FEAROLOGICAL POINTERS TO GOD’S EXISTENCE
“The place of fear in our existential struggle is a pointer to a Supreme being”—Osinakachi Akuma Kalu
5.1 Introduction
Right from the origin of intellectual enterprise, especially from written history, there has been always this curiosity to speculate on the primary sources of all things. This search which started in the earliest times of human intellectual activity and which received different notions culminated in the medieval era when the primary sources or the primordial force of all things was understood and interpreted as “God”. Theocentricism was the dominant throughout that period.
Between the late 14th and early 15th century, the Renaissance emerged, and so there was a sudden transition from “theocentricism” to humanism: then emerged later was the modern era when the existence of the medieval “God” was questioned with a flurry of refutations.
Hence, while this write-up does not join issues with any of the mainline traditional God-talk arguments, it charts a new course by trying to demonstrate that the emotive tendency of man is a pointer to God’s existence. This is what is called fearological pointers to God’s existence.
Nevertheless, this argument which in not inductive but deductive, is written based on the validity of the arguments; and not based on the soundness of the argument or the truth of its proposition.
According to this argument, since the reality of fear in man is inevitable, and he strives towards perfection and sustainability of himself and the universe; then there must have been the existence of an absolute being who orders all things emotively, which is called God.
5.2 Fearological Pointer to God’s Existence 1
The human being (in contradistinction to other persons- robot or algorithms) as a rational being is capable of doing anything within his reach for self preservation. This tendency continues to the point that even the Seven Wonders of the World no longer beat the imagination of the civilized unless those who have not witnessed the “techno-scientific surprise packs”, which is as a result of the reality of the time, that is, the “age-of-minutest-techno-wonder”.
A critical examination of this human tendency concludes that it is as a result of ‘fear’. This is because; it is fear which spurs man’s intentional strivings or desiring. And so, this striving gears one towards self and societal preservation. However, since the creative cum domineering nature of man makes him to sometimes take things to their extreme such as the construction of bombs, missiles, acids and other weapons of mass destruction, fear now spurs man to produce defensive tools and methods as well as offensive tools.
Therefore, this sense of protecting and improving on life with regards to self-preservation is a pointer that there must be an absolute being who must have instilled this emotive feeling in man for the preservation of humanity (even though they use it maliciously) and its sustainability. This absolute being is called God.
The Syllogistic Demonstration
- The human person has the self-consciousness of his emotive feeling of fear.
- His emotive feeling of fear spurs him to self and societal preservation and sustainability: which cannot be non-teleological. The teleology of the emotive feeling of fear of the human person must be ordered by an absolute Being.
- Therefore, this absolute Being is called God.
5.2 Fearological Pointer to God’s Existence 2
Osinakachi sat circumspectly under the mango tree in a pensive reflective mode with eyes blood shot and head bowed down when SirPeter Aloh entered. He looked up and queried SirPeter, “Do you think that emotive reactions like fear in man necessarily point to the existence of a creator and sustainer of the universe otherwise known as God”.
“Oh! How awkward.” SirPeter relaxedly sitting down in the bench near him replied. “Such discussion existed only in the middle ages when the Concept God was needed to make meaning in the universe, today with speedy techno scientific realities like artificial intelligence and robotics, some of which have godlike powers, such discussion seem obsolete.” “Aha, tell him” Augustus jumped out of nowhere interrupting the discussion, “Since three days and three nights, this man has not slept, not eaten and that’s why his eyes are red bloodshot all under the pretence that he is cogitating and ruminating vigorously to show a fearological pointer to God’s existence.”
“Anyways” SirPeter continued ignoring Augustus’ interruption, “Osi, you seem to have the plenipotence of redirecting our world to view things from new length. Last time in your book, “Conquering the Beast Fear: A Philosophical cum Psychological Approach, you argued tenaciously that fear can be totally exterminated from someone’s life, which in turn raised new dust in that direction.”
“But that’s not just my point SirPeter. My point is, any man who refuses to acknowledge that fear in most circumstances is not positive but negative is on the fast lane to mediocrity; human beings are naturally ingrained with the instinct to survive and our survival are largely based on our mind and thought processes. And when such mind and thought processes are overburdened by fear our survival seems compromised.” Osinakachi corrected.
“But fear is a sign of weakness, a cousin of purposelessness and an opposition to risk taking necessary for our survival”, Augustus interjected.
“Well let me disambiguate your mind in that regard, Fear is a serious pointer that one is alive, every living human being is afraid of something and all men certainly are afraid of death. Desh Subba, my mentor will rightly assert that ‘Life is controlled and driven by fear’ said Osinakachi.
“People like my own mentors Prof. Yuval Harari and Ray Kurzweil’s, the co founder and chancellor of Singularity university and some others in the Calisco company in the Silicon Valley California are not afraid of death, they believed and are working assiduously to conquer and bridge death and I totally support and agree to the plausibility of their cause.” Augustus asserted.
“Man and his stupidity, almost always faithful to his nature, given a chance, he almost become a wolf to fellow man, stealing, coveting, lying, fooling around, being hypocritical, gluttonous, stingy, selfish and fearful. It is only under the cloak and aegis of civility and modernization that man hides and pretends that he is not what he is, so anyone telling you he is not afraid of death is merely exhibiting his hypocrisy.” Osinakachi explained.
“I think I agree with Osi, one of my mentors Mahatma Gandhi would assert the centrality of death by admonishing us ‘To live as if we are going to die tomorrow.’ Like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., subscribe to the idea that, ‘there is a kind of neurotic fear of death in every man because it is inevitable. It is a democracy for all of the people, not an aristocracy for some of the people. Kings die, beggars die, young men die and old men die...and anyone who has not discovered a cause to die for is unprepared to live.’
“Enough of quoting your mentors SirPeter, let Osi, tell us how fearological pointer to God’s existence equate with his above position?”, Augustus cheeped in a lighthearted manner.
“Augustus, I know you have a talent for destructive criticism when it comes to most of the medieval notions surrounding God’s existence, while having an irresistible and inseparable attachment to new techno scientific realities since after reading Yuval Harari’s books, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow and Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind, but you have to calm down let us hear him out and judge him based on the soundness and validity of his arguments.” SirPeter said.
“But that’s exactly my point, any prove of God’s existence or pointer as he puts it is bound to be a regurgitation of falsehood.” Augustus replied.
“Yet we can still hear him out, and know the veritable verity of the validity of his arguments.” SirPeter said. “Over to you Osi, tell us where your God’s existence and its fear pointer tallies here” SirPeter added.
“You see my dear friends” Osinakachi began, “as I said before, my mentor Desh Subba will say that ‘Life is controlled by fear’ and because of this man’s whole life seems like an illusion, he’s always unsatisfied with his present condition and uncertain of tomorrow. This breeds in him a fear in different guises: boredom, pain, dissatisfaction, disaster, crises, and desires which he can never satisfy.”
“Because of this man seeks more money, more activities, more honours, more entertainments, more sex, more distractions, more noise etc., but this fear of uncertainty still remains. But when we turn deep within, we find out that the cause of this fear is the deep gulf between our finite body and our infinite mind which wants to possess all that’s true, good and beautiful, but our finite body falls short in that regard, a sure proof that fear lies in the heart of the fearful and not in the object of fear.”
“Yet our infinite mind tells that this fear of disorder, crisis, pains, sufferings, failures, and unhappiness is definitive pointer that our mind needs peace and serenity that’s devoid of all that. What we find in this world is counterfeit peace. Earthly peace is mingled with conflict, earthly serenity is mingled with distraction, and earthly happiness is mingled with pain. Every effort we make to evade conflict and crisis has proven impossible and difficult to materialize, yet our mind is convinced that absolute peace and serenity that is devoid of any atom of fear of uncertainty is possible.
“This absolute peace of the mind that is devoid of fear necessarily points that there is a Being who can bring about this absolute peace that can satisfy the infinite human mind. This being that can bring about the peace and bliss of the mind and tranquillity of the soul we call God, hence St. Augustine said, ‘Our Souls are restless until they rest in God’.”
You can formally represent the argument as follows:
- In life we find dissatisfaction with the present situation of things which makes us afraid of the uncertainty of the next moment.
- Because of this we seek more activities, money, sex, distraction etc., which still fail to satisfy us and put to rest the turmoil in our mind.
- An introspective analysis of this fear in our mind reveals a deep gulf between our finite body which is ladened with dissatisfaction and limitation and our infinite mind which believes overcoming them to achieve bliss peace of mind and tranquillity of the soul that is devoid of any recurrence of fear is possible.
- This insatiable quest for the absolute peace of mind, devoid of fear necessary point that there is a Being who embodies absolute peace and serenity of mind that can satisfy the human mind. This Being is what all people speak of as God.
Silence…
“You seem to have indulge this your proof or rather pointer to God’s existence beyond the acceptability of modern science as a matter of patriotism to your Christian religion, have you not heard of the drugs used to induce happiness, controlling and manipulating the amount and quantity of happiness that one can and wants to have.” Augustus scoffed.
“I am a psychologist and I am abreast with the developments in the emotive area of human development and I know what you are talking about but the problem of the scientists you mentioned is that he equates mere hilarity with the peace and serenity of the soul devoid of fear that I am talking about. Even with all manipulations of the human hormones with those drugs, it does not eliminate fear from the mind and heart of such an individual.” Osinakachi answered with a grimace.
“Well if you look at it from a theist’s scope, you will quite agree with him.” SirPeter chattered.
“But I am a theist and I do not quite agree with the reasons he gave for supporting his conclusion, even though the conclusion may not necessarily be false. Remember Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence based on the concept of God’s perfection and unsurpassable greatness was criticized by his fellow monk Guanilo based on faulty premises.” Augustus contended.
“Not wishing to enter into the nitty-gritty of logic, I would say that Osi’s argument may not be deductively valid or sound but it is an inductively strong and cogent argument and I think that’s why he chose his terms carefully, instead of using ‘fearological proof of God’s existence’, he used ‘fearological pointer to God’s existence’”
5.4 Criticism of the Fearological Pointer to God’s Existence by Augustus Chukwu
For all the noise made out of desperation by the likes of theocentric obsessed scholars like Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm to prove the existence of an infinite, non-material, non-physical and non-human God with finite human categories only produced a picture of a sheer intellectual monstrosity and caricature.
Modern thinkers who have applied intellectual maturity and prudence have respectfully avoided, ignored or suspended this argument, to at least save us the intellectual energy of focusing on more pressing and relevant contemporary existential concerns.
Unfortunately, there appears to still be those who are persistent in resurrecting age old irrelevant discussions that barely qualify to be reckoned with the costly adjective: “intellectual” owing to its dogmatic underpinnings and its non-relevance to contemporary exigencies and concerns.
An intellectual response to this glorified outdated 12th century mediaevalist dogma not only insults the productive time and intellectual effort put in reeling it out but at best shows the untenability, illogicality, irrationality and irrelevance of this argument.
Nevertheless, for the sake of putting to rest this obsessive mediaevalist exuberance in my friend and brother and to further discourage such unproductive and retrogressive thinking in the 21st century existentially-trouble laden age of ours I deem it wise to reply this sorry-argument with the following reasons which I wish to put forward, which are:
- The argument’s inferential deductions are uncalled for
- The argument in its sequential arrangement is logically incoherent
- The argument appeals to shallow thinking
- The argument is of no relevance to contemporary concerns.
Having outlined these points allow me to thematically buttress them in this way:
- That the Argument’s Inferential Deductions are Called for:
It is important to begin by stressing that most of the assumptions upon which these arguments are founded are false.
Assumptions raised in the Proof of God’s Existence 1
In his first version of the fearological pointer to God’s existence, the writer made some terribly troubling assumptions that need to be addressed promptly. The claim that man is capable of doing anything to preserve his existence is a universally agreeable truth that I subscribe to. However, the assumption that self preservation is caused by fear is only a partial truth considering the perspective from which life and the self is conceived. Life in itself as a given is good, beautiful, and meaningful and so also is the being that possesses it. Therefore the being who has life cherishes it in itself for this very reasons. When these values of goodness, purpose are threatened, life appears not be beautiful anymore and so becomes worthless for the possessing being – this results leads to suicide. It is when these values that define are threatened or absent that the possessor develops fear, a feeling that results from the absence of courage. Such that it is the sense of losing these values that causes fear. And so I think it is safe to say that every being seeks to preserve these values in creating, crafting and innovating products so as to preserve life and in extension preserve these values that give happiness. This I think is the case with human nature and not necessarily because we are afraid. Self preservation is therefore an endeavor to preserve the meaningful, good, and beautiful so as to secure happiness and not the fear of death.
