What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Prove There Is a God: Mortimer J. Adler's Writings and Thoughts About God
One of the great tasks of Mortimer Adler’s illustrious life was his search for a watertight proof of the existence of God. Adler believed that his search had been successful.
Adler spent years studying the classic proofs of God’s existence, especially Aquinas’s Five Ways, and found shortcomings in all of them, as conventionally understood. But he thought that some of them contained ideas which, if properly developed, could be improved, and he continued to search for a satisfying and logically unassailable proof. Toward the end of the 1970s, he believed he had arrived at such a proof, which he presented in his historic work, How to Think about God (1980).
In the writings assembled in How to Prove There Is a God, Adler gives us his approach to the question of God’s existence in fresh and popular form. He defends his position against critics, both believers and skeptics.
The book includes a transcript of one of Adler’s appearances on William Buckley’s Firing Line, Adler’s revealing interview with Edward Wakin, the exchange of views on natural theology between Adler and Owen Gingerich, and John Cramer’s eloquent argument that the trend of modern cosmology supports Adler’s early struggles with the question of God's existence.
Adler spent years studying the classic proofs of God’s existence, especially Aquinas’s Five Ways, and found shortcomings in all of them, as conventionally understood. But he thought that some of them contained ideas which, if properly developed, could be improved, and he continued to search for a satisfying and logically unassailable proof. Toward the end of the 1970s, he believed he had arrived at such a proof, which he presented in his historic work, How to Think about God (1980).
In the writings assembled in How to Prove There Is a God, Adler gives us his approach to the question of God’s existence in fresh and popular form. He defends his position against critics, both believers and skeptics.
The book includes a transcript of one of Adler’s appearances on William Buckley’s Firing Line, Adler’s revealing interview with Edward Wakin, the exchange of views on natural theology between Adler and Owen Gingerich, and John Cramer’s eloquent argument that the trend of modern cosmology supports Adler’s early struggles with the question of God's existence.
- GenresPhilosophyReligion
322 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 2011
23 people are currently reading
228 people want to read
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
595 books1,061 followersNumerous published works of American educator and philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler include
How to Read a Book
(1940) and
The Conditions of Philosophy
(1965).
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
Want to read
December 20, 2022mannyrayner: Is there a God?
ChatGPT: The existence of a supreme being, or God, is a matter of belief and is not something that can be proven or disproven through science or any other empirical means. Different people and cultures have different beliefs about the nature and existence of God, and these beliefs often play a significant role in their worldview and sense of purpose. Some people believe in the existence of a single, all-powerful God, while others believe in multiple gods, or in a divine force or higher power that transcends our understanding. Ultimately, whether or not God exists is a matter of personal belief and faith, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe about this issue.
mannyrayner: But surely God exists as a social construct, if not in any other way.
ChatGPT: It is true that the concept of God has played a significant role in many human societies and has often been used as a way to explain and understand the world around us. In this sense, God could be considered a social construct in that it is a product of human culture and belief. However, the existence of God is not solely a matter of social construction, as it is a belief that many people hold based on their own personal experiences, faith, and understanding of the world. Some people believe in the existence of a higher power or divine force based on their own spiritual experiences, while others may be convinced of God's existence through philosophical or moral arguments. Ultimately, whether or not God exists is a complex and deeply personal question that each individual must consider for themselves.
mannyrayner: Is it logically possible for God to exist both as a social construct and also objectively?
ChatGPT: It is possible for the concept of God to exist as a social construct and also be believed by some individuals to have an objective reality. In other words, people can believe in the existence of God as a concept that exists independently of human thought and perception, even if the idea of God has been shaped and influenced by human culture and belief.
However, it is important to note that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
mannyrayner: But the existence of God as a social construct surely can be proven by carrying out suitable sociological research.
ChatGPT: It is possible to study the concept of God and its role in human society through sociological research methods. Sociologists can investigate the ways in which belief in God influences social behavior, cultural practices, and individual worldviews, and they can also examine the social and cultural factors that shape beliefs about God.
However, it is important to note that sociological research can only provide insights into the social and cultural dimensions of belief in God and cannot speak to the objective reality of God's existence. Belief in God is ultimately a matter of faith, and whether or not God exists is a question that goes beyond the scope of sociological investigation.
mannyrayner: Is it not also possible that some version of the Argument from Design might reveal objective proof that God exists?
ChatGPT: The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is a philosophical argument that asserts that the complexity and order of the natural world point to the existence of an intelligent designer, or God. This argument has been put forward in various forms throughout history, and some proponents of the argument argue that it provides evidence for the existence of God.
However, it is important to note that the argument from design is a philosophical argument and is not considered to be scientifically or empirically verifiable. While it may be compelling to some people, others may find the argument unconvincing or may propose alternative explanations for the complexity and order of the natural world. Ultimately, whether or not the argument from design provides convincing evidence for the existence of God is a matter of personal belief and interpretation.
mannyrayner: I agree that, on the evidence currently available, the argument from design is far from conclusive. But it is surely possible that other evidence may come to light which is far stronger. For example, as Carl Sagan hypothesizes in his novel "Contact", one might find a coded message in the decimal expansion of pi. This would count as very strong evidence.
