Atheism and Theism 43‘sempiternal’ side. Kneale suggests that the ‘eternal’ conception was natural-
ized in Christian theology through Boethius. According to this conception
God is outside time altogether. On the other hand there is talk of God as
a living being and as performing actions. This suggests sempiternity. My
difficulties about the notion of sempiternity make me wish to advise the
theologian (I hope without being a devil’s advocate) to go the ‘eternity’ way.
How would an eternal being act on the world? Perhaps in this way: a certain
relation between the atemporal God and a temporal act (say someone’s prayer)
is correlated with another relation, say between the atemporal God and a
temporal state of grace or whatever. Some such answer might be given as to
how John Leslie’s axiarchic principle could act on the world or bring it into
existence. There would be some sort of relation between an atemporal thing
(as I conceive that an axiarchic principle, proposition or rule must be) and
a space–time universe. One other problem with Leslie’s idea of an axiarchic
principle actually bringing the world into existence is analogous to those
brought up a few pages back. This is that we can ask what explains the
existence of the axiarchic principle. Leslie holds that the axiarchic principle is
a necessary proposition, but need the existence of a necessary proposition
itself be necessary? Perhaps it is if the existence of universals is necessary, but
I have noted that this is at least controversial.
Once more the atheist may feel grateful for being excused from such
conundrums, fascinating intellectual problems though they are.
9 The Argument from Religious Experience
With the argument from contingency philosophers and theologians were
endeavouring to argue for a creator God, not merely a finite ‘big brother’
God. The latter would merely be a higher part of the universe though not
immediately observable, which we can assist in the fight against evil.^81 The
same might be said about the argument to design, even though strictly speak-
ing this argues only for a designer who works on already existing material.
Those who argue from religious experience could be arguing for the creator
and designer God of the great monotheistic religions, though some might be
arguing only for a ‘big brother’ God. Let us examine the argument.
The argument is that since many persons report that they have experiences
as of acquaintance with God this raises the probability that God exists. Religi-
ous people usually talk of ‘certainty’, not of probability. This claim to certainty
would not necessarily be conceded by an inquiring person who heard the
reports. Such a person would be pleased with a mere raising of probability.
However, William James considered the question of whether a believer’s
religious experience could give a good reason for his or her own religious