Cosmological Argument: Philosophical Criticisms

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
Advertisements

The Cosmological Argument
Philosophy and the proof of God's existence
“… if (the best philosophy) doesn ’ t seem peculiar you haven ’ t understood it ” Edward Craig.
Aquinas’s First Way – highlights It’s impossible for something to put itself into motion. Therefore, anything in motion is put into motion by something.
Cosmological arguments for God’s existence.  Derived from the Greek terms cosmos (world or universe) and logos (reason or rational account).  First.
The Cosmological Argument St. Thomas Aquinas ( AD) Italian priest, philosopher.
The Cosmological Argument. Also known as ‘The First Cause Argument’ Unlike the Ontological Argument, it derives the conclusion from a posteriori premise.
The Cosmological Argument The idea that there is a first cause behind the existence of the universe.
The Cosmological Argument.
The Cosmological Argument. This is an a posteriori argument There are many versions of it It is based on observation and understanding of the universe.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1
Is Religion Reasonable? Faith Seeking Understanding The ontological argument The cosmological argument The teleological argument (from design)
Is Belief in God Reasonable? Faith Seeking Understanding A posteriori arguments (based on experience): The teleological argument (from design) The cosmological.
L ECTURE 17: T HE T ELEOLOGICAL A RGUMENT AND C AUSALITY.
Fredrick Copleston, a professor of history and philosophy, was a supporter of the Cosmological argument and reformulated the argument with particular focus.
1947 BBC Radio Debate on the Cosmological Argument.
PHIL/RS 335 Arguments for God’s Existence Pt. 1: The Cosmological Argument.
Category 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Category
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
Evidently the Cosmological argument as proposed by Aquinas is open to both interpretation and criticism. The Cosmological argument demands an explanation.
1.The argument makes it likely that there are lots of worldmakers. Strength: Man made things often require many creators. For example a house needs many.
“A WISE MAN PROPORTIONS HIS BELIEF TO EVIDENCE”
Ontological Argument. Teleological argument depends upon evidence about the nature of the world and the organisms and objects in it. Cosmological argument.
LECTURE 19 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL OBJECTION DEPENDS UPON A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION WE MIGHT REASONABLY SUSPEND.
HUME ON THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Text source: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence or how come we all exist? Is there a rational basis for belief in God?
Chapter 1: The cosmological argument AQA Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion AS Level © Nelson Thornes Ltd 2008 Revision.
The Cosmological Argument Today’s lesson will be successful if: You have revised the ideas surrounding the cosmological argument and the arguments from.
Lesson Aim To recall and explore other forms of the Cosmological Argument.
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence
Starter: Mix-Pair-Share
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1
Arguments relating to the existence of God
c) Strengths and weaknesses of Cosmological Arguments:
Challenges to the OAs The different versions of OA are challenged by:
The ontological argument: an a-priori argument (ie, deductive rather than inductive) Anselm ‘God’ is that being than which nothing greater can be conceived’;
Cosmological Argument
Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
Anthropic and Aesthetic Quiz
The Copleston, Russell Debate
Explore the use of inductive reasoning in the cosmological argument
Think pair share What type of argument is the cosmological argument?
Is Religion Reasonable?
Think, pair, share A: What is the principle of sufficient reason? B: What does empiricism mean? A: What did Hume say about the cosmological argument? B:
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Recap So Far: Direct Realism
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Recap – Match the terms:
The Cosmological argument
THE DEBATE BETWEEN COPLESTON AND RUSSELL.
What is the difference between a cabbage and a machine?
The Cosmological Argument
Or Can you?.
Or Can you?.
Omnipotent Deity Atheist Agnostic Omnibenevolent Polytheist Analogy
INTRODUCTION Page 20 This extract is the transcript of a radio debate between Frederick Copleston (a theist) and Bertrand Russell (an agnostic). Bertrand.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Philosophy of Religion Arguments for the existence of God
Assess the weaknesses of the cosmological argument. (12 marks)
Assess the strengths of the cosmological argument. (12 marks)
Strengths and Weaknesses of Cosmological Argument
‘Assess the credibility of the cosmological argument’ (12 marks)
The Teleological Argument
Presentation transcript:

Cosmological Argument: Philosophical Criticisms

Cosmological Criticisms Hume 1711-1776 Empiricist All knowledge comes from the senses Imagination makes a connection between cause and effect We think we know more about the world than we really do

Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) Why go back to a creator? Why not stop at the material world? Simpler to argue for a universe without an outside creator

Cosmological Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article & fill out the sheet. Demea "defends the Cosmological argument and philosophical theism..." He believes that the existence of God should be proven through a priori reasoning and that our beliefs about the nature of God should be based upon revelation and fideism. Demea rejects Cleanthes' "natural religion" for being too anthropomorphic. Demea objects to the abandonment of the a priori arguments by Philo and Cleanthes (both of whom are empiricists) and perceives Philo to be "accepting an extreme form of skepticism." Cleanthes is an "experimental theist"—"an exponent of orthodox empiricism"—who bases his beliefs about God's existence and nature upon a version of the teleological argument, which uses evidence of design in the universe to argue for God's existence and resemblance to the human mind. Philo, according to the predominant view among scholars, is the character who presents views most similar to those of Hume. Philo, along with Demea, attacks Cleanthes' views on anthropomorphism and teleology; while not going as far as to deny the existence of God, Philo asserts that human reason is wholly inadequate to make any assumptions about the divine, whether through a priori reasoning or observation of nature.

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article How does Demea summarise the Cosmological argument? What does he argue is impossible and why?

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article How does Demea summarise the Cosmological argument? In Hume’s Dialogues, part 9, the character Demea begins by summarizing the Cosmological Argument. Everything, he says, has a cause or a reason. If we ask what causes something, it is some prior thing; and as we go back in the chain of causes, we find that either: (1) the chain of causes or reasons goes back infinitely, or (2) that chain terminates in some first (necessarily existing) cause.

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article 2. What does he argue is impossible and why? He then argues that option (1) is impossible. For, even if there were an eternal, infinite chain of causes, the CHAIN ITSELF would still require some (necessarily existing) cause or explanation. The argument may be summarized as follows: 1. Everything that exists must have some cause or reason for its existence. This cause may be either (a) Something external to itself (i.e., a “dependent” being), or (b) Something internal to itself (i.e., a “necessary” being). 2. It is impossible for every being to be a dependent being (for, even if there were a beginning-less, infinite series of them, the whole series itself would still require some cause or explanation for its existence). 3. Therefore, at least one necessary being exists (and we call this God).

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article 3. What objection does Cleanthes raise about a necessary being?

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article 3. What objection does Cleanthes raise about a necessary being? Even if this argument were successful, Cleanthes asks why it must be the case that the necessary being is God? He asks, “why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?” For, it seems at least conceivable that matter could contain the reason or explanation for its own existence within itself. That is, it could be a part of the NATURE of matter that it MUST exist.

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article Demea: “It is impossible for every being to be a dependent being (for, even if there were a beginning-less, infinite series of them, the whole series itself would still require some cause or explanation for its existence).” 4. What objection does Cleanthes raise about Demea’s second premise above? How does the analogy of 20 coins explain this?

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article 4. What two objections does Cleanthes raise about Demea’s second premise above? How does the analogy of 20 coins explain this? a. First, it doesn’t even make SENSE to ask what is the cause of something that has existed eternally. To ask what caused the infinite series of causes pre-supposes that there is something PRIOR to or BEFORE that chain. But, that is senseless.

Philosophical Criticisms Hume – Read part 9 of the article 4. What two objections does Cleanthes raise about Demea’s second premise above? How does the analogy of 20 coins explain this? b. Second, it seems that, to provide an explanation for every PART in a group of things JUST IS to provide an explanation for the whole. For instance, if I have a collection of 20 coins, and I gave you a complete explanation of the causes and reasons of EACH individual coin, it would be rather odd to then ask, “But, what is the explanation for the whole twenty?” Rather, the explanation for the whole JUST IS the 20 explanations for all of the individual parts. But, every part of the infinite series of causes DOES have an explanation; namely, the prior cause. For every individual in the series, the one before it is its explanation.

Hume Aquinas is wrong to make a connection between cause and effect Aquinas observed the world around him and considered the existence of the universe Hume argued these are two separate events The mind has made the connection Aquinas made an inductive leap

Hume Right or Wrong? What might Hume say in light of more recent evidence that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning? On some versions of Big Bang theory, all matter and energy—and even space and time!—just came into existence out of nothingness. Must Hume admit defeat in this case?

Kant 1724-1804 Empiricist A cause for everything only applies to the world of sense experience Cannot apply to something we haven’t experienced God is outside of time and space No justification for the conclusion that there is a Necessary Being.

Immanuel Kant Every event must have a first cause only applies to the world of sense experience There is no justification for the conclusion that God caused the universe to begin Such questions transcend our experience God would have to be a causal being, outside space and time as we understand it so it would be impossible for people to have any knowledge of what God created or of God himself

Copleston and Russell BBC Radio debate – January 1948 Focused on the issue of sufficient reason and contingent vs necessary existence Copleston – Jesuit priest Russell – agnostic philosopher

Copleston and Russell In the film, there was a reconstruction of a debate about the cosmological argument between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston. In the table, identify the philosopher responsible for each idea.

Hume: Philo Hume wrote a fictional debate about the cosmological argument in Dialogues and Natural History of Religion. One of the characters is Philo – often thought to be the voice of Hume himself – who criticizes the cosmological argument. The film explains: What is Philo saying here? • What is the difference between Hume’s thoughts and Russell’s?

Conclusion… Is Hume’s objection successful? What do you think of Russell’s argument?