The Cosmological Argument AS Religious Studies Philosophy of Religion Review Questions 1. What is the Allegory of the Cave? 2. What are the Forms? Name three characteristics. 3. How would you evaluate Plato’s Theory of Forms? (2 strengths, 2 weaknesses) 4. What are Aristotle’s Four Causes? 5. What did Aristotle observe from nature? 6. What is the Prime Mover? Name three characteristics. 7. How would you evaluate Aristotle’s Prime Mover? (2 strengths, 2 weaknesses) Learning Objectives To explain and evaluate Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments To explain and evaluate the objections of David Hume Key Words Cosmological argument The cosmological argument is based on the assumption that the existence of the world, or some aspects of it, needs to be explained. The activity of God is said to provide this explanation. The Five Ways Way 1 – argument for an unmoved mover Way 2 – argument for an uncaused causer Way 3 – argument from contingency Way 4 – argument from gradation Way 5 – argument from teleology Infinite Infinite refers to something which has neither a beginning nor an end. Most commonly the idea of infinity is used in mathematics to describe series of numbers that have no beginning or end. For example, the series...– 3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 ...could continue without end Key Words Necessary The word used in philosophy to say that something has to be that way and cannot be any different (e.g. if a philosopher was discussing necessary existence he or she would be talking about something which has to exist and could not fail to exist Cause and effect The word cause is used in philosophy to refer to something which brings about an effector result. For example, the cause of a football flying through the air could be the person who kicked it. The effect is the result of the action – in this case the ball moving. Thomas Aquinas Cosmological Argument The First & Second Way The First Way: argument for an unmoved mover 1. We can observe that things in the world are in a process of motion. 2. Everything that is in motion is in the process of changing from a potential state to an actual state. 3. The same thing cannot be at the same time potentially and actually the same thing. 4. For example, if something is actually hot, it cannot be potentially hot, but it can be potentially cold. 5. So, everything that is in a state of motion must be put into this state by another thing. 6. But the chain of movers ‘cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently no other mover’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae). 7. Conclusion: ‘It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae). The Second Way: argument for an uncaused causer 1. Nothing is an efficient cause of itself. 2. Efficient causes follow in order: a first cause causes a second, a second a third and so on. 3. It is not possible for efficient causes to go back to infinity, because if there is no efficient first cause, there will not be any following causes. 4. Conclusion: ‘It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae). Motion, Potentiality, Efficiency Motion & Potentiality • P: Motion is the way or method by which some thing or object becomes something else. • E: Ill. If you think of a hot cup of coffee, it is actually hot. However, the cup of coffee is also potentially cold. • E: In Aquinas’ way of thinking, you cannot be both potentially and actually the same thing at the same time. For example, it makes no sense to talk of the cup of coffee being potentially hot when it is actually hot. Efficiency • P: The efficient cause may be understood as Aquinas’ way of saying that the cause is necessary. • E: Ill. If you want to make a hot cup of coffee, you necessarily have to heat the coffee. The efficient cause is that which gives heat to the coffee. • E: The cosmological argument is concerned with why there is a universe. In Aquinas’ case he suggests that there is a ‘first efficient cause’ of everything, i.e. a cause of everything. This idea comes from Aristotle. Infinite Regression • P: An infinite regression is a chain of events that goes backwards forever. • E: For example think of a domino rally . If you ask what caused the final domino in the chain to fall, you would say the previous one caused it and the one that caused the domino before last to fall, you would say that it was the one before that and so on. If this chain of dominoes continued backwards an infinite number of times, you have ‘an infinite regression’. If we analyse this chain of dominoes using Aquinas’ terms of ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’, what we find is that every domino in the chain is potentially the cause of the next one falling. • E: Aquinas’ claim is that, to explain why there is any chain of events at all, you need to have an actual cause that is ‘pure act’ and not a potential cause, because if the cause of everything is only potential, then it needs to be acted on to achieve its potential, and so the chain of regression begins again. Aquinas’ claim is that the chain is caused by a pure act not a potential act. Aquinas’ conclusion is that the being that is pure act is God. Note: Aquinas not making the claim that God started the ‘domino rally’ off as it allows the possibility God does not exist now. Objection 1: The fallacy of Infinite Regression • P: Infinite regressions are possible in reality. • E: For example, in mathematics we can think of a series of numbers without end: … –3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 . . . This series of numbers could continue positively and negatively forever. Then there could be an infinite series of causes and effects which had no beginning, • E: If God is proposed as the explanation for why there is anything rather than nothing, a person supporting infinite regressions could ask who caused God. The Big Bang & Infinite Regression • Argument for infinite regression no longer tenable with Big Bang. • Edwin Huble discovered the universe is expanding, with all the galaxies being hurled outwards and away from each other as if still being propelled by a terrific explosion. This means universe must have been smaller than now in the past. • In 1963, Penzias and Wilson discovered the universe is suffused with a microwave radiation that could only be explained by the left-over heat from the Big Bang. • Astronomers have concluded that that about 13.75 billions years ago the universe began as a tiny and very hot mass that exploded suddenly into a huge inflating expanse of space and matter Objection • Yet even if Big Bang is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean a God created a universe. • For example, some cosmologists argue universe was caused by events in another unknown universe which in turn was caused by events in another unknown universe, and so on to infinity. 'The Cosmological Argument', 74-93 Extract from Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion What are the objections to the cosmological argument? How convincing are they? David Hume Objections Objection 2: The problem of cause and effect • Hume argues that the proposition ‘Whatever has a beginning of existence must have a cause’ is not certain and so the cosmological arguments claim that the universe has a cause cannot be proved. • Hume argued that we assume that there is a relationship between cause and effect, because our minds have developed a habit of seeing causes and automatically associating effects with them. Hume stated that, as a matter of logic, one cannot always claim or assume that every effect has a cause. • For example, example of the bus stopping by your gesture. You may assume it was your hand that stopped the bus, but the driver may have just seen you and stopped. • SCIENCE: In quantum science – quantum leaps – particles move uncaused • Inertia - uncaused Objection 3: The Fallacy of Composition • Hume also questioned whether it is necessary for the whole universe to have a cause just because everything within the universe could be explained by reference to the preceding cause. • For example, suppose that 5 people come to my classroom. We can investigate why each of the people has come to my class room. Hume would then say it is unreasonable to then ask: ‘why is the whole group here?’ • Bertrand Russell gave the following example: every individual human being has a mother but it is a fallacy to assume that the human species as a whole has a mother (Bertrand Russell, 1967, Why I am not a Christian). Responding the Fallacy of Composition • Anscombe has responded to Hume’s argument by pointing out that you could conclude that “existence must have a cause’ without believing or knowing that ‘such particular effects must have such particular causes”. • Anscombe gives the example of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, pointing out that you can imagine a rabbit “coming into being without a cause” but this tells us nothing about “what is possible to suppose ‘without contradiction or absurdity’ as holding in reality”. Thomas Aquinas Cosmological Argument The Third Way The Third Way: argument from contingency 1. Things which exist in nature at one time did not exist and in the future will not exist. These things at any time may or may not exist (philosophers call this contingent existence). 2. If everything at one time did not exist, there would have been nothing in existence 3. If point 2 were true, then there would be nothing in existence, because there would be nothing to bring anything into existence. 4. Interim conclusion: ‘There must exist something the existence of which is necessary’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae). 5. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not. 6. An infinite regression of necessary things is impossible, as shown in Way 2. 7. Final conclusion: There exists ‘some being having of itself its own necessity […] causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae) Contingent existence Contingent existence • Aquinas’ claim is that if everything exists contingently, it is possible to have a time when nothing exists. If you had a time when no contingent beings existed, none would come to exist, as there would be no contingent beings around to cause them. Hence, Aquinas concludes that there must be something the existence of which is necessary and which cannot fail to exist. Objection 4: existence is not a predicate • Immanuel Kant rejected Aquinas’ Third Way for the same reason that he rejected the concept of necessary existence with respect to the ontological argument: existence is not a ‘predicate’. • For example, one can have an idea of what a unicorn is. However, that does not mean it exists in reality, even though we can think about unicorns as living creatures. • Response: However, this is not entirely fair as the cosmological argument is fundamentally different from the ontological argument in that it is a posteriori. • Counter Response: Mackie questions the assumption that there is a necessary being. He argued that Aquinas assumes that anything which does not have the predicate of existence requires the existence of a necessary being, whom Aquinas calls God. He suggests that you could equally argue that there is ‘a permanent stock of matter whose essence did not involve existence from anything else’ (Mackie, The Miracle of Theism). Thomas Aquinas Frederick Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell (1948) 13.45 Russell claims universe without explanation 14.15 Copleston’s Argument from Contingency 15.28 Russell ‘every human being has a mother’ (Fallacy of Composition) Copleston & Russell Copleston • Copleston argued that the universe can only be sufficiently explained by reference to God • God is different from contingent beings as he is ‘his own sufficient cause’ (reformulation of Aquinas’ Third Way) • Argued that explaining why there is a universe is important Russell • Russell argued that whether an explanation for the universe as a whole is possible or not, the explanation is beyond the reach of human beings. • It is unnecessary for human beings to have a sufficient explanation of the universe that goes beyond the contingent universe. • “I should say that the universe is just there and that is all.” Please be aware, this is regarding the old specification. Past Questions (a) Explain Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument. [25] (b) To what extent were Russell’s criticisms of the Cosmological Argument successful? [10] (a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of cosmological arguments (b) ‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not succeed.’ Discuss Please be aware, this is regarding the old specification. Exam mistakes to avoid • Make sure that you use the terminology properly. • In addition, when discussing Aquinas’ Ways 1 and 2 try to avoid suggesting that God starts the domino chain off, as academic philosophers regard this as an incorrect way of understanding Aquinas. • It is a good idea to work out a quick and easy way of explaining Aquinas’ key points before you go into the examination. Remember that in the examination you have to be able to discuss the philosophers’ ideas and not just describe them. • The OCR specification states that you must be able to discuss Russell and Copleston’s debate. Make sure you understand and can assess the different views that Russell and Copleston presented Please be aware, this is regarding the old specification. Explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument Introduction 1. First Way Para. 1: Outline First Way Para. 2: Motion • P: By motion, Aquinas means the movement from potentiality to actuality • E: For example, a hot cup of tea… • E: In Aquinas’ way of thinking, you cannot be both potentially and actually the same thing at the same time… 2. Second Way Para 3: Outline Second Way Para 4: Efficiency • P: Here Aquinas introduces the idea of efficient causes. An efficient cause is Aquinas’ idea of saying something is necessary • E: For example, if you want to make a hot cup of coffee, you necessarily have to heat the coffee. The efficient cause is that which gives heat to the coffee. • E: The cosmological argument is concerned with the efficient cause of the universe … 2. Second Way cont. Para 5: Infinite Regression • P: In the First and Second Ways, Aquinas makes the claim that infinite regressions are impossible. An infinite regression is… • E: An example commonly used to explain this is a domino rally… • E: Aquinas’ claim is that, to explain why there is any chain of events at all, you need to have an actual cause that is ‘pure act’ and not a potential cause… 3. Third Way Para 6: Outline Third Way Para 7: Contingency • P: Aquinas’ claim here is that if everything in the universe has a contingent existence then… • By contingent existence, Aquinas means… For example, a chair is contingent because… • Hence, Aquinas concludes that there must be something the existence of which is necessary and which cannot fail to exist. Conclusion Please be aware, this is regarding the old specification. ‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not succeed.’ Discuss. • Hume criticised the cosmological arguments in many ways. You should give a selection of points in your argument. Avoid the trap of spending all your time describing Hume’s ideas and not leaving enough time for the other part of the question. • Points in your answer could include: i. Hume’s discussion of infinite regression ii. Hume’s claim that you cannot move from a thing within the universe existing to the universe itself existing (the fallacy of composition) iii. Why Hume argued that you cannot prove that any being is necessary iv. Why Hume suggests that some things might be uncaused or have other causes than God v. Why Hume suggested that the universe may not have a cause even if things within it are caused Please be aware, this is regarding the old specification. ‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not succeed.’ Discuss • There are a lot of ways to approach this question; it is up to you to pick the approach that you think you could use to best effect in an examination. I have suggested two approaches below. You could combine these approaches, focus on only one or, if you can, invent another approach. • Approach 1: Discuss the criticisms of Hume’s arguments, for example by the philosopher G.E. Anscombe. • Approach 2: Discuss some modern philosophers’ use of Hume’s arguments and whether the modern philosophers approach Hume’s ideas positively or negatively. Bertrand Russell would be an example of a person who presents a view similar to that of Hume; Mackie also puts forward arguments that agree with some of Hume’s points. Copleston and Anscombe are philosophers who would disagree with some of Hume’s ideas.
