04/26/08 - Do we have a defense against atheist attacks?

04/26/08 - Do we have a defense against atheist attacks?
10:30 AM - 12 PM at the Dove House, St. Adelaide

I. What are apriori and aposteriori arguments?
· Apriori arguments (ex: ontological)- arguments for God which derive their premises independent of experience; one only need to clearly understand that proposition to see that it is true.
· Aposteriority arguments (ex: cosmological and teleological)- arguments for God which derive their premises only from experience of the world.
II. What is the Cosmological argument (St. Thomas Aquinas, Five Ways)?
Aquinas’ Second Way (Causality argument)
1) There exist things that are caused.
§ You happen upon a sand-castle on the beach, and you presume that it was designed.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (ex nihilio nihil fit, out of nothing proceeds).
§ The sand castle cannot bring itself into existence.
3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
§ If you trace the line of causality back, there must be a first cause, which itself was not caused.
4) Therefore, there exists an uncaused first cause.
5) The word God means uncaused first cause.
6) Therefore, God exists
Aquinas’ Third Way (Contingency argument)
1) Every being that exists are either contingent or necessary.
§ Contingent means it depends upon something else to explain its being (humans, animals, etc.). Necessary means that the being requires no other being to explain its existence.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
§ Contingent beings need at least one necessary being.
3) Therefore, there exists a being upon which the contingent beings depend.
4) A necessary being on which all contingent beings exist is what we mean by God.
5) Therefore, God exists.
III. What is the Teleological argument (William Paley)?
1) Complexity implies a designer.
2) The universe is highly complex.
3) Therefore, the universe has a Designer.
4) God is a Being who is able to design a universe.
5) Therefore, God does exist.
IV. What is the Ontological argument (St. Anselm)?
Argument 1
1) God is, by definition, the “greatest” (that which nothing greater is possible).
2) The notion of the “greatest” exists in the mind.
3) The “greatest” may exist in reality.
4) If the “greatest” only existed in the mind, and the “greatest” may have existed in reality, then the “greatest” [in reality] might have been greater than the “greatest” [in the mind].
5) The “greatest” may be greater than it is.
6) Therefore, the “greatest” is something that something greater is possible.
7) This is not possible, reduction ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).
8) Therefore, the “greatest” (God) exists in both the mind and in reality.
Argument 2
1) God is defined as the “greatest” (aliquid, quo nihil majus cogitari posit, that than which nothing greater can be conceived).
2) It is greater to be a necessary being than not.
3) God must be necessary.
4) God necessarily exists.
V. What is C.S. Lewis' argument (Desire argument)?
1) All human desires correspond to a real thing which can satisfy that desire.
§ Thirst is satisfied by drink; hunger is satisfied by food; fatigue is satisfied by sleep/rest; sexual desire is satisfied by marital relations; etc.
2) There is a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy (desire for God).
3) This desire must be satisfied in another world.
4) Therefore, God must exist.
VI. The Wager (Pascal) – This does a cross between two dimensions: (1) the truth of whether God exists, God exists and God does not exist; and (2) how one chooses to lead one’s life, live as if God does exist and live as if God does not exist. This gives us 4 possibilities:
1) God exists and one does not live as if God exists – Hell (+ infinity)
2) God exists and one does live as if God existed – Heaven (- infinity)
3) God does not exist and one does not live as if God exists – neutral
4) God does not exist and one does live as if God existed – neutral
5) Therefore, wager that God exists.
§ Would you not wager $1 for the 50/50 chance of winning a million?
VII. The fool says in his heart “there is no God” (Psalm 14:1).
VIII. How to understand the atheist better so that we may be able to guide them to the truth
· the atheist as a victim
§ They have bought into the secular and relativistic philosophy.
· the atheist as an apologist
§ If you believed as they believe, wouldn’t you promote it too?
· the atheist as an intellectual
§ They don’t want to hear about mysticism and non-materialistic evidence; rational argumentation is the best bet; this is the high-form of atheism.
· the atheist as a revolutionary
§ There is a popular culture of anti-conformity. It is cool to be a jerk; This is the low-form of atheism.