Is ‘God exists’ a ‘hinge proposition’ of religious belief?

Unlike many of our other beliefs which lack apriori support, however, it is often alleged that belief in the existence of God could never be epistemically supported in an empirical manner either. Suppose that one argued, àla G. E. Moore,3 that one’s belief in the existence of the external world is warranted on the grounds that one possesses suffi-cient empirical evidence to warrant one’s belief in an everyday proposition (such as “I have two hands”), which, if true, would entail the existence of the external world. – whether we believe in God or not – the latter merely attacks a significant portion of the beliefs of a person who has the requisite religious beliefs.

Take the argument proffered above concerning our belief in the external world. We are thus still lumbered with the original problem of how one can have a warranted belief in an everyday proposition when this warrant presupposes that one has a warranted belief in a hinge proposition, a proposition which is held to be unwarrantable. One does, however, find traces of the hinge proposition thesis in two sorts of anti-sceptical strategies which are adduced in defence of religious belief. One of the most famous examples of the first sort of anti-sceptical tactic can be found in John Henry Newman’s lectures on religious belief,8 texts of which were, interestingly, a major influence on Wittgenstein’s On Certainty.9 In essence, Newman’s approach to the problem of scepticism about religious belief was to argue that local scepticism about religious belief is unfounded because one has equal grounds to be sceptical about all belief. If is thus irrelevant to make a specific charge against religious belief on the basis that it is posited upon certain pivotal ungrounded beliefs (such as in the exist-ence of God), when there is nothing unique about religious belief in this respect. Rather, we should recognise that all belief is based upon ungrounded presuppositions, and therefore discharge the pervasive thought that there is any epistemic difference in kind between, say, scientific belief and religious belief. Whilst noting that the traditional sceptical argument against religious belief will fixate on this ‘presuppositional’ component of Augustine’s reasoning, Wolterstorff makes no explicit counter-response. He does not, for instance, argue that Augustine is indeed warranted in believing in God, or claim that his belief in God’s agency can be warranted in the absence of a warranted belief in God. 3. Blocking the argument

The contemporary debate about the epistemic status of religious belief thus owes a great deal to a certain pessimism about the prospects of responding to a local scepticism applied to those beliefs. There will thus be nothing to prevent, in principle, the possession of knowledge or warranted belief in the non-framework propositions which presuppose that belief in these hinge propositions is epistemically sanctioned. On the other, if one does not, in fact, have an appropriately sensitive belief in these framework propositions, then the doxastic architecture which presupposes a sufficient epistemic status for these beliefs will lack the requisite foundation. If, on the other hand, Augustine lacks a sensitive belief in God’s existence, then it will follow that, just as we would expect, his religious beliefs are indeed without warrant.

In this respect, then, religious belief is no different to any other sort of belief where one has to presuppose epistemic support for one’s conviction in certain pivotal propositions without being in a position to reflectively determine that this support obtains. There is indeed nothing epistemologically unique about religious belief. The sceptic contraposes on this principle when she argues that it follows from our lack of warrant for our belief in the external world and our knowledge that many everyday propositions entail the existence of the external world, that we must lack a warrant for our belief in these everyday propositions as well. Of related interest, however, is Norman Malcolm’s defence of the rationality of religious belief in “The Groundlessness of Belief”, Thought and Knowl-


In “Do Religious Beliefs Need Grounds?”, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 40 (1986): 227–237, Terence Penelhum offers an excellent discussion of the manner in which some theists (he focuses on Pascal and Kierkegaard) have attempted to defend the rationality of religious belief by adducing radical sceptical arguments. On the other, there are those, such as Alston, “Is Religious Belief Rational?” In his earlier work – such as “Is Belief in God Properly Basic?”, Nous 15 (1981): 41–51; “Rationality and Religious Belief”, Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, eds. Steven M. Cahn & David Shatz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 255–277; and ‘Reason and Belief in God’, Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, eds. A. Plantinga & N. Wolterstorff (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), pp. 127–146 – he is largely content merely to argue that there is nothing inherent to the foundationalist model that would exclude the possibility that belief in god could be epistemologically ‘basic’.

Idealism and Philosophy (and Education on Both)

Before we begin it is important to understand the basic definitions of Idealism and Philosophy. Education in these two areas is very rare in modern society, although we will teach children Social Studies in grade 2, the basic questions of Who am I and Why am I here are left until much later (often university). When you mention the idea of philosophy you are usually met with bored expressions and a complete lack of interest. Why? Because these questions are very dangerous to the society we have built and live in.

Idealism is defined as the view that the existence of objects depends wholly or in part on the minds of those perceiving them. This definition is not complete by any means, in fact those who truly explore Idealistic concepts often come to the point where physical reality is nothing more than symbolism for the workings of the mind. This might sound strange and a little far-fetched but that is only because we are used to one particular view of the world, to explore another view would require a great deal of courage and the acceptance that You are not simply an accumulation of your beliefs.