This takes us to the next assumption that presumes that it is fear that spurs intentional strivings and desiring in man. This again is false assumption.
All acts of intentionality, striving and desiring are acts of the will that proceed from the faculty of the intellect. This means that for anything to be strived after it has to be knowable, and if it is knowable, then it is true (its existence is true), if it is true, then it is good and if good, it is beautiful at least ontologically or metaphysically speaking. It is when the intellect judges a thing based on its working categories as good that it is seen as beautiful it is then that the will is teleologically attracted to choose it, desire it and strive for it. The will desires it because the intellect has judged it as true, good and beautiful. It is therefore correct to say that the object of the intellect is truth and that of the will is that which is good. Therefore what motivates the will, desires or striving is goodness or beauty and not a negative emotion as fear. Something is judged by the intellect as good and beautiful when it is knowable, or intelligible and it is such when it is meaningful and having or serving a particular end/purpose. Truth is served by the principle of sufficient reason and the principle of goodness is finality, end or purpose.
Furthermore, the assumption that whatever that is in man must have been put there by a higher being is bespeaks of an immature, mediaevalist mindset that is governed or operated based on only a necessary causality or in strict teleological terms and this is what has informed the assumption that there must be an absolute being that has put a natural absence of courage in man – fear. I define fear simply as the absence of the feeling of courage and this feeling is a consequence of purely existential factors that have come into play. Again fear could be defined as the result of the activities of chemical reactions in one’s body throwing up certain enzymes, bile that are not favourable and healthy enough to energise a living body psychologically into carrying out a particular act. When the mind judges a situation a person wants to engage in as unhealthy or unfavorable it encourages or dissuades by the kind of enzymes or chemicals that the body produces and this just the bare fact of human nature which has no necessary spiritual connection.
Assumptions raised in the Proof of God’s Existence 2
In the second version of the fearological proof of God’s existence, I thank the author for the conversational mode which he arranged it and for anticipating some of my objections and answering it albeit unsatisfactorily. However, the author quoting his mentor Desh Subba made a presumptive and delusive claim that life is controlled and driven by fear. This assumption raises fear to the status of a negative indispensable spring board upon which life is centered. It presents fear as the single motivating factor that drives all living things towards a teleological end.
I however, think this assumption is not thoroughly thought through and this renders it baseless. This is because rather than fear being what controls life, I think the search for purpose and meaning is what primordially motivates life. And this is because purpose makes life in itself worthwhile and livable, purpose gives meaning to life. It is safe therefore to say that it is in the face of the apparent loss of meaning or the palpable absence of purpose that anxiety arises making life itself frustrating. When purpose is discovered meaning is restored to life and this is manifested existentially in the form of hope which informs courage an antithesis of fear.
When fear is presented as the single and major motivating factor of life it presents life and existence itself as negative. But metaphysically, Being (existence) in itself is good and is in itself motivated by good which presents itself as beautiful because it is known as true.
Moving on to his next deduction which claims that the search for an infinite reality points to the necessary existence of an infinite and absolute being called God.
This assumption I think is unfounded, unwarranted and practically uncalled for. The existence of fear is an existential emotive factor that is occasioned when a living being is faced with the facticity of his existence or experience – absurdity. When a person lacks the knowledge or requisite education to confront this absurdity it results into fear.
The real existential lacuna is the one created by man’s apparent longing and search for meaning – purpose and the experience of the facticity of absurdity. This fact is what creates anxiety and frustration. The reality of the myriad of infinite powers – infinite blissful peace of mind is what gives men hope. Also the reality of his apparent successes in overcoming the mental beast fear and his successes recorded in existential strides spurs a vivid conviction in him that there is nothing he cannot overcome with the right knowledge. This reveals the power of man and therefore becomes a pointer to the fact of man’s existence: a pointer to the fact that Man is God.
The argument that the possibility and search for an infinite blissful peace points to the fact of a divine infinite being called God is uncalled for, this is because there is no necessary connection between a rational possibility in existence and an irrational possibility outside existence. No necessary connection between a possible infinite blissful peace of mind and an infinite God. Such rational possibility can equally lead to postulating the infinity of man. Which is a more plausible deduction than that of an infinite God.
- The Argument in its Sequential Arrangement is Logically Incoherent:
If am to logically judge Osinakachi's fearological pointer argument to God’s existence, I would say that it is at best an inductively weak and dissuasive argument and at worst a syllogistically invalid and unsound argument that is devoid of any trace of logical reasoning. Allow me to demonstrate this by analyzing his argument from the two basic logical perspectives of deductive syllogism and inferential induction.
I would like to stress the point that I am not oblivious of the escapist caveats and clauses the writer put in place to cover the palpable weakness, disuasiveness, and unsoundness of his argument and to avoid incisive criticisms as this. The writer stresses the claim that his argument is not a logically sound one but a valid one. This claim forces a rational mind to wonder what criteria he used in judging between a valid and an invalid argument considering the fact that most of his assumptions are premised on false illusions.
Again the writer puts an argumentative proviso stating that his argument is a deductive syllogism and not an inductive argument. A closer look at his arguments shows glaringly that there appears to be an improper assessment of his own reasoning method as I think his argument appears to be more of a weakly constructed inductive argument than a deductive syllogism. This is because following the proper rules of syllogism these arguments appear to be far removed from the modalities of valid, sound and true syllogism. This is because as we shall see later, he repeatedly committed the fallacy of four terms quatermnioterminorum in the two arguments. He would have been safe had he deftly crafted an inductive argument with intelligent logical escape routes.
Allow me therefore to demonstrate the falsity of his argument by analysing and exploring how false these arguments are even in the case of adopting any of the two logical perspectives of deductive syllogism and inferential induction.
As an inductive reasoning this argument is essentially faulty, because of the following reasons.
First is the unreliability and uncertainty of inductive approach which essentially deals with the probability rather than certainty. Inductive reasoning checks the strength of an argument based on its degree of tenability or the degree of the truth value of its premises.
The arguments hold that the fear culture created by the deep gulf found in existential expectations points to a God that possesses such infinite nature that is capable of assuaging such infinite tastes. But this is not true. Having established the unsustainability of the underpinning assumptions e.g the falsity of the claim that life is controlled by fear , that there is a difference between the finite self and the infinite mind, which I refuted by explaining that the gulf created by existential expectations results in absurdity rather than fear. Again having showed the indemonstrability of proving non-human entity with human categories. [1]
It is therefore safe to say a fortiori that inductively the premises presented are too weak to stand for a strongly cogent conclusion or to be appreciated by human reason.
Again this argument analysed with Hume’s fork stands no chance. For Hume our belief in cause and effect relationship between events is not based on reason but a consequence of custom or habit. Hume notes that relations of ideas can be used only to prove other relations of ideas and mean nothing outside of the context of how they relate to other and therefore tell us nothing about the world. So for this reason relations of ideas cannot be used to prove matters of fact. A critical analysis of Osinakachi’s Fear-God analysis proves it to be a mere shallow belief and analysing it from the two-pronged perspectives of Hume’s fork which denies the relational and factual necessity of cause-effect relationships between matters of the world facts and non-application of ideas outside their contexts of relations in order to prove matters of fact Osinakachi’s fear pointer to God’s existence can easily be dislodged.
To properly understand and analyse his argument let me for the sake of convenience and brevity succinctly represent the argument this way.
Proof of God’s Existence 2
P1: Dissatisfaction causes fear
P2: We seek more activities to assuage dissatisfaction
P3: Fear shows gulf between finite self realities and infinite mind possibilities
P4: The search for absolute peace shows the existence of an absolute being
Conclusion: Therefore that absolute being is God
Granted that dissatisfaction causes anxiety which may lead to fear and that often times it is the case that most humans seek to assuage the dissatisfaction by engaging in more activities (even though some seek to achieve peace by engaging in less e.g. Buddhists).
First, the search or longing for absolute peace does not necessarily lead to the existence of an absolute being as there is no relational idea running on the same plain of thought. Therefore following the weakness of these assumptions, I think these premises don’t stand a good chance of defending his conclusions that there is an absolute being and that it is God.
