The Contingency Argument: A Case for God – A Summarization of Mohammed Hijab’s Londoniyyah Lecture
The Contingency Argument: A Case for God – A Summarization of Mohammed Hijab’s Londoniyyah Lecture
All things belong the categories of independent or dependent, a third option cannot exist. Dependency can be defined as something that relies on something else for its existence. There is a difference between causation and dependency. For example, a mother may ‘cause’ her child to exist but if the mother were to stop existing, the child still exists i.e. the child is not ‘dependent’ on the mother. A telephone’s battery requires a charger and therefore depends on it. A human is also dependent but how can one show this to be the case? It is certainly the case that all humans are composed of limited parts or atoms and relies on these parts for existence. Anything that is susceptible to addition and/or subtraction also possesses limitations and dependent by necessity. It is also the case that humans could be conceived in another way; an individual could have three arms instead of two. These features do not only apply to humanity but to the universe as well or anything else that can be conceived in a different way. Anything that is independent is self-sufficient. To claim that the universe not dependent necessarily entails independency and said independency, based on the attribute of self-sufficiency, is part of the theistic definition of God. An independent being must have no parts and no beginning as well as if it had parts it would be dependent upon the parts and if it had a beginning it would depend on something else to exist.
A common objection to the contingency argument is the fallacy of composition. This objection entails that just because there are dependent things in the universe it does not follow that the universe itself is dependent. For example, just because an elephant is big and is composed of small atoms, it is not the case that the elephant must be also small. Firstly, the fact the universe can be conceived in a different way which proves that it is contingent and therefore dependent on a necessary being to exist in a certain way. The contingency argument has an ontological basis rather than an argument based on causation. Secondly, with the case of the universe, the argument does not infer the whole based on the part i.e. that everything in the universe is dependent therefore the universe is dependent. Rather it argues that the universe is dependent just as everything else. However, it can be the case that the part can have a connection with the whole. For example, a wall composed of red bricks will be red, but no one truly knows the whole universe. The fallacy of composition would apply more directly to the Kalam Cosmological Argument but again it fails for the same reason i.e. that the universe is also caused like everything else rather than the universe being caused because of all its parts are also caused.
A necessary being, if it is removed, absurdities would occur. If a contingent being was removed, no absurdities would occur as it does not challenge the idea of existence if something that is dependent is removed. However, if the being that all depend on longer existed then what remains?
The objection to the contingency argument presented by the atheist, Bertrand Russell, was based on the idea that the universe might simply be a brute fact, existing without any explanation or cause. The Christian theologian, Richard Swinburne attempted to refute this argument with the following rebuttal, “The objection fails to make any crucial distinction between the universe and other objects; and so it fails its attempt to prevent at the outset a rational inquiry into the issue of whether the universe has some origin outside itself.” Russell's objection fails to recognize that the contingency argument does not depend on brute fact of the universe having a cause, but rather on the idea that the universe is contingent and therefore requires an explanation for its existence. The contingency argument provides evidence for the existence of a necessary being, such as God, who is the necessary explanation for the universe's existence. If a child misbehaves and the parent asks why the child misbehaved, it is not a logical argument for the child to say, “just because” and it seems like this is the argument that Russell is presenting.
Read my “The Beginning for the Rational Basis for God (Part 1)” for more on the contingency argument.
Comments
Post a Comment