The skeptics are wary of the way the religious believers perceive ‘order, complexity and harmony’ in the universe to be. The definition of order may vary from person to person. What may be an ‘orderly universe’ to one person may be a chaotic one to another. The problem lies in the fact that there is no set way of defining order in the universe. Who is to know how much order is required in the universe for us to know that a God has caused that order? Skeptics argue that there is so much pain, suffering and disease in the world and that implies anything but order (Hospers, 2005).
Another objection to the design argument is that there is no way of knowing whether the order in the universe comes about as a result of design. There are instances in which order is caused about by design as in the case of the example Paley gave about a watch but human beings themselves designed that watch and we know the procedure in which the raw materials were put together for the watch to perform its function. Hume argued that the only way one can know that order is the result of design is if the order resulting from the design is witnessed as was stated in the aforementioned example. There has never been a case of someone witnessing a being forming the galaxy as a result of design and so Hume concluded that one can not say that the design of the universe is proof of God’s existence as we can not say for certain that the universe exists because of a design (Hospers, 2005:218).
The religious believer’s response to this objection is that how else do we explain the existence of the universe? Human beings have not witnessed the way animals, nature and the galaxy have been designed unlike the way they have seen watches and other such mechanical objects being designed. They reason by saying that a watch or a building did not form on its own; it required a person with some intelligence to design it. The universe which is much more complicated was designed by someone with a much higher intelligence, something which we humans are not capable of comprehending (Hospers, 2005:218).
The next argument I will be focusing on is the cosmological argument. After explaining what the term cosmological argument means I will be focusing on the first case argument. The argument states the existence of the universe is proof of the existence of God. The only valid explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by God and there can be no other explanation for how the universe came into being (Craig, 1980: 16).
The First Cause argument says that everything in the universe has a cause to it which can be traced back to its root or the original cause. The universe was caused by a series of events and it did not pop out of nowhere, if the series of events is traced back it will lead us to the very first cause, which the argument states is God (Warburton, 1999, 17). There has to be a first cause according to the argument as there cannot be an infinite regression of causes.
One of the main criticisms of the First Cause argument by skeptics is that it contradicts itself. The argument states that everything has a cause to it yet fails to explain the cause of God. The skeptic will always argue, what caused God? The first cause argument will fail to deliver that answer and so can be described as dogmatic for it presupposes the existence of God by stating that the cause of everything is God. If everything has a cause then technically so should God. The argument uses God as an explanation of events not the cause of it all. By stating that God does not have a cause the argument can be described as self contradictory. If something did indeed cause God then the argument can be deemed useless (Craig, 1980:18).
The other problem skeptics have with the First Cause Argument is that it implies there can not be an infinite regression of causes. It assumes that the first cause led to everything we see around us today. If we take the case of the number line in mathematics we will see that an infinite regression is possible. By the same logic we can assume that just as there has to be a first cause there has to be something which will cause the world to end to, a final cause. But as a mathematician would show there is no highest number, we can count forever. A skeptic would therefore argue that the First Cause Argument is illogical as it assumes that there can not be an infinite regression of causes when in theory they can (Warburton, 1999: 18)
A religious believer could retort by saying that what one can not imagine or comprehend like for example is time infinite, was it always there or did time ‘start’ at some point, shows that we are not meant to know such secrets of nature and this shows that there is a higher force in the universe. In a sense the religious believers try to protect themselves and stay immune from all critique by giving the god argument to every objection by a skeptic.
However the skeptic poses a challenge which many atheists use as their reason not to believe in god. If God exists why is there so much evil in this world? How can the most supreme power which is all good stand witness to evil? The presence of evil in the world is well known. Evil can be put into two different categories, moral and natural. Natural evil is when natural disasters cause pain and suffering to mankind e.g. diseases, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, famine etc. (Mill, 1874: 156). Evil is usually used to denote a deliberate act of cruelty so may not be the correct word to describe a natural disaster, but it still has to be taken into consideration if one is to justify belief in God (Warburton, 1999: 22). A moral evil is when a human being causes and pain and suffering to another human being deliberately. An example of a moral evil could be the treatment meted out to prisoners in Abu Gharaib prison in Iraq, the Holocaust, etc.
So due to the properties of God being omni benevolent and omnipotent skeptics argue that there an inconsistency is created. As Hume argued, if god is all powerful, all knowing and all good, and if evil exists that asserts that God does not exist, and since evil does exist this disproves the existence of God. The skeptics argue that God created the universe, he has the power to make things right, he can eliminate evil from the world, and yet he does not. They use this argument to justify their case that there is no God.
The religious believers argue that evil and God can coexist at the same time. If evil did not exist there would not be good to root out that evil. God uses evil to bring out the greater goodness in human beings. Warburton says that if there was no poverty and disease then the world would not have seen Mother Teresa and saintliness in helping the poor and sick. If there was no war, genocides etc, heroes would not be created (Warburton, 1999: 23).
The religious believers also use the free will defence to support their case. They argue that God gave human beings free will and the choice to do whatever they want to. Free will makes us human as it gives us choices, otherwise we would merely be like robots (Warburton, 1999: 24). So therefore having free will implies that you have the choice to be evil or perform evil acts, God wants a world in which people are free to make their own decisions and if God interfered there would be no free will.
Hume argued that God essentially wants us to be good, and if he does not want us to be anything other than that then technically there is no free will. For free will to exist God should not specifically ask us to be good.
The ontological argument defines God as the most perfect and the greatest being imaginable. St Anselm described God as ‘that being than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ (Warburton, 1999:19). A controversial aspect of the ontological argument is that that greatness is presupposed by existence, for something to be perfect it has to exist, so something which is perfect would not be perfect if it did not exist, hence it follows that God exists (Warburton, 1999:19).
A major criticism of the ontological argument is that it produces absurd results. For example I can imagine a perfect world in which there is no violence, everyone lives in peace and harmony but it does not mean that this world actually exists. Skeptics argue that if an argument produces a result like this its foundations have to be logically unsound (Warburton, 1999: 20). The religious believers would defend their belief by saying that God is a special case, God is not just any example of any kind, he/she embodies perfection (Warburton, 1999).
Another criticism of the ontological argument was raised by Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that the ontological argument used the existence of God as a property, and he said that existence is not a property. The ontological argument assumes that God exists and he/she is all knowing and all powerful. According to Kant for god to be all powerful and all knowing he/she has to exist first and existence can not be treated as another property it has to be the precondition of having other properties (Warburton, 1999). This brings me to the conclusion of my essay.
In the movie ‘The Matrix’ one of the characters Morpheus asks Neo “Do you believe in fate?” Neo replied “No, because I do not like the idea that I am not in control of my life.” Everyone has a different perspective and outlook on life and hence our opinions and views about God’s existence will differ. Some believe as Neo does that they are masters of their fate, others believe that there is a higher force which willed for our existence and controls everything in the universe. There is no set right or wrong answer with respect to the question of God’s existence. Our religious beliefs influence the way we behave and had there been a common consensus on the question of God’s existence the world may have been a less colourful place. A friend of mine once said: “The world is said to be composed of shades of grey”. Could it not be that we are too afraid to see the black and white? We look around us and see the beauty with which the universe was created and wonder could this really have been created without the will of a higher force? We form our own relationship with nature at a personal level whether we know it or not. We are on a constant journey of self discovery and find our own way to make peace or explain the way the universe works. For some of us that is justifying God’s existence for others it is not. The key as I said earlier is to be open to different thoughts and have an open mind for only then can we try and answer the most important question of all: Does God exist?
Bibliography
Craig, William Lane (1980) The cosmological argument from Plato to Liebniz (London: Macmillan)
Hospers, John (2005) An introduction to Philosophical Analysis (Great Britain: Routledge)
Hume, David (1779) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, edited by Henry D. Aiken
Mill, John Stuart (1874) Three Essays on Religion (London, Longmans and Dyer)
Warburton, Nigel (1962) Philosophy: the basics (London: Routledge)