What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Think About God
A rational approach to providing the existence of God in today's scientific age compares the formation of a notion of God to the formation of equally difficult notions in nuclear physics and modern cosmology
175 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 1980
77 people are currently reading
653 people want to read
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
593 books1,042 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 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 18, 2023
Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th Century Pagan. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1980.
Have you ever read the arguments for the existence of God, and upon seeing said existence established, thought to yourself, “That seemed too convenient?” If the person were not a Christian, would he or she have come to the same conclusion? Although Mortimer Adler, himself a Thomist, even if an unconverted one, is sympathetic to Thomas Aquinas’s arguments, he does not find them persuasive as they currently stand.
The question before the house is this: since the cosmos is not part of a larger whole, and since the scientific evidence can be read either way regarding its eternity, does it need the presence of an efficient cause for its continuing existence (Adler 134)?
Adler begins his work by granting several “pagan” premises, namely that the universe could be eternal. To do otherwise, he says, is to beg the question. As a result, he is not aiming to prove a creative cause in the universe, but a continuing cause.
Though I do not share his skepticism regarding some of the traditional arguments, I do appreciate his clarity. One danger in seeing God as the First Cause is that it sometimes becomes God as the first temporal cause. That places God within the created order. To be sure, seeing First Cause in hierarchical language avoids that problem.
Is God an object among objects? He is not. That is the difficulty in giving a definition of God. When we define objects, we refer them to a general class of objects. God is in no such class. What do we do? Adler says we use the phrase “object of thought” instead of definition. That is fine, although at this point most people would not have that kind of problem.
Criticisms
Even though Adler pointed out difficulties relating the Big Bang to the cosmological argument, it is not clear how such difficulties would harm the argument from hierarchical cause. His argument from what I can tell is that hierarchical causes do not need secondary instrumental causes (43). It is not clear to me why they do not.
Adler faults the traditional cosmological argument for relying on the principle of sufficient reason, to which he correctly rebuts with Occam’s razor. The problem, though, is that Thomas Aquinas did not need the principle of sufficient reason. I refer the reader to Norman Geisler’s work on Aquinas.
Adler rightly points out that Aristotle’s view of causation is a faulty view of inertia. Aristotle believed that a body set in motion on a straight line continues indefinitely until counteracted. This is obviously false. Is this fatal to Thomas’s argument? It is not. Motion, for Thomas on this point, is a change from potency to actuality and does not require Aristotle’s view at this point.
Adler provides a brief autobiographical introduction in this book, to which readers of Adler such as myself will find most interesting. He also gives an impressive, if somewhat dated bibliography. As the book stands, however, I cannot recommend it. It is not Adler’s best work. Some concepts, such as his distinction between radical contingency and superficial contingency, were insufficiently argued. Skeptics will not like his weakened affirmation of God’s existence at the end of the book. Likewise, theists will not like his weakened affirmation of God’s existence at the end of the book.
Have you ever read the arguments for the existence of God, and upon seeing said existence established, thought to yourself, “That seemed too convenient?” If the person were not a Christian, would he or she have come to the same conclusion? Although Mortimer Adler, himself a Thomist, even if an unconverted one, is sympathetic to Thomas Aquinas’s arguments, he does not find them persuasive as they currently stand.
The question before the house is this: since the cosmos is not part of a larger whole, and since the scientific evidence can be read either way regarding its eternity, does it need the presence of an efficient cause for its continuing existence (Adler 134)?
Adler begins his work by granting several “pagan” premises, namely that the universe could be eternal. To do otherwise, he says, is to beg the question. As a result, he is not aiming to prove a creative cause in the universe, but a continuing cause.
Though I do not share his skepticism regarding some of the traditional arguments, I do appreciate his clarity. One danger in seeing God as the First Cause is that it sometimes becomes God as the first temporal cause. That places God within the created order. To be sure, seeing First Cause in hierarchical language avoids that problem.
Is God an object among objects? He is not. That is the difficulty in giving a definition of God. When we define objects, we refer them to a general class of objects. God is in no such class. What do we do? Adler says we use the phrase “object of thought” instead of definition. That is fine, although at this point most people would not have that kind of problem.
Criticisms
Even though Adler pointed out difficulties relating the Big Bang to the cosmological argument, it is not clear how such difficulties would harm the argument from hierarchical cause. His argument from what I can tell is that hierarchical causes do not need secondary instrumental causes (43). It is not clear to me why they do not.
Adler faults the traditional cosmological argument for relying on the principle of sufficient reason, to which he correctly rebuts with Occam’s razor. The problem, though, is that Thomas Aquinas did not need the principle of sufficient reason. I refer the reader to Norman Geisler’s work on Aquinas.
Adler rightly points out that Aristotle’s view of causation is a faulty view of inertia. Aristotle believed that a body set in motion on a straight line continues indefinitely until counteracted. This is obviously false. Is this fatal to Thomas’s argument? It is not. Motion, for Thomas on this point, is a change from potency to actuality and does not require Aristotle’s view at this point.
Adler provides a brief autobiographical introduction in this book, to which readers of Adler such as myself will find most interesting. He also gives an impressive, if somewhat dated bibliography. As the book stands, however, I cannot recommend it. It is not Adler’s best work. Some concepts, such as his distinction between radical contingency and superficial contingency, were insufficiently argued. Skeptics will not like his weakened affirmation of God’s existence at the end of the book. Likewise, theists will not like his weakened affirmation of God’s existence at the end of the book.
September 17, 2016
Harvard philosopher Mortimer Adler makes the case that belief in a God who caused the existence of the universe can be rational "for the 20th-century pagan". In this book, he adopts a truly philosophical approach to theology, as opposed to "natural theology" from antiquity, which too often contained implicit assumptions to be purely rational.
Adler takes his time to set the stage by eliminating possibilities of circular arguments, and by being very precise in his definition of the terminology used and statements to be proven. He improves upon the cosmological argument by presenting a generalized version that is rigorous. It may not be airtight, and even if you do not agree with his conclusions, you will know exactly which particular point you object to, because he is so clear and so meticulous, you may still find many other steps he makes to be very reasonable. One of the things that makes this account more compelling than previous "philosophical motivations for God" is perhaps the fact that he makes a sharp distinction between "the philosopher's God", his object of discussion here, and "the theologian's" God", instead of mixing them up like his predecessors did in most of their arguments. He makes very clear what the scope of his work is. For example, the problem of pain is not something that philosophy can discuss. Certain topics of theology are within reach only in the context of sacred theology, and makes no sense until/unless one makes the "leap of faith", which the author hopes to make easier with his work.
I appreciate having at my disposal the distillation of thoughts of a brilliant man who had contemplated on this issue for four decades before feeling confident of writing it down. I also found it intriguing that, although he was a sympathizer of the Christian faith, he was not a worshipper of a monotheistic God and did not officially accept it until twenty years after this work was produced, when he was more than eighty years of age!
Adler takes his time to set the stage by eliminating possibilities of circular arguments, and by being very precise in his definition of the terminology used and statements to be proven. He improves upon the cosmological argument by presenting a generalized version that is rigorous. It may not be airtight, and even if you do not agree with his conclusions, you will know exactly which particular point you object to, because he is so clear and so meticulous, you may still find many other steps he makes to be very reasonable. One of the things that makes this account more compelling than previous "philosophical motivations for God" is perhaps the fact that he makes a sharp distinction between "the philosopher's God", his object of discussion here, and "the theologian's" God", instead of mixing them up like his predecessors did in most of their arguments. He makes very clear what the scope of his work is. For example, the problem of pain is not something that philosophy can discuss. Certain topics of theology are within reach only in the context of sacred theology, and makes no sense until/unless one makes the "leap of faith", which the author hopes to make easier with his work.
I appreciate having at my disposal the distillation of thoughts of a brilliant man who had contemplated on this issue for four decades before feeling confident of writing it down. I also found it intriguing that, although he was a sympathizer of the Christian faith, he was not a worshipper of a monotheistic God and did not officially accept it until twenty years after this work was produced, when he was more than eighty years of age!