Again as a syllogistic argument this argument falls terribly short of the basic structures of a traditional/modern syllogism. This is because a look at the five premises outlined shows that the argument commits the fallacy of four terms - quaternioterminorum. This fallacy occurs when an argument has four or more terms instead of the normal three terms characteristic of a syllogism. By doing this the fourth term automatically invalidates the argument. At a closer look at the argument it can discovered that it contains seven terms namely; dissatisfaction, fear, finite self realities, infinite mind possibilities, absolute peace, absolute being – God. This proliferation of terms certainly banalises and trivialises the whole argument turning it into more of a namby-pamby sort of discourse that is insipid, weak, and indecisive. Logically, therefore it is safe to say that this is no argument in the first place.
Still from a logical perspective, let me go on further to analyse the validity of his syllogism in the first argument. This is Osinakachi's argument as presented by him:
The human person has the self-consciousness of his emotive feeling of fear.
- His emotive feeling of fear spurs him to self and societal preservation and sustainability: which cannot be non-teleological. The teleology of the emotive feeling of fear of the human person must be ordered by an absolute Being.
- Therefore, this absolute Being is called God.
For the purpose of analysis the argument can be succinctly represented thus:
P1: Man is aware of his Fear
P2: Fear Spurs Self preservation
P3: Fear is caused by an Absolute Being
Conclusion: That Absolute Being is called God
A close analysis of this argument shows that it is simply a mockery of traditional syllogism which deals with only three terms and three premises of major, minor and middle. In this version Osinakachi's argument presents five terms in man, fear, self-preservation, absolute being, and God and so naughtily and egregiously repeats the fallacy of four terms quaternioterminorum which makes it unfit to be called a syllogism in the first place. Perhaps he should go back and learn his elementary logic before thinking of engaging in the futile intellectual voyage of proving God’s existence or perhaps also God’s existence cannot be proved through something as negative as fear in the first place.
The Argument Appeals to Shallow Thinking:
Furthermore, I think that this argument appeals to shallow thinking in the sense that considering the brazen logical fallacies committed and dictated here and there, it actually shows that the writer like Aquinas was more interested in concocting a shallow proof of God’s existence that is half hazard without putting in the scholarly and dutiful art of painstaking thinking and logical articulation. At best the writer can only be excused of any academic or intellectual blunder only in the case he admits that the fear-God argument is simply a non-rational proof or pointer to God’s existence and should be categorised under personal religious experiences of some sort. However, to this I would simply do Hume the honours of replying such claim in his words “if we take in our hand any volume: of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”[2]
Well there you are, Hume suggests the burning of this sort of intellectual work. Now whilst I, out of friendship loyalty cannot advocate for the burning of a friend’s work, but those weren’t my words but Hume’s, who then am I?
- iv) The Argument is of no Relevance to Contemporary Concerns: Finally, in a time when the world is faced with a whole lot of existential concerns like the three greatest threats facing humanity in the 21st century are: Climate change, the threat of nuclear war and the dangers posed by artificial intelligence. The least vibrant intellectual minds like Osinakachi can do is to proffer possible solutions to these through his study and understanding of fear. Let’s say if I may suggest,‘A fearological investigation into the realities and dangers of Artificial intelligence’ I think this is better than wasting time, energy and intellectual vibrations on a dark age old medievalist failed project of the proof of God’s existence. It is at best the show of academic naivety and trite traditionalism. It will be well if my friend invested more of his academic time in relevant contemporary issues.
N/B: The opinions of the writer as expressed on this topic does not in any way reflect his original religious views but is simply an intellectual exercise made for the improvement of human knowledge and to bring about balanced perspectives on the issue in review.
Augustus Chukwu U. - (An Inspirational philosopher, political analyst, futurist)
5.5 Conclusion
The fearological pointer to God’s existence like initially hinted is not a proof of God’s existence but a means of showing that fear may serve as an indication that a Supreme Being exists who created and sustains the universe. I thank Augustus Chukwu for the criticisms offered to this argument and I challenge other scholars to react to this argument either for or against.
[1]This meaning that relations of ideas can only be used to prove other relations of ideas existing in the same categories and mean nothing outside of the context of how they relate to each other and therefore tells us nothing about the world. The unnecessary adoption of a nonhuman infinite concept or theory of God has no necessary connection to the finite, physical, and human categories and so serves no purpose in worldly affairs.
[2] D. Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding p.166
Comments