Atheism and Theism 81doctrinal religion, for without them most believers at most times would be
unsupported in their faith.
Once again, however, I should warn readers who may not be aware of
it that such a view is not universal among Christians of all denominations.
Many would insist upon the necessity and sufficiency of a personal, interior
conversion; a finding of God within oneself, in prayer or in the reading of the
divine word in scripture. This seems to me to be as unreasonable as a corres-
ponding demand that someone engaged in astronomy establish everything
for himself (not consulting textbooks, research material or authorities) includ-
ing the reliability of his equipment and the methodology of his procedures.
Under those conditions few will ever come by much in the way of astronom-
ical knowledge. Similarly, the demand that one establish for oneself the
full credentials of one’s belief is likely to result in little faith and much dis-
agreement – as, I believe, history shows. If there are no doctrinal authorities
then there can be no reliable doctrines, and without the latter there can be no
significant religious content.
For theists of my persuasion and background it is natural to look to
the example of the philosophical theology of the Middle Ages and in par-
ticular to the towering and enduring achievements of Aquinas as embodied
in the Summa Theologiae and many lesser known writings.^3 Like Smart,
however, I am a product of English-language philosophy and feel most at
home with analytical styles of argument. Far from regarding these allegiances
as sources of tension, however, I feel them to be mutually supportive. Indeed
on other occasions I have coined the expression ‘analytical Thomism’ for
the philosophical-cum-theological approach I find myself following – one,
incidentally, that draws more on the spirit than on the details of Thomistic
philosophy.^4 I am not a historical Thomist. Readers need not be unduly cheered
or troubled by these particular commitments; it is enough to take stock of the
fact that my contribution is that of a straightforward theistic realist.
However, else our arguments may be thought to fall short, therefore,
neither of us is likely to seem evasive. Smart observes that there are those
whose purported theism amounts to no more than polite, religiously-affected,
atheism; and I have argued that one result of accommodations to modernity
has been to drain many accounts of religious belief and practice of any ontolo-
gical significance. Odd though it sounds, therefore, there are indeed religious
anti-realists; and more strikingly yet some of them are to be found within
religious denominations. So far as the historical self-understanding of Chris-
tianity is concerned the existence of professing atheists within these churches
is at best a mark of profound confusion and at worst a cause of scandal and
despair. If one should come to think that ‘God’ is a human construct – be it
ever so noble and inspiring a one – better to say what one then truly believes:
that there is no God and that faith is in vain.^5