This volume explores western conceptions of the nature of god or "God", from the point of view of a number of religions and attempts to prove the existence of the deity. The volume is not yet in print, but print-outs may be had at this web site for the price of $12.00, plus the costs of shipping and handling..
The following excerpts include introductory quotations, the table of contents, and the introductory chapter.
THE ENIGMA OF GOD
Wisdom and Spirit of the Universe!
Thou Soul that art the eternity of thought,
That givest to forms and images a breath
And everlasting motion, not in vain
By day and star-light thus from my first dawn
Of childhood didst thou intertwine for me
The passions that build up our human soul;
Not with the mean and vulgar works of man,
But with high objects, with enduring things--
With life and nature.
William Wordsworth
The Prelude
What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!
Edward Fitzgerald translated from
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam of Naishapur
"Come hither, my boy, tell me what thou seest there?"
"A fool tangled in a religious snare."
William Blake
Lacedemonian Instruction
****************************
To my beloved wife
Wilda
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction page 3
2. Many Gods-- Animism and Polytheism page 7
3. The God of the Philosophers page 14
4. The God of the Hebrews page 20
5. The God of the Christians page 32
6. The God of the Muslims page 40
7. A Definition of God page 46
8. Proofs of the Existence of God page 58
9. Mystical Experience as Proof page 70
10. God and the Scientific Revolution page 80
11. The Death and Resurrection of God page 93
12. Bibliography page 108
13. Chronology page 110
ENIGMA OF GOD
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
All talk about God staggers under impossible difficulties.
Karen Armstrong The History of God
Any idea about God, when pursued to its extreme, becomes insanity.
Stephen Mitchell The Book of Job
An enigma is a puzzle which begs to unravelled. God is--what? Surely no greater enigma has
confronted thoughtful human beings since they first began to ponder the nature of life, of death, of the
world, of the universe. Immersed in the daily round of getting a living, paying the bills, and dealing with
family and community, humans waste little time on such questions. It is only when they have moments of
leisure that they indulge in that peculiarly human activity of wondering about the purpose of life. And
over the centuries they have commonly proposed, as an answer to this eternal question, the existence of
a divine being who created the world and everything within it.
I do not intend in this essay to break any new ground in the ageless human struggle to resolve the
question of the nature of god. My purpose is simply that of rounding up the various conceptions,
definitions and proofs of the existence of god in a way which will make sense to interested lay men and
women, and which will not rouse too many hackles with philosophers and theologians who have spent
lives in investigating the subject.
I do not think that I will be able to avoid raising the hackles of those who are devoutly religious, and
who have embraced a conception of god which is central to their lives. Such folk may have too much
invested, intellectually and emotionally, in their particular system of belief, and may not take kindly to
any attempts to investigate its validity. For, if such attempts turn out to cast doubt upon a conception
which is central to their sense of purpose and well being, they may feel very badly indeed. I have no
desire to make anyone feel badly, and so would recommend that what follows be avoided by those
who feel that discussion about the nature of God might harm a firmly held conviction which they cherish
and which makes them feel secure.
At this point, it is useful to raise a fundamental philosophical caution about the pursuit of truth; that is, if
you really are interested in trying to get as close as is humanly possible to the truth about any question,
you ought to look with special suspicion upon an answer which appeals to you-- since you
presumably wish to avoid embracing such an answer because it appeals to you, rather than
because it is true. I shall term this notion the Principle of Suspicion, and I confess that Aristotle first
made the point when he suggested that, when pleasure is at the bar, the verdict is suspect. The principle
does not, of course, mean that conclusions which are emotionally satisfying are necessarily false; only
that you should make special efforts to check them against alternative explanations which you don't find
so emotionally satisfying.
Of course there have been philosophers, commonly called pragmatists, who claimed that, if a belief is
emotionally satisfying, and if it assists one in living a successful and productive life, then it is true. Some
have indeed claimed that a belief in god is necessary if a person is to live a good and happy life, and
that, as Voltaire breezily suggested, "If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent
one." But I shall assume that those who choose to read this essay are more interested in trying to get as
close to the truth as possible, than they are in espousing comforting theories which may be false.
Now it is manifest that a great many folk in cultures past and present have derived a good deal of
comfort in time of trouble, and joy in moments of quiet contemplation, from a belief in God. Indeed, a
belief in a supreme deity, who will punish sinners and reward the faithful, has been a source of great
satisfaction throughout the ages. It is true that some theologians have argued that, on the contrary, many
people would be happier if they were not convinced of the existence of a just god who punishes
sinners, since many people are sinners, and do not look forward to being punished. I doubt this, since it
seems to me that most sinners believe in a God who is not only just but merciful, and they cherish the
conviction that their sins are by no means as dire or unforgivable as those of their neighbours.
