(phil 3) Philosophy Summary: Thinking About Theism

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

Thinking About Theism Paper by Brendan Moar

1 Introduction: Traditional Proofs for the Existence of God Classically, there are three kinds of rational argument for God's existence: 1) Ontological; 2) Cosmological, and; 3) Teleological. Today, generally only the cosmological and teleological arguments are seen in modern examples. Ontological argument is an a priori argument. Cosmological and teleological arguments are a posteriori arguments.

a priori: an argument 'before the fact'. Uses reason without reference to experience to form conclusions. a posteriori: an argument 'after the fact'. Uses empirical evidence to form conclusions. E.g, deriving knowledge from experience, or reasoning from observed facts or events back to their causes.

2 The Ontological Argument At its core, the ontological argument is about the greatest possible being we could conceive. This being is God. To be the best, God must exist, because existing is better than not existing. The very thought of God implies his existence. Therefore God must exist. To put the above into the form of a reductio ad absurdum:1 1. Premise A: Existing is better than not existing. (and existing in reality is better than existing only in the understanding or imagination.) 2. Premise B: God is the greatest being imaginable. (God is ‘that than which none greater can be conceived’.) (His ‘existence’, like his other attributes, is perfect.) 3. A modus tollens (?): If God does not exist, then we now imagine God as less than best, (since not existing is worse than existing – Premise A). 4. Restated: If God does not exist, then we can imagine a better being than God, (for we can imagine one that exists).

1

AJC course notes 2007, Thinking about Theism, pg 17.

Thinking About Theism

1

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

5. Conclusion But - God is the greatest being imaginable! Therefore it is absurd to suppose that God does not exist.

2.1 Who Likes this Argument? Anselm is traditionally thought to be the brains behind this argument. The example argument above is a summary of the argument in his devotional Proslogion. A summary of his argument: Everything perfectible God has perfectly. Existence is perfectible. Therefore God exists.

(e.g. omniscient, omnipresent …) (God is ‘omni-existent’!)

For Anselm, this kind of inference is only valid in the case of God. I.e., only in the case of that being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Scotus, Hegel and Alvin Plantinga accept and defend versions of the cosmological argument. Plantinga does point out that the argument can seem like it is 'affirming the consequent', or 'begging the question'. Affirming the consequent (q) overlooks alternative explanations: If p then q. q. Therefore, p.

If I don’t get enough sleep then I'll be tired. I'm tired. Therefore I didn’t get enough sleep. However, I could be tired because I'm sick.

Begging the question implicitly uses your conclusion as a premise: The Bible is true because God wrote it. The Bible tells us God exists. Therefore God exists

He goes on to say that what is really happening is that the implications of the premise are immediately obvious. It's not 'begging the question' but 'fast thinking'.

2.2 Who Doesn't Like this Argument? Aquinas leaves this argument out of his '5 ways' and then goes on to refute it. Schopenhauer called the argument a 'charming joke'.

Thinking About Theism

2

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

Gaunilo raises the 'unicorn objection'. We can imagine anything into existence! But; there can be no leaps from mind to reality. Kant denies that existence is a predicate, property or attribute. Existence adds nothing to a concept. A hundred dollars is a hundred dollars whether it is real or imaginary. He is traditionally seen to be the defeater of this kind of argument. Frame and Plantinga think Kant got it wrong: it does matter if something exists or not. A hundred real dollars is better than a hundred imaginary dollars at Macca's. Frame (and Aquinas) notice that Anselm has smuggled his pre-existing ideology into the premise. What Anselm thinks of when he thinks of the best possible being is: the God of the Christian Bible. Thinkers from differing world-views can use Anselm's argument to arrive at differing conclusions; Anselm concludes: Spinoza concludes: Hegel concludes: Hartshorne concludes:

God=Christian God God = nature God = ‘the Absolute’ God = process

As for 'existence' being a mark of perfection: Buddhists often prefer annihilation to existence.

2.3 Why Do I Care about this Argument? The key point to take home is the way this argument highlights two common flaws in theistic arguments: (i) The Christian ontological argument is usually not religiously neutral. It presupposes Christian revelation. Data from revelation is often unwittingly smuggled into the argument. (ii) Anselm elevates proper reasoning as humankinds' primary source of truth about God. This is a poor and fundamentally a mistaken human anthropology. The Bible locates truth in a prosper response to and love for God.

Thinking About Theism

3

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

3 The Cosmological Argument Essentially, the Cosmological argument looks at the world or aspects of the world, and argues from them to the existence of God. That is, it uses empirical data (experience) to draw inferences about God. The basic premise of this argument is cause-and-effect. We can’t find a satisfactory explanation of the data of experience (empirical data) unless we assume the existence of a self-sufficient primary cause—an uncaused first cause—behind it all: something had to start the process of cause-and-effect. In moving from empirical data (stuff in the phenomenal realm) to make inferences about God (stuff in the noumenal realm) this kind of argument is crossing a big epistemological gap. It does it by analogy: the stuff we can’t see is like the stuff we can. To put it another way: the stuff we can see resembles the stuff we can't. We'll see what this is all about as we look at some specific examples.

3.1 Who Likes this Argument? Thomas Aquinas is a bandit for this kind of argument. In fact, he's such a bandit that he produced 5 arguments of this kind! (Well, 4 really. Argument 5 is a little bit different). EXCURSUS: Summa Theologica Thomas wants to look at Aristotle, Augustine and the Bible to discover truth through them. His broader argument in the Summa uses their thought to examine things, moving from the general to the specific. His specific thought moves from the scientific to the theological (observable to the revealed). Thomas thinks Aristotle is a 'best-fit' scenario when it comes to explaining humanity and the world. He thinks Christianity and special revelation can do better. At times we wonder what the dominant voice in Aquinas' though is. Did he bring Aristotle to bear on Christianity (so Luther), or Christianity to bear on Aristotle (possibly so Calvin?)? This is still widely debated. Aristotelian thought certainly provided the framework for Thomas' thinking. Unlike us Newtonians, he understood the world in Aristotelian terms. • Looks for systematic consistency between things • Everything has a goal or telos, and works towards it. If we can discover the end: we can work out how to get there • Everything is ordered in relation to something else. It is like/unlike other things.

Thinking About Theism

4

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

3.1.1 The Five Ways Thomas begins with a preliminary argument: • Can it be demonstrated that God exists? • Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made"

•

The creation wouldn’t demonstrate God's qualities if he did not first exist. Demonstration can be made, in two ways: 1) through cause, and; 2) through effect.

Since God is the cause of everything in existence, we can find out about him through his effects—i.e. the created order. We move from the effects we have knowledge of to the necessary cause: God. If the effects are there, then the cause must be too. He proceeds to a second argument: • Whether God exists? • God says: I am Who I am [Ex 3:14] • The existence of God can be proved in five ways o From the argument of motion o From the nature of efficient cause o From possibility and necessity o From the gradation found in things o From the governance of the world. Thinking about the five ways a little bit more…2 1) We understand motion, so there must be a first mover (not first as in sequence, but as in primary). All movement requires continuous input. God is the input sustaining the motion of the universe. Why does there only have to be one first mover who caused them all? 2) We understand efficient cause, so there must be a first cause (first in the sense above). One cause causes another and so on. I.e., the effect of one cause is also the cause of another. You can't have an uncaused cause. There cannot be an infinite series of causes. Therefore there must be a first cause. This is God. How can there be an uncaused cause—God—if there are no uncaused casues? 3) We see possibility and necessity: since there is something rather than nothing, something must exist necessarily. This is a weird argument. A massive oversimplification of the argument: Everything that exists has to be caused by the thing that exists the most. That's God. He's the perfect existence. This is based on the kind of thinking we see in places like neo-platonism. A perfect being exists: he is the ideal of everything. The particulars of the universe (forms) radiate out from him. The radiation occurs in levels, like the concentric

2

Most of this section is straight out of AJC's lecture on The five ways, pg 8.

Thinking About Theism

5

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

rings left when we throw a rock into a pond. The further away from the centre, the less real things are (the less they reflect the ideal). Therefore, if there are things that exist in the radiated levels, and their existence is not necessary, then there must be something that has a more real existence than them. This something explains the contingent existence of things. It is the ideal or perfect existence. It exists necessarily (if other things are to have existence). This is God. 4) We know of a gradation of goods, so there must be some final good that is the cause of these lesser goods. Good, better, best, bestest, God. God is the perfect standard against whom all comparisons are made. 5) We believe that all things act for an end, so there must be a governor controlling these purposes. If things have purpose (telos) and are designed to work towards that purpose, then something intelligent designed and directed them. The telos comes from the designer. This is really a teleological argument.

3.1.2 Analogy of Being (anologia entis) Thomas' arguments work on the assumption that there is a correspondence or analogy between the created order and God. Because the creation corresponds with God, we can infer things about God from things in the creation. This is clear from Rom 1:20; God has revealed himself in the created order. The danger for Thomas is that Romans 1:20 is not so optimistic about humans getting knowledge of God from the creation. We suppress the truth we learn and fiddle with it, so that it is no longer true. Thomas notes this, but remains optimistic about the possibilities for a natural knowledge of God. Also, Rom 1:20 doesn't imply an exhaustive knowledge of God. In fact, it doesn’t imply much at all; just that God is big and strong and God. Thomas sees the need for revelation to tell us more.

3.2 Why Do I Care about the Five Ways? Two possible reasons: 1) Thomas was refining a 'natural law'. We can look at the natural laws embedded in nature (including moral life) and know stuff about God. Therefore, we have natural theology, a way of knowing about God without the aid of special revelation. On this interpretation, the Five Ways are foundational to Thomas' epistemology and method (and therefore natural theology). 2) Thomas was a virtue ethicist trying to train people to become intellectually and morally virtuous. This puts you in a better place to think about God. The five ways are a small part of his work. His main focus is on how to live if the God of Christianity is true. Thinking About Theism

6

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

4 The Teleological Argument The teleological argument is one that we hear again and again in the modern context. This is largely due to the ongoing influence of Paley's watchmaker argument and the relatively high media profile of current Intelligent Design proponents. The crux of the argument revolves around the idea of telos, what we might call goal or purpose. According to this argument, everything has an inherent telos or purpose to which it is directed—the goal of its existence. The telos of something is related to its nature: its nature is such that it allows it to achieve its telos. Putting this into an argument; Biological species are apparently designed to serve their own needs. The notion of design requires a designer. The universe is evidently designed. Therefore there must be a designer; God. The teleological argument uses the assumption that there is a correspondence or analogy between the created order and God. It is an argument by analogy.

4.1 Who Likes this Argument? Joseph Butler [1692-1752] used a form of this argument in his opposition to the deists (they believe in God but reject all forms of revelation). He doesn't set out to prove the existence of God, but his method is like Aquinas' (argument by analogy). Key Assumptions: a) Probability guides life b) Analogy is uncomplicated

His argument: If an intelligent creator created the world, then when we examine his work, several probabilities arise; 1) Concerning Natural Religion: a) There is a future life. People grow physically. People have a consciousness, which is non-physical. Physical growth suggests this grows too, and will continue to grow after the physical body is gone. b) God rules the world through a moral order. God governs by moral order now and in eternity. I'm having trouble making sense of this argument based on the course notes. It seems like the conclusion in no way is related to the premise: the argument is not valid.

Thinking About Theism

7

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

2) Concerning Christian Revelation: c) A revelation is to be expected. Can’t always understand it properly though (our problem, not God's). d) Many of the distinctive doctrines of Christianity make sense.

Richard Swinburne [b. 1934] uses an argument that is similar to 2c and 2d above. He is interested in natural theology and its relationship to revelation. On Natural Theology: He sees that any event caused by an agent is stamped with something of the agent's character. It follows that if God made the world (an event caused by an agent—God), something of his character is stamped onto the creation. Reflection on the natural world leads to knowledge of God. On Christian Revelation: He argues that is plausible and probable that if God were to reveal himself, it would be recorded/ preserved. If the revelation is significant for the human race, it would probably be preserved for future generations. We see this in the major theistic religions: God reveals himself through propositions which are recorded in written works. On the relationship between Natural Theology and Christian Revelation: Evidence backing up scripture is twofold. 1) The revealed propositions should be consonant with naturally obtained knowledge. I.e. revealed knowledge is measured against natural knowledge. To be a revelation, the propositions must reveal something which develops the natural knowledge, but without contradicting it. 2) The truth of consonant revealed knowledge is supported by accompanying miracles. Because God is in control of natural laws, only he can perpetrate events that are contrary to them. Therefore miracles authenticate the revealed propositions. Furthermore, the provision of a tradition of interpretation also backed by authenticating miracles would protect the propositions from misinterpretation. William Paley's 1802 work, Natural Theology, is in part a response to David Hume's convincing rebuttals of natural religion. He mounts an argument for the probability of an intelligent cosmological designer—God, based on analogy. For him, the intricacy of a watch intimates that it has been designed. Its parts have been carefully put together in order to work together for a particular purpose (to keep time). It clearly has a purpose, and its design clearly reflects that purpose. This design in turn implies the need for a designer. There is 'no contrivance without a Contriver'. Paley notes, by analogy, that nature is full of things which clearly seem to be designed for a purpose—e.g. the eye. Design requires a designer, and that designer is God. He adds numerous examples as further evidence, seeing their cumulative weight as strong proof for the existence of an intelligent designer. Natural theology assures us of the existence of an intelligent designer. Revelation from the designer tells us more about his nature and character. Namely; things we could not discover on the basis of natural theology alone.

Thinking About Theism

8

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

W. Lane Craig follows a similar pattern of argument to Paley. The cosmos shows the existence of God, but revelation is needed to show the character of God. He sees that revelation coming in Christ, through the Scriptures. Alvin Plantinga believes that at the very least, the argument from design ‘always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and the most accordant with the common reason of mankind.’

4.2 Who Doesn’t Like this Argument? A key criticism we could level against these arguments is their claim that the designer or cause of the universe is the monotheistic God of Christianity. At best, their arguments prove the plausibility of a creating entity. Furthermore, it is just as plausible that there is more than one creating entity. It is plausible that the Christian God is the creator, but it is equally plausible that it is some other god or gods. This alerts us to two huge mistakes made both here and in other theistic arguments for the existence of God: 1) Data from Christian revelation is smuggled into the argument. 2) The impact of our affections on our rational consistency is not taken seriously. The first mistake is a theological one. The Biblical account of knowledge of God is not impersonal, autonomous (cf Descartes) and individual. Rather, in strong contrast it occurs in a responsive partnership of love with God [Gen 1-2]. There is no independent knowledge of God. The second mistake is anthropological. The Bible does not give the same primacy to mental consistency seen in these arguments. While this mistake pays little or no attention to the way our desires colour our knowledge, the bible makes it clear that our disordered desires are the primary mediator of this knowledge. There is no affectionally neutral knowledge of God. On the basis of these errors, we are in a position to claim that these arguments have put forward two assertions which should never have been made: 1) What is obvious about God is obvious in abstraction from revelation 2) We can reason together about God without reference to the influence of our desires

David Hume seriously took the stick to these kind of arguments in the mid to late 1700's. Hume put his argument forward prior to Paley, yet Paley never adequately responded to his objections. Hume's greatest attack comes at the foundational level of analogy. The logic of arguments like Paley's work as following3: 3

AJC, Thinking about Theism course notes 2007, pg 21

Thinking About Theism

9

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

1. known: human creativity productions




2.

known:

orderly

4. unknown: divine design



analogy:  3. known: natural order

inference

For Hume, there are too many disanalogies for this kind of argument to succeed. "[T]here can be no secure inference about God from the natural world". This in a direct challenge to error (1) above; What is obvious about God is obvious in abstraction from revelation. His biggest objections are; 1) Design arguments go further than merely proposing God as a cause. They engage in conjecture and place attributes like 'perfection' upon him too. These conjectures are not made on the basis of reason or authority, and have no place in the argument. 2) God is not like human 'creators'. He is a different species of being all together. We have knowledge of humans creating things (like building houses) but have no knowledge of Gods creating universes. There is no valid analogy between human 'creators' and divine 'creators'. 3) The world is less like a watch and more like a vegetable. The 'cause' of a vegetable is a better candidate for the cause of the universe. 4) The imperfections seen in the natural world point to a less than perfect God. Similarly, an old or young or multiple gods could be responsible for such an imperfect world. Hume also challenges error (2); We can reason together about God without reference to the influence of our desires. His belief is that "reason is and always should be the slave of the passions". People's affections impact upon their arguments about God. Annette Baier is a fan of Hume: ‘Never has such a large, widely believed and intellectually respectable doctrine been so devastatingly and so stylishly reduced to rubble.’ Charles Darwin came to be used as a denial of error (1) above. His theory of evolution is used to show how peoples' affectional commitments (AJC's phrase) influence their thinking. Darwin's own religious commitments remain dubious; too dubious at least to draw any conclusions on the matter. However, the theory of evolution was not proposed as an atheistic position (some evidence suggests evangelicals supported it early on). Darwin's theory left room for God to be the sovereign organiser and sustainer of natural order, using evolution as a mechanism to do his work. Atheists quickly latched on to Darwin's theory and used it for their own purposes: an argument that explains the natural world without the need for God.

Thinking About Theism

10

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

4.3 Modern Responses to Those Who Don’t Like this Argument Creation Science (young or old earth) and Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) throw error (1) [What is obvious about God is obvious in abstraction from revelation] back into play. They think that they can show a valid empirical link between God and the natural world. IDT appeals to the principle of irreducible complexity. It adds this element to the design argument, citing it as empirical evidence of design. Key points in the argument: Irreducible complexity: The complexity of biological entities on the cellular level is immense. Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity. The irreducibly complex unit must have always existed in its current irreducibly complex form. Why? Evolution works because something beneficial to the organism gives it a natural advantage over other similar organisms. This advantage is then passed on through reproduction. Irreducibly complex systems will only work if all the components are there. Therefore, the parts couldn’t have evolved in isolation from each other, since the individual components provide no advantage. Example of the bacterial flagellum (the hair-like tail the bacteria use for propulsion). Each component part is perfectly constructed to fit together with the other parts that make up the flagellum. Each of the component parts must be present or the system will not work. It is irreducibly complex. Improbability: Understanding how DNA works to construct a cell, it is improbable that something so complex could happen to find the right combination by chance. Information-rich systems: This is a mark of design. A book, or a computer program are information-rich systems. DNA is an example of a biological information-rich system. Analogical argument to a designer: The flagellum is like an outboard motor. That's design. God is the designer. God put the information-rich systems into place.

4.4 Responses to Creation Science and IDT 4.4.1 The Bible won’t support their defence of error (1). The Bible teaches that while creation does give us some knowledge God, it is limited. Furthermore, our sinful state uses that limited information to lead us away from truth Rom 1:20. 'A designer can only be interpreted by reference to his subsequent introduction of himself' Some Biblical Data:

Thinking About Theism

11

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

Psalm 8 Shows how the relationship between God and his creation is full of unexpectedness. For example: his glory is set above the heavens, and yet it is children who praise him. Psalm 19 Two halves of this psalm represent the two components of a complete testimony about God: Creation and the Law. Psalm 33:6-9 cf Gen 1 God does not create like a potter, leaving his imprint. He creates by his word. This is not what we know of when we think of cause-and-effect. Psalm 104 I don't get this one. Job 38-41 Emphatically highlights the reality that God is inaccessible. We don’t have conclusive and exhaustive knowledge of God and his ways. (cf Deut 29:29) Acts 17 You can't read God off his effects. vv24ff The pagan intuitions about God are all wrong. He has no material connection with the world. In fact, he doesn't even need the world. He is transcendent. vv27-28 God is also immanent; despite his transcendence his is near to us. v29 Human attempts at representing God are mistaken. The resurrection is a big surprise to all; that is unlike anything they've ever seen or though would be possible. Romans 1:20 What we see of God in his creation is imprecise. Furthermore, we have an affection disorder which results in a misconstruing and distortion of the truth.

4.4.2 Problems with the Soundness of the Argument Opponents of IDT cite the following evidence as arguments against IDT. They could be right or wrong, we should just note the possibility that they're right: Irreducibly Complexity can be sometimes be reduced: e.g., flagellum can be broken down. Probability arguments are flawed. Information-rich systems like DNA could come into existence by chance. We just can't comprehend the vast amounts of time it had to hit upon the combination—that's why is seems improbable. Poor understanding/ presentation of the overall complexity of evolution theory (esp. co-option theory). They paint an evolution theory 'straw man' and fail to deal with the real issues. The anthropocentric thought-base of the IDT proponents skews their interpretation of data. As a result, they fail to consider other possible alternatives. Evolution explains observed structures while IDT explains nothing.

Thinking About Theism

12

Philosophy 3— Study Paper

2007

Brendan Moar

IDT is not science. By using noumenal—and therefore unobservable—explanations of natural phenomena, IDT proponents have jettisoned scientific methodology and engaged in speculation. We need the Word (via the Spirit) to unlock the noumenal. IDT is mistaken because it tries to unlock the noumenal via the phenomenal. IDT underestimates the influence of the affections upon the interpretation of data. Knowledge is 'perspectival': it is processed through one's own world-view. We need the Spirit (via the Word) to reorder these affections.

Thinking About Theism

13