John Locke's Argument for God's Existence
This was an essay I turned in for class.
Locke’s Argument for God
Locke’s argument comes in two stages. In the first stage, he argues for a first cause, and in the second stage, he argues for identifying that cause as God. It can be summarized thusly:
1. There are beings that have a beginning
2. All beings that have a beginning have been produced by something eternal
3. Therefore, something eternal exists
In support of the first premise, Locke points to our own existence as a thing that exists. His reasoning here is that if one truly does not exist, then one is nothing. Yet at some point, Locke is confident, that the one claiming he is non-being will eventually be hungry or have pain, which is only possible to being, not to non-being. This may sound like a practical argument, and practical arguments are not always the strongest arguments, but Locke also says that non-being cannot produce being. Non-being cannot have properties, sensations, passions, or anything whatsoever, predicated to it. Locke’s argument for the first premise is bit stronger than being pragmatic then; it does have a metaphysical principle underlying it. Further, in pointing to our own existence, he also establishes that some beings have a beginning, since we have obviously not existed for an eternity.
In support of the second premise, Locke appeals explicitly to the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being. He appeals to intuition in support of this principle. It isn’t immediately clear what is meant by “intuition”, but since Locke calls it “intuitive certainty”, that is, intuition can produce certainty, it will do to assume that intuition counts as an instance of knowledge. So, we just know that non-being cannot produce being any more than non-being can be equal to right triangles. While it may be true that some beings have been produced by other beings, if those other beings have a beginning, then those other beings need an explanation as well. Further, it is assumed that this line of causes must terminate somewhere, into that which has no beginning, and Locke calls this the eternal thing. So, an eternal thing exists.
So what reason is there to think the eternal thing is God? Locke reasons some properties, such as power and intelligence, to the eternal thing. How this is done may clarify what kind of argument Locke is putting forth. It may be read into the text that Locke is arguing for a first efficient cause, but this is not supported by the text. There is some ambiguity as to what Locke means by “produce” since in the relevant text, he does not use the word “cause” which usually connotes efficient cause. But efficient causes do not typically give rise to power and intelligence, and they certainly don’t give being to another thing. So it is ambiguous as to what kind of cause Locke is thinking about when he says our finite being is ultimately derived from an eternal being, and likewise with power and intelligence. Locke here might be referring to something like the Principle of Proportionate Causality, but this is unlikely as he denies the Cartesian argument for God’s existence which plays on the same principle. So it is difficult to assess on what causal principle Locke thinks this works, but it is clear that he thinks at least a variation like that causal principle works. So God exists.
Locke’s Argument for God
Locke’s argument comes in two stages. In the first stage, he argues for a first cause, and in the second stage, he argues for identifying that cause as God. It can be summarized thusly:
1. There are beings that have a beginning
2. All beings that have a beginning have been produced by something eternal
3. Therefore, something eternal exists
In support of the first premise, Locke points to our own existence as a thing that exists. His reasoning here is that if one truly does not exist, then one is nothing. Yet at some point, Locke is confident, that the one claiming he is non-being will eventually be hungry or have pain, which is only possible to being, not to non-being. This may sound like a practical argument, and practical arguments are not always the strongest arguments, but Locke also says that non-being cannot produce being. Non-being cannot have properties, sensations, passions, or anything whatsoever, predicated to it. Locke’s argument for the first premise is bit stronger than being pragmatic then; it does have a metaphysical principle underlying it. Further, in pointing to our own existence, he also establishes that some beings have a beginning, since we have obviously not existed for an eternity.
In support of the second premise, Locke appeals explicitly to the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being. He appeals to intuition in support of this principle. It isn’t immediately clear what is meant by “intuition”, but since Locke calls it “intuitive certainty”, that is, intuition can produce certainty, it will do to assume that intuition counts as an instance of knowledge. So, we just know that non-being cannot produce being any more than non-being can be equal to right triangles. While it may be true that some beings have been produced by other beings, if those other beings have a beginning, then those other beings need an explanation as well. Further, it is assumed that this line of causes must terminate somewhere, into that which has no beginning, and Locke calls this the eternal thing. So, an eternal thing exists.
So what reason is there to think the eternal thing is God? Locke reasons some properties, such as power and intelligence, to the eternal thing. How this is done may clarify what kind of argument Locke is putting forth. It may be read into the text that Locke is arguing for a first efficient cause, but this is not supported by the text. There is some ambiguity as to what Locke means by “produce” since in the relevant text, he does not use the word “cause” which usually connotes efficient cause. But efficient causes do not typically give rise to power and intelligence, and they certainly don’t give being to another thing. So it is ambiguous as to what kind of cause Locke is thinking about when he says our finite being is ultimately derived from an eternal being, and likewise with power and intelligence. Locke here might be referring to something like the Principle of Proportionate Causality, but this is unlikely as he denies the Cartesian argument for God’s existence which plays on the same principle. So it is difficult to assess on what causal principle Locke thinks this works, but it is clear that he thinks at least a variation like that causal principle works. So God exists.
Comments
Post a Comment