In this literary work, Hart discusses the unique problems found only in the question of God's existence. He harshly criticizes the notions of atheism and the forms in which they come such as 'naturalism'. Specifically, he criticizes their exclusive focus of what is tangible or worldly. He argues that in the quest for naturalism, there is nothing to explain the existence of naturalism in the world, and thus if that explanation does not exist inside naturalism, it must then exist outside of naturalism. The definition of naturalism, as defined by Google is, "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or dismissed." With this in mind, someone who claims naturalism does not take into account how the things that exist naturally in our world, came from something outside of what naturally occurs on earth. He outlines that a possible primary issue that atheists have is their understanding and definition of "God". "God", as defined with atheist principles, deems God as the source of all things, a creator. And in the polytheistic sense of a "god" which indicates there is multiple "gods", this is not to which Hart refers. He is speaking on the "one source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things, and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things" (30). Hart focuses on these aspects of God, rather than His role because as God, He transcends more than just the mere title of a creator. "Yet the most pervasive error one counters in contemporary arguments about belief in God.. is the habit of conceiving God simply as some very large object or agency within the universe, or perhaps alongside the universe, a being among other beings... who is related to the world more or less as a craftsman is related to an artifact" (32). The existence of God cannot be defined the same way that applies to the existence of unicorns or as Hart says, "faries". There is no reasoning or surrounding proof to invest into the existence of unicorns/fairies as there is in God. By seeking this same method to disprove God's existence, the argument becomes invalid because God transcends our realm of understanding to even point to the notion of "proving" His existence in such a way. Hart also argues that the manner in which to "sense" God is not met with the physical human senses. Rather, it is met through Truth, Consciousness, and Bliss. All of which cannot be accounted for through the philosophical viewpoint of naturalism.
Udayana states that there are seven ways to prove that God is in existence; effects, atomic combination, suspension, human skills, authoritative knowledge, Revelation, and atoms. He also calls Him the "all-knowing, imperishable God." He is imperishable God because he is the only one who could create atoms because humans are not able to. Also, humans can not break atoms or destroy them and he is stating that the only person that can do that is God because he created atoms. He mentions the difference between the cause and effect to validate if there is a God. He brings up the argument that "Things like the earth must have a cause, because they are produced by a body (101)." Some deity had to have made the earth for their pleasure. He also relies on objections to prove that God is real. Udayana does bring up good ideas to prove that God is real. The best argument to me is that he created atoms. Humans are unable to destroy atoms or to create them; so they had to be...
3 points that I really admire Hart taking into account: Truth, Consciousness, and Bliss. These are all points you bring up in your post at the best time too, because I feel that these senses are not physical, but emotional, spiritual and psychological. I really like your post!
ReplyDelete