382 63 30MB
English Pages [300]
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS A Spectrum of Opinion
EDITED BY DONALD R. BURRILL
ANCHOR BOOKS DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC, GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK
1967
DoNALD R. Burum.I. is Ass!}ci,ate PiQfessor of Philoso pny at California State College at Los Angeles and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Southern call� fomia. He.is the airt,bor of several attjcles in academic journals i:iJ. PhlloSO.P,ny of Law and Pliilosopp.y of Religion.
The Anchor Books edition is the first publication of The Cosmological 'Arguments
Anchoi' Books edition:: 1967
Li'brary of Congress Catalog Caro Number 67-21703 Copyright © 1'967 by; Donald R. Bum11 All .Rights Rese�� Printed in the Vnited �es of America F.u:st Editk1n
CONTENTS Introduction, by Donald R. Bui:rill
1
_pART L THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
A The Classical View L Plato:, Motion and Change as a Rational Demonstration of God ;2. .Aristotle: Toe Necessary E.ustence-0f a First Mov.er 3. St. Thomas Aqt•imas: God Demonstrated Through His Effects P. T. Geacli's Commentary on Aquinas B. The Classical Critique 1. David Hume's Critique of the Cosmological �ent 2. Immanuel Kant: The lmpOSSI"bility of a Cosmological Proof for God's Existence C. The Contem_pprary Re;joinder I. Paul Edwards: The Cosmological Argument 2. Alvm Plantinga: Necessary Being 3. Terence Penelhum:: Divine Necessity
n. nm TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT A The Classical Vie,v 1. William Paley! The Attributes of Deity from the Appearances of Nature 2. David Hume: Cleanthes' Argume� from Design 3. Iohn Stuart �fill: Marks of Design in Nature B. The Classical Critique 1. Da'vid Hume: Pbilo's Objections to the Arguments from Design
25 25. 35 Sl 57 83 83 91 101 101 125 143
P.",RT
165 165 171 177 185 185"
vi
Con.tents
2. Immanuel Kant: The ImpoSSioility of the Pbysiro-Theological Proof C. The Contemporary Rejoinder 1. A. a Taylor: Nature and Teleology 2. C. J. Ducasse: The Argument from �gn 3. C. D. Broad: _Teleology; Mecbaoisn:t, and Design
199 209 209 233 241
PART -1Il. A_ C:°'"�CLUDING CONTEMPOBARY POSTSCRIPT
A. I. r. C. Sm.art: The :Existence of God B. Richard Taylor: Metaphysics and God C. .Paul Tillich: The Question of God
Z79 297
�lected Biblio&1'llphy
301
25S
1'.HE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The authors of the essays in this anthology are con cerned with a common question: Is there :rational evi dence for the existence of God? Some cif the selections support the thesis that there is such evidence, others deny it.; but wheth� they affirm or deny this premise, these ''theistic proofs:' continue to evoke philosophical interest for many. The reader will discover that the arguments in this volume provide sufficient divergency of opinion to fos ter rousing pbilo�ophius conviciion or strengthen agnosticism. I
It is customary to divide "theistic proofs" into a mimi and a rxf.steriori arguments. The a priori argu ments begin ,vith intrinsic autonomous premises and
2
Intro.dl!ctio.11
end, it is SUJ?posed, with the Jo-gically wartant� con clusion: "Therefore, God e;,tlst$." The most note worthy a , priori fu.rra ]s, of comse, the ontological wrgu. ment.1 But t,be essays that follow are occupied witn the a posteriori fonps, an. d specifically with thOS\! tra ditionally .characterized as cosmoltJgical. 'J,'he- premises of a posteriori argument-s are derived, i:iot from self-evident or :intrinsic assumptions,. but :rather from hmnan eX,11eri.en,ce; and the conclusions �ed are judged to tonmv rationally from tlia,t ex �µce.. These a�e� begip v..ith observable ef fects �4 -atteI:!lpt to es�blish µie cause that initiates th� e��ts. To th�ir gosmologic:al form (which is tmly paradigmatic for a posteriori ar.guments), the ar guments draw on a fil)ecil)c asp�t of th.e universe and; ·th� wiili reference tq a set of general laws,. proceed to deJ11onsqate the �isreqce of G-od. It is St, Tpqmas Aquio.;i.s (1225�74), briilding in 5l!S:C� fashli:in etL tJJ� pbiip�ophical theology of Im predecessors, who is credited V1ith formulation of the four basic. 9osm0Jogic.al forms.2 He design-ates these forms motion, cause, contmgtncy, and d,esign. They b� with certain '1Jmte facts" about the verse, namely, its· permanence, change. reality, and order, and derive. from these elements eviqence a pos teriori for God's existenee.. Let 11 .s look a,t each in: deW}. (1) The argument tliat begins with the indubitability of motion is surely one of the oldest "proofs" in ra tional tfu:ology; It first appeats in the tenth book of
um-'
l,For an extensive analysis of the ontqlogic;tl �gomeot, see Alvin Plantinga, ed., The Ontological Argrdnenf, from $L Augustine to Con(e,nporary Philo:;opher$ {_New York, 19-65), :t·Aqainas- a,ctuaily _gives us tlve, but me :fourth "wdy.. is 11ot dearly cosmologk.al .
lnJroiiuct,ion
3
Plato 's La,ws. That account, how�ver, is extremely sjmpfistic. The entire argument ta.ms on t'h-e motion of anlrna ted objects. An maimate, object is. 5elf-movfug, while all i,aanimate object moves ,owy wlten moved by some animate source. The Sophists, Pl�to's intellectual adversaries, bad assumed- ih� livin_g -things spring ·from we inanimate, and that 1Jlllffet is the. incipient �oj]nd of everything else.3 Plato rejects ;SUch a concwtio� arguing. instead that inanimate things are never (logi cally or clutrnologi.cally) prior to animate objects, be;. cause the- inanimate is always dependent 11po.n. a spon taneous or mtex:na]Iy initiated source for its movement. It cannot move itselt4 Aceo.rdingly, tbeosource of mo tion can be ofily ·that which bas the power of motion within itself. This .P)a'to .conceived as "mind' ot "soul" -ihe singuJar .eI:emept that e-µsts prior 1o and causes mo�·ement in all inanimate objects. That .ii, the extent of Plato's argrrp1eiit, and it alone cc;,nstita.tes bis theo Jqgical case -for "soul" as the source- af motion. The rernaIoder of the discussion is spent de,nonstrat:ing, at 1�t to fris· own satisfactio� that ''soul'1 is Soul (God 01 Gods.) because the magni.tnde of �tion in the uni verse necessitates a $oul of cosmic _proportions. Si.Ii.ce Plato's m::gument also lends it.Self to teleological con sideratibn, wliicb will be investigated in due colll'$6, we neea not pursi::Je it:furthec here. Aristotle, wh.o undoubtedly prodn� the most in 1 ·
teresting theologi� arguments in Greek philosophy, accepts tlie Platonic ,dictum that motion is evidence for
·G.oo,.
but be dQes not accept the additional doctrine
a Se� Plato's PJuieilrus. An a:wiment that Waller Kaufmann tlgl;ttl.y :iDaiotaios is l!l!;Sed on lhe bi4den, premise, ihat rest ia mtural and ,motion .ii. tto:naroial (bne mJglir- s,i.y transnatural). Critial :rather than of .natural
·order. In th.; words of Aquinas, ''This everyone un derstands to be,God:' To this initial explanatio.n, however, the contempo }"afj. apo1'ogist adds two qualifying principles. F� the COI)�pt of cosmological motion is never limited to local motion. That is, motion is- not Iestricted to se. qnenfial places o.r spaces, but is defined metaphysically as any form 9f c:tiange. This is the proce,s� of moving Irom one "State of being to, another {from potency to acl;, as the Scholastics.. would. have it); for example, the change .of child into man or of water into steam. 1n other woros, tl,!e chat!ge. that comes about is not to be int.;rpreted as a causal chain of ev�ts, on. the order of falling dominoes, but is envisioned as a com plex connection between various states of being, pre servt;d and supported by a primp, metaphysical slate .of Being; The second qualifying principle follows logically from the :liIBt, i:tame1y, if motion is 1101 to be. restrict.ed to particwar objects moving from one point :in space and time to another, ,tben imistence up.on temporal sequence :bas no part.icuia.c signili.oance ;i.nd may very ·wen be misleading. Prime" Mover 'is :not only tb.e initial member in a tempoxal series, but, more. significantly, tbe highest metaphysical on:ler. of Being to whic1i. all other changing agents are subordinate. P. T. Geach sug,,aests that tlle prop�r analogue for Prime Mover is more correctly a "minstrel as the source of ml!Sic" than it is, a ''b1acksurith as -tli.e. source of a: sboe." The nUill ber of moving �nts that are in,terj�ted between the unmoved :first .mover and {)resent motion is hrelevant. 'I'hei;efore, the issue of infinite series is q'uite ;beside
6
Introduction
the point, since tbe fust mover is not limiled to tb3 sole task qf activatit\g -�h�nomena � temporal s • .