Skip to main content

Defeasible Reasoning in Cosmological Arguments for Theism and for Naturalism

(Revised)

Perhaps one of the most important recent innovations with respect to cosmological arguments is the application of groundbreaking work in defeasible reasoning to the formulation of their core explanatory principles (Cf. Joshua Rasmussen and Robert Koons). Defeasible causal and explanatory principles have the following basic form:
(DP) Normally, entities of type T have a cause or explanation.
The "normally" operator indicates that it is a default explanatory principle. Principles of this sort may or may not have exceptions; they are general rules of thumb. From a dialectical point of view, default principles may be preferable to ordinary principles for at least two reasons: (i) they're more modest than unqualified principles, and thus easier to justify, and (ii) when justified, one can't reject the implication that they apply in the given case at stake unless one has a good reason to think that they don't in that very case;  unlike unqualified principles, not any old counterexample is going to do the trick. In this way, they shift a very strong burden of proof onto the "skeptic".

As mentioned above, both Koons and Rasmussen have proposed default causal/explanatory principles in their versions of the cosmological argument. Here they are:
(DPK) Normally, a wholly contingent situation has a cause. 
(DPR) Normally, for any intrinsic property p that (i) can begin to be exemplified and (ii) can be exemplified by something that has a cause, there can be a cause of p’s beginning to be exemplified.
It seems to me that there are arguments for naturalism that should likewise be revised in light of these advances. Here's an example. On previous occasions, I have appealed to a principle of material causality to argue that classical theism is false:
(PMC) All concrete objects with originating or sustaining causes have material causes of their existence.
So far as I know, PMC has no clear counterexample. However, the sorts of considerations sketched above lead me to think that I need not appeal to a causal or explanatory principle anywhere near as strong as that. Rather, I can just rely on a weaker default version of the principle:
(DPMC) Normally, objects with originating or sustaining causes have material causes of their existence.
Then if we replace DPMC for PMC in the previous version of my argument, we get:
1. If classical theism is true, then the universe has an originating or sustaining cause (or both) without a material cause of its existence.
2. Normally, concrete objects (or collections of such) that have an originating or sustaining cause (or both) have a material cause of their existence.
3. The universe is a concrete object (or collection of such).
4. Therefore, classical theism is false.
Assume DPMC is warranted, along with the other premises. Then as with the cosmological arguments that deploy DPK and DPR, the only way for one to rationally resist the conclusion is to give an adequate reason for thinking the principle does not hold in the crucial case in play, viz. the origin or existence of the universe. Not any old counterexample is going to cut it. 

Comments

Obsidian said…
Craig actully gives a response to a similar objection by Morriston to the CP in the Blackwell Companion to Natural theology .
exapologist said…
He does, but most of them are irrelevant. Remember that my causal premise is restricted to just concrete objects (as defined in the post, "Theism and Material Causality"). As such, the counterexamples he proposes that don't refer to concrete objects as defined are irrelevant.

But the main reason why his proposed counterexamples are irrelevant to the argument is that most of them are attempted counterexamples to an unrestricted principle of material causality. But the beauty of a default causal/explanatory principle is precisely that it can grant counterexamples. With such principles, the only sort of counterexample that's relevant is one that applies in the type of case at stake -- in this case, the origin or sustenance of the universe without a material cause. On the nature of default reasoning, the SEP entry on default reasoning, as well as the papers by Koons and Rasmussen, linked to in the post above.

Having said all of that, it's instructive to see that his counterexamples aren't even convincing against an unrestricted version of the principle of material causality. So, for example, his example of models of the universe that construe it created from zero energy (in the sense that positive and negative energy are perfectly balanced) is just a semantic trick (that's not nothing in the relevant sense); his example of space cloning itself isn't a counterexample at all, as it involves creation from prior space (and he notes parenthetically that it's currently speculative how space actually clones itself (and would require a substantivalist construal of space to even make the case relevant to the causal principle at issue, which is controversial).

What about his account of libertarian agent causation? As I pointed out in the post alluded to above, this will only be persuasive to those who are accept libertarian agent causal views of the self (a tiny minority of philosophers), the bulk of which are Christian theists. As such, this sort of counter-example is question-begging at best, implausible at worst. In any case, it's not clear that libertarian agent causation requires creation ex nihilo, but only transfer from energy outside the physical causal system to inside it. But that's just a case of material causality.

Finally, what about his appeal to the Kalam argument's case for a necessary beginning of the universe? As myself and others (esp. Wes Morriston) have argued, all of his philosophical arguments on this score are subject to undercutting defeaters, and his appeal to the BGV theorem is shaky at best. For the latter to suffice to ground resisting the default causal principle of material causality, the evidence for the former would have to be at least as strong as the grounds for the latter, which it clearly doesn't (or so it seems to me).

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…