January 12, 2015
This book is exactly what the author says it is -- an attempt to prove the existence of God from a purely rationalistic point of view. In trying to accomplish this, he takes the reader on a short but very interesting tour of previous arguments for the existence of God by Aristotle, Anselm and Acquinas. To my mind, he was extremely clear in pursuing an argument that was complex and dependent on many incremental steps. In the end, he readily admits the limits of what he has done. Proving to his satisfaction that God exists is a far cry from proving that God is of the type and has the characteristics that various religions have given to him. In any event, as I read I always felt that I was being lead by a very smart individual who honestly approaches big problems and tries to break them down in ways that make them understandable. When I finished this book, I went to the library and got out Mr. Adler's book on Aristotle.
March 5, 2025
God is supernatural. That means he doesn’t bow to our scientific efforts. I don’t like to say this, but I think Adler’s argument is a cop out. He does a lot of hand waving and curtain pulling.
Adler wrote this book for the 20th century pagan, and he defines everything. I didn’t enjoy the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
Adler wrote this book for the 20th century pagan, and he defines everything. I didn’t enjoy the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
December 30, 2014
Mortimer Adler was a University of Chicago Professor of Philosophy and one of the founders of the Great Books Foundation. Jewish by background but not practicing any religion, Adler examined the classical philosophers, and especially St. Thomas Aquinas, to tackle the great questions, does God exist, and if so, what is He? In doing so, Adler approached the problem, not from the perspective of theology or science, but from pure rationalism. In doing so, Adler asks many profound and important questions that are important, not just for the 20th Century Pagan, but for all of us.
Many of us may find it silly to ask the question what is God. After all, many of us have mental images of God, images that I like to call the "cartoon God". Perhaps we see God as an old man in the clouds passing judgment on the earth. Perhaps our God is a divine Santa Claus who gives us stuff that we ask Him. Some theologians encourage us to think of God as our Mother. All of these are caricatures and limit our imaginations when it comes to God. Even Jesus' own teaching that we should address God as "Our Father" falls short in this respect. Although the image of God as Father is a wonderful portrayal of our relationship with God, the fact is that God is much more than any human father ever could be.
In this book, Adler encourages us to step out of our comfort zone and examine the philosophical concept of God. In order to do this, we must examine the nature of being itself. What gives reality its shape? When we consider the world around us, we see not just quantities of objects but qualities as well. We see beauty and recognize that some things are more beautiful than others. We see complexity and realize that some things are complex and others are simple. So what does perfect simplicity look like? What is the perfection of beauty? The Bible speaks of God in such superlative terms. When God introduced Himself to Moses at the burning bush, he referred to Himself as "I AM". This is not to say that God merely exists, but rather it means that God encompasses all existence, and that nothing exists without Him. Similarly, in the Prologue to St. John's gospel, Jesus is described as "The Word", not just because He has a name, but because He is the meaning behind all words, that without Him no word makes any sense at all. Finally, when the Pharisees addressed Jesus as "Good Teacher", Jesus asks them, "why do you call me good? There is nobody good except God." By this Jesus doesn't mean that there is no good in the universe but God, but rather that all goodness has God for its source, and that there is no good except from God.
If we consider that all things that are have a beginning and an end, then we must consider what is the origin of the cosmos. Now, many philosophies and scientists believe that the cosmos has no beginning. But if they do, then they must concede that Something gave shape to the world. This is one of the sticky points behind the Big Bang Theory. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory then you must believe that something caused the Big Bang. But what was it? What started the process of explosion and creation? It must be something that itself had no beginning. Furthermore, if you feel that the universe was created for a purpose, then that purpose must come from somewhere. It comes from a source beyond all purpose, a Primary Cause if you will. That is the thing that we call God.
Adler points out that it is very tricky to prove the existence of God, because since God is the Primary Purpose and Primary Cause, then any argument made from causality begs the questions about God's existence. In fact, I believe that it is impossible to prove the existence of God the way that you can prove that the squares of the two legs of a right triangle add up to the square of the hypotenuse. This is why faith is a virtue, and to receive it is a blessing. But it is possible to explore the possibility of God through rationalism alone. Adler does so in this book and gives the reader plenty to think about.
This is a very short and very easy to read book. Even if you have never taken a philosophy class in your life, you should understand Adler's arguments. I would highly recommend this book, not just for philosophers or for "pagans", but for believers as well.
Many of us may find it silly to ask the question what is God. After all, many of us have mental images of God, images that I like to call the "cartoon God". Perhaps we see God as an old man in the clouds passing judgment on the earth. Perhaps our God is a divine Santa Claus who gives us stuff that we ask Him. Some theologians encourage us to think of God as our Mother. All of these are caricatures and limit our imaginations when it comes to God. Even Jesus' own teaching that we should address God as "Our Father" falls short in this respect. Although the image of God as Father is a wonderful portrayal of our relationship with God, the fact is that God is much more than any human father ever could be.
In this book, Adler encourages us to step out of our comfort zone and examine the philosophical concept of God. In order to do this, we must examine the nature of being itself. What gives reality its shape? When we consider the world around us, we see not just quantities of objects but qualities as well. We see beauty and recognize that some things are more beautiful than others. We see complexity and realize that some things are complex and others are simple. So what does perfect simplicity look like? What is the perfection of beauty? The Bible speaks of God in such superlative terms. When God introduced Himself to Moses at the burning bush, he referred to Himself as "I AM". This is not to say that God merely exists, but rather it means that God encompasses all existence, and that nothing exists without Him. Similarly, in the Prologue to St. John's gospel, Jesus is described as "The Word", not just because He has a name, but because He is the meaning behind all words, that without Him no word makes any sense at all. Finally, when the Pharisees addressed Jesus as "Good Teacher", Jesus asks them, "why do you call me good? There is nobody good except God." By this Jesus doesn't mean that there is no good in the universe but God, but rather that all goodness has God for its source, and that there is no good except from God.
If we consider that all things that are have a beginning and an end, then we must consider what is the origin of the cosmos. Now, many philosophies and scientists believe that the cosmos has no beginning. But if they do, then they must concede that Something gave shape to the world. This is one of the sticky points behind the Big Bang Theory. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory then you must believe that something caused the Big Bang. But what was it? What started the process of explosion and creation? It must be something that itself had no beginning. Furthermore, if you feel that the universe was created for a purpose, then that purpose must come from somewhere. It comes from a source beyond all purpose, a Primary Cause if you will. That is the thing that we call God.
Adler points out that it is very tricky to prove the existence of God, because since God is the Primary Purpose and Primary Cause, then any argument made from causality begs the questions about God's existence. In fact, I believe that it is impossible to prove the existence of God the way that you can prove that the squares of the two legs of a right triangle add up to the square of the hypotenuse. This is why faith is a virtue, and to receive it is a blessing. But it is possible to explore the possibility of God through rationalism alone. Adler does so in this book and gives the reader plenty to think about.
This is a very short and very easy to read book. Even if you have never taken a philosophy class in your life, you should understand Adler's arguments. I would highly recommend this book, not just for philosophers or for "pagans", but for believers as well.
December 26, 2021
Adler attempts to rework the traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence in light of modern "objections", but a good chunk of that is accepting relatively indefensible assumptions by materialists (i.e., those who believe that "matter is all there is") that traditional theistic arguments have rightly rejected and so Adler's argument reads as confused. For instance, he notes that "[t]he natural process of coming to be and passing away consists in a transformation of matter" and that this is not creation ex nihilo (or "exnihilation", to use Adler's phraseology) nor is it annihilation (i.e., reduction to nothing). He is, of course, correct, but there are a few objections that the traditional theist would raise here.
For a start, the "substantial forms" (to use the Aristotelean language) are added ex nihilo in at least some of these cases (e.g., conception of an animal), and so merely noting that we do not find matter to be "exnihilated" or annihilated is not relevant for answering whether we find anything to be exnihilated or annihilated unless we already suppose that "matter is all there is" (i.e., materialism), which no theist would ever accept and for that matter which Adler himself argues against in his defence of an immaterial God. Further, a Thomist would believe we have clear evidence of substantial forms, as attested by (e.g.) Thomistic proofs of the existence of an immaterial and immortal human soul. Now, you might think those Thomistic proofs do not work, and that's all well and good, but it is not sufficient to note as Adler does that belief in an immaterial and immortal human soul is a mere leap of faith. It isn't for the Thomist. And if substantial forms at least viz. human souls are created ex nihilo, then we do contra Adler have evidence of creation ex nihilo and so we're back to the traditional theistic argument and don't need the strange materialist version.
Or, alternately, if Adler's argument is that the creation and annihilation of contingent things (like chairs, humans, and so on) is merely the rearrangement of matter, but that matter itself is permanent and cannot be exnihilated or annihilated, then one might well ask what it is about matter that gives it this property of necessary existence, which the materialist cannot answer without explanatory regress or a mere shrug of the shoulders. It is no good to simply assert that such-and-such a thing has necessary existence "just because", and this has always been the conceit of materialism, and the second one accepts that a property like "necessary existence" calls out for an explanation, we are once again in the realm of traditional theist arguments with no need to rework the arguments to placate the materialists.
In short, while the efforts to see if traditional arguments can be made plausible under a materialist framework might rightly invite some curiosity in terms of "how well they hide the fallacy", they cannot be good arguments because materialism can never be a good framework. If one is trying to correct the errors in 20th century pagan thinking on this issue, someone like Edward Feser would be a better bet inasmuch as Feser shows how the traditional theistic metaphysics are independent of incorrect medieval physics and therefore how the traditional theistic arguments work on their own merits, rather than trying to make traditional theistic arguments fit obviously misguided contemporary metaphysics just so that one can say one's arguments are compatible with contemporary physics too.
For a start, the "substantial forms" (to use the Aristotelean language) are added ex nihilo in at least some of these cases (e.g., conception of an animal), and so merely noting that we do not find matter to be "exnihilated" or annihilated is not relevant for answering whether we find anything to be exnihilated or annihilated unless we already suppose that "matter is all there is" (i.e., materialism), which no theist would ever accept and for that matter which Adler himself argues against in his defence of an immaterial God. Further, a Thomist would believe we have clear evidence of substantial forms, as attested by (e.g.) Thomistic proofs of the existence of an immaterial and immortal human soul. Now, you might think those Thomistic proofs do not work, and that's all well and good, but it is not sufficient to note as Adler does that belief in an immaterial and immortal human soul is a mere leap of faith. It isn't for the Thomist. And if substantial forms at least viz. human souls are created ex nihilo, then we do contra Adler have evidence of creation ex nihilo and so we're back to the traditional theistic argument and don't need the strange materialist version.
Or, alternately, if Adler's argument is that the creation and annihilation of contingent things (like chairs, humans, and so on) is merely the rearrangement of matter, but that matter itself is permanent and cannot be exnihilated or annihilated, then one might well ask what it is about matter that gives it this property of necessary existence, which the materialist cannot answer without explanatory regress or a mere shrug of the shoulders. It is no good to simply assert that such-and-such a thing has necessary existence "just because", and this has always been the conceit of materialism, and the second one accepts that a property like "necessary existence" calls out for an explanation, we are once again in the realm of traditional theist arguments with no need to rework the arguments to placate the materialists.
In short, while the efforts to see if traditional arguments can be made plausible under a materialist framework might rightly invite some curiosity in terms of "how well they hide the fallacy", they cannot be good arguments because materialism can never be a good framework. If one is trying to correct the errors in 20th century pagan thinking on this issue, someone like Edward Feser would be a better bet inasmuch as Feser shows how the traditional theistic metaphysics are independent of incorrect medieval physics and therefore how the traditional theistic arguments work on their own merits, rather than trying to make traditional theistic arguments fit obviously misguided contemporary metaphysics just so that one can say one's arguments are compatible with contemporary physics too.
December 7, 2009
Adler was a conservative 20th century philosopher who wrote books about philosophy for the average reader which do not require graduate degrees in philosophy to follow. In this book he examines the various arguments for the existence of God and finds them wanting, but ultimately concludes that God exists, all the while admitting the philosophical arguments are not strong enough to prove it. He uses the term "20th century pagan" in the title to refer to the non-religious in general rather than to polytheists or nature worshipers as some might expect.
