Philosophy of Religion

The points of my paper that I will be discussing are the Cosmological Argument and the Design Argument. The six essays I will be reflecting are: The Five Ways by Thomas Aquinas, The Argument from Contingency by Samuel Clarke, An Examination of the Cosmological Argument by William Rowe, The Watch and the Watchmaker by William Paley, A Critique of the Design Argument by David Hume, and finally The Argument from Design by Richard Swinburne.

            The Cosmological Argument is a posteriori argument that means it is depending on a principle or premise that can be known only by means of our experience of the world (Rowe 19). The basis for the Cosmological Argument is that there if something has to be caused in order to exist there must be a first cause. The Design Argument is also a posteriori argument. It takes a different approach to the existence of a “first cause”. It does not talk about causes necessarily in its argument, but it talks about how the complexity of the design of the universe argues for an intelligent designer. The Cosmological Argument discusses the necessity of a self-existent being while the Design Argument discusses the resemblance of the universe and machines and how intelligent design is needed for machines to be produced; therefore the universe was produced by an intelligent designer.

            In Thomas Aquinas’ The Five Ways he discusses five proofs, for him, which prove the existence of God. The five points in his essay are understood, but some seem to give more influence than others. First, Aquinas is writing these points in response to the claim that because there is evil in the world and God is ultimately good, then God does not exist. Aquinas’ ultimate conclusion is that God does indeed exist and his strongest points, in my opinion, are the third and fourth ways. His first two are basically the Cosmological Arguments reworded in his own description, but the third and fourth ways are when he gets into more details about the existence of God. The fifth way is a great way to finish his essay, but it also rests strongly on the basic view of the Cosmological Argument. The third argument argues that since things are able to exist and not exist, at some point there is no way that nothing could exist at the one time. Meaning, there must be a necessary being. This argument calls God as a necessary being that had to start that first cause and put everything into existence. Some argue that the Big Bang Theory was the first cause to the universe and nothing existed before the Big Bang. However, Aquinas’ does not just have one point, but rather five to help collaborate his view together and that is what makes it strong and more valid. He goes on with the fourth way about gradations. This is where he removes the possibility of the Big Bang Theory in his argument. His discussion about something that is maximally good, true, and noble means there is something is a maximal being. The Big Bang Theory is not a maximal being or in any way maximal, but just a beginning that “started” the universe. If the universe works in the ways that are “more and less good, more and less true, more and less noble, etc” (Aquinas 149) than there must be a maximal thing or being that everything is judged. The maximal good, true, and noble being is the cause for all things that are good, true, and noble. Therefore, the only possible maximal good, true, and noble being would have to be God. Thomas Aquinas has five ways that he thinks proves the existence of God. He understands the Cosmological Argument and presents his own views on the argument as well as enhancing his own argument for the sake of proving God’s existence. I agree with Aquinas’ views of all five of his ways even when some are not as strong as the others. Also, I believe his maximal good argument is very strong in in taking away most arguments that have no being in the beginning of the universe, like the Big Bang Theory.

            The Argument from Contingency is based off the grounds that if “some beings are dependent, or contingent, there must of necessity be an independent being upon which all other beings are dependent” (Clarke 149). The argument thus is that there cannot be an infinite succession of changeable and dependent beings because it goes against the argument for a first cause. It goes back to the Cosmological Argument and how there must be a first cause to start all other causes. Although Clarke’s essay is short it does have a strong thesis for the Cosmological Argument. I think that Clarke is arguing for the cause and purpose of existing. He is merely saying that if there was not an unchangeable and independent Being, or a first cause, then life would be a series of changeable and dependent beings, but they would lack necessity and cause. They would have no purpose. Clarke states it as, “nor any reason at all of its existence” (Clarke 150). If the dependent causes were not caused from a beginning independent Being than they, or we, would have no purpose in existing.

            An Examination of the Cosmological Argument by William Rowe is basically the same as chapter two in his book, Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. He begins by describing the posteriori and priori arguments before going into the Cosmological Argument. The concepts of his essay start with the fact that “every being is either a dependent being or a self-existent being. Also, not every being can be a dependent being. Therefore, there exists a self-existent being” (Rowe 152). The strong point in the beginning of his essay is the point about deductive validity. That means that if the premises are true and the conclusion has to be true making it deductively valid. He proves that the Cosmological Argument’s premises are deductively valid, but that does not mean it is fact. The major part about the Cosmological Argument is trying to get people convinced that the premises are, in fact, true. I think that for the Cosmological Argument, the hardest part of proving validity is because of the PSR. The PSR requires that “there must be an explanation of the existence of any being, and of any positive fact whatever” (Rowe 153). Like Rowe, I agree that the Cosmological Argument, or any argument of the same type cannot be proven completely valid because of the PSR. It all boils down to assumptions that cannot be reasonably concluded as true or false. The overall argument of there being a first cause seems valid in general, but as Rowe points out there is much more detail to the argument that make it impossible to prove right or wrong.

