GCE Religious Studies RS1/2 PHIL: Introduction to Philosophy of Religion (AS)

by Gordon Reid

1

RS 1/2 PHIL: Introduction to Philosophy of Religion (AS)

Topic 1: The existence of God (i) – Cosmological

Arguments

Aim: At the end of this topic you should be able to: explain the key aspects of the Cosmological Argument understand a range of different views and scholarly opinions explain the different versions of the argument evaluate the view in support and opposed to the argument as proof of the

existence of God evaluate scholarly views surrounding the argument.

Introduction

The Cosmological Argument (from the Greek ‘cosmos’ meaning universe) uses evidence from the world around us to prove that God exists. It is concerned with the view that the universe cannot be explained without reference to causes and factors outside itself. The universe didn’t make itself since it is contingent and only the existence of a first, necessary cause and mover explains its origin. The Cosmological Argument is a posteriori, synthetic and inductive.

The argument assumes that the universe has not always been in existence, and for it to come into being, an external agent was necessary. We call that agent ‘God.’

The Cosmological Argument seeks to answer the following questions:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why does the universe possess the form it does, and not some other form?

How can the series of events which culminate in the universe be explained?

Must a chain of movers have a first cause?

Is an infinite regress of causes a sufficient explanation?

What kind of cause or agency is necessary for the universe to come into being?

How can the features (i.e. regularity and purpose) of the universe be explained?

2

Some philosophers have gone so far as to declare that such an argument is not even worth considering. Russell doubted whether it was even meaningful, let alone important, to argue the case for a cause of the universe, calling it ‘a question that has no meaning.’ However, Coplestone said that this was an unsatisfactory response, and in Humanitas he wrote:

‘If one does not wish to embark on the path which leads to the affirmation of a transcendent being, however the latter may be described…one has to deny the reality of the problem, assert that things ‘just are’.’

For reflection:

Is the search for the cause of the universe simply a waste of time?

The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori one that declares that God is the ultimate, complete and adequate explanation for the universe, and possesses in itself all the necessary characteristics to be that complete explanation. In ‘The Existence of God’ (1979), Richard Swinburne observed: ‘A may be explained by B, and B by C, but in the end there will be some one object on whom all other objects depend. We will have to acknowledge something as ultimate - the great metaphysical issue is what that is’. For Swinburne, God was the simplest explanation:

Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance, God… There could in this respect be no simpler explanation than one which postulated only one cause.’

For reflection:

What does Swinburne mean by saying that God is the simplest explanation?

The views of Aquinas The most famous Christian application of the argument was offered by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in the Summa Theologica. He suggested ‘Five Ways’ which proved the existence of God. The first three were Cosmological Arguments. The First Way - from motion

‘It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another… It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved… If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another… But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and,

3

subsequently, no other mover… Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.’

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Article, ‘Whether God exists’, cited in Hick (ed.), 1964) We may summarize the first argument like this:

nothing can move itself, since nothing can be both mover and moved, yet things are evidently in motion.

an infinite chain of movers that has no beginning can have no successive or ultimate movers.

there must therefore be a first mover that causes motion in all things, and this we call God.

Aquinas was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE), who said that all objects had the potential to change and become different in some way. Aquinas called motion ‘the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality’. For example, fire, which is actually hot, changes wood, which is potentially hot, to a state of being actually hot. Motion is a change of state but requires an explanation since nothing can be in both potentiality and actuality at the same time - nothing can be simultaneously hot and cold.

For reflection: What other examples of potentiality to actuality are there?

But in order be changed – for potential to become actual – there must be a third party involved – for example for something to change from being cold to being hot, there must be a source of heart – that source is the third party or, as Aristotle called it, the ‘efficient cause.’ This means that something must bring about the change and it must be something upon which that which is changed is dependent. Aquinas argues that God is the initiator of change and motion in all things. He causes everything, including the universe, to begin – but God has no beginning. He is, said Aquinas, the ‘unmoved mover’, who causes everything else to change, but does not change himself.

Seminar work:

In what ways is the argument from motion a convincing one?

The Second Way - from cause

‘The Second Way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it,

4

indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible… Therefore it is necessary to admit to a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.’ (ibid.)

This argument can be summarized as follows:

• all things are caused and since nothing can be its own cause

• there must be a first cause (God) on which all other causes depend

• an infinite chain of causes is rejected since in an infinite chain there can be no first cause

• God is therefore the first cause of all that exists.

In this first way, Aquinas observed that whilst all other beings are caused, God is not. God is not just the first cause in a chain of causes; he is one on whom all subsequent causes depend. In the Second Way, Aquinas goes further by rejecting the notion of an infinite chain of causes and insisting insists that without a first cause there could be no subsequent causes. In effect, without a first cause, there would be nothing at all. To clarify Aquinas’s arguments so far, we can say that: the universe exists everything in existence has a cause and that which is in a state

of motion must be moved something which is moved cannot move itself a chain of causes and effects, movers and moved cannot go

backwards to infinity there must therefore be a first cause and first mover which

does not require something else to move it this first cause/mover is dependent on nothing else to come

into existence this first, self-causing cause, self-moving mover, is God God exists.

Seminar work: Is the argument from cause a strong or weak one? Why?

The Third Way - from necessity and contingency

‘The Third Way is taken from possibility and necessity… We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be… Therefore if

5

everything can not-be then at one time there was nothing in existence…(and) it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist and thus even now nothing would be in existence, which is absurd… Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.’ (ibid.)

The third way is slightly different. Since beings and items in the universe are capable of existing or not existing (i.e. are contingent), it is impossible that all beings should be capable of existing or not existing, since at one time it is possible that nothing existed at all. If this were the case, then where would existence come from? There has to be a necessary being that does not cease to exist. Coplestone said that if we do not accept the existence of a necessary being, then; ‘We do not explain the presence here and now of beings capable of existing or not existing. Therefore we must affirm the existence of a being which is absolutely necessary and completely independent.’ (ibid)

Aquinas’ Third Way may therefore be summarized as:

everything in our physical universe is dependent upon factors beyond itself’ (contingent).

the presence of each thing can only be explained by reference to those factors which themselves depend on other factors.

these factors demand an ultimate explanation in the form of a necessary being (God), dependent on nothing outside himself.

the very nature of things in the universe demands that God exists necessarily and not contingently.

Seminar work: Is the argument from necessity more or less convincing than the arguments from cause and motion? Why?

Infinite Regress Aquinas believed that we would not find the first cause of things by simply going further and further back into time (‘infinite regress’). He said that there must be a beginning point. J. L. Mackie gave the example that we would not expect a railway train consisting of an infinite number of carriages to move anywhere without an engine. God is like an engine. He is not just another carriage, but the thing that has the power to move without requiring something else to move him.

6

For reflection: What is ‘infinite regress’?

Coplestone’s view Coplestone supported Aquinas’s rejection of infinite regress on the grounds that an infinite chain of contingent beings could only ever consist of contingent beings, which would never be able to bring itself into existence. The most an infinite series of contingent beings could do is maintain an eternal presence of contingent beings; it cannot explain how they came into being in the first place:

You see, I don’t believe that the infinity of the series of the events - I mean a horizontal series, so to speak - if such infinity could be proved, would be in the slightest degree relevant to the situation. If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not a sheep. If you add up chocolates to infinity, you presumably get an infinite number of chocolates. So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a necessary being. An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being.

(Cited in Hick 1964) Coplestone’s argument can be summed up as: everything that exists now was caused to exist by an external cause therefore the universe must have been caused by an external cause that cause must not depend on anything else (non-contingent) yet it must exist, otherwise the universe would not be here it is, therefore, a ‘necessary being’ this is God.

Seminar work: Is Coplestone’s argument a convincing one? Why/ why not?

Liebnitz In his work ‘Theodicy’, Gottfried Leibniz explained the Cosmological Argument in the form of the principle of sufficient reason:

‘Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out of a past one, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states, and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’

7

Leibniz claimed that even if the universe had always been in existence, it would still require an explanation, or a ‘sufficient reason’ for its existence, since we need to know why there is something rather than nothing. By going backwards in time forever we will never arrive at such a complete explanation. There is nothing within the universe to show why it exists, so the reason for its existence must lie outside of it.

Swinburne Richard Swinburne (1996) claimed that the most convincing proof lay in the facts that things actually exist at all, since, statistically, it is more likely that nothing exists rather than something:

‘It is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all. Surely the most natural state of affairs is simply nothing: no universe, no God, nothing. But there is something. And so many things. Maybe chance could have thrown up the odd electron. But so many particles! Not everything will have an explanation. But…the whole progress of science and all other intellectual enquiry demands that we postulate the smallest number of brute facts. If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so - even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being’.

The Cosmological Argument still finds support in modern science today. The Big Bang theory itself proposes a beginning point for the universe, not an infinite regress of events.

Seminar work: Who is the more convincing – Liebnitz or Swinburne? Why?

The Kalam Argument The Islamic form of the Cosmological Argument, known as the Kalam Argument was proposed by al-Kindi (c. 870) and al-Ghazali (c. 1058–1111). ‘kalam’ is Arabic for ‘argue’ or ‘discuss’. The Argument proposes that the fact that everything has a cause is a basic law of the universe and, therefore, the universe must have a cause. This cause must be different from its effect. So, if the cause of the universe is different from the universe, then it must be non-physical in nature. This cause is God. It other words: whatever comes into being must have a cause the universe came into being the universe must have a cause the cause exists without having been caused by something else the cause is a non-physical one God is the cause.

8

The principle is that if something does not contain its own reason for existing, then it must have been caused by something else, and that by something else again. Only when we arrive at a self-causing, necessary being can we say we have reached the end of the chain of causes and effects. However, it must be shown that the universe had a starting point in order for the Kalam Argument to work. This is done by understanding the nature of time and infinity. In a sense, there is an infinite amount of time between each second of time. This can be shown through ‘Zeno’s Paradox’. It goes like this: a man walks half the distance from A to B in 60 minutes he walks half of the remaining distance in the next 60 minutes he walks half the remaining distance in the next 60 minutes if he carries on like this, he will never reach point B there is such a concept as ‘infinity’.

For reflection: What does ‘infinity’ really mean?

Craig’s View William Craig applied this in his book ‘The Kalam Cosmological Argument’ (1979) to prove the existence of God like this: the present moment exists therefore time cannot be infinite this means the universe must have had a start in order to have come into existence, the universe must have been caused to

exist this cause is called God as God chose to create the world, then God must be a personal being.

Craig wrote: ‘If the universe began to exist, and if the universe is caused, then the cause of the universe must be a personal being who freely chooses to create the world…the kalam cosmological argument leads to a personal creator of the universe.’

Miller In ‘God and Reason’ (1972), Miller criticized the Kalam Argument on the grounds that it was logically impossible. He argued that a new day could not be added to what was already an infinity of days. Moreover, if there is an infinity of days, the present day

9

would never be reached, because an infinite number of days would have to have passed first. Miller then applied this to God: ‘The question, ‘Where does God come from?’ can thus be discarded as ill-conceived because it construes God to be like other things, the sort of being that can come and go. If God himself can come into being then he cannot possibly be the cause of all things that come into being and would not, therefore, be what the theist means by God.’

For reflection:

Is the Kalam Argument a convincing one?

Is Craig right in his assertions?

Is Miller’s argument a strong one?

Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument Hume David Hume proposed the classic criticisms of the Cosmological Argument in his work ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’:

why presume the need for a cause?

why look for an explanation for the whole?

is the concept of a necessary first being meaningful?

even if there was such a being, why should it be God?

‘Any particle of matter, it is said, may be conceived to be annihilated, and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an annihilation or alteration is not therefore impossible. But it seems a great partiality not to perceive that the same argument extends equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him…’

[Cited in Hick (ed.), 1964]

Hume believed that Aquinas was wrong to identify the first mover as God.

‘Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being, according to this pretended explication of necessity? We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter; and for aught we can determine, it may contain some qualities which, were they known, would make its non-existence appear as great a contradiction as that twice two is five’. (ibid).

Hume said that we make the mistake of starting with a concept that is familiar to us – the universe - and then we observe that the argument begins with a concept familiar to us - the universe and then we come to conclusions about things that are, in truth, outside our experience. This criticism is that we cannot attempt to argue about the nature and qualities of God. He condemned supporters of the argument for claiming

10

that there is sufficient evidence in the natural world to point without doubt to the existence of God. Hume wrote:

‘Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.’ (ibid)

Hume’s view is that, rather than seek the truth of everything at once, we should seek partial explanations. Even if specific instances of things in the universe require an explanation, why should this be the case for the universe as a whole? It does not work to move from the specific to the general.

Written work: ‘Hume’s criticisms completely disprove the Cosmological Argument.’Assess this view. Kant Immanuel Kant in his work ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ argued that Aquinas was wrong because we can only know things about the world around us because we experience these things every day. However, we have no experience of the creation of the world, so we cannot possibly know anything about it and for us to try to explain the beginning of the universe would have ‘no meaning whatsoever’.

For reflection: Is Kant right in this assertion?

Russell In more recent times, Russell agreed with Hume that there was no need to seek a cause for the universe as a whole. He wrote:

‘Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother - that’s a different logical sphere’. (ibid)

In Russell’s view, there are some things that require no explanation, and that the universe is such a case. In ‘Why I am not a Christian’ (1957) he famously wrote: ‘…the universe is just there and that’s all.’

For reflection: What does Russell mean by saying that the universe is ‘just there’? Is this a valid criticism?

11

Interestingly, Russell did not dismiss the search for an answer. He simply maintained that it was a fallacy to assume that you would arrive at one: ‘A man may look for gold without assuming that there’s gold everywhere; if he finds gold, good luck, if he doesn’t, he’s had bad luck.’ (ibid.). In recent times, scientists seem to have discovered some things that do not have a cause. Quantum physicists believe that some electrons can come in and out of existence without the need for a cause. Is it possible that the universe is the same?’ Kenny In ‘The Five Ways’ (1965), Kenny said that Aquinas was wrong to claim that nothing moves by itself. He said that animals and humans move themselves. Moreover, Newton’s first law of motion states that movement can be explained by the body’ own inertia from previous motion. In other words, it is possible for objects to have motion as well as be at a state of rest. This, he said: ‘…wrecks the argument of the First Way. For, at any given time the uniform motion of a body can be explained by the principle of inertia in terms of the body’s own previous motion without appeal to any other agent.’ Palmer Finally, Michael Palmer in ‘The Question of God’ (2001) refutes the Cosmological Argument by claiming: ‘The Cosmological Argument thus begins in the world of sense and ends in the world of pure speculation…that God exists is ,of course, an article of faith; but it is also, according to Aquinas, a proposition capable of proof by the natural light of reason …Aquinas was mistaken. The existence of a necessary being cannot be demonstrated.’

For reflection: Is Palmer right to claim that ‘Aquinas was mistaken’? Is Kenny right to claim that Newton’s first law of motion ‘wrecks the argument of the First Way’?

