Evaluation of the Cosmological argument Flashcards
1948 –> BBC radio debate about Gods existence
Bertand Russell
- mathmatician, philosopher
- expecting that there is a cause to the universe is logical
frederick copleston
- jesuit priest
- argues the existence of God through contingency
part 1 of the tv debate –> copleston’s opening argument
- Everything in the universe is contingent → draws on AQUINAS
- The universe is a ‘aggregate’ (cumulation) of all the things in it
- Therefore the universe is contingent → draws on KALAM
- Contingent things require an explanation → Principle of Sufficient reason, Leibniz
- Therefore the universe requires an explanation
copleston’s belief on infinite regress
- An infinite regress is NOT an explanation
- It is rejected as infinity has no explanation by nature as there are no defined parts of beginning and end
- Therefore an entity that has NECESSARY EXISTENCE (aseity) is needed to explain the universe
- Cannot be CONTINGENT as it would not be the chains beginning
Part 2 of the tv debate –> necessity and a being
C
- Argues that NORMALLY LOGICAL IDEAS can be Necessary
- Mathematical ideas (triangle has three sides) or ‘a bachelor is an unmarried man’
- These are ANALYTIC propositions
R
- Does not think A BEING can be ‘NECESSARY’
- Believes these are SYNTHETIC propositions
- The statement ‘God exists’ is a synthetic proposition and cannot be necessarily true in the same way ‘2+2=4’ can be true
- Same fallacy as describing a square as round
russells definition of necessity
- An attribute that creates an object
- Contained within its idea
- Could not be anything else
- Could not not be
Part 3 –> Russells belief on liebniz’s principle of sufficient reason
- Believes the only important explanations or reasons concerns immediate causes (fire caused by a match)
- Thinks C ‘begs the question’ and the cosmological argument does not try to answer a question, but simply supports faith (a decided outcome)
- Is the cosmological argument philosophy or faith???
- He does not think there is a cosmological argument to make, as there is no point in looking for an ultimate explanation
Part 3 –> coplestons belief on liebniz’s principle of sufficient reason
- Copleston responds to Russell’s argument by bringing in Leibniz’s idea of God being a Sufficient reason → makes sense of the contingent things of the universe that doesn’t explain itself
- He believes there a bigger reasons to look for → ‘adequate explanation’, ‘total explanation’
- C criticises Russell and calls him ‘dogmatic’ → close minded and stubborn: insinuates he believes Russell is refusing to admit that the universe might have an explanation because it goes against his prejudices
part 4 –> Russells belief on the fallacy of composition
- Deduces that the fallacy in Copleston’s logic is the FALLACY OF COMPOSITION (thinking that the qualities are the components are shared by the whole with 2 different logical spheres are in any way comparable)
- He took this idea from David Hume, concerning the cosmological argument
- Argues that just because the universe is made of contingent things, it doesn’t automatically mean that the universe is a contingent thing
part 4 - opposition to russells belief concerning the fallacy of composition
- Applies to the statement ‘all the bricks in the wall are small so the wall is small’, but not ‘the wall is built of bricks therefore the wall is brick’
- Bruce Reichenbach suggests AW3 resembles the latter so it is not fallacious → ‘the universe is built from contingent things, therefore the universe is contingent’
- Therefore, if things that make the universe can cease to exist so can the universe → if it is contingent it requires external explanation: a transcendent Necessary being → Way 3 does not necessarily commit the fallacy of composition
conclusion - coplestons conclusion
- Shifts from arguing a definite cause to that it is reasonable to assume there is
- Analogy of scientists and police → assume there is an explanation from crime and scientific phenomena/crimes, and without the assumptions these jobs are hard
- Believes that if Russell will not even accept there it a cosmological question then he cannot engage with it
conclusion - russells conclusion
- Argues that scientists do not work on assumptions, but they look for explanation the way a prospector looks for gold → doesn’t assume but there is an explanation for why it’s there
overall conclusion of their debate
- Debate reaches a stalemate → most assume there is a reasonable explanation for things, and despite R scientists work with this
- Russell has a good PHILOSOPHICAL stance → Hume, Problem of induction (‘habit’ or ‘custom’ of mind that leads us to expect the future will resemble the past
- Immanuel Kant → cause and effect is projected by human minds into the universe, not that it actually exists
Russell is right, the cosmological argument is redundant
FOR
- Partial explanation
- Looking for something that doesn’t exist, not like scientists, where there is an empirical answer to reach
- Russel → Just is: ‘The universe is brute fact’
- Principle of sufficient reason
- Fallacy of composition
- Conclusion is impossible: A necessary being is as illogical as a 4 sides triangle
AGAINST
- There is a reason
- Need to look to find, must engage with the idea
- Necessary God transcends the universe, so the concept of - Necessity not being applicable does not apply
strengths and weaknesses of the arguments inference from observation, contingency vs necessity
STRENGTHS
- Based on observation → cannot observe anything Necessary in the Universe according to Aquinas, ex nihilo nihil fit
- Can observe birth and decay in ALL things
- Supported by quantitative scientific theories (Big Bang)
- A posteriori and inductive
- Leibniz: principle of sufficient reason, contingent beings exist and need an explanation, the Necessary being
- Copleston: a Necessary being is needed to explain contingency
WEAKNESS
- We cannot observe the whole universe, so we do not know if our observations relate to the whole (fallacy of composition)
- Russel: objects cannot be Necessary, synthetic propositions
- It is A posteriori and inductive nature makes it wake → based on evidence available making the conclusion dubious
strengths and weaknesses of the arguments rejection of infinite regress
STRENGTHS
- Logical idea, uses observation → Kalam cosmological argument strengthens this idea
- 2nd law of thermodynamics (universe is running out of useable energy, so cannot be infinite and einstein’s theory of relativity (Big bang, universe expanding from a single point must have an absolute beginning)
- There is a start point, agrees with Abrahamic religions
- If we reject infinite regress, must be a cause + a reason so there is therefore POSR
WEAKNESS
- Cycle could be cyclical not linear → start point does not agree with non A religions
- Aquinas believes in God of religion, temporal God seems distant → DEISM, God of philosophy = separate from creation, non sustaining and the universe can exists without him (cause in ESSE vs FRIERI)
- Argument relies relies on the ROIR and falls apart without it
- Could lead to multiple first cause (branched timeline)
