Philosophical Viewpoints Outlined in the Induction of the Theory of God

The review and essence of philosophical viewpoints in regards to the induction of the theory of God can be found through various centuries. Several of these ideas have been reviewed, challenged, and investigated a second time for review in regards to knowledge, its process and essentially the foundation of it and how it is embraced in humanity. For the duration of this paper, several philosophers and their theses regarding this subject will be reviewed as an outline to determine how these theories have shifted and changed.

Aristotle

As one of the more prominent and earliest of philosophers, Aristotle had a distinct philosophy surrounding the induction of the theory of God. “If knowledge is indeed what we have just proposed, demonstrative knowledge must necessarily depend on premises which are true, primary, immediate, and better known than, and prior to and causes of the conclusion” (Cottingham 19). Since we know that there are perishable forces and substances, then the induction of the theory of God is valid because demonstrated knowledge has determined there are perishable substances. Aristotle’s philosophy can be accounted for the initial question of induction.

Blaise Pascal

Religion and its belief cannot alone be supported by intellectual knowledge, but there is a complexity but simply faith that was stronger than knowledge in terms of religion (Parish 541). “Our soul is thrown into the body, where it finds number, time and dimensions; it then reasons about this and calls it nature or necessity and can believe nothing else” (Cottingham 356). Essentially, in order to establish the solid theory of God and develop a relationship with religion, the human mind must establish a foundation of faith and the habits of repeated religious practice in order to sustain the necessities for religion. This is a traditional view and one that is found in the foundation of religion in general and not just in philosophy, necessities to accept and believe in the Theory of God.

Rene Descartes

Rene Descartes, a philosopher who was more prominent in the seventeenth century also established a portion of the outline of induction. In his Discourse on the Method, Descartes launched the questioning of his teachings and the lack of questions or challenges to the schools of thoughts that had been taught (O’Mahoney 373).  “Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once” (Cottingham 22).

John Locke

According to Locke, the reasons for supporting the innate doctrine is often traditional reasons but are totally inadequate, as that would suggest a universal standing and embracement of certain thoughts that cannot be found (Rossiter 219). “It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition, if I should only show…how men, barely by the use of their natural faculties, may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions; and may arrive at certainty, without any such original notions or principles” (Cottingham 26).

Gottfried Leibniz

Leibniz’s innatism thus insists that knowledge expands beyond the sensory data, thus allowing humanity to be more complex and allowing humanity’s knowledge to extend that of the beast (Newlands 161). “It is in the same respect that man’s knowledge differs from that of beasts: beasts are sheer empirics and are guided entirely by instances” (Cottingham 33). It is the induction and the expansion beyond pure instance that allows man to enact on the induction of the theory of God and expand upon such a thought over beasts.

David Hume

David Hume inquired into the field of human understanding and how humanity embraces the knowledge that is gathered. “It is impossible, Hume argues, for us consistently to entertain this kind of universal doubt, and even if we could do so, the doubts raised would be entirely incurable” (Cottingham 35). Insisting upon this doubt is to not review and simply focus on the knowledge and understanding. “It seems evident that men are carried, by a natural instinct or the prepossession, to repose faith in their senses; and that, without any reasoning, or even almost before the use of reason, we always suppose an external universe, which depends not on our perception” (Cottingham 37).

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant had a philosophy that was highly influenced by David Hume; the only way knowledge can be known or embraced is by actual objects of experience (Fugate 770). His writings displayed that of a technical precision and focus. “There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. For how would our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action unless the objects affecting our sense produced representations, and also aroused the activity of our understanding” (Cottingham 40). Essentially, our induction of the theory of God for example, would be based on our experiences according to Kant.

Georg Hegel

In his Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel focuses on ideas of sense-certainty to self-consciousness for an understanding the nature of knowledge (Stout 165). His focus of knowledge is founded in science. Hegel, too, has a technical focus and point of view in his writing. “Knowledge is only real and can only be set forth fully in the form of science, in the form of system” (Cottingham 45). Essentially one would have to journey through science and understand its meaning, and then process all following and gathered knowledge through the same channels to understand what they are gathering and how to process further within.

