Being, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology

SPINOZA’S PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD AND AUGUSTINE’S NATURAL THEOLOGY: PART Three of three

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

It is true that natural theology reasons to a transcendent God based on the properties of being and the natural world, but the God that natural theology reasons to is far from an afterthought, or built on fictions. Many of the great Western philosophers such as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas employ natural reasoning, appeal to being and becoming, logic, and the principle of causality to conclude that an eternal and necessary God exists. This is a very different approach than that of Spinoza’s and is worth investigating. From the standpoint of natural theology, it is illogical to presuppose that God exists in a sound deductive argument. Furthermore, according to natural theology, self-creation is a self-contradiction, and pantheism is impossible due to the laws of logic, contingency, and the principle of causation. Using this foundation, Augustine provides a helpful analysis from the perspective of natural theology.

Classical philosophers have found that natural theology is a powerful and thoughtful way to think about the existence of God. In fact, many thinkers of Western antiquity have used some form of argumentation based on the nature of Being, or reality, to reach their theological or cosmological conclusions. Natural theology is the approach many classical theologians and philosophers use to conclude the existence of a transcendent God. It is not a uniquely Christian way of argumentation either, because Plato, Aristotle, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers have used or adopted various versions of natural theology. Natural theologians and philosophers tend to focus on forms of the cosmological argument which reasons that God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent, physical universe.

There are many forms of the cosmological argument. In general, the argument follows from the contingency of the universe and usually adopts this line of thought: contingent, or caused, being depends for its existence on some uncaused being.1 The universe is a contingent being, therefore, the universe depends for its existence on some uncaused being. Another way of the putting the argument is this: Something exists (myself, Being, etc.). Nothing cannot produce something. Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily. It must exist eternally because if there was absolutely nothing, nothing would exist now because nothing cannot produce something. Non-being cannot produce being. Further, it must exist necessarily because not everything can be contingent. All contingent beings require a cause due to the principle of causality—whatever comes to be (contingent being) has a cause. In general, most Western philosophical theologians argue from some aspect of Being whether it is contingency, motion, apparent design, or causality and conclude that because nothing cannot produce something, something transcendent must exist.2 The following analysis from Augustine provides additional insight into the nature and characteristics of Spinoza’s God and philosophical theology. In addition, Augustine appeals to logic and the natural order to make his case for the existence of God.

Interestingly, Augustine applies the law of noncontradiction when it comes to the nature and existence of the universe. The law of noncontradiction says that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. As a property of being, the law of noncontradiction is fundamental to all thought, science, language, and is necessary to avoid definitional equivocation in correct reasoning. In addition, as a property of being, the laws of logic cannot be denied.3 The law of noncontradiction cannot be rejected in correct reasoning because it is self-evident and based on the idea that being and non-being are opposites and points to the nature of what is (reality). For something to exist, it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time or same relationship.4 To exist means to stand out of non-being or nothing. Being and non-being are opposites. Further, it is impossible to deny the law of noncontradiction without using the law in the denial. To say that the law of noncontradiction is false, assumes that the opposite of the claim is true. Opposites cannot both be true, which is the reason that the law of noncontradiction is foundational to all correct reasoning. This is important to keep in mind as Augustine draws on the law of noncontradiction and appeals to reality when he argues for the existence of God.

Augustine believes that the universe did not create itself and provides this natural theological argument based on the law of noncontradiction,

Earth and the heavens also proclaim that they did not create themselves. “We exist,” they tell us, “because we were made. And this is proof that we did not make ourselves. For to make ourselves, we should have had to exist before existence began.” And the fact that they plainly do exist is the voice which proclaims this truth. (Augustine, Vol. 16, 114)

Augustine is simply making the point that something cannot exist before it exists. If something did exist before it existed, it would have to be, and not be at the same time and same way, which is impossible according to the law of noncontradiction. In order for the universe to create itself, it must be before it is. Something cannot exist before it exists. Augustine thinks that self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction. According to the law of noncontradiction, the concept of self-causation is a contradiction. It is like saying there is an “uncaused effect” which is logically incoherent. Therefore, philosophers who hold to the natural theology methodology reject Spinoza’s concept of self-causation.

A natural theological approach rejects Spinoza’s rational presuppositionalism. The reason why, is that Spinoza’s methodology is circular in its reasoning. The presuppositional approach asks one to assume or presuppose that God exists in order to prove that God exists. According to Spinoza, God “is in itself and is conceived through itself” and “cannot be conceived unless existing.” In other words, “God is” (presupposition, one cannot think of God unless existing), therefore “God exists” (because a Perfect Being must exist). This is the heart of Spinoza’s methodology and presents an error in logic because the conclusion is present in the premises.5 It is the informal fallacy of begging the question. When the conclusion is present in one of the premises, the argument fails because it is circular and begs the question. It does little practical good when investigating the question of whether or not God exists, to assume that God exists in the first place. Finally, according to Augustinian natural theology, Spinoza’s pantheism is not correct because a transcendent cause of the universe is necessary. If the universe is contingent there must be something that is uncaused to create anything that may or may not exist. Self-creation is a self-contradiction.

On the question of God’s existence, Spinoza tells the inquirer to study the divine nature first (611), but the very question is whether or not the divine nature exists at all. On the other hand, a good valid and sound deductive cosmological argument will not (or should not) be circular. The existence of God is not assumed in a valid cosmological argument.6 Of course, no conclusion in a deductive argument can be stronger than the premises, but that is exactly where the conversation should take place (and does take place between philosophers of religion). Throughout intellectual history, there have been many doubts, challenges, and questions applied to the premises of natural theology and the cosmological argument, and that is perfectly good and appropriate. The circular reasoning of Spinoza’s overall rational presuppositionalism, however, is not helpful.

1 A contingent being is that which may or may not be or exist, any being which can be or can be made to exist or not exist.

2This is the general line of reasoning found in Aquinas’s “Five Ways” on pgs. 12 – 13 in Aquinas I, Vol. 17.

3 The three primary laws of logic are noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity. They were first explicated by Aristotle in his Physics and Metaphysics. Here we will only focus on the law of noncontradiction.

4Many things in the world exist in relationship to one another. I, however, cannot both be my father’s father and my son’s father. That is a different relationship. Similarly, I may be the biological father of my son, but if my son were to be adopted by someone else, that would entail a different legal relationship.

5Another example of circular reasoning is Descartes’s statement, “I think, therefore I am”. Descartes presupposes an “I” and then concludes that an “I” exists. The conclusion is the premise of the argument and therefore, circular and invalid. Thankfully, Descartes later changed his statement to be understood as a self-evident first principle.

6This is true for any sound and valid argument whatsoever. The conclusion should never be a premise.

Works cited

Augustine. The Confessions, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Spinoza. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, Uncategorized

The Big Four: Lutheran Scholasticism, Heisenberg and Aristotle, Bergson and Aristotle on Intuition, and A Critique of Presuppositionalism

by Dave Seng

Note: This is not a post that argues the merits of whether or not Metallica should still be included in the “big four” of thrash metal bands.

However, I thought it would be fun to re-post the four most popular essays of this blog. So here are the “big four” of the last several months (posted in order of popularity), just in case you missed them the first time around.

1. Lutheran Scholasticism and Aquinas

2. Between Possibility and Reality: Heisenberg’s Appeal to Aristotelian Metaphysics, Part Two (For some reason part two of the series has become really popular, but you can find part one, here. There are only two parts to that particular series.)

3. More Than A Feeling: Metaphysical Intuition in Aristotle and Bergson, Part One. (You can find part two, here and part three, here. There are only three parts to that series.)

4. A Critique of Presuppositionalism With Dr. Nathan Greeley

Classical Apologetics, Culture, Intellectual History, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Stephen Meyer: God and the Origin of the Universe

by Dave Seng

Socrates once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Perhaps as Christian theists, Socrates’s famous phrase could be revised to say that the unexamined faith is not worth having. Stephen Meyer helps us to understand this point.

Thomas Aquinas believed there is design, meaning, and significance to the created order of all the diverse things in the universe. Diverse things do not come together unless they are designed and ordered to come together. Since the universe demonstrates order, design, and purpose there must be one Orderer and Designer of the universe. (If this reminds you of the ancient metaphysical question of the one and the many, you are correct.) Stephen Meyer’s presentation fits nicely into this classical Christian understanding.

Book Reviews, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, Theology, Uncategorized

Review: Five Views on Apologetics

by Dave Seng

[Note: This essay was published about 17 years ago in Tabletalk when I worked at Ligonier Ministries. It is an older piece but perhaps it will be of some help.]

Book Review

Five Views on Apologetics Ed. By Steven B. Cowen

Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

Assessing Apologetic Methodologies

Editor Steven B. Cowen presents the aspiring apologist with a highly valuable resource with the volume Five Views on Apologetics, (FVOA) published by Zondervan. The work is generally very readable and any informed layperson would find this book clear and concise. All Christians who seek to think rationally and critically about the truth of Christianity will find the book very helpful. The strength of the volume rests in its presentation and defense of various schools of apologetic methodology. The reader is introduced to all five major schools—classical, evidential, cumulative case, presuppositional, and reformed epistemology.

William Lane Craig presents the Classical method, which he states is based on natural theology and Christian evidence such as the deity of Christ, the reliability of the Scripture, and the resurrection (28). Craig holds a two-step approach to apologetics in which he argues for the truth of theism based on Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” to establish that we live in a theistic universe and then argues for Christianity based upon various kinds of evidence. Craig’s argumentation is strong but his most interesting contribution lies with his discussion of faith and reason drawn principally from Martin Luther. Craig uses Luther’s categories of the magisterial use of reason and the ministerial use of reason (36). Luther called the magisterial use of reason that which adjudicates the truthfulness of the gospel based upon shear reason alone. In the magisterial use of reason, human reasoning becomes the basis and foundation for faith. The ministerial use of reason is how the Holy Spirit guides the Christian in deciding Christian truth claims, “reason submits to and serves the gospel” (36). Most theologians reject the former and accept the latter as the appropriate use of reason. Craig claims, “Reason under the sovereign guidance of God’s Spirit and Word is a useful tool in helping us to understand and defend our faith” (37). Many of the 17th century Protestant and Lutheran Scholastics, found the ministerial use of reason helpful in discerning the place and purpose of philosophy and establishing sound principles derived from Scripture.

Evidential apologetics focuses largely on the historical evidence for Christianity. While Classical apologetics argues deductively (reasoning in which the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises), Evidential apologetics is largely inductive in its approach. Inductive reasoning is a form of argumentation that draws its conclusion based upon probability. (Inductive reasoning is used most often by historians and scientists and is empirical in nature.) The evidentialist, then, will draw the best possible conclusions based upon his or her premises. Evidential apologetics is termed a “one-step” approach (as opposed to Craig’s two-step method) because it seeks to argue from the very essence of what Christians believe.

Gary Habermas contributes arguments from the historical nature of Christian events based upon what he calls a “minimal facts” approach. Minimal facts, according to Habermas, are facts that are either accepted by critics or facts that would be absurd for critics to deny. The strength of the evidential method is in asserting the historical character of the Christian faith. Evidentialists will argue for theism and, more specifically, Christian theism but do not stress an elaborate use of natural theology the way classical apologists will. Nevertheless, Habermas claims that “historical evidence can serve as a species of argument for God” (92).

Paul Feinberg, the cumulative case contributor, presents a case for Christianity that is rationally compelling. Feinberg does not build his case for Christianity based on formal logical proof (i.e. inductive or deductive reasoning) but claims the best case for Christianity will be somewhat similar to how a lawyer presents a brief in a law court, or how a historian explains facts and events, or how a literary critic presents an interpretation of literature (151). The cumulative case method is sometimes called the “inference to the best explanation approach” (152). Feinberg draws from a wide variety of evidence that is common to our human experience. Cumulative case apologetics views Christian theism, other theistic religions, and atheism as systems of belief (151). The cumulative case apologist will then marshal all available evidence from the fields of history, literature, law, and philosophical theology to discern which system of belief makes more sense out the facts of our human condition.

John Frame represents the presuppositional school of apologetics. The main thrust of Frame’s argumentation is that the Bible is the only certain source of truth, ethics, and epistemology. Presuppositionalists claim that the noetic effects of sin have affected human reason in such a way that there is little or no common ground between the Christian and non-believer. The apologist, therefore, must presuppose the truth of Christianity and then argue “transcendentally” that is, the presuppositionalist would claim that every fact and argument presupposes the God of the Scriptures.

Finally, Kelly James Clark rounds out the discussion of apologetic methodology with his version of Reformed epistemology. In contrast to the classical, evidential, and cumulative case schools, Reformed epistemology claims that one’s belief in God is rational apart from evidence. The Reformed epistemologist does not deny that evidence is available or important, but claims that evidence is not necessary for rational theistic belief. Reformed epistemology argues that we know many things intuitively without empirical evidence, such as 2 + 2 = 4, moral truths such as kindness is always a virtue and killing people for fun is always wrong, and memory facts such as “I had breakfast this morning.” Clark also suggests that belief in God is more like the belief that other people exist (272). Belief in God is not arbitrary, however, and Clark points to Calvin’s doctrine that every human person has been imbued with a sense of the divine. Nonbelievers simply suppress this knowledge due to their sinfulness (Romans 1).

The apologetic task has long been a part of the Christian intellectual tradition. Christians from the earliest days of the faith can be seen contending for the faith that was delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This is easily seen in Justin Martyr’s Disputations with Trypho the Jew, Athenagoras’ Supplication to The Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, Augustine’s City of God, and various works by Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, and Alvin Plantinga in the Twenty-First century (among others). The task of defending the faith will, to some degree, be rooted in the historical and cultural climate the apologist finds himself or herself in. Many of the contributors to FVOA conclude that the Bible does not teach one specific methodology to the exclusion of other approaches. We see an evidential and empirical emphasis on the use of the senses in Luke 24:39-40, Matthew 28:6 and I John 1:1-2. The use of the mind and rationality is affirmed in I Corinthians 10:15, 2 Corinthians 10:5 and 1 John 4:1. And Romans 1:18 – 23 teaches that the truth of God is clearly perceived by unbelievers. Whatever apologetic method one holds to then, a powerful and coherent case for Christianity will show that Christian theism alone illuminates human experience (is existentially meaningful), objectively true, and more rationally compelling than any other world religion. Finally, it would be a wonderful day indeed to see a time when Christians stop debating apologetic methodology (as important as it is) and start engaging an unbelieving world with the truth of their faith.