Philosophy of Religion: the Nature and Existence of God

Philosophy of Religion: The Nature and Existence of God This book contains short lectures on the readings of this section. Dr. Gina Calderone Table of contents • 1 The Existence of God • 2 Aquinas's Second Way o 2.1 The Structure of the Argument o 2.2 Support for the Premises o 2.3 Evaluating the Argument o 2.4 Can the Universe Be Infinitely Old? o 2.5 Can the Universe Pop Into Existence? o 2.6 Does the Cosmological Argument Beg the Question? • 3 Anselm's Ontological Argument o 3.1 Gaunilo's Refutation o 3.2 The Structure of the Arguments • 4 Paley's Teleological Argument o 4.1 The Structure of the Design Argument o 4.2 Hypothesis Testing o 4.3 Paley's Confirmation o 4.4 Did Living Organisms Evolve? o 4.5 Creationism o 4.6 Evolutionism and Creationism o 4.7 Evolution by Natural Selection o 4.8 Picture the Difference o 4.9 Comparing Hypotheses • 5 The Problem of Evil o 5.1 Mackie's Thesis 1 The Existence of God There are several "traditional" ways of arguing for the existence of God. Some of these arguments are supposed to be proofs--i.e., deductively valid arguments with obviously true premises. Aquinas offered several arguments of this sort, the most persuasive of which is known as the Cosmological Argument (see Aquinas's Second Way). Anselm offered a version of what is known as the Ontological Argument, in the form of a reductio ad absurdum. Gaunilo tried to show that Anselm's argument could be used to prove the existence of the most excellent island, which by hypothesis is an imaginary (i.e., non-existent) island. Other arguments are best understood to be inductive, meant only to provide a rational basis for belief in God, short of being proof. Paley's Argument from Design is one such example. The argument from design offers a brief look into the philosophy of science via its connection with contemporary creationism. Finally, another argument attempts to prove the nonexistence of God; it is known as the Problem of Evil. Mackie presents and defends this argument in the paper, "Evil and Omnipotence". The following chapters of this book will guide your reading of these arguments, from original text. 2 Aquinas's Second Way Here we demonstrate the process of recognizing and articulating an argument from original text and then evaluating that argument. First, we'll include a piece of text and put the argument in premise/conclusion form, and then explain a few criticisms of the argument--involving both the logic and the truth of the premises. You should try to do the same with a different piece of text. In the latter half of the 13th century CE, Saint Thomas Aquinas attempted to prove the existence of God in five ways. An English translation of the second of his arguments is given below: In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. 2.1 The Structure of the Argument This is a version of what has come to be known as the Cosmological Argument. Below we arrange the argument in premise/conclusion form, displaying the reasons Aquinas gives (above the line) for the conclusion that God exists (below the line). Premises and conclusion are numbered to make it easier to refer to them when the argument is evaluated. 1. In the natural world, there is an ordering of causes and effects. 2. Causes always precede their effects in time. 3. No event is self-caused. 4. The chain of causation cannot go back infinitely. 5. Thus, there must be something (supernatural) that causes the first event, which we call God. 2.2 Support for the Premises Notice that premises 3 and 4 are backed with sub-arguments. For premise 3, Aquinas argues: a. Suppose some event is self-caused. b. If so, it must have existed prior to its existence. c. This is absurd. d. Therefore, no event is self-caused. And the argument for premise 4 of the original argument: I. Suppose the chain of causation goes back infinitely. II. If it does, then there is no first cause. III. But if there is no first cause, there is no effect and so no intermediate cause. IV. If there is no intermediate cause, there is nothing happening now, which is plainly false. V. Thus, the chain of causation cannot go back infinitely. Notice that both of these arguments are in the form of reductio ad absurdum. 2.3 Evaluating the Argument Now we are in a good position to evaluate this argument. Here it is again: 1. In the natural world, there is an ordering of causes and effects. 2. Causes always precede their effects in time. 3. No event is self-caused. 4. The chain of causation cannot go back infinitely. 5. Thus, there must be something (supernatural) that causes the first event, which we call God. The first thing to notice is that the argument is not valid: even if premises 1-4 are all true, it does not follow that there must be ONE first cause. The premises are compatible with there being several, in which case the name God (as referring to a single entity) is no longer compelling. Are the premises all true? Aquinas thought they were obviously true—1 and 2 are well- established a posteriori claims, and 3 and 4 are proved on the basis of reductio ad absurdum. But there is good reason to worry about both 3 and 4, in spite of these “proofs”. 2.4 Can the Universe Be Infinitely Old? Let’s take premise 4 first. Aquinas thinks that if there is no definite starting point, nothing would be going on now. But why? It’s hard to imagine a backward infinite chain of causation (because as soon as you imagine a prior cause, there must always be another before it), but that doesn’t mean the universe hasn’t always existed in some way or other. The problem is with premise III in the sub-argument: I. Suppose the chain of causation goes back infinitely. II. If it does, then there is no first cause. III. But if there is no first cause, there is no effect and so no intermediate cause. IV. If there is no intermediate cause, there is nothing happening now, which is plainly false. V. Thus, the chain of causation cannot go back infinitely. Even if it’s true that if there is no cause, there is no effect, there doesn’t have to be a first cause for there to be causes, and thus a chain of causation. To make the point using an alternative understanding of the nature of God, consider Pantheism-- the view that the entire universe is God--coupled with the idea that God is eternal. What follows? A universe that has always existed. 2.5 Can the Universe Pop Into Existence? What about premise 3? The argument for it looks irrefutable. After all, it is a reductio ad absurdum: a. Suppose some event is self-caused. b. If so, it must have existed prior to its existence. c. This is absurd. d. Therefore, no event is self-caused. On the other hand, what Aquinas needs to establish here isn’t merely that no event is self-caused; he needs to establish that no event could occur without a prior cause. One way for this to happen is for something to pop into existence, uncaused by anything. Granted, this is hard to imagine, but again, that doesn’t show that it’s impossible. The Big Bang, in fact, is, as scientists understand it, an uncaused event—something that just happened. 2.6 Does the Cosmological Argument Beg the Question? These criticisms might not to be persuasive to the theist, but they do show that what’s “obviously true” might be inseparable from what one takes to be the status of the conclusion. In other words, Aquinas's argument might beg the question in the sense that if one believes that God exists as Creator, the contrary ideas that the world has always existed, or that is just popped into existence uncaused, seem much less plausible than perhaps they would otherwise. 3 Anselm's Ontological Argument Anselm of Canterbury offered an elegant, if somewhat perplexing, argument for the existence of God in the 11th century, CE. The argument has the form of reductio ad absurdum, so it proceeds on the assumption that God, which he defines as "that than which nothing greater can be imagined", does not exist.

Load more