Skip to main content

God and atheism




Again: I'd like to transfer here something I wrote for Quora. (How many times have I done this? Well, there will likely be more.)  

Someone there asked, "What can an atheist gain from studying Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas?" I responded:

Interestingly, Bertrand Russell -- a very outspokenly atheistic philosopher and historian of philosophy -- had great respect for St. Augustine as a philosopher. Perhaps his example answers your question.

As you may know: one of the common arguments by pagan philosophers in Augustine's day, used against monotheism and views of creation ex nihilo, was this: there must have been a specific moment when God decided to create the world, and there must have been an infinity of moments of time before that. These Christians seem to believe that God made the creation decision at any arbitrary time during His self-sufficient aloneness. How is such a view sustainable? 

Augustine answers that argument with a theory of time. He said that time is subjective. It is some being's experience of a sequence of events. Without such a subjective experience, then there is no time, So, BEFORE the divine Creator said "Let there be light" there were no events to experience and since there was nothing to be sequenced there was no time. So the whole idea of God twiddling his thumbs through everlasting time BEFORE that moment falls apart -- there was no time before that moment and so no time for twiddling.

Russell said that Augustine here makes an acute point, The subjective view of time is not a necessary one but it is a tenable one and, given such a view, that particular objection to a monotheistic Creator of the Christian sort fails. 

The example shows, I submit, that atheists and theists can learn from each other even across many centuries if they are open minded enough to allow that learning to happen.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more