The God of the Philosophers
Reason, by itself, cannot encompass all Christian teaching. There are things known about God that can be known only if God reveals them to Man. But the basics about God, those points on which Christian and Deist would agree, are open to philosophic reasoning.
One odd heresy, more popular during the generation of the Founding Fathers than now, is called Deism.
This is the belief that God can be read in the book of nature more truly than in the books of the Bible.
The Deist says that the God which unaided philosophical reasoning deduces from examining the order and wonder of nature is sufficient to prove the basics of monotheism.
The Roman Catholic Church holds, as a matter of sacred teaching, that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason: but most men will not follow such a strait and narrow path of reasoning to its logical conclusion, out of dislike for where it leads.
But Deist and Papist agree on the role of reason here.
That being so, it may be entertaining or edifying, at least for dispelling the notion some atheists fondly repeat, that belief in monotheism is unreasonable. To the contrary, reason proves monotheism is self-evident, and atheism absurd.
Let us examine the Deist argument.
It is based on three axioms:
First, it is based on the axiom that nothing comes from nothing.
That is, no event comes to pass without a cause sufficient to give rise to it, both as a whole and in its properties. Any emergent properties not obvious in the cause must exist in the cause, at least in potential. Hence, ducks can arise from duck-eggs, but not from acorns.
Likewise, no event is aimed at a goal which has no goal, that is, a final cause must also be sufficient to prompt the act aimed at it. A suitor might die for love, but not die for love of a hamburger. Such a man would more rightly be called a glutton, not a suitor.
Second, the argument takes it as a given that the cosmos exists, and is as it appears to be: a world of change and decay, where time passes, and things give rise to other things. Stars turn, heavenly bodies rise and fall, winds blow, tides ebb and flow, flame burns, acorns become oaks, ducks lay eggs that hatch into ducks, and so on.
Third, the argument distinguishes between what is true under all conditions with what could have been otherwise had conditions been different. Let us define as necessary that which must exist independently, that is, regardless of origin or end. Let us define contingent as that which exists dependently, that is, it depends upon and is defined by some prior or higher principle, either by the prior circumstances leading up to it, or by the form and matter that defines it, or it is defined by the purpose it serves.
Let us define God as “I am who am” or, in other words, a being that necessarily exists. Whatever necessarily exists cannot be non-existent: the existent exists.
This definition is ironic, because it seems to make an ontological argument. Strictly speaking, it does not. A necessary being is defined as a being who necessarily exists; but we have not yet established whether anything actually exists that fits this definition. Let us turn to that point first.
If there is a necessary being, it necessarily exists. But is there any being who is a necessary being?
Any given event in the universe is contingent. By definition, a contingent event is one which depends either on its origin, or on its end, or both, to define it, give it shape and purpose, or bring it into being.
With physical events, generally, it is often more helpful to discover the prior physical event which caused it in order to understand the event.
Example: If we see a caboose on the tail of the train of cars rolling along at thirty miles an hour, not sixty nor fifteen, this is because each previous traincar moves at this speed, and each car communicates the speed at which it is pulled to the car behind which it pulls. And the first car, the engine, is unlike the other cars as it moves under its own power, and its speed imparts the speed at which the caboose travels.
To investigate the causes of the speed of the train beyond that, we must look not only at the physical properties of the engine, but at the mental properties of the engineer, the railroad company, and the shippers hiring that company, to discover not only what each man is doing but why.
Knowing the speed of the engine will not tell us what cargo is being hauled where or when. To learn this, we must consult the train schedule and cargo manifests. To learn why the shipper, let us say a coal magnate, hired this train to ship his goods, or what he hoped to profit by this, we must ask the coal magnate and learn his mind.
He will have several means and goals intermediate to his final end: if he ships coal to heat houses to benefit customers to earn wealth, to use that wealth to purchase benefits for himself and his family, because the coal magnate wishes for his loved ones to live a richer, happier, and better life than otherwise, we can identify an ultimate end which drives and defines the intermediate goals.
