This article is a review of the first chapter of James Cantelon's book, Theology for Non-Theologians: An Engaging, Accessible, and Relevant Guide. The title of the chapter is Does God Exist? I submitted this paper on our subject, Research in Theology, on November 4 this year. I decided to publish it here on my blog for preservation purposes and easy access for future reference. I hope you can bear with me if you find this article too technical and academic.

Overview

The book was published in 2007. It is a nonfiction book that presents a simplified approach to sound doctrine, as it aims to connect with a diverse audience, including both believers and secularists. This intent is evident in the first chapter, where Cantelon presents a background of arguments for God’s existence, upon which his entire treatise stands and follows. Overall, this chapter is clear, insightful, and informative, though I would argue that several areas could benefit from further enhancement.

Two Major Sections

The first chapter is split into two major sections.

First, Cantelon presupposes and argues that every man has an intuitive knowledge of God. He presented mankind’s unified cry to a “higher power” as a universal truth. He argues historically and experientially—by looking at the ancient structure of our religious systems as well as the tribal conception of the divine—and how the secular world operates. Though not mentioned, Cantelon implies that readers must agree with the premise that humans possess an innate knowledge of God to find meaningful grounds for continuing their search for truth (at least for God’s existence and to continue reading the book). Otherwise, this pursuit would seem fruitless and irrelevant.

Second, he presented the classical arguments for God’s existence—the ontological, cosmological, teleological, and anthropological arguments. Cantelon used these four only, as this is most discussed in the academic world. The treatment of these arguments was shorter compared to his previous ideas about intuition, which might be considered a quick overview. Moreover, the shift of tone in this section is quite noticeable in degree. Still, the avid reader should be capable of following his line of argumentation.

Strengths of the Chapter

Now, the next paragraphs will contain an analysis of the chapter, which includes its strengths and areas with potential for enhancement.

There are several commendable aspects in this chapter.

First, Cantelon’s illustrations are experiential, vivid, and emotive, while also being culturally relevant.

Second, he stays true to his intent by using simplified language.

Third, his logic and reasoning are easy to follow due to two main factors: coherent sentence structure and graphic illustrations through analogies and storytelling. Additionally, he consistently maintains his position ut est (that humans have an innate knowledge of God, whether secularist, theist, or tribal) rather than double-talking (which plagues modern literature), preserving rational and concise material.

Fourth, this chapter reflects Cantelon's sound understanding of the Scriptures. For example, the claim that everyone has an intuitive knowledge of God is a fundamental truth in the Bible. Whether a person denies or affirms this, they cannot escape this knowledge as creatures made by God (Romans 1:19-20). The cosmological and teleological arguments, while seemingly presented as appeals for the secularist to follow, are fundamentally biblical as well. This is evident in Hebrews 3:4:

For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

Additional support can be found in passages such as Job 12:7-10 and Genesis 1.

Suggestions

In terms of areas for enhancement and suggestion, this critique presents two main positions.

First, the overview of the philosophical arguments for God’s existence could be expanded for greater depth. Cantelon could have considered adding more illustrations and analogies as he did in the previous sections. The reason for this is perhaps due to certain constraints (book length, or a supposition that these arguments are general). However, the richness and intricacies—or, in Filipino, pasikot-sikot—of these arguments justify creating a dedicated section.

Additionally, a suggestion: incorporating a dialogue between a truth-seeker or a secularist and a Christian apologist could provide a much richer, insightful, and in-depth explanation of these arguments, while also captivating the curious minds of the reader sharing the same questions.

Second, Cantelon’s idea of intuition might need a succinct or straightforward definition, especially regarding its relationship with experience. When he states, “We know it is right to love and wrong to hate,” it suggests that experience in these areas is essential for forming such intuitive judgments. While it seems obvious, Cantelon’s statements might be misunderstood to suggest that intuition operates independently. He supposes that “we simply know” without much regard “how we simply know” in the first place. While he is correct to argue that intuition is innate—a “built-in” aspect of our humanity—a need for an explicit differentiation must be said between types of intuition, particularly those that require prior experience for activation. For instance, a child who understands the value of love and hate knows so because he or she experienced it. This kind of intuition is unlocked through human experiences, akin to a chest of gold that requires a key—experience—to access what is inside.

Moreover, an addition the chapter did not include is that our experiences also shape our intuitive responses. As such, the believer’s intuitive knowledge of God differs from a secularist. Even though the intuitive knowledge of God is innate—this innateness also differs from person to person through continuous exposure to reality. This applies to all intuitions aside from the intuitive knowledge of God.

On the other hand, Cantelon rightly asserts that there exists an intuition “that the mind instantly sees as true without any search for proof.” This perspective acknowledges that intuitive knowledge can emerge from our innate capacities, affirming that some truths, such as basic logical principles, are universally recognized even in the absence of extensive experience. As such, this kind of intuition can be said to be more intuitive than others. Nevertheless, this second objection is a minor criticism and is more of a nuanced take that does not affect the quality of this chapter.

Overall, I highly recommend this book because of its simplicity, versatility, artistic expression, and theological soundness. Truly, you can use this book as the title suggests—an accessible guide for non-theologians. This book does not require much prior theological background to understand. Whether you are a “technical” theologian like a student in a seminary or a theologian through God’s calling, you will find this book worthwhile to read.

Posted Using InLeo Alpha