The Theory of Human Conception of God - Essay Example

Are Human Conceptions of God Anthropomorphic? Introduction Anthropomorphism refers to the attribution of human physical forms or psychological characteristics to God common in all primitive and ancient polytheistic religions. This means that God is seen as being in the form or the likeness of man, or the attribution of human form and characters to God or the Deity in any society. In the Old Testament, God or the Deity is assigned physical characters such as hands and eyes as well as moral and mental attributes like those assigned to men. The belief and the psychological truth about the likeness of God and man in terms of image are therefore a fundamental reality of the universe and any other creation within it. This therefore confirms the truth that human conceptions or the true idea of God must be anthropomorphic in nature meaning that the Deity possesses man-like character and norm. Even though it is difficult to prove that man was made in the image of God, it is not in doubt that all men are made in the image of God. All experiences therefore come from God including the human experience, and in that sense anthropomorphic. The substance of the philosophical and theological theories is that man has the conception of God as anthropomorphic as it is embedded in almost all the scriptures of the different religions like Christianity and Judaism amongst others. Hume’ Dialogues brings about different conceptions of God as anthropomorphic through the ranking of four causal principles namely reason, instinct, generation, and vegetation (O’Connor 127; Hume and Richard 46). For instance, Philo argues that the universe resembles an organism and is likely to have originated by generation from matter by stating, “The universe bears a greater likeness to an animal or vegetable than human works. The cause must therefore be similar. The cause of order in animals and vegetables is reproduction. The universe therefore originated by reproduction rather than design.” (Hume 131). Further, Demea interjects almost in agreement by posing the question, “If the universe arose from vegetation or reproduction, is this evidence of a designer?” (Hume 131). Their arguments are quite contrary to that of Cleanthes, who retorts that, “Such whimsies as you have delivered, may puzzle, but can never convince us.” This clearly shows that he supports the human conception of God as anthropomorphic in nature. Cleanthes supports the anthropomorphic conception of God along the lines of the Design Argument as he feels it is the only philosophical argument that gives an insight about the true nature and existence of God (Hume and Dorothy 22). Both Demea and Philo feel that it is difficult to understand the real God but Cleanthes uses the Argument Design to describe how humans view God as anthropomorphic. Cleanthes states, “The existence and nature of God is known by the Argument from design: 1. Premise: The world is adjusted and fine-tuned, 2. Premise: The adjustment of the world resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.” He goes on to state, “From (1) and (2), we can conclude that the causes of both have a resemblance, in that they both have a designer. Only this argument a posteriori proves the existence of God and his similarity to the Human mind.” (Hume 48). The argument from design gives an analogy of how the world and machines made by man have certain features suited to their functions and harmonious operation. Therefore, a machine that has a certain order or structure and operates harmoniously shows that it has not simply come together by chance but through the effort of someone (Pyle and Sarah 68). Through similar inference, the same effects arise from the same causes and therefore the existence of God is the same as the human mind and intelligence. The argument from design as posited by Cleanthes therefore confirms the human conceptions of God as anthropomorphic in the same way that those of the spiders are overly arachnimorphic. Philo rejects the argument from design as put forth by Cleanthes by stating that not everything that is in the universe is a product of design and there is need to explore the possibility that the universe arose from another power, and not necessarily intelligence. His argument against the design argument is valid as it is impossible to validly reason by drawing parallels between the earth and the whole universe. This stems from the fact that the universe came about because of unique events and it is beyond simple human reasoning to make a comparison with it. In his relation of phenomena with matter, he gives a convincing argument that the order in nature could equally be because of the inherent properties present in the particular matter. When Philo talks about the universe as spurn by a spider, he is showing, how anthropomorphic he is as any creature with intelligence would picture him as the same image as God. By using depicting spiders as intelligent capable of spurning the universe in the same level of human intelligence, he elevates their consciousness to carry out what God through intelligence has done. Philo therefore to some extent appreciates the human conception of God as anthropomorphic as both have intelligence. However, the two points of views as argued by Cleanthes and Philo have their inherent strengths and weaknesses in the determination of whether God is anthropomorphic in the conceptions of human beings. The argument by design supports the premise that human reasoning and religion must remain anthropomorphic in the sense that the universe must be given meaning through the interpretation of human experience. Anthropomorphism is therefore necessary for knowledge of any kind whether natural or man-made and guides the human conception of God. The weakness of argument from design that confirms human conceptions of god as anthropomorphic in nature is that it suppresses reality to the views and conceptions of particular human beings. The weaknesses of the design argument which support the position of Philo is that it is a weak analogy that requires that an inferred designer can only be understood from particular phenomena when relating the artifact and the universe. It also presents a problem in drawing inference in that there is no clear relationship between order and designer and therefore the mere presence of order cannot allow human beings to infer the presence of design. The design argument also suffers from the causal component in that events must only happen due to certain causes and therefore for a valid and consistent answer, there must be seamless connection to the phenomena concerned. From Philo’s argument against the design mechanism, we can note that allowing design inference may lead to regress of the person making a conception of God as anthropomorphic. In summary, Philo has clearly given the weaknesses of the argument design proposed by Cleanthes as one that only compares objects with dissimilarities and disproportion such as a comparison between a house and the universe. Its other major weakness is that it makes a discussion on inimitable items like the Deity and the world and the comparison of both may not be applicable, but only possible through continuous observation of the cause and effect of both. The argument from design also has a weakness in the sense that it regards reason as the only principle that can generate an act by equating a particular situation to the whole, which in itself may give distinct results (Logan 487). Conclusion From the work of Humes, we can conclude that there is no precise idea of causation, self, substance, infinite divisibility, or God. Therefore, one cannot have a fair or convincing argument to make an assumption of God as truly anthropomorphic in nature in the eyes of human beings. The anthropomorphic conception of God views God as possessing the attributes of man in terms of the physical likeness such as possessing hands and eyes. Through the argument by design, an analogy can be drawn and an inference drawn to make a conclusion of God as anthropomorphic in nature in the conceptions of human beings. The major premise of the argument by design and its connection to the conception of God as anthropomorphic by human beings is the use of intelligence possessed by both God and human beings. However, what comes out clearly is Hume’s criticism of the argument from design whereby human beings are implored to view God from humanistic angles. From the whole work of Hume, it is quite clear that the argument from design has been discredited through the counterarguments of Philo as helped by Demeo. This is because the design argument largely stresses on inferences, which does not give a definite answer when it comes to drawing conclusions on whether God is anthropomorphic in nature. On whichever side a person is, what remains is that human beings still perceive god as anthropomorphic in nature and the dialogue by Hume was merely meant to confirm the same. The argument by design is therefore the most valid argument that supports the theory of human conception of God as anthropomorphic. Works Cited Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Raleigh, N.C: Alex Catalogue, 1990. Print. Hume, David, and Dorothy Coleman. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Other Writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Hume, David, and Richard H. Popkin. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the Posthumous Essays, of the Immortality of the Soul, and of Suicide, from an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Miracles. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 1998. Print. Logan, Beryl. "The Irregular Argument in Humes Dialogues." Hume Studies. 18.2 (1992): 483-500. Print. OConnor, David. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Hume on Religion. London: Routledge, 2001. Print. Pyle, Andrew J, and Sarah Douglas. Humes Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. London [u.a.: Continuum, 2006. Print. Read More