Cosmological Argument Critiques Flashcards
Who is Betrand Russell?
A 20th century critic of religious belief
What were Russel’s critiques of the cosmological argument ?
-One major criticism of the Cosmological Argument is Bertrand Russell’s rejection of the idea that the universe needs an external cause, arguing instead that it may simply be a brute fact
-Another key part of Russell’s critique targets the idea of a “necessary being,” arguing that the concept itself is incoherent and misapplied
How does Hume’s view allign with Russell’s brute fact argument?
-Russell’s view echoes David Hume, who similarly questioned whether we can apply causal reasoning to the universe as a whole
-Hume argued that “the universe is a singular effect, and we have no other universe to compare it to,” meaning we have no basis for assuming it must operate according to our expectations of causation. Both philosophers challenge the assumption that the universe, like things within it, must have a cause—undermining the strength of the argument and its conclusion that God is a necessary first cause.
How does Russel critique the need for a necessary being argument?
-In response to Copleston’s claim that God is a necessary being who explains all contingent things, Russell insisted that necessity only applies to analytic statements, such as “all triangles have three sides,” and not to actual beings
-This view undermines a central claim of the Cosmological Argument—that the chain of contingent causes must be grounded in a necessary being
-He also accuses the argument of committing the fallacy of composition, assuming that because each part of the universe has a cause, the universe as a whole must have one.
How does Hume’s view align with the necessary being argument?
-Hume similarly challenged this assumption, stating that “it is a mistake to transfer the qualities of the parts to the whole,” emphasising that causal reasoning drawn from our everyday experience may not apply to the universe as a totality
If we cannot coherently define or prove the existence of a necessary being, and if causation doesn’t apply to the universe in the way the argument assumes, then the Cosmological Argument becomes significantly weakened in its attempt to justify belief in God.
What was the basis of Russell’s brute fact argument?
-In his famous 1948 BBC radio debate with Frederick Copleston, Russell challenged the principle of sufficient reason,the belief that everything must have an explanation,by arguing that the universe could simply exist without one
-He famously stated, “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all,” suggesting that existence might be a brute fact that does not require a first cause
-This challenges the core assumption of the Cosmological Argument: that an infinite regress of causes is impossible and must be stopped by a necessary being
What were Hume’s criticisms?
-One of Hume’s key criticisms of the Cosmological Argument is that we cannot assume the universe as a whole needs a cause simply because the things within it do
-Hume also critiques the Cosmological Argument by questioning the assumption that causation itself is a logically necessary principle
How did Hume argue we cannot assume the world needs a cause?
-The argument is built on the idea that every event or being we observe is caused by something else, leading to the conclusion that the universe itself must also have a cause
-But Hume challenges this by pointing out that we’ve never observed a universe being caused, so we have no grounds to apply that logic
-He states that “the universe is a singular effect, and we have no other universe to compare it to,” meaning we cannot confidently claim it follows the same rules as individual objects within it
-This exposes a fallacy of composition—wrongly assuming that what’s true of the parts must be true of the whole. Bertrand Russell supports this, famously declaring in his debate with Copleston that “the universe is just there, and that’s all.” Both thinkers argue that the Cosmological Argument stretches everyday reasoning too far, applying it to something far beyond human experience
-If the universe doesn’t behave like the things inside it, then the demand for a first cause becomes less compelling, and the argument’s foundation weakens.
How did Hume argue that causation is not a logically necessary principle?
-He believed that the human expectation of cause and effect is based not on reason but on habit—we observe patterns and grow used to them, but we cannot know with certainty that they apply universally
-This becomes a serious problem for the Cosmological Argument, which assumes that causation must hold even at the level of the universe’s origin. Hume warns against drawing metaphysical conclusions from limited experience, stating that “we cannot go beyond the concept to the existence of the object,” highlighting that ideas alone cannot prove what exists
-Since we have never observed a universe beginning, we cannot just assume it needs a cause