Want to read
December 14, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Bibliography.
December 26, 2017
Complex, complete and insightful.
August 12, 2024
ONE OF ADLER'S SERIES OF POPULARLY-WRITTEN PHILOSOPHY BOOKS
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research. He wrote many books, such as 'How to Think About the Great Ideas: From the Great Books of Western Civilization,' 'Six Great Ideas,' 'We Hold These Truths: Understanding the Ideas and Ideals of the Constitution,' etc.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1980 book, "It would be folly to address a discussion of God to such resolutely committed pagans---persons who not only disbelieve in the existence of God but who have also closed their minds on the subject; and who for one reason or another have no interest in the question whether God exists and are, therefore, unwilling to devote any time or effort to the consideration of such matters. They are the 20th century pagans for whom this book is NOT intended... this book is addressed to... the openminded pagans of our day and of our culture... [but also to] those who would say that some of their best friends are pagans and who would... be interested in learning how their pagan friends might be persuaded that God exists." (Pg. 7)
He observes, "It may not be possible to construct a chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion 'Therefore, God exists' without including a step that refers to God as the cause of some known effect---an effect that cannot be causally explained without positing the existence of God as its cause." (Pg. 40-41)
He states, "Here, then, to sum it up is the striking difference between the cosmos and God as objects of thought. We know that the cosmos exists, but we must ask whether its existence is caused or uncaused---whether it has a necessary or a radically contingent existence. We do not know whether the supreme being exists, but, IF God does exist, we do not have to ask whether God's existence is caused or uncaused---whether God has necessary or radically contingent existence." (Pg. 136)
Developing his own argument, he asserts, "A merely possible cosmos cannot be an uncaused cosmos. A cosmos that is radically contingent in its existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause---one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for a merely possible cosmos; namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness." (Pg. 144) He adds, "Once we affirm God's existence on the assumption of an uncreated cosmos, we can turn to the more likely assumption of a created cosmos. That a possible cosmos has everlastingly existed is less likely than the opposite." (Pg. 146)
Adler's books are quite derivative, of course, but they are nevertheless facile creations by an extremely "literate" person, and are excellent introductions to the subjects they cover.
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research. He wrote many books, such as 'How to Think About the Great Ideas: From the Great Books of Western Civilization,' 'Six Great Ideas,' 'We Hold These Truths: Understanding the Ideas and Ideals of the Constitution,' etc.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1980 book, "It would be folly to address a discussion of God to such resolutely committed pagans---persons who not only disbelieve in the existence of God but who have also closed their minds on the subject; and who for one reason or another have no interest in the question whether God exists and are, therefore, unwilling to devote any time or effort to the consideration of such matters. They are the 20th century pagans for whom this book is NOT intended... this book is addressed to... the openminded pagans of our day and of our culture... [but also to] those who would say that some of their best friends are pagans and who would... be interested in learning how their pagan friends might be persuaded that God exists." (Pg. 7)
He observes, "It may not be possible to construct a chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion 'Therefore, God exists' without including a step that refers to God as the cause of some known effect---an effect that cannot be causally explained without positing the existence of God as its cause." (Pg. 40-41)
He states, "Here, then, to sum it up is the striking difference between the cosmos and God as objects of thought. We know that the cosmos exists, but we must ask whether its existence is caused or uncaused---whether it has a necessary or a radically contingent existence. We do not know whether the supreme being exists, but, IF God does exist, we do not have to ask whether God's existence is caused or uncaused---whether God has necessary or radically contingent existence." (Pg. 136)
Developing his own argument, he asserts, "A merely possible cosmos cannot be an uncaused cosmos. A cosmos that is radically contingent in its existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause---one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for a merely possible cosmos; namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness." (Pg. 144) He adds, "Once we affirm God's existence on the assumption of an uncreated cosmos, we can turn to the more likely assumption of a created cosmos. That a possible cosmos has everlastingly existed is less likely than the opposite." (Pg. 146)
Adler's books are quite derivative, of course, but they are nevertheless facile creations by an extremely "literate" person, and are excellent introductions to the subjects they cover.
May 7, 2019
A philosophical treatise exploring whether a God exists. Written by a pagan for pagans (though I think everyone exploring God and organized religion should read it), Adler uses logic and reason, while avoiding faith and science, to explore whether the existence of a supreme being is possible.
I struggled through my college Logic and Philosophy courses, but found this book easy to follow and understand. There were many “WOW” moments.
Why would a Christian want to read this book? I quote Adler: “Only those with knowledge can act intelligently, and can do what cannot be done by those without knowledge.”
Though Adler does not concluded God cares about us (he leaves that to theology and Pascal’s wager), he writes:
“The God who revealed himself to the faithful in the Old Testament is, to this extent at least, the God of whom we have formed a philosophical notion and in whose existence we have found reasonable grounds to believe.”
As a Catholic, I find it interesting that Adler was an agnostic “pagan” American philosopher of Jewish descent who was received into the Catholic Church at the age of 96, two years before his death. Seems he took Pascal’s wager.
I struggled through my college Logic and Philosophy courses, but found this book easy to follow and understand. There were many “WOW” moments.
Why would a Christian want to read this book? I quote Adler: “Only those with knowledge can act intelligently, and can do what cannot be done by those without knowledge.”
Though Adler does not concluded God cares about us (he leaves that to theology and Pascal’s wager), he writes:
“The God who revealed himself to the faithful in the Old Testament is, to this extent at least, the God of whom we have formed a philosophical notion and in whose existence we have found reasonable grounds to believe.”
As a Catholic, I find it interesting that Adler was an agnostic “pagan” American philosopher of Jewish descent who was received into the Catholic Church at the age of 96, two years before his death. Seems he took Pascal’s wager.
April 24, 2021
In my opinion, the typical atheist says he finds no reason to believe in God. Usually, he arrives at this conclusion without even reasoning. He doesn’t believe it because he didn’t find it. He doesn’t find it because he didn’t search enough.
As José Ortega y Gasset said, there is a world of difference between “believing that God exists” and “believing in God”
One can believe in God by faith through the sacred scriptures, miracles, or any other motive.
You also need faith to be an atheist.
This book will present you, via formal logic (syllogisms), in an extremely methodical way, how to reason instead of simply believing in the existence of God. Yes, by pure reasoning. Not an easy task for those not used to philosophical terminology though. A philosophical dictionary will certainly be needed for most readers to understand the meaning of words such as “contingent” and “necessary”, in their strict sense.
Hope this book will allow you to know the existence of God, beyond reasonable doubt. No faith needed. No leaps of faith either.
As José Ortega y Gasset said, there is a world of difference between “believing that God exists” and “believing in God”
One can believe in God by faith through the sacred scriptures, miracles, or any other motive.
You also need faith to be an atheist.
This book will present you, via formal logic (syllogisms), in an extremely methodical way, how to reason instead of simply believing in the existence of God. Yes, by pure reasoning. Not an easy task for those not used to philosophical terminology though. A philosophical dictionary will certainly be needed for most readers to understand the meaning of words such as “contingent” and “necessary”, in their strict sense.
Hope this book will allow you to know the existence of God, beyond reasonable doubt. No faith needed. No leaps of faith either.
November 21, 2025
that was a fun one. gave me some new perspective for how to think about the concept of God. and with that 'how to think' comes some sort of why. motivational. a book that gives you a form of hope. what more could you ask from such a short treatise? this being my second Adler book, I am happy to have found him this year. his 10 philosophical mistakes reminded me of the beautiful precision being structured, consistent, and reasonable in our thought gives us. How to Think About God used that reason to approach a concept that has always felt philisophical elusive if anything. I thought a leap of faith was the only way to approach something like a supreme being. its very nice to have another tool in the kit for coming to terms with life and its complexities. that tool is a philosophically sound manner in which to consider the concept of God. a pleasant and oddly powerful experience to read this book the past few days.
June 25, 2018
This book is distinctive among popular defences of theism, as it is written by a philosophical theist, not a religious theist. There are only a handful of books like this, so its worth reading on that basis alone. The strengths of this book are (1) it responds to critiques of natural theology, e.g. that of David Hume, and show their reputation is not well-deserved, (2) it clarifies the fundamental differences between monotheism and polytheism - a distinction that is often ignored by modern atheists, (3) it presents and defends a distinctive version of the cosmological argument.
