Arguments for the Existence of God - eduBuzz.org · Web viewThere are three basic views people have on the question of the existence of God. ... Copleston) • Jewish ... supposed

Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God

Arguments for the Existence of God

Firstly why should this concern us?

Firstly, if God did exist, there would be certain important consequences

Secondly, the arguments are very persistent – so we have to deal with them

Thirdly, as well as being persistent, the arguments are very high profile and generate much interest on all sides.

So what are the sides?

There are three basic views people have on the question of the existence of God.

“I don’t believe that God exists.” – this is called Atheism

“I believe that God does exist.” – this is called Theism

“I am undecided on whether God exists or not.” – this called Agnosticism

Assignment 1 - Discussion & Report

What reason(s) could someone give for each of these views?

What could change the mind of someone with each of these views?

But perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. How do we know that when two people are discussion God that they share the same idea?

1


Assignment 2 - Discuss & Report

Imagine the job of God is vacant. You are going to produce an advert inviting applications for the job. Create a newspaper advert for the post of God. Remember to include a job description and necessary qualifications.

Remember we are still not assuming that a qualified applicant actually exists!

The Philosophers’ God

We are not discussing the God of religious faith – not the God of the Jews, Christians, Muslims or any other religion.

We are concerned with the God of philosophical definition.

In other words, that being who has the qualities of, omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent, who is eternal, perfectly good, and the necessary being who is creator and sustainer of the universe.

2


Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

How would you answer the question how did you get here today?

You could say “I walked”, or “I came up the stairs” or “On the school bus” or “By car” or even “From my mummy’s tummy”

What we are looking for is a sufficient answer to the question.

For some people, the sufficient answer to the question “Where did the universe come from?” is – “GOD”.

Or to put it another way

“The existence of the universe is evidence for the

existence of God.”

Basically this is the cosmological argument.

3

In the film “Bruce Almighty”, at no time does Bruce believe that God does not exist. Bruce’s point is that as the Supreme Being, God sucks. Bruce’s life is unsatisfactory and, because God is all-powerful, this is all God’s fault.

It is not clear on what Bruce’s belief in the existence of God is based. It could be his upbringing, a religious faith or an acceptance of one or all the arguments for the existence of God.


The Cosmological Argument For The Existence of GodThe great advantage of this argument is that it begins with a statement that nobody can seriously doubt. It begins with the simple FACT that there is a universe.

This is an example of an argument based on sense experience. Such arguments are called a posteriori.

Consider the following information:

• Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains about 400 billion stars.

• The largest galaxies in the universe contain about 1000 billion stars.

• There are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe.

• The furthest parts of the universe are about 15 billion light years away.

Have you ever wondered why all this exists? It’s perfectly possible that nothing should exist at all. But, the fact is, the universe does exist.

Discuss‘Why does something exist rather than nothing?’

The cosmological argument is perhaps the simplest of all the traditional arguments for the existence of God. It tries to show that there is a God from the bare fact that the universe exists.

Some hugely significant thinkers in many different forms throughout the centuries have used the argument:

• Ancient Greek philosophers (e.g. Aristotle and Plato)

• Christian theologians (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas, Father Frederick Copleston)

4


• Jewish theologians (e.g. Maimonides)

• Islamic theologians (e.g. the Kalam argument presented by, among others, al-Ghazali).

St Thomas Aquinas

Probably the most famous advocate of the cosmological argument was St Thomas Aquinas (1225–74AD). He presented five ways to prove that God existed in a book known as Summa Theologica. Three of these explanations were forms of the cosmological argument. We will briefly look at one of them.

The argument from the ‘Uncaused Cause’

• Everything we observe has a cause.• Every cause has a cause.• This cannot go back forever.• Therefore there must be an uncaused cause that isn’t

caused.• The uncaused cause is ‘God’.

If we get back to you ... HOW DID YOU GET HERE?

Logic states that you did not come from nothing – only nothing can come from nothing

Nor did you create yourself.

Your parents caused you and their parents, and so on caused your parents. However, to fully explain your cause you will need to go back much further than your near relations.

Even if you could trace your family line back hundreds of years you would still have only partly explained where you came from.

5


To fully answer the question – How did you get here? – you would need to explain where all humans came from. To then explain the cause of the human race you would then need to find out when and how the earth came into existence; explain the origins of our solar system; understand the history of our galaxy, etc. Your attempt to fully answer the question, ‘How did you get here?’ will eventually lead you right back to the very beginning of the universe itself.

Is this all necessary?

Well that depends on the principle of sufficient reason. What do you consider to be a sufficient answer to the question – “how did you get here?”

Another example

Why did the match light? Is the answer “Because I struck it on the matchbox”, a sufficient reason?

If not then you might have to explain the chemical reaction which took place. If this was not considered sufficient, you could explain the physics of the event. If this was not enough, gain we could end up with the origins of the universe again and the creation of the physical laws!

There are two main problems with the principle of sufficient reason.

At what point does a reason become sufficient? Is it really necessary to go to such extreme lengths?

6


Assigment 3

1 Why should we be concerned with the arguments for the existence of God?

2 What three basic positions do people take on this question?

3 With which God are we concerned?4 What are the qualities of this God?5 Why is it important to be clear about this definition for

God?6 The cosmological is an a posteriori argument. What

does this mean?7 What is the starting point for the cosmological?8 What is the principle of sufficient reason? Use and

example.9 According to Aquinas, what was special about God?10 Why did Aquinas believe that God was the only possible

reason for the cosmos?

Cosmo Explained

Aquinas was pointing out that behind everything there must be a huge chain of causes that goes back and back in time.

He believed that it doesn’t make any sense to say that this chain came from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.

Neither does it make any sense to say that a caused thing can cause itself. (It would have to been caused to then cause itself!) Also to have a causal chain going back forever makes no sense either because that would mean there was no first cause. If there was no actual beginning there would be nothing now! To be here now,the whole thing must have started at some point. Aquinas

7


believed that there must have been something that started off the chain of cause and effect. He felt that the only possible answer was God, the uncaused cause. Only God fitted the bill. God was a necessary being, not a contingent being. Only God was self-caused.

Aquinas was looking for a sufficient reason for the existence of the universe. Of course he believes that only God could ever be a sufficient reason. So, according to Aquinas, only God is the necessary and sufficient reason for the existence of the universe.

Summary – The cosmological argumentPhilosophers’ God - omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all good, eternal, creator, sustainer and necessary being

A posterior - based of the observed fact that there is a universe.

The most famous advocate of the cosmological argument was a theologian called St Thomas Aquinas (1225–74AD).

Aquinas believed that behind everything there is a huge chain of causes that can be traced back to the beginning of the universe.

He said that it doesn’t make sense to say that this chain never ends so he concluded that there must be an uncaused cause at the start.

The only possible uncaused cause is God.Assignment 4

1. Why is Aquinas’ argument called the cosmological argument for the existence of God?

2. List some of the people that have presented a form of the cosmological argument.

3. Write a very short paragraph about St Thomas Aquinas. Make sure that you mention the following points:

8

√

√

√

√

√

√


(a) When was he alive?(b) What religion was he?(c) In how many different ways did he try to

prove that God existed?(d) In what book did he present these arguments

for God’s existence?

4. What is the problem with answering the question - What caused you? Make sure you try to give a full explanation.

5. Why did Aquinas call God the uncaused cause?

6. Try to explain in your own words Aquinas’s argument from the ‘uncaused cause’.

9

Premise 1 There could be unobserved uncaused causes Premise 2 Just because they are unobserved does not mean they do not existPremise 3 Why not?Premise 4 Why?Conclusion - Does it follow necessarily?


Cosmo – So Far

In Premise 3, Aquinas actual argument is that.. .

10

1. Everything has a cause.2. Nothing is its own cause.3. A chain of causes cannot be

infinite.4. There must be a ‘first uncaused

cause’.5. God is the ‘only uncaused cause’.

Good arguments have a good structure AND true statements.

We can think of this as something like removing a domino from a chain of dominoes, all those dominoes that follow will not fall over.

Premise 1 - Based on observationPremise 2 - Based on inductionPremise 3 – Based on deductionPremise 1 and Premise 4 – Contradiction? Premise 5 - Conclusion – Alternatives?

Premise 1 TRUE? Premise 2 TRUE?Premise 3 TRUE?Premise 4 TRUE?Conclusion - Does it follow?

Although the Cosmological argument is based on sense experience, it has been given a deductive structure. In deductive arguments, if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false.

If we were to remove a first cause from a chain of causes and effects, then all the effects of that follow the removed cause will also cease to be.


Aquinas argues that to deny a first cause is to remove a cause from the chain of causes and effects. If that cause were removed, then everything that follows it ought not to be here. But the world is here, just look out the window. Therefore there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

Five hundred years later the German philosopher Immanuel Kant argues that an infinite chain of causes is something that, by definition, could never be completed.

Now if the causes that lead up to the existence of us and the world really stretched off into an infinite past, then there would have to be an infinity of causes occurring before the world could come to be. But if there were an infinity of causes stretching off into the past, they could never be completed. In which case, the present state of things could never come to be. But, the present state of things has come to be. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes.

The Relationship between Premises 1 and 4

Many people have criticised Aquinas’ because they argue, Premises 1 and 4 contradict each other.

Premise 1 - everything has a cause. Premise 4 - there must be a first (uncaused) cause.

They argue that, if Premise 4 is correct, and there must be a cause without a cause, then it is wrong to also claim that everything has a cause. And on the other hand, if Premise 1 is correct and everything has a cause, then it is wrong to also claim that there must be a cause without a cause.

However other argue that this is only an apparent contradiction.Aquinas is using an argument form called reductio ad absurdum.

The first three lines identify a problem which means we must reject one of those premises and accept an alternative in its place.

11

This is sometimes called the schoolboy’s criticism of Aquinas.


In this argument, the problem that arises on the basis of assuming, from Premises 1 and 2, that there is an infinite chain of causes, is that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes (for the reasons we mentioned above).

What this means is that we must reject one of the premises (in this case Premise 1), and accept an alternative (Premise 4) that there is at least one thing that is not caused - God.

The Conclusion at Line 5

Although we have said that the cosmological argument in general, and Aquinas’ version in particular, treats God as the first cause, it is worth saying a little more about this. Although Aquinas simply suggests that ‘the uncaused cause’ is a good definition of God, we might want some other reasons for thinking that God has to be the cause of the universe. What kind of arguments can we give? One argument comes from David Hume, a Scottish philosopher:

“Whatever exists must have a cause or reason for its existence, it being absolutely impossible for nay thing to produce itself or be the cause of its own existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate cause at all, or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent: Now, that the first supposition is absurd, may be thus proved. In the infinite chain or succession of causes and effects, each single effect is determined to exist by the power and efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded; but the eternal chain or succession, taken together, is not determined or caused by anything: And yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much as any particular object which begins to exist in time. The question is still reasonable why this particular succession, or no succession at all. If there be no necessarily existent being, any supposition which can be formed is equally possible; nor is there any

12


more absurdity in nothing’s having existed from eternity, than there is in that succession of cause which constitute the universe. What was it, then, which determined something to exist rather than nothing, and bestowed being on a particular possibility, exclusive of the rest? External causes, there are supposed to be none. Chance is a word without meaning. Was it nothing? But that can produce anything. We must, therefore, have recourse to a necessarily existent Being, who carries the reason of his existence in himself; and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an express contradiction. There is, consequently, such a Being – that is, there is a Deity.”

(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

What does Hume mean?

Well, what Hume is getting at is that the only kind of thing that could be the cause of the universe, the first cause as it were, is a being that relies upon nothing for the cause of its existence, and God is the only obvious candidate for being such a cause. The point is that Premise 1 above says that everything must have a cause, and, as we have asserted, this means that the universe must have a cause. But of course, anything that is the cause of something is itself something that requires a cause, and whatever the cause of that may be, itself will require a cause, and so on, potentially ad infinitum.

Now, if the beginning of the universe, as it seems to, marks the beginning of all events and times, etc., then we need the cause of the universe to be special in that it cannot itself require a further preceding cause, otherwise there exists something which precedes the beginning of things, and this is plainly odd. The suggestion is that the only way we can find something that could be the first cause is to postulate that this first cause does not itself rely on anything else for its cause. And as we have seen, this would have to be a very special kind of cause; it would need, as Hume says, to carry the reason for itself with itself.

The obvious candidate for this first cause is, a being with the special characteristics required for being a cause of itself, in short God.

13


Assignment 5

1 What question does premise 1 raise?2 What does the phrase “an infinite chains seems

counter-intuitive” mean?3 Why does Aquinas maintain that “no infinite

regress of causes” is possible?4 What was Kant’s view of infinite chains of

events?5 Why has Aquinas been accused of contradicting

himself?6 Why is this known as the schoolboy’s criticism?7 What is reduction ad absurdum?8 Why do many people claim that the

contradiction in the argument is only apparent?9 Which other philosopher seems to agree with

Aquinas?10 What are his reasons?

14


Objection 1: ‘If God created the Universe, who created God?’

The most obvious objection to the idea that God is the first cause that leads to the existence of the universe and everything in it is to claim that God is not a sufficient reason.

This is because - instead of asking what caused the universe and everything in it, the question has moved back a step to ‘what is the cause of God?’

And then perhaps anther step back to ‘what is the cause of the cause of God?’ etc Demonstrating the insufficiency of God as a reason.

If this objection is upheld then the cosmological argument becomes unconvincing.

Response

This objection misses the point of God as the first cause. The universe and everything in it is contingent. If we took something contingent to be the cause of the universe then this objection would be convincing but God is not a contingent cause of Universe but THE necessary one.

If someone caused or created God, then God would be contingent (like the universe) and not necessary (like God) and so wouldn’t be God at all.

It just does not make sense to ask the cause of something that does not require a cause. This objection fails!

15


Objection 2: Isn’t there a fallacy of composition in the argument?

Is there an unwarranted assumption that, because things in the universe come into existence and require a cause for their beginning, then the universe itself must need a cause for its coming to begin.

If this is the case, we have a fallacy of composition – a classically duff argument.

For example,

Every member of Celtic football club has two legs. ThereforeCeltic Football club has two legs.

From this demonstration it is clear that we have no reason to assume that what is true of the parts is also true of the whole.

And of course, if we have no reason to believe that it is true of the universe that it requires a cause for its existence, then we have no reason to infer that God is that cause. If no cause is required, then no God is needed.

Response 1

16

The fallacy of composition is to mistakenly treat the characteristics of the parts of something as though they were also the characteristics of the whole thing.


One potential reply is to admit it – okay you got me! But is that a real response?

Objection sustained!

Response 2 However if we take the example of a jigsaw puzzle, then although again it is wrong to claim that if all the pieces are less than an inch square, then the Jigsaw puzzle itself is also less than an inch square. But it seems to make sense to claim that if all of the pieces exist, then the jigsaw puzzle itself exists. Objection denied!

So which of these two is the cosmo most like? Celtic or jigsaw puzzle?

What do you think? Sustained or denied? Why?Objection 3: Hume and the characteristics of necessary beings

One serious objection to the

cosmological argument comes from Hume. For Hume, by treating God as the first cause, we are postulating a necessary being, that is,

17


a being that is capable of being the cause of the universe but without itself requiring a cause. For Hume, however, the nature of such a being will be remote and difficult for us to understand. This leads Hume to conclude that relying on such a being is a major weakness of the cosmological argument. Hume puts it like this:

“It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being; and this necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by asserting, that if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should perceive it to be as impossible for him not to exist, as for twice two not to be four. But it is evident that this can never happen, while our faculties remain the same as at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist; nor can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain always in being; in the same manner as we lie under a necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, ‘necessary existence’, have no meaning; or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent.”(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

What Hume is saying here is that whatever it is that a necessary being must be, we cannot know what those qualities are because, as contingent beings, they are beyond our understanding.

If they are beyond our understanding, then we are not justified in assuming that only God has them. Because we can have no idea what those qualities are something other than God could be the cause; perhaps even the universe itself could be the necessarily existent thing. So, just knowing that some non-contingent thing, that is a thing which requires no preceding cause, is required to explain the universe is not enough for us to say that that thing has to be God.

Objection SustainedResponse 1 - Argument to Best Possible Explanation

One possible reply to this offered by Richard Swinburne is that it is hard to see what else could function as the extra special something needed to explain the universe. In many ways, God not only fits the bill perfectly but is the only game in town.

18


Some philosophers, notably, argue precisely along these lines and say that although Hume may be right and we can’t say that God is the only candidate for necessary being, we can say that God is the most obvious cause of the universe, that is, He may not be the only explanation, but He is the best explanation.

What do you think? Why?

Response 2

A more important reply though is that although Hume may be right that we may have no idea about the characteristics of a necessary being, the cosmological argument is merely intended to show that God is required, not what He is like.

The point of describing God as a ‘first cause’, as with Aquinas’s original argument, is to identify an argumentative space in which God can exist. If it can be shown that a necessary being is required to explain the existence of the universe, then the cosmological argument has achieved its aim.

What do you think? Why?

19


Assignment 6

1 Explain the objection that God is not a sufficient reason for the existence of the universe.

2 How can this objection be responded to?3 What is the fallacy of composition?4 How is the fallacy of composition used to

challenge the cosmological argument?5 To what extent are you convinced that this

challenge is successful?6 How does Hume challenge the cosmological

argument?7 What is Swinburne’s response to Hume?8 What other response to Hume is possible?

20


Review & RecordMake sure that you

can describe the cosmological argument accurately know who Thomas Aquinas was, his text etc

Strengths of the argument

It is easily understoodIt is based on our experience – the universeConsistent with the observed factsSome say best possible explanation

Weaknesses of the argument

Some say internal contradiction “all causes have causes” but “God is uncaused” The universe is a thing not a causeWhy does the cause have to God?Fallacy of compositionWhy does there have to be a “first cause”?Necessary cause is beyond our understanding

Lastly

Does the cosmological argument work for you? Why?

It may surprise you to know that, despite its weaknesses, many people still find the cosmological argument very appealing. It certainly raises some interesting questions for scientists to grapple with. However, not everyone is convinced.

21


The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God

or

The Argument From Design

"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,"

Gen. 1: 1

This is the second of the a posteriori arguments we are investigating so again we are analysing and evaluating arguments based on sense experience.

(If the argument was based on reason not sense experience what kind or argument would we be

considering?)

The Greek word “telos” means distance. “Telephone” means speaking from a distance and “television” means seeing from a distance.

The teleological argument depends on the observation that the things we see in our world not only come from somewhere, but seem to be going somewhere. There seems to be a direction, a purpose for things. Our world is not just random chance. We do not exist in chaos.

Do you agree?

22


Observation: There seems to be an order about the cosmos

In the night sky we see the planets and stars moving as if according to some sort of order. On earth, spring and then summer are followed by winter and so on. The organs of the body seem to be closely suited to their tasks - the human eye for example - and so on.

The Teleological Argument is based on the reasoning that if order is observed, then there is a design and this is evidence for a “Divine Designer” - God.

Like the cosmological argument, this Argument from Design has been put forward in many forms throughout history.

In the Bible, the first chapter of the book of Genesis (written about 550 BCE) describes how God, in a very ordered way, created everything and that before creation all was chaos. In Genesis, God also described his creation as “good”. Job satisfaction!

In Psalms 104 we find...

“You fixed the earth on its foundations, forever and ever it shall not be shaken. From your high halls you water the mountains, satisfying the earth with the fruit of your works. For cattle you make the grass grow, and for people the plants they need, to bring forth food from the earth, and wine to cheer peoples hearts. You made the moon to mark the seasons, the sun knows when to set. You bring on darkness and night falls.”

Maybe not so poetic but with the same theme...

“Nature has made the hindermost parts of our body which we sit upon most fleshy, as providing for our ease, and making us a natural cushion.”

(H. More, An Antidote Against Atheism, 1659)

Or...

“The ribs on melons were designed by a wise God so that they can be divided up among a family at table.”

23


(Bernadin de St Pierre, 1715)

However, the most famous statement of the Teleological argument is provided by the Englishman, William Paley, (1743-1805).

In his famous watch analogy, Paley argued that just as a watch demands an intelligent creator, a watchmaker, similarly the human eye also requires a designer - God.

According to Paley’s argument from analogy, neither the watch nor a human eye could “just happen” by chance.

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how this stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever... But suppose I found a watch... I should hardly give the same answer... Why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?

For this reason, when we come to inspect the watch we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner... either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. This, mechanism being observed - the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker.., who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.

Nor would it weaken the conclusion that we had never seen a watch made ... or that the watch sometimes went wrong, or that it seldom went exactly ... or if there were a few parts

24


of the watch the reason for which we could not discover... in what manner they conducted to the general effect...”

(Natural Theology - William Paley 1802)

This is an example of an argument using analogy. An analogy is a type of argument often used by philosophers to either support or attack an argument.

The claim of an argument from analogy is that two items share similarities and from that, one can deduce similar conclusions from their comparison.

Paley is claiming that the watch and the human eye are similar in certain important respects therefore a conclusion, which applies to one, can be justifiably applied to the other.

The big question we must confront is – “Is Paley’s analogy valid?” When some one claims, “Life is like a box of chocolates”, to what extent is this a convincing analogy?

Are you convinced by Paley’s argument?

Is a watch really comparable with a human eye? Are the two really similar in their essential details? Obviously Paley thought so but what do you think?

Those who support the teleological argument say all we have to do to confirm the existence of God is look around us.

The inference from the watch analogy is that an eye is analogous to a watch in requiring a designer. Furthermore, the universe and all that is in it are far more complex than a watch, therefore the designer must be a very powerful and sophisticated being - God.

The argument is based on induction although, like the cosmological, it can be given a deductive formal structure.

25


The Argument From Design

The formal argument

Assignment 7

1 In what way is the Argument from Design similar to the cosmological argument?

2 What are the differences between a priori and a posteriori arguments?

3 What is the history of the Argument from Design?4 Why is the argument sometimes called the

Teleological argument?5 Outline the basic Teleological/Design argument.6 What is the title of Paley’s text?7 How does Paley illustrate this argument?8 What kind of argument does Paley use?

How convincing is the teleological argument?

Despite the popularity and vitality of the design argument there are flaws.

Remember arguments can be declared unreliable for two reasons.

Either the premises are untrue or there is a fault in the structure.

The design argument is an a posteriori argument. It is an inductive argument the conclusion is not necessarily even if all the premises are true.

In an inductive argument, the conclusion could be false even with true premises.

26

P1 Without order there would be chaos.P2 Order is always created by design and intelligence.P3 We observe order._____________________p4/C There is an intelligent creator/designer - God.


Problems with the Design Argument

Firstly it can be applied in another context and made to sound absurd. (Remember reductio ad absurdum?)

Secondly as to the question above “is the analogy valid?” Some would say “no!” It is also absurd to say that the workings of a watch “resemble” the human eye.

According to David Hume, the human eye is more like a vegetable! After all, a watch is mineral.

The point of this objection to the analogy is that if the analogy is weak then the conclusion cannot be relied on. The whole argument is weakened.

What about the substantial claims of the argument? There are two..

Look carefully at premises, 2, 3 and 4.

Objections

Can we assume that all is ordered in the universe?

Can we assume that all order is designed?

27

P1 Without order there would be chaos.P2 Order is always created by design and intelligence.P3 We observe order._____________________p4/C There is an intelligent creator/designer - God.

“If we look at an egg we could be struck by the fact that it is very cleverly designed so that it will fit exactly into an egg cup!”


Premise 2 and 3 suffer from the problem with all a priori arguments with an inductive basis – the claim that “all unobserved things are like observed all things”. This can never be demonstrated!

Premise 4’s problem – why does the “designer” have to be God? No reason given!

Premise 3 – again, some would also point out that the universe exhibits chaos not order.

Just because some one claims that order is observed does not mean that order actually exists. Just think about it! Just because some one sees a certain pattern in a cloud formation does not mean that …..

Is it reasonable to infer that any observed pattern/order is patterned or ordered? After all we all have experience of coincidences.

Assignment 8

1 The teleological argument is an example of what kind of argument?2 What does the teleological argument have in common with the

cosmological?3 Explain clearly the main problems of these sorts of arguments.4 What kind of argument did Paley use?5 Give another example of this kind of argument.

28


6 List all the objections to the Teleological argument so far.

29


More Objections

Alternative Arguments To Order & Design

There are alternative arguments which seem to be just as convincing.

Evolution

The rise of modern science has produced a significant challenge to the Design Argument. Darwin's work on evolution has provided us with a competing argument to Paley’s watch analogy. Darwin explains why plants, animals and their bits seem so well “designed” without the need for a supernatural personal designer.

From his many observations of plants and animals on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin postulated that it was the process of Natural Selection which was at work rather than that of a Divine Designer. The human eye could be explained as a product of Natural Selection rather than God.

So not God, not chance but an explainable natural process.

This immense and wonderful universe cannot be the result of blind chance... I feel compelled to look to a First Cause... But then arises the doubt. Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

(Charles Darwin – the Origin of the Species)

30


It is important to note that Darwin’s theory does not disprove God. In fact some Christians would say that God created evolution!

What Darwin does do is that he provides a theory which many claim does away with the necessity for God and so weakens the Design Argument because it takes the same evidence and arrives at an alternative conclusion. Some would say that this provides a good explanation for natural order without the need for a supernatural cause.

But remember, Darwin only attempted to explain biological systems. There are many other systems in operation in the universe which cannot be explained by Darwinism.

More recently, scientific research into what is known as Chaos Theory is beginning to undermine Newton's optimistic view of the universe as a predictable machine. It is not in fact (we now discover) made up of building blocks obeying 'laws of nature', but of waves and impulses which seem to operate randomly.

We are discovering that the cosmos is perhaps more chance than design.

If a pattern does eventually emerge, could it be simply nature's way of surviving? Those who fit into the pattern survive, the rest perish. Who is to say that the human race is not the survivor of a million failed worlds? If God stands behind such a world, he is something far more mysterious than just a “clever watchmaker”.

More Problems with the Design Argument

31


If we take up the theists’ invitation to look around us at the evidence for the existence of God, some may say that there is as much evidence for non-existence - “Where is God with all the suffering?”

Moreover, if some of the universe seems well designed, there is much that could do with a make-over - flood, drought, earthquake, volcanic eruption, plague, disease, innocent suffering and so on. Taken together they call into question the power, wisdom and ethics of the Creator. So the Designer God may not be omnipotent, omniscient nor onmibenevolent.

Humans rarely have perfect vision and many have back problems as a result of walking upright. So maybe this was a “prototype universe” - maybe this universe was abandoned as a bad job or just abandoned because it was no fun any more - too many repeats in the soap opera of human nature!

So even if it could be proved that there is design in our world, who is to say as David Hume did that the Designer is not plural, or stupid, or downright evil?

“Look round this universe... inspect a little more narrowly these living creatures ... how hostile and destructive to each other ... how contemptible or odious to the spectator ... a blind nature, pouring forth from her lap without discernment or parental care, her maim and abortive children. If the architect had skill and good intentions, he might have remedied all or most of these inconveniences.”

(David Hume - Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

Assignment 9 (Revision)

1 Outline the basic Teleological argument.2 How does Paley illustrate this argument?

32


3 What kind of argument does Paley use?4 What are the main problems with the Teleological

Argument itself?5 Why is Charles Darwin now an important figure in

this debate?6 What are the alternative arguments to the

Teleological?7 What is David Hume’s point?8 What does the teleological argument establish?9 What does Darwin’s theory do for the teleological

argument?10 List all the objections to the design argument in

this section.

Argument from Design - Post-Scientific Version

So you might think, as many do, that Darwin has completely destroyed the teleological argument. Not so. Many eminent scientists are also theists. Deism, as it is called was popular in David Hume’s day over three hundred years ago and it still is today.

How can this be?

33


The Teleological - Science Synthesis

Most recently the Anthropic Principle or Theistic Evolution has had its supporters. This principle states that the Genesis picture, of a universe deliberately designed for human beings, is confirmed by science. A universe hospitable to humans requires so many unique circumstances that it cannot be put down to mere random chance.

For example when the ozone layer around the earth was first discovered, many believers acclaimed it as a further piece of evidence of a teleological world. Who but a wise Designer could have arranged this?

So the more the natural laws are revealed which order the universe and allow life to exist the more evidence the theist claim to support their position that it could only be God that has created the physical laws which allows life to exist. Theists point out that the odds against all the cosmological constants being what they are is 1 in 10 to 10 125

As one philosopher puts it ...

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Solomon

"God does not play dice with the universe”

Albert Einstein

Here Einstein is expressing the Deist view that the exactitude with which the maths fits what would be

34

The Anthropic Principle

"everything about the universe tends toward humans, making life possible and sustaining it"


necessary for there to be an ordered and sustainable universe is not a result of shear chance.

1Scientific Cosmology - The “Big Bang” + Natural laws e.g. Darwinian biology

2Narrow Teleology (Paley) - examples from experiencedemonstrate the existence of God - the human eye - God the designer

3 Broad Teleology (Tennant) - Synthesis - examples like the eye can be explained by natural causes like evolution/natural selection but these natural forces are the “ways of God”.

Conclusion

So the Teleological or Argument from Design sets out to demonstrate that the God of the philosophers necessarily exists because only if S/He did, would there be order in the universe.

Has this been achieved?

Not quite. The jump from order to perceived design to Great Designer can be challenged.

The argument merely establishes the possibility of a Designer God.

Purely scientific explanations are however incomplete and claim that all will be revealed eventually.

The synthesis amounts to the bolting of one unconvincing argument on to another.

The conclusion based on an inductive inference so not certain to be true.

35


The God of the philosophers is not necessarily the only source of order.

There are inconsistencies or contradictions between God’s nature and the evidence e.g. suffering and omnibenevolence.

There are alternative, equally strong arguments, which do not rely on God.

Order has not been demonstrated as conclusive evidence for chance being an important feature of the way the universe operates.

The argument from Design relies on what many would say are weak analogies - Is the eye really like a watch? Hume said that the human to him resembled not a machine but a vegetable!

Assignment 10

1 What do the Cosmological and Teleological arguments have in common?

2 What is the difference between the Cosmological and Teleological argument?

3 Why, and in what way, has the Teleological had to evolve?4 How successful do you think this has been? Why?5 How convincing is the teleological today? Give reasons for

your answer.

36


Arguments From Design - Video

1 What does philosophy provide in relation to the question of the existence of God?

2 What are the philosophical questions that provide a starting point?

3 The scientific position is usually represented by which hypothesis?

4 Why do some scientists believe that there is still room for God in their cosmology?

5 What is this an example of? 6 Dawkins says that God was understandably

necessary until who came along? 7 What do we have to do to find out “what is

going on”? 8 What model of argument is chosen first? Why?9 What form of argument is the argument from

design? 10 What is it claimed that evolution does? 11 What are the modern Cosmo arguments? 12 How are the relative strengths of arguments

tested? 13 Why is it claimed that the “many universes”

arguments is not scientific? 14 Who survives the “simplicity test”? 15 Why is God “no explanation”? 16 What does our existence suggest? 17 What is the point of the “firing squad”

analogy?18 What is the scientific view of this? 19 What questions are not explained by the

design argument? 20 If there is no proof what should or could be a

reasonable human response? 21 What are claimed to be the weaknesses of

religious explanations? 22 What is the philosophical substance of

Dawkins “water sprite” argument?

There is No Conclusive Evidence - Agnosticism

Agnosticism is a term first used in 1869 by TH Huxley to describe his philosophical position on the

37


existence of God. In the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell also described himself as an agnostic.

Anyone who decides that it may be impossible to decide whether or not God exists might be described as an agnostic.

It is important to note is that there is a distinction between being an agnostic and being an atheist.

The atheist argues against the existence of God, while the agnostic argues that, after examining all the arguments, there is insufficient evidence to decide either for or against the existence God. For these purposes we are assuming that “knowing God exists” and “believing that God exists” are the same thing.

So why be an agnostic?

Firstly, from looking at the cosmological and teleological arguments, we have seen that those who argue for the existence of God (theists) and those who argue against the existence of God (atheists) are very skilful at countering each others’ arguments and objections.

Secondly, a failure to prove that God does exist is not proof that God does not exist, (and vice versa).

Thirdly, both theists and atheists claim that God, by Her very nature, is unknowable and so conclusive evidence can never exist!

The agnostic is not claiming that, since there are no obvious winners, it is better just to sit on the fence. The agnostic is claiming that the evidence available might be used to support or challenge both sides of the argument and that, until evidence becomes conclusive, we should not conclude.

It is really a question of fact and interpretation.

Think back to the human eye example in our discussion of the design argument.

We have a fact: the human eye is perfectly fitted for the human environment.

38


Both sides agree on this fact but interpret this fact as evidence which supports their particular argument. Intelligent design theorists take this apparent fitness to purpose to be evidence of God’s existence, atheists, on the other hand, take this to be a sign of evolution and natural selection and so evidence that God does not exist.

The agnostic point of view is that this piece of evidence is therefore not decisive, and that to believe either way on the basis of that evidence would be irresponsible and irrational.

Huxley’s argument could be formalised as follows:

P1 - All conclusions should be based on the strongest evidence.P2 - The evidence for the existence and non-existence of God is balanced equally.P3 - Neither evidence is stronger than the other.ThereforeConclusion - One should remain agnostic

Assignment 11

1 Why did Huxley use the term agnosticism?2 What is the difference between agnosticism

and atheism?3 What are the main philosophical reasons for

agnosticism?4 What would be an example of the formal

agnostic argument?5 Why is it important to distinguish facts from

interpretation.6 Give an example of this distinction.

Pascal’s Wager – Argument Against Agnosticism

This is a response to both atheism and agnosticism. Suppose that the agnostic is right, there really is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, and that, without conclusive evidence one way or the other, we really should not commit ourselves to either believing that God does exist, or that God doesn’t exist.

39


The French mathematician, Blaise Pascal, suggests that the lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other is no reason for us not to commit ourselves to believing in God.

40


In brief, Pascal says that given the choice between believing or not, we should believe in God because we have the least to lose by it. Philosophers call this argument Pascal’s Wager. Put more formally, Pascal’s Wager looks something like this:

P1 If you believe in God and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

P2 If you do not believe in God and God exists, you will be punished in the afterlife.

P3 If you do not believe in and God does not exist there will be no reward or punishment.

P4 Clearly there is more to gain than lose from believing in God

Therefore

CONCLUSION - IT MAKES SENSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD

The central point is to do with hedging your bets - an analogy…

God Does Exist God Does Not existI believe in God

Win £10,000,000,000,000.00 £ 0.00

I do not believe in God

Lose £10,000,000,000,000.00 £ 0.00

In this analogy, the potential benefits of believing are considerably greater than not believing. The worst that can happen to a believer is that s/he gets no reward. However, the worst that can happen to a non-believer is that s/he gets in a lot of debt and the best is that s/he gets nothing.

So, looking at it this way, Pascal’s argument is that even if there no evidence either way on the question of God’s existence, we should still form an opinion in favour of God’s existence since, in terms of potential benefits, it is plainly more sensible to believe.

41


Is this the same as reasonable?

Objections

There are many objections to Pascal’s Wager. Here are just three:

1. Do those who do not believe do so because they choose to not believe? Surely those who do not believe are just not convinced by the evidence. Pascal is not arguing for a real belief in God but a virtual belief in God and he is not giving reasons for this belief but trying to persuade us to accept this virtual situation out of self-interest not rational conviction. The best we can say for Pascal’s argument is that it provides evidence for the benefit of believing but not the truthfulness of the belief

2. Look again at Pascal’s argument. A big claim against it is that if God does not exist, then a life spent believing in Him is not a life wasted – no loss. But what about the efforts that have to be put in and restriction on life and behaviour that a belief in God entails – loss of freedom.

3. It is not just a question of belief or non-belief in God. Which God does one need to believe in to be sure to get the reward? Will the wrong choice result in punishment?

Clifford’s Objection to Pascal’s Wager

WK Clifford argued that we have a responsibility to make a reasoned choice based on the evidence alone and not on personal considerations.

42


Clifford, asks us to imagine the owner of a number of passenger ships, which he knows are not in good condition. But, because these ships in the past have successfully completed journeys many times, the ship-owner reasons that they will be able to do this again. Unfortunately the ships sink and all on board are drowned.

What kind of argument and evidence did the ship-owner use?

Using this selective evidence to draw a conclusion produced undesirable results. The ship owner has arrived at his beliefs irresponsibly. He acted not reasonably but selfishly and irresponsibly.

For Clifford, we are in a similar position regarding the evidence for God in that we have to form our beliefs responsibly, and forming a belief for, or against, God on the evidence currently available would not be responsible.

So, for the agnostic, there is no clear cut evidence one way or the other about God’s existence, and if we are to behave responsibly regarding the formation of our beliefs, we should abstain from belief rather than commit ourselves on poor or inconclusive evidence.

Is the agnostic right to make these conclusions?

So what do you conclude? – Is there a rational basis for belief in God?

43


Assignment 12

1 What was Pascal’s argument? 2 Why did he use it?3 What are the main objections to Pascal’s argument?4 What form of argument did Clifford use?5 What question does this type of argument raise?6 What point did Clifford try to make?7 Was Clifford successful?8 What is your conclusion to the question –“Is there a

rational basis for belief in God?

Summary

Agnostic Position

Agnostics believe that it is impossible/unreasonable/irresponsible to conclude either for or against the existence of God – the evidence is inconclusive

Reasoning

44


Arguments for and against existence are equally balancedWeak arguments for, do not demonstrate non-existence of GodAny conclusion must be justified

Strengths of agnosticism

Any conclusion should be justifiedThere is an openness to persuasion

Weaknesses of agnosticism – theists

Belief in God is based on faith – knowledge tests are inappropriateCosmo & Design arguments are convincingRevelation and miracles are conclusive

Weaknesses of agnostic – atheists

Paradox of omnipotence demonstrates God’s existence as illogicalExistence of evil inconsistent with existence of GodGod is a psycho/social projection not a reality

Conclusion

Faith too mysterious to be effectivePhilosophical arguments confirm only the possibility of GodMiracles are open to various interpretations so not conclusiveGod may be illogical and still existEvil does not disprove God, only makes belief in existence more difficultPsycho/social theories do not disprove the existence of GodNAB Revision

45


LTS

46


Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance: of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

The structure of this argument is something like this:

1. The world around us resembles the artefacts of human creation in that they both display complexity.

2. The complexity of human artefacts comes from having been designed and made by intelligent beings (humans).

3. We have no reason to assume that what holds for human artefacts should not hold for the world around us.

4. Therefore, the complexity in the world around us comes from having been designed and made by an intelligent being (God).

Claim 1 is simply a more concise statement of the thoughts we started out with; that natural objects, like human artefacts, display complexity. Claim 2 is also the straightforward point that human artefacts show this complexity because they are designed. Claim 3 is

47


the crucial claim of this argument from analogy. Put most succinctly, it is the claim that like effects have like causes. The idea is that if we see two cases where the effect is the same, we are entitled to assume that in both cases, the cause is the same. There are numerous examples that we might suggest that make this seem uncontentious; if we have two similar marks on a cloth, one of which we know is caused by scorching, we can, with some justification, assume that the second mark is also caused by scorching. The reason that this claim is crucial to the argument should be clear; it is by claiming that the complexity in human artefacts and the complexity in natural objects are like effects that we are able to claim like causes in both cases and so claim God as the designer of natural objects. Claim 4, of course, is just the conclusion of the argument and makes explicit the idea that emerges from claim 3; namely that if human artefacts show complexity because they are designed, then natural objects, displaying like effects and so having like causes, are also the product of design. And of course, the obvious point is that the only thing that could be the intelligent designer of the world, the universe, etc., is God.

48


Objections and Replies

What are we to make of the argument from analogy? David Hume offers a range of well-known objections, and it is widely thought that these criticisms seriously undermine the argument from analogy. Hume’s most important objections, which we shall examine in more detail below, are first, that the grounds for analogy between natural object and human artefacts is too weak to warrant the inference that the argument from analogy makes, and second, that even if the analogy is strong and permissible, it does not give us the kind of God we might ordinarily think it does.

Objection 1: The Grounds for Analogy are too Weak

The main criticism is that the grounds for analogy are too weak for us to say that the reason for the traits of design in human artefacts has an analogous reason at the level of the world around us. Hume puts it like this:

If we see a house, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect.(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

For Hume, the world or the universe is dissimilar enough to human artefacts for us to think that the analogy fails. What he means is that although we can suggest that similarities exist, these similarities might well be insignificant, and certainly not strong enough to provide a basis for any argument that God exists. By way of driving his point home, Hume extends this criticism by pointing out that the analogy is so weak, that we can, in principle, draw similarities between the universe and a whole range of things:

49


The world plainly resembles more an animal or a vegetable than it does a watch or a knitting loom. Its cause, therefore, it is more probable resembles the cause of the former. The cause of the former is generation or vegetation. The cause, therefore, of the world, we may infer to be something similar or analogous to generation or vegetation.(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

Are we to assume, then, that this provides a good argument for thinking that the universe developed organically, in much the same way as a vegetable? It seems that such an argument could work in much the same way as the design argument, by providing a ground for analogy and drawing an inference on the basis of that. Now, if we can draw analogies between the universe and things that are designed on the one hand, and between the universe and things that are not designed on the other, then why should we think that one argument from analogy is any more convincing than the other? It looks as though this particular teleological argument is not too convincing.

50


Objection 2: The Many Designers Objection

The second interesting objection from Hume is that even if the argument from analogy is accepted, it is not clear that it delivers the kind of God we would want. The thought is that what we want to argue for is more that just the existence of God. Indeed, for many people, we are trying to argue for a particular kind of God, for example, the God of Christian, Jewish or Muslim religions. However, by saying that intelligent designers created human artefacts and by analogy an intelligent designer designed the universe, we do not automatically entitle ourselves to claim that it is this kind of God whose existence we have proved. The best way of pointing this out is to note this point from Hume:

A great number of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth; why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

What Hume is quite rightly pointing out here is that by the analogy, we have said that human artefacts are made by intelligent designers, that is, by many humans; however, the claim we want to make from the analogy is that the universe is made by an intelligent designer, with particular characteristics. As things stand, we can’t be sure that whatever did create the universe was a single creator, let alone a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God. Note that this objection does not deny the possibility of a God; it just notes that there is nothing in the argument from analogy that allows the claim that the intelligent designer of the universe could be the God we have in mind.

Paley’s Teleological Argument

In many ways the argument from analogy is too simplistic, and has too many obvious weaknesses. However, there is a development of the argument from analogy from the 19th Century Churchman William

51


Paley which uses many of the same starting points, but is certainly more sophisticated than the simple argument from analogy. A good summarising statement of Paley’s argument is this:

[S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; viz., that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. (William Paley, Natural Theology)

What Paley is doing here is examining what marks the watch as designed. The key mark of design which he identifies is that it performs a role that we take to be useful, that is, it keeps time. Moreover, so Paley’s teleological argument goes, the watch could not actually fulfil this role if it had been different in some way. This precise fitness to fulfil a role tells us that the watch is purposefully this way.

52


Having noted the characteristics which indicate design, Paley then goes on to conclude that natural objects also have such characteristics. We shall examine this further in a moment, but first, we must make something clear; this is not a simple argument from analogy, despite the fact that, superficially, it looks as though Paley is saying that the world is like a watch. As a matter of fact, Paley’s is not drawing an analogy, but pointing out the features of the watch which he thinks indicate its being designed. He then goes on to say that human artefacts are not the only things that display these features. In short, he is identifying why we would think that the watch is designed and then pointing out that natural objects have these features too.

To be clear, an argument from analogy, identifies one characteristic shared by different objects, and then assumes on that basis, that other, related, characteristics are shared too. Formally, the argument runs thus:

1. Human artefacts have characteristic Y.2. Natural objects also have characteristic Y.3. Human artefacts have characteristic Y because they

also have characteristic Z.4. Therefore, Natural objects also have characteristic

Z.

Paley’s argument, although often construed this way, doesn’t take this form. Rather, Paley uses the watch (whose characteristics he discusses for two chapters) to get clear about the characteristics which designed objects (regardless of who designed them) have. He then searches for, and finds, these characteristics in the natural world. Put more formally, Paley’s argument runs roughly like this:

1. Some natural objects display design-like properties (they display a precise fitness to purpose).

2. Design-like properties are the result of intelligent design.

3. Therefore, Natural objects are the product of design.

53


Notice that in this argument, there is no reference to human artefacts at all and so no analogy being drawn. This is why, when properly construed, Paley’s argument is not a simple analogical argument.

So, why does Paley think that natural objects also display the kind of purposive design he identifies in the watch? A good example comes from the natural world. Think of something like the length of a sword-billed hummingbird’s beak. These birds have thin beaks three or more inches longer than their bodies and are perfectly suited to feed on the flowers that grow in their habitat. All the flowers in the sword-billed hummingbird’s habitat keep their nectar a long way from the opening of their flowers and any bird taking this nectar needs a very long, thin beak. This makes the sword-bill’s beak perfectly suited for its purpose. In fact, the minutest change in the length or breadth of the sword-bill’s beak would mean that this particular hummingbird would be unable to feed and so would soon become extinct. This precise complexity fitted to purpose is something we have already seen in the watch, and as Paley points out, such a characteristic only arises through purposive design. And of course, the final step is obvious. We know who the designer of the watch is since we, humankind, designed it. But we know that we did not design the hummingbird’s beak even though it bears the hallmark of purposive design, and of course, we have to conclude that the only thing that could be the designer behind the purposive design in nature is God.

54


Objection: Evolution explains precise complexity fitted to purpose in nature

The first point we might raise against Paley’s argument is that it may not be so clear as Paley assumes what the role or purpose that natural objects display is, and perhaps more needs to be said on Paley’s part. However, the real problem with Paley’s argument is a very famous theory: evolution. We know that the theory of evolution suggests that complex biological organisms (the things which Paley thinks display purposive design) evolved gradually over millions of years from simpler organisms through a process of natural selection. Clearly, then, Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection gives us an alternative way to explain the phenomena (complex functionality) that leads Paley to think that a designer has left his mark.

To see this in terms of an example, think of the hummingbird’s beak again: the reason the sword-billed hummingbird’s beak is so fit for purpose is that in that habitat, it is the only one that works. Imagine that many thousands of years ago, there were many hummingbirds with many different lengths of beak, and many flowers of differing lengths too. Then, because of a sudden change in the environment, the shorter flowers died out. This meant that only birds with long beaks who were able to get at the nectar in the longer flowers were able to feed and survive. The birds with shorter beaks died out, and the birds with long beaks thrived in their specialised habitat. Thousands of years later, when all those birds with inappropriate beaks have died out, we come across this environment and note that the long beaked birds fit so perfectly in this environment that any change in the length of their beaks would see them become extinct. Obviously, had we seen the thousands of years of natural selection that lead to this point, we wouldn’t see the long bird beaks as designed for the environment, but rather as the result of weaker less well fitted birds dying out. What this seems to do for Paley’s argument is explain complexity and fitness for purpose without positing God as a designer. This seems to render Paley’s teleological argument defunct.

55


There is, of course, a response here, often forwarded by Intelligent Design theorists: evolution does not necessarily contradict the idea of intelligent design, rather, it could be the tool of an intelligent designer. For example, the reason that hummingbird beaks are fit for their purpose is indeed because they have evolved that way, but evolution could, in fact, be the tool that God used to ensure that hummingbird beaks turned out the way He intended. In effect, this does not argue against evolution, but rather co-opts it by claiming that it is not, in fact, random. Of course, such a response would need to explain why there exists in nature so many things which are either poorly designed, (eg. the shared food/air passages in mammals) or apparently superfluous (the human appendix). If God is an intelligent designer who can use guided evolution to effect his designs, why are so many of His designs apparently so poor?

56


c) It is impossible to decide if God exists

Agnosticism

Anyone who decides that it may be impossible to decide whether or not God exists might be described as an agnostic. We shall look at why one might be an agnostic in a moment, but first, it is important to note is that there is a distinction between being an agnostic and being an atheist. These two concepts are often run together, since both agnostics and atheists seem to find themselves uncommitted to the existence of God. However, the atheist argues against the existence of God, while the agnostic argues that there is insufficient evidence to decide either for or against God. So, why be an agnostic?

It may well already be apparent from looking at the cosmological and teleological arguments that those who want argue for the existence of God (theists) and those that want to argue against the existence of God (atheists) are adept at countering each others arguments and objections. Moreover, a failure to prove that God does not exist is not proof that God does not exist, (and vice versa). Even so, the agnostic is not committed to saying that since there are no obvious winners it is better to sit on the fence. Rather, the agnostic is best construed as saying that the evidence available might be used to support either sides’ argument and that, until evidence becomes decisive, we have a responsibility not to believe in one thing or the other. To see how this might work, think of the discussion of the hummingbird’s beak in our discussion of the teleological argument. It looks as though we have a bare fact: hummingbird’s beaks are perfectly fitted to the environment in which they live. Both sides of the debate are able to use such evidence as support for their preferred conclusion; intelligent design theorists take this apparent fitness to purpose to be evidence of God’s existence, atheists on the other hand take this to a sign of evolution and natural selection and so evidence that God does not exist. The agnostic has to say that this piece of evidence does not decide the argument either way, and that to

57


believe either way on the basis of that would be irresponsible.

A way of understanding the agnostic’s position in slightly different terms comes from some examples used by the nineteenth century mathematician, W.K. Clifford, who, to this date offers the clearest statement of the ideas underlying the agnostic position. For the agnostic, what is crucial is that we arrive at beliefs responsibly. Clifford generates a range of scenarios to illustrate the importance of this point. In one case, he asks us to imagine the owner of passenger ships that are not in good condition. By reasoning that in the past the vessels have successfully completed the journey, he decides to make another journey. Unfortunately the ships sink and all onboard are lost. It seems that the evidence upon which the ship owner based his decision was not good (the problems of induction are well known) or conclusive. However, by using this evidence to form a decision generates undesirable results, results which show that the ship owner has arrived at his beliefs irresponsibly. For Clifford, we are in a similar position regarding the evidence for God in that we have to form our beliefs responsibly, and forming a belief for or against God on current evidence would not be responsible.

So, for the agnostic, there is no clear cut evidence one way or the other about God’s existence, and if we are to behave responsibly regarding the formation of our beliefs, we will abstain from belief rather than commit ourselves on poor or inconclusive evidence. But is the agnostic right to make these conclusions? Next we shall examine an argument that suggests that we have plenty of grounds for reaching a conclusion in the theist/atheist debate, even if the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other.

58


Pascal’s Wager

Suppose that the agnostic is right, there really is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, and that without conclusive evidence one way or the other, we really ought not commit ourselves to either believing that God does exist, or that God doesn’t exist. However, one argument, from the French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal, suggests that the lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other is no reason for us not to commit ourselves to believing in God. In brief, Pascal says that between believing or not, we should believe in God because we have the least to lose by it. Philosophers call this argument Pascal’s Wager. Put more formally, Pascal’s Wager looks something like this:

1. If you believe in God and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

2. If you do not believe in God and God exists, you will be punished in the afterlife.

3. If He does not exist nothing will happen to you in the afterlife, whether or not you believed in Him (He doesn’t exist to do anything to you in the afterlife).

4. Clearly there is more to gain than lose from believing in God

Therefore

5. IT MAKES SENSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD

The central point is to do with hedging your bets. It may be easier to think about this in terms of getting or incurring financial rewards after we die. If you believe that God exists, and God does exist, then when you die you go to Heaven. However, if you doubt that God exists, and God does exist, then you go to hell. Heaven means getting a multi-billion pound pay off and spending the rest of eternity to spend it. Hell on the other hand means incurring a multi-billion pound debt and the rest of eternity to pay it off. Of course, if it

59


turns out that God does not exist, you get nothing either way; there is no pay out in Heaven and no debt problem in Hell. Here, then, are the potential beneficial outcomes when you die depending on whether you believe or not.

God Does Exist God Does Not existI believe in God

Win £10,000,000,000,000.00

£ 0.00

I do not believe in God

Lose £10,000,000,000,000.00

£ 0.00

Clearly, the potential benefits of believing are a considerable amount higher than not believing; the worst that can happen to a believer is that he gets no money. However, the worst that can happen to non-believer is that he gets in a lot of debt and the best is that he gets nothing. So, looking at it this way, Pascal’s argument is that even if there no evidence either way on the question of God’s existence, we should still form an opinion in favour of God’s existence since, in terms of potential benefits, it is plainly more sensible to believe.

60


Objections

There are numerous objections to Pascal’s Wager. Here are just three:

1. It isn’t clear that those who abstain from belief in God do so out of some choice to not believe. Those who abstain do so because there is no evidence from either side that they find convinces them. To put the point in a slightly different way, Pascal is asking people to believe in God for reasons that seem entirely unrelated to the usual reasons we do or don’t believe. Suppose someone tries to persuade me that someone rich is coming to town to hand out money by arguing that if they really are, then I will get some of that money. This seems like completely the wrong reason for forming such a belief. I would be better to form such a belief on the basis of evidence concerning whether such a person exists and whether they are travelling through this region. The best we can say for Pascal’s argument is that it provides evidence for the utility of believing but not the truthfulness of the belief

2. Look again at Pascal’s argument. A big claim is that if God does not exist, then a life spent believing in Him is not a life wasted. However, this may not be an assumption that Pascal is entitled to in a straightforward way. After all, is it clear that if God doesn’t exist, we lose nothing by believing, or gain nothing by not believing? To put things slightly differently, how much of religious practice involves abstinence, restraint, devotion, etc.? These are good things in lots of respects (and not just for the purposes of religion), but you might think that if there is no God and ‘life is more than just a read through’, so to speak, then we might benefit from a good spell of reckless behaviour. It might give us a more rounded view of life and enable us to milk every last drop of experience from the short time we are alive. If we think there is anything in this argument, then it might well be that something is lost by believing in God if God turns out not to exist.

3. There is a much bigger problem for Pascal’s Wager though. It isn’t clear that the real Wager is simply

61


between believing or not believing. Imagine this: you spend your life chaste and pure, and devoted yourself to God by becoming a Franciscan Monk. You die, you find yourself heading towards the light, thinking, ‘fantastic, the Wager has paid off and God exists’. You then hear the following presumably loud and booming voice ‘I am Ganesh; behold my infinite love and wisdom. Tell me why did you choose to follow the false belief of Jesus and God when the signs were so clear that Hinduism is the truth?’. In such an instance, it looks as though you followed Pascal’s Wager and came down on the side of believing in God. However, it was not so simple and you chose the wrong God. You have lost anyway. The point is simple; it’s not just a choice about believing or abstaining, but about who to believe? There are a myriad religions, myriad Gods and so myriad ways to get it all wrong.

62


Guide To Resources

Texts

Cosmological Arguments

Blackburn, S. (1999) Think. Oxford University Press. Ch. Five.(A simple introductory survey of the problem and

useful in orientating students.) Craig, W. L. (1980) The Cosmological Argument

from Plato to Leibniz. The Macmillan Press. Davies, B. (2003) An Introduction to the Philosophy

of Religion. Oxford University Press. Chapter Three.(A very popular textbook for philosophy courses on religious topics which students should find accessible.)

Hume, D. (1948) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. (edited with an introduction by Norman Kemp Smith) Social Sciences Publishers.(Even if no other historical text is used throughout the unit, this one should really be consulted. Hume’s Dialogues are easy to read and often state the positions in these arguments more clearly than modern textbooks.)

