The Arguments for God

excerpted from the book

Atheism

The Case Against God

by George H. Smith

Prometheus Books, 1989, paper

p221
Natural theology attempts to infer the existence of a supernatural being from natural phenomena which allegedly cannot be explained within the context of the natural universe itself. Using facts of nature as his starting point, the theist attempts to demonstrate the existence of a god without recourse to faith or revelation. Reason, it is claimed, is sufficient to establish the existence of a god.

We have now returned to "god" with a lower case "g." If valid, the arguments of natural theology will verify supernaturalism in some form, but they cannot establish the existence of a creature with the muddled and contradictory attributes of the Christian God. The best that natural theology can do for Christianity is to provide a foundation for rational theism, but it cannot erase the contradictions inherent in the Christian notion of God.

By examining natural theology, we are looking for some evidence, however slight, for the existence of a being that exists beyond the framework of the natural world. In other words, having dispensed with Christianity specifically, we are now concerned with the grounds for theistic belief in general. Are there rational reasons for believing in the existence of any kind of supernatural being, regardless of what its specific characteristics may be? If the general arguments for theism collapse, atheism-in the widest sense of the term-will be firmly established.

Natural theology has fallen into disrepute in recent decades, although it does enjoy an occasional resurgence. Liberal Protestants concede the invalidity of rational demonstration for a god, but Catholics (along with some fundamentalist Protestants) continue to defend natural theology. Catholic theology has a rigid philosophic structure based heavily on Aquinas, and to deny the validity of natural theological proofs would destroy this structure at its roots.

p229
An explanation builds a conceptual bridge from the known to the unknown, linking the unexplained to the context of one's knowledge. A new idea must be integrated within one's conceptual hierarchy in order to qualify as knowledge. An idea that cannot be so integrated exists in a conceptual vacuum; it cannot be comprehended because one lacks the conceptual framework necessary for comprehension.

The process of explanation consists essentially of integrating a new idea or concept within the context of one's present knowledge. Because men differ with regard to their context and scope of knowledge, an explanation is relative to the person seeking it. What is a satisfactory explanation for one man may not be satisfactory for another. For example, we simplify our language when explaining something to a child in order to compensate for his limited sphere of knowledge. Also, a scientist may understand an explanation that explains nothing to a layman who lacks the required technical background. An explanation must provide understanding, and one cannot understand something that lies beyond one's conceptual frame of reference.

While the particulars of knowledge differ among men, all men gain knowledge within one broad context: the context of the natural, knowable universe. Removed from this framework, knowledge is impossible and explanation is unintelligible.

Recall that the supernatural cannot be grasped by man's consciousness. When the theist posits a supernatural being, he is not merely positing the presently unknown that may be grasped with a greater degree of knowledge. The theist is positing the unknowable, that which is beyond man's comprehension, that which man will never be able to understand regardless of his degree of knowledge. Since the supernatural must remain forever outside the context of man's knowledge, a "supernatural explanation" is a contradiction in terms. One cannot explain the unknown with reference to the unknowable.

The theist initially constructs a gap between the universe and man's knowledge by claiming that the universe requires an explanation. Then, by stipulating that this explanation cannot be given in terms of natural (i.e., knowable) phenomena, he proclaims that this gap can never be bridged, that any attempt to account for the universe within the context of man's knowledge is doomed to failure. Therefore, he argues, we must turn to the supernatural and the unknowable.

The supernatural, however, does not build a conceptual bridge from the unknown to the known; it sabotages not only the bridge, but the very possibility of ever constructing such a bridge. According to the theist, we can never link that which requires an explanation (the universe or some natural phenomenon) to the context of knowledge available to man. To say that god is responsible for the universe is to say that the explanation of the universe is unknowable to man-or, in other words, that no explanation is possible. To posit the supernatural explains nothing; it merely asserts the futility of explanation.

Thus the universe, for which the theist originally demanded an explanation, is now admitted by this same theist to be beyond man's comprehension. According to the theist, the universe requires an explanation which man can never understand. And this renders the universe unintelligible in the full meaning of the term.

The atheist does not face this problem. For the atheist, the universe-the totality of existence-is a metaphysical primary and, as such, cannot require an explanation. The natural, knowable universe provides the context in which all explanations are possible, so to demand an explanation for the universe itself is epistemologically absurd. Corliss Lamont, in The Philosophy of Humanism, makes this point as follows:

In specific scientific explanations as well as in ultimate philosophical questions a stage frequently : ensues when it is profitless to keep on asking "Why?" At such a juncture we have to say: "Things are simply constructed this way or behave this way." The speed of light is what it is; the law of gravitation operates as it does; and the number of protons and electrons in each type of atom is what it is. In none of these

instances can an intelligible answer be given as to why .... In science as well as in philosophy, then, we eventually hit rock-bottom in the pursuit of certain inquiries.

p236
The first-cause argument has two major variations. As used by many theists, especially laymen, the first-cause argument serves to defend the idea that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Although philosophy is not sophisticated enough to demonstrate a six-day creation-or to prove that the omnipotent deity, apparently weary, "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done"-we can, claims this theist, at least demonstrate, philosophically, that a creation occurred. There was a "beginning" when god caused the universe to exist.

p236
Every existing thing has a cause, and every cause must be caused by a prior cause, which in turn must be caused by a still prior cause, and so on, until we reach one of two conclusions: (a) either we have an endless chain of causes-an infinite regress, or (b) there exists a first cause, a being that does not require a causal explanation.

According to this argument, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Without a first cause, there could be no second cause; and without a second cause, there could be no third cause, and so on ad infinitum. We would then reach the absurd conclusion that nothing presently exists. But since things do exist, we must reject an infinite regress and conclude that a first cause exists, a cause which we call "god." ...

This causal argument rests on two main assumptions: that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation, and that we cannot provide an adequate explanation within the context of the universe itself. Therefore, we must posit a transcendent first cause, a being that transcends natural cause-effect relationships.

Since the universe is not causally self-sufficient, we need to reach beyond the universe to account for the basic fact of the universe: the fact that it exists. If the atheist denies the existence of a supernatural being, how can he explain the existence of the universe? Surely it cannot just "happen" to exist; there must be a causal explanation.

Before we discuss the supposed mystery of existence, it is necessary to make some preliminary remarks concerning this argument.

(1) Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists-which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach.

This objection alone demolishes the temporal version of the causal argument, but it is not the only objection that can be raised in this context. For example, this argument cannot establish that the first cause was (or is) alive, nor can it establish that the first cause was (or is) conscious. And an inanimate, unconscious god is of little use to theism.

In fact, even if we were to accept this argument, the most that it can possibly demonstrate is that something has existed which is itself uncaused. And as one philosopher has pointed out, "somebody believing in the eternity of atoms, or of matter generally, could quite consistently accept the conclusion."

(2) The theist may object to this last remark, claiming that not only must there be a first cause, but this first cause cannot be part of the natural universe. The universe does not explain the reason for its own existence, but a supernatural first cause does provide us with an explanation. This transcendent first cause, therefore, explains the previously unexplained.

Assuming for the moment that the universe requires a causal explanation, does the positing of a first cause provide us with that explanation? How does the concept of god function as an explanatory concept in this instance? A supernatural first cause, a god, supposedly caused the universe to exist. Consider the nature of this "explanation." Does it provide one with a conceptual grasp of the issue being considered? Does it provide a causal explanation in any meaningful sense? No, it does not.

To posit god as the cause of the universe still leaves two crucial questions unanswered: What caused the universe? How did it cause the universe? To say that a god is responsible for the existence of the universe is vacuous without knowledge of god's nature and the method used in creating existence. If god is to serve as a causal explanation, we must have knowledge of god's attributes by virtue of which he has the capacity to create matter from nonexistence, and knowledge of the causal process involved in creation, by virtue of which god is designated as a cause.

If, as the theist asserts, the existence of the universe requires a causal explanation, the positing of a transcendent first cause or god does not provide us with this explanation. The theist's solution consists of saying: An unknowable being using unknowable methods "caused" the universe to snap into existence. This, remember, is offered as an explanation, as a rational solution to an apparent problem. This is supposed to resolve one's intellectual doubts about the mystery of existence.

To say that god caused the universe to exist is to argue that man can never comprehend the existence of the universe. The theist demands a causal explanation of the universe and then fails to provide an explanation. Even if a supernatural being did exist, the "problem" of existence would be as puzzling as before. After all, how did it create existence from nonexistence? "Somehow" is not an explanation, and "through some incomprehensible means" is a poorer explanation still. The theist is trapped in a dilemma of his own making-the "mystery" of existence-and he must confront an unintelligible universe.

(3) Are the premises of the first-cause argument true? Does the universe require a causal explanation?

In considering the causal argument as a whole, one contradiction immediately stands out. The first premise of this argument states that everything must have a cause, and the conclusion asserts the existence of an uncaused supernatural being. But if everything must have a cause, how did god become exempt? Professor John Hospers points out the contradictory nature of the first-cause argument:

... the causal argument is not merely invalid but self-contradictory: the conclusion, which says that something (God) does not have a cause, contradicts the premise, which says that everything does have a cause...

p240
Causal explanation is possible only within the context of existence. Nathaniel Branden writes:

Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist .... All actions presuppose the existence of entities-and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause .... Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality ... Existence-not "God"-is the First Cause.

This passage demonstrates that the causal argument drops the epistemological context that gives meaning to the concept of causality. "What caused the universe?" is an absurd question, because before something can act as a cause, it must first exist-i.e., it must first be part of the universe. The universe sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require La causal explanation.

p241
The universe, then, has always existed and always will exist. Some theists find this difficult to accept, and they argue that god makes the universe easier to understand. Yet, while the theist complains of difficulty accepting the notion of an eternally existing universe, consider his alternative. We must conceive of a supernatural, unknowable, eternally existing being, and, moreover, we must conceive of this being creating matter from the void of nonexistence. It is strange that those who object to the idea of eternal matter display little difficulty in accepting the creation of something out of nothing. While the idea of an eternal universe may be initially difficult for some people to assimilate, the theist's alternative is an exercise in fantasy.

p257
The label "design argument" includes a family of arguments which differ in details, but which share a common approach: each attempts to infer the existence of a divine intelligence, a master planner, from alleged evidences of planning in nature. If it can be shown that nature exhibits design, we must conclude that nature had a designer with intelligence and immense power. And this seems to be an excellent candidate for a god.

The design argument has more appeal than the cosmological proofs, probably because it seems more straightforward and forceful at first glance. If we accept the premise that the universe displays planning, the inference to a master designer follows with irrefutable logic ...

Of course, the problem with any version of the design argument is that the theist must demonstrate that the universe displays intelligent planning.

p275
[The] identification of ethics with religion has no basis in fact, and few theologians care to defend such a position explicitly. It functions, instead, as a kind of underlying assumption, apparently in the hope that if it goes unstated, it will also go unchallenged. However, not only are religion and ethics distinct spheres, but a theological approach to ethics, a moral theory based on divine will, is inimical to human life and happiness- / and thus negates the foundation of rational ethics.

p276
Abandoning the belief in god may have I very little influence on a person's life one way or the other, and it is clear that atheists are just as capable of moral atrocities as are theists. And it is equally clear that atheism is no safeguard against misery, anxiety and neurosis.

It is necessary to distinguish between the mere belief in a supernatural agency which, theoretically speaking, may have little psychological influence, and the belief in a system of doctrines structured around this supernatural being which, more often than not, claims a heavy psychological toll. Few theists are able to disassociate their belief in god from their other beliefs, particularly in the area of ethics. Christianity, to take an obvious example, entails a wide range of doctrines touching on areas crucially important to human life. The God of Christianity is not an impersonal abstraction; he is intimately involved in human affairs. He offers a scheme of salvation, promulgates moral commandments, and threatens punishment for disbelievers. Christianity is more than theistic belief; it is a way of life. It offers a view of the universe, man's role in the universe, and the requirements for human well-being-thereby impinging on ethics and psychology.

If it is true that Christian doctrines are largely harmful, then atheism is conducive to happiness insofar as it removes definite obstacles to happiness... atheism while not a guarantee of happiness, is capable of clearing the way for the attainment of happiness. Rejecting the Christian view of sex, for instance, can have dramatic psychological consequences, but it does not insure that one will experience a rewarding sexual relationship. Similarly, rejecting the general approach of Christianity to moral principles can eradicate a major source of guilt and self-doubt, but it does not insure that one will be a happy, confident person.

To put this issue in a slightly different way, atheism, as such, is not an answer to anything, but it provides a general context in which answers are possible. Atheism provides one with a clean slate, in effect, and what one does beyond this point is entirely a matter of choice. But under no circumstances should atheism be regarded as a cure-all or as an escape from personal responsibility.

p278
Considered in terms of its basic approach and precepts, Christian ethics must be condemned in its entirety. This is not to omit the possibility that it may have some good things to say occasionally and that it has had a constructive influence at certain times in history (although, in most cases, the reverse has been true). Rather, to condemn Christian ethics as a whole is to say that, as an ethical system - i.e., as a system of principles to guide man's choices and actions-it totally fails to accomplish what an ethical system should accomplish. Christian ethics is based throughout on falsehood-and this alone is sufficient to guarantee its failure; in addition, it advocates a conception of moral principles and their role in human existence which, by its very nature, works contrary to man's happiness and well-being. Christian ethics is more conducive to misery than to happiness, and it prescribes moral principles that are more accurately described as a code of death rather than a code of life. While ostensibly offering man a reprieve from the suffering in life, Christian ethics, like Christian theology, creates many of the problems that it later offers to solve. And, like theology, Christian ethics fails miserably in its attempt to find a solution.

Atheism - The Case Against God

Index of Website

Home Page