ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE 1

1. ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE1 • The arguments we considered this far have all at times been presented as proofs for God’s existence. That is to say, they were viewed (by some) as arguments that yield knowledge of God’s existence. • Knowledge is (usually) defined as = Justified True Belief. This is the well-known JTB thesis which has its roots in Plato’s Theaetetus. [We will examine this thesis in chapter # 4.] • The key issue here is this: Can we claim that we do have knowledge of God’s existence? Do we have any proof for God’s existence? The arguments we examined face a number of (serious) problems. • On the other hand, however, can we claim that we have knowledge that God does not exist? Apparently, there is at least one argument that seriously undermines the thesis for the existence of the Christian God – who is considered to be theistic.

2. ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE2 • There are two things we need to note here. The first point: sometimes we can’t provide a proof for the truth of some statement p. Yet, this does not constitute an indication (or a proof for the fact that) that p is false. • To make the point clearer, consider this example: for many centuries the supporters of the thesis that the “Planets revolve around the Sun” could not offer a proof for their position. This did not constitute an indication that their thesis was false. Their thesis was in fact true. • The second point: The argument we are about to examine, the notorious “Problem of Evil”, seems to establish that even if (the Christian) God does exist, he can’t be a theistic God.

3. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL1 • It is an undeniable fact that there is evil in the world. There are two kinds of evil. Moral Evil = evil that has its source in human beings, e.g. the Jewish holocaust, the Rwanda “holocaust”, etc. Natural or Metaphysical Evil = evil that has its source in nature, e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc. • If it is a fact that there is evil in the world, then how can one plausibly assert that God, the Christian God, is theistic? • Let us spell the point out: there is evil in the world; this is a fact; if this is so, then an omniscient God would know about it; an omnipotent God could easily prevent it; and, a benevolent God would not want it to exist. • How are we, then, to compromise the presumed fact that the Christian God is theistic with the certain fact that evil does exist in the world?

4. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL2 • Many thinkers consider the above, the “problem of evil” objection, to be the most serious threat to Christianity. • And, Christian theologians and/or philosophers have tried to present arguments that may compromise the existence of evil in the world with the claim that the Christian God is theistic. • Any argument that attempts to solve the problem of evil is known as a “theodicy”. • In what follows, we will examine three theodicies – there are many more we will not consider here.

5. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL3 • There is the saintliness theodicy. This may be analyzed in a variety of ways. Here is one of them: God allows evil in the world because it leads to greater moral goodness. For instance, by allowing for millions of people to suffer, God gives Mother Theresa the opportunity to show how morally virtuous she is. • There are obvious problems with this theodicy. Why is it necessary for so many people to suffer? Couldn’t Mother Theresa demonstrate her moral virtue in other ways – less painful for the majority of people? Is it really plausible to claim that a benevolent God allows so much suffering in the world just to give us the opportunity to attain moral development/perfection? • Then there is the artistic analogy theodicy. This argument claims that: there is an analogy between the world and a work of art; the beauty of a painting depends on the balance of dark and light colors it contains; similarly, for the world to be harmonious/beautiful it must contain both good and evil.

6. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL4 • This is a patently weak/bad argument. Many objections have been raised against it. We will briefly examine just a couple of them. • It is very difficult to understand how (e.g.) the Jewish Holocaust may be seen as contributing to the harmony or the beauty of the world. • Even if we do ignore this objection, there is another related problem for the theodicy under consideration: the only one who may actually “enjoy” the harmonious picture that is the world is God; how can a truly benevolent God be said to derive pleasure from such an activity? • For further details on both of the theodicies examined here, see the material in your textbook, pp. 22-24.

7. THE FREE WILL DEFENCE1 • The most plausible theodicy, that is to say, the most plausible solution to the problem of evil, is the Free Will Defence. • The Free Will Defence states the following: God is truly benevolent; if God is truly benevolent, then he wants the very best for us; it is better for us to be free, i.e. to have free will, than to live in a world governed by determinism; the only way for us to have free will is for the world to contain both good and evil; this is the explanation as to why the benevolent Christian God allows evil in the world. • The Free Will Defence may be stated in more detail. Let us see the more detailed version of the argument.

