This argument centres around the idea that for everything there is a cause
As Aristotle said ‘nothing can come from nothing’
So Aquinas went on to formulate his five ways, the first of which is the argument from the ‘uncaused cause’ and the second the argument from the ‘unmoved mover.’
This whole argument arose from human observation that everything around us has a cause; things come into existence and later cease to exist including ourselves. Indeed for every effect that we could think of there is a cause and for that there is a previous cause and so on as far back as we care to take it.
Thus the argument suggests, and as the 2 Muslim scholars Al Kindi and Al Ghazali, put it:
- Everything that exists has a cause
- The universe exists
- Therefore the universe has a cause
- And that cause is God.
Aristotle himself was an atheist but he believed that the universe had a cause, it was Aquinas who refined the argument and concluded that God was the cause.
This argument is both an a posteriori and an inductive argument and to some philosophers this makes this a weak argument because an a posteriori argument is one which comes to a conclusion based on the evidence available, in this case the fact that the universe exists; and an inductive one is one in which the conclusion lies outside the premises of the argument itself.
In this case the problem lies in the conclusion that the cause is God. This is a major weakness of the argument because the conclusion is not necessarily the most obvious, after all why should the cause be God? Can there not be any other cause? And even, as David Hume objects, if the cause is God what does it tell us about God?
Nothing.In fact he suggests, ‘we can never ascribe to the cause any qualities but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect.’
Another problem with the cosmological argument is with Aquinas’ third way: the argument from possibility and necessity. This is the idea that God is indeed a necessary being. This means that unlike us who are dependent for our existence on other factors for example our parents, God is not contingent (dependent) on anything but is in fact the cause of his own existence.
This is a strength in terms of the fact that if there is an outside cause of the universe then it would seem logical that that cause could not be caused by anything else. Indeed it fits with St Anselm’s definition of God as ‘that than which no greater can be conceived.’
But the weakness lies within the idea that God is necessary. A first cause is only necessary if we consider that the idea of infinite regress is an impossibility. Can there be such a thing as an infinite chain of cause and effect? Theologians reject the possibility because we cannot envisage this idea any more than we can grasp the true scope of infinity; our human minds are too limited.David Hume also objected to this on the grounds that our minds are indeed too limited but this does not mean that the concept is impossible. We cannot get outside of the universe to see if the concepts of cause and effect hold sway in the rest of the universe. And even if we could, even if everything in the universe does have a cause it is too great a leap to argue from specific causes to something as general as the universe’s cause itself.
However one of the great strengths of this argument comes from a new direction proposed by Leibniz and what he called the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He suggested that we need to discover why there is something rather than nothing and if we do not accept the idea of infinite regress and if we trace the chain of causes back to the very beginning then once there must have been a time when there was nothing. If that is the case something must have willed what now exists into being and that suggests a creator. In other words there is sufficient reason to suppose that there is a God which / who deliberately willed the universe into existence.
As Swinburne put it, ‘it is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all,’ and goes on to say that God is probably the simplest explanation for it all. On the other hand Bertrand Russell would disagree since he believed the universe just existed ‘Brute Fact’ and we shouldn’t bother to try to explain it since it is beyond our capacity to do so adequately.
To what extent do the weaknesses of this argument limit its effectiveness?
Overall the strengths of this argument lie within its logic. We see cause and effect all around us it is logical to presume therefore that the universe’s existence too has a cause.
However, the main weakness is that in fact it does not prove God exists. Of course no argument could for after all where would faith be then? but the antagonists have a point in their objection that if it doesn’t prove God exists the argument must fail.
Maybe as Hume suggests it is too great a leap to conclude that its cause is God but…
Perhaps we can conclude as William of Ockham does that the simplest solution is often the best one and until further evidence is forthcoming then maybe God is indeed the best explanation for the fact of the universe’s existence.
In conclusion whatever its strengths or weaknesses the cosmological argument can provide support for someone who already has faith in God’s existence but it is unlikely ever to persuade a non-believer that God exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment