• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Theism" by John Stuart Mill

I just found out that one of the greatest philosophers ever to have lived, had a posthumous essay published by his daughter.

https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mill1873d.pdf

The upshot of my examination of the evidence for theism, and of the evidence (assuming that theism is true) that there have been divine revelations, is this: The rational attitude of any thoughtful person towards the supernatural, whether in natural or in revealed religion, is that of •scepticism—as distinct from •belief on the one hand and from •atheism on the other. In this context I take ‘atheism’ to include not only •positive atheism, i.e. the dogmatic denial of God’s existence, but also •negative atheism, i.e. the denial that there is any evidence either for or against God’s existence, which ·I call a form of atheism because· for most practical purposes amounts to the same thing as if the existence of a god had been disproved. If I am right in the conclusions I have been led to by this inquiry, there is evidence, but not enough to count as a proof, and amounting only to one of the lower degrees of probability. What evidence there is points to the creation (not of the universe but) of the present order of the universe by an intelligent mind •whose power over the materials was not absolute, •whose love for his creatures wasn’t his sole active motive, but •who nevertheless wanted them to thrive. We should entirely reject the idea that the universe is under the General result providential government of an omnipotent Being who rules for the good of his creatures. Does the creator still exist? We have no guarantee of even that much, except that he can’t be subject to the law of death that affects living things on this planet, because he himself created the conditions that produce the mortality of any creatures that we know to be mortal. Consider the idea that this Being, not being omnipotent, may have produced a machinery that falls short of what he aimed at, so that he sometimes has to intervene ·to make corrections·. This is in itself neither absurd nor impossible, though in none of the cases in which God is thought to have intervened is the evidence anywhere near conclusive. It remains a mere possibility, to occupy the minds of those who find it comforting to suppose that blessings that ordinary human power is inadequate to attain may come not from extraordinary human power but from the generosity of a better-than- human mind which continuously cares for man. The possibility of a life after death has the same status: such life is a favour that this powerful Being, who wishes well to man, may have the power to grant; and indeed he has actually promised it—if the message alleged to have been sent by him really was sent by him. The whole domain of the supernatural is thus removed from the region of •belief into that of simple •hope; and it’s likely to remain there for ever, as far as we can see; for we can hardly expect either •that we’ll ever get positive evidence for the direct agency of God’s benevolence in human destiny, or ·on the other hand· •that we’ll ever find any reason to think that it’s quite impossible that human hopes on that subject should be realized.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Sure, I suspect the basis of much religious is the hope for a benevolent God.
 
Top