Chapter 1: Philosophical Issues and Questions
Welcome to Paper 1: Philosophy of Religion! In this chapter, we explore three classic philosophical arguments for the existence of God: the Design Argument, the Cosmological Argument, and the Ontological Argument. Philosophers have debated these questions for centuries: Does the intricate order of the world imply a Master Craftsman? Does the mere existence of the cosmos demand an uncaused First Cause? Or can the reality of God be discovered purely by unpacking the very definition of God?
Before jumping into the arguments, let us master two fundamental tools of philosophical reasoning:
• A posteriori reasoning: Arguments based on experience, observation, and sensory evidence from the world around us. (Memory tip: A posteriori comes after experience). Both the Design and Cosmological arguments are a posteriori.
• A priori reasoning: Arguments based on pure logic, reason, and definitions, completely independent of sensory experience. (Memory tip: A priori comes prior to experience). The Ontological argument is a priori.
Remember that in your exam, AO1 tests your knowledge and clear explanation of concepts (40%), while AO2 tests your ability to evaluate, weigh up strengths and weaknesses, and reach a reasoned conclusion (60%). Let us break down each argument step-by-step.
---1.1 The Design (Teleological) Argument
The Design Argument is an a posteriori argument. It begins by observing the natural world and identifying two striking features: order (regularity and law-like behaviour) and purpose (things working together towards a specific end). From these observations, it infers that the universe must be the deliberate creation of an intelligent designer: God.
William Paley and the Watchmaker Analogy
The philosopher William Paley offered one of the most famous formulations of the design argument through his watch analogy:
• The Analogy: Imagine walking across an uninhabited heath and kicking a stone. You might assume the stone had lain there forever, because it shows no obvious complexity or purpose. But suppose you stumble upon a mechanical watch. Inspecting its intricate cogs, springs, and precise movements, you notice that each part is designed to work together to tell the time.
• The Inference: Paley argued that even if you had never seen a watchmaker before, or if the watch occasionally malfunctioned, you would inevitably conclude that the watch must have had an intelligent maker who designed it for a purpose.
• The Application to Nature: Paley then pointed to the natural world. Organs such as the human eye, the flight of birds, or the rotation of the planets exhibit far greater complexity, order, and purpose than any artificial mechanism. Therefore, just as the watch requires a human watchmaker, the natural universe demands an infinitely greater, divine Designer—namely, God.
Probability Rather Than Proof and Cumulative Evidence
Because the Design Argument relies on empirical, a posteriori evidence, it does not claim to offer deductive mathematical certainty. Instead, it provides probability rather than proof:
• When we observe the staggering fine-tuning of natural laws, it is far more probable that an intelligent mind created the universe than that it emerged through blind, random luck.
• Cumulative evidence: Philosophers argue that the case for God does not depend on a single isolated observation (like the human eye). Instead, it relies on the accumulated weight of multiple pieces of evidence: the mathematical order of physics, the beauty of the natural world, the existence of conscious beings, and the suitability of conditions for life. Together, this cumulative evidence points towards a designer.
The Anthropic Principle
The anthropic principle observes that the physical conditions, fundamental forces, and constants of the universe (such as gravity and planetary conditions) are tuned with absolute precision to allow human life to emerge and survive. If these conditions had varied even by a fraction of a millimetre, life could never have developed. Proponents argue that such extraordinary fine-tuning makes it reasonable to conclude that the universe was purposefully designed with human life in mind.
Critiques by David Hume
The Scottish philosopher David Hume presented powerful challenges to the design argument. Hume questioned whether we can legitimately infer a classical theistic God from the world:
• A Weak Analogy: Hume argued that the universe is not like a machine. A watch is mechanical, artificial, and inert, whereas the universe resembles a vast, living, organic vegetable. Comparing the cosmos to human machinery is an anthropomorphic mistake.
• Limitations of the Inference: Even if the universe shows signs of design, why assume the designer is the all-powerful, all-good God of classical theism? The designer could be an infant deity practicing, a committee of gods, or an ancient, mortal being who died long ago.
• The Flawed Universe: Hume highlighted the presence of natural disasters, disease, cruelty, and suffering. If the world is full of flaws, errors, and pain, does that not point to an incompetent, limited, or indifferent designer rather than an omnipotent and benevolent God?
Evolution and Deism as Alternative Explanations
• Evolution: Scientific discoveries in evolution demonstrate that apparent design in living creatures can be explained by natural selection and adaptation over millions of years. Random mutations that aid survival are passed down; complex organs like the eye evolved gradually through natural processes without needing continuous divine intervention.
• Deism: Deism is the belief in a supreme creator who designed the universe, set natural laws in motion, and then stepped back completely, never intervening again through miracles, revelation, or personal prayer. While deism preserves a cosmic designer, it rejects the traditional personal, loving God worshipped in religious practice.
Key Takeaway for 1.1: Paley uses a posteriori reasoning and the watchmaker analogy to argue that complexity and order imply an intelligent designer, supported by the anthropic principle and cumulative evidence. However, Hume challenges the analogy's strength and the character of the designer, while evolutionary science offers a naturalistic account of complexity.
---1.2 The Cosmological Argument
Like the design argument, the Cosmological Argument is a posteriori. Rather than focusing on how intricate the universe is, it asks a deeper, more fundamental question: Why does the universe exist at all?
Key Philosophical Concepts
• Cause and Effect: Every change or event in our everyday experience is produced by a prior cause.
• Contingency: Something is contingent if its existence depends on something else, and it can either exist or not exist (it has a beginning and can perish). You, trees, planets, and galaxies are all contingent.
• Necessary Existence: Something is necessary if it cannot not exist; it has no beginning, no end, depends on nothing else, and must exist by its own nature.
• Infinite Regress: A backwards sequence of causes going back endlessly with no starting point. Cosmological thinkers argue that an infinite regress of causes is impossible because without a first cause, no subsequent causes could ever come into being.
• Sufficient Reason: The idea that there must be a complete, fully adequate explanation for why things are as they are and not otherwise. If every contingent thing requires a reason for existing, the universe as a whole requires an ultimate explanation.
Thomas Aquinas: The First Three Ways
In his famous work, Thomas Aquinas presented five proofs for God's existence, the first three of which constitute the classic Cosmological Argument:
• First Way: The Argument from Motion (Change)
We observe that things in the world are in motion or undergoing change (moving from potential to actual). Nothing can move or change itself; it must be moved by something else already in actuality. We cannot trace this chain of movers backwards infinitely, because without a primary mover, there would be no subsequent motion. Therefore, there must be an unmoved First Mover, which initiates all change without being changed by anything else: this everyone understands to be God.
• Second Way: The Argument from Cause (First Cause)
Everything in the world is subject to cause and effect. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, because it would have to exist prior to itself, which is impossible. An infinite regress of causes is impossible, because if you remove the first cause, you eliminate all intermediate causes and the present effect. Therefore, there must exist an uncaused First Cause that started the chain of causes: this we call God.
• Third Way: The Argument from Contingency and Necessity
Things in the natural world are contingent—they are generated and eventually decay; at one time they did not exist. If everything were merely contingent, then given infinite time, there would have been a point where nothing existed at all. And if nothing ever existed, nothing could have started to exist, meaning nothing would exist now—which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings can be contingent; there must be a being with necessary existence that depends on nothing else for its reality and causes the existence of all contingent beings: this is God.
The Kalam Version
The Kalam version of the Cosmological Argument focuses specifically on the beginning of the universe in time:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist (an actual infinite series of past events cannot exist in physical reality).
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause for its beginning.
Because time, space, and matter began at this point, the cause must be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and personal—an agent who chose to bring the cosmos into being.
Challenges to the Cosmological Argument
1. David Hume's Critiques:
• Fallacy of Composition: Hume argued that just because every individual part inside the universe has a cause, it does not logically follow that the universe as a whole has a single overarching cause. If you explain the cause of each individual person in a room, you do not need an extra cause for the whole group.
• Challenging Necessary Existence: Hume questioned whether the concept of a "necessary being" makes sense. Any being that can be conceived of as existing can also be conceived of as not existing without contradiction. Why couldn't the material universe itself be the eternally existing reality?
2. Immanuel Kant's Critiques:
• The German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that the concept of cause and effect is simply a category of the human mind that we use to organise our sensory experiences in the physical world. We cannot take this human concept and apply it beyond our sensory experience to explain metaphysical origins or prove a transcendent God.
3. The "Brute Fact" Objection:
• A classic counter-argument to sufficient reason is that the universe has no external explanation: it is simply a brute fact. In a famous debate, it was maintained that the universe is "just there, and that's all." It needs no ultimate meaning, cause, or purpose; it simply exists.
Key Takeaway for 1.2: Aquinas argues that motion, cause and effect, and contingency point to an uncaused First Cause with necessary existence, rejecting infinite regress. However, Hume, Kant, and the "brute fact" objection argue that we cannot leap from internal worldly causation to an external, necessary God.
---1.3 The Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument is unique among arguments for God's existence because it is entirely a priori and deductive. It does not rely on telescopes, biology, or the physical cosmos. Instead, it claims that if you correctly understand the very concept and definition of the word "God", you will realise that God must exist.
A Priori Reasoning and Analytic Propositions
• Analytic Proposition: A statement that is true by definition. The predicate is already contained within the subject. For example, "A triangle has three sides" or "All bachelors are unmarried men." You do not need to conduct a scientific survey to confirm this; denying it leads to a logical contradiction.
• Ontological thinkers claim that the statement "God exists" is an analytic proposition. Just as the idea of "three sides" is inseparable from the concept of a "triangle", the concept of "existence" is inseparable from the concept of "God".
St Anselm's Formulation
St Anselm set out the classic Ontological Argument in his work Proslogion, framing it around a specific, supreme definition of God:
Anselm's First Formulation (Proslogion 2)
• The Definition: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (the greatest conceivable being).
• Even the "fool" who denies God understands this definition in their mind (existence in the intellect / in intellectu).
• It is greater to exist in physical reality (in re) than to exist merely in the mind alone (for example, a real £100 note in your pocket is greater than an imagined £100 note).
• If God existed only in the intellect, we could conceive of an even greater being: one that also exists in reality.
• Therefore, in order to match the definition of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", God must exist in reality.
Anselm's Second Formulation and Aseity (Proslogion 3)
Anselm took the argument a step further by distinguishing between two types of existence:
• Contingent existence (can be conceived not to exist).
• Necessary existence (cannot be conceived not to exist).
Anselm argued that a being whose non-existence is impossible is far greater than a being that could cease to exist. Because God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must possess necessary existence.
• Aseity: This links directly to God's aseity (from the Latin a se, meaning "from oneself"). God is completely self-existent, independent of all other things, and uncreated. A being with aseity cannot fail to exist.
Critiques of the Ontological Argument
Existence is Not a Predicate
A central philosophical debate surrounding the Ontological Argument is whether existence is a predicate:
• A predicate is a grammatical term for a property, characteristic, or attribute that describes a subject (for example, "The apple is red, round, and sweet").
• Anselm treats existence as a defining property or quality: by adding "existence in reality" to God, God becomes greater.
• Critics argue that existence is not a predicate. Saying that something "exists" does not add any new descriptive information or quality to the concept. If you describe a watch as gold, ticking, and round, and then add "it exists", you have not added a new characteristic to the watch; you have simply asserted that there is an object in the real world corresponding to your description.
Bertrand Russell's Critique
The 20th-century philosopher Bertrand Russell delivered a devastating critique of the Ontological Argument based on logic and language:
• Confusion of Logical Types: Russell argued that Anselm uses the word "exists" incorrectly. In everyday grammar, "The cat is black" and "The cat exists" look identical, but logically they function very differently.
• Descriptions vs Instantiations: Russell used the example of cows and unicorns: If you say, "Men exist" and "Unicorns do not exist", you are not describing the properties of men or unicorns. Instead, you are stating whether there are actual instances in the real world that match the concept.
• False Syllogisms: Russell showed how treating existence as a predicate leads to absurd conclusions:
1. Santa Claus is a jolly man with a white beard who exists.
2. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.
Defining something as "existing" within a concept does not prove that an actual instance of it exists in reality. You cannot define things into existence!
Key Takeaway for 1.3: Anselm uses a priori logic to argue that God's status as the greatest conceivable being implies necessary existence and divine aseity. However, Bertrand Russell and modern critics argue that existence is not a predicate, and that logical definitions can never guarantee actual reality.
---Summary Comparison: The Three Arguments
To keep these arguments distinct and sharp for your exam, review this quick comparison:
• Design Argument:
— Type of reasoning: A posteriori (empirical, based on order/purpose in nature).
— Named Scholars: W Paley (watchmaker analogy) vs D Hume (weak analogy, flawed universe).
— Key Concepts: Analogy, cumulative evidence, anthropic principle, probability rather than proof, evolution, deism.
• Cosmological Argument:
— Type of reasoning: A posteriori (empirical, based on the existence of the universe).
— Named Scholars: Aquinas (First Three Ways: motion, cause, contingency) vs D Hume and I Kant.
— Key Concepts: Sufficient reason, cause and effect, contingency, infinite regress, first cause, necessary existence, Kalam version, brute fact.
• Ontological Argument:
— Type of reasoning: A priori (deductive logic, analytic proposition).
— Named Scholars: Anselm (greatest conceivable being) vs B Russell (existence is not a predicate).
— Key Concepts: Analytic proposition, aseity, necessary existence, predicate critique.
Exam Tips & Common Mistakes to Avoid
• Do not confuse a priori and a posteriori: Remember that Paley and Aquinas start from looking at the world around them (a posteriori). Anselm starts from a mental definition inside the head (a priori).
• Avoid purely descriptive answers (AO1 trap): To access top marks in 12-mark and 20-mark questions, you must evaluate (AO2). Do not just explain Paley's watch—immediately explain why Hume's criticism weakens it, or how cumulative evidence defends it.
• Use technical vocabulary accurately: Credit is awarded for precise terms such as aseity, contingent, brute fact, anthropic principle, and predicate. Make sure you use them in your written explanations!