Arguments for Theism

In spite of the objections to which the traditional form is open, the cosmological argument in a wider application has kept its power. In modern philosophy all those systems which employ the idea of an Absolute Reality arrive at the Absolute by some kind of cosmological argument. An important example of this is found in the Theistic philosophy of Hermann Lotze. The impos sibility of rendering intelligible the fact of "transeunt" causation (i.e., that change in one thing is the occasion of change in another thing), so long as we conceive the ultimate reality to consist of a collection of independent "reals" leads to the conception of an all embracing Absolute of which the particular things and their changes are modifications. Arguments of this type lead rather to an immanent Deity than to the transcendent God of Aristotle and Aquinas.

The cosmological argument has permanent value, though it has not the demonstrative force which was formerly attributed to it. It serves to substantiate the conclusion that "nature," what ever we may mean by that term, is not a self-explanatory system, and therefore to support the Theistic view as preferable on ra tional grounds to rival hypotheses. The form of the cosmological argument which begins with the apprehension of values, such as goodness and truth, has received little attention in the history of thought, but is one which has most positive weight for modern philosophy. Modern Theism would lay great stress on the con tention that the existence of goodness, beauty and truth in finite experience compels us to postulate an absolute Goodness, Beauty and Truth.

The Teleological Argument.

This argument, sometimes called "the argument from design," is rightly described by Kant as the most impressive, the most easily comprehended of the traditional "proofs." Like the cosmological argument it is a posteriori in character, since it starts with the observed facts of adaptation to ends in the natural world. As we have seen, however, when referring to Plato, the teleological argument may be based upon the more general consideration of the order of the universe. The purposive character of the events of the world was a common topic of Stoic philosophers in connection with their doctrine of Providence. Here again we may turn to Thomas Aquinas for a succinct statement of the argument in its common form. It is the fifth proof of the existence of God given by that philosopher —the proof from the gubernatio of things. "Some things which have no power of knowing, such as natural bodies, work for ends, as is manifest from their constantly, or at least frequently, work ing in the same way for the attainment of that which is best. . . .

Now such things as have no power of knowing do not tend towards an end unless they are directed by some being which has knowledge and intelligence." (Summa Theologica, Pt. I. Quaest. ii. art. 3.) It will be noticed that there are two elements in this argument (a) the observation of "working for ends"; (b) the inference from this to a directing Intelligence.

The evidence for working for ends or the adaptation to pur poses on which stress is laid has varied ; at times the main empha sis has been on general adaptation of the Universe to the existence and well-being of men or, more abstractly, to the production of values ; at other times the argument has turned chiefly upon spe cial instances of apparent design as, e.g., the human eye. The latter type of reasoning was prominent among the rationalist Theologians of the i8th and 19th centuries. Paley's Natural Theology, with its famous analogy between the eye and a watch, is a familiar example of this kind of presentation.

Before proceeding to a discussion of the present position of the teleological argument it will be well to note the objections and limitations which arise on a consideration of the argument itself. These again have been clearly stated by Kant. It is obvious that the argument by itself is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of God. Even if it be admitted that there are evidences of de sign, it does not follow that they are due to one Mind. The facts.

might be explained on the hypothesis of several intelligences. It is only when we have reached the conclusion on other grounds that the Source of Being is one, that the teleological argument may tend to show that Source to be intelligent. The argument again, tends to suggest an analogy with the carpenter or sculptor who makes the best of his material and thus to lead to the con ception of God as the Architect of the Universe working upon alien material. It may be alleged further, that the argument is based upon purely subjective estimates, and implies an absurdly anthropocentric conception of the universe. It cannot be denied that the teleological conception has frequently been carried to ridiculous extremes, and attempts have been made to show that this is the "best of all possible worlds" in the sense that all its features minister to human convenience ; but these extremes are no necessary part of the argument, and it may be observed that Kant himself, in the Critique of Judgement, allowed that the teleological judgment is necessary and inevitable in dealing with living beings and the appreciation of the beautiful.