When the available means cannot serve two ends that are mutually exclusive, one must be prioritized over the other. The standard of prioritization is called a principle.
If our coal magnate is willing to sacrifice his wealth for the sake of his wife, or leave his wife to serve his flag, or trample his flag to serve the cross, because the cross represents the ultimate good, then the coal magnate puts Christ before king, king before wife, wife before gold.
And he seeks the good as the good for the sake of the good: there can be no good higher than the ultimate good, which is as an unmoved mover setting in motion all the ends and means and actions of man.
The question of whether his priorities are rightly ordered is a question of morality. The question of whether the means are fit to the ends sought is a question of prudence.
But there cannot be an infinitely long chain of causes nor an infinitely high hierarchy of principles, for the same reason a caboose traveling at thirty miles an hour cannot have an infinite chain of traincars ahead of it. Somewhere, eventually, must be an engine: or otherwise there is nothing to set the speed at what it is.
Therefore, there must be a first cause and a final end ultimately causing and defining all the contingent realities in the universe, which is itself not dependent upon nor defined by any prior event nor higher purpose.
Because the contingent universe exists, a necessary being that is the first cause and final end of that universe necessarily must exist.
Hence, we have proven that a necessary being necessarily exists. The necessary being is a reality.
Logically, this reality would be a supreme reality, a supreme being, because it is unchanging (having no prior cause) and unsurpassed (as defined by no higher principle nor serving any higher purpose).
Other qualities or properties of this supreme reality could be deduced from the properties and qualities of the universe springing from it.
With no prior cause, the First Cause must exist from eternity unto eternity, which is impossible inside the cosmos, therefore this First Cause is transcendent and timeless.
Timeless, this First Cause must act of itself by itself, which means the First Cause acts by volition. Therefore, the act of causing and sustaining the universe and all things in it is a volitional act.
This means the First Cause is a person, an actor, a being who wills ends — hence he is a “He” and not an “It.”
The First Cause is an volitional being and the Supreme Being, and the universe was created and sustained by His will. The only other option is fatalism, which requires that nothing in the universe has meaning.
If the cosmos is rational, the Creator of the cosmos is rational, since reason cannot come from nonreason. The only other option is irrationalism, the proposal that nothing in the universe makes sense.
If life is meaningful, the cause of life cannot be meaningless, since meaning cannot arise from nonsense. The Supreme Being is the ultimate meaning, which is love, for love gives meaning to life. The only other option is nihilism.
Hence, this Supreme Being can rightly be called God, for God is Love.
If the Supreme Being is the highest principle, then He is the ultimate good and the source of all good, since evil cannot bring forth good.
Likewise, He is ultimate legislator of morality, since He is the source of moral reality, and morals cannot come from immoral.
If so, He has an undisputable authority and claim on our loyalty, and on the loyalty of every rational being, for the author of universal legislation is sovereign. Otherwise, no sovereignty exists, only the power to compel, which is anarchy.
Hence the Supreme Being can rightly be called King and Lord.
Evil and immorality are defective or corrupted forms of good and moral, not substances in and of themselves. The only other option is relativism, utilitarianism, or some other form antinomianism, that is, the belief that morals are arbitrary.
A parallel argument on this point: We are volitional beings. Volition cannot arise from non-volition, therefore our source and creator is likewise a volitional being. The only other option is determinism, which requires that no human acts have meaning.
If all things are created and sustained by His will, by definition He cannot lack knowledge of what he himself wills. Likewise, if all things are created and sustained by his will, He has power over all things. Hence He is omniscient and omnipotent.
If omnipotent and omniscient, He is One, since a division of beings would preclude this. If not, the only other option is polytheism.
But polytheism precludes omnipotence. There can be such a thing as two or more very powerful beings; but there cannot be two all-powerful beings.
Hence, the Supreme Being can be called the All-Mighty.
If all things are created and sustained by His will, any beauty in nature is deliberate, that is, a work of art. If not, the only other option is subjectivism, which requires that beauty be an illusion, merely an expression of personal preference and taste, or deception of nerves and glands with no reality, no meaning.
Hence, the Supreme Being can also be called the Creator, as a poet is called a creator, for creation displays his creative talent.
Purely from first principles, then, logic deduces the basics of monotheism: one first cause, lord and king, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, the creator and sustainer of the world.
The only question open is whether or not the universe is rational, beauty exists, and life is meaningful.
This question answers itself. Arguments showing that fatalism, irrationalism, and nihilism refute themselves and defeat themselves are easy enough to construct. Each involves a blatant self contradiction, as when a nihilist says it is true that there is no truth.
Refuting the claims of anarchy, antinomianism, determinism, subjectivism are more difficult arguments to make, but wisdom will refute them even if pure reason is silent.
Polytheism need not be refuted because it makes no claims as to ultimate causes and final ends. In classical myths, all things arose from chaos, by mere happenstance. In Norse myths, the whirling clash of fire and frost gave rise to a cosmic cow who licked the primordial man into being out of ice. Other stories from other lands are likewise: they do not even attempt to give an ultimate explanation.
In Eastern belief, the gods are trapped in the endless wheel of reincarnation along with all other beings, great and small, and the wheel of time has neither end nor point. Confucius wisely opines that knowing the origin of the universe is impossible, for no eyewitness remains who saw it; Lao Tzu speaks of a Way of Nature, but offers only silent reconciliation to it, not an explanation.
I offer this example as proof that the kind of evidence available to any honest inquiry to prove that monotheism is true, and that God exists, is transcendent and eternal, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, as well as rational, righteous, supremely sovereign and supremely beautiful.
It does not prove all the mysteries heaven through the revelations of prophets or the words of Christ have revealed about the God of Abraham. Reason only goes so far.
But the limited picture of God revealed by the Deist Argument is sufficient to prove that the Supreme Being, being benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, could not fail to reveal His nature to man due to lack of motive, power, or forethought. This does not prove that He has done so, nor that any given prophet claiming to speak in His name and performing His miracles makes a truthful claim.
The Deist argument is sufficient to tell the human heart that Revelation is both possible and likely.
With picking among the particular claims of particular peoples, history and prehistory strongly suggest that such a revelation must have been made in every generation even to tribes isolated from each other.
Please note that there is no culture, no people, no kingdom, no tribe, and no person who is naturally and innocently atheist. All atheists are men who knew about the idea of a god or gods, and rejected the idea.
The make-believe of pretending one has never heard of God before, and so one asks an apologist to produce the arguments showing God exists from a blank slate, is a philosophical conceit, a legal fiction, a hypothetical.
Even the ancient atheists who disbelieved in the classical gods were rejecting a belief they had. They were not men raised by wolves in the wilderness, where no notion of divine things was found, no sound of prayer, no sight of altar. And ancient sages called atheistic, such as Epicurus or Lucretius, did not believe in nothing, as modern atheists do, merely that the gods were more indifferent or remote than the anthropomorphic conceptions of the common man of their day.
If theism is a self-evident truth, then one would expect even isolated tribes of savages with no contact with civilized man to have religious beliefs and practices, even if those beliefs are primitive and unrefined. But if theism is a mere human invention like writing, one would expect it to be invented in different places and at different times, and to have no elements in common, as alphabets have nothing in common with ideograms or hieroglyphs; and one would expect to find illiterate tribes or illiterate civilizations, where writing has not yet been invented.
The atheist worldview denies that theism is self evident, and holds it to be a human invention. This model should predict the discovery of as many atheist tribes and civilizations as there are illiterate.
But there are none. Not one. Even in nation-states in the Communist bloc, where theism is forbidden by law, it is still found. And such nations rejected the religious beliefs and practices which, until recently, they held.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
