Week 8 - Cosmological and Design arguments

This week we have been discussing the cosmological and design arguments in favor of the existence of God. While philosophical arguments can sometimes cause people to question their religious convictions, many focus only on those arguments that bolster the beliefs they have an emotional investment in. Hopefully the study of philosophy is helping me toward a greater understanding of what I believe and don't believe and will perhaps assist me in questioning those things that I have accepted blindly in the past or help me discover ways of thinking that never occurred to me before.

Theologian Thomas Aquinas made a cosmological argument generalizing from the observation that all events have some cause. He reasoned that all events either must be classified as uncaused or "caused to exist by another". He then reasoned that there "cannot be an infinite regress of causes", so the "uncaused first cause" must be God.  I’m not sure why it would make sense that there can’t possibly be “an infinite regress of causes” and that God is uncaused unlike all other events. I think the only basis for this line of reasoning is Aquinas’ strong desire to make God’s existence necessary and provable in accordance with his belief structure.

Clergyman and philosopher William Paley makes the teleological argument (design argument) that the complexity of nature and seeming order of the universe show that it is probable that “a purposive intelligent will” brought these things into being. Again, Paley’s desire to find proof to justify his belief in God causes him to ignore those aspects of nature that do not appear to show evidence of purpose or intelligence, at least in the sense that we humans can understand. Random genetic mutations that are unsuccessful as a useful adaption, the cruelty of nature, the preference that is given to organisms with the most useful traits for a specific environment as opposed to those with the most complexity or intelligence, seems to conflict with the understanding that many people have of a benevolent, ethical God.

One thing that hasn’t been discussed in these arguments is the nature of the God that we are talking about. The God of the christian bible is one that sometimes mirrors the indifference of nature. Good people, like Job, are punished. All of humanity, except Noah and his family, and most animal species are wiped out in a flood. I think this is yet another example of human beings trying to fit their desire for an all knowing being that can take care of them and provide a meaning for existence into the imperfect world that we observe around us, which includes lots of suffering and doesn’t seem fair.

I’ve often wondered if you could, as an alternative to the biblical God, say that God is the order of the universe or that evolution is in itself a type of intelligence. The Bible says that God made man in his own image, but I think it’s the other way around. Humans must describe the world in human terms because we can’t see it from another perspective. Human consciousness is a special thing, but we don’t have a complete monopoly on consciousness. There are many different types and levels of awareness in other animals and plants. Maybe one could even say that consciousness itself is an aspect of God. Maybe through our conscious self-awareness, we ourselves must take the responsibility for manifesting the benevolence of the God that so many people hope exists. Of course, many would argue that the word God loses significance if we try to include too much under that heading.

Faith is not discussed in these philosophical arguments. I think that faith is a visceral sense that things are or must be a certain way even though there is no observable evidence that you can point to. This is not something one can argue about because it is so subjective. Perhaps mystical, religious experiences and faith are the only ways to touch or describe aspects of existence that are beyond human description.