Info

In a case where only circumstantial evidence is attainable, many lines of proof sometimes converge, and though no one of the lines reaches the mark, the conclusion to which they all point becomes the only rational one. To doubt that there is a London, or that there was a Napoleon, would indicate insanity; yet London and Napoleon are proved by only probable evidence. There is no constraining efficacy in the arguments for God?s existence; but the same can be said of all reasoning that is not demonstrative. Another interpretation of the facts is possible, but no other conclusion is so satisfactory, as that God is; see Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 129. Prof. Rogers: ?If in practical affairs we were to hesitate to act until we had absolute and demonstrative certainty, we should never begin to move at all.? For this reason an old Indian official advised a young Indian judge ?always to give his verdict, but always to avoid giving the grounds of it.?

Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 11-14 ? ?Instead of doubting everything that can be doubted, let us rather doubt nothing until we are compelled to doubt...In society we get on better by assuming that men are truthful, and by doubting only for Special reasons, than we should if we assumed that all men are liars, and believed them only when compelled. So in all our Investigations we make more progress If we assume the truthfulness of the universe and of our own nature than we should If we doubted both...The first method seems the more rigorous, but it can be applied only to mathematics, which is a purely subjective science. When we come to deal with reality, the method brings thought to a standstill...The law the logician lays down is this: Nothing may be believed which is not proved. The law the mind actually follows is this: Whatever the mind demands for the satisfaction of its subjective interests and tendencies may be assumed as real, in default of positive disproof.?

Remark 2. A consideration of these arguments may also serve to explicate the contents of an intuition, which has remained obscure and only half conscious for lack of reflection. The arguments, indeed, are the efforts of the mind that already has a conviction of God?s existence to give to itself a formal account of its belief. An exact estimate of their logical value and of their relation to the intuition, which they seek to express in syllogistic form, is essential to any proper refutation of the prevalent atheistic and pantheistic reasoning.

Diman, Theistic Argument, 363 ? ?Nor have I claimed that the existence, even, of this Being can be demonstrated as we demonstrate the abstract truths of science. I have only claimed that the universe, as a great

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment