blogs.glowscotland.org.uk · web view4 before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, o...

Department of Philosophy & RMEOban High School

Philosophy & Belief

Unit 1

The Existence of God

Intermediate 1 / 2Religious, Moral andPhilosophical Studies

David Berry

Contents

Introduction 1

Section 1: The cosmological argument 9St Thomas Aquinas 10Questions 12

Section 2: Does the cosmological argument work? 13The big bang 13Bertrand Russell 14Has the cosmological argument been defeated? 15Questions 16

Section 3: The teleological argument 17The complexity of the universe 17William Paley 19St Thomas Aquinas 20Questions 22

Section 4: Does the teleological argument work? 24David Hume 24The theory of evolution 25Has the design argument been defeated? 26Questions 27

Section 5: The problem of evil and suffering 28Moral evil 28Natural evil 30Questions 33

Section 6: Does evil and suffering show that there is no God? 34Genesis 34The freewill defence 35Other religious responses 37– The crucifixion 37– Life after death 37Questions 39

Section 7: Does God exist? 41Quotations 41Questions 42

Appendices1: Aristotle’s four causes 43

2: The anthropic argument 44 3: Moral responsibility, personal maturity and strength of character 45

Bibliography 46

The Existence of God Page 1

Steven Law

Ben Elton

Sir Isaac Newton

Introduction

Do you believe in God?

Some people may immediately answer this question with a resounding ‘no’. Others will say confidently ‘yes’ and others still will say ‘I’m not sure’. If this same question is asked of anything else that exists in the world it’s highly unlikely that any answers will be forthcoming! It would obviously make little sense to try to engage a cow with questions about God.

A cow is probably only really aware of its immediate surroundings. Humans, however, are very different. We are not only aware of immediate experiences like hunger, tiredness, etc., we can also think about our past, and even consider what will happen in the future. Humans also appear to have the unique ability to appreciate beautiful scenic views and enjoy music. It’s highly unlikely that any cow has ever spent much time thinking about its origins or its long-term future. It’s equally unlikely that it enjoys listening to Mozart or that it notices the beauty of the countryside. And it’s almost certain that no cow has ever considered the possible existence of a supernatural being.

The search for the existence of God says something very profound (thoughtful, reflective, philosophical) about humans.


Still the question remains whether there is any more reason to believe in God than there is to believe that Elvis lives. Are those who believe in God any better justified? The answer, perhaps, is that they are not.

I don’t believe in an old man with a grey beard.

Were there no other evidence at all, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.

Introduction

‘How did the universe come into being?’

‘How did I come to exist?’

‘What is the purpose of life?’

‘Is there life after death?’

‘Is there a God?’

The first step: understanding what you’re looking for

Before you begin trying to prove that anything exists the first key thing you must do is establish exactly what it is you’re looking for. The modern day philosopher Peter Vardy makes this point by explaining that if you were asked to go on an expedition to find an aardvark you should first make sure that you know what an aardvark is. If you don’t then no matter how hard you try you’re simply not going to find one! The starting point of this course must first be to establish what most people who believe in God have in mind when they talk about God. To do this you must make every effort to consider what the philosophers and theologians mean(t) when they talk(ed) about God.

One of the obvious problems we have when we talk about belief in God is that it’s very difficult to try to express anything at all about God. Most people who believe in God accept that God is a mystery who is beyond our understanding. The Jewish hero Job states:

Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the almighty? (Job 11:7)

One of the great Christian theologians was a man named St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274AD). He was keen to point out that we have to be very careful when we use any words to describe God. He thought that God was so radically different from anything that exists in the world that knowing anything for certain about the true nature of God was almost impossible. He did however believe, as we will see later, that we can know that God exists. Aquinas suggested that the only way we can talk about God is by using analogous language. This simply means that when people talk about God they often compare ‘him’ with familiar objects or ideas. Aquinas thought that the words we use never describe God exactly as s/he is but rather they correspond to what s/he may be like. One common way to express ideas about God is by using metaphors.


I think therefore

I am

Introduction

Definition: A metaphor is a tool used in language when a comparison is made between two things, based on resemblance or similarity, without using ‘like’ or ‘as’.

Sacred religious writings are full of metaphorical expressions about God. If we understood these references literally then we would have a very strange picture of God indeed.

Look closely at each of the descriptions of God found in various parts of the Bible.

God has measured the waters in the hollow of his hands and places the heavens between his thumb and his little finger.

Isaiah 40:12

He [God] will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge.

Psalm 91:2, 4

I love the Lord, for he heard my voice; he heard my cry for mercy. Because he turned his ear to me I will call on him as long as I live.

Psalm 116:1, 2

The writer doesn’t actually think that God has huge hands, feathers and an ear.

DiscussWhat ideas are being expressed in each of these three references above?

In the Christian religion people have also attempted to express ideas about God in great works of art. This is not common to all religions. Islam, for example, strictly forbids any attempt to produce an image of God because of the danger of misrepresenting God. Some Protestant Christians are also uncomfortable with any attempt to produce an image of God.

The great artist Michelangelo produced some of the most famous paintings of God. Some of these can be found in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, Rome. (See powerpoint presentation).

Further images can be downloaded from the web site: www.christusrex.org


Introduction

Any painting of God should also be understood as being metaphorical. When Michelangelo painted God in this way he wasn’t trying to suggest that God actually looks like this. He was trying, rather, to express ideas about God’s nature.

It’s very important to take time to recognise that philosophers and theologians do not think that God is ‘an old man with a long grey beard who lives in the clouds’.

The writers that you’re going to study were NOT trying to find a superman-type figure, who had arms and legs, a long beard and is incredibly muscular. The God we are interested in is essentially a spiritual being that is radically different from anything physical that we can see. Although many theologians disagree about the nature of God, we mostly tend to think about God in very traditional terms. The following characteristics are probably those that have been the most popular ways of considering God.

God is a being who is:

• Radically different from anything that exists in the physical universe (spiritual not physical).

• Omniscient (all knowing)• Omnipresent (present everywhere)• Omnipotent (all powerful)• Eternal (was not created but has always and will always exist)• Benevolent (good/loving)

The following Biblical references express other ideas about God. See if you can match them to the key ideas about God listed above.

New International Version – UK. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

1 John 4:7 God's Love and Ours Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

Luke 12:7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

Job 26:12-14 12 By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.13 By his breath the skies became fair; his hand pierced the gliding serpent.14 And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?


Introduction

Psalm 139:1-41 O LORD, you have searched me and you know me.2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD.

Exodus 34:6And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,

Psalm 145:5-6 5 They will speak of the glorious splendour of your majesty, and I will meditate on your wonderful works.6 They will tell of the power of your awesome works, and I will proclaim your great deeds.

Summary – Introduction

Thinking about the existence of God is something that shows that humans are very different from everything else that exists in the world.

When people speak about God they use metaphors because God is a mystery.

Theologians and philosophers don’t think that God is a man with a long beard.

In this course we will assume that if God exists s/he is a spirit who is:

• Omniscient• Omnipresent• Omnipotent• Eternal • Benevolent.

In this course you will study two arguments that have persuaded many people that there must be a God. You will also study one argument that has persuaded many people that God doesn’t exist. These arguments are:

1. The Cosmological Argument

2. The Teleological Argument (more commonly known as the design argument)

3. The Problem of Evil and Suffering


√

√

√

√

Questions1. Why do you think humans think about the possible existence of God?

2. Why is it difficult to know anything about God?

3. Explain what type of language St. Thomas Aquinas said people use when they write about God.

4. Look at the following song lyric: ‘Why does it always rain on me?; Is it because I lied when I was 17? ; why does it always rain on me?; even when the sun is shinning I can't avoid the lightning ’ (Travis)

The writer is using metaphorical language. Try to explain what idea he is trying to express.

5. Look carefully at the ideas expressed about God in the following Biblical references;

(a) Job 11:7 Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?

(b) Isaiah 40:12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?

(c) Psalm 91:2-4 2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence.4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; hisfaithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

(d) Psalm 116:1-21 I love the LORD, for he heard my voice; he heard my cry for mercy.2 Because he turned his ear to me, I will call on him as long as I live.

Try to write a paragraph about God based on these ideas. Remember that the writer isusing metaphorical language.


Questions

6. You have seen some of Michelangelo’s paintings of God.

(a) Do you think God is really a strong man with a long white beard? (Explain your answer.)

(b) What ideas are being expressed in the paintings you have located? Copy and complete the chart below.

Metaphorical Image Idea Being Expressed about God

• Muscles

• Male

• Long White Beard

7. Copy and complete the following sentences:

‘When philosophers and theologians talk about God they are not thinking about …’

‘When philosophers and theologians talk about God they are thinking about …’


Section 1

The Cosmological Argument

Religious belief: God is the creator of the universe: Without God there would be nothing.

The great advantage that this argument has is that it begins with a statement that nobody can seriously doubt. It begins with the simple FACT that there is a universe.

Consider the following information:

• Our galaxy (A galaxy is a ‘cluster of stars’. The universe is made up largely of emptiness. However, in various parts of the universe there are large groups of stars that are ‘relatively’ close together), the Milky Way, contains about 400 billion stars.

• The largest galaxies in the universe contain about 1000 billion stars.

• There are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe.

• The furthest parts of the universe are about 15 billion light years away.

Have you ever wondered why all this exists? It’s perfectly possible that nothing should exist at all. But, the fact is, the universe does exist.

Discuss‘Why does something exist rather than nothing?’

The cosmological argument is perhaps the simplest of all the traditional arguments for the existence of God. It tries to show that there is a God from the bare fact that the universe exists.


The Cosmological Argument

The argument predates Christianity and has been presented by some hugely significant thinkers in many different forms throughout the centuries:

Ancient Greek philosophers (e.g. Aristotle and Plato) Christian theologians (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas, Father Frederick Copleston) Jewish theologians (e.g. Maimonides) Islamic theologians (e.g. the Kalam argument presented by, among others, al-

Ghazali).

St Thomas Aquinas

Probably the most famous advocate of the cosmological argument was St Thomas Aquinas (1225–74AD). He presented five ways to prove that God existed in a book known as Summa Theologica. Three of these explanations were forms of the cosmological argument. We will briefly look at them.

The argument from the ‘Uncaused Cause’

• Everything has a cause.• Every cause has a cause.• This cannot go back forever.• Therefore there must be an uncaused cause that isn’t caused.• The uncaused cause is what people understand by ‘God’.

Think about yourself ... What caused you? You obviously did not bring yourself into existence; you are the effect of your parents and your parents are the effect of their parents, and so on. However, to fully explain your cause you will need to go back much further than your near relations. Even if you could trace your family line back hundreds of years you would still have only partly explained where you came from. In order to fully answer the question you would need to explain where all humans came from. To then explain the cause of the human race you would then need to find out when and how the earth came into existence; explain the origins of our solar system; understand the history of our galaxy, etc. Your attempt to fully answer the question, ‘What caused you?’ will eventually lead you right back to the very beginning of the universe itself.


The Cosmological ArgumentAquinas was pointing out that behind everything there must be a huge chain of causes that goes back and back in time. He believed that it doesn’t make any sense to say that this chain goes back and back forever. The whole thing must have started at some point. Aquinas believed that there must have been something that started off the chain of cause and effect. He felt that the only possible answer was God, the uncaused cause.

The argument from the Unmoved Mover

Everything thing that moves is moved by something That mover has been moved by something else This cannot go back forever or movement wouldn’t have started at all Therefore, there must be an unmoved mover, which isn’t itself moved This unmoved mover is what people understand as God

Aquinas is trying to show that movement is about life and change. He argues that it is impossible for anything to move without an original mover who was not moved by anything else. Everything in the Universe moves: stars (suns), planets and everything on those planets. Can a coin really start to flick itself into the air and start spinning? No, something needs to start the process. He felt that the only possible answer was God, the unmoved mover.

The argument from possibility and necessity

Individual things come into existence and eventually cease to exist Therefore, at one time none of them existed But, something only comes into existence as a result of something that already

exists Therefore, there must be a being who has to exist – a necessary being – God

Aquinas is trying to show that all things depend on something else to exist. We do. We needed our parents to bring us into existence. They also needed their parents to exist. This chain cannot go back forever. Aquinas believes that everything in the universe is contingent – this simply means that everything relies upon something else to exist. So, this cannot go back forever, there must be something that is not contingent – something that doesn’t rely on anything else. This being would need to be necessary – unique, different and very special. He thinks that only possible answer is God, the necessary being.


The Leibniz Version

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) added to the argument by asking

Why does anything exist at all? Why do the things that do exist have the form or shape that they do?

Leibniz was trying to point out that there must be some sort of reason for existence and that something must have decided on the forms of existence – a creator. He also thinks, like Aquinas, that the creator cannot be created by anything else. There must be a first creator (first cause) and that can only be God.

Summary – The cosmological argument

People believe that God is the creator of everything that exists.

People believe that without God, nothing would exist.

People believe in God because of the simple fact that there is a universe.

The most famous advocate of the cosmological argument was a theologian called St Thomas Aquinas (1225–74AD).

Aquinas believed that behind everything there is a huge chain of causes that can be traced back to the beginning of the universe.

He said that it doesn’t make sense to say that this chain never ends so he concluded that there must be an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover and a necessary being at the start.

Aquinas called the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover and the necessary being God.


√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Questions

1. What simple fact is the starting point for the cosmological argument for the existence of God?

2. List some of the people that have presented a form of the cosmological argument.

3. Write a very short paragraph about St Thomas Aquinas. Make sure that you mention the following points:

(a) When was he alive?(b) What religion was he?(c) In how many different ways did he try to prove that God existed?(d) In what book did he present these arguments for God’s existence?

4. What would you say if someone asked you the question, what caused you? Make sure you try to give a full explanation.

5. Why did Aquinas call God the uncaused cause?

6. Try to explain in your own words Aquinas’s argument from the ‘uncaused cause’.

7. Why did Aquinas call God the unmoved mover?

8. Explain in your own words Aquinas’s argument from the ‘unmoved mover’.

9. Explain in your words what Aquinas meant by the terms ‘contingent’ and ‘necessary’ and how this applies to the argument from possibility and necessity.

10. Read carefully the following paraphrase from Aquinas’s Third Way:

Assume that at one time there was nothing. It is clear that nothing can come from nothing. If, therefore, there was once nothing, even now there would be nothing. The universe cannot therefore have come into existence from nothing unless something brought it into existence.

However, we know that the universe now exists. If God, or something equivalent in terms of power, does not exist then the universe must always have existed since, if it was not created, it could not have come into existence of its own accord from nothing.

Try to explain in your own words what Aquinas was trying to express. Keep your answer fairly brief.


Section 2

Does the cosmological argument work?

Many people find the cosmological argument very appealing. It certainly raises some interesting questions for scientists to grapple with. However, not everyone is convinced.

The Big BangIn recent years scientists have proposed the theory of the Big Bang in an attempt to explain how the universe came about. The idea was first talked about by a Belgian priest-scholar called Georges Lemaître in the 1920s. However, it wasn’t really thought of as a serious scientific idea until the mid-1960s. Two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, accidentally discovered evidence that a huge explosion must have taken place at some point in the early history of the universe. This seemed to confirm Lemaître’s idea that the universe exploded into existence. It is now thought that this event took place between 12 to15 billion years ago. The order of events goes something like this:

The universe explodes into existence.

Immediately after the Big Bang the universe was thought to be smaller than the nucleus of an atom.

A millisecond later the universe had expanded to the size of the sun.

A few minutes after the Big Bang the first hydrogen and helium atoms were formed.

Gradually these atoms then formed into gases which eventually would become the stars and all matter that we can see.

Everything that now exists in the universe could be thought of as debris from the bang.

What actually ‘exploded’ is difficult to say. One common way to try to explain it is to imagine squeezing everything that presently exists into a tiny, almost unimaginably small space. This space is thought to be about a billion times smaller than the size of a proton. Given that about 500 billion protons can fit into the dot on this letter ‘i’, this is clearly a pretty small space! It is so small that it has been called the ‘point of infinite density’. Others say that just before the explosion there was nothing but energy. What certainly didn’t happen was that two stars collided or some molecules bumped into each other causing the explosion. The Big Bang is thought to have created everything that exists. Some even simply say that there was nothing and then there was something.


Many people think that this scientific theory takes away the need for a creator God. It is suggested that everything, even time itself, began at this point.


Does the cosmological argument work?

Bertrand RussellMany philosophers have also challenged the cosmological argument. As well as talking about scientific explanations like the Big Bang, they also comment on the logic of the argument itself. One such famous critic was the English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970). He made two key criticisms.

Criticism one – What caused God?

Many people point out that the cosmological argument appears to contradict itself. Look at the following quote from Bertrand Russell:

‘If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God …’

Russell was pointing out that if you start by saying that everything needs a cause then maybe it’s not fair to then say, ‘everything that is except God’. You may feel like simply asking, ‘What caused God?’ (This is known as the schoolboy objection).

Russell was also suggesting that it’s perfectly possible that the universe may not in fact have had a cause at all. The universe could well be stretch back forever. He thought that just because every human has a mother it is just not possible to say that the human race needs a mother. He suggested that when people say that the universe must have had a beginning they simply lack imagination. Russell believed that just because we can’t get our heads around an idea – that the universe doesn’t need a cause – doesn’t mean it cannot be true.

Criticism two – How can we ever know that the universe needs a cause?

Russell’s most famous comment on this argument came in a radio debate with another English philosopher, Fredrick Copleston. Russell said that we cannot ever know the answer to questions about the origins of the universe. The only thing that we know for sure is that the universe exists and there is no proof either way. He thought it was just as likely that the universe has always existed; as it is that it could appear out of nothing.

‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all’

Russell was following in the tradition of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume had said in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in 1777) that we have no right saying confidently that the universe as a whole needs a cause. We can say that everything in the universe appears to have a cause because we have The Existence of God Page 16

observed this in our experience. However, the creation of the universe was clearly a unique event. It was also an event that didn’t have any observers! Because no one was there to watch the event unfold we simply can’t ever know whether it needed a cause or not. Hume would have almost certainly liked Russell’s conclusion, that all we can say is that the existence of the universe is a brute fact.

A scientific rejection of the Cosmological Argument

Aquinas believes that the universe needs a first cause but is this necessarily true?The theory of quantum physics seems to suggest that it may not be! Quantum physics deals with structures at the sub-atomic level where particles and atoms are very small and very unpredictable. Niels Bohr has tried to show that things can come into existence without any apparent cause – they simply appear out of nothing. Bohr claims if some things can appear from nothing then why not other things. Maybe the Big Bang had no cause and the universe came into existence through the Big Bang. If this theory is true then the Cosmological Argument is in real trouble as there is no need of a first cause.

Has the cosmological argument been defeated?People who like the argument will point out in response that there is a key difference between God and the universe. People believe that God is spiritual in nature whereas the universe is clearly made up of physical objects. It makes sense to ask what caused the universe because everything in the universe appears to need a cause. Maybe, however, spiritual realities don’t need to be caused. If given a choice between believing that a physical thing (the universe) has always existed, or believing that a spiritual thing (God) has always existed, many will go with God.

DiscussWhat do you think caused the Big Bang?

Some people think that the Big Bang actually helps the case for God. This is because it suggests that the universe had a definite starting point. Why it started in the first place was really the question that persuaded Aquinas that God must have been its cause.

Frederick Copleston also responded in the radio debate by suggesting that Russell was simply not facing up to the problem. If you conclude that things ‘just are’ and that they don’t need an explanation then you are simply avoiding the issue. Or, to use Copleston’s metaphor, refusing to ‘sit down at the chess board’.


Peter Vardy, like Leibniz, suggests that the success of the argument depends on your willingness to ask the question, ‘Why is there a universe?’ If you’re not willing to ask this question, the position Russell appears to take then the argument won’t even get started. If, however, you’re more inclined to ask the question then maybe the cosmological argument does succeed in at least posing some difficult questions about the origins of the universe. However, if Niels Bohr is correct about quantum physics then these questions might not matter any more as the universe may not need a cause!

‘The Schoolboy Objection’

Some people think that this is not really a good objection to the cosmological argument. If God is a necessary being then the question ‘what caused God’ is not important. This is because God, by definition, does not need a cause as He is not contingent and so doesn’t need a cause. A Necessary being cannot be created.

‘Does the Universe need a cause?’

Well, yes – according to some people. We should always try to answer questions in the simplest way possible. Both Hume and Russell are trying to answer the question by introducing new questions – questions that are equally difficult to answer. It is much easier to simply assume there must be a first cause for the universe and that this cause was indeed God. This principle of keeping things simple was put forward by William of Ockham in the 14th century and is known as Ockham’s Razor.

Summary – Does the cosmological argument work?

The theory of the Big Bang is often thought of as the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

Niels Bohr argues it is possible for things not to have a cause

Bertrand Russell said that the cosmological argument contradicts itself because if everything must have a cause then so must God.

David Hume said that we could never know that God caused the universe because nobody was there to witness this unique event.

Bertrand Russell also said that all we can ever say for sure is that the universe is a brute fact.

Copleston said that these criticisms are simply attempts to avoid the issue.

The Big Bang can also be used as an argument for God’s existence.


The ‘Schoolboy Objection’ doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘Necessary Being’

Ockham’s Razor seems to suggest we should accept the simplest explanation

Questions1. Try to explain in your own words the theory of the Big Bang. You will not need to

write a lot about this in your exam so make sure your answer is no more than a fairly short paragraph.

2. What does Niels Bohr think about the beginning of the Universe?

3. Do you think the theory of the Big Bang shows that we don’t need God as an explanation for the existence of the universe? Explain your answer.

4. Why did Bertrand Russell say that the cosmological argument appears to contradict itself? Do you agree with him? Explain your answer while bearing in mind the response to the ‘Schoolboy Objection’.

5. Why do you think Bertrand Russell said, ‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all’? Explain your answer.

5. Do you agree with Fredrick Copleston that Russell is simply avoiding the question?

6. Why did David Hume say that we could never know whether the universe had a cause? Do you think that this is a good reason to say that the cosmological argument doesn’t work? Explain your answer bearing in mind Ockham’s Razor.

7. Look again at the Aquinas’s quote below:

Assume that at one time there was nothing. It is clear that nothing can come from nothing. If, therefore, there were once nothing, even now there would be nothing. The universe cannot, therefore have come into existence from nothing unless something brought it into existence.

However, we know that the universe now exists. If God, or something equivalent in terms of power, does not exist then the universe must always have existed since, if it


was not created, it could not have come into existence of its own accord from nothing.

(a) Do you believe that the universe has always existed or do you prefer to think that God has always existed? Explain your answer.

(b) Do you think that it’s possible for the universe to come into existence of its own accord from nothing? Explain your answer.

8. Why do some people say that the Big Bang is actually evidence in favour of the cosmological argument? Do you agree with them?

Does the cosmological argument persuade you that God exists? Create a mind map that shows the Cosmological Argument in full. Use this to include the Argument, the objections to the argument and responses to the objections. The structure of the argument should take into account the following points

A full description of the Cosmological Argument put forward by Aquinas (all three forms)

Leibniz version of the Cosmological Argument

Contingent and necessary beings

The Big Bang Theory and the theory of Niels Bohr

The objections of Hume and Russell

Responses to Hume and Russell

Your conclusion based on the evidence


Section 3

The Teleological ArgumentReligious belief: God is a purposeful creator; all of life is created by God with a definite purpose and goal.

The basic strategy of this argument is based on another observation about the universe. This time, however, the argument moves beyond the indisputable fact that the universe exists to another indisputable fact: things within the universe (particularly living things) are extraordinarily complex. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that now exists is debris from the explosion. It is argued that the only reasonable explanation for the fact that this debris is ordered and complex is that God must have put them together with a purpose in mind.

The complexity of the universe

The best way to approach this argument is to observe the world as it is. It is only after we fully experience the world and all its complexity that we will begin to understand why the teleological argument has been so influential. What follows are the kinds of observations often cited by people who believe the complexity of the world must point towards a designer (God).

1. The bucket orchid


This plant has the most amazing method of pollination. It naturally produces a rich sugary food – nectar that is very attractive to bees (apparently the bee thinks he smells a lady bee!). When the bee arrives it lands on the surface of the orchid near to the lip of the ‘bucket’. The surface is very slippery so frequently bees fall in, landing in a pool of liquid, which has been produced by a gland in the plant. The bee doesn’t drown in the substance but becomes stuck. However, there is one possible escape route. At the side of the bucket there is a tunnel leading out the side of the bucket. The exit from the tunnel is conveniently aided by a step and hairs suitably placed near the surface. As the bee is about to emerge, the opening contracts, pinning the bee down. Whilst held in this position, the plant ‘glues’ two pollen sacs onto the bee’s back. The glue takes a short while to set so the plant carefully holds the bee in position long enough to ensure that the pollen won’t fall off when it eventually flies away. Some of these sac-bearing bees are again attracted to other flowers. They clearly haven’t learned their lesson as they frequently end up back in the bucket. This time as they approach the tunnel exit hole, a special ‘hook’ on the roof picks the two sacs off the unsuspecting bee’s back and cross-pollination takes place.

2. Wings and flight …

(a) Birds

The hummingbird is an incredible creature. Most birds partly glide through the sky with their wings outstretched. The hummingbird can’t do this; so to allow it to stay airborne it then has to beat its wings very fast. This unique wing ‘design’ means that hummingbirds are the only birds that are capable of sustained hovering. To do this they must in fact beat their wings an amazing 60 times every second! They can even fly backwards!

(b) Insects

If you think the hummingbird has amazing wings you might be surprised to know that insects are even more incredible. For example, the common fly has wings that beat about 200 times per second. A honeybee has two pairs of wings that can beat an amazing 250 times per second. The complex motion of its wings also lets the bee hover in one spot. The next time you see a bee or a fly watch it carefully. Maybe in future you should respect the wee creatures that fly about your house rather than attempt to squash them with the nearest newspaper!

3. YOU!

Did you know that …


Your brain is the most complex structure known to man. Your eye can distinguish 1 million light surfaces. Your lungs are big enough to cover half a tennis court. You have 60,000 miles of blood vessels. Your skin is constantly replacing itself. You give birth to 100 billion red blood cells every day. Your bones are as strong as iron. Your heart beats 100,000 times a day.

Did you know that …

When you read light bounces off 14 million colour sensors and 200 million black and white sensors, sending countless electrical impulses along the optic nerve to be processed by the most complex computer known to man.


The Teleological ArgumentWhen you look carefully at the above examples, as well as countless others, you can’t help but notice that every living creature is made up of many, many different and unique parts (organs, limbs, muscles, etc.) which are all performing some vital function. They appear to have been designed with a specific purpose in mind.

The name of the teleological argument comes from the Greek word telos, which means ‘purpose’. Many people conclude that the only possible explanation for the existence of such complex creatures is that God must have designed and then made them. How else could debris from an explosion end up forming itself into things so amazingly complex?

Another way to think about this is the wind-formed jumbo jet. Theists (people who believe God exists) would say that the chances of the world coming together with all the complex things in it through blind chance or accidents is about the same as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving a fully functioning jumbo jet behind it!

Another way to think about this is if we filled a room with monkeys and gave each of them a laptop. Do you think one of them would ever be able to come up with the entire works of Shakespeare? It is highly unlikely that this would ever happen and theists think the chances of the world being made by pure chance are just as unlikely!

William Paley

The human eye has had a famous association with the teleological argument about God’s design or purpose. Scientific discoveries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries showed more and more how incredibly complex life was. The English theologian William Paley (1743–1805AD) argued in his book Natural Theology that nature obviously bears evidence of order and design. He used the human eye as an example of this, suggesting that it is silly to believe that something as complicated as this could possibly come about by accident. We must conclude, therefore, that there is a designing force behind nature. Paley believed that this force is what people call God. In order to illustrate his argument he presented it in the form of a story.

Imagine that you are walking down a beach and that you stumble upon a wristwatch. Even if you had never seen a wrist watch before, it is likely that you would be struck by the fact that it differs from the other objects in the vicinity: a watch is obviously a


collection of parts that have been cleverly combined in such a way as to fulfil a particular function, namely, to indicate the time. You would assume that the watch is not a natural object, but an artefact, i.e. something made on purpose by some intelligent agent. Indeed, you are likely to assume that the watch is the handiwork of a watchmaker who knew what he was doing when he made the watch. The assumption at work here is that the order found in the watch (and other artefacts) does not occur as a result of blind, accidental forces. On the contrary, it is assumed that order is always the result of an intelligent designer.

The next step in the story is to point out that the natural world also displays order, in fact an order far more complex than that found in the watch.

Consider just one example, the human eye. Is it not a marvel of engineering? Could one design a better instrument of vision if one tried? But if the order of the parts in the watch was best explained in terms of an intelligent watchmaker, ought we not to posit an intelligent world-maker for the same reason? Indeed, the world-maker must be of infinite intelligence given that the natural world is complex beyond our imagination.

Paley’s logic of analogyPaley was using an analogical argument to present his case. An analogy is used when someone deliberately compares two similar ideas. An analogical argument, therefore, considers the similarity between things and then draws some similar conclusion. Paley suggests that it is reasonable to compare the natural world with a watch because they clearly have something in common.

ANALOGY

WATCH HUMAN EYE√ complex √very complex√ has an obvious purpose √has an obvious

purpose

Conclusion Conclusion‘We know that a watch ‘We can assume that has been designed.’ the human eye has been

designed.’


An argument from analogy uses inductive logic. Based on what we observe we can induce a conclusion. This type of logic can only ever provide us with evidence that creates a high likelihood of the conclusion being true. Paley is really saying that given the complexity of the natural world it is highly likely that it came into being because of the intention of a designer (God).

St Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas presented his own form of the teleological argument.

Aquinas called his fifth proof the Argument from Harmony. Everywhere we look there is ‘adaptation’ or ‘accord’. Fish need to swim so they have fins and tails; dogs need to gnaw bones so they have strong teeth. We can either say this is merely accident or we can argue for ‘design’ or deliberate intention. Aquinas argues that the clear-thinking person will choose the latter.

The anthropic argument

Often people assume that the more scientists discover the less likely it is that they will believe in God. This is not always the case. The universe works because it is ruled by natural laws. Maybe the best known of these is the law of gravity. Scientists tell us that there are many ways that these laws could be set. The chances of them being exactly as they are in our universe are incredibly small. If they were even slightly different then you simply wouldn’t exist. For example, if the law of gravity had only been a little stronger then the universe wouldn’t have got started at all. In fact, it would have lasted only a few seconds. It is really so ridiculously unlikely that the universe should be governed by laws that allow for the accidental creation of intelligent, conscious beings like us that many people say that this is another good reason to believe that God must have deliberately fixed these laws exactly as they are.

Not everyone is convinced by this argument. The simplest response to it has been called the lottery fallacy. The chances of winning the lottery are so ridiculously unlikely that buying a ticket is really rather a silly thing to do. However, someone always wins! The problem you face is that you won’t live long enough to stand a reasonable chance of winning. If you had an infinite amount of time you would win eventually. The same principle applies to the universe. It is extremely unlikely that a finely tuned universe like ours should exist, but, given enough time there is no reason why it shouldn’t. Maybe there have been countless failed universes before, eventually, ours came to exist.


Aristotle’s four causes

Before you look at Aristotle’s ideas try to think about what they might have been. To help you with this have a look at a picture of the Statue of Liberty. There was obviously a point in history when the statue didn’t exist. In order for it now to exist a number of causes were needed.

Can you identify four separate things (causes) that were needed before the statue could possibly come into existence?

The author Brian Magee uses an example of a marble statue to explain what Aristotle meant when he talked of his four causes. In order for a statue to finally exist there must be:

The material cause – Without the existence of marble we could never have a marble statue.

The efficient cause – The marble itself is obviously not the marble statue. For the statue to come into being it needs to have been carved out of a block of marble by a person using a hammer and chisel, and a substantial measure of skill and artistry.

The formal cause – Random hacking at a piece of marble will not make a statue; therefore we need a further cause. To be the thing that it is, the

statue needs to take the shape that it does, that of a horse or a man

The final cause – The only reason that all the other causes take place is because a sculptor has set out to make a statue in the first place. All three of the other causes have been called into operation in order to realise an intention: the overall reason for the statue’s existence is that it is the fulfilment of a sculptor’s purposes.

Aristotle’s notion of a final cause is the key idea behind the teleological argument. This cause is one which doesn’t push things into effect from behind, but works in advance by drawing things to a goal or an end. The teleological cause of a thing is therefore the goal to which it is drawn. The artist has a painting or a statue in mind and he works at it until he completes the idea that he has in his mind. The goal of the artist is his work of art. The goal that you have been considering in our attempt to try to look for evidence for God is the existence of amazingly complex things within our universe, things that appear to suggest a final cause, or in simple terms things that appear to have been designed. In the same way as the statue is the artist’s work of art, everything that exists, including you, is thought to be God’s work of art.


Summary – The teleological argument

People believe in God because there are so many things in the universe that are incredibly complicated. They appear to have been made with a particular purpose in mind.

The most famous advocate of the teleological argument was William Paley (1743–1805AD)

Paley said that if we all agree that a watchmaker must have designed a watch then surely an eye (that is complex beyond our imagination) must also have been designed.

Paley was using inductive logic to present his case, in other words he believed that it was highly likely that God exists.

Aquinas said that the harmony that exists in the world shows that things must have been designed with a purpose in mind.

The Anthropic Principle seems to offer scientific evidence for Design

Aristotle’s four principles try to demonstrate Complexity, Order & Purpose (COP).

Finally, theists would argue that belief in God is based upon Reason & Faith. In the case of the Teleological Argument reason suggests that there is too much blind chance involved, that we need a Designer to put it all together. Religious people also claim there must be a Designer – they know this is true – they believe it is true – this is called faith. Faith does not rely on what can be proved but upon a belief that it will one day be proved. In the New Testament the Book of Hebrews explains

‘Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were praised for doing. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen is not made out of what was visible’.

(Hebrerws 11: 1-3).

The Cosmological Argument is treated in the same way by theists. It seems entirely reasonable to assume there must be a first cause for everything that exists. It also seems reasonable to assume that this necessary cause must be God. Theists have faith and accept that they will never know everything. The above quote from Hebrews applies equally well for the Cosmological Argument.


Questions1. What simple fact is at the heart of the teleological argument?

2. Read about the bucket orchid and the wings of birds or insects.

(a) Choose one and write a brief description of it.(b) Does it persuade you that the existence of God is a possibility? (Explain your

answer.)

3. Read the amazing facts about the human body. Copy and complete the chart below in your jotter:

Parts of the human body

Brief comment about it (say how amazing it is)

Specific function that it performs

Eye Can distinguish 1 million light surfaces, 14 million colour sensors and 200 million black and white sensors

Allows us to see the world

Lungs

Blood vessels

Heart

Brain

4. Some people say that all the different parts of your body clearly have been designed with a specific function in mind. Do you agree with these people? Explain your answer.


5. Write a very short paragraph about William Paley. Make sure that you mention the following points:

(a) When was he alive?(b) What nationality was he?(c) What particular part of the human body amazed him most?

6. Write a brief description of Paley’s version of the teleological argument.

7. What type of logic was Paley using?

8. Write a brief description of St Thomas Aquinas’s version of the teleological argument.

9. The name of the argument (teleological) is derived from a Greek word telos. What does this word mean?

10 Aristotle said that there were four causes behind everything in the universe (see appendix 1).

Copy and complete the chart below:

Aristotle’s four causes What did he mean?The material cause

The efficient cause

The formal cause

The final cause

11 Which of Aristotle’s four causes is the key idea behind the teleological argument?

12 Is the Anthropic Principle a good argument? Explain your answer.


12 Section 4

Does the teleological argument work?

David Hume

The design argument has convinced many people over the years, but hasn’t persuaded everybody. Its most famous critic was David Hume. We will briefly look at two of his responses to the argument.

Criticism one – the success of the analogy

Hume’s key point related to the logic of the design argument. He pointed out that the strength of an analogical argument depends on how similar the things being compared are. He suggested that human inventions and living things are actually not as similar as you might first think. Hume pointed out simply that living things are organic in nature whereas man-made machines are mechanistic. The analogy between the universe and any product of human design is therefore, according to Hume, not strong enough to allow us to draw definite (highly likely) conclusions.

ANALOGY

WATCH HUMAN EYE

√ complex √ very complex√ has an obvious purpose √ has an obvious purpose

Mechanistic Organic

Conclusion Conclusion‘We know that a watch ‘We can’t be certain has been designed.’ that the human eye has

been designed.’


Does the teleological argument work?

Criticism two – who designed the universe?

At one point Hume actually conceded that maybe the argument worked. Maybe the evidence of order and design in the universe does in fact lead to the reasonable conclusion that it must have been designed. However, he then suggested we are not entitled to jump to the conclusion that the designer of the universe is actually God, an all-powerful, all-knowing or even good being. Maybe, Hume suggested, it could have been the work of a team of designers, or of an evil force, or perhaps, even, the bungled work of an inferior, junior designer.

Hume famously said ….

This world for aught we know, is very faulty and imperfect compared to a superior standard and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance.

When you stop and honestly consider the human brain it’s difficult to agree with Hume that the ‘designer’ could possibly be ashamed of his lame performance. However, as we will see later, Hume had something else in mind. Can you think of something in the universe that you may wish to call faulty?

The theory of evolution

The theory of evolution is for many the decisive challenge to the design argument. David Hume appeared to anticipate it in his own earlier writings: ‘Why can matter not contain within itself the source of order and design?’ Charles Darwin produced his famous book, On the Origin of Species, in 1859. Darwin offered an explanation for the order and complexity in the natural world without the need of a designer God. He suggested that a careful observation of nature shows us that we can get very complicated forms of life naturally without any need of a designer.

William Paley thought that God was a bit like a watchmaker who carefully designed and built everything with a clear purpose in mind. Richard Dawkins, a contemporary and well-known academic, published a recent book entitled The Blind Watchmaker. In it he attempts to argue that evolution has completely destroyed the teleological argument. According to Dawkins, complex living things result entirely from natural processes. He even suggests in a more recent book, Climbing Mount Improbable, that the apparent partnerships in nature, like those between the bucket orchid and the bee, can be fully explained by the process of evolution. He suggested that the processes of natural selection and the survival of the fittest are entirely ‘blind’.


Has the design argument been defeated?Look at the following quote:

‘In the beginning were only germs or causes of the forms of life, which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course.’

Who do you think said this? Charles Darwin? Richard Dawkins? You might be surprised to know that it was the Christian theologian St Augustine of Hippo (354–430AD). He understood the Genesis account of creation in allegorical terms (a story with meaning). It’s perfectly likely that he wouldn’t have been overly concerned when the theory of evolution was explained by Darwin. If the story of Genesis is allegorical then maybe each ‘day’ stands for millions of years and the best way to understand creation is to think of it in terms of a slow evolution.

It’s the idea of blind evolution that most people who believe in God find difficult to accept. Maybe creation did happen over a very long period of time but surely, they may suggest, something as immensely complex as the human brain could not come into existence by chance. Human consciousness is often cited as a reason why people find evolution difficult to accept. The writer F R Tennant, in his book Philosophical Theology, suggested that evolution could easily be the mechanism that God used to create life.

DiscussWhat do you think is meant by the following statement?

‘When God rolled the dice he ensured that the dice was loaded.’

Tennant also suggested that blind evolution can’t really explain why humans spend so much time enjoying beautiful scenery, or appreciating music and art. The human brain is so stunningly complex that, for many people, the idea of natural selection and survival of the fittest as its sole explanation seems difficult.

Before we move on it’s worth looking back to Hume’s second criticism. Although appearing crude when first read, it does in fact lead us to the main reason why people struggle to accept that there is a God. If God designed the universe why is it that there are so many natural disasters and so much disease? Why would God design a universe that is so full of suffering?


Summary – Does the teleological argument work?David Hume said that a watch and an eye are not as similar as we might first have thought. A watch is mechanistic whereas an eye is organic. This means that we can’t be certain, just because we know a watch has been designed, that the eye had to have also been designed.

David Hume also said that at best the argument shows that the universe must have been designed. It doesn’t, though, guarantee that the designer was God.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution appears to have shown that the complexity of life can be explained without the need of a designer.

Many people think that God could have designed the process of evolution.

F R Tennant suggested that evolution couldn’t really explain why humans can appreciate beauty or enjoy music. He questioned whether blind evolution could really explain the human mind.

Questions

1. David Hume said that there were a number of problems with the design argument. Under the following titles briefly explain two of them.

(a) Problem one – the success of the analogy(b) Problem two – who designed the universe?

2. Name two famous scientists associated with the theory of evolution.

3. Briefly explain why evolution is seen as a threat to the design argument.

4. Explain why it’s possible that St Augustine might have not rejected evolution if he was alive today.

5. What did the modern writer F R Tennant say about evolution?

6. Does the teleological argument persuade you that God exists? Explain your answer. Describe the Teleological argument Explain why it is based on analogy Paley’s analogy Hume’s criticisms Problem of evolution Problem of bad design Conclusion


√

√

√

√

√

Section 5

The problem of evil and suffering

Religious belief: The attributes of God – omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving

Although evolution challenges the design argument, the biggest problem that believers face when defending it is how to reconcile the evil and suffering that exists in the world. If belief that God exists is based on our observations of the world, we must be willing to look at everything. We have seen clearly that the world is incredibly complex. If we keep looking we will also see without much effort that it is often incredibly cruel. Some of history’s most influential philosophers, for example David Hume, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell, challenged the traditional idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing and loving God because of the problem of evil.

Philosophers of religion talk about two particular types of evil:

• Moral evil – caused by human beings themselves• Natural evil – caused by the way things happen in our world.

Moral evil

‘Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn!’Robert Burns

Genocide

Moral evil revolves around humans doing evil things to each other. Bullying, theft, murder, rape, torture – the list is endless. Probably the most shocking example of moral evil was the Jewish Holocaust where over six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. The extent of the suffering experienced by those involved is almost impossible to conceive. Sadly this genocide is not a unique event. Since World War Two there have been other examples, most notably:

• Between 1975 and 1979 a genocide in Cambodia resulted in the deaths of approximately 1.7 million people (21% of the country’s population)

• In 1994 at least 500,000 Tutsi were murdered in Rwanda (75% of the Tutsi population). All the killings took place in a three-month period, between the months of April and June.


• The USA has officially stated its belief that genocide is presently taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan (2005).

Ivan Karamazov – the suffering of innocent childrenOne of the most famous comments on the subject of moral evil is found in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s classic novel, The Brothers Karamazov (1880). In one section two of the brothers, Ivan and Alyosha, discuss the problem of evil. It is in fact not so much a discussion as an angry rant against God by Ivan. Alyosha, a deeply religious man, is clearly troubled by his brother’s argument.

Ivan makes his point by dramatically telling Alyosha about various examples of incredible cruelty inflicted upon innocent children. He tells of an eight-year-old boy who accidentally hits and injures a dog with a stone. It turns out that the animal is the favourite dog of a cruel and powerful general. The boy is immediately taken away from his mother and locked in a prison cell. The next morning he is ordered to run as a pack of hounds are deliberately set after him. The boy is literally torn to pieces in front of his mother’s eyes.

Ivan tells others stories of horrendous cruelty. One of them was about a five-year-old girl who was subjected to torture and abuse by her own parents. ‘They beat her, kicked her, flogged her, for no reason that they themselves knew of. The child’s whole body was covered in bruises.’ The child was frequently locked up in the outhouse, even on the coldest of nights, ‘unable to understand what was happening’.

Ivan doesn’t actually conclude that God doesn’t exist. He decides, however, that he wants nothing to do with a God who has designed such a flawed universe, a universe with suffering children. He says that all he can do is ‘return his ticket’ in protest and reject God’s creation by killing himself. Many people, after reading the stories Ivan recounts, choose the more straightforward view that God simply never existed in the first place.

The idea Dostoyevsky is trying to put across here is that if God is omniscient then He knows about human suffering and doesn’t care

If God is omnipotent then He is not strong enough to stop human suffering

If God is benevolent then He would step in and stop human suffering.

If God really exists and acts in this way then Ivan Karamazov wants nothing to do with Him and it might be easier just to assume there is no God.


Natural evilThe waste and suffering involved in the process of evolution

Although writers like F R Tennant appear to accept the possibility that the theory of evolution is compatible with belief in God, others may wish to identify one particular aspect of the theory which doesn’t appear to fit in with the idea of a loving God. If evolution is God’s system for creating, why is there so much waste and suffering involved in the process? Could God not have come up with a system that was more pleasant, that didn’t involve a constant struggle to survive? The theory also emphasises that 90% of all living things will not survive. Why would God set up a system that includes so much waste? The survival of the fittest appears to go against all ideas of a good God. Why would a loving God create a world that is red in tooth and claw?

Natural disasters

Natural disasters such as earthquakes, droughts, hurricanes, etc. have also caused untold suffering to countless people throughout history. The following news stories describe graphically the suffering caused by natural disasters.

Bam, Iran – December 26 2003, 5:27 AM

Iran lowers Bam earthquake tollIran has significantly lowered the death toll from the Bam earthquake.

The authorities now say 26,271 were killed when much of the city was flattened on 26 December.

Previously it was said that more than 41,000 had died, but apparently some victims were counted more than once in the chaotic aftermath of the disaster. Iran’s statistics office said a census had been conducted to determine the exact number killed and that 525 people were still missing.

Abbas Ali Zali, the head of the statistics office, said the new figure covered the city of Bam as well as its surrounding areas and districts, where a total of 142,376 people were living.

Most of the mud brick buildings in the historical city, including its ancient citadel, collapsed when the massive earthquake struck at dawn.

The quake destroyed 70% of the city’s buildings. Tens of thousands of people were injured and left homeless.


Natural evil

Indonesia quake toll jumps again

Indonesia has again raised its estimate of the number of people killed by December’s earthquake and tsunami. Health Minister Fadilah Supari said more than 220,000 people died or are missing, bringing the total killed throughout the region to 280,000. A month after the disaster, relief workers in Aceh province are still pulling corpses from the wreckage.

TSUNAMI DEATH TOLL Indonesia: at least 95,000 dead; 133,000 missing, presumed dead Sri Lanka: 31,000 dead; 5,637 missing India (inc. Andaman and Nicobar islands): 10,744 dead; 5,640 missing Thailand: 5,384 dead; 3,130 missing Somalia: approx. 150 dead Maldives: 82 dead; 26 missing Malaysia: 68 dead Burma: 59 dead (government figure) Tanzania: 10 dead Bangladesh: 2 dead Kenya: 1 dead Seychelles: 1 dead

OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS 2004 Asian quake disaster – toll so far exceeds 110,000 2003 Earthquake in Bam, Iran – official casualty figure is 26,271 1998 Hurricane Mitch devastated much of Honduras and Nicaragua killing 10,000

people1984/5 Famine in Ethiopia killed an estimated 900,000 1976 Earthquake in Tangshan, China, kills 242,000 1970 Cyclone in Bangladesh kills 500,000 1923 Tokyo earthquake kills 140,000 1887 China’s Yellow River breaks its banks in Huayan Kou killing 900,000 1896 Tsunami kills 27,000 in Japan 1815 Volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora on Indonesia’s Sumbawa Island kills 90,000 1556 Earthquake in China’s Shaanxi, Shanxi and Henan provinces kills an estimated

830,000

Atheists often assume that the reality of moral and natural evil is one of the most important pieces of evidence against belief in God. Throughout the world millions of human beings are suffering all kinds of physical and emotional pain. In Scotland, disease, severe disability, anxiety, fear, depression, loneliness and bereavement are obvious examples. In the face of all this, they argue, how can we possibly think that the world was created and sustained by a powerful, loving creator God?


The problem of evil and sufferingThe problem of suffering can be summed up as follows:

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful) why doesn’t he crush evil and stop suffering? If God is omniscient (all-knowing) why did he create a world which he knew would

result in such pain and suffering? If God is all-loving why does he allow innocent children to suffer?

Many people assume that if these questions can’t be answered adequately then the only reasonable view to hold is that God simply doesn’t exist.

Summary – The problem of evil and suffering

Many people don’t believe in God because there is so much suffering in the world.

The suffering that results from moral evil is caused by human actions.

Many people think that the suffering of innocent children is the strongest argument against belief in a loving God. The character of Ivan Karamazov, invented by the writer Dostoyevsky, is often used to express this idea.

The suffering that results from natural evil is caused by the way things happen in our world, e.g. natural disasters, the process of the survival of the fittest.

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful) why doesn’t he crush evil and stop suffering?

If God is omniscient (all-knowing) why did he create the world in the first place?

If God is all-loving why does he allow innocent children to suffer?


√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Questions

1. What simple fact about the world persuades many people that there can’t be a God?

2. Write a brief report about moral evil. Make sure that you:

(a) Give a clear definition of moral evil.(b) Give examples to illustrate your answer.

3. Describe one of the stories used by the character Ivan Karamazov to challenge belief that God is benevolent (good).

4. Do you think that the suffering of children shows that God either doesn’t exist or isn’t benevolent (good)? Explain your answer.

5. Write a brief report about natural evil. Make sure that you:

(a) Give a clear definition of natural evil.(b) Give examples to illustrate your answer.

6. Explain why the process of evolution is thought to challenge the belief that God is good?

7. What three questions are often used to summarise the problem of suffering? Copy and complete the sentences below:

‘If God is omnipotent …‘If God is omniscient …‘If God is all-loving …


Section 6

Does suffering and evil show that there is no God?Sometimes when people are faced with a big problem they choose to hide their heads in the sand and not face up to the issue. Certainly some people who believe in God may want to try to ignore the problem of suffering or respond with simple pat answers. It would, however, be unfair to say this about religions as a whole. It is often forgotten that Dostoevsky, the creator of the character of Ivan Karamazov, was a very religious man. We will focus our attention on some Christian approaches to suffering. If you have time you may want to investigate what some other religious traditions say about suffering.

The theodicy

When faced with the reality of suffering, theologians have often presented arguments in defence of God. This type of argument is known as a theodicy. Probably the best known theodicy is the free will defence. It is rooted in the idea of God creating humans with free choice. Before we look at it closely it is important to understand some of the ideas found in the story of Adam and Eve.

Genesis

According to traditional Christian teaching all suffering is rooted in the story of the first sin, the sin committed by ‘Adam and Eve’ in the Garden of Eden. The story presents a vision of a perfect world, free from suffering, evil and even death. This good world becomes very good after the first humans are created in the image of God (this does not mean that they were created to look like God. Rather, the idea is that humans will have some characteristics that resemble God’s nature. For example, humans have a unique ability to create. Another aspect of this idea is that humans are free and responsible for creation). However, this world is wrecked by the actions of Adam and Eve when, in their freedom, they disobey God by eating from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.


Genesis

Some theologians believe this story should be understood literally (i.e. that everything in it happened exactly as it says). They suggest that the action of Adam and Eve literally brought guilt and misfortune upon the human race. All natural and moral evils result from this actual event.

Other theologians believe that the story is better understood as an allegory. This was certainly the view of the influential early Christian writer Augustine. He believed that the story of Adam and Eve represents the human struggle between good and evil.

If Genesis is best understood as an allegory then it could be that:

• The serpent represents the temptation to do bad things. • Adam and Eve’s nakedness represents human innocence (maybe echoing the innocence

of young children). • Adam and Eve’s desire to ‘cover themselves’ represents human guilt and shame.

Discuss‘If there is a perfectly good spiritual being (God) then it’s perfectly possible that there’s also is an evil spiritual being (the Devil).’

The free-will defence

This approach is centred on the belief that humans are radically different from animals. An animal can only ever act on instinct; humans are free to choose how to live. This means that we can positively choose to do good things or negatively choose to do bad things. The story of Adam and Eve is often used to illustrate this human capacity to freely choose to do either the right or the wrong thing. The message of the story is that suffering and evil occurs when people deliberately choose to do evil things. The free-will argument suggests that humans, in their radical freedom, often choose to do evil rather than good. This choice is at the heart of all moral suffering.

St Augustine

Augustine said that when we choose to do evil things we depart from being what we should be. In other words we fall short of being what God intended us to be.

In other words, we can choose to be all that we should be. Or we can choose to be less than we might be – less than God intended us to be.


St Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas said something similar, arguing that human beings have fallen short of their true nature. Because of our bad (evil) choices we ‘defect from being’.

According to these theologians the blame for suffering lies entirely at the feet of humans.

Discuss‘Do you think that it’s possible for God to have created humans such that they would always choose to do the right thing?’

Traditional Christian belief would say ‘no’ to the question above. If the answer was ‘yes’ then it would appear that God would have had to create a race of ‘puppet-like’ creatures who simply obeyed Him without thought or question.

Probably the central idea in Christianity is that humans find meaning and purpose in a ‘love’ relationship with God and each other:

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.’ (Luke 10:27)

Most would suggest that love can never be forced or controlled. Love appears to demand free choice. If God had created puppets instead of human beings then any possibility to freely love would seem to be impossible. The free-will defence says that if we are to have real opportunities for choice (and the real potential to love), then we must also live in a world where pain is a real possibility.

The character Ivan Karamazov was clearly unimpressed with the free-will defence. He was suggesting that the price of human freedom, the suffering of even one child, is too high. His thought of suicide is his complete rejection of the freedom offered by God.

Discuss‘Do you agree with Ivan that the suffering of one child is too high a price to pay for human freedom?’

There have been other well-known theodicies. If you’re interested you could investigate how they attempt to suggest why it’s possible to reconcile belief in God with the reality of evil and suffering.


Other key religious ideasMany Christians are aware of these theodicies but, if asked about the problem of pain, they may well focus their answers on other Christian beliefs.

1. The crucifixion

The central symbol of the Christian religion is the cross, an incredibly cruel device designed to execute criminals over an agonisingly long period of time. Over the last 2000 years this image has provided people with a powerful symbol of suffering. It also often gives people hope in terrible situations. Right at the heart of the Christian religion is a moment of extreme agony and cruelty. The recent film The Passion of the Christ attempted to show the full horror of the suffering endured by Jesus. The film begins with a quote from the prophet Isaiah:

‘But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by his wounds we are healed.’

(Isaiah 53:5)

The crucifixion of Jesus is interpreted in different ways. However, most Christians believe that somehow his suffering gives all humanity hope, no matter what they have to endure on this earth. One of the names given to Jesus was Immanuel (God with us). Many people find great comfort in the belief that the God of Christianity is somehow involved in the suffering of the world.

2. Life after death

Dostoevsky’s novel The Brother’s Karamazov ends with the sad death of a small boy, Ilyushechka. Alyosha oversees the burial and spends time with the boy’s friends, offering them some advice on their future lives:

‘Oh, young children, oh, dear friends, do not be afraid of life! How good is life, when one does some good and upright thing!’

He then enthusiastically tells the boys that maybe there is another life beyond this one:

‘Karamazov!’ Kolya cried, ‘is it really true what religion says, that we shall rise up from the dead and come to life and see one another again, and everyone, even Ilyushechka?’

‘Without question we shall rise, without question we shall see one another and joyfully tell one another everything that has happened,’ half-laughing, half in ecstasy, Alyosha replied. ‘Oh how good that will be!’ burst from Kolya.


Alyosha, although troubled by his brother Ivan’s rejection of God, never loses his own conviction that God must exist. His firm belief in the afterlife, in a time when all pain and suffering will stop, appears to sustain his faith. If God does exist then at least there is the possibility that there will finally be something better for those who suffer.

Many religious people may want to point out that if God doesn’t exist then suffering is all there is. The child starving to death in an African famine, the mother in an emotional agony as she tries to come to terms with the cruel death of her child, the terminally ill cancer patient, the little girl unsure why her parents are treating her so badly, the soldier about to die on the battle front … If there is no God then some may suggest that there is nothing but despair for those who suffer. For those who believe in God there may be no fully adequate answer to the problem of evil but, like Alyosha says, there is at least hope that one day all the pain and suffering will be over and once again all who have experienced suffering will then experience a new and better existence.

The Biblical writer called St John the Divine expresses this hope clearly in his Book of Revelation.

‘And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things have passed away.’ (Revelation 21:4)

Discuss‘Without belief in God and the possibility of the afterlife there can be no hope for those who suffer.’

Moral responsibility, personal maturity and strength of character

The traditional free-will defence puts the blame for suffering squarely at the feet of humans and the evil choices we make. This alternative approach implies that God is actually responsible for suffering. The origins of this theodicy began with the early Church Father Ireneus (AD 130–202). In recent years the theologian John Hick followed in the Irenean tradition by suggesting that suffering is a necessary condition for the development of human souls. He argued that human beings were created as imperfect creatures that had to be brought to perfection by a process of development and growth. It is suggested that the natural world with all its dangers and challenges is not the result of the ‘Fall of Man’ so much as a situation designed by God so that humans can grow and develop moral responsibility and personal maturity. The demands and problems of life are an essential part of this process. Religious believers often argue that suffering can lead us away from our self-centred lifestyles and help us to focus on others. It seems also that communal suffering in particular brings people together.


This message is well illustrated in a famous poem found scribbled on a wall of Ravensbruck, one of the Nazi death camps in World War Two:

‘O, LordRemember not only the men and women of good will, But also those of evil will.But do not remember all the suffering they have inflicted on us;remember the fruits that we have bornethanks to this suffering – our comradeship, our loyalty, our humility,our courage, our generosity,the greatness of heartwhich has grown out of all this;and when they come to the judgement,let all the fruits that we have bornebe their forgiveness.’

The traditional view of creation sees Adam and Eve as basically good but through their bad choice corrupting themselves and the world. This approach sees them rather as immature, as being like children that have to undergo a long period of spiritual growth and development before they could reach the state which God had intended for them. The ‘Fall’ never literally happened. Human beings are seen as being part of a process of creation and on the way to becoming more mature and perfect. Suffering is somehow a necessary part of creation.

Summary – Does evil and suffering show that there is no God?

A theodicy is an attempt to explain why the existence of evil and suffering doesn’t necessarily show that God doesn’t exist.

Most Christian responses to suffering and evil are rooted in the story of Adam and Eve.

The free-will defence explains that suffering results from human choice and action. It is better that humans were created with real freedom to act and think than to have been created like a puppet.

People who believe in God may point out that if God doesn’t exist then there is nothing but despair and hopelessness for those who suffer.

Some people suggest that the Christian idea of the crucifixion gives hope to people who suffer.

Some people suggest that belief in the afterlife means that there is always hope for people, no matter how bad their suffering is.


√

√

√

√

√

√

Questions1. What is a theodicy?

2. Try to write a short explanation of some of the ideas taught in the story of Adam and Eve.

3. Explain in your own words the theodicy known as the free-will defence.

4. St Thomas Aquinas said that humans have fallen short of their true nature.

(a) Try to describe what you think a truly good human being is like.(b) Try to describe what you think a truly bad human being is like.(c) Do you agree with Aquinas that humans have fallen short of their true nature?

Explain your answer.

5. Look at the following two viewpoints:

(i) ‘Humans were created to be absolutely free. We are who we choose to be.’ This means that sometimes humans freely do good things (leading to happiness) and sometimes freely do bad things (leading to suffering).

(ii) ‘Humans were created to be like puppets. We have no freedom to choose our own destiny. This means that we cannot suffer but nor can we choose our own path in life. Which viewpoint do you prefer? Explain your answer.

6. Do you think that the free-will defence successfully explains why God can still be called omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent? Explain your answer.

7. The Christian cross

(a) Copy the quote that appears at the beginning of the film The Passion of the Christ (Isaiah 53:5)

(b) Why do some people suggest that the crucifixion helps people who are suffering?

8. Belief in life after death

(a) Copy the famous quote from the Bible that often gives hope to people when they suffer (Revelation 21:4).

(b) Why do some people suggest that belief in the afterlife helps people who are suffering?

(c) Do you think that the possibility of life after death means that you can still believe in God and accept the reality of evil and suffering? Explain your answer.


Questions

9. As well as the free-will defence there are many other theodicies. The best-known ones are known as the defence of:

• moral responsibility• personal maturity• strength of character

When you write your notes make sure that you explain whether or not they provide a good defence for the existence of God.

10. Do you think that the existence of evil and suffering means that God doesn’t exist?Explain your answer using the arguments and the theodicies together.

And Finally

Most religious people would say that these arguments we have looked at are all well and good but in the end the only thing that really matters is our own personal experience of God. Life is not just about what we can prove but also about what and how we feel. There is more to us than what we can prove.

Love

We all love people (some more than others) but can we see love? We can see the effect of love – flowers on St Valentine’s Day, a dreamy look on a face or a sense of feeling really good. Can science prove there is such a thing? It can show that the brain reacts in a different way and that our body reacts in different ways but it cannot prove that love actually exists but we all know that it does. We know this because of how it makes us feel. And when someone tells you that they love you, you don’t demand that they prove it! Most religious people would claim our belief in God is exactly the same – it cannot be scientifically proved but they know God exists and sometimes find it strange when others continually demand proof.


The Soul

Most theists claim that we have a soul but what on earth is that? Well, when we look in the mirror we all see a reflection of what we physically look like but is the image you see really the person you are? Most theists would say it is not. The person we really are is hidden within that reflection and that most people never get to see the ‘real’ you. The soul for many theists is simply the conscience or inner person. Can theists prove this? Well no but it is a little like love – we all know what the soul, conscience or inner person is like and don’t need science to prove it. It exists!

Life-changing experience

Most theists would claim that life-changing experiences prove there must be a God. People suffering from the effects of alcohol, illegal drugs, crime and violence have all undergone a dramatic change in an instant when they claim to have met God. Theists would ask how life-changing experiences can happen if there is no God to do this? Alcoholics do not become sober over night: heroin users cannot be ‘clean’ in an instant; criminals and gangsters do not turn their lives around and start doing good? The Bible is full of examples of people having their lives changed by God – Moses and Paul are just two!

The teaching of Jesus, according to Christians, continues to radically change people today and many would argue that the age of miracles is still with us. How can this be the case if there is no God? And some people devote their whole lives to helping others – Mother Theresa being a good example – why would anyone waste their life in this way if there is no God?

So there must be a God?

Well no – not according to atheists! All this talk about love and souls is entirely subjective and cannot be proved. Science only accepts something as true if it can be verified or proved to be true. We can claim all manner of things to be true on the basis of feeling that they are. We could claim that the best flavour of ice cream is strawberry because we think it is! Irn Bru is obviously the best soft drink and Scottish people are the best in the world! Why? Because we think it is true! But is it? Just because some have a feeling Scotland will win the next World Cup doesn’t mean it will happen. These things are not verifiable and so cannot be proved. After all, some theists used to think there was a certain test to prove if someone was really a witch – throw them in a river and if they drown there were not a witch – if they floated and did not drown they were a witch and therefore should be burned alive!


If there is a God then which one?

There are so many different religions and they are very different so which one is the correct one? Christianity states the only way into Heaven is through Jesus, Islam through the teachings of the Prophet, Hinduism through the laws of Karma and Samsara and most Jews are not even sure if there is a Heaven! If there is a God it would be a shame to serve one of them and be met at the gates of Heaven by another only to be sent to Hell for believing in the wrong God! Surely if God exists then it would be clear and fair to know which one!

Not-so-life-changing!

Talk of life-changing experiences does not convince everyone. Atheists would claim that these happen merely through the power of the mind and that we can convince ourselves that something is entirely true. Have you ever been in a place where you are sure someone is watching you but it was only in your mind? Have you ever awoken from a dream and been convinced that it was fully real? Have you ever sat around telling ghost stories and felt scared or nervous? Some of these things, according to atheists, are merely the power of suggestion. And what about the placebo effect in medicine?

Bad people can be religious

Atheists claim that many bad thing things have happened in the world because of religious people. The Pope once handed out guarantees to Christians that if they killed Muslims they would go straight to Heaven (Crusades). Islamist terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Centre with a belief they also would go straight to Heaven in 2001. Jim Jones fled the USA with his followers to Guyana and in 1978 more than 900 of them committed suicide on the orders of Jones. David Koresh ordered his followers to die rather than surrender to the USA authorities in Waco Texas in 1993 – 81 people died including women and children. It seems that belief in God is not an obstacle for evil!

The end

Arguments about the existence of God have raged for thousands of years and will continue to do so for many more. It is unlikely that religious people will ever be convinced that there is no God no matter what evidence is provided. Similarly, atheists will not accept the reasons put forward theists. Will we ever know for sure? Religious people believe that we will in the next life while atheists think we will not because there is no next life. As Pascal once said, for the religious person there is no gamble, if God does not exist we have lost nothing but if He does we have everything to lose. Atheists would counter that if there is no God we might have wasted the only life we have by living to rules that do not matter. What do you think?


Section 7

Does God exist?‘The balance of probabilities, therefore, comes out strongly against the existence of God.’

J L Mackie

‘Still the question remains whether there is any more reason to believe in God than there is to believe that Elvis lives. Are those who believe in God any better justified? The answer, perhaps, is that they are not.’

Steven Law

‘The faith position is an altogether more positive and optimistic one than the assertion of meaninglessness. It maintains that although evil is a terrible reality it can be overcome and one of our main tasks as human individuals is to fight against it.’

P Vardy

‘Were there no other evidence at all, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.’

Sir Isaac Newton

‘I believe that what separates humanity from everything else in the world – spaghetti, binder paper, deep-sea creatures, edelweiss and Mount McKinley – is that humanity alone has the capacity to commit all kinds of sins.’

Opening line in the novel Hey Nostradamus!

‘Do you not think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years to perfect your world, you could produce better than the Ku-Klux-Klan or the fascists?’

Bertrand Russell

‘There is some force of nature that’s larger than me … it’s the thing that sustains my being, that sustains my life … I call it God.’

Sir Anthony Hopkins

‘I don’t believe in an old man with a grey beard.’Ben Elton

‘In the Southern Ocean, because it’s such a wild open place, you do feel that there’s someone there.’

Ellen MacArthur


Questions1. From the previous quotes, choose any two that you agree with.

(a) Copy them carefully.(b) Explain why you agree with them.

2. Choose any two quotes that you disagree with.

(a) Copy them carefully.(b) Explain why you disagree with them.

3. Do you believe that God exists? Explain your answer in detail.

Make sure that you:

(a) Carefully define God.(b) Discuss the issues raised in the cosmological argument.(c) Discuss the issues raised in the teleological argument.(d) Discuss the issues raised by the problem of evil and suffering.


Bibliography

Bryson, B, A Short History of Nearly Everything, London: Black Swan Books, 2004

Davis, R, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (2nd edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993

Dawkins, R, Climbing Mount Improbable, London: Penguin, 1996

Dostoyevsky, F, The Brothers Karamazov, London: Penguin, 1993 (first published 1880)

Law, S, The Philosophy Gym: 25 short adventures in thinking, London: Headline Book Publishing, 2004

Magee, B, The Story of Philosophy, London: Dorling Kindersley, 1998

Russell, B, Why I am not a Christian, London: Routledge, 2004 (first published 1957)

Vardy, P, The Puzzle of Evil, London: Fount Paperbacks, 1992

Vardy, P, The Puzzle of God, London: Fount Paperbacks, 1995

Warburton, N, Philosophy: The Basics (3rd edition), London: Routledge, 1999

Walker, J Nature of Belief, Hodder Gibson, 2003


blogs.glowscotland.org.uk · web view4 before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, o...

Documents