A Comprehensive Guide to Philosophical Arguments for and Against Theism

Posted on Aug 20, 2024 in Philosophy and ethics

What is an Argument?

Definition of an Argument

An argument is a set of statements where some statements (called premises) are intended to support another statement (called the conclusion). It involves putting ideas into clear, concise, and readily understandable language.

Validity and Soundness of Arguments

A valid argument is one where IF the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true (hypothetical). The truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A sound argument has two features: (1) it is valid, and (2) all its premises are true. An invalid argument is one where, even if we assume the premises are true, the conclusion could still be false. An unsound argument is either invalid or has at least one false premise (or both).

Valid Argument Forms: Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens

Modus Ponens, also known as “the mode of affirmation,” is a valid argument form that follows this structure:

• If A, then B
• A
• Therefore, B

Modus Tollens, also known as “the mode of denial,” is another valid argument form with this structure:

• If A, then B
• Not B
• Therefore, not A

Invalid Argument Forms: Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent

Denying the Antecedent is an invalid argument form that follows this structure:

• If A, then B
• Not A
• Therefore, not B

Affirming the Consequent is another invalid argument form with this structure:

• If A, then B
• B
• Therefore, A

Worldviews, Reason, and Epistemology

Theism and Naturalism

Theism is a worldview that claims/believes that there is exactly one being that is perfectly morally good, almighty, and exists out of necessity. Naturalism is a worldview that believes there is a physical reality that is by nature organized (not imposed by a god), that reality exists eternally or by chance, and leaving aside possible special cases (e.g., numbers), all entities are physical.

Reason and Rationalism

Reason refers to our natural cognitive faculties, such as our five senses, memory, introspection, and capacity for logical inferences. These faculties are common to the average adult. Strong Rationalism argues that in order for a religious belief system to be properly and rationally accepted, it must be possible to prove that the belief system is true. This view, advocated by William K. Clifford, suggests that one must be able to convince a non-biased person of the truth of their religious beliefs.

Epistemology and Critical Rationalism

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It deals with questions about how we acquire knowledge, what justifies our beliefs, and what constitutes knowledge. Critical Rationalism, in the context of religious belief systems, argues that while conclusive proof of such a system is impossible, these systems can and must be rationally criticized and evaluated.

Fideism

Fideism is the view that fundamental religious beliefs should not be subjected to rational evaluation. It argues that it is a mistake to apply the standards of rationality to such beliefs.

Problems and Principles in Philosophy of Religion

The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness

The problem of evil is a problem raised by naturalists that states that given the amount of suffering in the world, it is unlikely there is an almighty God who is all-powerful, all-loving, and perfectly good. The problem of divine hiddenness argues that if there is a personal God who exists, then there should not be people who are capable of relating personally to God but, through no fault of their own, fail to believe that God exists. Since there are such people, the argument concludes that God does not exist.

Problems with Fideism

Some problems with Fideism include:

• Which religious beliefs should one “leap” for?
• When we say that some beliefs are superstitious, aren’t we expressing disapproval of them?
• Isn’t the disapproval of superstition at least in part because the belief is thought to be groundless or poorly grounded?
• If we disapprove of superstition, shouldn’t we disapprove of groundless faith?

The Principle of Simplicity and the Principle of Credulity

The principle of simplicity, also known as Occam’s Razor, states that given two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler theory is to be preferred. The principle of credulity states that any experience of something has to be regarded as veridical (truthful) unless we have sufficient reasons to the contrary.

Veridical Experience, Necessary Being, and Contingent Being

A veridical experience is an experience that is really what it appears to be, instead of a hallucination or an optical illusion. A necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist under any circumstances. A contingent being is one that exists but could fail to exist under different circumstances.

Necessary Truth and Contingent Truth

A necessary truth is one that cannot be false under any possible circumstances. A contingent truth is one that is true but could be false under different circumstances.

Moral Evil and Natural Evil

Moral evil is suffering committed by people to other people and the suffering that results from it. Natural evil is suffering caused by non-human causes.

Arguments for and Against Theism and Naturalism

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument for theism typically follows this structure:

1. There are contingent beings.
2. Theism explains the presence of contingent beings better than Naturalism.
3. If hypothesis 1 explains the presence of some phenomenon better than hypothesis 2, we should accept hypothesis 1.
4. Therefore, the presence of contingent beings gives us reason to accept Theism over Naturalism.

The Fine-Tuned Universe Argument

The fine-tuned universe argument is based on the observation that the ultimate (most basic) structures of the physical universe support life, and slight changes in these structures would destroy their capacity to support life. This argument suggests that this fine-tuning is better explained by theism than by naturalism.

Single-Universe Naturalism and the Multiverse Hypothesis

Single-universe Naturalism is the view that there is only one universe, and it is governed by the laws of physics. This view faces challenges in explaining the fine-tuning of the universe. The multiverse hypothesis proposes that there are many universes, each with its own set of laws and constants. This hypothesis attempts to address the fine-tuning problem by suggesting that our universe is just one of many, and it is not surprising that at least one universe would have the conditions necessary for life. However, the multiverse hypothesis also faces objections, such as its complexity and its potential to explain away any observation.

Appeal to Simplicity as an Argument for Naturalism

Some argue that naturalism is a simpler explanation of the universe than theism. They argue that theism introduces an unnecessary entity (God) and that naturalism can account for the universe and its phenomena through natural processes.

Problems with Strong Rationalism

Three problems with strong rationalism include:

1. Do our moral and political beliefs meet the standard of proof required by strong rationalism?
2. Does strong rationalism itself meet its own standards? (This is a self-defeating problem.)
3. What about the “starting points” for our reasoning? Can these starting points themselves be proven?

Types of Religious Experience

Five types of religious experience include:

1. Experiences via perceiving a common object (e.g., the night sky)
2. Experiences via perceiving an uncommon object (e.g., a miracle)
3. Experiences via private, describable sensations
4. Experiences via ineffable, indescribable mystical experiences
5. Experiences via describable experiences apart from any sensory input

Worldview Definitions and Clifford’s View

One definition of a worldview emphasizes that the very act of perceiving is interpretive. Another definition describes a worldview as a particular conception of the world, a collection of beliefs held by an individual or group. William K. Clifford, a proponent of strong rationalism, held the view that the act of perceiving is interpretive.

Theodicy and Critical Fideism

Theodicy is an attempt to give reasons for God to permit evil (actual or possible). It seeks to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God. Critical Fideism, as presented in the provided text, involves three key points:

1. Fundamental elements of religious belief systems (RBS) come from faith.
2. Faith changes reason in some way.
3. We can and should use reason regarding our religious belief systems.

Four Features of Philosophy

The four features of philosophy are articulation, argument, analysis, and synthesis. These features involve clearly expressing ideas, providing reasons for beliefs, critically examining concepts, and combining different ideas into a coherent whole.

Arguments for Fideism

Arguments for Fideism include:

1. If religious belief is purely rational, there is no need for faith.
2. If you base your belief solely on arguments, your commitment will be partial and potentially unstable.
3. If religious beliefs must be fully rational, certain distinctive Christian beliefs (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation) must be rejected.
4. If religious beliefs were supposed to be solely rational, then the Bible would contain explicit arguments for God’s existence.

Faith and Reason: Fideism vs. Strong Rationalism

Fideism argues that religious beliefs should not be subjected to rational evaluation, while strong rationalism argues that a religious belief is rationally accepted only if it is possible to prove that it is true. These two positions represent contrasting views on the relationship between faith and reason.

The Fine-Tuning Design Argument

The fine-tuning design argument for theism can be summarized as follows:

1. The physical universe is fine-tuned (i.e., the most basic structures of the physical universe support life, and slight changes in these structures would destroy their capacity to support life).
2. Theism explains the presence of a fine-tuned universe better than Naturalism does.
3. In general, if hypothesis H1 explains the presence of X (some phenomenon) better than a rival hypothesis H2 does, we have a reason to accept H1 over H2.
4. Therefore, the presence of a fine-tuned universe gives us a reason to accept Theism over Naturalism.

Underminer

An underminer is a true proposition that counts against some other proposition being true. In the context of arguments, an underminer can weaken the support that a premise provides for a conclusion. For example, if someone presents an argument based on their personal testimony, an underminer might be a fact that calls into question the reliability of their memory or their honesty, leading us to conclude that their testimony gives little to no reason to believe what they’ve said.

Deductive Argument

A deductive argument is an argument that claims that if its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. In other words, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Multiverse Hypothesis and Objections to Single-Universe Naturalism

The multiverse hypothesis proposes that there are many universes, possibly infinitely many, each with its own set of laws, constants, and initial conditions. This hypothesis is often presented as a response to the fine-tuning argument, suggesting that it is not surprising that at least one universe (ours) would have the conditions necessary for life. However, the multiverse hypothesis faces several objections:

• Complexity: It greatly complicates the standard naturalistic picture of reality.
• Lack of Evidence: There is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of other universes.
• Explanatory Power: If there are infinitely many universes, it seems like anything could happen in some universe, which raises questions about the explanatory power of the hypothesis. If the multiverse can explain any observation, does it really explain anything?

Religious Experience Argument

The religious experience argument for theism typically follows this structure:

1. Any apparent experience of something is to be regarded as veridical unless we have sufficient reasons to the contrary. (Principle of Credulity)
2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be experiences of God.
3. There are no good reasons for thinking that all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are non-veridical (delusive).
4. Therefore, some experiences of God should be regarded as veridical.

Reasons for Doubting Religious Experiences and Responses

Several reasons have been given for doubting that alleged experiences of God are veridical, along with responses to these reasons: