Is Theism More Rational Than Agnosticism: A Critique of Arguments for the Necessary Existence of God?
Kimweli (David)
Source: Sorites 16, December 2005
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsColour-ConventionsDisclaimer

Author’s Abstract

    This paper engages the controversial question: is agnosticism a more rational opinion than theism? The paper examines the primary arguments for the necessary existence of God where Kant left it; having refuted the ontological, first cause, and design proofs and putting forth the necessity of God for the possibility of moral experience. After detailing Kant’s view of transcendental morality, I then counter this view with the instrumentalist argument, first made by John Dewey, that sound moral judgments are made employing the same methods we can apply to any experience—the adaptive need to transform our environment beneficially. I make the case that Dewey’s instrumentalist moral theory is superior to Kant’s transcendental one, as it provides a simpler and more scientific rationale for moral experience. Lastly, I make the case that while belief in God has the potential to influence believers to live morally and is thus in a Deweyean sense instrumental, it has no factual basis and no moral or logical necessity, and as a result, an uninformed and irrational alternative to skepticism.


Filed electronically with the full edition of Sorites 16

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2019
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - March 2019. Please address any comments on this page to File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page