Document Type : Original Research
Authors
1 Ph. D. Student in Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Joshua Golding, by appealing to faith in God as a finite but transcendent value, develops a new formulation of the pragmatic arguments. Golding argues that the potential value of attaining a good relationship with God is transcendent and a religious way of life is more likely than a nonreligious way of life to result in attaining a good relationship with God. In addition, Golding’s version aims to replace Pascal’s problem with a finite but transcendent value and justify that it is pragmatically rational for a person to pursue a religious way of life. Since Golding claims that the pragmatic value of choosing faith in God is higher than nonreligious choices, this paper attempts to defend his claim. Due to the position of the Axiology of Theism in this issue, the present paper examines both Pro-theism and Anti-theism arguments. This review shows that the Anti-theism claim in impersonal scope is not plausible and in personal one, which is based on the meaning of life argument is not defensible. Moreover, Proponents of the Divine Hiddenness by rebutting the Axiology of Theism also pose a challenge to Anti-theism arguments. Therefore, regarding Pro-theism arguments, God, as a perfectly moral good being, necessarily adds value to any state of affairs in which God exists. Hence, Golding’s pragmatic argument in claiming that attaining a good relationship with God is of value can be defended.
Keywords
Main Subjects