8. THE FREE WILL DEFENCE2 • The Free Will Defence argument: • God is benevolent. • If God is truly benevolent, then he wants the very best for us. • What is best for us: (a) “To have free will so that we may make choices in our lives, either good or bad/evil?”, or (b) “To be so programmed by God that we can’t ever act badly/immorally?”. • Putatively, what is best for us is to have free will; nobody wants to be like a robot. • If we are to have free will, then it is necessary for us to live in a world that gives us this capacity; we have to live in a world that contains both good and evil. • If the above is accepted, then we may readily explain why God allows evil in the world, although he is at the same time benevolent.

9. THE FREE WILL DEFENCE3 • It should be noted that the Free Will Defence is not free of problems. It faces a number of serious objections. Let us briefly consider some of them. • Is it really true that it is preferable to live in a world that provides us with the capacity to have free will, than to live in world that is free of evil, even if this means that our lives are (in a sense) programmed by God? You should seriously consider this question. • The Free Will Defence is based on at least one key assumption. It assumes that humans do in fact have free will. But, is this true? Most contemporary philosophers, and scientists, believe that the universe we live in is highly deterministic.

10. THE FREE WILL DEFENCE4 • Here are some of the basics of the notorious free will vs determinism debate. • What exactly is determinism? In particular, what is causal determinism? It is the view that every event is the effect of earlier events. That is to say, for every event E there is an antecedent set of conditions that necessitate the coming to be of E. [This is essentially the principle of sufficient reason.] • If this view holds true, then no human action may be said to be the result of free choice. • Versions of this form of (causal) determinism have been adopted by scientists such as Laplace and Einstein.

11. THE FREE WILL DEFENCE5 • One answer to the Laplacean conception of the (mechanistic/determinist) universe is facilitated by (modern) quantum mechanics. • Scientists have shown that at the micro level particles do not always behave as expected. Roughly put, determinism does not seem to hold true at the micro level. [This point will be further analyzed in the lectures.] • Two things need to be noted here. First, this idea actually has its sources in Democritean atomic philosophy; i.e. the notorious “swerving of atoms” theory. And second, even though this much may be true, the fact is that at the macro level the universe remains subject to determinism. • What we also need to mention here is that the supporters of free will have made a number of attempts to rebut determinism.

12. THE FREE WILL DEFENCE6 • Let us mention just one of their arguments. • If my choice to perform action X is part of the set of conditions/causes that brings about X, then my action may be characterized as the result of (free) choice. • That is to say, there are two possible futures: the one that occurs when I choose to do X, and the one that occurs when I choose to do something different. So, my future is, in a sense, open. • It should be pointed out, though, that the determinist has an answer to this: even our choices are determined/necessitated by antecedent causes/conditions. • The fact of the matter is that the debate sketched out above is yet to be settled.

13. THE FREE WILL DEFENCE7 • Perhaps the most serious objection to the Free Will Defence is this: The argument may explain away the presence of moral evil in the world. But, can it really explain the presence of natural evil in the world? How does the presence of natural evil in the world contribute towards our having free will? • Some theists argue that this objection is not really fatal – for the Free Will Defence. Very briefly, they argue that: natural evil is just a side-effect of the laws of nature that God had to put in place; these laws are mostly beneficial; their occasional bad side-effects are a small price to pay – compared to their benefits. • It should be noted, however, that there is (at least) one serious problem with this thesis: if God is truly omnipotent, then why didn’t he put in place a different set of natural laws, i.e. natural laws without bad side-effects?

14. GOD AND MIRACLES1 • Many theists claim that one proof for God’s existence is the “argument from miracles”. The argument goes like this: it is a fact that God/Jesus performed miracles; he still does so (occasionally); these miracles constitute a proof for God’s existence. • Your textbook contains an extensive discussion of the issue of miracles; see pp. 27-30. We will examine only a couple of the points mentioned in your textbook. • At this point, it is important to consider the following: “A miracle can be defined as some kind of divine intervention in the normal course of events which involves the violation of an established law of nature. A law of nature is a generalization about the way certain things behave: for example, weights fall to the ground when dropped, no one rises from the dead, and so on” (p. 27).

15. GOD AND MIRACLES2 • It is imperative that one grasps the difference between: (a) Miracles and (b) Extraordinary occurrences. • A miracle, as just stated, is an event that happens in violation of the laws of nature. An extraordinary occurrence is simply an unusual event. You can see some relevant examples in your textbook, p. 27. • D. Hume had a lot to say about miracles in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. For a brief summary of his views on this issue, see pp. 27-28. • What suffices to remember here is the main point Hume seems to be making: if an event may be explained via offering a relevant scientific explanation, then it is not a miracle. In other words, a scientific explanation for the occurrence of an event X should always be preferred over a claim that this event, X, is a miracle. Strangely enough, this is the view adopted by the church as well. • One last point: what we have just said does not exclude the possibility for the occurrence of miracles.

16. PASCAL’S WAGER1 • The arguments we have seen so far have all been aimed at proving that God does or does not exist. • The next argument we are going to examine, “Pascal’s Wager”/“The Gambler’s Argument”, is quite different from these. Its main aim is to show that: it is not illogical/irrational to believe that God exists. More precisely, its goal is to show that: “… a sensible gambler would be well advised to bet that God exists” (Warburton, p. 30). • Let us see how the argument goes.

17. PASCAL’S WAGER2 • Pascal’s Wager: • The argument begins from the position adopted by the agnostic – someone who believes that there is not enough evidence to decide whether or not God exists. • Since we don’t know whether God does (or does not) exist, then one ought to approach the whole issue like a good gambler. That is to say, we ought to make a decision concerning this matter that may maximize profit and minimize loss. • If this is so, then as good gamblers we have two possible options. • We can bet that God does exist. There are two possible outcomes: (a) We win  in this case we win something important, i.e. eternal life, and (b) We lose  in this case we lose something insignificant (in comparison to eternal life), i.e. we get to better utilize our time on earth. • We can bet that God does not exist. There are two possible outcomes: (a) We win  in this case the reward is a life without illusions, and (b) We loose  in this case the loss is important, i.e. eternal life. • Given the above, a wise man, or a good gambler, can see that the most rational option is to bet that God does exist. It is the bet that maximizes possible gains and minimizes possible losses.

18. PASCAL’S WAGER3 • The question that arises at this point: “Is this a good argument?”. • There are quite a few problems with this argument – most of them “technical”. You can see some of them in your textbook, pp. 31-32. • What suffices to remember here is this: The Gambler’s argument recommends that we approach the question of whether God does or does not exist in a rather “inappropriate” way. Should we believe in God just because this is the option that may maximize profit and minimize loss? • The Christian’s answer to the last question seems to be obvious. It is an “opportunistic”, and thus inappropriate approach to religion.

19. SOME OTHER ISSUES1 • Non-realism about God. What is it? • It is a thesis which has it that: Human beings accept a certain set of moral (and spiritual) values; God does not really exist; All the talk about God is just a (fictional) story we use in order to promote our set of moral (and spiritual) values. • The bottom line here is this: For the non-realist God does not exist independently of humans; God is in fact a creation of the human mind – which facilitates the promotion of a certain moral code. • It should be quite obvious that non-realism (about God) is a disguised form of atheism.

20. SOME OTHER ISSUES2 • The Christians accept that: (a) God does exist, and (b) A consequence of God’s existence is that there is “life after death”. • One question that arises here is this: Even if one does not believe in God, should he be afraid of death? • The Epicureans had an interesting answer to this question. They claimed that: Death = nothingness; if this is so, then the fear of death is completely irrational. • What do you think of the above (Epicurean) position?