Philosophy of Humanity

Philosophy of Religion

Cosmological Arguments

In addition to the a priori ontological argument, religious philosophy has developed a posteriori arguments for religious belief, commonly referred to as cosmological arguments due to their reliance on observations of the world. The most detailed presentation of these arguments was given by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who formulated them in the form of five theses known as the quinque viae (five ways). Aquinas' cosmological arguments hold a place in religious philosophy as significant as Anselm's ontological arguments.

1. The first argument is based on the nature of motion. Motion exists in the world. Everything that moves does so because it has been set in motion by something else. This implies that every motion has a cause. The cause of motion is itself typically in motion, meaning it too has a cause for its motion. It would be illogical to assume an infinite regress of causes, as the material world does not permit infinities. Therefore, there must be a first cause of motion that is unmoved itself; otherwise, it would require a cause for its own motion. Consequently, the existence of motion in the world implies the necessity of an unmoved mover, which is God. Motion here includes not only spatial changes but any actualization of potentiality. The immutability of God signifies that He never undergoes any transition from potentiality to actuality. Therefore, God is eternal and unchanging; He causes changes but remains unaffected by them.
2. The second argument, similar to the first, is based on existence rather than motion. Nothing comes into existence without a cause. Every entity must have a cause; otherwise, it would not exist. This is affirmed by both common sense and experience. Nothing causes itself. That which causes something else must also have a cause for its existence. An infinite regress of causes is illogical. Thus, there must be a necessary being that is the cause of all existence. This necessary being must exist and act to cause the existence of other entities, yet itself is uncaused. The necessary being is God. Since God has no cause for His existence, He is eternal. Nothing created Him; rather, He is the cause of all that exists.
3. The third argument is based on the contingency of all beings. Everything observable in the world is contingent. A contingent thing is one that, first, exists but does not have to exist, second, had a time when it did not exist, and third, could logically cease to exist at some point. The existence of contingent things implies the necessity of a necessary being that provides meaning to their coming into and going out of existence. This necessary being, which cannot fail to exist, is God.
4. Every substance exhibits some degree of perfection. There are more perfect and less perfect things. Hence, there exists a hierarchy of perfections in the world. At the top of this hierarchical pyramid of substances must be a being characterized by absolute perfection. To be the highest perfection, it must be so perfect that no greater perfection can be conceived. The absolutely perfect being, beyond which no greater perfection is possible, is God.
5. Everything in the world is governed by certain laws, meaning everything has a purpose and is directed toward it. If everything is directed toward an end and these ends never change, then the entire world is directed toward its ultimate end. The ultimate purpose that establishes these laws is God.

Thomas Aquinas' cosmological arguments can be summarized in one key thesis: if the world exists, it must have a first cause, which is God. Both Aquinas' cosmological arguments and Anselm's ontological argument have faced criticism from opponents, though this criticism has proven unsuccessful. To refute Aquinas' arguments, one would need to show that something could arise without a cause, which contradicts both common sense and experience. Everything that exists must have a cause, which means that existence itself could not have arisen without a first cause.

The most vigorous criticisms of the cosmological argument emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. Contemporary natural science proposed the erroneous hypothesis that the world is infinite in time and space. If the world is eternal, it would mean that it has always existed and never came into being, thus negating the need for a cause. Thomas based his cosmological proof on the premise that the world is contingent, meaning it did not always exist. If there was a time when the world did not exist, it must have come into being at some point, and everything that comes into being has a cause. The hypothesis of an eternal world seemed to undermine the cosmological argument's foundation. As some scientists supported this hypothesis, atheists proclaimed that science had disproved the existence of God. The discussion surrounding the cosmological argument has thus shifted to the realm of natural science: if the world is eternal, it indeed does not need a first cause; if there was a time when the world did not exist, it must have a first cause. The final word in this debate has been provided by two dominant contemporary physical theories:

• Entropy Theory: Based on the laws of thermodynamics, this theory posits that heat in a closed system will eventually distribute evenly. In other words, if some parts of a closed space are warmer than others, the warmer parts will transfer heat to the cooler parts until a uniform temperature is achieved. Entropy is the point in time when heat is evenly distributed throughout the space. The world is a closed system, as there is nothing material outside it with which it could interact. According to thermodynamic laws, processes of heat distribution are at work in the world, but experience shows that the world has not yet reached a state of entropy, as there are still warmer and cooler points (e.g., the temperature of the Sun is higher than that of the Earth). If the process of heat distribution is still ongoing, it must have begun at some point. This implies that the world did not exist eternally but had a beginning. If the world were eternal, the process of heat distribution would have started infinitely long ago and would have finished infinitely long ago. This demonstrates that the world is not eternal and has a temporal beginning.
• Big Bang Theory: This physical theory explains the origin of the world. Based on the Lemaitre-Hubble Law, it was established by Belgian Catholic priest, astronomer, and President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) in 1927, who proved that galaxies are constantly moving away from each other and described the principles behind this phenomenon. In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) made similar discoveries. For a long time, this discovery was known as Hubble's Law, but in 2018 the International Astronomical Union renamed it the Lemaitre-Hubble Law, as Lemaitre described it before Hubble. By tracing the history of the world back to its beginning, Lemaitre, Hubble, and others found that the world originated from the explosion of a micro-particle approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which became known as the Big Bang Theory. Today, it is widely accepted in astronomy. The Big Bang Theory proves that there was a point in the past when the world came into being, thus it is not eternal. Physics and astronomy cannot explain what existed before the Big Bang or describe the micro-particle from which the world originated, as the world did not exist before the Big Bang and therefore there were no natural phenomena to study. However, this theory convincingly establishes that the world has a temporal beginning.

Both entropy theory and the Big Bang Theory have refuted the hypothesis of the world's eternity and renewed the focus on the problem of the world's first cause. The world did not exist eternally, and if it began, it must have a first cause. These theories have once again drawn philosophers' attention to cosmological arguments.

Other Arguments

The ontological and cosmological arguments are the crowning achievements of the philosophy of religion and central themes in Western philosophy. However, beyond these, other arguments have emerged within the philosophy of religion, complementing the primary ones and securing their place in philosophical discourse.

• The scientific and technological revolution has profoundly influenced the philosophy of religion. The primary achievement of this rapid scientific advancement has been the cultivation of awe towards the world and its perfection. As scientists delved deeper into the mysteries of the universe, they uncovered increasingly complex structures, which heightened humanity’s admiration for the rational and intricate design of the world. The rationality of the world’s structure led to the conclusion that such an intelligent design must be the product of a rational designer. Based on this reasoning, the "Design Argument" arose, positing that the world embodies intelligent design, implying that it could not have come into being without a designer, who is God.
• Many individuals have experienced events in their lives that cannot be explained by science. Such events are commonly referred to as miracles. Although discussing miracles within scientific circles is generally avoided, it does not mean they should be ignored. Despite their careful suppression, miracles occur in human life and warrant examination. Even if researchers cannot explain their nature, for many people, they are pivotal events. For instance, if someone is healed of a fatal illness, they will not deny the fact of their healing, even if the entire scientific community asserts its impossibility. For many, miracles signify the presence and action of God in their lives. Miracles are an important argument in favor of religious faith, despite their illogical and unprovable nature.
• German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) formulated the moral argument for religion. He devoted considerable attention to moral philosophy and believed that moral principles appear as categorical imperatives—clear commands that must be followed. People should adhere to moral prescriptions out of duty. The criterion for the moral goodness of a human action is its performance solely out of duty. If someone acts with the expectation of reward or fear of punishment, such an action cannot be deemed morally good. Only actions performed because one must, out of duty, are morally good. This interpretation of ethics required justification. If the foundation of morality is duty, then who imposes this moral obligation on individuals? For Kant, it was evident that without God, morality is impossible; without an authority to legitimize the law and ensure its enforcement, there is no law. Without the acknowledgment of God’s existence, moral doctrine is untenable. Thus, Kant arrived at the justification of religion through moral philosophy. His views are well encapsulated in his statement: "The starry sky above me and the moral law within me—these are what convince me of the existence of God."
• A particular significance in contemporary scholarly discussion has been achieved by the cumulative argument, formulated by Oxford University professor Richard Swinburne (b. 1934) and presented in his 1979 book, The Existence of God. Swinburne suggests treating the thesis of God’s existence as a scientific hypothesis. Any scientific hypothesis initially exists in the researcher’s mind, and if its probability is low, it perishes without going beyond the realm of ideas. If there are no rational grounds to reject the hypothesis, scientists test it and gather data to either verify or falsify the theory. If the hypothesis of God’s existence has persisted throughout human history and is convincing to the vast majority, it implies that its initial probability is high. Swinburne then turned to probability theory. Each possible argument in favor of religious faith enhances the likelihood of the hypothesis of God’s existence. Therefore, Swinburne proposes to view the thesis of God’s existence as a scientific hypothesis and to accumulate all possible arguments "for" and "against." He is convinced that these arguments will bolster the hypothesis's probability.
• French thinker Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) proposed another argument for religion, known as "Pascal’s Wager," based on the principle of wager. Every person faces the choice between religiosity and irreligion, and this choice is akin to a wager: one wins if they make the right choice and loses if their choice is wrong. There are four combinations of this wager: ◦ If a person chooses religion, and God does indeed exist, then they gain "everything + eternity," thus winning from this choice; ◦ If a person chooses religion but God does not exist, then they gain nothing but also lose nothing; ◦ If a person does not choose religion and God does not exist, then they gain nothing but also lose nothing; ◦ If a person does not choose religion but God exists, then they lose "everything + eternity," thus losing from this choice.

From this, Pascal concludes that if God does not exist, the religious choice is irrelevant. If God does exist, one can gain everything by choosing Him or lose everything by not choosing Him. Therefore, Pascal argued that in any case, it is better to choose religion.

• American philosopher Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932) termed his position "Reformed Epistemology." Plantinga adopted ideas from the Scottish School of Common Sense, whose proponents argued that basic human knowledge cannot be proven. It arises from common sense rather than logical-mathematical necessity or experience. Such knowledge was termed basic beliefs by Scottish philosophers. Plantinga applied this concept to the philosophy of religion. He believed that no argument could be a sufficient proof of God’s existence, as religious faith is not based on rational unconditionality or experience. It is a basic belief of the faithful, stemming from common sense. Thus, Plantinga proposed a new approach to the philosophy of religion.