The value of the argument Despite the many criticisms that have been raised against the argument, it remains a strong a posteriori argument, which draws on evidence that is universally available. It is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to propose as a hypothesis that there is a God who created the universe. But, the argument cannot explain God, only offer God as a possible explanation, and if we are not satisfied with the idea of God as a being who himself requires no explanation, the argument will fail. Herbert McCabe in ‘A Modern Cosmological

12

Argument’ (1980) observed: ‘The question is: is there an unanswered question about the existence of the world? Can we be puzzled by the existence of the world instead of nothing? I can be and am; and this is to be puzzled about God’. Stephen Hawking in his book ‘A Brief History of Time’ seemed to support the argument: ‘The laws of the universe do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.’

Seminar work:

What are the key features of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God?

For what reasons have some thinkers rejected the Cosmological Argument?

Written work ‘The Cosmological Argument fails to provide a coherent explanation of the universe.’

Assess this view.

13

Topic 2: The existence of God (ii) - Teleological Arguments

Aim At the end of this topic you should be able to: explain the key aspects of the Teleological Argument understand a range of different views and scholarly opinions explain the different versions of the argument evaluate the view in support and opposed to the argument as proof of the

existence of God evaluate scholarly views surrounding the argument

Introduction The Teleological (or Design) Argument (from the Greek word ‘telos’ meaning ‘end’ or ‘purpose’) seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the end result of the process of creation. It is an a posteriori argument which claims that certain aspects of the universe appear to display features of having been designed because they are perfectly adapted to fulfil their function. Such design cannot come about by chance and can only be explained with reference to an intelligent, personal designer. Since the works of nature are far greater than the works of man, an infinitely greater designer must be postulated, which points towards the existence of God. In ‘The Existence of God’ Richard Swinburne wrote:

So there is our universe. It is characterised by vast, all persuasive temporal order, the conformity of nature to formula, recorded in the scientific laws formulated by humans. It started off in such a way…as to lead to the evolution of animals and humans. These phenomena are clearly things too big for science to explain… Note that I am not postulating a ‘God of the gaps’, a god merely to explain the things which science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain what science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains.

For reflection: In what sense does the universe show signs of order?

The Teleological Argument claims that there is a variety of features which suggest that the universe has a designer: Order - regularities in the behaviour of objects and laws in the universe.

Benefit - the universe provides all that is necessary for life and more. The presence of beauty, for example, appears to be beneficial without being

14

necessary.

Purpose - objects within the universe appear to be working towards an end or purpose. Indeed, the universe as a whole may be working towards an ultimate purpose.

Suitability for human life - the order exhibited by the universe provides the ideal environment for human life to exist and to flourish.

Is it all just chance? Supporters of the argument are committed to rejecting the view that the universe just came into existence by chance. They claim that the features of order and purpose, suitability for human life, even the providential nature of the universe, could not all be explained as the result of one huge coincidence or lucky chance. The delicate balance of the universe is such that the probability of it coming about by chance is far too remote. Dave Hunt in ‘Honest Doubts’ observed:

Suppose two survivors of a shipwreck have drifted for days in a life raft across the South Pacific and at last are washed ashore on an island. Their great hope, of course, is that the island is inhabited so they can find food, medical attention and a means of returning to their distant homes. Pushing their way into the jungle, they suddenly come upon an automated factory operating full tilt. Though no persona is visible, products are being manufactured, packaged and labelled for shipping. One of the parties exclaims ‘Praise God! The island is inhabited! Someone must have made and oversees this factory!’ ‘You’re crazy,’ replies his companion. ‘There’s absolutely no reason to believe that this thing was designed and put together by some intelligent being. It just happened by chance over who knows how many billions of years.’ The first man looks down at his feet and sees a watch with a broken wristband lying in the dirt. Again he exclaims, ‘Look! A watch! This proves the island’s inhabited!’ ‘You’ve got to be kidding,’ retorts his companion. ‘That thing is just a conglomeration of atoms that happened to come together in that form by chance plus billions of years of random selection.’

For reflection

Is Hunt’s view a convincing one?

St Thomas Aquinas The Teleological Argument is the fifth of his Aquinas’ Five Ways of showing the existence of God. In ‘Summa Theologica’ he wrote:

‘We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence…and this

15

being we call God.’

Aquinas observed that animals always act for the best result, for example, whales that travel from the polar regions to the equator to feed act for a beneficial purpose. If this can be so for animals then, he said, something greater must have given them this purpose.

Seminar work: In what respects is Aquinas’ Fifth Way a more or less convincing proof of the existence of God than his first three ways (the Cosmological Argument)?

Kant In ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ Kant said of the argument: ‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and the most accordant with the common reason of mankind’. Kant supported this by saying that the argument was a good a posteriori one and based on the empirical nature of the universe. He commented that reason tells us that the behaviour of the universe and its inhabitants is not satisfactorily explained by the universe itself, and an intelligent authority, external to the universe, seems to be the simplest solution.

For reflection:

Are Kant’s view convincing?

William Paley and the watch Paley’s analogy of the watch is one of the most famous views in support of the argument. In ‘Natural Theology’, he wrote:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given - that, for anything I knew, the watch might always have been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason… when we come to inspect the watch we perceive…that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose.’ Paley believed in:

Order - things working in a methodical and constant way that could not be the

16

result of sheer chance. Purpose - things work towards a particular end or goal.

Paley’s view was that if we found a stone on a pathway, we might just think it had always been there, as part of the path. However, if we came across a watch, we would not come to the same conclusion because: the watch has a purpose it works in a specific way, to an orderly pattern the watch has purpose and order therefore it must have been designed

For Paley, all the parts of the watch unite together to fulfil their purpose – and this cannot be explained by chance – it shows evidence of design. He does not intend to draw any conclusions about the character of the designer, or even of the design, in terms of its perfection, infinity or rarity. Rather, he claims, even if the watch goes wrong or shows evidence of bad design or if we have never seen a watch before, we could still deduce that it had been designed. Paley denies that it is impossible to come to conclusions about design on the basis of the limited information available. He wrote:

‘He knows enough for his argument; he knows the utility of the end: he knows the subserviency and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little need not beget a distrust of that which he does know.’

(ibid.)

Seminar work:

In what ways is Paley’s argument convincing? In what ways is it unconvincing?

Hume takes this a little further by comparing the world to a machine. It contains small parts that work together to keep the world going. He said that it was possible to argue that, just as machines have human designers which make their parts work together, so the universe could have a designer which keeps it going.

Swinburne: The argument from probability Richard Swinburne makes a number of key observations about the universe: its fittingness for human life and its scope, allowing human beings to share in God’s creative activity and to make significant choices. These features, he believes, are to be expected from a loving creator - God:

17

The simple hypothesis of theism leads us to expect all the phenomena that I have been describing with some reasonable degree of probability. God being omnipotent is able to produce a world orderly in these respects. And he has a good reason to choose to do so: a world containing human persons is a good thing… God being perfectly good, is generous. He wants to share.

Swinburne argues that God is the best explanation because of the providential nature of the universe - it contains within it everything that is necessary for survival. He maintains that natural laws function within the universe, making it a place where humans can meaningfully contribute to its development. This kind of universe, he argues is the type that God would have reason to create. God had a choice about the kind of universe he could create and, as a result, the universe cannot be the product of chance.

For reflection: Why does Swinburne believe that God is the best explanation? Is he right?

Tennant: The aesthetic view

For Tennant, the universe is more than just orderly; it possesses a natural beauty beyond that which is necessary to live. Some of that beauty is part of the natural order - the beautiful patterns of flowers or the changing colours of the seasons. Moreover, we also find beauty in things which are not part of the natural world and have no part to play in the survival of the species. Art, music, literature and culture all contribute to the way we perceive the world as a beneficial, appealing and attractive place, although we would be able to live without them. In ‘Philosophical Theology’ he observes:

‘Nature is not just beautiful in places; it is saturated with beauty - on the telescopic and microscopic scale. Our scientific knowledge brings us no nearer to understanding the beauty of music. From an intelligibility point of view, beauty seems to be superfluous and to have little survival value.’

For reflection: Is the aesthetic view a convincing one?

The anthropic principle

The anthropic principle, from the Greek word anthropos meaning ‘man’, proposes that the reason and purpose of the universe’s existence is the support of human life. F. R. Tennant (ibid.) writes:

18

As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming. According to this view, scientific explanations of the universe are compatible with the Teleological Argument since evolution or a cosmic explosion can be seen to be the means that the designer has employed. The order of the universe is beyond chance - in other words, the odds on it coming about by chance are so remote as to render it virtually impossible. Evolution could then be part of God’s plan for the world. Freeman Dyson in ‘Disturbing the Universe’ wrote:

‘As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.’

Seminar work: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the aesthetic and anthropic principles?

Richard Swinburne Indeed, it is possible to argue that the laws which govern natural selection were brought about by God because, through them, human beings and animals would evolve. Richard Swinburne in ‘The Existence of God’ maintains: ‘The very success of science in showing us how deeply orderly the natural world is, provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause of that order’.

He argues that:

order in the universe is a product of ‘regularity of co-presence’

this means everything works together in an orderly way

order in the universe also comes from ‘regularity of succession’

this means that the orderly pattern of the universe is very simple

this leads to the ‘perspective of probability’, namely that the easiest and most simple explanation for the universe is that it has a cosmic designer.

Swinburne wrote:

‘To postulate a trillion, trillion other universes rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality’.

19

John Polkinghorne

More recently, John Polkinghorne has argued that the beauty and ‘finely tuned fruitfulness’ of natural laws suggest that they did not just happen by chance. In ‘Testing God; Killing the Creator’ he said:

‘It seems to be natural to believe that the rational order and beauty is an expression of a divine mind, and the finely tuned fruitfulness is an expression of divine purpose.’

Polkinghorne believes that the universe is not fixed and unchanging, but rather, that God continually interacts with creation as a conductor ‘conducting the improvised performance of the universe.’ The very existence and nature of the physical universe is, he says, proof of a testimony to a cosmic designer. God is the ‘total explanation’ for the design of the universe and God’s creation is a continuing and unfolding process.

For reflection:

In what sense does God continually interact with creation? Order and probability It is possible to argue, however, that unless the universe did contain exactly the right conditions for life, there would be no humans and we would not be here to comment upon how improbable it all is! In other words, of course we perceive order in the universe - there could be nothing else, or we would not be here to perceive it. However, the amount of order in the universe still needs an explanation, since it would appear to be far more than is necessary for human survival. Swinburne observes that we should be amazed by the fact that there is order rather than disorder.

Criticisms of the argument Hume Hume argued that to draw an analogy between the universe and human works leads to anthropomorphism. In order to make the analogy work, God’s qualities and characteristics have to be closely identified with those of human beings and this removes God’s divinity. God cannot be compared with a human designer because he does not have human imitations. Hume said: ‘…the production of old age in some superannuated deity, and ever since his death has run on from the first impulse and active force which he gave it.’ (ibid.) Hume also argued that, in theory, the universe could just be the result of a random accident or pure chance. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that God is the only explanation for order in the universe. There may be grounds for saying that the designer

20

was simply a very powerful and highly intelligent alien. Hume also opposes Paley’s watch theory. He said that the universe is unique and cannot be compared to anything else – and certainly not a watch. He said that Paley had committed the ‘fallacy of composition’, that is, to say that the universe shows qualities of design, therefore the universe as a whole must have been designed. What is true of part of the universe need not be true of it all. Hume called it: ‘…a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause.’ Indeed, Hume went on to suggest that the universe is, if designed, then very poorly designed. He said that no supreme designer would have created a universe with so much suffering. He observed: ‘The world is very faulty and imperfect…it is the work only of some inferior deity.’

For reflection: Are Hume’s criticisms convincing ones?

Evil and suffering Evil and suffering offers a serious challenge to the argument. In ‘Nature and Utility in Religion’ J. S. Mill argued that the most we can claim is that the designer of the universe might be benevolent, but must be limited in power to allow such suffering: ‘Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature’s (God’s) everyday performances. Killing, the most criminal act recognized by human laws, nature does once to every being that lives and in a large proportion of cases after protracted tortures… Not even the most distorted and contracted theory of good which was ever framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism can the government of nature resemble the work of a Being at once good and omnipotent.’

Seminar work: Why is evil and suffering such a powerful argument against God? How might the argument be challenged?

Charles Darwin In his work ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection’ (1859), the English naturalist Charles Darwin formulated the theory of evolution and this was a radical challenge to the argument from design. Darwin offered an alternative explanation for the design of the world, one that did without the notion of creation by God. Darwin’s explanation was mechanical – life developed on earth not through divine action, but by natural selection, what Herbert Spencer dubbed ‘the survival of the fittest’. He called this natural selection. In ‘The Descent of Man’ (1871), many supporters of Darwin claimed that his theory proved conclusively that the designed argument was wrong because:

21

living things developed in evolutionary steps, and this was the result of

random chance. evolution means that things change and adapt to fit in with the environment,

rather than, as the scriptures suggest, the environment being shaped to fit their needs.

the suffering of the natural world did not match the notion of a kind and loving God.

if humans evolved, then they could not have been created ‘in God’s image’. Others however, have argued that Darwin’s theory is flawed because: Darwin’s theory fails to answer the question of why there is life at all. there are gaps in fossil records meaning that there is a lack of empirical

evidence to support Darwin’s theory. natural selection fails to advance an organism into a higher form of life. no scientific evidence has been found to prove that humans evolved from

apes. Dawkins – natural selection Dawkins argued that natural selection is incompatible with an intelligent designer. In ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ he wrote:

‘A true watchmaker has foresight; he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their inter connections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of the watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker’.

Seminar work: What are the main strengths of Darwin and Dawkins’ views as challenges to a creator god? What are the biggest weaknesses?

Stephen Hawking Modern scientists have argued that the universe we live in is the creation of random chance. They say that we may live in one of an infinite number of universes and, randomly, we live in one that has apparent order and suitability for human life. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking acknowledged that, for many religious believers, evolution and God are perfectly compatible and that evolution is the mechanism through which God’s creation took place. In ‘A Brief History of Time’ (Bantam 1992) he wrote:

22

‘If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all…be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, then…we would know the mind of God.’

Written work:

‘The Teleological Argument fails to provide convincing proof of the existence of God.’ Assess this view.

23

Topic 3: Evil and Suffering Aim: At the end of this topic you should be able to: explain the key aspects of the problem of evil and suffering understand a range of different views and scholarly opinions explain the different theodicies evaluate the views in support and opposed to the notion of evil and suffering

as proof of the existence of God evaluate scholarly views surrounding the argument.

The problem of evil and suffering ‘Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not: if he cannot then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good.’ (St Augustine: ‘Confessions’) Every day we see and hear about great evil and suffering in the world – from natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, to awful human acts of war, murder and genocide. But why is there such great evil and suffering and does it show that there is no God? St. Augustine defined evil and the ‘privation of good’ and the consequence of evil is suffering, which can involve both physical and mental pain. Suffering often appears to be unjust and the innocent seem to suffer most. There are two types of evil: Natural evil - the malfunctioning of the natural world, which produces

consequences such as tsunamis, earthquakes and famines.

Moral evil - the results of human actions which are morally wrong, such as war and murder.

This existence of evil presents major problems:

A theological problem - it challenges the existence and nature of God.

A philosophical problem - it makes conflicting claims that are difficult to reconcile.

