The Cosmological Argument

This is another paper I wrote for my current grad class. It discusses an article by Bruce Reichenbach entitled The Cosmological Argument. This is another nerdy, read at your own risk article. My thanks to Dr. Rubel Shelly for his corrections, suggestions, and challenges that helped shape this paper.

-------------------------------------------------

In his essay on the Cosmological Argument, Reichenbach not only presents his points and opinions, he does an excellent job of addressing many of the objections to his position. He begins by reviewing some of the earlier approaches to arguments for the existence of God. In this section of his essay, he discusses the explanation for God. He explores the Principle of Sufficient Reason, according to which "no fact can be real or existing, and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise." While considering this principle, Reichenbach goes even further to detail the nuances of the principle and how it fits the Cosmological Argument. He argues that, "a moderate version of the principle, which holds that what is contingent or what comes into being requires a sufficient reason why it exists or comes into being." This is one of the foundations of the Cosmological argument because everything in the world is contingent and needs a reason to exist.

He also comments on the necessity of scientific and personal explanations. While scientific explanation requires natural features, events, and processes or conditions to occur, personal explanation is explained through the actions of a person. When dealing with the existence of God, Reichenbach argues that both are critical.

Another central question addresses the issue of what needs explanation. The argument for a sustaining cause deals with why the universe exists. In this argument, we would argue that contingent beings, those things which the universe consists of, are dependent on other beings for their existence. The argument for an initiating cause discusses the cause of the coming of the universe. This argument would advance the idea that since the universe exists, it must have a cause. While both arguments have some validity, Reichenbach warns us to be careful in situations where an explanation in terms of God competes with that of science. As science discovers more and more, we must look to science not as our enemy, but as a friend who often fills the gaps in ways that enforce the Cosmological Argument, not weaken it.

Reichenbach goes on to outline a Deductive Cosmological Argument from Contingency. This argument would advance the idea that a contingent being exists and that it has a cause or explanation for existence. Since contingents require another being to cause or explain their existence, a necessary being must be included among the beings which exist. Therefore, a necessary being must exist. This argument hinges on the fact that "contingent beings alone cannot cause or explain the existence of a contingent being." I agree with this statement and its validity. Therefore, I believe this argument is sound.

During his examination of this argument, Reichenbach openly discusses the objections to and possible problems with this method of thinking. The first major objection he tackles is the idea that the universe simply exists. Most of his explanation circles around the writings of Bertrand Russell, who argues that the Universe "just is." However, Reichenbach argues that the source of the universe demands an explanation. While he states that quantum physics raises some questions about indetermination on the subatomic level, Reichenbach would argue that even these subatomic particles require a cause. Contingent beings still need a necessary being.

The second objection he addresses is the idea that explaining the individual parts of the universe is sufficient to disprove the existence of God. Hume even argued that uniting the parts of the universe is an act of the mind and has influence on the nature of things. Reichenbach argues that how the parts are arranged is crucial to the argument because examining the parts may very well give an incomplete picture of the whole. In addition, we must consider why these parts exist and their role in the universe.

The third objection confronted the notion that the conclusion is contradictory. This objection centers on the fact that the cosmological argument presupposes the cogency of the ontological argument. Reichenbach explains that a necessary being is not self-contradictory, and its existence is not intrinsically impossible. He argues that this is not the logically necessary existence that Kant discusses. Rather, necessity in the Cosmological Argument is understood in the sense of a factual necessity. This is a convincing point because without a source or cause, there is nothing.

Reichenbach finishes by defending his thesis that God provides the best explanation. His essential claim is that God is not scientifically explainable and does not depend on anything else for His existence. In addition, God provides the best explanation of our expectations of the universe. Since there must be a cause to the universe and God is the simplest and most reasonable answer, the God of religion must exist and is the cause of all creation.

I appreciated his approach because he was not afraid to tackle objections and other points of view. Reichenbach did not try to cover up these arguments against his opinions. Rather, he addressed them in a variety of ways. He acknowledged those times when others made a valid point. But he also considered the weaknesses of those counterpoints. For example, when dealing with Hume’s quantum physics argument, Reichenbach affirmed the challenges but went on to see the limits of Hume’s point. By considering and talking about the objections and arguments, Reichenbach actually helps strengthen his task to prove God’s existence. The Cosmological Argument accomplishes that goal very well.