Theism

views updated

THEISM

THEISM is the philosophical worldview that perceives the orders of existence (physical things, organisms, persons) as dependent for their being and continuance on one self-existent God, who alone is worthy of worship. Theists differ among themselves about the nature of God and the relation of God to these orders, but they close ranks against deists, who, in principle, exclude revelation and divine intervention in world order, and against pantheists, who identify God with these orders. Theists hold that God, transcendent creator of the orders, remains an indivisible unity as he sustains them in accordance with their capacities and his ultimate purposes.

In formulating their views, philosophical theists remind themselves of the many obstacles that impede the human search for the true, the good, the beautiful, and the holy. They distinguish between the ultimate mystery of being and mysteries that vanish as human understanding increases. Aware that the last word on the mystery of being is beyond their grasp, they pursue the best clues to the relation of the ultimate reality to themselves and the quality of their existence. In the history of theism and of monism, it is almost invariably claimed that immediate experiences of the divine are the most authentic, inspiring sources of truth about the ultimately real, and that these religious experiences take priority over claims based on rational, moral, and aesthetic experience.

However, since religious experients, including seasoned mystics, make conflicting claims about what is revealed, most philosophical theists (hereafter referred to simply as "theists") will take into account the claims based on religious insight but will not grant them arbitrary priority over other interpretations of experience. Broadly speaking, the drift in theistic thinking is toward improving insight into the nature of God and the attributes that are essential for conveying his transcendence and immanence. This essay, in the main, stresses the drift of these reflections without expounding paradigm arguments as such, even as they have been articulated by great theists.

Ontological Argument

When Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (1093–1109), formulated the ontological argument for God, he was expressing an invincible conviction: the human intellect is, in fact, gripped by at least one idea that, clearly understood, proves the knower's kinship with the ultimate reality as inherently one and good. Anselm's fascinating proposal is that every mind has the idea of a perfect being, namely, of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (Proslogium, chap. 2). The uniqueness of this idea is missed by any opponent who counters that to argue thus is like deducing the existence of an island from the idea of a perfect island; after all, any island, to be an island, must be perfect. But the idea of a perfect island is not "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," namely, a self-existent being.

Proponents deduce that this one self-existent being is intrinsically immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and good. These attributes dominate their interpretations of the perfection of this transcendent God's immanence in the world orders. The conclusion of the ontological argument is not grounded in interpretations of human experiences of sense and of value. Indeed, the mind's awareness of perfection is the guiding norm for evaluating claims based on these dimensions of human experience. Nevertheless, theists, whether or not they are sufficiently impressed by the ontological proof, usually explore the family of ideas associated with perfect being in order to help resolve conflicts that do originate in experiences of sense and of value.

Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument for God centers attention on the explanation of the dependable regularity of changes among the countless beings that make up the spatiotemporal world and constitute it an orderly whole (a cosmos). The cosmological theist emphasizes that the cause-and-effect connections (and other relations) in this world are contingent and not self-existent, that they cannot of themselves ground the cosmic order assumed in so much theory and practice. The Theist therefore proposes that this, or any, cosmic order is the product of a self-existent cause. For without such a cause, the successions of beings and events, having no reliable frameworks of their own, are in fact happenstance. Moreover, the cosmos is a collective whole whose unity is actually contingent, unless the succession of beings and events is grounded in the activity of a self-existent cause. Such a cause is not one supreme being alongside other beings, and it cannot be conceived adequately on the model of any dependent being.

The argument thus far presented allows all contingent beings to be modes of the One, which is consistent with forms of monism. But, for reasons to be noted, the theist holds that the cause, although immanent in all orders, must not be conceived as absorbing them, as in panentheism, nor identified with them, as in pantheism.

While some theists regard such cosmological conclusions as logically demonstrative, most theists regard them as more reasonably probable than alternative explanations of the cosmos. "More reasonably probable" does not mean statistically probable, however. Because there can be no observation of a series of world orders (as there can be of, say, repeated throwings of dice), there can be no calculation of mathematically probable trends. After all, cosmological theists seek the explanatory ground for trusting connections (including statistical calculations) that underlie the uniformity of nature.

Some critics of cosmological theists charge that they commit the fallacy of composition in affirming that a whole of contingent parts must itself be contingent. For example, they contend that a whole of overlapping, contingent beings and events may logically be an everlasting cosmos. To this a cosmological theist replies that to explain cosmos by self-existent cause is, in fact, not to commit the fallacy of composition. Surely, there is no fallacy in concluding that a group composed of blind members is never more than a totality of blind individuals. Similarly, a whole composed of intrinsically contingent beings and relations cannot be other than contingent. Moreover, the theist points out that a continuous, everlasting contingency is still contingency and certainly no substitute for a whole, unified by a self-existent cause.

Theists and monists agree that the self-existent cause (the One) is indivisible and immutable. Were it composite or changing in any way, we would be back seeking an adequate ground for dependable change. Other philosophical considerations influence the theist's and monist's differing conceptions about the immanence of the transcendent One. But they agree, in principle, that analogical inferences from the dependent orders can serve as pointers to the nature of the One. They both discourage the mythological mode of anthropomorphism in depicting the One. And it is on the foundation of the self-existent, immutable One as the essence of perfection that they proceed to refine conceptions of the transcendent One in itself and in its immanence within the dependent orders.

Thus, both theists and monists agree that the self-existent One is incorporeal, since corporeal being is limited by its spatial nature. But is this incorporeal One to be conceived as a person? For example, is its nature compatible with the influential, first formal definition of a person as proposed by Boethius (c. 480–525): "an individual substance of a rational nature" (Against Eutyches 6)? The line of reasoning that favors belief in the personhood of the One is fundamental also to the cosmological argument for the self-existent, immutable cause: any successive change cannot be a succession independent of an unchanging, unifying agent. Furthermore, a succession cannot be known as a succession apart from a nonsuccessive experient of succession. In the last analysis, reasoning itself is not possible without a time-transcending unity, free from limitations of corporeal composition. The self-existent cause is best conceived, therefore, as an unchanging, indivisible Person.

However, monists in the West (e.g., Plotinus, Spinoza, Hegel, F. H. Bradley) and in the East (especially Indian exponents of Advaita Vedānta, from Śaṅkara in the ninth century ce to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in the twentieth century) developed the concept of incorporeal unity, but they considered the attribution of any concept of a person to the suprapersonal One as misleading. The theist, nevertheless, contends that an infinite Person, inherently and fully rational, is the least misleading view of the contemporaneous One. Can the adherent of the suprapersonal One intelligibly deny that the One is self-aware and aware of all that is (omniscient)? Moreover, can we avoid theoretical shipwreck if the very insistence on the fathomless depths of the One leads to the conclusion that the finite person's ideals of logic and of truth, goodness, and beauty bear, in principle, no trustworthy clue to the nature of suprapersonal unity?

Nor does the theist stop here. The spearhead of the theist's rejection of an all-absorbing One is the conviction that the individual person experiences free will to choose between alternatives within his powers. The theist stresses that without free will it makes no sense to refer to conclusions as true or false. For a conclusion that cannot be drawn from a relatively free, impartial weighing of evidence for and against hypothesis is nothing but the outcome of the regnant play of factors in the knower. Such an outcome is one event among other events and is neither true nor false.

Furthermore, if personal free will is nullified, so is the difference between moral good and moral evil, since each depends on a person's having the free will to choose between alternative courses of action deemed to be good or evil. It is such freedom of will that is vital to the theist's conception of a person's responsibility to other persons and to his interpretation of a person's relation to the physical, the subpersonal orders of being, and to God himself.

Hence, when the theist is told that the orders of being are ultimately machinelike and indifferent to the values of persons, or that the whole framework of things is a logical network that allows for no (supposedly capricious) free will, or when mystical union with the One is taken as indubitable evidence that a person is in fact only a particular center of God's being, the theist will stand by a person's experience of limited free will while pointing out the theoretical and moral consequences of its denial. This stand is basic to his conception of the Creator as person.

Although theists are not of one mind as to the self-existent Person's relation to the order of physical things and of subpersonal living beings, they concur that God creates persons out of nothingness (creatio ex nihilo). This concept, unthinkable to any Greek or Indian philosopher, is admittedly mysterious, but what is posited must be understood in its context. Creatio ex nihilo does not mean that God, as it were, takes nothing and makes what he creates therefrom. Rather, he creates what did not exist prior to his creative act. God does not create from being(s) independent of him, nor does he create from his own being; the created orders do not emanate from his being. God creates persons to be free within their potential and in relation to the other orders. The Indian philosopher Rāmānuja (c. 1017–1173) argued against the absorption of persons in the distinctionless One (brāhman), as held in the prevailing advaita (nondualist) philosophy of Śaṇkara—although, in the end, he, too, insisted on their ultimate union with the suprapersonal One.

Does the creation of persons, free to develop their own potential and, within limits, their own environments, not conflict with the attribute of God's omnipotent will? No, since God's creating of free persons is self-imposed and is, therefore, an instance of God's omnipotence.

But may not a person's use of freedom influence the fulfillment of God's purposes? On this, theists disagree, depending, in good part, on their conception of God's other attributes. It is worth noting that often, when it seems that God's attributes in effect conflict with each other, theists warn that God's attributes must not be isolated from each other, since this would violate the indivisibility of God's being. The application of this doctrine here supports the view that God's self-imposed creating of persons as free and not as puppets will not issue in the thwarting of his purposes.

But, if the attribute of God's omniscience is defined as God's knowing all that is, has been, and will be, must not God's foreknowledge be limited (and his power affected) by a person's freedom? What can it mean to affirm human freedom of choice if God knows in every instance and in every detail what any person will choose? Some theists take omniscience to mean that the Creator knows all there is to know (including all the options possible and available). They cannot understand how the freedom of persons at the point of choice is compatible with foreknowledge of what the choice will be, let alone compatible with the necessary fulfillment of the omnipotent God's will. Their theistic opponents, however, urge that the creation of free persons should not be interpreted as curtailing either God's power or his knowledge in any way that would limit his control of all there is and will be. They argue that we should not impose on the perfect, timeless Person the conditions of temporal succession to which finite persons are limited in knowing. They suggest that something like human intuitive knowing "all at once," which differs markedly from discursive inference "from one meaning to the other," provides a more helpful clue to God's knowing.

It is plain that the self-existent Creator, whose immutable transcendence is contemporaneous with his immanence in the temporal world, leaves theists with theoretical tensions. But they find these tensions more acceptable than the identification of all that exists with the One.

Teleological Argument

In advancing the concept of the contemporaneous cause as Creator-Person, the theist implies his conviction that causal order is best understood in terms of some goal. Such teleological thinking examines composite things and series of events that strongly suggest design, namely, the cooperation of parts that produce one kind of goal and not another. The spring of a watch is best understood in terms of its relation to the other parts that, along with it, effect the purpose of the watch. So, also, although every animate cell has its own order, understanding of that cell is increased once its contribution to the orderly function of the whole organism is specified.

Accordingly, the teleological argument for God does not arbitrarily add purposeful goal seeking to nonpurposive causes. It centers attention on the designs that can be reasonably inferred as causal patterns when they are viewed in the context of unifying goals. For theists moving from cosmological considerations to teleological understanding, the controlling conviction is that the physical, the organic, and the human orders are most reasonably understood as fitting together within the comprehensive purpose of the Creator. Moreover, teleological theists hold that the inanimate and subhuman orders are so created as to provide for the good of persons, persons who can and should realize that they live in God's world, a training ground for the life to come.

Insofar as theists expound and defend a teleological argument that calls to mind a Creator-Architect-Carpenter who provides the specific physical environment for specific biological species and who does so to suit the created endowments of persons, they continue to encounter strong opposition from scholars who draw on scientific data to support their conviction that no such planned creation and no such Creator is tenable. Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) spurred on the explanation of present organic structures as consequences of gradual modifications that favored the survival of the fittest. Other scientific discoveries relevant to the theory of evolution and scientific and philosophical interpretations of pertinent new data have enlarged the area of confrontation between teleologist and nonteleologist.

The teleological theist argues, however, that, even granting explanation of evolution in terms of the survival of the fittest, it is the arrival of the fit that still calls for teleological explanation. Nonetheless, the Darwinian theory of evolution led many theists to emphasize the demands of moral consciousness and religious consciousness as independent sources of belief in God.

Wider Teleological Argument

All the more significant is the comprehensive rethinking of teleological theism that has produced a "wider teleological argument," a position that has developed systematically in the context of historical philosophic issues. The outstanding statement of this position is in the two volumes of Philosophical Theology (1928–1930) by Frederick R. Tennant. Tennant defends the irreducible unity of the person and explores the cognitive limits of knowledge based on a person's sensory and nonsensory capacities; he concludes that no dimension of personal experience can arrive at logically coercive beliefs.

Tennant does not assume that a nonteleological view of the universe is already established. Nor is our world, as known, more reasonably explained as the product of ultimate, random variations or chance happenings. Rather, such knowledge as we guide ourselves by is the joint product of continuing human interaction with an amenable framework of things. Accordingly, to postulate planning in the ultimate collocation of things is to understand better what the human search for truth and values presupposes, namely, the basic relevance of cognitive activities to the order of things. Thus, "If Nature evinces wisdom, the wisdom is Another's" (Tennant, 1930, p. 107).

This wider teleology is articulated when Tennant points out that the nonbiological, physical order does not itself require either the existence or the progressive evolution of species. Yet, the drift of subhuman evolution allows for the arrival of the new order of conscious-self-conscious persons, for whom "survival of the fittest" does not adequately account. Persons, in turn, cannot exist unless their comprehensive reasoning with regard to the other orders guides their moral efforts to improve the quality of their individual and communal survival.

Tennant does not exclude the inspirational value of religious experiences from the chain of evidence for the Creator-Person. But, in his analysis of the varieties of religious experience, he does not find the immediate, uninterpreted knowledge of God to warrant the conclusion that religious experience should be independent of criticism grounded in the rational and moral dimensions of experience. Religious experience with all its suggestiveness is not given cognitive priority, but it does serve as an important confirmatory link in the chain of evidence, reasonably interpreted.

All in all, then, the claims to reasonably probable knowledge are the more reliable insofar as they can be viewed as joint products of persons interacting with each other in their ongoing interchange with their total environment. No one link in this chain of evidence for cosmic teleology is, by itself, strong enough to justify the conclusion that the Creator-Person is immanent in the orders of being. Consequently, the wider teleological argument is to be judged for its reasonableness as a cumulative whole. But this is no cause for alarm, since, to take an example from the scientific realm, the hypothesis of biological evolution is accepted as a cumulative whole despite weaker and missing links of evidence. Accordingly, the theoretical backbone of the broader teleological theism is its more reasonable interpretation of human experience cumulatively viewed.

Moral Argument

There are theists sympathetic with Tennant's wider teleology who hold that his view of the ethical link simply does not do justice to the experience of the moral consciousness. Their crucial contention is that the value judgments of persons, although related to their desires and feelings, are not experienced as originating in them. Rather, the irreducible moral consciousness becomes increasingly aware of an objective order of values that exerts imperative authority over persons' lives. This unique, normative order, not dependent on human desiring and not descriptive of actual processes in the natural world, is most coherently interpreted as expressive of the Creator's goodness.

In sum, according to this moral argument for God, an unconditional, universal order of values is gradually revealed not only as morally imperative for persons but necessary in their struggle for fulfillment. Most reasonably understood as rooted in God's nature, it is this objective order of values that is the strongest link in any argument for a God worthy of worship. Indeed, without this independent source of normative values, the cosmological and teleological arguments do not suffice to assure the goodness of God.

