“The Cosmological Argument Has Little Value

329 Words2 Pages
Pascal pointed out that Aquinas’ made the assumption that the uncaused cause, which is necessary for the Cosmological Argument, was the Christian God. As there is no empirical or scientific evidence for this to be the case then his argument does have little value for religious faith. For this reason, I agree with this claim. Karen Armstrong also criticises the Cosmological Argument as she says that Christians do not need to find reason, as Aquinas is trying to do, in order to debate with science. In her book “The Case for God” she writes that religion requires leaps of faith and should accept that there is no scientific proof for the existence of God. For this reason, Karen Armstrong agrees with this claim. Some philosophers, such as Keith Ward, say that religion is non-cognitive and that religion focuses on the way the believer lives their life rather than what you believe. This view on religion does not seem compatible with Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument because Aquinas is trying to find reason behind believing in God whereas Ward would say it doesn’t matter why or how there is a God. Ward believes religion to be existential. However, not everyone shares my opinion. Richard Swinburne used the principle of Occam’s razor to illustrate that Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument has value for religious faith. Occam’s razor says that the simplest answer is the best one, and as God is the simplest answer for the first cause, it is the best one. Denys Turner makes the point that Aquinas is misread, he says that Aquinas is just clarifying the existence of God for people who already believe rather than in an attempt to persuade non-believers. If this is the case, then this would mean that the Cosmological Argument does have value for religious faith. In conclusion, the Cosmological Argument shows no reason to believe in the loving Christian God which is why it has little
Open Document