PROVING GOD'S EXISTENCE

Challenge to current scientific philosophy

S 'R.-As Dr. Quin has stated. the real issue between him and Mr. Wicker is the difference in their epistemologies. The traditional and rational approach to the notion of nature is its derivation from sense objects, known by means by sensation. The reality of nature thus involves trust in whatever principles are implicit in acceptance of sense objects.

These principles are, in fact, the principle of identity. the fact of one's own existence and the condition that one can attain truth. Doubt of these leads to universal doubt, which would preclude all thought. Hence, the principles cannot but be accepted. They cannot bc regarded as assumptions in the sense that scientists understand assumptions. This derivation of the notion of nature as an extra-mental reality and the epistemology in volved are such that the existence of God can be demonstrated (and has been demonstrated e.g. by the five ways).

Since the advent of modern science in the 16th century, the notion of nature, in contrast to the notion indicated above. has been presented as a primary datum, for blind acceptance "without strings". The principle of causality then arises as a hypothesis confirmed by experience of natural phenomena. Clearly. a principle, whose validity can only be tested within the field of natural phenomena, cannot be validly applied to seek an explanation of nature itself and so cannot be used to infer the existence of necessary being. However. the notion of nature is not a primary datum but a derivative of rational judgments upon sense experience. Thus, the notion of nature under consideration, and the resultant epistemology, is wrongly conceived.

Furthermore. blind acceptance of nature presents nature as if the observer were himself no part of it and yields an epistemology which excludes the possibility of explaining how nature can bc known by means of sensation. Indeed, the ad hoc postulate of psychological parallelism was a hopeless attempt to meet this difficulty. The epistemology under consideration also offers no means to decide what constitute the beings of nature. In default, things are regarded solely as the structures accorded them by scientists and are composed of elementary particles which thereby become the per se beings of nature.

Thus, men and animals, endowed with sensation and desire, are regarded solely as structures. Oneself is such a structure. Yet oneself provides the primary notion of per sr being and certainly oneself is the only being which provides direct experience of sensation and activity produced by desire. Thus, the popular epistemology and notion of nature do not give satisfactory results, as well as being wrongly conceived.

There is no doubt that the existence of God is demonstrable, provided a valid epistemology and idea of nature are employed. Thus, the problem of God's existence reduces to the problem of what constitutes a valid episfetnology, as Dr. Quin implied in his letter.

In principle, this problem can be decided by reason and reason yields the traditional epistemology indicated in the first paragraph.

In practice, it is otherwise. People tend to accept the authority of the majority view of the society to which they belong. This view gradually moves towards conformity with the broad trend of speculation by philosophers, scientists, etc., during preceding centuries.

Each generation of philosophers adds and subtracts from the work of predecessors, but, since epistemology lies at the root of every system, philosophers are usually too early and deeply committed to the epistemology of predecessors to grasp the possibilities of any other.

It almost seems that some major stimulation to society, such as the fall of the Roman Empire or the re-discovery of Greek culture, is necessary for a major change. There are, of course, minority views in society and such is the widespread adherence of ecclesiastics to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. This adherence, although partly dependent upon a critical understand ing of his teaching. certainly owes much strength and persistence to group loyalty that is how the minonty groups of a complex society continue to exist against the majority view.

Clearly, if the outlook of philosophers in respect of epistemology and their influence on society truly follows the lines suggested, change to the valid outlook by leading philosophers and scientists would slowly produce in society a majority view that God's existence is demonstrable. A climate favourable for religious expansion would again be established and would herald an epoch of high possibilities. Such a change of outlook is not initiated by rational demonstration of the superiority of one system over another. A sufficient motive to stimulate detached enquiry is required.

1 consider that in the present climate of opinion philosophers could perhaps be induced to make such an enquiry if their attention were arrested by the advent of a philosophy of nature based upon the valid epistemology and which interprets the natural sciences with signal success. Such 1 believe to be the task of this generation of philosophers and scientists. It will certainly require a more generous approach than that of the Christian scientist concerned to find a formula to balance loyalty to the defined articles of faith against loyalty to the philosophy current amongst scientists.

A. W. Gledhill, Sc.D.