SECTION VIII Chapter 1. Great Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because His ordinary works convince it. It is true that a little philosophy inclineth man to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." --Francis Bacon (1561-1626) English philosopher "It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." --John Locke "The true religion, interesting the whole human race at all times and in all situations, ought to be eternal, universal, and self-evident; whereas the religions pretended to be revealed having none of these characteristics, are consequently demonstrated to be false." -- Diderot "Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and saint, and heard great argument About it and about, but evermore Came out by the same door as in I went." -- Omar Khayyam "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose…I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, in any philosophy." --J.B.S. Haldane "Many a long dispute between divines may thus be abridged [summarized]: It is so. It is not so. It is so. It is not so." --Benjamin Franklin "By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." --Socrates (470-399 B.C.E.) All cultures and societies have propounded philosophical/religious explanations as to the nature of the universe and its relation to man. In early times, the vast majority of these systems were based on a belief in many gods. Divine beings were invoked to explain the CAUSE of the world around us and the elements of nature. The ancient hebrews were the first known people to worship ONE purely transcendental God--ie a god that was not associated with a form of nature, such as the sun. Gradually there developed throughout the ancient Greek world, the philosophic ideal of an all-powerful deity who dwelled in the highest realms of the universe. Below this deity ruled a lower hierarchy of divine beings--both good and evil who controlled the affairs of men and women on earth. It was the ancient Greeks who first developed philosophy into the high art form that we regard it today. Ancient Greek philosophers used rational, logical arguments to deduce the existence of a God and to question the meaning of life. It was also the Greeks who were among the first to systematically inquire into the NATURAL (as opposed to supernatural) causes of the world around them. Because of this, Greek philosophy is largely credited with laying down the foundation for modern science. Of course, few Greek philosophers relied solely on NATURAL explanations for the nature of the world. A more accurate assessment of Greek philosophy would view it as a blend of BOTH natural and supernatural outlooks. Thus, we see the philosopher Aristotle forging SCIENTIFIC observation and logic along with RELIGIOUS ideals in deducing the existence of a divine Supreme deity. Many of the most fundamental and rational arguments for the existence of a God, and the search for the meaning of truth and happiness-- go back to the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers. For example, the philosopher Plato (fourth century B.C.) described one of the earliest ancient proofs for the existence of a God, as follows: "The earth, the sun and stars, and the universe itself, and the charming variety of the seasons, demonstrates the existence of a Divinity." Aristotle argued that the great beauty and complexity of the world meant logically there had to have been a "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" - a term he used to mean God. The classical Greek proofs for the existence of God were later used, and further elaborated on by the early Christians. It is known that St. Augustine and other early Christian fathers both read and were strongly influenced by the Neo-Platonic contemporary thought of their time. Development of Rational Arguments for the Existence of God, Beginning in the Later Middle Ages During the Middle Ages, Catholic Church Fathers structured society according to a Christianized Neo-Platonic view of the world -- emphasizing FAITH and OBEDIENCE, over OBSERVATION and INQUIRY (the latter which could lead man to stray into sin). In the period leading up to the Renaissance, marked by the "rediscovery" of ancient Greco-Roman writings, Catholic Scholastics (notably among them St. Thomas Aquinas) reintroduced Aristotle's paradigm that one could use REASON to derive new knowledge. Of course, ALL truths were still believed to be only contained within sacred texts and Catholic dogma! But now humans could ALSO use reason and rational proofs (if relying on trusted spiritual sources) to resolve any apparent conflicts between authorities. It was during this time that there was a revival of proofs for the existence of God, many of these relying on earlier principles set down by Aristotle or Plato. (There was also an increase in metaphysical discussions such as "how many angels would fit on the head of a pin.") During the Enlightenment, the radical paradigm that rational observation and inquiry could produce important truths gained ground in some intellectual circles. This view came about largely in reaction to the centuries of religious wars and strife! Scientific empiricism was seen as a rational method for resolving honest disagreements/conflicts between Catholic and Protestant dogma. It was during this environment of open inquiry that the sciences first began to make important gains. Still, in the eyes of the religious faithful, the new sciences were sometimes abused to question the accuracy (and therefore authority) of the sacred texts themselves! The Romantic era began largely in reaction AGAINST the Enlightenment with its emphasis on scientific rationalism and logic. Romantic philosophers stressed the importance of tapping into our FEELINGS to discover divine planes of existence. It was believed that there are some truths that only our hearts can tell, and which are hidden to our minds. Arguably, in some cases, the Romantic Era represented an attempt to return to the religious tradition-- although now by relying on one's OWN FEELINGS--as opposed to relying on the revelations/authority of the ancients. Today, most modern philosophies trace their development through either the philosophical school of the Enlightenment (stressing science), or through that of the Romantic period (stressing mystical feelings and powers). Of course, religion continued to play an important role within both the philosophical traditions of the Enlightenment and Romanticism-- as philosophers sought to make the quantum leap from increased certainty in the physical sciences, to rational proofs for God's existence! * * * Below are some of the most important proofs for the existence of God--many of which were known to the ancient Greeks. These were used by Christian Scholastics in the late Middle Ages, and expanded upon by later philosophers during the periods of the Enlightenment/Romantic Era. Great Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God: I. Argument from Design (the "Cosmological" Argument) One of the oldest proofs for the existence of a God is the Argument from Design. That is, since at least the times of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers and theologians have pointed to the great beauty and complexity of the world as the best proof of the existence of a "First Cause"--a "Prime Mover", which by definition would be God. During the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas borrowed heavily from Aristotle in proving the existence of God in his SUMMA THEOLOGICA. According to Aquinas, God's existence "can be proved in five ways": 1. that some "First Mover", or God had to set the universe into motion, 2. that a first "cause" would require a God, 3. that there must have been a first "existence", 4. through the presence of "goodness, and every other perfection" which is the "cause of [one's] being", and 5. from the existence of "purpose" in the "governance of the world". In the early 1700's, the religious philosopher Leibniz posed the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Leibniz, of course, identified the answer as Aristotle's "First Cause"-a necessary extent being, or God. Still there was always a nagging question that arose from the argument from First Cause, "Who" or "what" then created the First Cause - or who created God?" And if God was not created, but always existed, then "How did God spend His time BEFORE He created the universe?" (Medieval philosophers who thought of such questions were warned of St. Augustine's curse, "God has reserved a special place in hell for fools who ask such questions!") David Hume, the skeptic philosopher, formally challenged Aristotle's "First Cause" as only an assumption: "Why," asked Hume, was a God required? "[M]ay not the material universe be the necessary existent Being, according to this pretended explanation of necessity?" Hume's argument that the universe came into being out of nothing has been embraced by atheists. As Bertrand Russell summarized this, " . . . The universe is just there, and that's all." In 1802, the Reverend William Paley enhanced the Argument from Design by introducing the analogy of the watchmaker to that of the great Creator: Suppose, said Paley, I kick a stone. If I were asked how the stone had gotten there, I might answer that for all I knew, the stone had been there forever. However, if I were asked how a watch had come to be-- I would not be able to give the some answer. Because of its marvelous workmanship, it would be obvious that it was the work of some Intelligence. Even if I were to discover that the watch could produce another watch, still there would have to be a FIRST watch. The same analogy applies when I behold the ordering of the universe: I must infer a Maker-- an Intelligence vastly greater than our own, but yet not entirely dissimilar to our own. When Paley wrote his watch analogy in 1802, this was roughly half a century before Darwin's theory of evolution suggested a possible NATURAL mechanism for the existence of "the watch". Today, evolution has gained enough scientific evidence to convince not only non-theists, but theists as well--that (at least some) life on earth evolved via the mechanism of natural selection over a timescale of millions of years. (See Chapter 3.) Philosophy, using only abstract reasoning, simply cannot eliminate evolution as one possible "cause" or mechanism driving life on earth. Or to put this more generally, most philosophers today agree that the principle of cause cannot be applied BEYOND the world of our senses in order to absolutely prove the existence of God. Still, regardless of the "cause" or mechanism, one has to take pause and marvel at the wondrous complexity and beauty of the END result. Indeed, it is the opinion of this author that the arguments from design and order in nature (the argument from the order in nature is discussed next) are still two of the most powerfully appealing proofs for a divine Creator offered by religious philosophies today. Perhaps, it was Voltaire who put this best--when after contemplating the starry heavens--he was moved to write: "Last night, I was meditating, absorbed in the contemplation of nature. I was filled with wonder at its immensity, at the stars in their courses, at the mutual interaction of those countless orbs, one upon another, which people look upon unmoved. And I marveled still more at the Mind which governs the whole mighty scheme. A man must be blind, I said to myself, not to be dazzled by such a spectacle, a fool not to acknowledge its Author, a madman not to adore him. What tribute or adoration can I pay him? Must it not be the same, wherever it is offered? Whatever thinking being inhabits the Milky Way owes him the like homage. The light shines for Sirius, even as it shines for us." (Philosophical Dictionary, "Religion") II. Argument from Order in Nature (the "Teleological" Argument) Just as the Argument from Design infers the EXISTANCE of God because the complexity and beauty of nature implies a CAUSE--the Argument from Order in Nature points to the complex ORDER and NATURAL LAWS that govern the physical world as evidence for a God. This proof sees nature not as a random collection of events, but as an orderly system. Plants grow into complex structures from a simple seed, the planets revolve around the sun, and the seasons follow each other with mathematical regularity. The presence of a pattern or structure within nature is proof for many-- theologians and scientists alike-- for the existence of some intelligent divine power. Isaac Newton, spoke of this proof when he wrote in his famous PRINCIPIA (1687): "The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics." The Big Bang During the early 1900's, when astronomy was still in its infancy, scientists favored a model of the universe that was eternal or static. When Albert Einstein's equations on general relativity predicted an expanding universe in 1916, Einstein "fudged" his equations, entering a constant to force the equations back to a static universe. Years later, after Hubble's measurements showed the universe was indeed expanding (initially Hubble was trying to prove the universe was static), scientists began switching over to the Big Bang theory of the universe. Einstein later referred to the tampering with his relativity equations as "the greatest blunder of my life." Further scientific discoveries, such as the discovery of a constant microwave background in the universe, further entrenched the Big Bang as the favorite model among scientists to explain the origin of the universe. Theists were generally delighted at the parallels between the Big Bang theory and the Genesis description of how God ordered the universe into existence with his fiat, "Let there be light." (Creationist Christians were an exception: for the Big Bang theory also held that the universe developed over billions of years, instead of being created in the biblical six days.) Non-theists (such as Carl Sagan) speculated our universe might be undergoing an infinite series of Big Bang expansions, followed again by contractions. This was a testable hypothesis, however, because this meant that the universe's expansion should be decelerating or slowing down. Measurements were taken in 1998, with results that dramatically surprised everyone! For not only was there NO deceleration-but instead the expansion of the universe was very much accelerating (speeding up scientists would theorize, under the influence of a mysterious "dark energy", an antigravity embedded within space itself.) At this measured fast rate of expansion, scientists began to theorize that galaxies and solar systems would fly further apart, so that billions of years from now, there would be less and less starlight until earth's night skies eventually turn completely dark. (Star Trek wannabes were not happy with the news that space travel just got more difficult for the distant future.) Big Bang Creation Theories With the oscillating universe model discredited, some theists tried to use the Big Bang model to "prove" the existence of God. One proof (called the kaläm cosmological argument) uses the following logic: (1) Whatever begins has a cause; (2) The universe began to exist; (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The fallacy with this argument is with premise (1) "Whatever begins has a cause" is only an assumption that theists "believe" is true-especially since "cause" can be understood to mean natural (as opposed to supernatural) cause. Also premise (2) "the universe began to exist" is an assumption, because we do not know for sure if our universe had a previous existence, or whether the Big Bang creation is just one event within one or more larger processes. A second popular theist proof revolving around the Big Bang goes like this: (1) Time began when the Big Bang created the universe; (2) God, as creator of time, is outside of time; (3) For there to be a beginning, time must exist; (4) Therefore, God has always existed and does not require a cause, even though he created the earth. Here, premise (2) that "God is outside of time" is an obvious assumption inserted to make the end result work. One could just as easily assume God is "inside" of time. Premise (1) that "time began with the Big Bang" is also an assumption, which modern physicists debate: Examples include Stephen Hawkings' (who argues there was no precise moment when time began) and Julian Barbour (who claims that time "is simply an illusion created by our brains.") Stephen Hawkings, in his bestseller book, "A Brief History of Time," proposed a cosmological model that infers the Big Bang does NOT require a creator. His proof goes as follows: (1) there was no precise moment when time began; (2)Therefore there was no precise moment when the universe began. (3)This implies there would be no need nor role for a creator. (Hawkings' proof does not have the logical fallacies of the other proofs above, because it does not state that a Creator or God is impossible. Although Stephen Hawkings generally speaks of "God" elsewhere in his writings, his meaning is more as "an abstract principle of order and harmony" rather than a personal deity.) In conclusion, the Big Bang model can neither prove nor disprove a God as its "cause". Theories for God based on the Big Bang are really variations of the Argument from Design, which was disproved by Kant and others (see the discussion below under Argument from Utility.) Many theists have dropped the Big Bang "proof" and moved on to more powerful arguments that could infer the existence of a creator. "Monkeys Pounding on Typewriters": Permutations vs. Combinations Theists have argued that the laws of nature are so elegant and COMPLEX, that SOME divine, mystical element MUST have played a role in creating life! That is, in calculating statistical probabilities for life, the chances are astronomically high AGAINST RANDOMNESS generating complex life forms! The analogy sometimes given is of a room filled with monkeys randomly striking letters on a typewriter: The monkeys could never write a perfect page of Shakespeare's Hamlet, even if we allowed millions of years for generations of monkeys to pound away at their typewriters. Skeptics respond that the monkey analogy is counting all mathematical PERMUTATIONS - whereas natural selection operates within nature to reduce this high number down to a much smaller number of possible "COMBINATIONS". They emphasize that natural selection is NOT a random process! It operates within nature like a mechanical "intelligence" - a silent "Law of the Jungle", whereby only those creatures who fit best within the "survival strategy" for their species are most likely (statistically) to survive and thus pass on their genes to future generations. Survival of the "fittest" is actually a misnomer-- because for many species their survival as a species is not related to strength, but instead (especially for smaller animals) may be related towards such strategies as speed, agility, camouflage, poisonous defenses, and/or producing large numbers of offspring. The analogy of the typing monkeys uses alphabet letters, with every permutation being a "possible" combination. (That is, the number of permutations equals the number of combinations). However DNA/RNA can chemically form only in a selected number of ways, thus acting to significantly reduce the number of "possible" combinations. Studies have shown that a large percentage of fertilized eggs end up in early miscarriages because of genetic errors that have caused gross deformities that would not survive birth. (Indeed, it has been estimated that 30-70% of human pregnancies end naturally before term - with the majority of these terminating so early in the cycle that the female never knew she was pregnant.) The analogy of the typing monkeys, should be modified via the mechanism of natural selection, to pass only a small percentage of the pages that were the most "successful" onto the next "generation", repeating this process over and over for say a million generations. "Success" would be defined as keeping the few pages that produced the most words and/or meaningful sentences, onto the next generation. The end result might be a page from Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS instead of Shakespeare's HAMLET. But this reflects the reality that not every human being who could be produced statistically would ever be created; (not to mention that the highest intelligent life created on earth might not even be "humanlike" if evolution ever started over again from scratch.) (1) The "Anthropic Principle" vs. The Multiple Universe Theory A more powerful argument for the Argument from Order in Nature has focused on what physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler have dubbed the "anthropic principle". In their book (of the same name) Barrow and Tipler examined fundamental physical constants to show that they are remarkably "finely tuned" in a way to make life possible. Indeed, the odds of these values occurring randomly in the universe in a way conducive to life have been calculated to be astronomically high! This could be interpreted as evidence for the purposeful design of the universe - with a creator implied in the background!(2) Skeptics note that counting ALL the permutations of possible constants would yield a very high number. Therefore no matter what result "randomly" occurred, this would always calculate out as an infinitesimally low probability of occurrence. Also, how do we know there are not other universes ALSO out there? There could be trillions, even zillions of universes, some of which are NOT conducive to human development that have been created. By marveling at the exquisiteness of the end result, this would be similar to viewing the winning ticket at the lottery as proof for God's existence. For it ignores the fact that there was a very large number of tickets to begin with that lost the lottery. (Victor J. Stenger, "The Anthropic Coincidences: A Natural Explanation", http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Cosmo/anthro_philo.pdf) Infinite Inflating Universes Alan Guth's inflationary model of the universe – which is currently considered the best model for explaining the universe by physicists-- holds that our universe is not unique, but arose from a quantum fluctuation in space. Guth's theory is complex but following is a layman's explanation taken from DISOVER Magazine: Quantum theory holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to uncertainties. This means that, there is an infinitesimally low probability that pairs of subatomic particles – usually one positive and one negative – can pop into existence, lasting a split second (on the magnitude of .000000000000000000001 second) in what physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. In 1980, Guth put forth an inflationary model that described how a "false vacuum" (ie a peculiar form of matter predicted to exist by many particle physicists) erupted to form our universe: …[I]ts expansion accelerat[ed] exponentially as its repulsive force compounded,[creating] vast quantities of ever-doubling energy, which decayed into a seething plasma of particles such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. As the early universe went along doubling every microsecond, the stuff in it doubled too – out of nowhere. The electrons, positrons, and neutrinos became a sort of hot soup, which 300,000 years later neutralized to form simple atoms. The simple atoms, like hydrogen, helium, and lithium, were ripped apart and crushed together to form more complex, heavier atoms inside stars. Exploded into space by supernovas, they became the matter we see—and are—today." (Brad Lemley, "Guth's Grand Guess", DISCOVER, April 2002, p 36) Andrei Linde of Stanford has used advanced quantum physics based on Guth's inflationary model to take this one step further. Linde has used (what he calls the "eternally existing, self-reproducing inflationary universe"), to describe an infinite series of universes created before and after our universe. Brad Lemley of DISCOVER magazine described Linde's model as follows: The multiverse... is like a growing fractal, sprouting inflationary domains that sprout more inflationary domains, with each domain spreading and cooling into a new universe. If Linde is correct, our universe is just one of the sprouts. The theory neatly straddles two ancient ideas about the origin of our universe: that it had a definite beginning, and that it has existed forever. In Linde's view, each particular part of the multiverse, including our part, began from a singularity somewhere in the past, but that singularity was just one of an endless series that was spawned before it and will continue after it. (Brad Lemley, "MULTIPLE Universes - Is ours the only ONE with life?" DISCOVER MAGAZINE, November 2001) Alan Guth agrees that Linde's model is not only possible, it seems like a sure thing. Guth wrote in his 1997 book, THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE, how "any cosmological theory that does not lead to the eternal reproduction of universes will be considered as unimaginable as a species of bacteria that cannot reproduce." (Lemley, IBID, p 38. Note: I did not quote the first sentence above as it comes from Lemley not Guth.) The multi-universe idea is not a new concept: In the late 1700's, the philosopher David Hume mused that other universes might have been "botched and bungled, through eternity, ere this system." The same idea applies: that only a tiny fraction of universes, including ours, happens to be set at the values required for life Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal and author of the book JUST SIX NUMBERS (see footnote (2) below) is a proponent of Linde's model for a multi- universe. Rees argues that if our universe was built by a divine creator, rather than through randomness, we should see more elegance (or less "ugliness and complexity") in other physics constants. For example, per Rees, a divine intelligence would probably have chosen a perfect circle for Earth's orbit, as opposed to its actual elliptical shape. Another example given by Rees is that the antigravity constant is just a smidgen above zero. Of course, assuming Linde's model holds up (Rees speculates there might be ways of testing this theory within this century) then this means the universe is about a zillion times larger, not to mention "weirder" than almost anyone had ever conceived of. Interestingly, the principle of "Ockham's razor" was invoked by scientists (such as Galileo) during the Renaissance when their equations were simpler and more elegant than the muddled abstract logic of philosophers. William of Ockham's famous "Razor" principle states that the simplest, most direct explanation that accords with the evidence is usually the best solution-as opposed to the abstract constructs of earlier philosophers. It is potentially an interesting turn of tables - because to explain the universe without a divine cause, scientific models are becoming far more complex and strange. Ockham's Razor doesn't prove the true nature of the universe, of course (assuming you're not into metaphysics) for quantum mechanics has shown that matter at the microscopic level is already complex and "weird"-with its leptons and quarks. Still, a "purist's" application of Ockham's Razor would surely favor a "creator" behind the curtain - as the simplest solution to the origin of the universe! The "Problem" of Evil Even religious philosophers have, at times, admitted that the Problem of Evil can negate the Arguments from Design. The issue is this: Why would an all- powerful and all-good Creator allow the terrible tortures, persecutions, and wars--many done in "His" name--to have occurred throughout the annals of history? This argument was known to the ancient Greeks (although it was not popular then either). Lucretius argued if the earth was created by an all- powerful and good God, why do we see such imperfections in the world: "Had God designed the world, it would not be a World so frail and faulty as we see." Many religious groups have come up with varying solutions to resolve the Philosopher's Paradox of how an all-good, all-powerful Being could ALSO allow the presence of evil and suffering in the world. (Proposed solutions have included: perhaps God is not all-good; maybe God is not all-powerful, or alternatively-- maybe suffering is an illusion, or this is still the "best" of all possible worlds. See Section VI, Chapter 1 for a detailed discussion on this topic.) III. Argument from Form (The "Ontological" Argument) A third traditional argument for the existence of God was first formulated by St. Anselm during the Middle Ages in the eleventh century C.E. Although held out as a rational argument, it does not enjoy the respect and popularity of the other two arguments above, for reasons that will be explained below: According to St. Anselm, God's existence is proved as follows: (1) By definition, God is "an absolutely perfect being". (2) A "perfect" being MUST have the qualities of "existence"--or else it would not be a perfect being. (3) Any other concept can be conceived as non-existent--but the concept of an absolutely perfect being, implies existence by its very definition. Per Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which a greater cannot be thought, but You are also something greater than can be thought. For since such a being can be thought to exist, if You are not this being, then something greater than You can be thought--which is impossible." (Proslogion, 1100) Anselm's Argument from Form was NOT very convincing even in his day: St. Thomas Aquinas rejected Anselm's Argument, stating that it did not prove that God existed--except "only in the intellect". (As we have seen above, Aquinas favored his own, more rational proofs for the existence of God.) The monk Gaunilon, a contemporary of Anselm, criticized Anselm's theory on two fronts: (1) Using Aristotle's argument that our ideas arise out of our experience, it followed that the idea of a "most perfect" God has no foundation in our experience. And (2) the mere presence of an idea in our mind is no proof that it really exists. Gaunilo argued for example that the image of a "perfect" island does not prove that it "has" to exist. Anselm countered that his argument could ONLY be applied to God, and nothing else--as only the concept of God occurs universally in humans! Centuries later, the French philosopher Descartes deduced the existence of God using a variation of Anselm's Ontological argument. First Descartes philosophically "proved" his own existence based on his self awareness of the activity of his mind in thinking.("Cognito, ergo sum"--"I think, therefore I am".) Secondly, Descartes argued that when we doubt, we are faced with the limitations of our human ego. It followed from this, that we could have this idea of "imperfection"-- ONLY if we had a previous innate idea of "perfection". Like Anselm, Descartes concluded that it is a contradiction of terms to state that a perfect being could not also have existence. Therefore, our previous conception of perfection "proves" that there must be a God who exists. There have been numerous problems with the ontological proof. The presence of atheists and agnostics who claim they do not possess an innate impression of God, is of course one difficulty. The fact that no one can prove they have physically "seen" God, has been invoked by others. As Voltaire once put it, "All men are born with a nose and ten fingers, but no one was born with a knowledge of God." The skeptic, David Hume, effectively quashed the Ontological Argument's premise with the following rebuttal: "It is still "possible for us, at any time, to conceive the nonexistence of what we formerly conceived to exist". "Any particle of matter... may be CONCEIVED to be annihilated; and any form may be CONCEIVED to be altered. Such an annihilation or alteration, therefore is not impossible." (Hume quoting Dr. Clarke). Thus, according to Hume, one should be able to apply this argument equally to the existence of God-or likewise, "That the human mind can imagine Him to be non-existent or his attributes altered." IV. Argument from Utility (The "Moral" Argument) Immanuel Kant advanced the "Moral" argument as a proof for God. To Kant, the cosmological, teleological, and ontological proofs were not conclusive in "proving" God's existence. First, the ontological proof was "taken from judgments, not from things and their existence." Kant showed how the proofs on existence were based on poor constructions of logic. (As an analogy, the ontological argument falsely assumes the sentences "If birds exist, they must fly" and "if birds exist, they must exist" are both valid constructions. But in fact, the latter statement only repeats itself--ie is a tautology. Kant showed that the flaw was in assuming that the word "exists" is a predicate, or characteristic of the subject.) Kant showed how one could apply the SAME proofs used in the past by eminent philosophers, to ALSO "prove" the opposite premise-- that God did NOT exist. This meant that the earlier philosophical proofs for the existence of God were just a GAME WITH WORDS! Regarding the cosmological argument, although this argument begins within the realm of our sensory experience, it ends with the IDEA of a first cause or creator who is not directly experienced by everyone. This raises the same problems as the ontological argument-- ie making the grand leap from the "idea" of a perfect being, to demonstrating proof of His existence. Regarding the teleological argument, Kant agreed that there are some elements within nature that would seem to point to a divine design--such as symmetry, beauty, and unity. However, there were other elements which would tend to disprove a divine design. Specifically, Kant pointed to how, in nature, there are examples of mistakes and waste, of useless repetition and duplication--not to mention the vast suffering and death, that can be seen operating within nature. Kant did NOT believe that the old proofs DISPROVED the existence of God-- Only that they were not absolute or convincing PROOFS for the existence of God. Kant instead reintroduced a new proof demonstrating God's existence--one based on the universal standard of morality found in all humans. To Kant, the existence of human morality presupposes a God as its source, who defines what is good vs. evil. Belief in God is therefore justified for moral reasons. Per Kant: "...our conviction in these matters [the existence of God and heaven] is not LOGICAL, but MORAL certainty; and, inasmuch as it rests upon subjective grounds (of moral disposition), I must not even say IT IS morally certain, and so on. That is to say, the belief in a God and in another world is so interwoven with my moral nature that the former can no more vanish than the latter can ever be torn from me." Kant acknowledged that his moral proof cannot be considered an absolute proof for the existence of God. Still, he believed that it was reasonable to believe that this argument pointed to a divine being: "moral argument does not supply any objective- valid proof of the being of God; it does not prove to the skeptic that there is a God, but proves that if he wishes to think in a way consonant with morality, he must admit the assumption of this proposition [there is a God] under the maxims of his Practical Reason." (see T.M. Green, ed KANT SELECTIONS (New York: Scribners, 1957), p 514) There is a major difficulty with Kant's moral proof: While it is true that many religions are based on general common ethics based on kindness to our neighbor and social prohibitions against stealing--many other DETAILS of morality are VERY different across cultures of the world. As one example, religious adherents have had different views on slavery over time - with each side insisting they had biblical authority AND feelings of moral justice to justify THEIR position. (This issue is taken up in detail, under the section "Ethics"--Section VI, Chapters 3 and 4. Also see, Section V, Chapter 17 on the history of slavery.) V. Religious "Feelings" For God Although not a formal "proof" on the existence of God, a widespread argument for God's existence comes from one's FEELINGS that there MUST be some all- powerful guiding force that watches over the universe. This way of defending religious belief was used by Rousseau, although it was later picked up by many Protestant theologians. (3) William James and others, further developed this theme to argue that because all normal people have religious experiences, and that an individual's personal experience of God can made a powerful impact on their way of living--then this pragmatically proves God's existence. This is a powerful argument that has been taken up by almost every religious group, (especially as the classical proofs for God's existence came under attack by later philosophers.) There have been numerous documented accounts whereby believers FEEL a powerful change has taken hold over them -and have subsequently made a DRAMATIC change in their lives and live styles-- for example, giving up drugs, alcohol, or crime! Critics (both theists and non-theists) argue that this is a vague and inconsistent proof. Although it is true one's beliefs can change lives, this "conversion" effect has been documented within most religious groups - including fringe cults, such as the Moonies. People have also found strong "causes" outside of religion that inspire them-- in the arts, music, sciences, or philosophy. Sometimes people who are "inspired" by religion became religious fanatics-ready to kill innocent people in the name of their God. Wars have been fought over religion (Crusades, Catholic/Protestant wars), with each believers on both side absolutely convinced they were piously following their hearts and souls in trying to slaughter the other. Why, skeptics ask, have sincere and passionate individuals, done so much evil in the name of God? And why wouldn't an active personal God speak to their hearts, and straighten them out! The Bible speaks of God hardening hearts (such as Pharaoh in Egypt against Moses), but why would an all-good deity not intervene to soften hearts. The Arab terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center building is one example: The terrorists were convinced they were following Allah's will and would wake up in heaven for a reward for their terrorism. And there was no external sign that would indicate a God was against this. Perhaps it was John Locke who gave the most cogent argument against using our feelings, reminding us that it is a double-edged sword: "if strength of persuasion be the light which must guide us; I ask how shall any one distinguish between the delusions of Satan, and the inspirations of the Holy Ghost?" (Locke, ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, ed., Alexander Campbell Fraser (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894), Vol. II, p. 416,p 429) Thus, while not denying the sincerity and conviction of the religious feelings of most individuals, no one has been able to demonstrate that these feelings were instilled by a divine being -or instead, exist within the boundaries of our human mind. Are Religious Feelings "Natural" or "Psychological" Adjuncts of Being Human? During the nineteenth century, skeptics suggested that feelings of the divine were psychological in nature. The German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach suggested that belief in God represents the individual's highest ideals and aspirations, which have been elevated to a higher plane of meaning. Sigmund Freud hypothesized that belief in God could be understood psychologically from our childhood experiences. We look up and depend on a father figure as children, later transferring this fatherly image to a divine father in the sky as we grow up. Per Freud, "God is at bottom nothing but an exalted father." Recent medical experiments are showing that spiritual feelings are not merely psychological, as Sigmund Freud hypothesized-- but are the result of the NATURAL construction of our human brains. Scientists have taken brain scans of individuals when they were experiencing a moment of transcendence, which religious individuals described as a profound spiritual moment during which they feel a peaceful interconnection with the rest of the universe! The brain scans during these periods of transcendence corresponded to a dramatic reduction of neural activity in the left parietal lobe of the brain, the area of the brain responsible for demarcating the physical self from the rest of the world. With orientation information from the outside world shut off, internal neural information from the person's perception of "self" takes over, producing a feeling of infinite awareness, melting off forever into space. (Interestingly, electromagnetic currents can also trigger an experience on mystical feelings probably due to their effects on this area of the brain. See Section IV, Chapter 3 for an expanded discussion of these studies.) It is a tossup whether this mechanism can be used as a proof for God. Skeptics believe it resulted from the natural evolutionary development of the human brain, and merely represents how one of the brain's components can be turned on or off. (Like their arguments on the nature of the universe - skeptics insist the brain just exists this way.) Theists strongly disagree, inferring that God surely constructed humans in such a way as to experience spiritual yearning and transcendence. There are stories of individuals who were atheists, and later returned to religion to reconnect to this spiritual feeling of transcendence. (See Robert Wakefield as one example, discussed in Section X, Chapter 4.) On the opposite side, Joseph Campbell, an atheist, embraced these spiritual feelings, likening it to the sense of awe or "mystery" experienced by people of all cultures. Campbell would visit Catholic churches or Buddhist monasteries for example, listening to their chants or smelling their incense, in order to participate in those feelings that go straight to the heart. Per Campbell, the reason why he found common themes among religious myths of most cultures around the world is because of this universal yearning for transcendence by humans. VI. Pascal's Wager Pascal's Wager is not a formal "proof" for the existence in God. Instead, it is a form of hedging, based on statistical outcomes, in weighing the consequences of NOT believing in God. According to Pascal, it is impossible to rationally "prove" the existence of God to an unbeliever. Still the consequences of NOT believing far outweigh those of believing in a God who does not really exist. That is, per Pascal there are two possible states: (1) either God exists, or, alternatively (2) God does not exist. Pascal reasoned that in the (unlikely) state that there is no God--it really posed no serious harm for one to FALSELY believe in the existence of God. However, the opposite was NOT true. For if God truly exists, then this mistake has terrible consequences--specifically eternal damnation and suffering in hell! To Pascal, man's best course of action is to HEDGE himself against the future by believing in God! Per Pascal, " We are incapable of knowing either what [God] is or whether he is... Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager?" (Blaise Pascal, PENSES, translated and ed. by A. J. Krailsheimer, London 1966, p 418). Pascal was unquestionably a brilliant statistician. If you agree with the assumptions of his wager, then the wager is mathematically correct. However, as we shall see next, his wager is based on some rather simplistic assumptions, which if not true, quickly brings down the whole theory: Pascal's Wager assumes there are only two states: you either believe in God or not. But what if one believes in God, but worships the God of the "wrong religion"? Many religions (or sects within religions) teach that only believers of their God and doctrine are going to heaven. Therefore, if you believe in God but belong to the "wrong" religion, you could still go to hell. Pascal assumes there is really no harm done if an INDIVIDUAL believes in God - and God did not really exist. But this also assumes every individual is isolated - an island to themselves-without affecting the lives of others and society collectively as a whole. 1. PW ignores the NEGATIVE cost when a person's beliefs in God cause them to be passive (as opposed to active) in improving society-both for the present AND for future generations. Examples of inactivity include investing little in the economy in order to get rewards now (ie give me MY tax cut and I don't care what it does to everyone else - that's "God's" problem!), allowing pollution (for the same reason), and passive disregard for the disadvantaged and poor. Of course where belief in God activates them to be active towards helping society, this adds POSITIVE reasons for believing! 2. PW ignores the NEGATIVE cost to society from religious fanatics trying to impose their view on society, sometimes through violence. Examples would include destroying property, slaughtering innocent people (the WTC terrorist attack on Sept 11, was just one example), and opposing democratic ideals in a open society. (Atheistic communists in Russia and China have ideologues that have displayed the same fanaticism as their religious counterparts. It has been argued that the ideology of communism is just another form of religion--albeit one with principles and cosmic processes, instead of a personal deity. Still communist fanatics would technically fall under "disbelief" per Pascal's definition of God and would therefore be a POSITIVE reason for belief in his model.) Theists generally maintain that belief in God makes one more moral. However, this has been hard to quantify. Studies generally have not shown a higher proportion of atheists in prison than theists. Studies on divorce do not see higher rates among atheists than the rest of the population. (Interestingly one religious study showed that charismatic Christians had the highest divorce rates of all groups.) Theists probably have a point that atheists are more responsible than theists for "Western decadence" in the media. Still generalities are difficult even here, because one can find religious people who are alcoholics and rapists and atheists who live as modestly as any Puritan; not to mention a lot of people falling in-between the two extremes. Pascal's Wager assumes God rewards individuals based on belief in His existence, rather than for good deeds or a good heart. That is, Pascal assumes the "conservative Christian" version of God exists- a God who DEMANDS mankind to have FAITH in His existence--else He will evoke divine vengeance by condemning them to eternal tortures in Hell! One might question why an omnipotent and benevolent deity would be consumed with a person's honest disbelief - especially when God could presumably "will" belief at any moment. (Of course, it makes perfect sense why ancient priests interpreting "God's Will would demand unquestioning faith - ie, to maintain power and control over their flock.) There are some individuals (Unitarians are one example) who believe in a spiritual, but abstract creator, and view universal truths as being present in various degrees in all religions. Such individuals are less likely to believe in a God who sends people to hell ONLY for disbelief. That is, for these individuals, the basic assumptions of Pascal's Wager do not even apply. Conclusion Although there have been a number of philosophical attempts to prove the existence of God, none of these have been successful in definitively proving (nor disproving) God's existence. The skeptic would argue that it's more economical (in scientific terms) to suspend belief in God, since the concept of God is so difficult to prove and understand (at least in a way where everyone agrees). Therefore, the burden of proof should rest with the believer--just as it does with any other logical construct that cannot be 100% proven nor disproven (including the existence of fairies, space aliens, and Santa Claus.) However, the believer would answer back that the spectacular and exquisite beauty of life, not to mention the feeling of security and comfort faith has given to entire communities, should presuppose belief in the existence of a God. So we end back almost where we started from-full circle-with no consensus in sight. This means, that until such time as the skies open forth and a divine being descends from the heavens -- one must begin their personal quest of philosophy with a presupposition that (1) "God exists" or alternatively, (2) "God does not exist". Still, perhaps it is not where one begins the quest that is so important--but rather the journey itself, and the deeper understanding and spiritual enrichment one experiences along the way... ________________________________________________________________________ Notes: (1) Francisco J. Ayala (Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) has demonstrated using the example of the colon bacterium Escherichia coli, (which multiplies at the rate of about a billion times in a few hours) how natural selection can make a culture of several billion bacteria resistant to streptomycin plus multiply without the growth factor histidine (two independent selective criteria) in less than half a day. He estimates the probability of these mutational events occurring naturally in the same bacteria culture at about 4 in ten million billion (ie about 4 X 10 E- 16). (2) In his book, JUST SIX NUMBERS, Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal, argued that six numbers underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe and that these six numbers is set precisely at a value necessary to permit life (such as ours) to exist. The six forces identified by Rees are (1) the force that binds atomic nuclei together, (2) the ratio of force that holds atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. (3) the density of material in the universe, (4) the strength of a force described as cosmic antigravity, (5) the amplitude of complex irregularities or ripples in the expanding universe, and (6) the number of spatial dimensions in our universe - three. Why is this so important? As Rees puts it, "These six numbers constitute a recipe for the universe." If any one of theses numbers were different, "even to the tiniest degree, there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life." To set all these values within the range that permits life such as we find it in our universe, is astronomically huge! (3)Prior to Rousseau, philosophers from Plato onwards, generally felt it their duty to justify belief in God's existence through intellectual proofs. However, with the influence of Romanticism, belief was now justified through "emotions of awe or mystery, the sense of right and wrong, the feeling of aspiration, and so on." (Bertrand Russell, HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY, p 691).