Cosmological Arguments and God
Pat offers an introduction to the study of natural theology and cosmological arguments for God.
Specifically, in this episode, Pat talks about what cosmological arguments are, common misunderstandings around them, and then offers an initial presentation of two particular, metaphysical demonstrations: The argument from contingency, and the argument against an actually infinite large collection (aka the Kalam argument).
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
Related Episodes/Articles
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
Mike Rickard says
Hi Pat. Could you answer me this. How does natural law tie in with natural theology. Are they the same thing (just two different terms). I’m asking because I’ve been studying natural law and apparently different terms are used for the concept of natural law. I find natural law to be fascinating and value your opinion on things.
Pat Flynn says
Hi Mike,
Natural law connects deeply to a particular metaphysics. For example, natural law assumes an essentialist and teleological conception of the world. That means that agents have essences (or substantial forms) and act toward an effect or a range of effects according to their essence. This was the metaphysics of St. Thomas, as well as Aristotle. So, for example, there is such a thing as “dogness” that every dog participates in, however imperfectly. And once you understand what it means to be a dog, in essence, you can deduce or infer your way to what “being a dog” is objectively aimed at (eating, bearing pups, etc). This closes the fact/value gap which so plagues modern philosophy, since to comprehend what it means to be a dog just is to know something about what dogs are oriented toward by nature, or what is really good for them. We can therefore say that a dog with only three legs is a worse dog than a dog with all four legs, since part of what it means to be a dog is to have four legs. The three-legged dog would be suffering from a defect or privation. And that’s a bad thing. Not a morally bad thing, but still a bad thing in that there is a lack in this particular dog that shouldn’t be there. But once you can see that, it’s only a short hop to morality, which is just a special case of the same principles applied to rational animals, namely humans. In fact, that’s what Aristotle claimed the essence of humans to be. So if it is part of human nature to have intellect and will (which it is) and to use our intellect to guide our will toward our ultimate happiness (which it also is; we cannot do anything aside pursue our own happiness, even if we choose the wrong means of doing so) then any decisions we make which frustrate that end we could say are immoral decisions. And here’s where natural theology comes in, but also revelation. If we can show through rational demonstration that God exists and is the ultimate end of all men, then something about our essence follows from that. What we are really aiming at is an understanding of God, and so the natural law theorist could make the case that anything which frustrates that particular end — that is, us coming to know and enjoy an eternal friendship with God — is an inherently immoral act.
I think it’s important to see that a natural law theory of morality is inherently quite restrictive (at least when compared to much of modern “morality”) and bears many moral duties and obligations upon us that would be sure to create uneasy feelings among people who identify too heavily on either the far left or far right side of the American political spectrum. Natural Law theory also speaks less of “rights” and more of “the good”, which makes perfect sense to me. That said, one can entail certain rights in the modern parlance from an understanding of the good. For example, it is obviously good that children receive care and instruction from their parents, and obviously good that parents providing that care and instruction are obeyed by their children. This is just part of the essence of the parental and familial relationship, which springs from the essence of what it means to be human. So from there one could make the argument that children have a positive right to be cared for and instructed by their parents, and that parents have a positive right to be obeyed by their children. This positive rights talk would go over quite uneasily with many libertarians and even some conservatives. But, on the other hand, natural law theory has a great deal to say about the nature of sexuality and sexual ethics, which, surely enough, would not be easy to accept for many people of the more liberal or left-wing persuasion.
There are other connections as well, in that the natural theology of St. Thomas comes from the very same metaphysical principles (essentialism, teleology, act/potency distinction), which always impressed me. No other philosopher I ever encountered had such a fully worked out worldview (and a coherent and consistent one at that) of metaphysics, philosophy of mind, ethics, etc.
Mike Rickard says
Thanks so much for explaining things, Pat. You have a gift for explaining the complex and I feel like you addressed all the points I was a little shaky on. The essence argument is what I obtained my from limited study of natural law. I’m definitely going to do some reading by Thomas Aquinas.
Hugh Sellers says
I must be mistaken because I always thought philosophy and theology didn’t get along. That natural theology sounds promising because it doesn’t sound like it assumes anything. You have to reason things out (as you said) to get to a certain point. I imagine there are some things you have to accept (like any faith), but I’d rather believe in something I’ve thought through than jump into it like a zealot. I’m no modern philosophy fan but I think there’s some value to the ancient philosophers. Are there any contemporary philosophers you think are worthy of study?
Pat Flynn says
Hey Hugh,
That really depends on the philosophy. If, say, you’re a materialist, then sure. Theology becomes the most meaningless and empty project a person can imagine. From that perspective, you might as well have a science dedicated to flying spaghetti monsters. But that, of course, is the interesting dilemma that theology presents. Either theology really is “the queen of the sciences” and the most important study a person can engage in, or, it is utter ridiculous fantasizing.
It was actually my study of philosophy that got me to seeing the value and importance of theology, and natural theology (again, confusing, since this is more appropriately classified as philosophy) is just one of the domains that caused me to — and make what you will of this terminology — “cross over”.
As for contemporary philosophers, so there’s a flood of them doing great and important work, at least in my view. Ed Feser, Josh Rasmussen, Alexander Pruss, Eleanor Stump, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Robert Spitzer, J Budzsizewski, Thomas Joseph White, Michael Rota, Robert Koons, Michael Gorman, the list continues. Take your pick!
Ridge Harris says
I like the variety of topics you address on your podcasts. Definitely one of the most thought-provoking ones out there. How long have you been doing these and do you take requests for topics? I’d like to hear a podcast about the different sects of Christianity and where they originated from. Not only are there the two factions (if that’s the right terminology) of Catholicism and Protestantism, but there are so many offshoots too (mostly in Protestantism from what I know). I think it would make for a fascinating discussion.
Pat Flynn says
Hi Ridge,
Oh, sure. Mostly I’d recommend emailing if you’d like to submit a topic, theme, or problem for discussion. PatFlynn(at)ChroniclesOfStrength(dot)com. That said, the history of Christianity and all its many denominations is a topic of great interest to me, and one I had to wrestle with for some time before coming to Catholicism. Thanks for the suggestion, and I’ll see what I can do about fitting this into a future episode of Sunday School.