The Truth of Theism in the Light of the Common Consent Argument

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Islamic Theology, University of Qom

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Islamic Theology, University of Qom

3 Ph.D. Student of Philosophy and Islamic Theology, University of Qom


In the recent decade, the proponents of the Common Consent Argument have considered traditional interpretations of this argument futile, and instead, have presented a new format of this reasoning that was relying on the common agreement among people in many historical periods in the past, it provides the best explanation of the truth of theism. The present study aims to answer the following questions: Has theism been a collective belief in all human societies during the history? Can we conclude the truth of a belief based on the assumption of some collective consensus over that belief? The results of the study indicate that using empirical independent evidences, the first premise of this argument states that many people in the past and nowadays believe in the existence of some supernatural and sacred Supreme Being or deities. The second premise of this reasoning relying on epistemic Universalism, denotes the likely truth of common religious beliefs among people, although the interpretations of the theory of evolution are considered as a serious competitor against the justification and truth of such beliefs.


[1] ادواردز، پل (1370). خدا در فلسفه - برهان­های فلسفی اثبات وجود باری، ترجمه: بهاءالدین خرمشاهی، تهران، موسسه مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگی وابسته به وزارت فرهنگی و آموزش عالی.
[2] دورانت، ویلیام جمیز (1390). تاریخ تمدن، ج1، ترجمه: احمد بطعانی و دیگران، تهران: انتشارات اقبال.
[3] نصری، عبدالله (1373). خدا در اندیشه بشر، تهران، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
[4] Barrett, J. L, (2004). “Why Would Anyone Believe in God?” Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press, CA.
[5] Barrett, J. and K.J. Clark (2011). “Reidian Religious Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, American: 79/3:p 639-75.
[6] Boyer, P, (2003). “Religious Thought and Behaviour as By-Products of Brain Function”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7/3, 119–24.
[7] Cicero, M. T (1896). On the Nature of the Gods, trans. F. Brooks, London,
[8] Kelly, Thomas (2011). “Consensus Gentium: Reflections on the ‘Common Consent’ Argument for the Existence of God”, in Evidence and Religious Belief, ed. K.J. Clark and R. Van Arragon, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 135–56.
[9] Kahane, G (2011). “Evolutionary Debunking Arguments”, Noûs, 45, 1, 103–25.
[10] Hume, D (1757). Four Dissertations. I. The natural history of religion. II. Of the passions. III. Of tragedy. IV. Of the standard of taste, London: printed for A. Millar, in the Strand.
[11] Huxley, A (1945). The Perennial Philosophy, London: Harper and Brothers.
[12] Lowe, George. E (2009). Birding and Mysticism: enlightment through bird watching, USA, Xlibris, Corb.
[13] Peoples, H., P. Duda, and F.W Marlowe (2016). “Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion”, Human Nature 27/3, 261–82.
[14] Plantinga, A (2000). Warranted Christian Belief, New York, University Press.
[15] Reid ،Jasper (2015). “the common consent argument from Herbert to Hume”, Journal of the history of philosophy, vol 53, number 3, p401-33.
[16] Russel, Bertrand, (1960). “In Praise of Idleness”, Unwin Book, London, P132-138.
[17] Smith, Tiddy (2019). “The Common Consent Argument for the Existence of Nature Spirits”, Australasian Journal of  Philosophy, 1-16.
[18] Tylor, E. B (1929). Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom, Vol. 1, London, John Murray.
[19]Van Helden, A (1994). Telescopes and Authority from Galileo to Cassini, Osiris 9/1, 8–29.
[20] Wunn, I (2000). The Beginning of Religion, Numen 47/4, 417–52.
[21] Zagzebski, L.T (2012). Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief, New York, Oxford University Press.
[22] Zagzebski, L.T (1993). Religious Knowledge and Virtues of the Mind,in Rational Faith: Catholic Responses to Reformed Epistemology, University of Notre Dame Press, 199-225.
[23] Zagzebski, L.T (2013). A Defense of Epistemic Authority, Res philosophica, 90(2), 293-306.