Tennant, however, provides an elaborate critique of this account of the moral consciousness and the objectivity of value judgments. He argues that to root value-experience in desires and feelings does not, of itself, justify the charge that value judgments are relativistic. He interprets the objectivity and universality of value-experiences and value judgments as joint products of each person's interaction with at least the natural and social orders. It is the most coherent organization of such value judgments that is, indeed, the capstone of the wider teleological argument. For now, persons, experiencing and organizing their values as joint products of their interaction with orderly trends not of their own making, can better interpret the immanent direction of the collocation of things. Hence, the progressive appreciation of the conditions of the qualitative range of value-experiences remains the normative insight into what kind of personal growth this kind of world fosters.

Theoretical Problems

Whichever of the above approaches to God is most acceptable to the traditional theist, central to his vision remains the perfection of the self-existent, transcendent Creator, immanent in his creations and, especially, in the optimum development of morally autonomous persons. This vision of "absolute" perfection poses obstinate theoretical problems for the theist himself, as he tries to clarify the dynamics of the perfection of an immutable Creator-Person who is immanent in his temporal, changing creation. This article confines itself to three questions of especial concern to theists. Adequate discussion of these alone would require analysis of other knotty metaphysical issues (such as the ultimate nature of space and time or the specific nature of God's relation to the spatiotemporal world).

The first question is "How can God be immutable and yet immanent in a changing world, let alone in the kind of changing relations that obtain between him and developing moral agents?" The theist invariably does not flinch as he grants that this theoretical conflict is intrinsic to the theistic transcendent-immanent situation. For a perfect Creator cannot create without creating dependent, imperfect beings; and he will not annul the will of persons free to choose changes within their power. Nevertheless, while thus holding that there is no intelligible bridge from the changing created realms to the immutable Creator, the theist urges that God's immutability is not to be conceived in rigid and timeless mathematical fashion. He does suggest analogies within human experience that render the impasse less stark, such as those concentrated moments in which the past and future seem to fuse with a timeless, transcendent unity.

The second question moves the first into perhaps the most sensitive area of the theist's belief: the passibility of God, that is, God's responsiveness to human need. If God's immutable perfection is appropriately responsive to the created orders in their kind, how can he be unchanged and unchangeable? If he is unchanged and unchangeable, how can he be anything but impassive to the moral struggle of persons? What can it mean to say that he appropriately responds to their situations (that he "knows," "suffers," "redeems," or "liberates") without enduring any change himself? Here the theist, avoiding anthropomorphism, urges us to realize that the Creator-Person will not, in the nature of the case, undergo the psychic states of persons and suffer as we do.

Nevertheless, the moral-religious thrust of the theist's resistance to both deism and monism is at stake, for he defends the concept of a morally free person who is ultimately responsible to God, a God who "knows" and is appropriately responsive to the ranges of human striving. Can this person-to-Person relation be honored by a God who, in his immutability, does not change at all in response to even the worthy appeals of his repentant creatures? In the face of this impasse, some theists hold that God's immutability is compatible with his passibility, if his responses to need are conceived as the overflow of his essence and, hence, neither diminish nor improve it.

The third question is "In view of the amount and quality of evils, how can one reasonably believe in a Creator who, omniscient and limited by nothing beyond or within himself, is perfect in purpose and accomplishment?" The response of the theist depends to some extent upon what he claims to be the pearl of great price in the human ideal of the good. There are differences among theists on this matter, but the exposition here takes as vital to all theistic views of the ideal good the freedom of persons to choose, within limits, their own destiny. Such freedom does not exist in a vacuum; indeed, it would be powerless without a network of order that helps a person to know the good and evil consequences of his actions. Without such freedom a person would not experience the profound satisfaction of building the character so essential to the conservation and increase of values available to him as he develops.

