a defence of theism
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 A Defence of Theism
1/2
A DEFENCE OF THEISM
Daniel Broadstock
Let me first outline some common questions which I do not intend to address. I do not
propose to consider the truth claims of any one religion, or defend the coherency ofparticular sacred texts and traditions, or address the desirability of religious belief for
individuals or society. Indeed, it is my hope that the arguments I present here would remain
equally plausible were I to come to the conclusion that every sacred text of religion were an
outright fiction, and that theistic belief were the predominant cause of evil and suffering in
the world.
1) The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentThe Cosmological Argument is a logical and scientific argument concerning the origins of the
universe. It is commonly expressed something like this:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I will take it that the first premise is relatively uncontroversial. We have no intuitive or
evidential evidence to contrary. Indeed, an atheist who is committed to a closed causal
system must assent to this premise. After all, if something can come into existence out of
nothing, why dont things pop into existence all the time? No, it seems straightforward that
everything we perceive is caused.
The second premise seems also to be well attested by popular scientific understanding.
Indeed, we regularly speak of the big bang (a point of singularity at which time, space and
matter came into being) in virtually certain terms. No concept of an eternal universe could
satisfy either scientific or philosophical considerations.
So, it seems to me to follow quite plainly that the universe must have a cause, and that
cause must be both timeless and without physical form (if it preceded the singularity). This I
call God.
2) The Moral ArgumentThe moral argument relies on two premises which most people consider to be true:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.3) Therefore, God exists.
-
7/30/2019 A Defence of Theism
2/2
Whenever we express offence, moral outrage, or call another person to account for their
actions, we confirm the second premise of this argument. The first premise, however, is
rather more controversial. Here it is important to understand the distinction between moral
ontology (why we should think that objective morality exists) and moral epistemology (how
we come to know moral duties and values). Note, I am not saying that in order to be moral,
you must be religious. I am arguing that God provides the only conceivable transcendental
foundation for objective morality. If naturalism is true, then what we describe as morality
is merely the chaotic by-product of the evolutionary system. Humans have no inherent
value, and we have no objective moral duties to each other. Morality is simply illusory. Of
course, in order to evade the argument an atheist could simply deny objective morality. But
then dont come complaining to me about the evils of religion! While I consider paedophile
priests to be morally repugnant, you would be in no position to concur.
Finally, while many atheists profess to put their faith in reason, it is not clear to me how the
reliability of reason could be confirmed under a naturalistic worldview. Under naturalism,
reason is simply the product of causally deterministic physical outcomes in the brain. How
could you vouch for the conclusions of your reason, if what you think is determined? Why
should your thoughts have any truth value? There certainly seems to be no room in
naturalism for a soul, or even a mind. We are simply a machine, fashioned by natural
selection, and operated by causal relationships over which we have no control. Certainly we
can keep ourselves alive, but could we ever reliably know what was true?
The space available to me is woefully inadequate, and these arguments are by no means a
comprehensive or exhaustive justification of Theism. Above all, I encourage readers to
consider these matters with an open mind, and protagonists to pursue the debate with
civility, and charity of spirit. Else, our society will be all the poorer for it.