I take it that, as a general rule, a theist (1), that is one who believes that god exists, will be placed in
greater emotional jeopardy by an essay which purports to objectively investigate the enigma of god than
will an atheist, who believes that god does not exist. My own position can best be described as that of
a sceptic; that is, as one who is sceptical, or inclined to suspend judgement on both these beliefs, on
the grounds that all the evidence is not yet in; hence a sceptic is one who proposes to continue to seek
for evidence until he is convinced one way or the other. I am therefore in the fortunate (or unfortunate)
position of having no emotional stake in the discussion, and can devote myself to seeking the truth. Of
course, if I do finally find I can support a particular position, I shall have to be careful that I do not
choose it just because it satisfies me, and I shall have to be prepared to set it aside if further evidence
shows it to be unsound. To the sceptic, all claims of knowledge or belief are to be held tentatively.(2)
Voltaire also remarked that, before a successful discussion could take place, we must define our terms. I shall provide, at least initially, a very general definition of our central concept. I take it that, for most people, the term 'God' refers to an entity which is not part of the physical world, although it certainly has a profound effect upon it. Since this entity--call it a being, a force, a power, a source or a will--exists above and beyond the physical world, we describe it as metaphysical, or transcendent, or supernatural. We may add that this metaphysical being has created the physical world and has laid down the laws which govern it. There are a good many more attributes of god which various believers will wish to add, but this definition of the deity as a non-physical entity, with power to influence the physical world, will do until we can consider these different points of view more carefully.
Thus arises the notion that there are two forms of existence: the physical or natural world that we
experience through our physical senses, which provide information to our physical brain-- and a
metaphysical(3) world, which we experience through some non-physical means--call it intuition,
conscience, divine inspiration, or revelation--means which are rooted in a non-physical part of our
being, normally called mind or soul. Neither god, nor mind, nor soul, nor spirit can be located in space
or time. Thus we have indirect experience of god through its effects on our physical world, and we may
have direct experience through our minds or souls. I shall refer to those who endorse this two-world
theory as 'idealists', an ancient philosophical label which is generally applied to people who believe
that ultimate reality lies in the metaphysical rather than the physical world.
I should add that many sceptics are highly sceptical about the very existence of any metaphysical
dimension, and claim that anything which happens to human beings can just as easily be explained solely
by reference to the physical dimension. Some argue that belief in the metaphysical form of existence is
based upon sheer superstition; that is, upon a delusion which explains natural events by reference to
supernatural powers. which do not exist. Those who endorse this one-world theory are commonly
called materialists, since they feel that the only thing that exists is matter (and energy, since Einstein
has assured us that the two are ultimately the same). Or they may be called reductionists, a title which
indicates that they endeavour to reduce all human experience to physical behaviour, stripping away
what they regard as superstitious nonsense--soul, mind, spirit, will--and god.
The problem which confronts materialists and reductionists is that they can never prove that something
does not exist. All they can do is demand evidence that it does. For example, I may believe sincerely
that sasquatch and ghosts do not exist, but I can offer no proof they do not. All I can say is that I lack
evidence that they do. And if someone produces a live sasquatch, or puts me in the position of having
an authentic experience with a ghostly presence, I shall have to abandon at least some of my scepticism,
although I may still mutter about alternative explanations such as hallucinations. So while the reductionist
can offer no conclusive evidence that the world of the spirit does not exist, the onus is upon the theist to
offer evidence that it does, and to show that it provides a more successful explanation of human
experience than any other.
I apologize for introducing all these labels--theist, atheist, sceptic, idealist and materialist--but they will
provide a kind of shorthand which is useful in simplifying the discussions to follow. And what follows is
an attempt to present the position of each in the way in which he or she would be prepared to accept,
so that the reader can choose between them and come to a (tentative) conclusion about the nature and
existence of god.
Or of 'God'. In a treatise such as this, problems arise as to how I should treat this word. Should it be
capitalized to indicate due respect for its crucial importance? Should a pronoun referring to the deity be
male, female or neuter? In order to avoid total inconsistency, I propose to use capitals and the male
pronoun when referring to the deity of the so-called people of the book; that is, to those of the Hebrew,
Christian and Muslim faiths who commonly conceive of the deity as male, and who consider a capital
an appropriate mark of respect to Him. But when considering deity in general I shall try to avoid
pronouns and capitals, although force of habit may at times corrupt this manuscript.
Return to List of Books
Last Updated December 27, 2003 by M. Burbidge
1. The terms 'theist' and 'deist' are commonly used as synonyms, but if one wishes to be precise, it is probably useful to define a theist as one who bases a belief in god upon revelation or direct experience, while a deist is said to base such a belief upon reason, or upon proofs derived by deductive and inductive logic.
2. There is a fourth view, that of the agnostic, who insists that humans can never know whether God exists or not. Sceptics are no more attracted to this rather dogmatic point of view than to the others.
3. Scholars tell us that the word 'metaphysics' was coined by one of Aristotle's students who was editing and arranging his master's written work. He had just finished editing the book he called 'The Physics' and so the next was called 'The Metaphysics', meaning after the Physics. Most people nowadays use the word to describe a study of things above or beyond the physical.