RMPS Homework

Higher class! Here are the next set of slides to be working on. The first is the homework task which I already set. After this, read through the cosmological and teleological arguments. These notes are very detailed, so also use the pages from HJ Richards which gives you a brief overview. Then attempt the two additional tasks (slides 40 and 52). Hope to see you on Monday!

Homework Task!

Read HJ Richards’ Philosophy of Religion, pp41-43On what do Christians rely on to understand the world? (4KU)What has revelation taught Christians about God? (4KU)What is ‘Tradition’? (2KU)

Cosmological Argument

Cosmology is from the Greek word cosmos, meaning universe or worldThe cosmological argument is an a posteriori argumentfor the existence of GodCritics include David Hume, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand RussellAdvocates include Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides and Frederick Copleston

Cosmological Argument

Cosmology has its roots in Ancient Greek Aristotelian philosophy

Most famous version comes from Thomas Aquinas

Cosmology aims to prove God’s existence by using the world around us

This is a posteriori argument (not a priori)

St Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas is one of the Catholic Church’s most influential theologiansMuch of his theology is still in use in CatholicismHe was a Dominican friar, living in the 13th century (1225-1274)

Magnum opus: Summa theologica

Quinqueviae (Five ways)

1 Prima via Motus Argument from motion

2 Secundum via Causa Argument from cause

3 Tertia via Argument from contingency and necessity

4 Axiology Argument from perfection

5 Teleology Argument from design

Cosmology covers the first three of Aquinas’ five ways

Prima via (First Way)

P1 Everything is in motion.

P2 In order for movement, something’s potentiality (potentia) must be actualised (actus) by something already in a state of actuality.

P3 Nothing can be simultaneously in a state of potentiality and actuality, so nothing can move itself.

P4 Following from Premise 3, everything must be caused to move by something else. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers.

CWithout a first mover, there would be no subsequent movers. Reductio ad absurdum: We know there are subsequent movers, and thus there must be a source of all motion.

A reductio ad absurdum argument takes a claim to be true and then reduces it to absurdity in order to demonstrate that it cannot be true

A reductio ad absurdum argument takes a claim to be true and then reduces it to absurdity in order to demonstrate that it cannot be true

Secundum via (Second Way)

P1 Everything that occurs has an efficient cause, and that cause also has a cause.

P2 Nothing, then, can cause itself since a cause always exists before its effects.

P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of causes because if there was no first cause there would be no subsequent causes.

P4 Reductio ad absurdum: There must be causes as we have effects.

C Therefore, there must exist a first cause that is itself uncaused. Ex hoc dicemus Deus. (This is what we call God.)

Aquinas’ Aristotle affection

Aristotle believed that there was an unmoved mover that caused all movement in the world with the intention of moving to perfection

Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotle, and his definition of God is a lot like a rebranded unmoved mover.

Potentia and actus (Potential and act)

Understanding Aquinas’ idea of potential and act, inherited partly from Aristotle, is crucial in understanding the first and second ways– The potential of wood is to give light and heat– Something has to happen (move) to make the wood

give light and heat– When this happens the wood acts to its potential

What’s the difference?

Potential and act are essentially opposing states...

Block of wood Burning wood

What’s the difference?

Wood can burn, but can’t possess the potential to burn and be burning at the same time

It’s a logical impossibilityWhen the wood is burning (has been moved to burn), it is a realisation (or an actualisation) of the wood’s potential to burn

Aristotle’s legacy once again

Using Aristotle’s views again, Aquinas argues that the efficient cause is the agent which brings something about– Example

The Academy has commissioned a statue of me to be built at the entrance, because I’m so great. In this case, the person chiselling away at the marble, and the act of chiselling itself, is the efficient cause because it causes the statue. Without the chiselling, there’d be no statue.

The efficient cause is in actus

So, from that we can infer that the efficient cause is in a state of actuality (in actus) as it needs to be so in order to causeFor Aquinas, God becomes the efficient cause

Infinite regression

What’s wrong with infinite regression, rejected by Aquinas in his secundum via?According to Aquinas, we need a being that is in actus to causeBut, in order to make sense of our existence he says we need something that is actus purus (pure act) – something which is only actuality and has never been potentiality

This creates problems

By rejecting infinite regression, Aquinas’ argument is may be flawed...

– His conclusions so far state that there is a first cause/mover, but the premises state everything must have a cause

– Who’s to say that the first cause/mover that Aquinas talks of still exists today?My father’s granddad and grandma are dead, but my father’s parents and my father are still here. Is God dead?

David Hume

Scottish philosopher18th century, during the enlightenmentEmpiricist (knowledge via senses) and deist (belief in a creator G/d, that’s no longer involved with us)Hume asked...

Must every event have a cause?

For Hume, it’s not an a posteriori truth

The only way we can know that every event has a cause is if we verify it using our experienceWe have no experience of the beginning of the universe, so this can’t happenMoreover, the beginning of the universe is hardly comparable to other causes...

Everything in our world is created in time

Everything in our world is created in time

Universe created without time, since time is part of

the universe

Universe created without time, since time is part of

the universe

NOT COMPARABLE NOT COMPARABLE

Space and time are part of the universe

Frederick Copleston

Where Aquinas leaves off, Frederick Copleston picks up... He clarifies Aquinas’ argument... Aquinas isn’t talking about a horizontal series of causes:

Frederick Copleston continued

But instead of a vertical hierarchy of causes...

Frederick Copleston continued

What’s the difference?Any of the causes in the linear sequence (the horizontal causes) may be removed and may still work independently of each otherIn the hierarchy, each cause depends on the cause above

However, there are different types of cause...

Cause in fieri and in esse

in fieri

Children can exist separately of their parentsBut, their parents are required for their cause

in esseActivity of the pen cannot exist separately of the hand writingThe hand is required for both the cause and to sustain the cause

God in esse

God is cause in esse

Why do you think this is important?

Contingency and necessity

Something that is necessary relies on itself alone for existenceSomething that is contingent requires other factors for its existence– Example

Humans are contingent because we rely on oxygen to keep us alive; take away oxygen and we die.God, on the other hand, is necessary because God doesn’t need oxygen to survive, God has his (its) own reason for existence.

Copleston’s argument in premises

P1 Everything in the universe is contingent and might not have been.

P2 The universe, then, is the totality of all contingent things and is itself contingent.

P3 Following that, the necessary cause of the universe must be outside of it.

C Therefore, there exists a necessary being that sustains all contingent beings.

Copleston’s argument conforms to Aquinas’ third way...

Tertia via: contingency and necessity

P1 All things existing in this world are contingent.

P2 If all things are contingent, then at some point there was nothing.

P3 If at one point there was nothing, then nothing exists now. Reductio ad absurdum: this is false, since things do exist now.

P4 There needs to be some being which is the cause of all contingency.

Prima pars (first part)

Tertia via: contingency and necessity

P5 All necessary beings have their cause of necessity either inside or outside of themselves.

P6 Imagine each necessary being has its cause of necessity outside of itself.

P7 If Premise 6, were true, there would be no ultimate cause of reality. Reductio ad absurdum: following the second way (secundum via), this is false.

CThere must exist a necessary being, which causes and sustains all other necessary and contingent beings. Ex hoc dicemus Deus. (This is what we call God.)

Secundum pars (Second part)

Note the two parts to this proof

Aquinas was writing in the 13th – 14th centuries, where people believed in the existence of Angels

The Nine Orders of Angels are necessary, so had he stopped after the first part, it would have been reasonable to accept that an angel could have created the universe

De re and de dicto beings

de re

Always been present in realityGod

de dicto

Called into reality (by God)Nine Orders of Angels

[Obviously there is no visual representation for God]

Locked together

Aquinas’ third way conveniently locks his arguments so far into place, binding them to form a proof...

– Nothing can move/cause God– Nothing can move/cause God’s

non-existence– Nothing that moves/causes can be accounted for

without God

Strengths

Science suggests the universe had a beginning and every beginning must have a cause. It is logical; nothing we know can cause itself. Infinity is impossible; everything lives, grows and dies – the universe is not infinite – it had a first cause There is no other reasonable explanation The past is not infinite – it had a beginning – beginnings need a creator Nothing is just there without a reason for it being there Experience and reason tell us that everything has a cause – if there is no first cause then we are going against all our experience and reasoning The universe contains beings that depend on others for existence. For dependent beings to exist there must be an independent being to make them exist i.e. God

Weaknesses

The Cosmological Argument(s) do not prove that the first cause is what we would call God, i.e. is the First Cause good?It changes the rules to accommodate God e.g. if infinity is impossible then how can God be infinite? People and animals move themselves so why can’t the universe? Claiming that God is self-creating and eternal is just the same as saying the universe is self creating and eternal. We are conditioned to see things having causes and beginnings – it is equally possible that things do not have causes and beginnings. The universe is a brute fact. It is just there. (Russell)We cannot understand the cause of the universe because it is something we can never experience. Everything is sheer speculation. (Hume)

Cosmological Argument: Task

Aquinas is one of a number of people who have presented the Cosmological Argument. Read more about this on page 14-16 of HJ Richards, Philosophy of Religion (2nd Edition).

What is the cosmological argument? (4KU)What are the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument? (6AE)

Teleological Argument

Teleology is from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purposeThe teleological argument is an a posteriori argument for the existence of GodCritics include David Hume, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell Advocates include Thomas Aquinas and William Paley

Aquinas’ Fifth Way

The teleological argument is part of Aquinas’ five ways, his last way

Looks at the world around us and attempts to use that as evidence for God’s existenceThis makes it a posteriori, like the cosmological argumentThe teleological argument is an argument from order and design to God as the explanation for this order and design

Fifth way

P1 Things lacking intelligence, like trees, have a purpose.

P2 These things can’t move towards their end without an intelligent being.

P3 By analogy: an arrow cannot reach its target without a skilled archer.

CErgo, by analogy, there must be some intelligent being which directs all unintelligent things to their end. Ex hoc dicemus Deus. (This is what we call God.)

Things lacking intelligence

This tree knows when to shed its leaves, but it doesn’t have intelligence like human beingsAccording to Aquinas, God makes it do this

Design qua purpose and qua regularity

Design qua purpose

Things happen in the universe for a reasonIn a washing machine, all of the parts serve a purpose

Design qua regularityThere is regularity and order in the universeThis regularity couldn’t be chance, think about the rotation of the planets etc

William Paley

William Paley is probably teleology’s biggest advocate, putting forward a comparison of how the regularity of a watch compares to regularity in the world

Paley’s watch

Walking along a beach, he comes across a stone and looks at it with indifference – it’s just a stone

He then finds a watch on the beach, stopping to admire its many intricate parts

Moral of the story?

From this he infers that the watch must have a designer

It is so complex that there is no way those parts could have just assembled in the correct order like a stone could just appear on a beachThe same applies to theworld

The watch, as a complex thing, requires an explanation

It is best explained in terms of design and a designer who gave it purpose

Even if we'd never seen a watch being made, we could still infer its designer

Surely the same applies to the universe

Premise breakdown

P1 A watch has certain complex features and consists of supporting parts.

P2 Anything exhibiting these features must have been designed.

P3 Following from Premise 1 and Premise 2, the watch must have an intelligent designer.

P4 The universe is like the watch in that it too is complex, only on a more wondrous scale.

C Therefore, the universe requires an intelligent designer. This designer is God.

Notice the leap of faith required; from the universe requiring a

designer to that designer being God

Notice the leap of faith required; from the universe requiring a

designer to that designer being God

The return of David Hume

You might remember him from his last appearance when he criticised Aquinas’ first and second waysNow he’s back to do the same with the lastHow is the universe regular?It’s difficult to compare things like a polar bear and a tree

David Hume continued

Why is there just one designer?Could easily be more than that, maybe even a pantheon of gods

David Hume continued

What about a trainee god?– God is all powerful, all knowing and all good – and

yet, evil exists– This is the inconsistent triad, the definition of God

is incompatible in a world with evil– The inconsistent triad seems to point to an

incompetent GodTRAINEE

David Hume continued

Why use the example of a watch?A watch is a machine, and watches just whirr and do as they’re programmed to doA better example would have been something living

JS Mill joins in

British philosopher and influential liberal thinker19th centuryHelped develop utilitarianism, the idea that the moral worth of an action can be judged on the overall happiness it creates JS Mill

Look at the animals!

Mill agreed with Hume, asking us to look towards the animal kingdom He points out the brutality in which predator hunts prey and how deceptive animals can be; if those animals were human then they’d be taken to court!How can God have created something so savage?

Charles Darwin: it’s all evolution

Charles Darwin’s theories pose a few challenges to the teleological argumentUniverse and nature as they are now are a product of a long process of evolution, a process that’s still going even todayThis renders the need for a designer null since the universe has just naturally evolved to this state

Teleological Argument: Task

The Teleological Argument is also known as the Argument from Design.This argument uses revelation and reason to prove that God exists. Aquinas used this argument too.However, it is best espoused by William Paley. Read about this in HJ Richard’s, Philosophy of Religion, pp16-20. For more depth, see PJ Clarke, Questions About God, pp33-37.

Explain the teleological argument. (4KU)What are the strengths and weaknesses of the teleological argument? (6AE)