G. E. Moore

G. E. Moore embraced the concept of common sense and these beliefs are expected to be true, as this is the basis of knowledge according to Moore, and those that refute such common sense are invalid (Donnini Maccio 167). There are some things that are known to just be in the world and it is expected that they be expected, including the theory of God. Moore’s technical point of view expands upon these common sense facts.  “There exists at present a living human body, which is my body. This body was born at a certain time in the past, and has existed continuously ever since, though not without undergoing changes; it was for instance, much smaller when it was born and for some time afterwards, than it is now” (Cottingham 49). The basics of all situations, no matter how minor have established facts and common sense in their being and should not be refuted.

Wilfrid Sellars

Following the view of Descartes in the problem foundations, Sellars developed a theory surrounding the foundation of knowledge. “As Sellars puts it, ‘one is committed to a stratum of authoritative nonverbal episodes the authority of which accrues to a superstructure of verbal actions, provided that the expressions occurring in these actions are properly used,” (Cottingham 55). Sellars finds the minor details that Moore declared were fact and nothing more to be grounds for investigation and to determine if they are for certain fact. “One of the forms taken by the Myth of the Given is the idea that there is, indeed must be, a structure of particular matter of fact such that each fact can not only be noninferentially known to be the case, but presupposes no other knowledge either of particular matter of fact, or of general truths” (Cottingham 55). Essentially, all of these predetermined facts are available for questioning and refuting.

Edmund Gettier

The focus of Gettier on the determination and criteria is to determine if knowledge is either fact or opinion and what makes that knowledge one or the other. “I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (Cottingham 24). This is essential because the criteria can be established on coincidence, tradition, or an analysis of knowledge that is highly refuted and investigated such as the theory of God and whether or not there is truth in this theory or if it simply an opinion without any substance for fact.

When reviewing these various philosophers, it is essential to note that despite there are different schools of thought surrounding the theory of God, each of the philosophers noted the importance of religion within the human world and decided to use it as one of the focal points of each study. Knowledge has been assessed in its foundational principles, the technicality of simple situations, the challenge and argument for the common sense facts regarding such situations and how they are processed via humanity. In conclusion, the theory of God has been one that has been significant in humanity for hundreds of years, and its induction into humanity has transpired in large part to these various philosophers and their various schools of thought.

Works Cited

Cottingham, John. An Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell (an Imprint of John Wiley & Sons Ltd), 2007.

Donnini Macciò, Daniela. "G.E. Moore's Philosophy and Cambridge Economics: Ralph Hawtrey on Ethics and Methodology." European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 22, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 163-197. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09672567.2013.792371.

Fugate, Courtney David1,2. "‘With a Philosophical Eye’: The Role of Mathematical Beauty in Kant's Intellectual Development." Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 44, no. 5/6, Oct-Dec2014, pp. 759-788. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00455091.2014.974468.

Newlands, Samuel1. "Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility." Philosophical Review, vol. 122, no. 2, Apr. 2013, pp. 155-187. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1215/00318108-1963698.

O'Mahoney, Paul. "Christian Inspiration in Descartes' Olympic Dreams." Heythrop Journal, vol. 54, no. 3, May 2013, pp. 371-384. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com.login.library.coastal.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hus&AN=87572657&site=ehost-live.

Parish, Richard. "Blaise Pascal." French Studies, vol. 71, no. 4, Oct. 2017, pp. 539-550. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com.login.library.coastal.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hus&AN=125887196&site=ehost-live.

Rossiter, Elliot. "Locke, Providence, and the Limits of Natural Philosophy." British Journal for the History of Philosophy, vol. 22, no. 2, Mar. 2014, pp. 217-235. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09608788.2014.900608.

Stout, Jeffrey1. "What Is It That Absolute Knowing Knows?" Journal of Religion, vol. 95, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 163-182. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com.login.library.coastal.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hus&AN=101730435&site=ehost-live.