Causality, Cosmology, and the Divine

On Principia Theologica we have begun a discussion of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. While there are multiple formulations of this argument (which will be discussed in detail on Principia Theologica), the central issue behind all three of them is causality. Now, causality is a rather complex philosophical issue in many ways. Perhaps one day we will have the pleasure of discussing it in greater detail. However, my purpose today is simply to discuss the basic concept of cause and effect and its relationship to the cosmological argument for God’s existence.

Generally speaking, the concept of cause and effect is simple to understand. If you were to picture a billiards table with billiards balls, when the cue-ball strikes the eight-ball, we have the cause and when the eight-ball falls into the pocket (hopefully) we have the effect. Now, granted, as I have already stated, there are incredibly complex issues here that are being overlooked for the sake of space and perhaps sanity too. However, the point should be well taken from common knowledge and the illustration show, that an effect is dependent upon a cause. All things being equal, the eight-ball will not be able to fall into the pocket unless it is first acted upon by some outside force, in this case, the cue-ball.

Now, the first thing that should come to your mind is to question the description of cause in the above paragraph. After-all, the cue-ball didn’t simply wake up that morning and decide to strike the eight-ball into the pocket. Rather the cue-ball striking the eight-ball was in turn an effect of the player striking the cue-ball with the his cue-stick, which was in turn an effect of his arms movement, which was in turn an effect of his brain sending certain electrical signals to his arm, etc…, etc…, etc… The point is, that just because an effect is dependent upon a cause does not mean that the cause is in fact independent itself. Rather, in the vast majority of examples that one could give, the cause is in fact a dependent effect with a cause behind it.

The problem for the theist arises when we argue for the existence of God based on cause and effect such as in the various forms of cosmological argument (CA). Thomas Aquinas, in his formulation of the CA essentially argues for an Unmoved Mover, Leibniz argues for an Un-sustained Sustainer, the Kalam formulation argues for an Uncaused Cause. However you choose to formulate it, the CA eventually comes back to the issue of causality in that it seeks to establish God as the First Cause of the universe. But what grounds are there for thinking that God is the First Cause? In fact, many atheists have asked the question, “If everything has a cause and that cause is God, what cause is there for God?” This is where the theist often stumbles.

Fortunately, there is no need for us to stumble or falter. Once we understand that the heart of skepticism is that you must know how you know, we can understand their approach to cosmology. The skeptic is constantly seeking the next cause. He constantly wants to know how something happened and the idea that there is an ultimate beginning bothers him. In fact, that is why cosmology is so problematic for the skeptic. The skeptic would prefer to see time and space as eternal. However, we know from modern cosmology that time and space are conical in shape and originate from a single point. Anything beyond that point is what is commonly referred to as “transcendent”. However, the skeptic works from the initial presupposition that there is no transcendent. There is nothing outside of or preceding space-time. The problem with this is that modern cosmology then requires the skeptic to say that either there is an uncaused effect (the start of the universe) or that there is an effect which is its own cause. Neither position holds water logically. Consider the following:

1)      Every effect has a cause outside of itself

2)      The universe is an effect

3)      Therefore the universe has a cause outside of itself

Now, it seems to me that (1) is abundantly clear. I am not aware of a single person who believes to the contrary of (1) and I would place it in the realm of “brute fact”. The same is true of (2). Furthermore, since (3) follows from (1) and (2) it seems clear that this argument is true. However, for the skeptic to assume that there is no transcendent and modern cosmology to stand as it does, the skeptic would have to offer the following argument

1)      Every effect has a cause outside of itself

2)      The universe is an effect

3*)   However, the universe has no cause outside of itself

Now, I’m not sure how much work I really need to do in order to demonstrate the problem with this argument. (3*) simply does not follow from (1) and (2) which means that the skeptic must demonstrate that either (1) or (2) is false or that (3*) somehow is true despite the fact that it would require the suspension of all known laws of logic! We are thus left with the original argument standing as true.

However, it does not then follow that the theists claim that God is uncaused as the First Cause stands true. It simply follows that the skeptics claim that the universe stands that First Cause is untrue. How then should the theist argue to demonstrate that the First Cause is indeed God? Well, very simply we can extrapolate a great deal about this First Cause before we ever identify it. Based on the fact that it must exist transcendently beyond the universe, it must be timeless, space-less, and non-physical. Furthermore, when we examine the nature of the universe itself we note that there are beings within the universe. Therefore the First Cause must possess being-ness. The beings within the first cause have moral attributes, personality, etc…thus the First Cause must have these attributes as well. It seems clear then that we extrapolate a being that clearly matches the description of what people mean when they say God.

So from our understanding of causality within the universe, we come to understand the necessity of a cause beyond the universe. Given the nature of the universe we know a great deal about this cause and it seems to match up with the common understanding of what is called God. On what basis then do we say that the First Cause, this God, does not then require a cause? Based on the same logic that helped us to extrapolate His nature and existence, we realize that this First Cause needs no cause. By definition, God, the First Cause, etc… would NOT be an effect. Thus if every effect is dependent upon a cause, and God is not an effect, we need not say that God is dependent upon any cause. Causality and cosmology help us to know the Divine.

