Argumentation of Modern Atheism
In my previous entries, I have already stated, whether explicitly or implicitly, that God’s existence can only be proven, at best, as a possibility. The negative form of this statement is none other than the atheists’ creed that, “God almost certainly does not exist” (See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 133; 158). Considering the fact that the last few entries have been filled with my thoughts on post-theistic faith, it is inappropriate of me to not dedicate any entry in this journal for a reflection on the atheistic critique itself. Therefore, in this entry, I will try my best to elaborate, in a simple manner, the arguments which underlies the very belief that makes a post-theistic faith possible. I will start from the disputation of the argument from causality, followed by the debate between intelligent design and atheistic evolution, and the conclusion that we can attain from said debate. Along this elaboration, I will also cite the relevant sources accordingly.
In my opinion, the critique that serves as the basis of atheism is none other than David Hume’s disputation on the concept of causality (see An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, chap. IV and V). Causality supposes that everything in this universe is necessarily moved or caused by some other thing. In other words, nothing is caused by nothing, and nothing comes from nothing (also known as ex nihilo nihil fit). There is a high likelihood that the concept of causality was developed by the Ancient Greek philosophers, notably Aristotle (see Joseph DeFilippo’s, “Aristotle’s Identification of the Prime Mover as God [or the highest being, or Theos],” 393–409). As the civilization advanced, Aristotle’s argument on causality was adapted and used extensively by the theologians of the Middle Ages to defend their faith in God. Among these theologians, the most prominent was Thomas Aquinas, who proposed the famous five proofs on God’s existence (see Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways).
Broadly speaking, in his five proofs, Aquinas stated that: (1) Nothing moves without first being moved by something else, except the first mover, namely God; (2) Nothing is caused by itself, except the first cause, namely God; (3) Every matter comes from the nonmaterial existence, which is known as God; (4) Everything that exists has a different degree of goodness, which is measured in comparison to the highest Good, namely God; and (5) Everything that exists looks as though they have been designed, and nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed by a Designer, who is none other than God. Simply put, Aquinas has developed the concept of causality by adding two variables to it, namely: the necessary existence of a causa sui (the entity which caused itself) and the telos (purpose) which underlies each and every cause. Consequently, it was natural for him and the other theists to believe that the existence of God, whom created all things, and the divine purpose behind all those things, are necessarily true.
Hume acknowledged that the concept of causality is a product of the rational mind. In other words, the sceptic philosopher accepted that the foundation on which the proof of God’s existence stand is in accordance to the principles of logic and reason. However, Hume also discovered that the concept of causality originated from the process of inductive reasoning, in which the human mind draws a general conclusion based on the particular experiences that it has. This discovery stands in contrast to his postulate that any conclusion which is not derived from sensory experience is at best a hypothesis (notice that Hume evaluated causality with only a postulate, which explains why I defined atheism as a belief). Consequently, the concept of causality can only serve as a mere explanation on how reality works, and like other explanations, it is also subject to fallibility. Ultimately, Hume denied the necessity of the first cause and the divine purpose that it entails. At the same time, he also opened a possibility for the argument from chance, setting up the stage in which the theory of intelligent design confronts the atheistic theory of evolution.
Roughly speaking, the theory of intelligent design was developed from Aquinas’ teleological (fifth) proof, while the atheistic theory of evolution was developed from Charles Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. Both of them utilize the concept of probability in an antithetical fashion. Proponents of intelligent design use probability to argue for the impossibility of evolution. They state that entities in nature are irreducibly complex, and such complexity can only be explained by assuming the existence of a certain Designer, which more often than not refers to God. In contrast, proponents of atheistic evolution use pure chance to argue for the contingency of reality (see Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 109–144; Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, 77–94). They state that all natural processes are essentially cumulative, and this essential trait breaks the improbability of evolution into small pieces, which makes it, in Richard Dawkins words, “slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so” (see The God Delusion, 121). Furthermore, they add that the improbability of life in this universe is irrelevant to their argument, for the fact is, no matter how improbable it is, living beings end up existing anyway.
Until now, the debate between these theories has not reached a definitive conclusion regarding the existence of God. While atheistic evolution has a higher likelihood to win, one cannot easily dispute the fact that even in an atheistic worldview, there are still unexplainable gaps in which God might exist (I’m invoking the famous “God of the gaps,” mind you). Therefore, as I have said earlier, God’s existence can only be proven, at best, as a possibility. The only thing that we can surely infer from this debate is the fact that Hume and his followers have exposed dogmatic theism through their attack on the necessity of causality. This exposure makes it possible for us to engage critically with religious doctrines, employing a hermeneutic of suspicion on their truth claims.
Works Cited
Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God delusion. London: Bantam Press.
DeFilippo, Joseph. 1994. Aristotle’s identification of the Prime Mover as God. The classical quarterly 44, no. 2 (December): 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800043858.
Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Crows Nest, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Hume, David. 2007. An enquiry concerning human understanding, ed. Peter Millican. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kenny, Anthony. 2003. The five ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of God’s existence. London & New York: Routledge.