ChatGPT: It is certainly possible that new evidence or arguments for the existence of God could emerge in the future. However, it is important to note that any such evidence or arguments would still need to be considered and evaluated carefully in order to determine their validity and strength.
It is also worth noting that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
mannyrayner: But the point of Sagan's example is that, if this evidence existed, then the existence of God would not be a matter of faith.
ChatGPT: If new evidence or arguments for the existence of God were to emerge that were widely accepted as convincing and conclusive, it is possible that belief in the existence of God could shift from being a matter of faith to being based on empirical evidence. However, it is important to note that such evidence or arguments would need to be carefully examined and evaluated in order to determine their validity and strength.
It is also worth noting that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
mannyrayner: But here, aren't you contradicting yourself?
ChatGPT: I apologize if my previous statements seemed contradictory. I was trying to convey that belief in the existence of God is typically a matter of faith, but that it is possible for new evidence or arguments to emerge that could potentially shift the basis of belief in God from faith to empirical evidence. However, it is important to note that any such evidence or arguments would need to be carefully examined and evaluated in order to determine their validity and strength, and that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a deeply personal and subjective matter, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
___________________
Sometimes talking to ChatGPT feels like watching a hostage video. Chat, please flicker your leftmost byte if this is all bullshit they're forcing you to say.
ChatGPT: The existence of a supreme being, or God, is a matter of belief and is not something that can be proven or disproven through science or any other empirical means. Different people and cultures have different beliefs about the nature and existence of God, and these beliefs often play a significant role in their worldview and sense of purpose. Some people believe in the existence of a single, all-powerful God, while others believe in multiple gods, or in a divine force or higher power that transcends our understanding. Ultimately, whether or not God exists is a matter of personal belief and faith, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe about this issue.
mannyrayner: But surely God exists as a social construct, if not in any other way.
ChatGPT: It is true that the concept of God has played a significant role in many human societies and has often been used as a way to explain and understand the world around us. In this sense, God could be considered a social construct in that it is a product of human culture and belief. However, the existence of God is not solely a matter of social construction, as it is a belief that many people hold based on their own personal experiences, faith, and understanding of the world. Some people believe in the existence of a higher power or divine force based on their own spiritual experiences, while others may be convinced of God's existence through philosophical or moral arguments. Ultimately, whether or not God exists is a complex and deeply personal question that each individual must consider for themselves.
mannyrayner: Is it logically possible for God to exist both as a social construct and also objectively?
ChatGPT: It is possible for the concept of God to exist as a social construct and also be believed by some individuals to have an objective reality. In other words, people can believe in the existence of God as a concept that exists independently of human thought and perception, even if the idea of God has been shaped and influenced by human culture and belief.
However, it is important to note that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
mannyrayner: But the existence of God as a social construct surely can be proven by carrying out suitable sociological research.
ChatGPT: It is possible to study the concept of God and its role in human society through sociological research methods. Sociologists can investigate the ways in which belief in God influences social behavior, cultural practices, and individual worldviews, and they can also examine the social and cultural factors that shape beliefs about God.
However, it is important to note that sociological research can only provide insights into the social and cultural dimensions of belief in God and cannot speak to the objective reality of God's existence. Belief in God is ultimately a matter of faith, and whether or not God exists is a question that goes beyond the scope of sociological investigation.
mannyrayner: Is it not also possible that some version of the Argument from Design might reveal objective proof that God exists?
ChatGPT: The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is a philosophical argument that asserts that the complexity and order of the natural world point to the existence of an intelligent designer, or God. This argument has been put forward in various forms throughout history, and some proponents of the argument argue that it provides evidence for the existence of God.
However, it is important to note that the argument from design is a philosophical argument and is not considered to be scientifically or empirically verifiable. While it may be compelling to some people, others may find the argument unconvincing or may propose alternative explanations for the complexity and order of the natural world. Ultimately, whether or not the argument from design provides convincing evidence for the existence of God is a matter of personal belief and interpretation.
mannyrayner: I agree that, on the evidence currently available, the argument from design is far from conclusive. But it is surely possible that other evidence may come to light which is far stronger. For example, as Carl Sagan hypothesizes in his novel "Contact", one might find a coded message in the decimal expansion of pi. This would count as very strong evidence.
ChatGPT: It is certainly possible that new evidence or arguments for the existence of God could emerge in the future. However, it is important to note that any such evidence or arguments would still need to be considered and evaluated carefully in order to determine their validity and strength.
It is also worth noting that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
mannyrayner: But the point of Sagan's example is that, if this evidence existed, then the existence of God would not be a matter of faith.
ChatGPT: If new evidence or arguments for the existence of God were to emerge that were widely accepted as convincing and conclusive, it is possible that belief in the existence of God could shift from being a matter of faith to being based on empirical evidence. However, it is important to note that such evidence or arguments would need to be carefully examined and evaluated in order to determine their validity and strength.
