DOCSLIB.ORG

Is Atheism (The Fact) Good Evidence for Atheism (The Thesis)? on John Schellenberg’S Argument from Ignorance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is Atheism (The Fact) Good Evidence for Atheism (The Thesis)? on John Schellenberg’S Argument from Ignorance IS ATHEISM (THE FACT) GOOD EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM (THE THESIS)? ON JOHN SCHELLENBERG’S ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE CYRILLE MICHON Université de Nantes Abstract. The argument from ignorance mounted by John Schellenberg argues from the existence of non-faulty unbelief to the non-existence of God, from the fact of atheism or agnosticism to the truth of atheism. It relies on two putative conceptual relations: between the idea of love and that of personal relationship, and between personal relationship and existential belief on each side of the relation concerning the other relatum. I argue that each is debatable, and so the argument cannot proceed. Atheism is the thesis that there is no God. But it is also the fact that some people believe that thesis, they believe that there is no God. Of course, the precise content of both the thesis and the fact depends on the notion of God that is at stake. We may at least conceive a distinction between a concept of God relying on a pure metaphysical property, like that of supreme or necessary being, or of first cause, involving some special attributes (the so-called omni-attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, omniperfection) and a concept that relies on a moral dimension and adds to the idea of supremacy, perfection or creation, that such a being is personal, endowed with knowledge and volition, and is a loving person – a supremely or perfectly loving person. Since the metaphysical thesis that there is a first being (in perfection, causality, etc.) is only philosophical, or proper to some philosophers, we could call it ‘philosophical theism’ and its denial ‘philosophical atheism’. The concept of a first being which is a person, and a loving person, can be understood by philosophers, and some may even argue that the first being is or has to be personal. EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION 7/1 (SPRING 2015), PP. 71-88 72 CYRILLE MICHON But it is certainly a concept that applies to what traditional religions, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam call God. I will then speak of a religious conception of God, and accordingly of ‘religious theism’ and ‘religious atheism’. One can be a philosophical theist and a religious atheist, if one thinks that the first being is not a person, but say, the universe. The distinction is important because many arguments for the existence of God are arguments for the existence of a supreme being, without consideration for any personal attribute. And arguments against the existence of God, like the argument from evil, are arguments against the existence of a moral God. The argument from evil, if it works, proves that there is no supreme being that is morally good, thus leaving open the possibility that there is a supreme being, that is not morally good (of course if ‘supreme being’ implies ‘moral goodness’, this position is not open). And one can be convinced by both kinds of arguments and so be a philosophical theist and a religious atheist. Philosophers might prefer to use different terms for different concepts and theses. In John Schellenberg’s terminology, theism and atheism should be understood only according to their religious understanding, as the affirmation or the denial that there is a supreme being who is personal and loving. Philosophical theism should be called ‘ultimism’, the thesis that there is an ultimate reality. Note that ultimism is not exactly what I have called philosophical theism, because Schellenberg wants the ultimate reality to be ultimate not only ontologically but also axiologically. Now, using Schellenberg’s narrow concepts of theism and atheism, it is a fact that many people are theists, that many are atheists, and that many are agnostic (it might be that some agnostics and some atheists are ultimists). If we consider the motivation they have, the kind of reasons or justifications they could give for their stance, we can note an asymmetry. Many theists do not believe that there is a God on the basis of any argument, they rely on some religious tradition, that offers them a so-called revelation to which they give credit, or faith. They may have reasons to believe that the revelation is true, that the testimonies are reliable, but in the end, there seems to be an irreducible ‘act of faith’, a jump over rational argumentation that does not seem to be irrational, merely above rational arguments. Others simply feel and think that there is a personal God, maybe on the basis of a certain revelation, but maybe not, and they would justify their belief by the strength of an interior illumination or certitude, comparable to perceptual certainty. Atheism cannot be based on anything of the sort. The fact of atheism