As I've discussed here, famous skeptic, hero of many atheists and empiricist philosopher David Hume was a theist (of a moderate type).
According to Hume:
According to Hume:
The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquierer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion... Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .All the things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughtout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author" (The Natural History of Religion, p. 21, 26).
Hume is posing such argument, fisrt against atheism ("no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine theism and religion"), and then against polytheism ("Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being").
Basically, Hume is saying that both atheism and polytheism are irrational in the light of the works of nature and keep in mind that Hume wrote this in a time in which it was unknown that the universe is fine-tuned for life and, above all, began to exist in a Big Bang. (What would have Hume thought of contemporary atheists like Quentin Smith who, faced with the absolute beginning of the universe, have concluded that the "most reasonable" view is to think that we came from nothing, for nothing and by nothing?)
Another hard-core empiricist philosopher and very influential modern thinker, Francis Bacon, also was a theist. One of the major contentions of Bacon (as you can read below in his full essay on atheism) is that atheism is focused in secondary causes alone, but it is incapable of explaining the whole causal chain, which is simply taken for granted as a brute fact.
This is why Bacon famously said "a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion", because only a superficial assesment of the empirical evidence (=secondary causes) will tend to make you prone to think that only such causes exist. But depth philosophy will push you into the inquiry for the explanation of the whole causal chain and intelligent organization of the whole universe, until you get some kind of first cause or necessary (and hence eternal) being which is the ultimate being and ground of reality. (This is why so many atheists are obsessed with empirical evidence alone, but don't question the more fundamental question of existence itself, which atheists tend to take for granted as a brute and unexplainable fact. This fact becomes more devastating for the plausibility of atheism when it was discoveried that the universe as a whole has a beginning and hence it is contingent, not a necessary self-existing eternal being...).
Bacon's insights also include reference to the psychological need of many atheists to receive the consent of others, which suggest a kind of internal insecurity about atheism (this could explain why some of them tend to be so militant, agressive, intolerant in the defense of their worldview, even creating an "organized skepticism" to debunk topics like parapsychology. Their proposal is not motivated by a constructive project, like a promise of spiritual salvation for others or commitment to the solution of social problems like poverty, misogyny, rape, violence, child abuse, low self-esteem, existential problems, etc., but an extremely agressive and almost obsessive fight stance against religion, spirituality, parapsychology, etc.).
Another insight of Bacon is that many atheists actually impugn a particular religion (historically, mainly Christianity), and having rejected a particular religion, they become atheists (which is a fallacious inference, since the falsehood of a particular religion does not imply God's nonexistence). Suppose for the argument's sake that Christianity is false: How exactly this proves God's non-existence? At most, it proves that the Christian conception of God is not true, not that God doesn't exist.
Another of Bacon's insight is how the existence or non-existence of God affects man's nature and instrinsic value. (For readers familiar with philosophy, I suggest that this argument must be better understood as a counterfactual claim: IF God doesn't exist, then man is... or If God exists, then man is... Amazingly, some philosophers don't understand the counterfactual nature of this argument, see for example my brief discussion on counteractuals and how a professional atheist philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong consistently misunderstood William Lane Craig's counterfactual formulation of the moral argument in their debate).
Let's read Bacon's essay by ourselves and try to think hard about his multiple insights in this short essay (I've stressed in blue some of these insights):
ON ATHEISM
Francis Bacon
I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty, without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it.
For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them, that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think, that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves? Epicurus is charged, that he did but dissemble for his credit’s sake, when he affirmed there were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves, without having respect to the government of the world. Wherein they say he did temporize; though in secret, he thought there was no God. But certainly he is traduced; for his words are noble and divine: Non deos vulgi negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones diis applicare profanum. Plato could have said no more. And although he had the confidence, to deny the administration, he had not the power, to deny the nature. The Indians of the West, have names for their particular gods, though they have no name for God: as if the heathens should have had the names Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, etc., but not the word Deus; which shows that even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the latitude and extent of it. So that against atheists, the very savages take part, with the very subtlest philosophers.
The contemplative atheist is rare: a Diagoras, a Bion, a Lucian perhaps, and some others; and yet they seem to be more than they are; for that all that impugn a received religion, or superstition, are by the adverse part branded with the name of atheists. But the great atheists, indeed are hypocrites; which are ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must needs be cauterized in the end. The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division, addeth zeal to both sides; but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests; when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith, non est jam dicere, ut populus sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus ut sacerdos. A third is, custom of profane scoffing in holy matters; which doth, by little and little, deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion.
They that deny a God, destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on, when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a God, or melior natura; which courage is manifestly such, as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and assureth himself, upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself, above human frailty. As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations. Never was there such a state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith: Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus.
0 comments:
Post a Comment