Opposing Views on Existence of God
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Anthony Flew and Paul Tillich have diametrically opposed views about the existence of God. Flew's brand of atheism has been characterized as a prime example of British positivistic naturalism, whereas Tillich's defense of theism can only be considered in the context of existential theology. The premises and structures of their arguments are so divergent that any discussion of them can at best be likened to a comparison of apples and oranges. That, however, will not deter us from attempting to explore the differences between Flew and Tillich, with special attention to the theological, logical, and symbolic aspects of their arguments. Flew's argument is based on the premise that the universe is all that there is and that everything must therefore be explained by reference to the laws which seem to order it. Naturalism, by definition, has its foundation in empirical science; it presumes that the material world is understandable primarily through the experimental method. Flew expresses his own style of naturalism through the principle that he calls the "Stratoconian Presumption," named after the Greek philosopher Strato who first formulated it. Flew's version of the Stratoconian Presumption is as follows: "The presumption, defeasible by adverse argument, must be that all qualities observed in things are qualities belonging by natural right to those things themselves; and hence that whatever characteristics we think ourselves able to discern in the universe as a whole are
. . .
maintains that it is merely evasive to say that God's love for man is inscrutable and that we, as humans, simply cannot understand His reasons for allowing evil to exist and even to flourish. He concludes that "the whole notion of an omnipotent creator God is logically vicious," and that it is much more forthright for us to accept that God just doesn't exist than it is to try and tortuously explain why God doesn't love us (Thomas, 1970, p. 246).
Flew also complains that theists seem to assume that the existence of God is somehow "intuitively evident" or self-explanatory in a way that the existence of a self-sufficient universe exhibiting certain fundamental laws is not. He doesn't see why God should be considered a more intelligible explanation for life than the laws of physics (Hick, 1971, p. 46).
Indeed, Paul Tillich is certainly guilty of assuming the self-evidence of God. He seems to start with a sort of phenomenological conviction that there is a God, and then goes on to explain his conception of that God. He categorizes his theology as an alternative to naturalism, which he accuses of being overly reductionistic and failing to take full account of man's experience of "the Holy" (Thomas, 1970, p. 44). Tillich makes
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
God God, Stratoconian Presumption, Flew God, Flew Tillich, God Tillich, Paul Tillich, God Flew's, Furthermore God, God Christianity, Holy Thomas, thomas 1970, existence god, masterson 1971, omnipotent omnibenevolent, god being-itself, nature god, flew god, tillich 1958, god doesn't, schilling 1969, masterson 1971 118, essential nature god, flew god omnipotent, god omnipotent omnibenevolent, god doesn't exist,
Approximate Word count = 1810
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Opposing Views on Existence of God
|