can be ON SCHELLENBERG’S ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE 73 causally explained by some sort of influence of an atheistic culture and tradition over the persons, but the thesis of atheism can only be justified on the basis of rational arguments, arguments for the non-existence of God. I will begin with some general remarks on the argument from ignorance as an atheistic argument (I) and then propose a closer examination of Schellenberg’s version of it: first of its general structure (II), and then of the two premises that rely on conceptual relations between the idea of love and that of personal relationship (III), and between personal relationship and existential belief concerning the relata of such a relation (IV). I will argue that each is debatable, and that, as a consequence, the argument is not built on solid grounds. I. ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS Arguments for the non-existence of God cannot be of the empirical sort, the way I prove that there is no butter in the fridge by opening its door and showing that none of the stuff inside is butter. It has to be a rational proof that there is no God. When the proof has a deductive form, it is a proof that the existence of God is impossible. In the same way, deductive proofs of the existence of God argue that its existence is necessary. In both cases the modality may be absolute or only conditional. A priori arguments prove that God is absolutely impossible or absolutely necessary. They do so through an exploration of the concept of God, and argue that the very content of that concept implies that there cannot be any instance of it, or that there must be one. For example, if the concept of God implies that any God is omnipotent, and if omnipotence is an inconsistent concept (it leads to contradictions), then there can be no God. Alternatively, if the concept of God is that of a necessary or perfect being (or of that than which no greater can be conceived), and if this concept is such that there would result a contradiction if it were not exemplified, then there must be a God. A posteriori arguments introduce at least one empirical premise, and it is in virtue both of the concept of God and of that empirical fact, that God’s existence is considered as impossible or necessary: the modality is then conditional upon the considered empirical fact. For example, the atheist argument from evil starts form the two premises (1) that God, conceived at least as omnipotent and morally good, is incompatible with evil (or a certain amount of evil), and (2) that there is such evil, to conclude that there is no God. The 74 CYRILLE MICHON first premise is conceptual, the second is empirical, and the conclusion is factual but it is conditionally necessary: given the fact of evil, there can be no God. In the same way, the cosmological argument concludes to the necessity of the existence of a first cause, given the existence of contingent beings. A priori arguments are all deductive, a posteriori ones can be constructed deductively or inductively: given a certain concept of God, the empirical fact is considered as implying the non-existence (vs the existence) of God, or only as raising its probability. The atheistic argument from ignorance or unbelief (or argument from Divine Hiddenness),1 that is from the fact of atheism (belief that there is no God) or agnosticism (no belief that there is one), is of the a posteriori kind, and, at least in Schellenberg’s version, it receives a deductive form. In its most simple and condensed version (on the model of the argument from evil as presented above), it can be expressed thus: (1) If there is a loving God, there is no ignorance of God’s existence without resistance (2) There is ignorance of God’s existence without resistance (3) So, there is no God This concise version helps to make the following quite general points. First, it displays the distinction between the conceptual premise – the incompatibility between God and ignorance – and the factual one – the fact of nonresistant unbelief (atheism and agnosticism). Both can be discussed, but I will admit the truth of the second premise: there is some atheism (denial of God’s existence) and agnosticism (doubt or ignorance about God’s existence) that cannot be attributed to voluntary resistance on the part of the unbeliever. It might be contended, and has been, that atheism, and maybe agnosticism too, is always voluntary, or the result of voluntary action (aversion from God or form the search for God) or inaction (voluntary indifference). For example, following Paul’s statement (Rom. 1:18) that the pagans are inexcusable not to have recognized the unique God, creator of heaven and earth, one might argue that reason 1 I prefer the other two labels because of the misleading consequence of the third: only what exists can hide.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophic Study of Religion (With Editorial
