Sample Essay: Existence of God
As I’ve said before – we’re very lucky in the Religious and Philosophical Questions unit because there is a very limited number of questions that can be asked in the exam. That’s true for all of the modules, however, many candidates still struggle with it and would benefit from simplifying their approach and following a stricter structure.
Here is a sample essay for the Existence of God section. Remember there are 10 marks available for knowledge and understanding, 5 for analysis and 5 for evaluation. If you have any questions – please ask!
To what extent do you agree with religious arguments for the existence of God?
Two religious arguments for the existence of God are the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments.
This doesn’t pick up any marks but indicates to the examiner the content you are going to cover. You do NOT need to include both of these arguments, but you can.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote three Cosmological Arguments in his book called ‘Summa Theologica.’ Aquinas rejected the idea that there could be an infinite regress (meaning a chain of events going back forever). KU In his First Way, Aquinas argued that the world is constantly in motion; however, nothing can be in motion without having something move it first—so there must be an unmoved mover. KU His Second Way was very similar, but he replaced the idea of motion with cause and effect. KU In his Third Way, Aquinas stated that everything on this earth is contingent, meaning that everything’s existence is reliant on something else. KU But if the world is not infinite (as Aquinas claimed), there must have been something that was not contingent to be able to bring things into existence initially. KU
Straight away, we’ve secured half of the KU marks required in this essay so we can move on to look at analysis. Remember, analysis is looking at the consequences of implications of ideas or even how they link to other ideas. We are NOT looking for the candidate to state other people’s views here e.g. however Hume said xyz – that would be marked as KU.
Aquinas’s arguments are valid because many mathematicians agree that an infinite regress is impossible. Aquinas’s arguments depend on this point, so this support is crucial. A His argument can also be seen to be true because it is supported by our own human experience. For example, if we imagine a row of dominoes, we know they will only fall if someone pushes the first domino to then hit the others. A Many Christians also agree with Aquinas because it gives them more reason to believe that God is all-powerful. A
This secures more than half of the ‘A’ marks so we can move on to the second argument we highlighted at the start.
William Paley wrote the most famous form of the Teleological Argument in his book ‘Natural Theology’, which focused on his watchmaker analogy. KU Paley compared the universe to a pocket watch—he said that when you look at a watch, you can see the way it works consistently for a purpose, and you would have no doubt it had been designed that way. KU He said that the universe also shows order, purpose, and regularity, and therefore it is logical to say it also has a designer. KU He concluded that given the scale of the universe, this design must be very great, which, according to Paley, could only be God. KU
We’re almost at full capacity for KU marks now and whilst we could say some more about Paley – we’ll definitely be picking up so more so let’s move on!
Paley’s argument is based upon his observations of the world; this is how a lot of very early scientific discoveries were made—by observing the way the world works and drawing logical conclusions from there. KU In a way, Paley’s observations are no different from these very early scientific arguments and can equally be observed and tested to strengthen their reliability. A By using things that everyone can observe for themselves, Paley ensured that a wide range of people could understand and comprehend his ideas. A
We’ve now got all the KU and A marks available, so we could now simply state whether we agree with these arguments – as that’s what the question is asking!! But if you’ve got time to kill, then the counter argument is fun…
On the other hand, David Hume disagreed with both of these arguments. He argued that our experience of the world is very limited, so we cannot assume it will always be this way.There may come a time when it does not display order or purpose anymore. KU He also argued that the universe could be infinite, or if it wasn’t, that the explanation for its existence could be something other than God. KU He also criticised the idea of comparing a watch to the universe, as a watch is mechanical and the universe is organic—the two are not alike. KU
This means that there is a limit to arguments based on observations because they will always need to be based on generalisations. A It also means that we should continue to look for explanations for the universe, because while God might not be the answer, we could still find one as time goes on. A
However, Aquinas believed that his evidence was valid. Just because our observations are limited does not mean they are not true. A For example, Aquinas used the example of fire making wood hot. It cannot be both hot and cold at the same time—fire can make it hot, but it’s not until that happens that the change actually occurs. KU We can plainly see that to be true, and we do not have any reason to think the laws of physics will change. A
William Paley also provided a lot of evidence for his ideas. He wasn’t just comparing the universe to the watch—he observed lots of different instances within the universe that showed complexity and purpose. For example, the eye and the way it’s adapted for sight, a bird’s wing being adapted for flight, and a fish’s fin being adapted for swimming. KU By using many examples, Paley could be said to strengthen the validity of his arguments. A
Now we’ve annoyed the examiner by including a bunch of information that we didn’t really need… (their fault for allowing 45 minutes!!) let’s answer the question. The important thing here is to use the wording of the question and echo it back. That way you can ensure your evaluation is relevant and not just generic ‘strengths and weaknesses.’
I disagree with religious explanations for the existence of God for a number of reasons. Firstly, even if Aquinas provided reason for there to be a first cause, I think he made a jump when he said it was God. It could have just as easily been something like the Big Bang. E
Aquinas also contradicted himself when he said that everything requires a cause but then said that God was uncaused. It begs the question—why doesn’t God need a cause? E
I also disagree with the Teleological Argument because I think that Paley ignored all the times the world has gone wrong. If the world was designed by God, then either He did not do a good job or He is evil. Either way, in my opinion, his argument does not prove the existence of a loving God. E
However, I do think Paley is right in some ways—there are so many things in the world that are really complex and do need an explanation. To me, it’s more likely that they had a designer than that they came about by chance. E
I also think that it is valid to base philosophical arguments on our observations of the world. If we ruled this out as valid evidence, then we wouldn’t be able to survive. For example, I leave my house in the morning because I know that it is likely I will live to return that evening. I do that based on my knowledge and observation that I live in a safe place. E
