In the introduction of
his introductory book on philosophy
...my aim is to illuminate some of the key areas of
discussion in a tradition which began with the Ancient Greeks... (pp. 1 ff.)
So, one would expect (certainly, I would expect) to find arguments formulated
with clarity, good faith and subtlety. Let’s see...
The first chapter of the book is about God. Ok, not about God Himself, but
the different arguments formulated in order to ground the proposition “God exists”. One of these arguments is the so-called “Cosmological
Argument” or “The First Cause Argument”. Warburton explains:
The
First Cause Argument states that absolutely everything has been caused by something
else prior to it: nothing has just sprung into existence without a cause.
Because we know that the universe exists, we can safely assume that a whole series
of causes and effects led to its being as it is. If we follow this series back
we find an original cause, the very first cause. This first cause, so the First
Cause Argument tells us, is God. (p. 16)
Then,
Warburton proceeds to reject the argument. A very easy task, as he manages to formulate
- not one, but two devastating objections in eleven lines. Oh! If only
Aristotle and Aquinas knew Warburton to save them from delusion! What a pity! (Not
only Warburton, for that matter, but also Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Kraus etc.
etc. – all of them having such bright minds!) So, Warburton cuts through with
his sharp…aaah…mind:
The
First Cause Argument begins with the assumption that every single thing was
caused by something else, but it then proceeds to contradict this by saying
that God was the very first cause. It argues both that there can be no uncaused
cause, and that there is one uncaused cause: God. It invites the question ‘And
what caused God?’ Someone convinced by the First Cause Argument might object
that they did non mean that everything had a cause, only that everything except
God had a cause. But this is no better. If the series of effects and causes is
going to stop somewhere, why must it stop at God? Why couldn’t it stop earlier
in the regression, with the appearance of the universe itself?
There
is only one problem with this argument Warburton rejects. No one defends
this. No one of the defenders of the cosmological argument has ever
defended such an argument. No wonder Warburton gives no citation of the
argument. How could he? This would just show how deceiving he is, or how
shallow he is.
So,
Warburton’s argument is just a textbook case of strawman fallacy. I will teach
it in my logic classes.
