This is an interesting statement. You often hear or read
about this in conversations and debates surrounding the existence of God. A
person may ask another person “why are you an atheist” and the atheist may
reply, “purely because there is no evidence for God”.
As
always, definitions play a crucial role in any debate and conversation. I
cannot claim that there is no evidence for the existence of Bodwilstin if I do
not have a definition for it. If someone asks me why I am an aBodwilstinist, I
cannot tell that person “purely because there is no evidence for
Bodwilstinist”. I do not even have a clear definition of what it is that there
is no evidence of. So the “there is no evidence” line is irrational if an
atheist does not have a definition of God. The most rational stance towards
something for which there is no definition is agnosticism or ignosticism.
However,
as soon as we provide a standard classical theist definition for God then the
line “there is no evidence” becomes irrational as well. The standard classical
theist view of God is that if God exists then nothing can come into being or
continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in
existence. If classical theism is true it just logically follows that
every contingent being that has ever existed and will ever exist is evidence
for God. It does not matter if the universe has existed for infinity, or if
abiogenesis is true or false, or if humans had a common ancestor with other
apes or not.
Classical
theism is affirmed by Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Pagans thinkers such as
Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna and Plotinus respectively. Aquinas’ five ways can
in principle demonstrate the existence of something that just is necessary
being itself, whose essence is its existence, that is intelligence analogously
speaking, that just is good and is purely actual. That is what classical
theists call God.
For
the classical theist, the existence of God can be known via reason and logic
alone. To give an example, Aquinas’ second argument (First Cause) is a standard
logical demonstration. It follows the same reasoning as mathematical proofs.
The following principles are important:
1) The Principle of Causality
2) The distinction between essence
and the act of existing.
3) The distinction between per
accidens causes and per se causes.
1) The Principle of Causality
The traditional view is that:
1) "Whatever happens has a cause; Whatever begins to be has a cause;
Whatever is contingent has a cause; Nothing occurs without a cause."2) The
axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes) is a negative
statement of the same principle.
3) Another way of saying it is “something can only be reduced from potentiality
to actuality by something in a state of actuality” (Aquinas, a Beginner's guide,
p65).
From an Aristotelian-Scholastic point of view, the empirical data from quantum
mechanics pose no problem for the principle of causality. In fact, quantum
physics and the Aristotelian concepts of prime matter and pure potentiality
actually fit in quite nicely with the indeterminate nature of quantum physics. As explained here. In addition, some might argue that
science has demonstrated that "from nothing, nothing comes" is false.
Such assertions are usually based on a faulty or inadequate definition
of "nothingness".
2) The distinction between essence and the act of existing.
Another principle that is important in Aquinas' second way is the distinction
between something's essence and its act of existing.
Take the example of water. When you think about water you may ask "what is
water"? To answer such a question is to provide the essence or nature of
water. From an Aristotelian point of view, when one fully understands what
water is one knows its full essence or nature. One can of course understand the
essence of water without it ever actually existing or experiencing it the
moment you understand it. You can now think about the concept of water and
fully understand it. However, from a Scholastic point of view, when you see a
drop of water, the water is actually existing. That is, the essence of water is
combined with its act of existing.
Material substances also begin to exist. You and me for example did not exist
200 years ago. We began to exist at some point in time. The same goes for a
water molecule when it begins to exist in a reaction between hydrogen and
oxygen. So let's use the example of water.
Before the water begins to exist you can still intellectually abstract what it
is, you grasp its essence. However, the moment it begins to exist its essence
and act of existence are conjoined to form a complete actual material
substance. From a Scholastic point of view all actually existing things right
here right now are complete substances whose essences or natures are conjoined
with their act of existing.
3) The distinction between per accidens causes and per se
causes.
A third important principle is the distinction between accidentally ordered
causes and essentially ordered causes. Accidentally ordered causes (per
accidens causes) are prior in time. Essentially ordered causes (per se causes) are prior in nature.
Let's use the water example again. Hydrogen and oxygen in this case are the per accidens causes of water. They are
accidentally ordered causes. Hydrogen and oxygen occurred prior to the water
that came into existence as a result of these accidental causes.
Now the water in the reaction began to exist. The moment water started to be an
actually existing material substance, its essence is conjoined with its act of
existing. Also, whenever water is actually existing its essence is conjoined
with its act of existing. The next question is “what causes its essence to be
conjoined to its act of existing”? It can't be something that exists before it
came into being. In other words, it cannot be an accidentally ordered cause. It
has to be something that is also actually existing the very same moment the
water exists. It thus follows that it is something that is an essentially
ordered cause but is prior in nature (not time) to the water.
Aquinas’ argument can thus be summarized as follows:
1) Whenever water begins to actually exist, its essence is conjoined with its
act of existing.
2) Something causes the essence of water to be conjoined to its act of
existing.
3) Such a cause cannot be water itself and the cause has to be prior in nature
and not prior in time (as argued above).
4) The cause may be something contingent.
5) Everything that is contingent has an essence that is distinct from its act
of existing (as argued above).
6) If the cause is something that is contingent then it too needs a cause to
conjoin its essence with it act of existing.
7) However, essentially ordered causes cannot go on to infinity, as there would
then be no explanation for why something begins to exist.
8) The First Cause in an essentially ordered series of causes will have to be
something whose essence is not distinct from its essence. Something whose
essence is its act of existing. For the classical theist this
is God.
Aquinas' second way gets you to something whose essence is its act of existing.
Now this kind of argument is not meant to convince everyone. I think it is
unreasonable to think this and I think very few find it convincing anyway. In
fact, it is unreasonable to even think that standard mathematical proofs are
meant to convince everyone. Some people may be ultra-skeptics and claim nothing
can be known with absolute certainty or any kind of certainty really. Some
might argue that consciousness is an illusion. Still others just don’t care.
The
point is, for the classical theist, God can be known via reason and logic.
Classical theism stands or falls based on the coherence of the definition of
God not because there is no evidence. If a person is or was a classical theist
then he accepts it or rejects it not because of the evidence. One accepts or
rejects classical theism based on reason and logic. As
pointed out in another post, there are three main philosophical problems
with classical theism. Those are examples of how one can rationally and
logically accept or reject classical theism. If such problems can be solved,
again via reason and logic, then one can accept it. If not, one can reject it.
Now
the person that claims to be an atheist “purely because there is no evidence
for God” perhaps has some kind of definition of God in mind. If not then the
statement is of course irrational. The next obvious question is, if you claim
there is no evidence for the existence of God, what exactly is your definition
of God in the first place?
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.