Richard Swinburne in ‘The Existence of God’ claimed: ‘There is a problem about why God allows evil, and if the theist does not have a satisfactory answer to it, then his belief in God is less than rational, and there is no reason why the atheist should share it’.

For reflection: Is Swinburne’s view right?

24

Innocent and Immense suffering One of the biggest issues raised by the problem of evil is the sheer immensity of suffering, especially on the innocent. For example, millions were killed in the Holocaust. One survivor, Elie Weisel highlighted the awful reality of the concentration camps: ‘Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children…never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever…never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams into dust.’ Animal Suffering Much animal suffering is caused by human beings, either through neglect and ill-treatment, or through scientific experiments on animals. It may be that such experiments produce much good, for example, cures for human diseases. However, some might argue that inflicting suffering on animals is a kind of evil. In ‘Animal Rights and Human Obligations’, Peter Singer observed: ‘Apes, cats, mice and other mammals are more aware of what is happening to them and at least as sensitive to pain as any human infant…experimenting on animals and eating their flesh are perhaps the two major forms of speciesism in our society.’

Seminar work: List the different types of animal suffering inflicted by humans. Do you think that any kind of animal suffering inflicted by humans in justifiable? Why/ why not?

God and Evil

The problem of evil is a challenge to the notion of the all-loving, all-powerful Creator God of classical theism - the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The problems are: God has created the universe out of nothing and is totally responsible for it. If

he is all-powerful, then he can do anything that is logically possible. This means he could create a world that is free from evil and suffering.

God is omniscient and knows everything in the universe; he must, therefore, know how to stop evil and suffering.

He is omnibenevolent and, in his love, would wish to end all evil and suffering.

He is all-loving and therefore would not want his creation to suffer for no reason.

Yet evil and suffering do exist, so either God is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent or he does not exist.

25

St Thomas Aquinas in ‘Summa Theologica’ wrote: ‘But the name of God means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.’

For reflection: Is Aquinas’ view logically correct?

The problem is shown as an inconsistent triad; God is (a) omnipotent and (b) all-loving. These qualities make God a being worthy of worship. However, (c) evil exists. This means that either (a) or (b) must be logically inconsistent and therefore

untrue. David Hume, in ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, supported this view, suggesting: God is not omnipotent, or God is not omnibenevolent, or Evil does not exist. Since evil does exist, then God does not.

Other Viewpoints Anthony Flew argued that: it is not enough just to say that we don’t really understand how God works,

and to carry on believing in the same way. Nor can we say ‘God’s love is not like human love, so we can’t expect him to

intervene where there is suffering’. This is simply qualifying God’s love rather than finding good reasons why he should not intervene.

‘Now it often seems to people who are not religious as if there was no conceivable event…the occurrence of which would be admitted by sophisticated religious people to be a sufficient reason for conceding…‘God does not really love us.’

For reflection: Is Flew being fair to religious believers?

26

Basil Mitchell in his parable of the ‘Partisan and the Stranger’ observed that religious believers should ‘face the full force of the conflict’ and not avoid the problem of suffering, by uttering ‘vacuous formulae’ such as ‘It’s just God’s will.’

For reflection: Is it fair to say that believers utter ‘vacuous formulae’?

Some possible answers… Suffering as a punishment from God - Augustine believed that humans are

tainted by the original sin of Adam and must bear the consequences of his wrong-doing. However, it seems unfair to allow people to suffer for the wrong-doing of someone in the distant past!

Suffering is an illusion - Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian

Science Movement, said that God was completely good and that only goodness was real. Evil and suffering are the result of a lack of understanding of the loving nature of God.

Suffering depends on the interpretation that is given to an event – a

volcano erupting can be seen either as a wonder of nature (if no lives are in danger) or a natural disaster (if lives are lost).

Suffering as a test of faith - God may allow suffering in a person’s life in

order to test and strengthen their faith – and, therefore, suffering should be accepted.

The best of all possible worlds - Liebnitz argued that God our world is the

best of all possible worlds here. Since God has the power to create an infinite variety of worlds, but chose this one, it must be the best possible world.

A world with death is preferable to a world without death – Swinburne

suggested that the presence of death helps humans to make the most of their time and helps them to treat each other better.

Seminar work: Which of the views listed above are (a) the most convincing and (b) the least convincing? Why?

27

Aquinas argued that God may be all-loving and all-powerful, yet allows evil to exist as part of his greater plan of love. In other words, he has a reason for evil to exist. Such an approach has led scholars to develop theodicies

to explain what God’s reason is. A theodicy (literally ‘righteous God’) is an argument that suggests God is right to allow the existence of evil and suffering because, in some way or another, they are necessary.

Augustinian Theodicy In ‘Confessions’ and ‘De Genesi ad Litteram’, St Augustine argued that: God is wholly good God created a world that was perfectly good and free from evil and suffering:

‘God saw all that he had made, and it was very good’ - Genesis 1:31. God did not create evil because it is not a ‘thing’. Evil is the going-wrong of something that is good. Augustine said that evil was

a ‘privation of good’. Evil did not come from God, but from those entities that had free will - angels

and human beings who had turned their back on God. He used the story of Adam and Eve to highlight the disobedience of the

human race:

‘Did God not say, “You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die”? “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. ‘For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”’ -Genesis 3:3–5. For Augustine, God’s perfectly good creation was ruined by human sin. Natural evil came through the loss of order in nature, and moral evil from the knowledge of good and evil, which human beings had discovered through their disobedience. As a result, they could no longer remain in paradise: ‘So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken’ -Genesis 3:23. Augustine said that both forms of evil were a punishment and that human beings have brought suffering upon themselves because they are all ‘in the loins of Adam’ (seminally present). Christians refer to this as original sin. As a result, Augustine claimed that: God is right not to intervene to put a stop to suffering, since the punishment is

appropriate for human sin and God is just. However, in his infinite love, God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die so that

those who believed could be saved and go to heaven. This theodicy is soul-deciding: humanity’s fate is decided on the basis of the

individual’s response to God’s offer of salvation.

28

Seminar work: Is Augustinian Theodicy a convincing to the problem of evil and suffering?

Criticisms of Augustinian theodicy Schleiermacher in ‘The Christian Faith’ claimed that Augustinian Theodicy was wrong to say that a perfectly created world had gone wrong. How could something perfect go wrong? Moreover, if the world was perfect, then where did evil spring from? If humans chose to disobey God, then knowledge of good and evil must have already existed. Schleiermacher argued that: either the world was not perfect to start with, or God made it go wrong. if this is the case, then it is God, and not humanity, who is to blame. suffering is essential to survival - things must die in order that others might eat

and live. God must bear the responsibility for this. Augustine’s view that every human was ‘seminally present’ in Adam is not

biologically accurate and all of humanity is not guilty of Adam’s sin. God is unjust in allowing humans to be punished for someone else’s sin. the existence of Hell as a place of eternal punishment seems to contradict the

existence of an all-loving God. if Hell was part of the design of the universe, and God knew that the world

would go wrong anyway, why did he still allow it to happen?

Seminar work: Which of Schleiermacher’s criticisms is the most convincing? Why?

Irenaean Theodicy In his work ‘Against Heresies’, St Irenaeus said that evil could be traced back to human free will. He believed that God did not make a perfect world in the first place and that evil has a valuable part to play in God’s plans for humanity. Irenaeus said that: God was partly responsible for evil because he deliberately created humans

imperfectly, in order that they could develop into perfection. God created humans in his own image (Genesis 1:26), but with the intention

of allowing them to develop into his ‘likeness’. God could not have created perfect human because becoming like God

needed the willing co-operation of human individuals. Goodness and perfection had to be developed by humans themselves,

through willing co-operation with God. So God had to give humans free will. Such freedom requires the possibility of choosing good instead of evil, and

29

therefore God had to permit evil and suffering to occur: ‘How, if we had no knowledge of the contrary, could we have instruction in that which is good?’