January 4, 2021
This is an excellent philosophical discussion concerning the question of God's existence. It is not a faith based discussion. Rather it begins with natural experience, what we all experience about the sky, the sun, the air, the waves, the green fields of earth. From natural experience, probing the question, why is there a universe at all rather than nothing or some other possible universe, the answer is attributed to the power of a divine being, "God." The monotheistic religions arrive at God through personal encounter. The philosophical approach to God is not through personal encounter but through personal experience. We live in this universe rather than an infinite number of other universes which are easily conceived of; the reason is that God has made this universe "obtain," just as it takes primary and secondary causality for any state of affairs to "obtain."
April 12, 2020
Well written and articulated. There will be some that cannot grasp the concepts presented and therefore believe it to be poorly written and/presented. The book is as advertised and worth the reading.
August 14, 2024
Methodical and Cogent.
This treatment contains a lot of echoes that students of philosophy will recognize. In addition, it leverages these ideas into a synthetic and creative approach that is a new sound. Thank you for writing it.
This treatment contains a lot of echoes that students of philosophy will recognize. In addition, it leverages these ideas into a synthetic and creative approach that is a new sound. Thank you for writing it.
September 28, 2022
I wish more people I know would have read this book as I think his critique of Anselm's Ontological Argument is devastating and I wonder if someone has a reasonable reply.
November 26, 2020
Thought Provoking
I like the logic and thought processes presented. I believe this excellent book would have been even better had the author used only one third the words. Superfluous words and winding verbal machinations made reading tedious.
I like the logic and thought processes presented. I believe this excellent book would have been even better had the author used only one third the words. Superfluous words and winding verbal machinations made reading tedious.
January 18, 2024
Atheism: Excellent discussion, I am paying better attention than I did on my first reading.
To really understand most of the arguments I need to go back and read again with pencil and paper to take notes with.
How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan by Mortimer Jerome Adler
Excellent book written in formal philosophical style with an extensive discussion/bibliography in final Chapter 19:
Adler says:
“Instead of the formalized bibliography that usually accompanies a treatise on an important subject, I would like to give readers who have both the interest and the inclination to delve further into the literature of theology a running account of the reading I have done over the course of a lifetime, but especially in the very recent past, while I was preparing to write this book."
Adler, Mortimer Jerome. How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-century Pagan : One Who Does Not Worship the God of Christians, Jews, or Muslims, Irreligious Persons (pp. 169-170). Touchstone. Kindle Edition. “
I checked the other books that I have from Adler over the years, ~30, and did not find any similar bibliographies that are like this one. Interesting that his writing style is written more like a formal philosophic or mathematical document, basic principles followed by extensive deductions and thinking with proofs to support the conclusions.
To really understand most of the arguments I need to go back and read again with pencil and paper to take notes with.
How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan by Mortimer Jerome Adler
Excellent book written in formal philosophical style with an extensive discussion/bibliography in final Chapter 19:
Adler says:
“Instead of the formalized bibliography that usually accompanies a treatise on an important subject, I would like to give readers who have both the interest and the inclination to delve further into the literature of theology a running account of the reading I have done over the course of a lifetime, but especially in the very recent past, while I was preparing to write this book."
Adler, Mortimer Jerome. How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-century Pagan : One Who Does Not Worship the God of Christians, Jews, or Muslims, Irreligious Persons (pp. 169-170). Touchstone. Kindle Edition. “
I checked the other books that I have from Adler over the years, ~30, and did not find any similar bibliographies that are like this one. Interesting that his writing style is written more like a formal philosophic or mathematical document, basic principles followed by extensive deductions and thinking with proofs to support the conclusions.
August 17, 2014
Thought provoking discussion of God's existing by one of the most well known philosophers of our time. It's and interesting discussion without the drudgery of many books on philosophy and logic. If you enjoy these subjects, then add this book to your list.
September 7, 2012
World's best written bullshit shield.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews