Humans as meaning-seekers.
“All men by nature desire to know.” (Aristotle)
If this is true, should we have reasons for our beliefs, or does anything go?
The Crossword Puzzle Model
Some constraints:
You can’t just fill the empty puzzle squares with whatever you feel like:
Answers must make sense (e.g., real words)
Answers must be responsive to the clues (evidence/reasons for belief).
Some answers are better than others; in fact, there’s a right answer.
Dogmatism is completely inappropriate; what’s needed is intellectual humility.
You want to equip yourself with a pencil and eraser, not a pen.
GOD as one answer
How does this answer arise from the crossword puzzle clues?
(Is it written in pen or pencil?)
The Cosmological (“First Cause”) Argument
A Classic Source
Perhaps the most famous collection of arguments for the existence of God is the “Five Ways” from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the greatest philosopher-theologian of the Middle Ages. The first three of the Five Ways are all versions of the Cosmological Argument.
Getting in the Mood
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Nothingness as default state.
That something exists requires explanation.
A Simple Version of the Argument
1. Every being (that now exists, or ever did or will exist) is either a contingent being or a necessary being.
2. Not every being can be a contingent being.
Therefore,
3. There exists a necessary being.
Terminology:
A contingent being is something that might not have existed, because its existence is dependent on factors outside itself.
A necessary being is something that must exist (couldn’t not exist), and so is not dependent for its existence on anything else; instead, it is self-existent: its very nature is to exist.
What’s To Be Said for Premise 1?
Three possibilities: Every being is explained either
by another being, by itself, or by nothing.
The last of these three possibilities is ruled out by the Principle of Sufficient Reason: Every fact, including the fact that something exists, has an explanation; there’s a reason why things are that way rather than some other way. If this is true, then there are no cases in which something’s existence is explained by nothing. So the only possibilities are that its existence is explained by itself (making it a necessary being), or its existence is explained by something outside itself (making it a contingent being). That’s exactly what Premise 1 says.
Is the Principle of Sufficient Reason true? (How can we so confidently rule out the possibility that something might just happen, for no reason at all?) This would be hard to settle definitively. Nevertheless,
a. We sure seem to assume it’s true (car story).
b. The likely critic of the argument, a scientific naturalist, isn’t in a good position to deny it.
c. Even if we’re willing to go along with the idea that something might “just happen,” for no reason at all, we’re much less willing to allow that something might just “pop into existence,” for no reason at all. (The “Kalam” version of the argument—William Lane Craig)
What’s To Be Said for Premise 2?
Why couldn’t everything be a contingent being? PSR could be satisfied by a beginningless series of contingent beings, because no being in this series would go unexplained: each would have its existence explained by another contingent being.
Two possibilities: infinitely long series, or circle.
Aquinas appears to deny that either arrangement would satisfy PSR. Who’s right?
Train model supports Aquinas: no motion without locomotive (self-mover).
Some Further Questions about the Argument
Who created God? (aka the “taxicab objection”)
Probably most common reaction to argument, but rests on gross misunderstanding. Contingent beings, with the potential to exist or not to exist, require explanation in a way that necessary beings do not. The why question, which arises for me, does not arise for God.
Why think that the self-explained explainer of the argument’s conclusion is identical to the Judeo-Christian God?
Granted: this is a pretty thin characterization.
But: it’s better than nothing (warning against unreasonable expectations).
And: the argument is being considered and evaluated in a context (what’s on the radar screen?).
Relation to “Big Bang”?
The “red-shift” and the expanding universe. Empirical confirmation of the argument?
Good news and bad news for Christians?
No comments:
Post a Comment