Opposing Views on Existence of God

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

Related Essays

Augustine .... level, but that does not prevent him from highly structured critique of opposing views. .... of evil asks why, if .... be not good, existence of any .... could be .... (3489 14 )

God's Relation to the World .... The opposing viewpoints "will in fact be discussed .... saying that knowing certainly the existence of .... .... that "criticism which ignores such views is unwittingly .... (6559 26 )

Christian Approach to Philosophy .... the problem with an opposing view is .... inquiry, while refuting contrary views on the .... philosophies associated with identifying God's existence, infinitude, and .... (4321 17 )

Philosophy & Christian Beliefs .... is proving the absurdity of opposing arguments .... The five different views of .... are: theism .... put forth convincing arguments about the certainty of God's existence. .... (3750 15 )

Study of Philosophy & Christian Beliefs .... is proving the absurdity of opposing arguments .... The five different views of .... are: theism .... put forth convincing arguments about the certainty of God's existence. .... (3750 15 )

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

Category: Philosophy - O