    ; THE PHILOSOPHIC STUDY OF RELIGION. BY GEORGE A. BARROW. THE age of the opposition of religion to philosophy has gone by not, however, as has been sometimes said, to give place to an era of good feeling, which is virtually a triumph for the philos- opher, but to be succeeded by a period of indifference to pJiilosophy. The religious leader of to-day does not oppose, he disregards, phi- losophy. Academic circles have not recognized this to any extent, but to an outsider nothing is more marked than the weariness of even educated laymen with any form of philosophical discussion. They care less for it than they do for the old dogmatic sermons of our fathers. The movement of our religious and church life to-day is more practical, we say, and rightly. I do not, however, believe that this is due to any depreciation of philosophy on the part of the religious man, but only to the feeling that the philosopher has not con- sidered him. The study I have undertaken in this paper is to find and set forth the explanation of this disregard. In the modern philosophical study of religion there are three directions of advance. The interest that undoubtedly does exist on the part of the student of philosophy towards religion takes the form either of a study of theism, of the science of religion, or of the philosophy of religion. Theism exists either as the philosophic form of orthodox theology, or as the philosophic construction of monism or absolutism. In the first case we have the same attitude to religion whether we are dealing with an advocate of the idea of a divine revelation above reason, or with a man who draws his arguments for that revelation from current philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Investigation of the Nature of God in Igbo Ontology
    Open Journal of Philosophy, 2015, 5, 137-151 Published Online March 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2015.52016 A Philosophical Investigation of the Nature of God in Igbo Ontology Celestine Chukwuemeka Mbaegbu Department of Philosophy, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Email: [email protected] Received 25 February 2015; accepted 3 March 2015; published 4 March 2015 Copyright © 2015 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract In its general task, philosophy as an academic or professional exercise is a conscious, critical, per- sonal reflection on human experience, on man, and how he perceives and interprets his world. This article specifically examines the nature of God in Igbo ontology. It is widely accepted by all philosophers that man in all cultures has the ability to philosophize. This was what Plato and Aris- totle would want us to believe, but it is not the same as saying that man has always philosophized in the academic meaning of the word in the sense of a coherent, systematic inquiry, since power and its use are different things altogether. Using the method of analysis and hermeneutics this ar- ticle sets out to discover, find out the inherent difficulties in the common sense views, ideas and insights of the pre-modern Igbo of Nigeria to redefine, refine and remodel them. The reason is sim- ple: Their concepts and nature of realities especially that of the nature of God were very hazy, in- articulate and confusing.
    [Show full text]
  • God Is Not a Person (An Argument Via Pantheism)
    International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2019) 85:281–296 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-018-9678-x ARTICLE God is not a person (an argument via pantheism) Simon Hewitt1 Received: 22 November 2017 / Accepted: 3 July 2018 / Published online: 6 July 2018 © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract This paper transforms a development of an argument against pantheism into an objection to the usual account of God within contemporary analytic philosophy (’Swinburnian theism’). A standard criticism of pantheism has it that pantheists cannot ofer a satisfactory account of God as personal. My paper will develop this criticism along two lines: frst, that personhood requires contentful mental states, which in turn necessitate the membership of a linguistic community, and second that personhood requires limitation within a wider context constitutive of the ’setting’ of the agent’s life. Pantheism can, I argue, satisfy neither criterion of personhood. At this point the tables are turned on the Swinburnian theist. If the pantheist cannot defend herself against the personhood-based attacks, neither can the Swinburnian, and for instructively parallel reasons: for neither doctrine is God in the material world; in the pantheist case God is identical with the world, in the Swinburnian case God transcends it. Either way both the pantheist and the Swinburnian are left with a dilemma: abandon divine personhood or modify the doctrine of God so as to block the move to personhood. Keywords Pantheism · Divine personhood · Apophaticism · Divine language Is God a person? Since the advent of philosophy of religion in the analytic tradi- tion the consensus of opinion has favoured answering this question in the afrma- tive (as we will see in due course).
    [Show full text]
  • Religion-And-The-Challenges.Pdf
    RELIGION AND THE CHALLENGES OF SCIENCE Does science pose a challenge to religion and religious belief? This question has been a matter of long•standing debate • and it continues to concern not only scholars in philosophy, theology, and the sciences, but also those involved in public educational policy. This volume provides background to the current ‘science and religion’ debate, yet focuses as well on themes where recent discussion of the relation between science and religion has been particularly concentrated. The first theme deals with the history of the interrelation of science and religion. The second and third themes deal with the implications of recent work in cosmology, biology and so•called intelligent design for religion and religious belief. The fourth theme is concerned with ‘conceptual issues’ underlying, or implied, in the current debates, such as: Are scientific naturalism and religion compatible? Are science and religion bodies of knowledge or practices or both? Do religion and science offer conflicting truth claims? By illuminating contemporary discussion in the science•religion debate and by outlining the options available in describing the relation between the two, this volume will be of interest to scholars and to members of the educated public alike. This page intentionally left blank Religion and the Challenges of Science Edited by WILLIAM SWEET St Francis Xavier University, Canada and RICHARD FEIST Saint Paul University, Canada © William Sweet and Richard Feist 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Theistic Critiques of Atheism William Lane Craig Used by Permission of in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Pp
    Theistic Critiques Of Atheism William Lane Craig Used by permission of In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007. SUMMARY An account of the resurgence of philosophical theism in our time, including a brief survey of prominent anti-theistic arguments such as the presumption of atheism, the incoherence of theism, and the problem of evil, along with a defense of theistic arguments like the contingency argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. THEISTIC CRITIQUES OF ATHEISM Introduction The last half-century has witnessed a veritable revolution in Anglo-American philosophy. In a recent retrospective, the eminent Princeton philosopher Paul Benacerraf recalls what it was like doing philosophy at Princeton during the 1950s and '60s. The overwhelmingly dominant mode of thinking was scientific naturalism. Metaphysics had been vanquished, expelled from philosophy like an unclean leper. Any problem that could not be addressed by science was simply dismissed as a pseudo-problem. Verificationism reigned triumphantly over the emerging science of philosophy. "This new enlightenment would put the old metaphysical views and attitudes to rest and replace them with the new mode of doing philosophy." [1] The collapse of the Verificationism was undoubtedly the most important philosophical event of the twentieth century. Its demise meant a resurgence of metaphysics, along with other traditional problems of philosophy which Verificationism had suppressed. Accompanying this resurgence has come something new and altogether unanticipated: a renaissance in Christian philosophy. The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result.
    [Show full text]
  • On Kalam Argument
    An Argument for God Software Engineering Last updated Wednesday, December 02, 1998 THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (Written not by Curtis Hrischuk but by some other fellow) What follows is a short presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. The sources used in this presentation are documented according to current Modern Language Association standards. Consult the cited works of Craig for a more thorough statement and defense of the argument. The KCA has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word "kalam" means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism" (Craig, KALAM, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning. The KCA has also been defended by Christian and Jewish philosophers. It is currently being defended by professional philosophers William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. The majority of what follows comes from Craig's defense of the argument, though I will use my own words and sometimes my own examples and comments. Here is an outline of the argument-- [1] The universe either had: [A] a beginning [B] or no beginning [2] If it had a beginning, the beginning was either: [A] caused [B] or uncaused [3] If it had a cause, the cause was either: [A] personal [B] or not personal The KCA works by supporting the [A] option of each premise and then using it in the following premise.
    [Show full text]
  • Seiler Dds Theistic Spin
    PHILOSOPHY DD PALMER’S THEISTIC SPIN ON BIOLOGY AND THE MODERN EFFORT TO HIDE IT Eric Seiler Introduction ‘Let’s hijack the other guy’s thought And tie it all up in a knot And contend that his buzz Was not what it was But something we know it was not’ ‘Every important chiropractic idea that I have advanced has been bitterly … a large hunk of our assailed, yet, although somewhat discouraged at times, I have not turned profession continues to fracture away from from that which I knew was correct.’ subluxation-based care. DD Palmer M e d i c a l l y m i n d e d chiropractic educators his essay will take a wide-open look at one of the more controversial sneer at the work of our founders and poison T subjects in the original portrait of the philosophy of chiropractic painted the minds of fledging by our esteemed founder, Daniel David Palmer. That subject is God, or at least chiropractic students u s i n g s t r a i g h t his repeated use of the word God in association with what he believed holds chiropractors’ alleged belief in vitalism and the universe and life in organised existence. What follows is tailored to those o t h e r n o n - m a t e r i a l members of the chiropractic profession with an interest in our original constructs as part of their constellation of philosophy, and how its arguably theistic overtones have been handled over arguments against the time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Existence of God in Hans Kã¼ng's Does God Exist?
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 4 4-1-1986 The Existence of God in Hans Küng's Does God Exist? Gregory P. Rocca Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rocca, Gregory P. (1986) "The Existence of God in Hans Küng's Does God Exist?," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil19863214 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol3/iss2/4 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. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN HANS KUNG'S DOES GOD EXIST Gregory Rocca This paper examines Kling's procedure in justifying God at the bar of reason. He first counters nihilism by fundamental trust in reality, which affirms reality as coherent and meaningful. Hc then builds his case for theism upon trust in God, which is itself the condition of the possibility of fundamental trust in reality. Although claiming an intrinsic rationality for both these acts of trust, his position is ultimately reducible to the fideistic answer to the question of God and thus not justifiable at the bar of reason. A philosophical theology, however, should employ reason in favor of the decision for God. In his recent book, Does God Exist, Hans Kung has given us a thoughtful treatment of the question of God's existence that purports to be a rational justifi­ cation of God supportable at the bar of reason.' Reviewers have had much to say in praise of his book, hailing it as a provocative and gripping discussion of the problem of God.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Theology and the Christian Tradition: Russian and Western Perspectives
    Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series IVA, Eastern and Central Europe, Volume 44 Series VIII, Christian Philosophical Studies, Volume 3 General Editor George F. McLean Philosophical Theology and the Christian Tradition: Russian and Western Perspectives Russian Philosophical Studies, V Christian Philosophical Studies, III Edited by David Bradshaw The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy Copyright © 2012 by The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy Box 261 Cardinal Station Washington, D.C. 20064 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Philosophical theology and the Christian traditions : Russian and Western perspectives / edited by David Bradshaw. p. cm. – (Cultural heritage and contemporary change. Series IVA, Eastern & Central European philosophical studies ; v. 44) (Cultural heritage and contemporary change. Series VIII, Christian philosophical studies ; v. 3) Proceedings of a conference held June 1-3, 2010 at Moscow State University. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Philosophical theology--Congresses 2. Philosophy and religion--Congresses. 3. Theology, Doctrinal--Congresses. I. Bradshaw, David, 1960- BT40.P445 2012 2012017634 230.01--dc23 CIP ISBN 978-1-56518-275-2 (paper) This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 David Bradshaw Chapter I. Philosophy of Religion and the Varieties of 5 Rational Theology Vladimir Shokhin Chapter II. Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice 21 Richard Swinburne Chapter III. Models of the Trinity in Patristic Theology 31 Alexey Fokin Chapter IV.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Draft. Please Do Not Cite! the Final Version Is Available in European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol
    This is a Draft. Please do not Cite! The final version is available in European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 10, No. 1., Direct Link THE PROBLEM OF ALTERNATIVE MONOTHEISMS: ANOTHER SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THEISM Raphael Lataster1 University of Sydney Abstract. Theistic and analytic philosophers of religion typically privilege classical theism by ignoring or underestimating the great threat of alternative monotheisms.2 In this article I discuss numerous god- 10.24204/EJPR.V10I1.1801 models, such as those involving weak, stupid, evil, morally indifferent, and non-revelatory gods. I find DOI: that theistic philosophers have not successfully eliminated these and other possibilities, or argued for their relative improbability. In fact, based on current evidence — especially concerning the hiddenness of God and the gratuitous evils in the world — many of these hypotheses appear to be more probable than theism. Also considering the — arguably infinite — number of alternative monotheisms, the inescapable conclusion is that theism is a very improbable god-concept, even when it is assumed that one and only Final Version: Version: Final one transcendent god exists. I. THE PROBLEM Numerous sceptical scholars analyse and scrutinise arguments for the existence of at least one god, generally finding them wanting.3 Furthermore, when such arguments are combined, and contrasted against contra arguments, critical scholars conclude that such cases are not sufficient to make probable the existence of a god or gods. Whilst I concur, I shall reflect on what can be known about the existence of god/s if (many or most of) the arguments are DRAFTgenerally assumed to be persuasive.4 In other words, for the sake of argument, and whilst formulating my argument within the framework of a Bayesian approach,5 I shall temporarily suppose that there is good evidence that supports divine existence, and overlook the many good arguments for ontological naturalism, in the sense of the thesis that there are no gods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dialectical Method of Martin Luther King
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ETD - Electronic Theses & Dissertations THEOLOGIAN OF SYNTHESIS: THE DIALECTICAL METHOD OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AS REVEALED IN HIS CRITICAL THINKING ON THEOLOGY, HISTORY, AND ETHICS By George Russell Seay, Jr. Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Religion December 2008 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor Victor Anderson Professor Lewis Baldwin Professor Paul DeHart Professor Peter Hodgson Copyright © 2008 by G. Russell Seay, Jr. All Rights Reserved Dedicated to Elder Joseph W. McCoy Friend, Mentor, Confidant, and Patron Saint iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My journey to the completion of this dissertation and Ph.D. program is liken to the turtle perched on the gatepost. It could not have gotten there by itself. There are so many persons that have contributed to my completing this program. My undergraduate professors at Oakwood College were Clifford Pitts, my theology teacher who opened up to me the world of theology and sparked an interest that would be fanned into a blaze. Benjamin Reaves, my homiletics professor who demonstrated that theology at its best serves the preaching moment. My teachers at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, Raoul Dederen, Norman Miles, Robert Johnston, Walter Douglass, Fritz Guy, and Hans LaRondale, who grounded me in my faith tradition by insisting that “faith seeking understanding is a life long journey.” I would like to thank my professors at Vanderbilt. The classes and seminars of Sallie McFague, Eugene TeSelle, Edward Farley, Victor Anderson, Lewis Baldwin, Peter Hodgson and Paul DeHart were challenging, provocative, and stimulating.
    [Show full text]
  • Meaning Agnosticism and Pragmatism
    religions Article Meaning Agnosticism and Pragmatism Sami Pihlström Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland; sami.pihlstrom@helsinki.fi Received: 11 May 2020; Accepted: 16 June 2020; Published: 22 June 2020 Abstract: This paper proposes to reconsider agnosticism by taking a step onto a meta-level, investigating agnosticism not as an epistemic stance regarding the choice between theism and atheism, but as a stance toward the question concerning the cognitive meaningfulness and/or truth-aptness of religious discourse. It is argued that this “meta-level” meaning agnosticism may actually be an attractive articulation of a certain kind of religious attitude. While pragmatists like William James have claimed that (epistemic) agnosticism practically collapses into atheism, meaning agnosticism at the meta-level can in fact be a pragmatist position focusing on our human condition and its limits. Additional issues, such as the relations between agnosticism and the theodicism vs. antitheodicism debate regarding the problem of evil and suffering, are also briefly examined. Keywords: agnosticism; theism; atheism; religious language; truth; meaning; pragmatism 1. Introduction Agnosticism is usually understood as an epistemic position. In the philosophy of religion, agnosticism is typically characterized as a view that avoids taking any firm stand in the metaphysical and theological debate between theism and atheism by maintaining that we do not, or cannot, know—or that we do not, or cannot, justifiably believe—anything regarding God’s existence or non-existence. There is, according to the agnostic, no way for us to rationally decide the matter either way. We are not, and perhaps can never be, justified in believing that we could finally settle the theism vs.
    [Show full text]