Philosophy is defined as the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics. Nothing about the realm of Philosophy states that it must lead you to Idealism yet, for those who explore philosophy deeply enough, it often does. Philosophy was once looked upon as one of our species highest callings. Socrates, Plato, and other familiar names are familiar for exactly this reason; they were respected, admired, and seen as brilliant to those willing to listen to their words. Sad to say, society was very different back then.

Unfortunately it is impossible to explore all of the concepts and ideas involved in Philosophy in just one short article, but that doesn't mean you cannot go looking for yourself. It is important to remember though that not every "would-be philosopher" is worth listening to. An easy way to discern who is and who is not thinking clearly about existence and knowledge is to see how much they boost their own self-importance.

Look for the humble, serious philosophers such as Jiddu Krishnamurti (who rejected the offer to be named Messiah in the early 1900's) and Alan Watts. Find some of their videos, their books, and a website focused on discussing the concepts and ideas that are the root of their many lectures and books. It is important to get familiar with Idealism and Philosophy, and education in these fields will reveal why it is so important. There is a whole other multi-layered facet to life that needs to be explored in our modern society; our growth as a human being, a species and a culture depends on it.

Radicals For Capitalism - A History of Libertarianism

A fascinating look at the history of the uniquely American political philosophy of Libertarianism, Radicals for Capitalism is a richly rewarding book on the beginnings of the Libertarian movement and some of its founding members and supporters. Brian Doherty does an excellent job in writing a compelling history of the Libertarian movement.

For anyone with an interest in small government politics this book is not only informative but entertaining. While most people captivated by the Libertarian movement have only a cursory knowledge of its beginnings, reading this book will flesh out your knowledge in an engaging and informative way. Ayn Rand? Everyone has heard of her, but how about Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane? All three women can be said to have lain the roots for the libertarian movement of today.

All three published important works in 1943, pre-dating Hayeks Road to Serfdom and other seminal Libertarian works. Rands The Fountainhead, Lanes The Discovery of Freedom and Patersons The God of the Machine were all put out in 1943 birthing many important ideas of the Libertarian movement. Explaining Americas exceptionalism, defending the greatness of the founding documents and espousing on the importance of individual liberties these women are of great importance to anyone interested liberty and freedom. While Paterson and Lanes books are difficult to find, they can be located with a little digging, Laissez- Faire books would be a good place to start.

Ayn Rands books are available just about everywhere. Covering the well known like F.A. Hayek and the less known but influential (within the movement) like Murray Rothbrand this book has all the bases covered. The chapter "Goldwater, The Objectivist Crack-up, and Hippies of the Right" had some laugh out loud moments. Covering the Austrian School of Economics and the Chicago School this book explains sometimes mundane and complex subjects in an interesting and understandable manner. Milton Freidman is well covered and as one of the most popular Libertarians besides Ayn Rand.

The Evolution Revolution: The Importance of Self-Observation

In the 1970's Werner Erhard's seminars were intended to bring individuals from self-awareness to Self-Awareness: eliminating the identification with ego in daily life. For me, there was one concept that made a deep impression, and one exercise that I have used successfully on both self and others.

The concept states that the primary function of what we call the 'mind' is to perpetuate its own existence.

Believing itself to be real and not a mere shadow of Reality, the mind fears its annihilation will mean death. It cannot understand that the dissolution of the unreal will reveal what is Real.

Thus, spiritual practice (without the self-observation that facilitates the dissolution of the false identity) only serves to intensify this phenomenon, as the mind, believing it 'knows' something, now shows up as spiritual ego -- a much more insidious creature. One has convinced oneself that one is now a 'spiritual' being -- and while there might be the intellectual understanding of something greater, and the ability to talk the talk, the walk is often lacking, as the false self-identification is still running the show.

The exercise -- based on the principle 'what one resists persists' -- is a simple one utilized to eliminate a headache. With the eyes closed, one focuses attention on the headache, (perceiving location, size and color), which then dissolves in the Light of that unwavering attention. (While I've found this exercise to work in most instances some people are exceptionally resistant and prefer to hold on to their resistance and their pain.)

That act, of looking at the pain in one's head unflinchingly, is similar to the exercise of self-observation. By the diligent practice of observing one's thoughts, speaking and behavior, one begins the process of separating oneself from the misguided identification with the ego.

As this separation begins to occur, a space is created that allows the Self to arise; bringing the Awareness that is its essential Nature. This Awareness, the presence of Consciousness, is expanding itself on the planet via the Evolution Revolution. What is most remarkable is that it is happening in ordinary people -- those without great investment in self -- the so-called meek.

Accompanying the presence of Consciousness are Love and Compassion, and a sensitivity to one's environment. One notices both the flock of birds wheeling in the sky, and the person in one's vicinity who might need a helping hand or a kind word. One recognizes one's own Self everywhere, and experiences the Oneness that is the Truth of existence.

As one Master says: True spiritual life is that which teaches Unity or Oneness, and makes us selfless and full of Love.