The Role Of Evidence

Whether one is actively involved in formal debates or simply holding friendly discussions over various issues, the role of evidence is important to understand. Unfortunately, many Christians today feel threatened by the use of evidences in support of the faith. They see it as taking away from the faith of an individual or else they see it as offering a false hope. The simple fact of the matter is that this is wrong. In fact, faith itself operates as a form of evidence. Heb 11:1 says that faith “is the substance of things that are hoped for and the evidence of things that are not seen”. On this matter, I am wholly convinced that if we, as Christians, had a better handle on the proper role of evidence, then we would better be able to play the apologist and give an answer for the hope that lies within us. More people could be won to Christ and a great deal more would be strengthened in their faith. Let’s examine the proper role of evidence.

First of all, we must understand that evidence is not intended to be an argument in itself. If it is used as such (and it often is) it is simply unconvincing and pugnacious in nature. Arguments should be well formulated claims of logic intended to demonstrate a specific truth. Evidence then would be a fact or another argument used to support either the premises or the logical formulation of the first argument. For example:

Argument

1)      If P then Q
2)      P
3)      Therefore Q

Evidence

1)      P is true for the following reasons….
2)      P Follows from Q for the following reasons…

One can easily see in the examples given how evidences support the arguments. This is key to our understanding of evidences, for no one in their right mind bases their beliefs on evidence alone, but rather on well formulated logical arguments and evidence is simply the facts and arguments that support said logical arguments.

This leads me to my second point. Evidence is only necessary to support an argument, and thus it is necessary in order to defend or attack an argument. Thus, if I believe that Jesus is God because He rose from the dead, then I need to be able to give evidence for His having rose from the dead in order to support my belief in the face of defeaters offered by nay-sayers. However, all things being equal and as long as the argument follows logically, then I am perfectly within my rights to hold to my belief in the absence of any defeater…with or without evidence. For example:

Argument 1 (offered by the Christian)

1)      If Jesus rose from the dead, then He is God
2)      Jesus rose from the dead,
3)      Therefore, He is God

At this point, no evidence is needed. (3) follows logically from (1) and (2) and I am justified in holding this belief in the absence of any other argument or evidence.

Argument 2 (offered by the atheist  in response to Argument 1)

1)      If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then He is not God
2)      Jesus did not rise from the dead
3)      Therefore, He is not God

At this point, we have two opposing arguments. Both cannot be true, and therefore we must look for support for one or the other. The Christian can (and should) at this point turn to evidences such as…

Evidence for Argument 1

1)      We know Jesus rose from the dead because there were post-mortem appearances
2)      We know Jesus rose from the dead because the tomb was empty
3)      We know Jesus rose from the dead because of the lives changed by His power

In the absence of any evidence for the truth of Argument 2, Argument 1 now stands as the preferred argument given that there is evidence to support it and no evidence to support its opponent.

This is important because too many Christians think that those offering evidence are trying to convince others to convert based on the evidence. However, that is not the case (or at least it ought not to be). Evidence ought to be used in support of the arguments and claims of Christianity in response to counter-claims offered by those of opposing views.

This leads me to make my third point, which is about the validity of various types of evidence. How do we determine if some evidence offered is truly a defeater of an argument or not? How do we decide if it is valid or even pertinent? There are two basic rules that will help.

1)      It must be verifiably true

If the argument offered is that dark clouds lead to rain and since dark clouds are present rain must be imminent, then attacking this argument would require one to provide evidence of occasions where dark clouds did not, in fact, lead to rain. The evidence offered may be verified by any number of disciplines, but if it is not verifiably true, then it is ad hoc.

2)      It must be demonstrably pertinent

If the same argument about dark clouds and rain is offered as above, and the attack on its validity is one about fish breathing through their gills, the evidence is not pertinent. One would have to go to great lengths to demonstrate its material relevance to the issue at hand and in this case, Ockham’s razor would leave us with the argument initially offered as the standing argument.

My fourth point is less technical and more one of practicality for Christians to understand the role of faith and evidence in their lives. Dr. William Lane Craig writes, “…the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives us an immediate and veridical assurance of the truth of our Christian faith and…rational argument and evidence may properly confirm but not defeat that assurance”[1]. His point is, that a Christian need not fear evidences because, as Heb 11:1 says, our faith is evidence in and of itself. The presence of the Holy Spirit within us can and should give us assurance of the truth of Christianity and while evidences may help us to better understand that truth, we need not fear their compromising the testimony of the Holy Spirit within us. Evidence can and should be appreciated as Christians as emboldening them in their faith, anchoring them in the truth of Christianity, and arming them with ammunition with which to defeat the enemy of men’s souls. Understanding the way in which evidence operates and the legitimacy of various types of evidence will go a long way in making these goals more real in our lives and the lives of those that God blesses us with the opportunity to interact with.