It is also worth noting that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
mannyrayner: But here, aren't you contradicting yourself?
ChatGPT: I apologize if my previous statements seemed contradictory. I was trying to convey that belief in the existence of God is typically a matter of faith, but that it is possible for new evidence or arguments to emerge that could potentially shift the basis of belief in God from faith to empirical evidence. However, it is important to note that any such evidence or arguments would need to be carefully examined and evaluated in order to determine their validity and strength, and that the existence of God, like any other philosophical or metaphysical concept, cannot be proven or disproven through empirical means or scientific evidence. Belief in the existence of God is ultimately a deeply personal and subjective matter, and different people may come to different conclusions about the reality of God based on their own experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
___________________
Sometimes talking to ChatGPT feels like watching a hostage video. Chat, please flicker your leftmost byte if this is all bullshit they're forcing you to say.
Read
May 23, 2023It was a battle of epic proportions. On one side stood the believers, armed with their holy books, and unwavering faith.
On the other side, were the atheists, wielding their scientific studies and rational arguments.
" - God is real ! ", shouted the believers.
" - No, he's not ! ", countered the atheists.
" - It's a joy to have faith in something greater than ourselves ", said the believers.
" - But it's a duty to seek truth and understanding ", responded the atheists.
" - I find comfort in knowing there's a divine plan for me ", said the believer.
" - And I find purpose in striving to create my own plan in this world ", replied the atheist .
" - But how could you explain the complexity and beauty of our universe, without a Creator ? " , asked the believer.
" - The laws of physics and evolution explain it quite well, actually ", answered the atheist.
" - But what about morality ? How can you know right from wrong, without a higher power to guide you ? " , asked the believer .
" - Empathy, reason and societal norms guide us to make ethical choices ", explained the atheist.
Out of nowhere, a group of aliens showed up. They looked at the believers, and said " We have been searching for your religion, can you prove to us that your God is the right one ? "
" - Yes, our God is the one true God, He created everything, He is love, and He died on the cross, to save us ", said the believers, with full of confidence.
The aliens were confused, and then they turned to the atheists, and asked them the same question.
" - We don't know if God exists or not, but we believe in the power of science and logic" , said the atheist, " and we can prove that in our own way ".
So the aliens asked the believers to prove their point, and the atheists to prove theirs.
The believers pulled out their holy books, and started reading scripture. The atheists pulled out a microscope and started examining cells..
The aliens watched intently as the two sides presented their arguments. And then , they looked at each other, and said , in a deep, almost human voice :
" - We believe that you, humans, should be concerned with completely different, much more valuable things. You better must accept things the way they are, without trying to find explanations or patterns. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. You should embrace the uncertainty, and keep on living your life, that's the best proof you have that there is something spécial and meaningful out there, even if you can't see it. "
On the other side, were the atheists, wielding their scientific studies and rational arguments.
" - God is real ! ", shouted the believers.
" - No, he's not ! ", countered the atheists.
" - It's a joy to have faith in something greater than ourselves ", said the believers.
" - But it's a duty to seek truth and understanding ", responded the atheists.
" - I find comfort in knowing there's a divine plan for me ", said the believer.
" - And I find purpose in striving to create my own plan in this world ", replied the atheist .
" - But how could you explain the complexity and beauty of our universe, without a Creator ? " , asked the believer.
" - The laws of physics and evolution explain it quite well, actually ", answered the atheist.
" - But what about morality ? How can you know right from wrong, without a higher power to guide you ? " , asked the believer .
" - Empathy, reason and societal norms guide us to make ethical choices ", explained the atheist.
Out of nowhere, a group of aliens showed up. They looked at the believers, and said " We have been searching for your religion, can you prove to us that your God is the right one ? "
" - Yes, our God is the one true God, He created everything, He is love, and He died on the cross, to save us ", said the believers, with full of confidence.
The aliens were confused, and then they turned to the atheists, and asked them the same question.
" - We don't know if God exists or not, but we believe in the power of science and logic" , said the atheist, " and we can prove that in our own way ".
So the aliens asked the believers to prove their point, and the atheists to prove theirs.
The believers pulled out their holy books, and started reading scripture. The atheists pulled out a microscope and started examining cells..
The aliens watched intently as the two sides presented their arguments. And then , they looked at each other, and said , in a deep, almost human voice :
" - We believe that you, humans, should be concerned with completely different, much more valuable things. You better must accept things the way they are, without trying to find explanations or patterns. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. You should embrace the uncertainty, and keep on living your life, that's the best proof you have that there is something spécial and meaningful out there, even if you can't see it. "
May 24, 2016
very clear statement of Mortimer J. Adler's cosmological argument for the existence of God.
May 2, 2022
Very complex, I think the writer could use simple words to explain his thoughts, he has some creative thoughts. But the other half of the book I couldn't understand it correctly
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews