Religious Skepticism: Direct Responses


Direct responses to religious scepticism accept the grounds of criticism, and attempt to offer a response on similar grounds; i.e. offering a rational grounding for a belief, offering ‘evidence’, offering argument. With respect to scepticism regarding the existence of God, there are three main types of argument: ontological, cosmological and teleological. (There are various different versions of these and I offer only the basic lines of argument.) The first suggests that we can have an a priori knowledge of God.

Ontological Argument
(e.g. St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes)

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
7. God necessarily exists in reality.

The second is based upon the idea that the universe must have had a creator:

Cosmological Argument (First Cause)
(e.g. Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas)

1. Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
5. God exists.

The third is often known as the ‘intelligent design’ argument:

Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)
(e.g. Paley, Swinburne)

1. The universe is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
2. Therefore, the universe must have been created by an intelligent being.
3. God is that intelligent being.
4. God exists.


1.) Are these arguments enough to convince a sceptic? If not, why not? Could they be improved in such a way that the sceptic would be forced to accept their validity?

2.) All of these arguments have a venerable history in theology and philosophy of religion. Which of them is the most plausible? Are any of them simply relics of the past, or do they continue to have any sort of purchase?

3.) Can religious belief be reduced to this sort of argumentative form? If not, does that mean the sceptic is thoroughly misguided in their demands for evidence?


One Response to “Religious Skepticism: Direct Responses”

  1. 1 utopia

    I dont think religious belief be reduced to an argumentative form. Whenever one tries to do, he faces the question of the proof of god`s existence. Each argument of the proof of god is abstract and vague. Cosmologial argument says that everything has a cause and god is the cause, but one might ask what is the cause of god. There, they cannot answer it. Teleological argument seems to me that people cannot cope with the state of unknown, thus they put arguments to end it. Weak people choose to rely on this argument to satisfy their demand to solve the unknown (with this groundless arguments) such as the question of where the world came to exist and so on. Religion and the belief in god`s existence is the necessity of being comfortable and satisfaction of the unknown.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: