D. Z. Phillips & What It Means To Believe in God

For many years, up ’til his death a few years ago, I studied under D. Z. Phillips.  I am not alone in thinking Phillips, along with Alvin Plantinga, the greatest philosopher of religion of the twentieth century.

But he was more than a philosopher of religion.  I cannot think of an area of philosophy about which he did not have something profound to say.  He possessed a towering and intimidating intellect.  I’ve been witness to many of the most notable philosophers of our time reduced to silence with a simple question or two.

So, I was delighted to come across a small lecture he gave many years ago.  You may listen or read it, or read and listen to it – that would be my suggestion.  I shall resume my own transcribing of Phillips’ lectures and debates shortly.   Enjoy:

“Do you believe in God?

If you say you do, you’ll be asked why you believe in God.  Probably you won’t object to that question.

After all, if you say you believe something, you think it reasonable that you should be asked for your reasons for believing it. The reasonableness of giving reasons for your beliefs is something you take for granted.  A reasonable request isnt it?

But now, listen to this:

Whither shall I go from thy spirit?  Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

If I ascend up into heaven, thou are there: If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

If I say, suely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.  Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day:  the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

For thou hast possessed my reins; thous hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.   -Psalm 139: 7-14

Here it is clear the psalmist testifies to the inescapable reality of God.  Inescapable?

But what about the evidence?  What about the reasons?

Well, it has to be admitted that it never ocurred to any prophet or writer in the Old Testament to seek evidence for this existence of God, let alone to prove it.  For them this would be quite pointless, even senseless.

The movement of thought in the Old Testament is not from the world to God, but from God to the world.  The whole world declared God’s presence.  Not because it gave excellent evidence for God’s existence.  But because the world was seen, from the start, as God’s world.

The hills are girded with joy, the pastures are clothed with flocks.

The valley’s also are covered with grain.  They shout for joy.  They also sing.

Let the floods clap their hands.  Let the hills sing for joy together.

Oh Jehovah, how manifold are thy works.  In wisdom hast thous made them all.  The earth is full of thy riches. – Psalm 65

How far away that seems.  That world is not our world.  It hasn’t been our world for quite some time.  Ever since the Rennaisance and through the Enlightenment, the view of the world as God’s world has been under attack.

As a result it’s become natural for us to look on religious belief as a conjecture, a hypothesis.  And we look for evidence to justify it.  Philosophers who write on such matters are busy weighing the probabilities.

Some say the probablitiy is that there is a God.  Others say that the probability is that there is no God.  And despite allegedly weighing the same probabilites, they never agree.  How very odd.  In this scientific age one would at least expect people to be able to calculate.

Did the Psalmist miscalculate?  But really is that our problem?  A difficulty in weighing probabilities?  Surely not.

Our difficulty is that the majority of us no longer naturally see the world as God’s world.  It’s all too easy to escape from God’s presence.  If we ascend into the heavens, well even Bishops tell us He’s not there.  If we descend into the depths, again psychoanalysts tell us He’s not there either.

Our problem, it seems, is not how to escape from God, but how to find him.  We all too easily rise in the morning and lie down in darkness without Him.  The heavens no longer declare his glory for us, and the hills no longer sing for joy.”

Classic Phillips: Life After Death or Eternity?

Recall, Phillips was arguing that even if the idea of an empirically based after-life made sense, it would make no difference.  Would Nietzsche, for example, change his mind if he woke from death to find the risen Christ standing before him?  No, of course not, argues Phillips.  Therefore, even if it made sense (which it doesn’t), there’s no point in it anyway.

April 17, 2001 (Part 3):

Stephen Davis: See, I can buy that, even though I believe that verification might possibly make sense, eschatological verification, because I can imagine a situation where Christianity lets say, or any other religion potentially, could be verified yet there still be lots of unbelievers.  I think that makes perfectly good sense.  Maybe they’re stiff-necked, or close minded, or something like that.
D.Z. Phillips:  But does this make sense to you?  I suppose this comes down to Craig’s question about life after death.  . . .So, supposing now I don’t buy what doesn’t make sense to me, so that you have everything that Christianity means to you except eschatology, understood in a futuristic verificationist sense.  Supposing I were right.  Of course, neither of us are going to find out if I’m right.  You’re going to find out if you’re right – that’s one of the horrible aspects of my view.  You’re all going to be in the port of Swinburne from heaven, refusing me my class of water in Gehenna.

But, anyway, I’m not going to find out if I’m right in a verificationist sense, but, of course, we can pose it now.  If I were right, and it went into this category of a truth which says itself. Obviously, if I ask you, would it be any less, in certain respects you’d say “yes, there’s a whole dimension left out”.  But the more interesting question, well, not the more interesting question, but the question I’d want to press is if that dimension were out, would it effect everything other than that for you>

Stephen Davis:  Yes it would because I think most of the crucial Christian claims, Christian doctrines as theologians would put it, are organically tied to the future.  And it would be – it’s all of a piece, it’s not like you can lump off this part and the rest of it makes sense.  So, no I don’t think it would make any sense.  And this has nothing to do with my sort of anally wanting to survive death or something like that

Phillips:  No, no, no, no, no

Davis:  That’s not the issue at all.  As a system, I just don’t think it would make any sense.

Classic Phillips: Verification and Religious Belief

For an explanation of this post, go here.   The following takes place soon after professor Davis’ remarks in last weeks post.  I’ve omitted a restatement of Davis’ remarks by Phillips and by the student who asked the initial question.  The issue now is, does the eschaton function as verification of religious belief, thereby making [...]

Classic Phillips: epistemic practices

During the Spring of 2001, in the small town of Claremont, two of the world’s most renowned philosophers of religion debated and discussed the problem of evil for an entire semester.  The two philosophers were D. Z. Phillips, my academic advisor, and Stephen Davis, a member of my dissertation committee.  I maintain that Phillips, was [...]