God then stood back to allow humans to use their free will for good or evil and he will not intervene, or else that freedom is lost.

For reflection: Does Iranaean Theodicy offer a convincing answer to the problem of evil and suffering today?

A modern version - John Hick John Hick in ‘Philosophy of Religion’ highlighted the importance of God allowing humans to develop for themselves. He suggested that: if God had made us perfect, then we would have had the ‘goodness’ of

robots, which would automatically love God without thought. such love would be valueless and that, if God wanted humans to be genuinely

loving, then he was right to let them have the freedom to develop this love for themselves.

God had to have created humans at an epistemic distance from himself. This is a distance in dimension or knowledge.

it means that God must not be so close that humans would be overwhelmed by him and have no choice but to believe and obey; but in keeping a distance, God allows humans to choose freely.

the world has to be imperfect because if it were a paradise in which there was no evil and suffering, then humans would not be free to choose, since only good could actually occur.

humans would not be able to develop positive qualities such as love, honour or courage, and would thus lose the opportunity to develop into God’s likeness.

if God constantly interfered, then humans simply could not develop. This is known as the counter-factual hypothesis.

Hick suggested that the world is a place of soul-making, where humans have to face challenges in order to gain perfection.

this has biblical support, as St Paul observed: ‘We rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character, and character, hope’ (Romans 5:3).

Hick said that the world is’… rather well adapted to the quite different purpose of “soul making’.

For reflection: In what sense might this world be a place of ‘soul making’?

30

Criticisms of the Irenaean Theodicy Irenaean Theodicy has a number of weaknesses: Irenaeus suggested that everyone would go to heaven. This does not seem

fair and just. it contradicts religious texts of many faiths and makes being good pointless. suffering does not always result in human development, and often seem to

produce nothing but great misery and suffering. Do we need such extremes of suffering to produce good?

many so-called ‘evil’ people are mentally disturbed and cannot be held totally responsible for their actions.

D. Z. Phillips argued in ‘The Concept of Prayer’ that love can never be expressed by allowing suffering to happen:

‘What are we to say of the child dying from cancer? If this has been “done” to anyone that is bad enough, but to be done for a purpose planned from eternity - that is the deepest evil. If God is this kind of agent, He cannot justify His actions and His evil nature is revealed.’

Seminar work: Is Ireanaen Theodicy convincing? Why/ why not?

The Freewill Defence Some modern philosophers have attempted to expand on the work of Augustine and Irenaeas by looking more closely at the notion of ‘free will’ and have developed it into a theodicy in its own right called the ‘Freewill Defence’. The defence is as follows: this world is the logically necessary environment for humans to develop as

humans, since it provides freedom in the form of real choices which produce both good and evil.

without such choices, people would not be free and not be human. God cannot intervene because to do so would compromise human freedom

and take away the need for humans to be responsible: ‘The less he allows men to bring about large-scale horrors, the less freedom and responsibility he gives them’ (Swinburne ‘The Existence of God’).

human lifespan is limited so that people must take our responsibilities seriously. Swinburne: ‘If there is always another chance there is no risk.’

the world needs to contain natural laws that can cause death, however much suffering this may cause. Swinburne: ‘If men are to have knowledge of the evil which will result from their actions or negligence, laws of nature must operate regularly: and that means that there will be victims of the system.’

31

For reflection: Do we really have freewill?

Criticisms of the Freewill Defence The Freewill Defence fails to answer the criticism that divine love cannot be expressed through suffering and this causes many people to reject the notion of God. Could not God have created people who would always freely choose him? ‘In Evil and Omnipotence’, J. L. Mackie wrote: ‘God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong: there was open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good’. An alternative view – Monism Monists claim that the universe is a single, harmonious unity that is good. They argue that: everything is good, and evil is just an illusion of the mind. it causes a feeling of suffering only because people cannot see the whole

picture. people tend to assume that there are norms of pain and suffering to which

humans, animals and natural objects conform. For example, we regard animal suffering in the same way that we see human suffering.

This is the best of all words and God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, could not have made it any other way. Evil must be an illusion because it cannot have any reality in such a world.

Criticisms of Monism Monism is an incomplete answer because it seems to contradict our own experience of the world in which there is real

evil and suffering. it does not really explain why a loving God would allow humanity to suffer from

an illusion. it trivialises evil and suffering - if evil is only an illusion, why should we try to be

good and avoid evil? how would we know if we were doing evil anyway, since it is an illusion?

32

For reflection: Is Monism convincing?

Conclusion Evil and suffering are major issues challenging the nature and existence of God. Religious believers find them difficult to explain and may only claim that we cannot understand the ways of God or that God has a purpose that we cannot comprehend. Yet evil and suffering also offer the possibility that they are, indeed, a part of God’s plan for his creation. Swinburne: ‘A generous God will seek to give us great responsibility for ourselves, each other, and the world, and thus a share in his own creative activity of determining what sort of world it is to be. And he will seek to make our lives valuable, of great use to ourselves and to each other. The problem is that God cannot give us these goods in full measure without allowing much evil on the way’.

Written work:

‘Augustinian and Ireanaen Theodicies fail to provide convincing answers to the problem of evil ad suffering.’ Assess this view.

33

Topic 4: An Introduction to Religious Experience: Mysticism

Aim: At the end of this topic you should be able to: explain the key aspects of mysticism understand a range of different views and scholarly opinions explain the different versions of mysticism evaluate the views in support of, and opposed to, mysticism as proof of the

existence of God evaluate scholarly views surrounding mysticism.

The nature of mystical experience A religious or mystical experience is an encounter with the divine – an experience of God as a personal reality in a person’s life. It is an experience beyond ordinary empirical explanation and may be individual and subjective – where an individual is made aware of a transcendent reality – or corporate – where a gathering of people, usually already focused on the divine, appear to be influenced by powers beyond normal understanding. They are states of feeling that defy expression – they are ineffable. One of the classic mystics connected to Christian tradition is St Teresa of Avila who in her autobiography, wrote of her experiences: “God establishes himself in the interior of this soul in such a way, that when I return to myself, it is wholly impossible for me to doubt that I have been in God and God in me.” In his book ‘On Religion: Discourses to its Cultural Despisers’, Schleiermacher defined a religious/ mystical experience as: offering a sense of the ultimate an awareness of wholeness a consciousness of infiniteness and finiteness a feeling of absolute dependence feelings of reverence, joy and a desire to belong to God. John Wesley wrote

of his conversion experience: “I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me, that He had taken away my sins, even mine…”

Paul Tillich identified a feeling of ‘ultimate concern’ as being characteristic of such an experience; a feeling which demanded a decisive decision from the one receiving it. Rudolf Otto coined the word numinous or ‘numen’ (from the Latin, meaning ‘divinity’) to describe the experience of the holy – something that is ‘wholly other’ than the natural, physical world.

34

For reflection: What is a ‘sense of the ultimate?’

In the Bible, perhaps the most famous example of a religious experience is Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus: “…suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” - Acts 9:4 Davies in ‘Philosophy of Religion’ described such an experience as:

‘The claim is that without appealing to anything other than a direct contact with God, one can have reasonable grounds for asserting that there is a God. Just as I can reasonably say that there is a bed in my room because I have encountered it, so I can reasonably say that there is a God because I have directly encountered him’.

For reflection: Is it possible to encounter God? What exactly does this mean?

Types of mystical experience A mystical experience is one in which a person becomes overwhelmingly aware of the presence of the ultimate and has feelings of being in the presence of God. Pascal in ‘Pensees’ described the experience as: ‘Fire, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scientists. God of Jesus Christ. Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.’ There are two types of mysticism: introvertive - in which the mystic looks inwards on his own experience and

perceives his own oneness with the divine. objective - where the experience of the mystic lies in contemplating outward

circumstances. Hans Kung in ‘Does God Exist?’ noted that mysticism can be both extrovertive, looking outwards to see God in the world and introvertive, where the person looks within themselves and sees their inner self being merged into union with God. It is an individual experience, whereby the person seeks a loving union with God by purifying their own soul. Mystical experiences have several common features: A profound sense of union with God A transcending of time

35

A ‘showing’ - where something is clearly revealed to the person having the experience

A sense of joy and well-being. Seminar work: Does mysticism make sense in the modern world?

It seems that mystical experience was seen, in the early Church, as a direct encounter with God that was available to everyone. However, centuries later, mysticism was taken over by ascetic specialists and the experience became narrowed down to a spiritual elite. True mysticism became associated with special acts of preparation and mysticism became a special discipline, available only to a spiritual few. Three steps of preparation for a mystical experience have been identified as: Purgation - ridding the soul of unnecessary thoughts that prevent it from

paying attention. Often achieved as a result of prayer, fasting and meditation. Illumination - preliminary disclosures of God which focus attention. the Holy

Spirit is said to enlighten the person’s mind to enable them to understand truths about God.

Contemplation - the stage in which the presence of God penetrates the believer, who then feels a unity with the divine and may experience perfect love and goodness.

In the New Testament, there are references to apparent mystical experiences: ‘Jesus said: ‘I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us…’ – John 17: 20 ‘Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God.’ – 1 Cor. 6:19 Scholars have made many attempts to divine what goes on in a mystical experience. Paul Tillich in ‘Systematic Theology’ described two stages: an objective event or encounter, followed by a special understanding of that event as the result of ecstasy - a

special way of looking at the event which reveals its religious significance. Rudolph Otto said that, in mystical experiences, the individual was both attracted and repelled by a sense of awe and wonder. Simon Peter’s words to Jesus after the miraculous catch of fish express this paradox well: ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord’ (Luke 5:8). Douglas V. Steere in ‘Prayer and Worship’ observed: ‘The mystic’s witness to the accessibility of the living presence…in the hearts of contemporary men and women has been an enormous encouragement to the religious yearnings of men’.

36

For reflection: Are these viewpoints on mystical experiences convincing?

The work of William James William James in ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’ observed that mystical experience draws on the common store of emotions - happiness, fear, wonder - but is directed at something divine. The result of such an experience will be:

reverence a joyful desire to belong to God a renewed approach to life a sense of union with the divine a sense of dependence on God a sense of separateness from God time is transcended ‘noetic’ experiences - something is clearly revealed to the person

receiving the experience a sense of joy and well-being.

James attempted to use empirical scientific methods to study religious and mystical experiences. He discovered that such experiences drew on the common range of emotions, notably happiness, fear and wonder - but which were directed God. This gives the person an overwhelming and joyful desire to belong to God and a renewed approach to life. He said that there were two types of mystic experience:

‘theistic mysticism’ which involves an awareness of God

‘monistic mysticism’ that offers awareness of the soul, self and conscience.

He concluded that there were four common factors:

Ineffability – a state of feeling that ‘defies expression, that no adequate report

of its contents can be given in words.’ Noetic Quality – revelations of universal and eternal truths; ‘states of insight

into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect.’ Transiency – the experience is brief but profoundly important – ‘mystical

states cannot be sustained for long.’ Passivity – the person feels that they are taken over by a superior authority;

‘the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance…as if he were grasped and held by a superior power.’

37

William James acknowledged that not all claims to experiences were true because: ‘The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature…’ However, for the most part, he believed that these testimonies proved that something really had happened and that the person received an experience of something beyond themselves: ‘The results of religious experience are the only reliable basis for judging whether it is a genuine experience of the divine.’ He summarized what he called ‘the characteristics of the religious life’ as: The visible world is part of a more spiritual universe Union with that higher universe is the ultimate aim Prayer is the main method of achieving this Prayer aids the flow of spiritual energy Religion produces psychological characteristics including love of life,

earnestness and heroism. James believed that religion was about the personal: ‘Religion, occupying herself with personal destinies and keeping thus in contact with the only absolute realities which we know, must necessarily play an eternal part in human history.’ However, he admitted that mystical experiences are too subjective to be convincing proof of the existence of God for those who have not had such an experience. However, for those who have, mystical experiences are the most convincing proof of all: ‘The only thing that it unequivocally testifies to is that we can experience union with something larger than ourselves and in that union find our greatest peace.’

Seminar work: In what ways are James’ views both convincing and unconvincing?

Mysticism in practice - the experience of mystics St Teresa of Avila was a sixteenth century Catholic nun and mystic who, through times of great illness and physical distress, practiced meditation and contemplation. She experienced deep mystic states and claimed to have felt the presence of Jesus and, on one occasion, felt an angel pierce her heart repeatedly with a golden lance. She found it almost impossible to define her religious experience: ‘I wish I could give a description of at least the smallest part of what I learned, but, when I try to discover a way of doing so, I find it impossible…’

38

In ‘The Autobiography’ she taught of the way the soul passed through four stages to reach God: ‘devotion of the heart’ – through contemplation and contemplation on the

suffering of Christ. ‘devotion of peace’ – a state of inner quiet, coming from God. ‘devotion of union’ – a feeling of spiritual joy as the soul encounters union with

the love of God. ‘devotion of rapture’ – a trance-like state where the person has a great feeling

of light and ecstasy as the soul is absorbed into God’s power. The person feels that they have left their physical body behind as they encounter feelings love from pain to joy and the experience of union with God. It ends as the person returns in a state of weakness and tears of joy.

For reflection: Is St Teresa really having a mystical experience, or could there be another explanation?

Other Mystics

Meister Eckhart – a German theologian who, in ‘Theologica Germanica’ taught of the presence of God in the soul of every righteous person. He said of the need for people to seek God in their hearts and minds and to detach themselves from the problems of the world that: ‘…a man should be empty of self and all things: and should be reconstructed in the simple good that God is…he should consider the great aristocracy which God has set up in the soul, such that by means of it, man may wonderfully attain to God.’

St John of the Cross observed: ‘Human language is unable to express the sense of mystical union with God.’

Mother Julian of Norwich during a time of dire sickness said: ‘Our Lord showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazelnut, in the palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with the eye of my understanding, and thought: ‘What may this be?’ And it was answered generally thus: ‘It is all that is made’...In this Little Thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it, the second that God loveth it, the third that God keepeth it.’

Sufism is the inner, mystical aspect of Islam and Sufis believe that it is possible, through meditative and other techniques, to become close to God: ‘Adorn me with Thy Unity, clothe me with the Selfhood and raise me up to thy Oneness…’ (Abu Yazid in ‘Hindu and Muslim Mysticism.’)

Isaac Luria – a sixteenth century Jewish mystic who founded the modern-day Kabbalah. He experienced visions and dreams in which he believed God revealed mystic truths to him about the Hebrew Scriptures. After years of meditation, he claimed to have had visions and dreams whereby his soul entered heaven and he was taught the great secrets of the universe from

39

angels, prophets and deceased rabbis. He received mystic insights into the nature of creation, the human psyche and the cosmos.

Rumi - a 13th century Islamic mystic associated with Sufism. He taught of the possibility of divine union with God through meditation, dance and mystic practices and composed many volumes of poetry based on seeking spiritual union with God. His most important work, ‘Spiritual Cuplets’ spoke of reality and illusion and the chance to experience union with God. He said that poetry, music and dance were all paths to encounter God in a mystical way and he encouraged his followers to use these aspects intensely so that the soul was both ‘destroyed and resurrected’. He founded the Mevievi order of Sufis, who turned music into a sacred dance called the ‘Sema’ to help the soul to ascend through love into God. In this way, the mystic can turn towards the truth, abandons the sense of self, and finds the truth in God. The mystic then returns, wiser and more loving and able to serve the whole of creation.

Adi Shankara – a Hindu sage, born in 788CE, who spoke of unity between the human soul and God. He said that this could be done by reading the scriptures to gain knowledge of God and in this way to clear the mind and soul of wrongful thoughts and illusions. He advocated meditation as a way to gain enlightenment and he said that this was best achieved by concentration of the mind. He said that knowledge of God came from worshipping God and studying the words of the sacred scriptures – and that this was the best way to find God. In his work ‘Bhashyas’ he told his followers: ‘Everyone has the right to the knowledge of God and that the supreme goal is attained by that knowledge alone.’

Seminar work: Are these mystics really showing us how to encounter God? Are they genuinely having mystical experiences? Why/ why not?

Problems of objectivity and authenticity – challenges to mysticism Those opposed to mysticism argue that: it supposes a kind of spiritual elitism that suggests salvation comes through

attaining a mystical goal and not through Jesus’ work on the cross it is opposed to the institutions of the church and the sacraments it has no link with ethics because it was concerned with nothing other than a

pure sense of the holy. The problem with mystical experiences is that they are subjective and personal and not subject to objective testing. We cannot carry out a scientific experiment to determine whether the experiences are authentic. They are therefore ambiguous and can be interpreted in a wide variety of different ways.

Ludwig Wittgenstein talked about seeing-as: people mistake what they have seen or experienced.

40

R. M. Hare says a person’s interpretation of experience is clearly mistaken, but he continues to hold on to it. This is a blik - an unverifiable and unfalsifiable way of looking at the world.

if God does not exist, there can be no experience of him.

any religious experience may be open to a non-religious interpretation and if, as the logical positivists claimed, the notion of God is an impossible, meaningless notion, then he cannot be experienced.

the testimony of religious believers is especially questionable and cannot be counted as reliable evidence.

those who claim to have experienced God have some pre-existing religious belief, so their evidence is not unbiased.

mystical experiences may be the manifestation of psychological needs.

the emotions and sensations that accompany religious experience can be explained by biological or neurological factors.

Richard Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion’ claimed that there is no such thing as a religious or mystical experience – they were just expressions of a person’s psychological needs: ‘The argument from personal experience is the one that is the most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, especially anyone knowledgeable about psychology…. If we are gullible, we don’t recognize hallucinations or lucid dreaming for what it is and we claim to have seen or heard a ghost; or an angel; or God…such visions and manifestations are certainly not good grounds for believing that ghosts or angels, gods or virgins are actually there.’ Richard Dawkins claimed that testimonies of mystics are an illusion created by the mind to enable people to cope with their fear of the unknown: ‘If you’ve had such an experience, you may find yourself firmly believing that it was real. But don’t expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings.’

Seminar work: Which of the criticisms against mysticism are the most convincing? Why?

Those in favour of mystical experiences see things differently. Richard Swinburne argued that the sheer weight of testimony, from thousands of people through the ages who claimed to have encountered God is sufficient to prove the existence of God. In ‘The Existence of God’ he argued that: ‘An omnipotent and perfectly good creator will seek to interact with his creatures and, in particular, with human persons capable of knowing him’.

41

He suggests that God makes himself known through mystical experiences to enable humanity to bring about the good, and to intervene personally in the lives of individuals out of his love for them. Swinburne argues that, given so many millions of people claim to have had an experience of what seems to them to be God, it is a basic principle of rationality that we should believe them. This is what Swinburne calls the ‘principle of credulity’ - unless we have overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we should believe that things are as they seem to be: ‘How things seem to be is a good guide to how things are. If it seems… to a subject that X is present, then probably X is present’. Swinburne is claiming that, if we are told that someone has had experience X, then we should believe that experience X has taken place, even if someone else has had experience Y instead, or no experience at all. If we wait until we have uniform testimony and common interpretation of every experience, let alone just religious ones, we will end up doubting all our experiences. Davies agreed: ‘We certainly do make mistakes about reality because we fail to interpret our experience correctly; but if we do not work on the assumption that what seems to be so is sometimes so, then it is hard to see how we can establish anything at all…’ Swinburne goes further with the ‘principle of testimony’. We cannot constantly doubt people’s accounts of religious experiences any more than we doubt basic facts about the world that we have not directly experienced ourselves. He said: ‘In the absence of special considerations the experiences of others are (probably) as they report them.’ Swinburne identified three types of evidence that may well give us grounds for saying that a person’s experience is not as they report it:

The circumstances surrounding the person make their account unreliable - e.g. hallucinatory drugs.

We have particular evidence that things are not as they are reported - e.g. we know that the person was not in the place that he or she claimed to be during the experience.

There is evidence that the experience was not caused by God - e.g. the person who ‘experienced’ God had been fasting or had a fever.

Seminar work: To what extent is Swinburne’s view convincing?

42

Does mysticism have any value today? Scientific views: Scientist Michael Persinger constructed an electronic helmet which induces ‘mystical experiences’ by putting small electric signals and magnetic vibrations into the temporal lobes and front of the brain in the wearer – the part of the brain called the ‘Forty Hertz Component’. By suppressing this part of the brain, the sense of individuality is temporarily lost; the right and left temporal lobes feel separated from each other, with each part experiencing that there is ‘something there’ but not knowing what it is. Some who have worn the helmet claim to have had mystical experiences. Persinger however, did not believe that the experiences were from God – he claims that his research simply indicates that the testimonies that people have made over the centuries concerning religious experiences may be more easily explained as the brain being affected by adverse electrical or magnetic conditions. There may also be a medical explanation for mystical experiences. Doctors have discovered that some forms of temporal lobe epilepsy can lead to seizures in one or both of the temporal lobes. Under certain conditions, this can lead to the patient experiencing apparent religious and mystical phenomena.

For reflection: Does ‘Persinger’s Helmet’ show that mystical experiences are not from God?

Religious and Philosophical viewpoints If claims of mystical experiences are invalid because the notion of God is a

meaningless one, there must be evidence that counts decisively against the existence of God. However, Swinburne argues that ‘In so far as other evidence is ambiguous or counts against but not strongly against the existence of God, our experience (our own or that of many others) ought to tip the balance in favour of God’.

If mystical experiences have a decisive effect on the life of those who experience them, then they cannot be considered to be meaningless.

If it is possible to have any kind of experience of God, then it must be reasonable to assume that some experiences of God actually are experiences of him.

It is possible to test for the validity of a mystical experience by looking at the effects that it has on the person’s life, emotions and feelings associated with the experience.

What are the grounds for claiming that the testimony of religious believers is any less reliable than that of non-believers? We should not be surprised that mystical experiences are more likely to be experienced by religious believers. After all, they know what to look for and are more likely to recognise the experience when it arrives!

43

It is true that religious belief may satisfy many deep psychological, emotional and physical needs, but it does not follow from this that all religious experiences and behaviour can therefore only be explained in these terms.

In conclusion, Swinburne observes:

‘The only way to defeat the claims of religious experience will be to show that the strong balance of evidence is that there is no God. In the absence of that strong balance, religious experience provides significant further evidence that there is a God… I suggest that the overwhelming testimony of so many millions of people to occasional experiences of God must, in the absence of counter-evidence, be taken as tipping the balance of evidence decisively in favour of the existence of God.’

Written work: ‘There is no such thing as a genuine mystical experience.’ Assess this view.