So important is this pearl that the theist, never unaware of the maldistribution of values and disvalues, is poignantly mindful of the undeserved and vicious evils inflicted by man's inhumanity to man and by natural forces beyond human control. He is not given to holding that evil is illusory, or that it exists as a privation of goodness. But neither will he minimize a fact that becomes the foundation of his thinking about evil. Evil, in the last analysis, has no independent power of its own; it lives parasitically on the good. The theist's trust in the goodness of the Creator-Person is, therefore, grounded in this priority in the very nature of things. This fact also fortifies his belief in a personal immortality that is not an external addition to life in this imperfect world but is, rather, the extension of the creative goodness of God.

Even if all this be granted, serious concerns persist. Can it be conceded, even to so acute a theist as Tennant, that a Creator-Person, both omnipotent and omniscient, cannot, in the collocation and governance of things, create water that quenches thirst but does not drown? Again, it may be granted that, without the possibility of evil, persons would not experience the qualities of creativity resulting from their developing virtues. Nevertheless, would a Creator who is all-good, omnipotent, and omniscient create a world in which so much "nondisciplinary evil" occurs? Nondisciplinary evils are evils that, as far as we can see, are not instrumental to the realization of other values. They are those evils that undermine even the most heroic moral effort; they finally fell the oak that has weathered many storms. They, too, are parasites upon the good, but whatever the source, they are the irreducible evils that defy being classified as means to some good.

The traditional theist now reminds us of our keyhole vision in this life. To other theists, this appeal to ignorance is unavailing. After all, it is open to opponent and exponent alike. These "finitistic" theists, determined to explain the evidence at hand as reasonably as possible, reexamine the concept of perfection presupposed by traditional theists. They suggest that the impasses of transcendence-immanence ultimately hinge on the assumption that perfection necessarily excludes all temporality and change in the self-existent Creator. Why must we hold, finitists ask, that self-existence necessitates God's immutability in every respect? Why cannot perfection characterize a transcendent, self-existent Creator who expresses his purposes in the temporal orders without danger of becoming the victim of the changes required? Indeed, why suppose that only immutable perfection is worthy of worship?

In any case, finitistic theists contend that the actual course of natural and human history is more reasonably explained if the Creator-God's omnipotence and immutability are limited in the interest of his creative goodness. And his moral perfection consists in God's conservation and renewal of value realization despite recalcitrant conditions within his own being. This Creator-Person, thus limited in power by uncreated conditions within himself, creates and recreates situations most consistent with his purposes.

The specific way in which the morally perfect Creator-Person is limited in power depends upon the particular theist's conception of God's immanence in the inorganic, organic, and personal orders and, especially, on that theist's view of God's relation to persons as individuals and in community. Finitistic theists, however, cannot tolerate, theoretically, the conception of a self-existent Creator limited by any being(s) completely independent of his own will. Such theists vary in their description of the recalcitrant factor(s) that are inherent in the self-existent Creator. But the basic thrust of their views inspires the worship of a God who, dealing creatively with recalcitrance, continues to create, in accordance with his concern that the conditions for creativity be preserved and increased at every level possible.

Such finitistic theism saves transcendence from the pantheistic absorption of persons. At the same time, it is free from the dangers of a theism that, in the name of immutable perfection, sets up impasses that encourage the conception of a deistic Creator who knows not the quality of continuing, creative caring.

Bibliography

The books in this highly select bibliography contain, each in its own scope, the needed expansion, significant particularity, and helpful context for explication of the condensed discussion of central topics in this article. The suggestions in the next paragraph include comprehensive cultural and religious background for the theistic themes focused on in the main presentation. Elaboration on these themes, with an eye to the variety of interpretations, is provided in the remaining suggestions.

Arthur O. Lovejoy's The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea (Cambridge, Mass., 1942) is a fascinating study of the historical roots and the growth of ideas involved in this article. Alfred E. Taylor's "Theism," in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, vol. 12 (Edinburgh, 1921), is a classic historical analysis of theistic philosophy in the West up to the early decades of the twentieth century. Étienne Gilson's L'esprit de la philosophie médiévale, 2 vols., 2d ed. (Paris, 1944), translated by A. H. C. Downes as The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy (New York, 1936), emphasizes the assimilation of Greek philosophical ideas by formative Christian thinkers such as Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventura, and Duns Scotus. James D. Collins's God in Modern Philosophy (1959; reprint, Westport, Conn., 1978) examines critically much of the modern debate. In chapter 8 of Indian Philosophy, 2d ed., vol. 2 (London, 1927, 1931), Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan expounds the main tenets in the monistic system of Śaṅkara, and, in chapter 9, he contrasts these with the theism of Rāmānuja. Annemarie Schimmel's Gabriel's Wing: A Study into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muḥammad Iqbal (Leiden, 1963) gives a vivid account both of Islamic thought and culture and of the reevaluation of the essential tenets of Islam by the poet-philosopher Iqbal; further, it provides a comprehensive bibliography.

See H. P. Owen's Concepts of Deity (New York, 1971) for discriminating definitions of attributes of the traditional theistic God and for contrasts with dominant themes in the work of six twentieth-century thinkers; this book includes a select bibliography. The studies by Eric L. Mascall, He Who Is, rev. ed. (London, 1966), and Existence and Analogy: A Sequel to "He Who Is " (1949; reprint, New York, 1967), are standby expositions of theistic issues. Milton K. Munitz's The Mystery of Existence: An Essay in Philosophical Cosmology (New York, 1965) is included here for its searching critique of theistic approaches to mystery.

John Hick's "Ontological Argument for the Existence of God," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Paul Edwards, vol. 5 (New York, 1967), is an able exposition of the argument (with solid bibliography). The specific analyses in The Ontological Argument, edited by Alvin Plantinga (London, 1940), provide welcome context. John Laird's Theism and Cosmology (1940; reprint, Freeport, N.Y., 1969) examines metaphysical issues relevant to the God of theism. The Cosmological Arguments: A Spectrum of Opinion, compiled and edited by Donald R. Burrill (Garden City, N.Y., 1967), includes noteworthy excerpts from classical discussions of both the cosmological and the teleological arguments as well as commentary by recent and contemporary philosophers. Natural Theology: Selections, edited with an introduction by Frederick Ferré (Indianapolis, 1963), is an abridged version of William Paley's Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature (London, 1802). The judicious introduction frees Paley's underlying teleology from shallow stereotypes. Frederick R. Tennant's Philosophical Theology, vol. 1, The Soul and Its Faculties (Cambridge, 1928), and vol. 2, The World, the Soul, and God (Cambridge, 1930), is probably the most broadly based, yet closely reasoned, study, to date, issuing in a teleological theism. The most systematic critique of it is Delton L. Scudder's Tennant's Philosophical Theology (New Haven, 1940).

For systematic presentation of ethical ideas and their objectivity in relation to other arguments for God and his attributes, there are few works that equal William R. Sorley's Moral Values and the Idea of God, 3d rev. ed. (Cambridge, 1918). Herbert J. Paton's The Modern Predicament (London, 1955) is lucid in its exposition and evaluation of the issues evoked by a moral approach to God's nature and attributes. Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare's Evil and the Concept of God (Springfield, Ill., 1968) finds both traditional and finitistic theistic explanations of evil inadequate. Edgar S. Brightman's A Philosophy of Religion (1940; reprint, Westport, Conn., 1969) includes a comprehensive survey of philosophic issues, a brief historical exposition of absolutistic and finitistic theism, and his defense of a "finite-infinite" God. It also provides an extensive bibliography and a helpful lexicon. John Hick's Evil and the God of Love, 2d ed. (London, 1977), explores traditional and recent accounts of evil and defends an Irenaean view. S. Paul Schilling's God and Human Anguish (Nashville, 1977) stands out for its well-annotated account of various historical and recent explanations of excess evil as well as for his own temporalistic theism.