that act.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Absurdity of Life Without God (Craig)
    The Absurdity of Life Without God (Craig) 1. Life Without God is Meaningless: William Lane Craig argues that, if there is no God, then life itself lacks meaning, value, and purpose. The primary motive of this conclusion is the idea that, without God, there is no immortality. And, without immortality, then each and every one of us is doomed to die. Life is, as Craig notes, merely a brief transition out of oblivion and back into oblivion. Not only that, but the human race—indeed, the entire universe—is doomed to die. In 5 billion years, the Sun will engulf the Earth in a fiery death. Billions of years after that, the entire universe, as it expands and cools, will one day be nothing but a litter of dead, cold stars, forever getting further and further from one another, travelling forever into the dark recesses of dead, cold, lifeless space. (1) Life is Meaningless: If we are all doomed to die, then nothing really matters. No one’s life has any ULTIMATE significance. Our advancements to expand human knowledge, to alleviate human suffering, to learn to live in peace will all eventually be meaningless. Craig claims that, because human beings are doomed to be here for only a short time, astronomically speaking, we are no more significant than a “swarm of mosquitos”; and man, “because he ends in nothing, he IS nothing”. But, he says, even if we could live forever, life would still be meaningless. It is not MERE eternity that gives life meaning. There must be something that GIVES it meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Life After Death and the Devastation of the Grave
    In Michael Martin and Keith Augustine, eds., The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case Against Life After Death, Rowman & Littlefield 2015. Life After Death and the Devastation of the Grave Eric T. Olson 1. Life After Death One of the fundamental questions of human existence is whether there is life after death. If we had an oracle willing to answer just one philosophical question by saying “Yes” or “No,” this is the one that many of us would ask. Not being an oracle, I am unable to tell you whether there is an afterlife. But I can say something about whether there could be. Is it even possible? Or is the hope that we have life after death as vain as the hope that we might find the largest prime number? One way to think about whether there could be life after death is to ask what would have to be the case for us to have it. If it were possible, how might it be accomplished? Suppose you wanted to know whether it was possible for a hu- man being to visit another galaxy and return to earth. To answer this question, you would need to know what such a journey would involve. What sort of spaceship or other means of transport would it require? How fast would it have to go, and how long would the journey take? Only once you knew such things would you be able to work out whether it could possibly be done. In the same way, we need to know what our having life after death would require in order to see whether it is possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Existence of God”
    Dr. Rick Bartosik Lecture Series: The Doctrine of God Lecture 2: “The Existence of God” THE EXISTENCE OF GOD Definition of God The Bible does not give us a definition of God. Charles Ryrie says: “If a definition consists of a ‘word or phrase expressing the essential nature of a person or thing,’ then God cannot be defined, for no word or even phrase could express His essential nature” (Ryrie, Ch. 6, Basic Theology). “But if the definition were descriptive, then it is possible to define God, though not exhaustively.” One of the most famous descriptive definitions of God is in the Westminster Confession of Faith: Question: “What is God?” “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD Intuitive proof of the existence of God All people have an inner sense of the existence of God Intuitive truths of the senses Intuitive truths of the intellect Intuitive truths of our moral nature Intuitive sense of the knowledge of God Scripture proof of the existence of God Everything in Scripture and everything in nature proves clearly that God exists and the he is the powerful and wise Creator that Scripture describes him to be. Genesis 1:1 is a refutation of all the false theories of man: Refutes atheism—which excludes the existence of God/universe created by God Refutes pantheism—which says God and the universe are identical Refutes polytheism—which says there are many gods/One God Created all things Refutes materialism—which says everything that exists can be explained by natural causes (eternity of matter) Refutes agnosticism—which says we can have no definite information on creation or other matters relating to God and man.
    [Show full text]
  • IS OPEN THEISM EVANGELICAL? . . . Bruce A. Ware
    JETS 45/2 (June 2002) 193–212 DEFINING EVANGELICALISM’S BOUNDARIES THEOLOGICALLY: IS OPEN THEISM EVANGELICAL? bruce a. ware* i. introduction Clark Pinnock is exactly right. After noting (correctly) in his Most Moved Mover that Arminians and Augustinians have co-existed throughout much of the church’s history, and that a number of evangelical theologians today (and not just open theists) are working toward refinements in an evangeli- cal doctrine of God, he asks, “Why draw the line at foreknowledge?”1 A few pages later, he returns to this question: “In raising the issue of the divine foreknowledge, we have not transgressed some rule of theological discourse and placed ourselves outside the pale of orthodoxy. Why can an evangelical not propose a different view of this matter? What church council has de- clared it to be impossible? Since when has this become the criterion of being orthodox or unorthodox, evangelical or not evangelical?”2 What does Pinnock mean when he says that open theists have raised the issue of divine foreknowledge? Simply this: Open theism affirms God’s ex- haustive knowledge of the past and present, but it denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge, in that it denies that God knows—or can know—the future free decisions and actions of his moral creatures, even while it affirms that God knows all future possibilities and all divinely determined and logically- necessary future actualities. As William Hasker explains, “Since the future is genuinely open, since it is possible for a free agent to act in any of several different ways, it follows that it is not possible for God to have complete and exhaustive knowledge of the entire future.”3 So, the specific denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is embraced in open theism as central and essential to its own identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Monotheism: a Signal of Transcendence Challenging
    Liberty University Original Monotheism: A Signal of Transcendence Challenging Naturalism and New Ageism A Thesis Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Divinity in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Ministry Department of Christian Leadership and Church Ministries by Daniel R. Cote Lynchburg, Virginia April 5, 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Daniel R. Cote All Rights Reserved ii Liberty University School of Divinity Thesis Project Approval Sheet Dr. T. Michael Christ Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity Dr. Phil Gifford Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity iii THE DOCTOR OF MINISTRY THESIS PROJECT ABSTRACT Daniel R. Cote Liberty University School of Divinity, 2020 Mentor: Dr. T. Michael Christ Where once in America, belief in Christian theism was shared by a large majority of the population, over the last 70 years belief in Christian theism has significantly eroded. From 1948 to 2018, the percent of Americans identifying as Catholic or Christians dropped from 91 percent to 67 percent, with virtually all the drop coming from protestant denominations.1 Naturalism and new ageism increasingly provide alternative means for understanding existential reality without the moral imperatives and the belief in the divine associated with Christian theism. The ironic aspect of the shifting of worldviews underway in western culture is that it continues with little regard for strong evidence for the truth of Christian theism emerging from historical, cultural, and scientific research. One reality long overlooked in this regard is the research of Wilhelm Schmidt and others, which indicates that the earliest religion of humanity is monotheism. Original monotheism is a strong indicator of the existence of a transcendent God who revealed Himself as portrayed in Genesis 1-11, thus affirming the truth of essential elements of Christian theism and the falsity of naturalism and new ageism.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Classical Theism Deny God's Immanence?
    Scholars Crossing LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations 2003 Does Classical Theism Deny God's Immanence? C. Fred Smith Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs Recommended Citation Smith, C. Fred, "Does Classical Theism Deny God's Immanence?" (2003). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 147. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/147 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BiBLiOTHECA SACRA 160 (January-March 2003): 23-33 DOES CLASSICAL THEISM DENY GOD'S IMMANENCE? C. Fred Smith HE CONCEPT OF THE OPENNESS OF GOD has recently gained a foothold among some evangelical thinkers. Others who have T sought to refute this view have done so by emphasizing God's transcendent qualities. This article examines the criticism of clas­ sical theism by advocates of open theism and seeks to demonstrate that they portray classical theism inaccurately and that they have accepted a false understanding of God. OVERVIEW OF OPEN THEISM The movement's foundational text is The Openness of God, pub­ lished in 1994.l Most of what open theists have said since then amounts to a reiteration of arguments made in that book. Basic to open theism is the idea that God's being is analogous to that of humans, and so God experiences reality in ways similar to the ex­ periences of human beings. As evidence of this point Rice cites the fact that humankind is created in the image of God.2 In addition C.
    [Show full text]
  • Jean Paul Sartre: the Mystical Atheist
    JEAN PAUL SARTRE: THE MYSTICAL ATHEIST JEROME GELLMAN Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Abstract: Within Jean Paul Sartre’s atheistic program, he objected to Christian mysticism as a delusory desire for substantive being. I suggest that a Christian mystic might reply to Sartre’s attack by claiming that Sartre indeed grasps something right about the human condition but falls short of fully understanding what he grasps. Then I argue that the true basis of Sartre’s atheism is neither philosophical nor existentialist, but rather mystical. Sartre had an early mystical atheistic intuition that later developed into atheistic mystical experience. Sartre experienced the non-existence of God. Jean Paul Sartre called himself a “material” atheist, one who not only believes that God does not exist but is profoundly aware of God’s absence. This is to be compared to a group of people who meet regularly at a coffee house in Paris. One evening Pierre does not come. The entire evening, those present feel Pierre’s absence, his absence is tangible, part of the scene, like the tables and the chairs. Pierre is missing. Just so, for Sartre, God’s absence is to be felt everywhere. God is missing. And since God is missing we are to feel the obligation to create ourselves in freedom. Within his program of material atheism, Sartre enunciated a critique of Christian mysticism. In his book on Jean Genet, Sartre defined “mysti- cism,” in general, as follows: “The quest for a state in which subject and object, consciousness and being, the eternal and the particular, merge in an absolute undifferentiation.”1 Elsewhere in the same book, Sartre characterizes Christian mysticism in particular as follows: “It is God who will attain himself in the mystical ecstasy, which is a fusion of the Subject and the Object.
    [Show full text]