The Argument from History

a) Value of Universal Human Consent

When all men of all times agree upon the existence of a certain fact, we say that there is a universal human consent in the matter upon which they are agreed. The word consent is used here in its original Latin meaning of agreement or common feeling. Even though, here and there, individual men or groups of men prove the rule of such consent by exception, we still call the consent or consensus universal. Now, of what value is this universal consent? Does it necessarily express truth? Is there not at least a possibility of ?uch consent being erroneous ? The universal consent of mankind in matters that pertain to reason, or depend upon reason, simply cannot be erroneous. Here the universal consent cannot be other than the voice of rational nature, and if that can be false, there is no longer any certainty in human reasoning at all, and we can know nothing for certain. Since we cannot contradict ourselves by the absurdity of absolute scepticism, we must declare that the voice of rational nature is an infallibly true voice. But, it may be objected, all men once agreed that the sun moves around the earth. They were wrong, though their consent was truly universal. Hence, the universal consent of mankind is valueless as a test of truth. This objection does not touch our position at all. Men wrongly judged the movement of the sun —a physical fact. This was not a judgment belonging to the rational order; it was not a deduction of reason; it was a precipitate opinion based on mere external appearances. It is quite possible for many men or for all men to be wrong in such a judgment; but it is quite impossible for all men to be wrong in the conclusions reached by right reason upon known facts. Men may be wrong in judging the motion of the sun; they cannot be wrong in judging that motion requires a mover. Men may be wrong in judging, from mere appearances, that a certain triangle is equilateral; they cannot be wrong in concluding that the angles of a triangle equal 1800. In the present Article we speak of the universal consent of mankind as a reasoned conclusion from known facts and experiences of life. God is not seen in the sky like the sun; God is not observed by the senses like the heat of a summer day. There is no possibility of universal error due to the precipitate judgment of mankind about God as about a physical fact observable by the senses. But sky, and earth, and heat, and stars, and men, and beasts, and all things existing in the world are known facts, and reason requires that they have an explanation sufficient to account for their existence. Thus, it is a reasoned judgment that declares the existence of a First Cause, a First Mover, a First Designer, a First Lawgiver. And while the reasoning process is often obscure and inarticulate, it is indeed a true reasoning process that leads men to the knowledge of God, and not a hasty judgment upon observed phenomena. A universal reasoning process leads to a single universal consent regarding the existence of God. In such a judgment the universal consent of mankind cannot be false, else there is no trusting reason at all, there is no truth to be known for certain about anything.

b) The Argument

That which is declared by the universal consent of mankind as a judgment of rational nature, must be true; Now, the existence of God is declared by the universal consent of mankind as a judgment of rational nature; Therefore, the existence of God must be true. God exists.

c) Discussion of the Argument

The first statement (the major premiss) is certain in view of our remarks upon the value of universal human consent. The second statement (the minor premiss) is supported by the evidence of all history; and this, by the way, is the reason for calling our present argument, The Argument from History. The study of languages (philology) shows that all historic peoples have had a name for God. Monuments and temples, priesthoods and sacrifices, festivals and sacred rites, testify to the incontrovertible fact that some idea of divinity has always and everywhere been in the mind of man. Writers of all eras, travellers, archaeologists, and historians are at one in their testimony that no people or tribe ever existed without some notion of a deity. The idea of divinity is inevitably bound up in nature; and the conclusion that God exists is directly reasoned from the facts and experiences of life. The voice of nature proclaims the existence of the Author and Ruler of nature. Even belief in false gods, in many gods, in monstrous gods, is still a belief (however perverted) in divinity; and behind all such beliefs, behind the notion of many gods, there has always been, as Mr. G. K. Chesterton so well says, “the idea of one God, like the sky behind the clouds.” Men cannot escape the knowledge that there is an originator and ruler of the world. Their further conclusions may lead to false beliefs, like belief in many gods, but the original conviction is the reasoned conviction, and this is everywhere and always the same. It is with this conviction that our present argument deals. The third statement (the conclusion) follows inevitably from the premisses.

Summary of the Article

In this brief Article we have studied the value of universal human consent as the expression of infallible truth. We have learned that while many men, or even all men, may be wrong in their interpretation of mere physical facts, all men cannot be wrong in a judgment which is a direct inference of reason from known facts. In a matter of rational inference, what all men of all times have everywhere- known as true, must, as a matter of fact, be really true. Such a universal agreement is the very voice of rational nature, and if it can be false, then there is no trusting reason at any time in any pronouncement, there is no certainty to be had in anything. To deny the validity of reason in this wholesale fashion is to involve oneself in self-contradiction. The man who says, “I still deny the value of your argument from universal human consent; as a matter of fact, there is no certainty to be had about anything,” must find an answer to the reply, “Are you certain of that?” If no, then there is no certainty that there is no certainty. If yes, then there is certainty after all! In plain matters of rational inference, therefore, certainty is to be had; and when all men agree upon such inference, error in their conclusion is unthinkable. Now such an agreement proclaims the existence of God. Therefore, God exists. To conclude the Chapter on the Existence of God, we must make a brief study of Atheism, which denies God’s existence, and of Agnosticism, which declares God’s existence doubtful and a matter that can never be certainly known by man.

1. Atheism (from the negative or privative Greek particle a and the noun theos, “God”) denies the existence of God. Those who profess Atheism as a doctrine are called theoretical or speculative atheists, while those who live as though there were no God, even though they profess belief in Hirn, are practical atheists. We speak here of theoretical or speculative Atheism. Theoretical Atheism does not square with human reason. Reason demands the existence of God, as we have shown in various rational proofs of God’s existence. Atheism does not offer a single telling argument against these proofs, nor can it offer positive argument for its claims. Atheism does not meet human needs; it conflicts with cold reason; it takes hope, courage, joy, and love out of the heart; it renders futile the desire for happiness which is ineradicably implanted in every human soul. Further, atheism destroys morality; for if there is no God, there is no supreme judge of human conduct, no supreme legislator, no supreme law, no supreme sanction for law (i.e., no everlasting reward or punishment). Atheism also destroys authority, for all authority in the world is ultimately based upon the supreme authority of God. It is doubtful whether there are, or ever have been, any thoroughly sincere and perfectly convinced theoretical atheists. Pride and perversity have led some men to deny God; the love of a following, and the puerile pleasure of saying shocking and startling things, have caused others to declare themselves atheists. But when reason is allowed to function, and is not throttled by vanity, pride, or perversity, men’s minds must recognize the existence of God. As a matter of fact, all the most noble and enlightened men of every age have openly professed their belief in God. 2. Agnosticism (from the Greek a and gnostikos, “knowing”—hence not knowing, ignorant) is the doctrine that men do not know and cannot know whether there is a God. This is at once a cowardly and an impertinent doctrine. It is cowardly, because it is a refusal to face facts; it is a doctrine suitable for what is called, in the language of the streets, “a quitter”; it is a surrender to unfounded doubt; it is a weak refusal to see facts and to trace them to their source. It is an impertinent doctrine, for it declares, with the saucy attitude of a spoiled child, that what the “quitter” fails to do, other men are powerless to do. Normal minds have no patience with agnosticism. We all can respect honest doubt; but doubt about the existence of God is not honest; if reason be employed, certainty in the matter must be attained. An agnostic is like a man who should say, with a silly and supercilious smirk, “Well, I won’t go so far as to deny that two and five make seven, but, after all, I don’t know.” An agnostic is one who preaches a religion of darkness. He is not like a humble man who frankly says, “I don’t know where I am in this fog”; he is like the insanely proud man who cries with an air of demoniacal triumph, “Here I am in the fog; and here we all are!” If one should say, “I am in some doubt whether South America exists,” we should say, “There is a way to make sure; take that way.” To the agnostic we say, “You pretend that no man can know whether God exists, but you shall not enslave our minds with that grotesque pretense. How do you know men cannot know ? Produce your evidence, bring forward your proofs. Until you show reason, you cannot expect men to contradict reason for the pleasure of relying upon your unsupported word. Must men not say, ‘I believe in God’; and must they say instead, ‘I believe in the omniscient Agnostic’ ? If you thus deify yourself, give evidence of your divinity; give us proofs of your existence and your all-embracing wisdom. If you cannot do that, you are an impertinent upstart. As a matter of fact, there is a God. There is a way to make sure that there is a God; take that way, and leave your preaching of doubts.” Agnosticism, like atheism, upsets morality; for a doubtful God cannot be a certain judge of human conduct, the framer of certain law, the certain source of authority. Thus both atheism and agnosticism contradict reason and are pernicious in their practical results.

We have proved that God is. Now we are to study what God is. In this Chapter we seek to express, in general but quite definite terms, what God is in Himself; then we will investigate in some detail certain of the divine perfections. In other words, we are to study, first the nature, then the attributes of God. into two Articles, as follows: