(a) It cannot prove a creator of the material universe.

(b) It cannot prove the infinity of God, since man from whom we argue is finite.

(c) It cannot prove the mercy of God. But,

B. The value of the Argument is that it assures us of the existence of a personal Being, who rules us in righteousness, and who is the proper object of supreme affection and service. But whether this Being is the original creator of all things, or merely the author of our own existence, whether he is infinite or finite, whether he is a Being of simple righteousness or also of mercy, this argument cannot assure us.

Among the arguments for the existence of God, however, we assign to this the chief place, since it adds to the ideas of causative power (which we derived from the Cosmological Argument) and of contriving intelligence (which we derived from the Teleological Armament), the far wider ideas of personality and righteous lordship.

Sir Wm. Hamilton, Works of Reid, 2:974, note U; Lect. on Metaph., I:33 ? ?The only valid arguments for the existence of God and for the immortality of the soul rest upon the ground of man?s moral nature?; ?theology is wholly dependent upon psychology, for with the proof of the moral nature of man stands or falls the proof of the existence of a Deity.? But Diman, Theistic Argument, 244, very properly objects to making this argument from the nature of man the sole proof of Deity: ?It should be rather used to show the attributes of the Being whose existence has been already proved from other sources?; ?hence the Anthropological Argument is as dependent upon the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments as they are upon it.?

Yet the Anthropological Argument is needed to supplement the conclusions of the two others. Those who, like Herbert Spencer, recognize an infinite and absolute Being, Power and Cause, may yet fail to recognize this being as spiritual and personal, simply because they do not recognize themselves as spiritual and personal beings, that is, do not recognize reason, conscience and free-will in man. Agnosticism in philosophy involves agnosticism in religion. H.K. Eccles: ?All the most advanced languages capitalize the word ?God,? and the word I.?? See Flint, Theism, 68; Mill, Criticism of Hamilton, 2:266; Dove, Logic of Christian Faith, 211-236, 261-299; Martineau, Types, Introduction, 3; Cooke, Religion and Chemistry: ?God is love; but nature could not prove

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment