Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy

by Gregory E. Ganssle

Can we really think about God? Can we prove God's existence? What about faith? Are there good reasons to believe in the Christian God? What about evil? Can we really know with our finite minds anything for sure about a transcendent God? Can we avoid thinking about God? The real problem, says philosopher Gregory E. Ganssle, is not whether we can think about God, but whether we will think well or poorly about God. Admittedly there is a lot of bad thinking going around. But Ganssle, who teaches students, wants to help us think better, especially about God. He thinks philosophy can actually help. In the first part of this book Ganssle lays the groundwork for clear and careful thinking, providing us an introductory guide to doing philosophy. In the second part Ganssle then takes us through the process of thinking well about God in particular. He asks us to consider whether there are good reasons to believe that God exists. He thinks there are! In a third part Ganssle addresses the thorny issue of the existence both of God and of evil. He thinks there's a valid way through this problem. In the final part Ganssle helps us thread our way through questions like: What is God like? What can God do? What can God know? How does God communicate? He thinks that there are some clear answers to these questions, at least if you're talking about the God of Christianity. If you're looking for your first book for thinking clearly and carefully about God, then you'll appreciate the good thinking found in this book.

Genres: Philosophy, Christian, Theology, Nonfiction, Christianity

187 pages, Paperback

First published November 10, 2004

About the author

Greg Ganssle (PhD, Syracuse) is professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. He is the author of several books, including A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism and Thinking About God, and he is the editor of God and Time.

Reviews

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic introduction to Christian philosophy. Ganssle writes in an easy, humorous way that makes philosophy less intimidating. Required reading for new believers.


Notes:

Love the section on the problem of evil. Ganssle walks the reader through Mackey's formulation. Shows step by step how to reckon with such an argument. (104)

In order for something to be free, 2 things must be true (1) It can't be against my will, coerced (2) I could have refrained from performing the action (120)

Author would add to the above a third condition (3), the decision must be "up to me" (123)

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book for Christians that want to start picking up philosophy in defense of the faith (Apologetics) or simply have questions they want to think more deeply about. Some topics discussed: must the Universe have a cause, multiple universes theory, moral realism, Darwin and design, freedom and determinism, the Unicorn objection and the problem of evil in the world. I highly recommend!

[pchan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gregory Ganssle's Thinking About God: First steps in Philosophy is an excellent introduction to the philosophy of religion and, more specifically, to the question of God's existence. It's written in a simple, lucid style, and it is intelligent and substantial. The book reads as if a kind, wise uncle took his young nephew or niece along for a gentle walk in the park and tried to explain to him or her how philosophy works, which he then applies to the existence of God. It'd be suitable and beneficial for anyone who would like an introduction to philosophy.

Thinking About God is divided into four main sections:

1. Introduction. Here Ganssle introduces readers to what philosophy is and how it works. This section props up the rest of the book inasmuch as it applies its lesson in logic, critical thinking, etc. to the question of God's existence.

He makes other valuable points such as the following (p. 26):

"I agree that I cannot provide an argument for God's existence that will convince all thinking people. But what does this tell me? Does this tell me anything about God? No. Does this tell me whether or not it is reasonable to believe in God? No. This tells me a lot about the nature of proof but very little about whether God exists. I cannot provide an argument that will convince everyone, without a possibility of reasonable doubt, that God exists. That is no problem. You see, I cannot provide an argument for any interesting philosophical conclusion that will be accepted by everyone without the possibility of reasonable doubt. For exaxmple, I cannot prove beyond the possibility of doubt - in a way that will convince all philosophers - that the Rocky Mountains are really there. . . . I cannot prove that the entire universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago and that all of our apparent memories are not illusions. I cannot prove that the other people you see in school have minds. Perhaps they are very clever robots. (How do you know that they are not?)"

Likewise, as Steve Hays put it in his article "Why I Believe":

"When the average Christian is asked why he believes in God, he may be stumped. It seems like a natural enough question, so why is it so hard to offer a simple and straightforward reply? One problem is that to pose such a question is to plunge into the river at midstream, rather than crossing at the riverbank.

"You see, we prove or disprove the existence or the truth of one thing by assuming the existence or truth of something else. Suppose, for example, someone asked you why you believe in time or space? Wouldn't you be taken aback by such a question? Ordinarily, questions of fact are not nearly that large. If you ask me whether I believe in the lunar landings or the Loch Ness monster, such things and events, if they happen to exist or ever happen, take place within space and time. The spatio-temporal framework is taken for granted. But if you ask me to justify the framework itself, then I may be at a loss in even knowing how to broach an answer, for the question is so big and broad that it leaves me without a point of reference.

"So we normally ask whether something exists in space, but not whether space exists. We ask whether something occurred in time, but not whether time occurs. The reason we usually don't give a reason for believing in space and time is that space and time supply the background conditions for reasoning about most other things and events.

"And it's that way with God. We don't prove the existence of a Creator in the same way we prove the existence of a creature. For God, if there is a God, is not merely an object of truth, but the origin of truth; not just another being, but the ground of being and wellbeing. God is the author of time and space, and the ground of goodness and truthfulness, necessity and possibility."

2. Reasons to Believe in God. Here Ganssle explicates three main arguments for the existence of God: the cosmological (or first cause) argument; the teleological (or design) argument; and the (formal) moral argument. In explicating these three arguments, Ganssle provides some very brief historical background before offering his version of the argument (e.g. Aristotle and Aquinas' formulations of the cosmological argument, Paley's formulation of the teleological argument). Likewise he deals with possible objections to these arguments.

I'll offer a quick summary of the three arguments presented in the book. However, I'm a bit hesitant to do so because the arguments are in a naked form, lacking Ganssle's own explanations for why he formulated them in the way he did, for example. So please keep this in mind.

The cosmological argument per Ganssle (p. 52):
"(i) Whatever comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.
(ii) If the series of past causes is not infinite, then the series of past causes came into existence.
(iii) There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.
(iv) Therefore, the series of past causes came into existence.
(v) Therefore, there exists a cause for the series of past causes, and this cause did not itself come into existence."

The teleological argument per Ganssle (p. 73):
"(i) If some thing or system of things that is not made by human beings shows strongly the marks of being designed and we have no fairly good story to tell about how it shows the marks of design without really being designed, then it was probably designed.
(ii) Many things not made by human beings show strongly the marks of being designed and we have no fairly good story to tell about how they show the marks of design without their really being designed.
(iii) Therefore, they were probably designed.
(iv) Therefore, a designer who is not a human being probably exists."

The moral argument per Ganssle (p. 103):
"Moral facts involve unconditional or categorical imperatives. These imperatives are not invented by people or by society. One very plausible way to understand imperatives is in terms of purpose. Unconditional imperatives require an unconditional purpose. So the nature of morality is good reason to think that there is a purpose for human beings and that this purpose is not invented by people or society, nor is it optional. The final step in this chapter is to point out that the existence of this kind of purpose for human beings is pretty surprising if there is no God and human beings are, in the end, accidental byproducts of accidental processes. Yet such a purpose is not at all surprising if God exists and created human beings."

Of course, Ganssle points out that these aren't the only lines of argument for God's existence. But these are popularly known arguments and they also help illustrate how philosophy works. What's more, these three arguments collectively make a stronger case for belief in God than they might do individually.

Speaking for myself, I wish Ganssle had included the ontological argument, since it's another common argument which could also help readers think philosophically.

3. God and Evil. Here Ganssle tackles the problem of evil. How is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of God? Or more to the point, how can a wholly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God allow evil to exist? Among many other things, Ganssle points out that not knowing why evil exists does not logically lead to therefore God does not exist. He then offers reasons why he thinks God might allow evil. Although I don't agree, the most prominent reason given here is libertarian free will. Nevertheless, it's important to think through the argument(s) because it helps hone one's critical thinking skills and, moreover, it helps to understand opposing arguments and viewpoints.

4. What is God Like? Here Ganssle argues, if God exists, why he would be a person (a word which needs and receives some unpacking), all-good, omnipotent, and omniscient (with knowledge of the future as well).

The last point Ganssle makes is, if there is such a God as he has described, then it would be reasonable to expect him to reveal himself and communicate with us.

Ganssle notes that there are two main sources for our knowledge about God: (i) inference from the universe and/or what it contains to God, as per the three arguments in section two; and (ii) if God himself reveals himself to us. "Notice that the first way to know anything about God moves from the world to God. The second way moves in the opposite direction. It moves from God to us" (p. 179). In other words, we can know about God through what theologians have termed general as well as special revelation. Obviously, there's much more to be said. But Ganssle provides a good start.

Finally, Ganssle suggests that the method by which God would reveal himself to us, if he were to do so, would most likely be language. And that language would most likely be recorded in something like a book. Ganssle stops here, though, and notes that it'd take another book for him to argue whether God has in fact revealed himself and, if so, where it might be found.

All in all, I thought this was an excellent book for those new to philosophy and/or the philosophy of religion in particular. Of course, I'd recommend reading further philosophical works after reading this book. There's a surprising amount of philosophical material freely available online. And one can follow philosophy of religion weblogs like Prosblogion. As far as philosophy books, since I'm a Reformed and evangelical Christian, I'd recommend philosophers such as Paul Helm and James Anderson as well as theologians like John Frame (Frame has had significant philosophical training; he's ABD [All But Dissertation:] in philosophy at Yale). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies, who is a Catholic philosopher, is a standard textbook at many universities. But Ganssle offers a list of some books he'd recommend for further reading at the end of Thinking About God which would certainly be worth considering (e.g. Reason for the Hope Within by Michael Murray (ed.) ).

Ganssle received his PhD from Syracuse University, and is currently a lecturer at Yale University. He has primarily published (including his doctoral dissertation) works dealing with God and time.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a very accessible introduction to some of the most basic questions discussed in philosophy of religion. Ganssle's prose is lucid, and his deft ability to cut down into bite-sized pieces some of these fundamental, yet complex issues broached in philosophy of religion in a way that doesn't capitulate to making them simplistic should serve as a model. He adds some humor to this too. One might even say he peppers the book with humor and wit. One could make the case that he goes overboard. But let's not focus on the negative!

The book comes in four parts. Part one provides some introductory remarks about philosophy in general and philosophy of religion specifically. Some right-wing presuppositionalists might even blow a head gasket when they read the clearly non-presuppositionalist Ganssle admit that he is not neutral, no one can be neutral, and the attempt to be neutral is not desirable. Ganssle admits that we cannot "prove" that God exists if "prove" means "supply an argument that any reasonable person would be forced to admit is rationally compelling." In other words, an argument that no rational person could doubt. Ganssle says that his inability to present such an argument matters little when you consider that no one can present those kinds of arguments for any interesting claim, viz., the existence of a past, other minds, reliable memory, etc.

In part two Ganssle looks at "reasons to believe in God." He presents the cosmological, teleological/design, and moral argument for God. He finds the cosmological argument persuasive - but notes where it has/can been resisted. He then claims that design arguments from living organisms can be successfully resisted by appeal to neo-Darwinian natural selection, but then looks at "non-living" structures, like "the universe," and finds evidence of its fine-tuning problematic to account for on naturalistic lines. (I happen to think his reason to distrust design arguments for living structures are unpersuasive, especially if you throw in something like Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - EAAN.) Ganssle then argues that "moral facts" are "odd" kinds of things if the world is the way the naturalist tells us they are. He looks at four ways naturalists have tried to make sense of moral claims like:

[*] It is wrong to torture human children for the fun of it

He looks at (i) error theory, (ii) individual relativism, (iii) cultural relativism, and (iv) evolutionary psychology. He finds that (i) --> (iv) can't successfully account for what makes statements like [*] true. He argues that a theistic worldview best comports with the fact that [*] is true. He further contends that morality seems to have a normative or purposeful characteristic about it and this purpose is categorically absolute, as such it cannot arise from culture and it would be odd to say it arises from purposeless processes of Darwinian natural selection. It looks like the purpose for human flourishing comes from God, then.

Ganssle ends this section by making a brief case for a cumulative case approach to apologetics.

In part three Ganssle looks at reasons to not believe God exists. He uses the atheological argument par excellence - the argument from evil. Ganssle shows that the logical problem of evil is easy to overcome by showing it is possible that God has a good reason for the evil he allows. He then looks at some possible reasons, the main one being the existence of libertarian free will and secondarily the existence of a uniform nature. (I obviously don't find the libertarian approach a good one.) He then has a brief chapter on freedom and determinism, coming down on the indeterminist side by claiming that determinism doesn't allow acts to really be up to you. Not enough to be held responsible. (Though in other chapters he has no problem discussing come backs to his arguments (cf. section 2), he doesn't mention the "luck" objection to indeterminism, which shows that it is actually indeterminism that cannot give the required control over actions required for responsibility. I think this shows his bias.) He concludes this section by looking at the evidential argument from evil and uses the "skeptical theism" defense to answer it - which I think is an excellent response to the evidential objection.

The final section looks at "what God is like?" Ganssle looks at omnipotence, omniscience, knowledge of the future, and the question whether does God communicate. Ganssle affirms traditional omnipotence, claiming God cannot do logically impossible things. He claims God can know all truths, affirming traditional omniscience. He then claims God can know the future and also discusses the issue of foreknowledge and freedom, claiming they are easily compatible by assuming God is atemporal. (What is debated is this: If God knew in 1920 that you would have Cheerios for breakfast tomorrow, then it is not "up to you" to have Cheerios or Cap'n Crunch. If God knew p, then p is true. The only way to make p false is to change God's past beliefs, but we don't have the power to change past beliefs. Therefore, you cannot do other than have Cheerios for breakfast. Ganssle thinks atemporality gets around this. This is disputed. Michael Sudduth has a paper online showing that the dilemma cannot be resolved by appeal to atemporality. And, God's atemporality aside, the fact is that it is still true in 1920 that you would do x. In 1920 one could say this, "It is true that S will x on December 11, 2008." So I disagree with Ganssle’s out here.) He then ends by affirming that God can indeed communicate - he's all powerful, after all! - and that he would or has. This is because he made us and is all good and would want us to know certain things about him.

Overall, I thought this was a very good introduction to some of the basic issues in philosophy of religion. Though I don't agree with everything in it, and Ganssle doesn't expect you to, I think it is sufficiently designed to introduce high school or college student to these issues and get them interested in exploring philosophy of religion questions in more detail.

[Susan Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good points, but also found some of Ganssle's "reasoning" to be faulty. Still a worthwhile read.

[Brian Chilton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first heard about Ganssle's book on Greg Koukl's podcast "Stand to Reason." Ganssle offers an introductory treatment of the philosophical issues pertaining to God. Ganssle, in the first section, introduces some of the reasons one should engaged in philosophy when thinking about God. Chapters 2, 4, and 5 were especially good.

The second section provides reasons to believe in God's existence. I must say that while Ganssle provides the most popular evidences for God's existence, his treatment of the issues is mediocre at best. Ganssle was especially weak in the cosmological and design arguments for God, even leaving open some doors which have been demonstrated to have been closed by other apologists such as William Lane Craig. However, Ganssle provides an excellent treatment of the moral argument for God, as well as giving the four major beliefs pertaining to morality. (I feel this was the strongest area of the book.)

The third section discusses God and evil. Here again, Ganssle does an excellent job treating the issues of theodicy. While I am a compatibilist, Ganssle offers a compelling case for libertarian freedom.

The fourth section deals with God's attributes. Ganssle again excels in this section, especially with his treatment of God and time, as well as revelation. For those interested in the issues of time, Ganssle's treatment of the issue is worth the price of the book.

Ganssle's book is especially good for those who want a beginner's guide to theological philosophy. I would recommend that the book be used, however, as a launch pad for further inquiry. Stronger apologetic cases for God's existence has been given in other works such as "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig and "New Proofs for the Existence of God" by Robert Spitzer. I was also advise a deeper study of design by advocates of intelligent design. All-in-all, I would highly recommend Ganssle's book. It serves its intended purpose as an introduction to theological philosophy. While I did not leave satisfied with his treatment of apologetic issues (which disallows me from providing a 5 star rating), Ganssle's treatment of God's attributes and God's relationship to time inclines me to give a 4.5 stars. Since I cannot give half points, I will have to settle for 4.

[Brantley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic intro for the average reader on philosophy of religion. I have heard several friends criticize the book for being to simple because they have already studied in this field. However, having likewise felt that the work was a little too easy for me, I think that the simplified nature of the work is what makes it so great as a recommendation for those who have not studied any into philosophy of religion. I gave the work a four star review because I didn't feel it was life-changing or anything like that, but it deserves a high score for accomplishing the amazing feat of clearly explaining philosophy to the common man. I will gladly recommend it to those in my church and elsewhere who have not yet but desire to think about God.

[William Dicks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good introductory book on philosophy according to my huge (tsk, tsk) understanding of philosophy, especially when considering the existence of God.

This book is not explicitly christian philosophy, but rather theistic philosophy. It deals with the God question in general, and also tackles the problem of evil, and how the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. Where it does fail, I think, is in its handling of the problem of evil, where Ganssle does not consider the fall of mankind into sin, and how that fall had affected mankind and nature.

Ganssle's book is a very concise treatment and indeed accumulative argument for the existence of God.

[Randall Pratt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very helpful book for me. Greg does a good job of introducing a number of philosophical concepts relating to God in a style that makes it an easy read (philosophy an easy read?!?) Though he leaves no doubt where he stands in the debate, he fairly represents the opposing viewpoints in a non-demagogic way. Thanks, Greg!

In the interest of full disclosure, Greg is an old friend of mine (he's even older than me!)

[Danny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was impressed with Ganssle's plain language approach to this topic. I feel confident in saying that a "new comer" to this material will walk away more knowledgeable than before they picked up this book, and perhaps even find themselves eager to encounter more complex material. Ganssle is careful in his analysis, often reflecting on the idea that readers and/or other philosophers may disagree with him on various topics.

[Monica Perez · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book covers everything you need to do to go through the process of determining whether or not there is probably a God and then touches on how to evaluate the likely nature of God if he exists. It's set out in simple terms for the beginner to philosophical thought, but don't be fooled--the questions cannot be easily dismissed.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A modest case for traditional theism. Would be a great introductory text at the high-school or college freshman level.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simple primer to thinking about God. Nothing extensive.

[Mario Sarmiento · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great introductory book to philosophy! Extremely readable for those that don't have any background on philosophy.

[Michael Ulrich · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deep