Theists are often challenged to provide a sufficient reason to believe in God. Isn't it poetic, then, that when theists cite the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) in support of God's existence, that many atheists object to the PSR? To state the contingency argument yet again:
1. Everything that exists has an explantation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (Premise)
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. (Premise)
3. The universe exists. (Premise)
4. Hence, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (From 1 and 3)
5. Therefore, the universe's explanation of its existence is God. (From 2 and 4)
The only way to avoid this conclusion is to say that the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature, which very few atheistic philosophers contend, or to deny the PSR, which is premise (1). Yet, if (1) is rejected, why is the theist required to give an explanation of his or her belief in God? It seems to me that unless that atheist presupposes the PSR, then the theist doesn't have to justify his or her belief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I actually wondered if rejecting the PSR may kill atheism in another way. I'm not going to even attempt to formalize it here, but roughly...
ReplyDeleteIf the PSR is rejected, something can come from nothing. If something can come from nothing, anything can come from nothing. If anything can come from nothing, God can come from nothing. And if God/gods can come from nothing, given an infinite amount of time, God/gods will come from nothing. And if God/gods will come from nothing, then atheism - at absolute best - has an expiration date. (And if an infinite amount of time has passed already... the expiration date has already expired.)
It's sloppy, and it's going to turn at the very least upon the idea of God/gods both existing and having a beginning to His/its existence. But I think there may be something to it.
Doug
ReplyDeleteThe theist is only required to give an explanation of his or her belief in God if he or she claims to have one. So, an atheist who rejects the PSR is just saying, "Well, if you claim to have an explanation, just give one". There is no contradiction whatsoever in this.
Crude
It does not follow at all that "If the PSR is rejected, something can come from nothing." What does follow from a rejection of the PSR is that brute facts exist, which leads Richard Swinburne to his argument for a contingent God. AFAIK, thoigh, Swinburne does not argue that this contingent God came into being a finite time ago.
So, IMHO, you would have to reformulate your argument to something like
If the PSR is rejected, then there are brute facts
If there are brute facts, then anything can be a brurte fact.
If anything can be a brute fact, then God can be a brute fact as well.
Another thing is that if in the infinite future, some God may pop into existence, this God is not my creator, and has not sent His son to save me, so, while in some sense, atheism may have an expiration date, the odds against Christianity being true are very very small.
Walter, I'm only talking about people who claim to have a belief in God, not those who claim to have argument or explanation.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to Crude's claim, while you're technically right that a rejection of the PSR would only lead one to believe in brute facts, Crude is talking about a rejection of the ex nihilo principle. Admittedly, he conflated the two principles, but he also stated that it wasn't a precise argument. It should be noted again that while Swinburne believes God is logically contingent, he also concludes that God is ontologically and temporally necessary.
Nevertheless, I agree with that if there's currently no God, but one pops into existence uncaused out of nothing sometime in the future, then that God is neither the universe's creator nor the God of Christianity.
Doug
ReplyDeleteI have no problem at all with people who claim to have a belief in God. In fact, that's my point, in order to just have a belief in God, the PSR is not required in any sort of way.
However, in order to be able to claim that "Everything that exists has an explantation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause" and "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." you need something infinitely more convincing than the PSR, which is, to say the least, extremely dubious and even, according to lots of philosophers, including some prominent theists like Peter Van Inwagen, self-refuting.
As to my reply to Crude, I think we happen to agree on this, but I'll leave it up to Crude to judge whether we are right or wrong. After all,we may be misinterpreting his argument
you need something infinitely more convincing than the PSR, which is, to say the least, extremely dubious
DeleteExtremely dubious? By what? Intuition? Hope?
and even, according to lots of philosophers,
According to lots of philosophers, materialism is ultimately incoherent, atheism is absurd, etc. Appealing to such things ("Lot of philosophers think...") is ultimately a defensive move. But a defensive move against a defensive move doesn't work. No ground is gained.
I already said that Doug's criticism was correct. Ex nihilo nihil fit is connected to the PSR, but they're absolutely not the same thing. Either way, I stand by my argument - reject the PSR and grant an infinite amount of time (two popular atheist moves) and you've undermined atheism crucially.
"But you didn't prove Christianity!" doesn't concern me with the argument. It's enough to rout atheists who accept those moves.
Doug's right - I screwed up the principles that were at work.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the God/gods I'm speaking of wouldn't be the God of Christianity, at least not orthodox Christianity. But then again, atheism is supposed to have a far, far larger target than orthodox Christianity - and rejection of the ex nihilo principle is not uncommon.
Walter, really the point of this post is that theists should not be labeled "irrational" for their belief in God if his or her interlocutor rejects the PSR. You may be an exception, but I've come across many atheists who claim that theists need to provide a sufficient reason to justify belief in God.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Peter van Inwagen states that the S-PSR is self-defeating. William Rowe (an atheist) makes a similar argument, but neither argument applies to the PSR as related to the explanation of concrete entities. Rowe concedes this in his book, The Cosmological Argument.
Doug
DeleteThe title of your post is, "Why a rejection of the PSR undermines atheism". My point is that it does not undermine atheism.
And, BTW, I do think you need to provide a sufficient reason to justify your belief in God because you claim you can do so.
You're taking the title out of context. I explain that the theist needn't provide a sufficient reason for his or her belief if the atheist rejects the PSR. As for your latter claim:
Delete1. Doug believes he can provide a sufficient reason to justify his belief in God. (Premise)
2. Therefore, Doug must provide a sufficient reason to justify his belief in God. (Conclusion)
You're missing a premise that would make the conclusion part of a logically valid argument. As it stands, your objection is formally invalid.
I think Doug has argued why it does undermine atheism. And he argues for justifications of his theism elsewhere - but he seems to be arguing here that if the PSR is rejected, prima facie it seems like a 'justification' isn't needed. Brute facts are acceptable, after all.
DeleteBy the way, to anyone reading this: It's my opinion that William Rowe's book is that fairest treatment of the cosmological argument by any atheist. I don't always agree with him, but I appreciate his willingness to take a further look into issues that have been merely dismissed. He doesn't agree that the cosmological argument has been decidedly refuted since Hume's critique, for example.
ReplyDelete