The Scorecard for the Divine
I will admit it, I saw God’s not Dead and it was alright. I mean how often do you actually get to see a film where the issue of God’s existence is debated in a philosophy classroom? But this is not about that movie, this is about where that movie fell so short, the proofs for God’s existence. Suffice to say that part of the film could have been so much more interesting, but it did get me thinking. The question that I finally arrived at was this: Who is winning the debate on God’s existence?
I am going to figure out who is winning by tallying the score for each of the four major arguments. I will look at the cosmological, ontological, moral, and teleological arguments to find out where society sits on the issue of God’s existence.
Round 1: The Cosmological Argument!
Thanks to Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica, we have the basic formula for the cosmological argument. How can you explain this or that natural phenomenon unless God exists? You can’t! So God exists.
Needless to say, though I am saying it anyways, this was the most popular proof for God’s existence throughout most of history. It is simple, relies on making observations about the glorious world we live in, and Aquinas even liked it so much that he came up with 3 different versions of it.
Yet I should add that this was the most popular proof, but rarely do you hear this broken out in debate any more. Why?
The atheists took up the challenge and decided to give compelling rational answers for all the natural phenomena which were meant to be inexplicable without God. Basically once exact science really picks up the pace then we have compelling answers to questions like: How do you explain the rainbow? Your nervous system? Motion? Where do babies come from etc. All the atheists had to do was come up with answers to those questions and this argument lost its magic. The clever theist will still try to defend it, but the formula that makes it work just invites scrutiny rather than belief.
Score so far- Atheists 1, Theists, 0.
The Ontological Argument!
This argument comes to us direct from the writings of St. Anselm’s Proslogion. In fact Anselm is generally credited as the inventor of this argument, which is extremely rare in either philosophy or theology. In any case Anselm wanted to prove that God existed based purely on logic, rather than on any pesky and uncertain personal experiences.
First Anselm comes up with a definition for God as “Something than which nothing greater can be thought”, then he slyly asks the hypothetical atheists if they understand that definition. If they say that they don’t understand then Anselm wins since clearly they are too stupid to debate him, if they say that they do understand then he moves on to his finishing blow. He sums it up by writing, “surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding”, since if it exists only in the understanding then there does exist something greater, namely that which also exists in reality, “Therefore, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality”!
Despite its confusing nature even the famous atheist Bertrand Russell wrote in his Autobiography in 1967 the rather clever quote: “Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!”
This point has to go to the theists, because that long philosophical tradition of trying to beat this argument always seems to rest on the need to reformulate it. Let’s face it, what Anselm wrote was so confusing that in order to prove it wrong you need to reformulate it so that it makes enough sense to destroy. But then all you are destroying is a colorful straw man. You can almost hear Anselm chuckling at you and asking why you don’t understand his rather simple definition.
Score so far- Atheists 1, Theists, 1.
The Moral Argument!
This argument has been around as long as there has been any religion. Since this argument exists in so many different forms it won’t be possible to give credit to its inventor, but we can still come up with a basic formula. Humans make moral judgments based on moral rules, if there is no ultimate basis for those rules then human morality is arbitrary, God provides an ultimate basis for those rules, therefore human morality works!
We don’t have a whole lot of agreement on what the rules are, or even necessarily on how God is supposed to back those rules up, but this one still goes to the theists hands down. Here’s why: just about everybody everywhere is some kind of religious, and this is the point the atheists need to win so badly.
First, religion, in all of its various forms and therefore also theism, absolutely dominates the global population. If we just do this by the numbers we can thank the Pew Research Center’s 2010 survey of global religious affiliation. Approximately 17.2% of the global population is unaffiliated/other which means at most barely over 17% of the world subscribes to atheism, which leaves everyone else being religious and practicing some kind of moral system based on their religion.
Second, and perhaps more telling, is that this is the primary battleground for atheism. The most difficult task which atheism has set out for itself is defining a set of moral principles. Since there is no universal system of atheism, and no basic set of atheistic rules, then atheists have to work hard to establish their morality. This hard work tends to look like a bunch of relativistic nonsense wrapped around some observations about animal habits. So the moral argument goes to the theists.
Score so far- Atheists 1, Theists, 2.
The Teleological Argument!
This the new most popular argument for God’s existence. It’s an old argument but it has found new life through the intelligent design movement. The argument can be summed up like so: I observe a natural system which is so incredibly complex that it is irrational to think that such a system evolved through the chaotic process of natural selection. In fact the only rational explanation for the existence of such a system is that it must have been purposely created by an intelligent designer, and this Intelligent Designer is called God.
If the teleological argument works, then it is really all that the theists need. If God designed the complex systems which exist in nature then God is good and moral since these systems work together so harmoniously. God is also supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and would have to be pretty much everywhere all the time in order to ensure that these things continue to work.
Yet I am going to have to give this one to the atheists, and here is why: Evolution already pretty much destroyed this argument and this is the point that theists are trying their hardest to win.
First, this argument lost in the mid 19th century just as soon as Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species became a hit. Prior to his little book the teleological argument reigned supreme since there was no way to account for the complexities of nature without invoking God as the designer. Yet by the 1880’s just about every major scientist accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and indeed many theologians were even swayed by it. As it stands in our society now, although about 42% of Americans believe in Creationism, supposedly 99.9% of scientists back evolution. Also the more education that a person has the more likely they are to back evolution over creation. This according to Dr. Brian Alters and a 2014 Gallup Poll.
Secondly, and more importantly, this is the major theistic battleground. Theists have to convince the world that theism is rational and scientific. To that end of course the intelligent design arguments are rather complex and people like Michael Behe and William Dembski certainly know their stuff. You also have the more dubious work of young earth Creationists like Ken Ham and his think tank Answers in Genesis. One of the recent debates on the subject of God was held in 2014 between Ken Ham, and Bill Nye, a scientist whose greatest claim to fame was hosting a children’s television program about science. There debate wasn’t even on God’s existence, it was on whether or not creationism could be a viable scientific theory.
The whole issue here is whether or not the theists are even going to be taken seriously. Incidentally Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece about why he refused to debate William Lane Craig, which you can read here. The scientific consensus seems to be that the teleological argument is no longer worth it, evolution reigns supreme in the sciences as well as in the educational institutions that run the world.
Final Score! – Atheists 2, Theists, 2. It’s a tie!
Of course it’s a tie, and that is not because I am biased or even because the logic supporting the positions is even. It’s a tie precisely because the whole debate is really about whether or not atheism can be systematically moral, and whether or not theism can be systematically scientific. The debate over God’s existence isn’t really a debate about God, it’s a debate about people. The moral argument is just as troubling between Christians and Muslims as it is between Christians and atheists. The suspicion is that if people do not share our beliefs then they are dangerous and untrustworthy. Even the teleological argument isn’t about whether or not God created the world, it’s about whether or not theology can still intellectually dominate. I don’t know if theists can ever make peace with atheists, and I suspect that neither side is ready to give up any time soon. However let me end with two simple points.
First, religion isn’t going anywhere. There is no magical point where humanity becomes so smart that they no longer need to have beliefs. Religion is complex and there are many different ways to be religious. So even if you don’t like some of them, the rest are probably here to stay. The point should not be to destroy all the religions with which you disagree, the point should be to try to make peace with the followers of those religions. If you want people to come over to your side then you are going to have to treat them like people. You need to allow them into the moral community and you need to validate that they really believe in their opinions, even if you think their opinions are wrong.
Second, science isn’t going to prove any religion right. That is just not what it does. Science works to create general rules and theories which help us to make accurate predictions about what usually happens in the everyday world. Religion is filled with prophecy, miracles, and unique historical events. Also, just because we haven’t got any scientific evidence for a religious claim does not mean that claim is false, it simply means we haven’t got any scientific reason to believe it.
Unless the science in question is a field in which you are an expert then you, like the rest of us, are putting your faith in other people. There is something life affirming about that connection, and it is good to accept that it is a connection.
You trust those scientists because they are people that you can know, even if you have never seen them, only heard stories about them, and really only know them by their works. You know, it’s just like believing in God.
Related Posts
About The Author
James
James Taylor earned a Master’s Degree in Philosophy from Texas A&M University, and is currently finishing his doctoral dissertation on the link between race and technology. He currently teaches philosophy and specializes in critical philosophy of race, technology, and religion. In his free time he enjoys researching family genealogies and going graving, the hobby of documenting cemeteries.
“How can you explain this or that natural phenomenon unless God exists? You can’t! So God exists.”
“The atheists took up the challenge and decided to give compelling rational answers for all the natural phenomena which were meant to be inexplicable without God. Basically once exact science really picks up the pace then we have compelling answers to questions . . . .”
” . . . rarely do you hear this broken out in debate any more.”
Aquinas’ cosmological arguments are nothing like this.
If his arguments are dead, it was philosophical discovery (especially Cantor’s work with the notion of infinity), not that scientific discovery, that did them in.
We still hear plenty of cosmological argument from apologists, especially from William Lane Craig and the kalam argument (which is immune to Cantor’s discoveries).
The big difference is that Aquinas’ arguments deal with all of nature, not specific individual things. Here’s what I have in some of my notes:
I. The argument from motion
1. Things are in motion.
2. Nothing is in motion unless it is set in motion by something else.
3. There is no infinite regress of things setting things in motion.
4. There is nothing which sets itself in motion.
5. Therefore, there is an unmoved mover: God.
II. The argument from efficient cause
1. We see causes and effects in the world.
2. There is no infinite regress of causes.
3. There is no such thing as a cause of itself.
4. Therefore, there is an uncaused cause: God.
III. The argument from possibility and necessity
1. We see in the world things that exist but could have not existed.
2. It is impossible for something which could have not existed to always exist.
3. If everything is such that it could have not existed, then at one time nothing existed.
4. If at one time nothing existed, then nothing would exist today.
5. Therefore, it is not the case that everything is such that it could not have existed.
6. Therefore, there is something which could not have not existed (something which exists necessarily).
7. Whatever exists necessarily is either caused to exist by something else which exists necessarily, or else it has in itself the necessity to exist.
8. There is no infinite regress of things which exist necessarily.
9. Therefore, there is something which exists necessarily in itself: God.
I was unfamiliar with the idea that William Lane Craig had attempted a revival of the cosmological argument. So I will confess to that shortcoming and link to a nice introduction to the argument here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/
I will also link to a nice rebuttal of the argument here, for those who want to take it further. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/03/kalam-cosmological-argument-premise.html
Yet I stand by my basic assessment of the cosmological argument as I have presented it. You write that “The big difference is that Aquinas’ arguments deal with all of nature”, yet each of the arguments as presented begins with a specific natural observation. From that starting observation a chain of inference goes back to the logical necessity of some kind of cause for the thing which has been observed. Whether we invoke the absurdity of the infinite regress, as does Aquinas, or some other mechanism we must argue from some observed fact of nature to the only adequately explanatory cause of that fact. Thus for the theist an ultimate cause, God, is needed to explain not only the observed phenomenon but also the arena of observation, the universe.
Yet it is when we start arguing about the universe that we fall into trouble. The most famous critique here was probably presented by Bertrand Russell in his debate with F.C. Copleston (you can listen to it on youtube!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BWFpBTqSN0). Russell argued that we could not know that such a thing as the “universe” was a really existing entity. Basically, since we have never observed the universe, and since it does not seem possible for us to observe the entity which comprises the totality of all things, then we cannot be sure that the “universe” is anything other than a logical placeholder concept. That is we cannot know that the universe exists as a thing which would need a cause, we only know that it is a hypothesis which we frequently use to make sense of certain observations. It makes sense to continue to use the term, but it does not make sense to try to prove the existence of the thing universe.
Now all of this seems steeped in logical positivism, so I am not that committed to it. Yet it seems that the basic form of Aquinas’ cosmological argument remains that we observe a phenomenon in the natural world, we posit that such a thing must have a cause, and then we argue that ultimately there is no other way to explain the thing without reference to God.
“Yet I stand by my basic assessment of the cosmological argument as I have presented it. You write that ‘The big difference is that Aquinas’ arguments deal with all of nature’, yet each of the arguments as presented begins with a specific natural observation. From that starting observation a chain of inference goes back to the logical necessity of some kind of cause for the thing which has been observed.”
Yes, of course the argument presumes that the thing needs a cause. And that cause, Aquinas can and no doubt usually does presume, is the sort of cause that science can discover.
“Yet it is when we start arguing about the universe that we fall into trouble.”
If so, then this trouble is what you should have talked about in the opening post. But you would have to do better than mentioning what you say Russell says.
“Russell argued that we could not know that such a thing as the ‘universe’ was a really existing entity. Basically, since we have never observed the universe, and since it does not seem possible for us to observe the entity which comprises the totality of all things, then we cannot be sure that the ‘universe’ is anything other than a logical placeholder concept.”
Yes, this does rely on a bit of logical positivism, and accordingly it is preposterous. Specifically, it is preposterous to say that knowledge of the existence of “the universe” depends on the whole of it being observed.
It would seem that I have underestimated the cosmological argument. To borrow the phrase from William James, this would appear to be a “live” issue.
Still, if I have been all too brief with this argument it was that I did not consider that it was the current battleground of theism or atheism. I may have been a bit premature in that assumption but let me explain my reasoning.
First, I suppose I took it as a given that science cannot prove the existence of God. The scientific method is only able to establish the testable and the observable. While God may be quite observable, depending on how we approach that notion, God does not seem to be testable in any way. I might test my faith in God, but God itself does not seem to admit of any kind of testability, or repeatability. This line of reasoning is what lead me to the teleological argument as the key theistic argument. That one seems to establish everything that the cosmological argument is trying to prove, but it has the added dimensions of being able to determine something of the character of God. The cause of the universe, as something that science can discover, definitely seems to be a presumption of Aquinas’ though I have always been vague on how exactly it could or would do this in the form of a testable hypothesis.
If I have not adequately engaged Russell’s arguments then allow me to do so now. The concept of the universe is a basic category. The universe is the arena of experience and the background against which all that happens, happens. As such I must necessarily posit the existence of the universe as a prerequisite for doing any sort of thinking. The universe must be assumed, since the requirement for things happening demands that things happen in some place. Thus it is not possible for me to prove the existence of the universe based on any sort of observations of things within it. Yet the cosmological argument relies on just such a proof, it relies on the notion that the universe is an entity which is, in theory at least, observable in much the same way as are the entities within it. It then posits that no adequate explanation of the universe is possible without recourse to God, as only an intelligent designer is an adequate concept to explain the entity which is the totality of all entities. Yet we make a mistake when we try to abstract the arena of observation and experience, from any particular observations and experiences. Instead the arena must be logically posited as a necessary condition for our being able to have any experiences whatsoever.
I admit that the universe exists, but not as a Humean “matter of fact” which is in need of a justifiable cause. We ourselves, insofar as our reasoning requires categories and the mind supplies them, are the “cause” of the universe as a necessary prerequisite for our thinking.
In putting this idea forward I have relied heavily on the works of Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason, and David Hume in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
I will concede an original point of yours and admit that initially the cosmological argument is defeated in philosophy rather than science. You can check out a brief overview of Kant and Hume’s critiques of the cosmological argument here, http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_hume_kant.htm.
For more readings on Hume and his critique of the cosmological argument, I would encourage everyone to check out this link http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#CosArgGodNecExi.
For more readings on Kant’s critique I encourage you to check out this page, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec9.html
If there is a scientific critique to be maintained here it is still this, that the cosmological argument invites scrutiny rather than belief. It encourages the thinker to look for reasonable causal explanations for observed phenomena, and yet this inquiry need never reach the level of abstract reasoning which demands an ultimate basis. There are enough observable phenomena to occupy any inquisitive soul with a lifetime’s worth of research, without them ever needing to answer the question of whether or not the thing they are observing has an ultimate cause. Besides which ultimate causes have thus far remained unobserved, though there are promising breakthroughs in physics everyday.
I should add that I think God exists, and as such I do not believe myself to be a very good advocate for atheism. It is difficult to advocate for the thing that you yourself do not believe. Though I have made my best attempt to be fair and equitable in approaching why this issue remains controversial rather than closed.
I myself am convinced by the ontological argument. Besides which I side with Kierkegaard in thinking of belief in God as an absolute commitment ultimately made beyond all reason.
My goal in posting this was to try to get us to think about the ways that people get emotionally invested in their perspective. That emotional investment makes us rather defensive in the face of any and all criticisms, even though it would be impossible to take our emotions out of it.
Theists want to be taken seriously and atheists want to be treated fairly. Each group has latched onto different aspects of human society, and found a place for likeminded thinkers and believers. Now since this argument seems to be the basic point of dialogue and tension between the two movements then here is where the work of discussion begins. I think it is a debate worth having, but my hope is that it could lead to a greater mutual understanding and appreciation.
Theists can be and are quite rational and intelligent. Atheists can be and are quite moral and amiable. We just need to give each other a chance to see it.
Thanks, James!
I consider these remarks a significant improvement. I lack the time to track all the details down. The analysis of the universe has now shifted from something in the logical positivist style to something in the Kantian style, which I’m not sure I can or even want to refute, and either way I lack the time!
Anyway, this strikes me as perhaps a good way to attack the cosmological argument.
Now let’s try to be clear on one thing: That is scientifically testable is not the whole of that which is testable, and that which is testable is not the whole of that which is known empirically, i.e. from experience. Thus, any number of theological points might be in a broader category despite not being in a narrower.
I agree, much that is established in theology is established as testable and provable. Either it is provable mystically through an experience of the divine, or else it is provable theologically by using the correct theological method to interpret the sacred texts. Although here I will again add that the work of theology consists often in establishing that its claims are valid, even if they are not scientific.
One of the mistakes, which I think is made far too often in modern Christianity, is that in order to be taken seriously by the broader society Christianity accepts the limitations which science imposes. Thus we get a branch of apologetics whose mission it seems to be to explain all miraculous or supernatural events in the Bible through a complex and rigorous accounting of various poorly tested scientific hypotheses. We need not find chariots at the bottom of Red Sea in order to believe that the book of Exodus is true. Of course the Bible does have a remarkable track record of lining up quite well with history and archaeology, so we are not averse to such finds. Yet nor are we dependent on them.
Yeah, I saw the movie with those chariot wheels. Very impressive find if it’s legit. But I already knew the story to be true without that find.
A rich sentence: “Either it is provable mystically through an experience of the divine, or else it is provable theologically by using the correct theological method to interpret the sacred texts.”
On the second clause, you can’t prove anything from a sacred text unless you already know the text to be a source of knowledge. It only remains to be said: We can know this.
On the first clause, one of my new friends is (like so many of my other friends) a long-dead philosopher: Allama Iqbal. He has a nice analysis of empirical knowledge of God. Copied and amended from my lesson plans on Iqbal:
Religious experience has always been a common and important aspect of human life. Science itself is rooted in the facts of experience. As he says, “one fact is as good as another,” and one experience is as good as another. So science and religion are equally valid as interpretations of experience.
And one more, perhaps the most important one: That which is known empirically is not the whole of that which is known.
On that I will thoroughly agree. As much as I am enamored of empiricism, Hume is quite seductive in his way, it would be impossible for me to deny that there is intuitive knowledge, mystic knowledge, a priori knowledge, or even Kant’s synthetic a-priori knowledge.
Edward Feser gives us a better understanding of the cosmological arguments, in context of contemporary science yet deeply rooted in Thomas Aquinas. From http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/09/15760/:
The arguments claim that, whatever the specific empirical details turn out to be, the facts that there is a world at all and that there are any laws governing it cannot be made sense of unless there is an uncaused cause sustaining that world in being, a cause that exists of absolute necessity rather than merely contingently (as the world itself and the laws that govern it are merely contingent).
Spelling such arguments out would take more than a paragraph or a short article. For a more in-depth treatment, interested readers can examine chapter three of my book Aquinas. The point for present purposes is just this: From the point of view of the main arguments for God’s existence, it is a mistake to think that the place to look for evidence of God is within the domain investigated by science. Rather, the place to look is somewhere more fundamental—at what any possible science must itself presuppose.