|
The basic
questions: Why is there anything at all?
Science gives
explanations of things within the universe, but can the universe as a
whole have an explanation?
The
Cosmological Argument is still important. The design argument has been
influential, but – with genetics and the modern philosophy of biology – it
carries less weight. Given that the world is here, there are reasons to
believe that it can develop itself naturally. But why is it here? Is
everything dependent on everything else? Is there nothing beyond this circle of
interdependence?
This is
absolutely fundamental. If you believe that there is some sort of reason,
cause, first principle – then you count yourself a theist. If not, then the
world is self-contained, and needs to external explanation.
In looking at
the argument, keep in mind that the relevant question to ask may not be 'Does
this prove that God exists?' but 'What sort of "God" does this argument
present? Does this argument point to what religious experience or organised
religion mean by the word "God"?'
Ockham's
razor: 'Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.'
Keep this
principle in mind: Do we need ‘God’ as an explanation, or is there a simpler
one? If God is an explanation (if one is needed) for why the world is, we
may not be justified in giving God qualities other than those required for the
purpose of creation.
The original
ideas that lie behind this argument come from Aristotle. But the first to
set it out in the form we recognise now were two Muslim philosophers al-Kindi
(9th century) and al-Ghazali (1058-1111), in what is knows as the Kalam
argument.
It may be set
out like this:
-
Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
-
The universe began to exist.
-
Therefore the universe must have a cause.
Basic
question: If you have a sequence of events, stretching back in time - can
that sequence be infinite?
Although a
theoretical infinity (as used in maths) may seem straightforward, actual
infinities cause all sorts of problems. (e.g. Infinity plus one, equals
infinity; infinities cannot grow.) Since the time of Aristotle, philosophers
have argued that an actual infinity cannot exist, and if it did, how
could we know? It is not the same as being without discernable limit.
You can
therefore present the argument like this:
-
an actual infinite number cannot exist
-
therefore there must be a finite sequence of causes for the world
-
therefore the world began to exist at some point in the past
BUT
A circle provides an infinite journey. The surface of a sphere provides for
infinite movement in all directions. (Hamster in a Perspex ball!)
Thomas Aquinas
(1225 - 74)
- probably the most important philosopher of the medieval period - sought to
reconcile the Christian faith with the philosophy of Aristotle, which had been
‘rediscovered’ and was taught in the secular universities of Europe.
Aquinas
presented Five Ways in which he believed the existence of God could be
shown. They are:
1. The
argument from an unmoved mover.
2. The
argument from an uncaused cause.
3. The
argument from possibility and necessity.
4. The
argument from degrees of quality.
5. The
argument from design.
The first
three of these are Cosmological.
The first may
be presented like this:
-
Everything that moves is moved by something.
-
That mover is in turn moved by something else again.
-
But
this chain of movers cannot be infinite, or movement would not have started
in the first place.
-
Therefore
there must be an unmoved mover, causing movement in everything, without
itself actually being moved.
-
This unmoved mover is what people understand by 'God'.
Aquinas was
not thinking of physical movement, but change – everything changes because of
something else (fire causing something potentially hot to become actually hot).
But whatever does the changing must itself be changed by something else. Now,
this must stop somewhere, otherwise there will be no first change, and, as a
result, no subsequent changes. This first cause of change, itself not changed
by anything, is what he understands by God.
The second
argument has the same structure:
-
Everything has a cause.
-
Every cause itself has a cause.
-
But,
you cannot have an infinite number of causes.
-
Therefore
there must be an uncaused cause, which causes everything to happen
without itself being caused by anything else.
-
Such an uncaused cause is what people understand by 'God'.
Don’t think of
a sequence of causes going back into the past (as the Kalam argument) but a
sequence moving outwards in the present – like ripples on water.
The third
argument follows from the first two:
- Individual things come into existence and later cease to exist.
-
Therefore at one time none of them was in existence.
-
But something comes into existence only as a result of something else
that already exists.
-
Therefore there must be a being whose existence is necessary, and that
all would understand to be 'God'.
Everything is
only fully understood in terms of the whole. But how is the whole to be
understood? THAT is the cosmological question.
Some
challenges to the argument:
David Hume
(1711-1776). All knowledge is based on observation; we generally see cause and
effect following one another
But,
in the case of the world as a whole, we have a unique 'effect', and cannot
observe its cause. We cannot get 'outside' the world to see both the world
and its cause, and thus establish the relationship between them.
Perhaps
attempting to think about an uncaused cause beyond the world is something that
our minds are not designed to do. The philosopher Kant (1724-1804) argued that
the whole notion of cause and effect was one of the ways (along with the
concepts of space and time) in which our minds interpret the world - we cannot
help but impose causality upon our experience. If Kant is right, then an
uncaused cause is a mental impossibility.
Bertrand Russell – the world is just there, a brute fact.
Wittgenstein – the world is all that is the case. Whereof we cannot speak,
thereof we must remain silent.
In other
words, if we can only know what we can experience, how can we talk about what
causes that experience?
The argument
may not be sound, but it points to the sort of reality that a religious person
is thinking about when he or she uses the word 'God' - not a particular thing
within (or, imaginatively, outside) the universe, but a reality that underlies
and sustains everything. It guards against the idea of a limited ‘God’.
|