---

[1] Craig, William Lane. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000: Ed. Steven B. Cowan; Ed. Stanley N. Gundry

The Nature of Proof (and its relationship to the existence of God)

 

It is common among evangelical Christians today to believe that the existence of the divine must be relegated to the faith of an individual. Unfortunately, we have done one of the greatest disservices to the church, the great commission, and the unbelieving world, by failing to honestly deal with this issue. It is to this that we now turn our attention, and hopefully that of others as well.

When one claims that the existence of God cannot be proven, one is making several epistemological assumptions. First of all, the assumption is made that there is such a thing as proof. This is quite an assumption about knowledge. Essentially we are saying that there is a point at which one can gain enough knowledge, not just to warrant, but rather to require belief. We may believe that this point is unattainable, but it is, nonetheless, assumed to be real. Second, one is assuming that in the absence of such a sufficient body of knowledge, one can only accept something by faith. Third, we must assume that faith is either beyond knowledge in some sense or at least that knowledge does not require faith. This is not to say that we must assume they are antithetical, only that we must assume they are inherently different. There are in fact a number of other assumptions being made by this statement including, but not limited to, the assumption that knowledge exists, faith exists, there is a mind by which to differentiate between the two, etc… I do not intend (at the moment or within the confines of this space) to deal with all of these assumption one by one, but I should think that the reader can readily see that many assumptions made by this statement are either patently false, or at least reasonably questionable when taken at face value. I do however, want to discuss the existence and nature of proof.

What is proof? A thorough answer of this question is impossible in the space available. However, allow me to present a scenario in which I can discuss some of the key points. Imagine that my wife has asked me to water the flowers and grass around my house. A few minutes later I tell her that I have done so and she asks me to prove it. How can I do so? The obvious answer is to take her outside and show her. However, the question must be asked, “what do I show her”. Obviously, I would show her the wet ground. She might then ask, “How do I know it did not rain and so the grass got wet and you never even got out the hose or watering can.” To this I could show her the fact that the neighbors yard is dry, and given the unlikelihood of it raining over just our yard, I must have watered the grass.” Suppose then she says, “How do I know you watered the grass and that you did not pay the neighbor’s son to do it?” To which I could reply, “Let’s ask the neighbor’s son”, After the neighbor’s son affirmed I did not hire him to water the grass, my wife could ask me she can know that I actually used water instead of coca-cola, lemonade, or some other liquid, to which I could…, etc… You can see how this discussion could easily go on and on. There is no point at which my wife MUST stop asking questions and seeking proof of my truthfulness. However, at some point she would, does that mean that she is accepting what I say by faith, without proof?

The answer is both yes and no. My wife is, at some point (if for no other reason than my sanity!), going to have to accept what I say is true and stop requiring more proof. However, that is not to say that she does not have good reasons for thinking that what I have said is, in fact, true. For that matter, my wife might never ask any of the questions in the above scenario and simply believe me when I claim to have watered the grass and flowers and she would be completely justified in doing so. Furthermore, if I did continue to show my wife proof after proof of my having done as she asked, and she chose not to believe me, she would be exercising just as much, if not more faith than if she had believed me to start with. What’s more, even if I could never convince her that I watered the grass, I would be completely justified in believing it myself.

Obviously, the issue of proof is not the same as the truth of a matter. It is the very heart of skepticism to say that you must know how you know what you know. However, that is not the case, for the skeptic or the theist. In fact, if the skeptic should so desire to hold the theist to such a high standard, the theist should return the favor. For example, imagine if I were to ask my wife, “why don’t you believe me”, to which she gives a reply. I could easily continue asking her questions about her unbelief just as she has with my claim to have watered the grass and flowers. The theist could, likewise, simply ask the skeptic for his reasons for unbelief, and the  ask for his reasons for his reasons, and then the reasons for the reasons for the reasons, etc… The fact of the matter is, proof doesn’t prove anything. All it does is remove us one more step from the point of acceptance and there is no point at which one would be required to accept something based on the proof.

At this point, we need to point out that it does not follow from the above comments that proof is unimportant. It gives support and lends credence to ones belief. However, it is important to understand just that. The role of proof is not in fact to prove 100% certainty. The role of proof is to support a claim so that it can be reasonably accepted (by faith) by those examining the claim.

When discussing the existence of God and various proofs to that effect, Christians need to understand that we are not claiming to demonstrate God’s existence. Rather, we are attempting to lend support to the case for theism. If we fail to make this distinction, then we will disavow the validity of arguments for God’s existence. If we disavow their validity, then we are weakening our own case and making the case of the skeptic stronger. Christians that disavow the importance or validity of theistic argumentation are playing into the hands of skeptics, weakening the church, and promoting everything antithetical to what they claim to hold dear.