A Cumulative Argument is an argument composed of several lines of evidence or facts in which each step points out to the same conclusion (where each step, by itself, could be insufficient to prove the conclusion, but adds some support to it) and when you put all the steps together it makes the conclusion, at the end, more likely than the alternatives.
This kind of argument is used by lawyers, historians, scientists and philosophers to support a given case or proposition. This kind of arguments is used, for example, by philosophers of religion to support the existence of God, for example:
This kind of argument is used by lawyers, historians, scientists and philosophers to support a given case or proposition. This kind of arguments is used, for example, by philosophers of religion to support the existence of God, for example:
It is interesting that no everybody understands the nature of this kind of argument, or its specific application in a given case. The main reason is that people often don't realize the implications of the different alternative hypotheses under examination.
In order to use properly a cumulative argument approach, you need to understand exactly what are the implications (or predictions) entailed by the different hypotheses that you're evaluating. This is the only way to know that the facts or evidence available fit these predictions (and hence, support the one or many of the hypotheses in question) or, on the contrary, they contradict one or many of the hypotheses being tested.
When you consider the two competing worldviews widely accepted by most scholars as the two more likely and living alternatives (theism and naturalism, most scholars preferring the latter), you have to know exactly which facts or evidence would you expect to find in the world if each of these alternatives were correct.
1)The theistic hypothesis: Essential to this hypothesis is the existence of a all-powerful spiritual person called God. This hypothesis entails at least:
-The ground of reality is a PERSON (God), not some impersonal reality (matter, particles, forces, quantum fluctuations, etc.). This implies that the fabric of reality essentially includes, in addition to brute/mechanical matter, person-relative phenomena and properties (consciousness, free will, moral values and obligations, rationality, intelligence, etc.). Creation is person-relative in the sense that has features which essentially fit or are related to persons proper.
Whatever evidence is available supporting the existence of these person-relative properties or entities is, therefore, evidence for theism. (So, you get arguments for God's existence based on morality, consciousness, rationality, free will, etc.).
-That person is the creator of everything which exists (apart of himself). As consequence, this creator is the creator of the universe too. This implies the temporal beginning of the universe.
Hence, whatever evidence is available supporting the temporal beginning of the universe is evidence for theism.
2)The naturalistic hypothesis: Essential to this hypothesis is the existence of brute matter or a purely mechanical (impersonal) physical world. This entails:
-Persons are not essential in this worldview, they're mere accidents of the evolution of matter. They could or couldn't exist, and the fact that persons exist is, at most, a cosmic accident.
Naturalist Richard Carrier informs us: "In our worldview, we are just another tiny byproduct of nature, special in no sense to anyone but among ourselves, subject to a plethora of ramdom accidents and forces, and there is no perfect or supreme being at all, least of all us" (Sense and Goodness without God, p. 259)
-If (for accident), persons happen to exist, they're purely material or physical and as consequence absolutely under the control of impersonal forces and physical laws which control matter in general.
Naturalist Richard Dawkins informs us: "As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software... But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?"
-The inmediate consequence of the above naturalistic implications is the impossibility of free will and hence of moral responsability. In fact, morality itself (including moral values and obligations), not being part of the physical world, cannot exist. At most, could exist people with BELIEFS about morality (beliefs about abortion, beliefs about rape, beliefs about homicide, etc. which when are shared by a community or society at large cause the illusion of objectivity), but not morality in any objective sense.
-The universe has to be eternal, or if began to exist, uncaused from "nothing".
The evidence for the beginning of the universe has to be explained away or seen as skepticism on behalf of (non-proven) theories which preserve the eternity of the universe. (Note that naturalists are eager to embrace theories like Darwinian evolution in the name of "respect for science", but they become surprisingly skeptics about mainstream scientific theories about the beginning of the universe... a curious and selective way of being "scientifc").
If all of these fail, the naturalist will say that the universe began "from nothing" (and when pressed to articulate exactly his idiosyncratic position, he'll confess that by "nothing" he actually meant "something fundamental" like the quantum vacuum, the law of gravity, entropy, a hot and dense primitive state, etc. all of which are PART of the universe and certainly not "nothing". The verbal sleight of hand won't change the facts.).
And, when they're monumentally ignorant of philosophy and intellectually mediocre (and think their readers are at the same level of mediocrity and ignorance), they will say things like "Nothing is unstable" (abscribing the property of "unstability" to nothing, which implies that nothing is somehting after all... namely, something with the property of being unstable. Feel free to laugh harder).
In order to use properly a cumulative argument approach, you need to understand exactly what are the implications (or predictions) entailed by the different hypotheses that you're evaluating. This is the only way to know that the facts or evidence available fit these predictions (and hence, support the one or many of the hypotheses in question) or, on the contrary, they contradict one or many of the hypotheses being tested.
When you consider the two competing worldviews widely accepted by most scholars as the two more likely and living alternatives (theism and naturalism, most scholars preferring the latter), you have to know exactly which facts or evidence would you expect to find in the world if each of these alternatives were correct.
1)The theistic hypothesis: Essential to this hypothesis is the existence of a all-powerful spiritual person called God. This hypothesis entails at least:
-The ground of reality is a PERSON (God), not some impersonal reality (matter, particles, forces, quantum fluctuations, etc.). This implies that the fabric of reality essentially includes, in addition to brute/mechanical matter, person-relative phenomena and properties (consciousness, free will, moral values and obligations, rationality, intelligence, etc.). Creation is person-relative in the sense that has features which essentially fit or are related to persons proper.
Whatever evidence is available supporting the existence of these person-relative properties or entities is, therefore, evidence for theism. (So, you get arguments for God's existence based on morality, consciousness, rationality, free will, etc.).
-That person is the creator of everything which exists (apart of himself). As consequence, this creator is the creator of the universe too. This implies the temporal beginning of the universe.
Hence, whatever evidence is available supporting the temporal beginning of the universe is evidence for theism.
2)The naturalistic hypothesis: Essential to this hypothesis is the existence of brute matter or a purely mechanical (impersonal) physical world. This entails:
-Persons are not essential in this worldview, they're mere accidents of the evolution of matter. They could or couldn't exist, and the fact that persons exist is, at most, a cosmic accident.
Naturalist Richard Carrier informs us: "In our worldview, we are just another tiny byproduct of nature, special in no sense to anyone but among ourselves, subject to a plethora of ramdom accidents and forces, and there is no perfect or supreme being at all, least of all us" (Sense and Goodness without God, p. 259)
-If (for accident), persons happen to exist, they're purely material or physical and as consequence absolutely under the control of impersonal forces and physical laws which control matter in general.
Naturalist Richard Dawkins informs us: "As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software... But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?"
-The inmediate consequence of the above naturalistic implications is the impossibility of free will and hence of moral responsability. In fact, morality itself (including moral values and obligations), not being part of the physical world, cannot exist. At most, could exist people with BELIEFS about morality (beliefs about abortion, beliefs about rape, beliefs about homicide, etc. which when are shared by a community or society at large cause the illusion of objectivity), but not morality in any objective sense.
-The universe has to be eternal, or if began to exist, uncaused from "nothing".
The evidence for the beginning of the universe has to be explained away or seen as skepticism on behalf of (non-proven) theories which preserve the eternity of the universe. (Note that naturalists are eager to embrace theories like Darwinian evolution in the name of "respect for science", but they become surprisingly skeptics about mainstream scientific theories about the beginning of the universe... a curious and selective way of being "scientifc").
If all of these fail, the naturalist will say that the universe began "from nothing" (and when pressed to articulate exactly his idiosyncratic position, he'll confess that by "nothing" he actually meant "something fundamental" like the quantum vacuum, the law of gravity, entropy, a hot and dense primitive state, etc. all of which are PART of the universe and certainly not "nothing". The verbal sleight of hand won't change the facts.).
And, when they're monumentally ignorant of philosophy and intellectually mediocre (and think their readers are at the same level of mediocrity and ignorance), they will say things like "Nothing is unstable" (abscribing the property of "unstability" to nothing, which implies that nothing is somehting after all... namely, something with the property of being unstable. Feel free to laugh harder).
In conclusion:
If you find evidence for:
-The beginning of the universe
-The existence of (not purely automata) persons
-The existence of consciousness
-The existence of objective moral values
-The existence of free will and rationality
-The existence of some objective purpose or meaning in the fabric of reality
You will know that you have evidence that not fit well with the naturalistic worldview, but fits perfectly (because they're entailed by) the theistic worldview. Hence, these facts (if they exist)
are evidence for theism and against naturalism.
And when you put together some of these facts, you'll get a powerful cumulative case for theism.
If you find evidence for:
-The beginning of the universe
-The existence of (not purely automata) persons
-The existence of consciousness
-The existence of objective moral values
-The existence of free will and rationality
-The existence of some objective purpose or meaning in the fabric of reality
You will know that you have evidence that not fit well with the naturalistic worldview, but fits perfectly (because they're entailed by) the theistic worldview. Hence, these facts (if they exist)
are evidence for theism and against naturalism.
And when you put together some of these facts, you'll get a powerful cumulative case for theism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment