Among the ancient versions of the cosmological argument, perhaps the most straightforward is the kalam argument. By 'straightforward' I mean the argument that can be stated the most simply, though defending the argument is not simple, for - like most significant philosophical arguments - it has its critics who raise various objections, some of which deserve a detailed response. In the present day, it is typical to defend the kalam argument by arguing that the big bang theory supports one of its key premises, that is, that the cosmos had a beginning. I will not focus on this argument, however, finding other arguments more enduring than scientific cosmological models.
This particular argument originated among Islamic philosophers and theologians during what is sometimes referred to as the Islamic Golden Age, from the 8th century to the 13th, although many of the arguments supporting the premise that the cosmos had a beginning originated some centuries earlier. The Christian philosopher John Philoponus (aka John of Alexandria) was one of the greatest Aristotelian commentators of his day, but he differed from Aristotle on one crucial issue - he rejected Aristotle's view that it is impossible to prove metaphysically that the cosmos had a beginning. Against this view he wrote two key works Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World and Against Proclus on the Eternity of the World. Although John did not attempt to further develop his arguments into an argument for the existence of God (apparently thinking that previous Aristotelian and Neoplatonic arguments for God's existence were sufficient), his arguments for the beginning of the cosmos provided the inspiration for later philosophers.
Among philosophers of the Middle Ages, four philosophers stand out as defenders of the kalam argument, two were Muslim, one was Jewish and one was Christian. The Muslim philosopher al-Kindi was one of the first to promote the argument in his short work On First Philosophy. This was later followed by al-Ghazali's The Incoherence of the Philosophers, a major critique of the falsafa school of thought among Islamic thinkers that al-Ghazali thought compromised certain core Islamic beliefs, including creation. Jewish philosopher Saadia Gaon's (aka Sa'adiah ben Yoseph Gaon), like other Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages, provided a gateway (or bridge, if you prefer that metaphor) between Islamic and Christian scholarship. As William Lane Craig notes in his The Kalam Cosmological Argument, 'Standing in the gap between the Arabic thinkers and the Christian theologians of the West, the Jewish philosophers were instrumental in the transmission of Aristotelian and Arabic philosophy to medieval Europe' (p. 37). It was primarily through Jewish translations of influential scholarly texts that Ancient Greek thought and Medieval Arabic though were introduced (or reintroduced) to Europe in the 12th century sparking what is sometimes referred to as the Twelfth Century Renaissance (perhaps the most significant of three medieval renaissances). Once Greek ans Arabic thought has come to medieval Europe, Christian philosophers begun to engage once again with some of the classic theistic arguments. Bonaventure was one of the major Christian thinkers who defended the kalam argument. Unfortunately, the kalam argument declined in popularity throughout the late medieval and early modern periods, initially being being ignored in favour of other versions of the cosmological argument (e.g., Thomistic, Scotist, Cartesian, Leibnizian), and then ignored completely after classic and early modern theistic arguments declined after Kant's critique.
More recently, the kalam argument has been revived and revised by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig in works such as his The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Reasonable Faith (1st ed. 1984, 2nd ed. 1994, 3rd ed. 2008) and a variety of scholarly articles, including his technical article in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009). Other philosophers have also defended the argument, such as David S. Oderberg and J.P. Moreland, but Craig has been the main defender and it is his arguments that make up the bulk of this post.
The basic premises of the kalam argument can be stated simply:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
More recently, Craig has restated the argument slightly:
1. If the universe began to exist, then the universe requires a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Nothing can be the cause of its own existence.
4. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence that is not itself (or any part of itself).
As I noted in a previous post, this is the first step in the argument; the second step focuses on 'unpacking' the notion of a 'first cause' of the cosmos, i.e., 'What characteristics would a cause of the cosmos have to have?' and then showing that these characteristics are exactly the characteristics that are attributed to God by theists, e.g incorporeality (or immateriality), eternality, simplicity, timelessness, self-existence, intellect, immense power, etc.
Ordinarily, premise 3 would not be necessary, for it is obvious that nothing can be the cause of its own existence, once one understands the sense in which 'cause' is being used here. However, more recently, the New Atheists have begun talking about the universe as being 'self-created' or 'self-caused'. They apparently (erroneously) think that this is how theists view God - as a self-caused being. But this is nonsense, and only serves the further show how widespread misconceptions of theism are among atheists.
It should be obvious that the key premise in this argument (and the one that defenders of the kalam argument have spent most of their time defending) is the second premise. Historically, most atheists have attempted to argue against theism by insisting that the cosmos is eternal and requires no creator. Therefore, no God is needed. Actually, this is a mistake, because most versions of the cosmological argument do not argue for a beginning of the cosmos, and whether it had a beginning or not is irrelevant to such arguments. It is further a mistake because this approach ignores the arguments of philosophers from John Philoponus to the present, who have presented some compelling metaphysical arguments for the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress, such as the cosmos would have to be if it were eternal.
A few points need to be made before I begin to defend the premises of the argument. Firstly, the first premise is not arguing that 'everything has a cause' only that those things that have a beginning (i.e., come into existence) require a cause of their existence. Secondly, when the argument refers to the 'universe' or 'comos', it is not simply referring to 'this universe, among many universes', but rather to 'all material reality'. Some atheists, who have apparently not studied the argument very closely, seem to think that a simple refutation of the kalam argument is to admit that the universe requires a cause, and then to suggest that it was caused by some event in another universe. Here they are promoting the 'multiverse' idea. However, most of the arguments presented against the eternity of the cosmos are actually against the possibility of an infinite temporal regress, and they apply whether one believes in one universe or many. Perhaps the only argument that might be sidestepped by reference to a multiverse is the big bang argument, although as Craig has argued more recently, even this argument can be modified to avoid this popular objection.
I'll start my discussion by noting that there are four ways in which people have attempted to explain the existence of the cosmos:
1. The cosmos is the creation of a self-existent, eternal being, i.e., God.
2. The cosmos has always existed, and so requires no cause.
3. The comos is self-created.
4. The cosmos exists without cause or explanation of any kind.
One can easily find variations on all of these options. For example, the 'eternal multiverse' is really just a revised version of option 2. Obviously, the last option is not really an attempt to explain the existence of the cosmos, but a rather crude attempt to avoid having to explain the existence of the cosmos at all. If a person wishes to take that option, they cannot really claim that their view is more rational than anyone else's, because they are really rejecting all attempts to rationally explain the cosmos. (Typically, atheists who wish to take this option reject premise 1 of the kalam argument.) Similarly, option 3 is absurd and self-contradictory. In order to be the cause of itself, something would either have to pre-exist itself; but nothing can exist prior to its own existence. As an attempt to rationally understand the existence of the cosmos, then, we are left with options 1 and 2.
In the next post (part 2), I will discuss and defend premises 1 and 2 of the kalam argument in greater detail. This will be followed by part 3, which will unpack the idea of a first cause of the cosmos.
This particular argument originated among Islamic philosophers and theologians during what is sometimes referred to as the Islamic Golden Age, from the 8th century to the 13th, although many of the arguments supporting the premise that the cosmos had a beginning originated some centuries earlier. The Christian philosopher John Philoponus (aka John of Alexandria) was one of the greatest Aristotelian commentators of his day, but he differed from Aristotle on one crucial issue - he rejected Aristotle's view that it is impossible to prove metaphysically that the cosmos had a beginning. Against this view he wrote two key works Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World and Against Proclus on the Eternity of the World. Although John did not attempt to further develop his arguments into an argument for the existence of God (apparently thinking that previous Aristotelian and Neoplatonic arguments for God's existence were sufficient), his arguments for the beginning of the cosmos provided the inspiration for later philosophers.
Among philosophers of the Middle Ages, four philosophers stand out as defenders of the kalam argument, two were Muslim, one was Jewish and one was Christian. The Muslim philosopher al-Kindi was one of the first to promote the argument in his short work On First Philosophy. This was later followed by al-Ghazali's The Incoherence of the Philosophers, a major critique of the falsafa school of thought among Islamic thinkers that al-Ghazali thought compromised certain core Islamic beliefs, including creation. Jewish philosopher Saadia Gaon's (aka Sa'adiah ben Yoseph Gaon), like other Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages, provided a gateway (or bridge, if you prefer that metaphor) between Islamic and Christian scholarship. As William Lane Craig notes in his The Kalam Cosmological Argument, 'Standing in the gap between the Arabic thinkers and the Christian theologians of the West, the Jewish philosophers were instrumental in the transmission of Aristotelian and Arabic philosophy to medieval Europe' (p. 37). It was primarily through Jewish translations of influential scholarly texts that Ancient Greek thought and Medieval Arabic though were introduced (or reintroduced) to Europe in the 12th century sparking what is sometimes referred to as the Twelfth Century Renaissance (perhaps the most significant of three medieval renaissances). Once Greek ans Arabic thought has come to medieval Europe, Christian philosophers begun to engage once again with some of the classic theistic arguments. Bonaventure was one of the major Christian thinkers who defended the kalam argument. Unfortunately, the kalam argument declined in popularity throughout the late medieval and early modern periods, initially being being ignored in favour of other versions of the cosmological argument (e.g., Thomistic, Scotist, Cartesian, Leibnizian), and then ignored completely after classic and early modern theistic arguments declined after Kant's critique.
More recently, the kalam argument has been revived and revised by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig in works such as his The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Reasonable Faith (1st ed. 1984, 2nd ed. 1994, 3rd ed. 2008) and a variety of scholarly articles, including his technical article in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009). Other philosophers have also defended the argument, such as David S. Oderberg and J.P. Moreland, but Craig has been the main defender and it is his arguments that make up the bulk of this post.
The basic premises of the kalam argument can be stated simply:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
More recently, Craig has restated the argument slightly:
1. If the universe began to exist, then the universe requires a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Nothing can be the cause of its own existence.
4. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence that is not itself (or any part of itself).
As I noted in a previous post, this is the first step in the argument; the second step focuses on 'unpacking' the notion of a 'first cause' of the cosmos, i.e., 'What characteristics would a cause of the cosmos have to have?' and then showing that these characteristics are exactly the characteristics that are attributed to God by theists, e.g incorporeality (or immateriality), eternality, simplicity, timelessness, self-existence, intellect, immense power, etc.
Ordinarily, premise 3 would not be necessary, for it is obvious that nothing can be the cause of its own existence, once one understands the sense in which 'cause' is being used here. However, more recently, the New Atheists have begun talking about the universe as being 'self-created' or 'self-caused'. They apparently (erroneously) think that this is how theists view God - as a self-caused being. But this is nonsense, and only serves the further show how widespread misconceptions of theism are among atheists.
It should be obvious that the key premise in this argument (and the one that defenders of the kalam argument have spent most of their time defending) is the second premise. Historically, most atheists have attempted to argue against theism by insisting that the cosmos is eternal and requires no creator. Therefore, no God is needed. Actually, this is a mistake, because most versions of the cosmological argument do not argue for a beginning of the cosmos, and whether it had a beginning or not is irrelevant to such arguments. It is further a mistake because this approach ignores the arguments of philosophers from John Philoponus to the present, who have presented some compelling metaphysical arguments for the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress, such as the cosmos would have to be if it were eternal.
A few points need to be made before I begin to defend the premises of the argument. Firstly, the first premise is not arguing that 'everything has a cause' only that those things that have a beginning (i.e., come into existence) require a cause of their existence. Secondly, when the argument refers to the 'universe' or 'comos', it is not simply referring to 'this universe, among many universes', but rather to 'all material reality'. Some atheists, who have apparently not studied the argument very closely, seem to think that a simple refutation of the kalam argument is to admit that the universe requires a cause, and then to suggest that it was caused by some event in another universe. Here they are promoting the 'multiverse' idea. However, most of the arguments presented against the eternity of the cosmos are actually against the possibility of an infinite temporal regress, and they apply whether one believes in one universe or many. Perhaps the only argument that might be sidestepped by reference to a multiverse is the big bang argument, although as Craig has argued more recently, even this argument can be modified to avoid this popular objection.
I'll start my discussion by noting that there are four ways in which people have attempted to explain the existence of the cosmos:
1. The cosmos is the creation of a self-existent, eternal being, i.e., God.
2. The cosmos has always existed, and so requires no cause.
3. The comos is self-created.
4. The cosmos exists without cause or explanation of any kind.
One can easily find variations on all of these options. For example, the 'eternal multiverse' is really just a revised version of option 2. Obviously, the last option is not really an attempt to explain the existence of the cosmos, but a rather crude attempt to avoid having to explain the existence of the cosmos at all. If a person wishes to take that option, they cannot really claim that their view is more rational than anyone else's, because they are really rejecting all attempts to rationally explain the cosmos. (Typically, atheists who wish to take this option reject premise 1 of the kalam argument.) Similarly, option 3 is absurd and self-contradictory. In order to be the cause of itself, something would either have to pre-exist itself; but nothing can exist prior to its own existence. As an attempt to rationally understand the existence of the cosmos, then, we are left with options 1 and 2.
In the next post (part 2), I will discuss and defend premises 1 and 2 of the kalam argument in greater detail. This will be followed by part 3, which will unpack the idea of a first cause of the cosmos.
Comments
Post a Comment