Basic HTML Version
16
ideal forming capacity” (G. B. Foster). “God is our conception, born of social experience, of the
personality-evolving and personally responsive elements of our cosmic environment with which
we are organically related” (Shailer Mathews). It need hardly be said that the God so defined is
not a personal God and does not answer to the deepest needs of the human heart.
D. The So-called Rational Proofs for the Existence of God.
In course of time certain rational arguments for the existence of God were developed, and
found a foothold in theology especially through the influence of Wolff. Some of these were in
essence already suggested by Plato and Aristotle, and others were added in modern times by
students of the Philosophy of Religion. Only the most common of these arguments can be
mentioned here.
1. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
This has been presented in various forms by Anselm,
Descartes, Samuel Clarke, and others. It has been stated in its most perfect form by Anselm. He
argues that man has the idea of an absolutely perfect being; that existence is an attribute of
perfection; and that therefore an absolutely perfect being must exist. But it is quite evident that
we cannot conclude from abstract thought to real existence. The fact that we have an idea of
God does not yet prove His objective existence. Moreover, this argument tacitly assumes, as
already existing in the human mind, the very knowledge of God’s existence which it would
derive from logical demonstration. Kant stressed the untenableness of this argument, but Hegel
hailed it as the one great argument for the existence of God. Some modern Idealists suggested
that it might better be cast into a somewhat different form, which Hocking called “the report of
experience.” By virtue of it we can say, “I have an idea of God, therefore I have an experience of
God.”
2. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
This has also appeared in several forms. In general it runs
as follows: Every existing thing in the world must have an adequate cause; and if this is so, the
universe must also have an adequate cause, that is a cause which is indefinitely great. However,
the argument did not carry general conviction. Hume called the law of causation itself in
question, and Kant pointed out that, if every existing thing has an adequate cause, this also
applies to God, and that we are thus led to an endless chain. Moreover, the argument does not
necessitate the assumption that the cosmos had a single cause, a personal and absolute cause,
— and therefore falls short of proving the existence of God. This difficulty led to a slightly
different construction of the argument, as, for instance, by B. P. Bowne. The material universe
appears as an interacting system, and therefore as a unit, consisting of several parts. Hence
there must be a unitary Agent that mediates the interaction of the various parts or is the
dynamic ground of their being.