No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
The question I have asked, whether or not we can have a duty to believe in God, must be clearly distinguished from the question whether or not there is a God. It is possible to hold that there is a God and that I have a duty to believe that there is, but it is also possible to hold that there is a God, and I do not have a duty to believe that there is; that there is not a God, and I do not have a duty to believe there is; and that there is not a God, but I do have a duty to believe that there is. This last statement is somewhat implausible—though people have held that though there is not a God, we have a duty to produce belief that there is in others— and anyone making it would be showing thereby, if he believed it, that he himself had not done his duty. It should be noticed that any one trying to convince an atheist that he has a duty to believe in God must be trying to persuade him to accept this statement: that he, the atheist, has a duty to believe in God, although there is no God. That his belief that there is no God is false, if it is false, does not make the task any the more easy.
1 H. Belloc, Cautionary Tales. Matilda.
page 244 note 1 Summa Theologica, 12ae, Q. 109, Art. 4.
page 244 note 2 James, William, Principles of Psychology, Vol. II, p. 284.Google Scholar
page 246 note 1 No one, so far as I know, has held that we have a duty to believe what is true. Descartes, however, comes very close (in his fourth Meditation) to holding that we have a duty not to believe anything which is false.
page 250 note 1 Luke xviii. 18.
page 250 note 2 Luke xviii. 22.
page 251 note 1 E.g. Newman: “Faith then is not a conclusion from premises, but the risult of an act of the will, following upon a convictionthat to believe is a duty.” W. Ward: The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, p. 242, Letter to Mrs. Froude.
page 252 note 1 Sometimes we say “He ought to know, ” but this simply means that he may reasonably be expected to know, just as “It ought to work” means “It may reasonably be expected to work.” Sometimes we say “He ought to have known.” this, I think, means “He ought to have taken certain steps, which would have resulted in his knowing.” We also say “He ought to believe in the Trinity”—because, say, he is an Anglican bishop, and Anglican bishops ought to believe in the Trinity. This does not, as it seems, imply a duty to believe, but a duty not to be an Anglican bishop if you do not believe.