Customer Reviews

The Cosmological Argument

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The cosmological argument for the existence of God has a history as long and venerable as all of natural theology itself. It continues to remain one of the most appealed to arguments by contemporary thinkers for God's existence, and discussion of the argument has never been greater.

William Rowe attempts to give an extensive overview and (to some extent) a defense of the CA in this book, focusing on a particular formulation of the argument given by Samuel Clarke in the 18th century. To be sure, Rowe himself is an atheist, and he admits that while he is not wholly convinced by the cosmological argument--if he were, he would probably be a theist--he does believe that it is one of the more powerful and interesting pieces of natural theology available in the philosophical literature. In fact, he goes on to say that he strongly disagrees with many of his atheistic colleagues who believe that the epitaph for cosmological arguments has long been written by the likes of Hume and Kant. His treatment of the argument is critical, relentlessly rational, in-depth, persuasive, and (most importantly) fair.

Overall, though Rowe is a bit skeptical about some of the logical commitments that the CA commands, he does believe that it goes a much longer way in justifying theistic belief than some other independent arguments for the existence of God (teleological, ontological, etc.). This is definitely one of the most reasonable--if not *the* most reasonable--treatments of the CA you will find in all of the available literature. I highly recommend it for anyone looking for a legitimate evaluation of the issues.

This book is an investigation of cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Cosmological arguments are arguments for the existence of God from some very general feature of the world, such as that some things are caused or that some things are dependent. Rowe addresses versions of the cosmological argument from Aquinas, Scotus and Clarke, but focuses on the argument from Clarke.

Rowe divides this argument into two stages: the first is an argument for the existence of a necessary being, and the second is an argument for the conclusion that this being is God. Though Rowe does address the second stage, he focuses on the first stage. This involves a lengthy exposition and critique of the principle of sufficient reason.

Rowe addresses various traditional objections leveled against the argument, and shows how these may be avoided. Most problematic is the status of the principle of sufficient reason, and Rowe develops various versions of this principle in reply to ingenious objections. The treatment of the idea of a necessary being could be strengthened significantly in light of the subsequent work of Saul Kripke.

Rowe concludes that the cosmological argument fails as a proof for the existence of a necessary being because the principle of sufficient reason upon which it depends is not known to be true; however, he claims that the argument may nevertheless show that it is reasonable to accept the conclusion because it may be reasonable to accept the principle.

The book is very well organized and elegantly written. Rowe presents the argument and the objections with great care, often summarizing the dialectic for the reader. His treatment of the argument is original and insightful, and his criticisms are sensible.

The new edition includes a preface summarizing the argument and addressing some criticism of, and problems with, the first edition. Unfortunately, the preface is brief, and Rowe only mentions new versions of the cosmological argument. These include arguments that do not depend upon the principle of sufficient reason.

Nevertheless, this book remains one of the best treatments of the cosmological argument, and I recommend it highly. The book should be accessible for advanced undergraduate students in philosophy; though Rowe usually defines technical terminology carefully, readers totally unfamiliar with contemporary analytic philosophy may find it quite difficult.

For alternative arguments for the existence of God I recommend "The Divine Lawmaker" by Foster and "Experience of God and the Rationality of Theistic Belief" by Gellman. These may be more difficult than Rowe's book.