Basic HTML Version
18
religious cultus referred to appears strongest among primitive races, and disappears in the
measure in which they become civilized.
In evaluating these rational arguments it should be pointed out first of all that believers do not
need them. Their conviction respecting the existence of God does not depend on them, but on
a believing acceptance of God’s self-revelation in Scripture. If many in our day are willing to
stake their faith in the existence of God on such rational arguments, it is to a great extent due
to the fact that they refuse to accept the testimony of the Word of God. Moreover, in using
these arguments in an attempt to convince unbelievers, it will be well to bear in mind that none
of them can be said to carry absolute conviction. No one did more to discredit them than Kant.
Since his day many philosophers and theologians have discarded them as utterly worthless, but
to-day they are once more gaining favor and their number is increasing. And the fact that in our
day so many find in them rather satisfying indications of the existence of God, would seem to
indicate that they are not entirely devoid of value. They have some value for believers
themselves, but should be called testimonia rather than arguments. They are important as
interpretations of God’s general revelation and as exhibiting the reasonableness of belief in a
divine Being. Moreover, they can render some service in meeting the adversary. While they do
not prove the existence of God beyond the possibility of doubt, so as to compel assent, they
can be so construed as to establish a strong probability and thereby silence many unbelievers.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.
Why is modern theology inclined to give the study of man
rather than the study of God precedence in theology? Does the Bible prove the existence of
God or does it not? If it does, how does it prove it? What accounts for the general sensus
divinitatis in man? Are there nations or tribes that are entirely devoid of it? Can the position be
maintained that there are no atheists? Should present day Humanists be classed as atheists?
What objections are there to the identification of God with the Absolute of philosophy? Does a
finite God meet the needs of the Christian life? Is the doctrine of a finite God limited to
Pragmatists? Why is a personified idea of God a poor substitute for the living God? What was
Kant’s criticism on the arguments of speculative reason for the existence of God? How should
we judge of this criticism?
LITERATURE:
Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. II, pp. 52-74; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm. De Deo I, pp. 77-123;
Hodge, Syst. Theol. I, pp. 202-243; Shedd. Dogm. Theol. I, pp. 221-248; Dabney, Syst. and
Polem. Theol., pp. 5-26; Macintosh, Theol. as an Empirical Science, pp. 90-99; Knudson, The
Doctrine of God, pp. 203-241; Beattie, Apologetics, pp. 250-444; Brightman, The Problem of
God, pp. 139-165; Wright, A Student’s Phil. of Rel., pp. 339-390; Edward, The Philosophy of Rel.,
pp. 218-305; Beckwith, The Idea of God, pp. 64-115; Thomson, The Christian Idea of God, pp.