Teleological Arguments

Blackburn, S. (1999) Think. Oxford University Press. Ch. Five.(A simple introductory survey of the problem and

useful in orientating students.) Davies, B. (2003) An Introduction to the Philosophy

of Religion. Oxford University Press. Chapter Four.(A very popular textbook for philosophy courses on religious topics which students should find accessible.)

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. Norton Publishing. (Dawkins is eminently readable and teachers and lecturers will find this text useful for getting quick summaries of why evolutionary theory can easily account for the complexity of natural phenomenon.)

63


Hume, D. (1948) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. (edited with an introduction by Norman Kemp Smith) Social Sciences Publishers.(Even if no other historical text is used throughout the unit, this one should really be consulted. Hume’s Dialogues are easy to read and often state the positions in these arguments more clearly than modern textbooks.)

Manson, N. (ed.) (2003) God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge.(A useful book for teachers and lecturers who want to get some grounding in the more scientific arguments against the cosmological argument for God’s existence.)

Paley, W. (1963 [1802]) Natural Theology. Bobbs-Merrill. (Famous statement of the teleological argument for God’s existence, which is also accessible to students.)

Agnosticism and Pascal’s Wager(There is very little in the way of student-friendly material on agnosticism but teachers and lecturers may well find something in the following books.)

Smart, J.J.C. and Haldane, J.J. (2003) Atheism and Theism (2nd Edn). Blackwell. (A useful book on matters in religious philosophy and the debate between theists and atheists, but really not useful for students.)

64


Clifford, W.K. ‘The Ethics of Belief’ (1877), in Clifford, W.K. (1999) The Ethics of Belief and other Essays. Prometheus Books.(Classical statement of agnostism. Students may find it hard to extract the simple agnostic claims from Clifford’s broader claims about the ethics of belief though.)

Pascal, B. (1966) Pensées (trans. A.J. Krailsheimer). Penguin.

Journals

All of the following journals specialise in the Philosophy of religion and frequently publish papers relevant to the material taught in this module.

Disputatio Philosophica: An International Journal Philosophy andFaith and PhilosophyInternational Journal for Philosophy of ReligionReligion The Journal of Religion Journal of Religious Ethics Journal of Religious Thought Philosophy and Theology Religious Studies Religion Religion and Theology

Web Resources

There are many easy to find web-resources, but the following are to be particularly recommended for both teachers and students.

Stanford Encylopedia (http://plato.stanford.edu)Especially Relevant Entries:

Cosmological ArgumentTeleological Argument for God’s ExistenceWilliam PaleyPascal’s WagerAgnosticism and Atheism

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu)

65

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/


Especially Relevant Entries:Design Arguments for the Existence of GodWilliam PaleyPascal’s Wager

Film and Radio Resources

FilmsMy Night at Maud’s (Pascal’s Wager) (1969)Inherit the Wind (Evolution and Intelligent

Design) (1960)

RadioThe Existence of God:

http://www.philosophytalk.org/ExistenceofGod.htmIntelligent Design:

http://www.philosophytalk.org/IntelligentDesign.htmHume:

http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/Hume.htm

66

http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/Hume.htm

http://www.philosophytalk.org/IntelligentDesign.htm

http://www.philosophytalk.org/ExistenceofGod.htm


The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything has a cause.

2. Nothing is its own cause.

3. A chain of causes cannot be infinite.

4. There must be a ‘first cause’.

5. God is the ‘first cause’.

67


Teleological Argument - Essay/Assessment Outline

1Teleology = God =

2Type of argument =

3Basic argument =

4History of the argument =

5Formal argument , PaleyÕs analogy and meaning =

6Problems with analogies and formal argument =

7Challenge of science - Darwin etc =.

8Result of challenge =

9Post-scientific synthesis =

10 Conclusion - back to the question and claim made for the argument - God necessary? Type of God(s)? View of the universe - simplicity is best - Is

God a simple or a complicated answer

Higher Philosophy - Unit Assessment 2004

Problems in Philosophy

Arguments for the existence of God

ÒYou can believe that God exists, but you cannot prove it.Ó

To what extent do you think the teleological argument for the existence of God demonstrates that this point of view is incorrect?

25

68







25






25

But, of course, that is the problem. Why should one believe in the first place in an objective and absolute morality? Some would answer, among other things, that the alternative, namely, ethical relativism or subjectivism, turns out on reflection to be philosophically indefensible (is it not possible to be morally mistaken?) and certainly impossible to put into practice (can one live apart from the practice of ideals and values?).

69


The big bangIn recent years scientists have proposed the theory of the Big Bang in an attempt to explain how the universe came about. The idea was first talked about by a Belgian priest-scholar called Georges Lemaître in the 1920s.

However, it wasn’t really thought of as a serious scientific idea until the mid-1960s. Two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, accidentally discovered evidence that a huge explosion must have taken place at some point in the early history of the universe. This seemed to confirm Lemaître’s idea that the universe exploded into existence.

The Singularity

It is now thought that this event took place between 12 to15 billion years ago. The order of events goes something like this:

The universe explodes into existence.

Immediately after the Big Bang the universe was thought to be smaller than the nucleus of an atom.

A millisecond later the universe had expanded to the size of the sun.

A few minutes after the Big Bang the first hydrogen and helium atoms were formed.

70


Gradually these atoms then formed into gases which eventually would become the stars and all matter that we can see.

So everything that now exists in the universe could be thought of as debris from the bang.

71


72


But what was it that exploded?

That question is difficult – some would say impossible to answer.

Here is one way of looking at this question.

Imagine squeezing everything that presently exists into a tiny, almost unimaginably small space. This space is thought to be about a billion times smaller than the size of a proton. Given that about 500 billion protons can fit into the dot on this letter ‘i’, this is clearly a pretty small space!

It is so small that it has been called the ‘point of infinite density’. Others say that just before the explosion there was nothing but energy. What certainly didn’t happen was that two stars collided or some molecules bumped into each other causing the explosion because the Big Bang is thought to have created everything that exists – time, space stuff! Some even simply say that there was nothing and then there was something.

Many people think that this scientific theory takes away the need for a creator God. It is suggested that everything, even time itself, began at this point.

Bertrand RussellMany philosophers have also challenged the cosmological argument. As well as talking about scientific explanations like the Big Bang, they also comment on the logic of the argument itself. One such famous critic was the English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970). He made two key criticisms.

Criticism one – What caused God?

Many people point out that the cosmological argument appears to contradict itself. Look at the following quote from Bertrand Russell:

‘If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God …’

Russell was pointing out that if you start by saying that everything needs a cause, then maybe it’s not fair to then say, ‘everything that is except God’. You may feel like simply asking, ‘What caused God?’

73


Russell was also suggesting that it’s perfectly possible that the universe may not in fact have had a cause at all. The universe could well be eternal. He suggested that when people say that the universe must have had a beginning they simply lack imagination.

Criticism two – How can we ever know that the universe needs a cause?

Russell’s most famous comment on this argument came in a radio debate with another English philosopher, Fredrick Copleston. Russell said that we cannot ever know the answer to questions about the origins of the universe. The only thing that we know for sure is that the universe exists.

‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all’

Russell was following in the tradition of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume had said in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in 1777) that we have no right saying confidently that the universe as a whole needs a cause. We can say that everything in the universe appears to have a cause because we have observed this in our experience. However, the creation of the universe was clearly a unique event. It was also an event that didn’t have any observers! Because no-one was there to watch the event unfold we simply can’t ever know whether it needed a cause or not. Hume would have almost certainly liked Russell’s conclusion, that all we can say is that the existence of the universe is a brute fact.

74


75


Assume that at one time there was nothing. It is clear that nothing can come from nothing. If, therefore, there was once nothing, even now there would be nothing. The universe cannot therefore have come into existence from nothing unless something brought it into existence.

However, we know that the universe now exists. If God, or something equivalent in terms of power, does not exist then the universe must always have existed since, if it was not created, it could not have come into existence of its own accord from nothing.

Try to explain in your own words what Aquinas was trying to express. Keep your answer fairly brief.

76

Documents

Arguments for the Existence of God - eduBuzz.org · Web viewThere are three basic views people have on the question of the existence of God. ... Copleston) • Jewish ... supposed