VIII. God and Religion
A. Early and Middle View
Both his father and Harriet Taylor were strongly atheistic. In the “Utility of Religion”, which was written during the 1850’s, he denied religion’s social utility, describing it as “moral bribery and subornation of the understanding.”
B. Final View
He was more sympathetic to the issue of God and religion late in his life. His views are expressed in an essay, “Theism” which was a posthumously published work.
C. Requirement of Consistency with Science
Conceptions of God and arguments for God’s existence should not contravene science. The concept of God governing the universe through a variable will, rather than invariable laws, is inconsistent with science.
D. Arguments for the Existence of God.
1. Argument for a First Cause Rejected. Theism requires a volitional first cause, but Matter and Force, which have no beginning in our experience, can be a first cause, while still lacking volition.
2. Argument from the General Consent of Mankind: Rejected - Secondhand testimony cannot substitute for real evidence.
3. Argument from Consciousness: Rejected – Appeals to subjective, internal consciousness are inadequate. God is not necessary for a sense of moral obligation to be present.
4. Argument from Design in Nature: Granted some probability. “The resemblances between some of the arrangements in nature and some of those made by man are considerable, and even as mere resemblances afford a certain presumption of similarity of cause; but how great that presumption is, it is hard to say. Al that can be said with certainty is that these likenesses make creation by intelligence considerably more probable than if the likenesses had been less, or than if there had been no likenesses at all.” (EPC, 406 or Essays on Politics and Culture.) However, the doctrine of evolution based upon the survival of the fittest (and Mill does not mention “evolution” although he is clearly referring to it as a new scientific doctrine, offers an alternative to the need for an intelligent will.
E. Attributes of God.
Mill denies the omnipotence of God. Since God would need wisdom to “rule the means by which two accomplish purposes for the universe, that is, God would need ingenuity to play things our, God cannot be omnipotent. The need to work with the substances and forces in the universe in order to accomplish purposes implies limitation of power. The inability to prevent evil points to either a lack of power or a lack of knowledge. In addition, Mill argues for God’s limited benevolence. We can expect the designing intelligence to will happiness for human beings, but there is no evidence that happiness is a chief purpose of God, given the extent of human misery and how “baffled” human beings are.
F. Immortality
Mill contends that there is no evidence for the existence of immortality, although science cannot exclude its possibility. On this basis we can maintain a so-called “hope” in immortality.
G. Rejection of Miracles
Mill proposes that miracles go against the overwhelming evidence in science that events are subject to natural laws. Witnesses to miracles are generally unreliable.
H. Conclusions
With respect to God’s existence Mill argues that there is evidence but this evidence is insufficient for proof and amounts to one of the lower degrees of probability (p. 444, EPC). “The whole domain of the supernatural (particularly with regard to Divine Benevolence, is removed from the region of Belief into that of simple Hope and in that for anything we can see it is likely always to remain.” (445, EPC) However, even granting our lack of adequate evidence, “the indulgence of hope . . . is legitimate and philosophically defensible” (448, EPC). Hope is beneficial because it elevates the importance of feelings and gives both greater strength and solemnity to our sentiments. Hope gives us an ideal standard of excellence by which to regulate out own character and lives.
