Cosmological Argument: Philosophical Criticisms

1. Cosmological Argument: Philosophical Criticisms

2. Cosmological CriticismsHume • 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

3. 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

4. Cosmological CriticismsHume – 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." • Cleanthesis 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.

5. Philosophical CriticismsHume – Read part 9 of the article • How does Demea summarise the Cosmological argument? • What does he argue is impossible and why?

6. Philosophical CriticismsHume – Read part 9 of the article • How does Demea summarise the Cosmological argument? In Hume’s Dialogues, part 9, the character Demeabegins 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.

7. Philosophical CriticismsHume – 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).

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

9. Philosophical CriticismsHume – 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.

10. Philosophical CriticismsHume – 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?

11. Philosophical CriticismsHume – 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.

12. Philosophical CriticismsHume – 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.

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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 thatthere is a Necessary Being.

16. Immanuel Kant • Every event must have a firstcause only applies to theworld 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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?

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