            The Watch and the Watchmaker is an essay by William Paley. This essay, in my opinion, is one of the strongest, simple arguments for the Design Argument. “Paley argues that just as we infer the existence of an intelligent designer to explain the presence of a subtle and complex artifact like a watch, so too we must infer the existence of an intelligent Grand Designer to explain the existence of the works of nature, which are far more subtle, complex, and cleverly contrived than any human artifact” (Paley 181-182). I think the key to this argument for the Design Argument is in the preface of the essay itself. It is simply put that because you know a watch with so many intricate details had a designer, than the universe with even more intricate details would have to have a designer. Also, Paley goes into much more detail in eight points. His points are strong because they deny the chance for someone to argue against the idea of a watch. Now, the watch cannot merely resemble the universe unless you want to believe that to be true, but these same arguments for the designer of the watch can be presented on the same basic grounds of trying to prove an intelligent Designer. Even if someone does not compare the universe to a machine or a watch, although it is naïve to believe such a thing, the basic principle in his first point says, “ignorance of this kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and unknown”  (Paley 182). It is not necessarily a reasonable point to say, “just because you do not see it being designed does not mean it was not designed” however, for this argument I think that is necessary to point that out. Overall I believe that Paley makes strong points on the premise that the universe is like a machine or a watch to be more specific, to argue for an intelligent Design.

            A Critique of the Design Argument is written by David Hume and follows the same concept as William Paley, but from a different side. He starts off by saying, “all these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them” (Hume 184). This essay is designed to be a dialogue and that is where it gets its most value. It presents the reader with both sides of the argument. I think it is strong, and he starts off with the strongest case against the Design Argument in Philo’s second dialogue. The idea of an original principle of order in mind, not matter is something that caught my eye. We are able to put certain things together, like steel in a watch, in order to achieve a desired goal. We put a cause into effect with the steel and the effect is the watch being made. The universe has a similar “means to an end.” Hume goes beyond the simplicity of “the universe resembles a machine” of William Paley and tries to pinpoint what precisely that means. Philo argues that experience makes fact and similar causes prove similar effects cannot be valid because if they could be valid then the conclusion of the Design Argument can be settled right there. However, it cannot just be concluded that the above is true. It still comes down to it that the whole universe cannot be experience in a way that can help someone prove the fact that it comes from an intelligent Designer. The essay shows a great argument that people could have against the Design Argument in order to prepare themselves to defend their cases.

            The last essay I will be reflecting on is The Argument from Design by Richard Swinburne. A lot of Swinburne’s essay is bringing together points of the Design Argument as a whole in order to “make a cumulative case for the truth of theism” (Swinburne 191). The main point that stands out to me is the teleological argument. Swinburne has great detail to make sure he describes the forms of the teleological argument, the argument itself, and how it applies to the overall Design Argument. He points out the orderliness of the universe and how it is simply not chaotic. He tries to pinpoint that the universe itself is not like a machine per se, but that the universe contains many teleological systems that are like machines and have order. He brings the argument to the table in a new Design way. I think that Swinburne ends his essay beautifully by the argument for beauty. He presented his teleological argument and now he is stating, “if the world is beautiful, that fact would be evidence for God’s existence” (Swinburne 201). His essay is strong for the new Design Argument and he makes good claims.

            The overall theme of the Cosmological Argument and the Design Argument is to prove a theistic God created the universe. The arguments, and the criticisms for that matter, are both strong and have room for error. They have valid points and unresolved or invalid points as well. Each essay shows different views about each argument. I think that pulling these arguments and theories together is the best possible case for having a strong argument. However, it is still impossible to prove the existence of God. I think that, like Anselm, these arguments have strong points, but need faith in order to be valid. There will always be a criticism for these arguments and faith will be the last line of defense against those criticisms. Although these arguments have strong validity the best thing to remember, in my opinion, is Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is being sure of what you hope for, and certain of what you cannot see.” As long as we have faith that God is the intelligent Designer or the first cause of every cause then I do not think it is necessary or even possible to prove God’s existence. In fact, I do not think God would want it that way anyways. He wants His creation to have faith in Him and have faith that He created the world. He does not want people to believe in Him because it is a fact that He exists; that would be too easy. However obvious it may seem that God created the universe there still will always lack even the tiniest percent gap that faith will always fill.

All works are taken from the sources, Philosophy of Religion An Introduction by William L. Rowe and Philosophy of Religion An Anthology by Louis Pojman.