Objectivism 101

Lesson 3: Reason Applied to the God-Concept

Theoretical arguments (part 2)

The cosmological arguments are those that involve a god as "First Cause" - as creator. They usually state that everything has/needs a cause, and proclaims that this cause must be a god.

The usual answer from atheists is to say "but if everything does require a cause, then why doesn't the god ?". To this the theist would obviously reply that we need something uncaused. Otherwise we just have infinite regress (a series of events without a beginning), which is impossible.

Our two choices, therefore, are either that reality is the uncaused cause, or that a god is the uncaused cause. But since we are trying to prove that a god is necessary, we cannot assume it. All that we know right now is that reality existed in the past, and that this is sufficient to explain the existence of reality today.

Positing a god also explains the existence of reality, but does not explain anything more. Occam's Razor indicates that adding a god is therefore irrational.

One may retort that material entities are all subject to causality. But not only is reality not an entity in itself, but to attribute causality to the whole simply because it exists in the parts is a fallacy of composition.

Finally, this argument suffers from the same flaw than many others - it is not god-specific. Even if the argument was correct, all it would prove is that there is a cause outside the universe. It would not prove that such a cause is a being, or that it is infinitely powerful. It is not sufficient to prove part of a conclusion : a proof must demonstrate that the entire conclusion is true. Otherwise there is a part of the conclusion for which we have no objective evidence.

For a discussion of the cosmological argument, see Atheism : The Case Against God, starting at p235.

Paley's Watchmaker argument is an attempt to prove that the universe is designed. If the universe is designed, then it needs a designer, and that designer is God. As Paley himself has stated, if we find a watch on the ground, we immediately infer design :

[W]hen we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (...) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; (...)

(...) the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.

(for the full quote, see Atheism : The Case Against God, p262)

Paley concludes that, since we see the same complexity in nature, nature must have been designed by a designer - God.

This argument may seem convincing, and it would be, if it wasn't plainly wrong. We do not infer design from complexity alone. As we have seen in lesson 2, evaluating a claim demands that we implicitly or explicitly compare it to the strongest possibilities. In the case of design in nature, we must oppose to it the power of natural law.

In science, we do the same thing. When a paleontologist finds a rock with indentations in it, he does not automatically consider the rock as natural because it is simple. Rather, he knows that early humans made rock tools with certain methods, and that these tools were adapted for various functions. Therefore, he will compare the hypothesis that an early man made it as a tool, or some other function, to the hypothesis that the rock was made that way naturally.

In fact, Paley's argument is made even more ridiculous by the fact that we already know a clock made by nature : biological clocks. Core body temperature, sleep-wake cycle, and locomotor activity patterns are examples of things that are regulated by our biological clocks.

We know that humans manufacture watches and nature doesn't, and so in this case there is no question. In the case of the universe, how are we to know what a god would create ? To posit such a thing would be circular, since it would assume knowledge of a god. This is another circular argument. On the other hand, there is nothing which indicates to us that natural law is an insufficient explanation.

Finally, the argument suffers from not being god-specific. Even if we did come to the conclusion that a designer existed, it would not necessarily have to be a god.

For a discussion of the Watchmaker argument (Analogical Argument), see Atheism : The Case Against God, starting at p262.

This is only a discussion of the most concrete arguments. For a more detailed rebuttal of other arguments, I invite you to consult our reference book for this lesson, Atheism : The Case Against God, or other books on atheology.

  1  2  3  4  5  6