Philosophies of Religion Generally Fall

Philosophies of religion generally fall into one of two camps: theistic and atheistic views. The former provides proofs or arguments in favor of the existence of God, whereas the latter offers proofs or arguments denying the existence of God. Most of these philosophies are rooted in logical and rhetoric, but some are based more on subjectivity and personal experience than in logic or reason. Subcategories of main arguments define and distinguish each of these philosophical camps. For example, theistic philosophies include teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, ontological arguments, moral arguments, arguments related to self-interest such as Pascal's "wager," arguments rooted in the experience of miracles, and arguments rooted in religious experience. Each of these distinct philosophies approaches the nature and existence of God differently and offers different proofs for the existence of a Supreme Being. Similarly, atheistic philosophies range in their approach. Main atheistic refutations of the existence of God include the primary supposition that the burden of proof rests with the theist, as by default science has yet to find evidence proving the existence of God. Other atheistic arguments include the existence of evil, and the conflict between divine omnipotence and human free will. All philosophies of God include their corresponding oppositions.

The teleological argument examines the complex nature of the universe and in light of its diversity and complexity supposes that only a God or Supreme Being could be responsible for creation. Teleological arguments are often called arguments of design, because they base themselves on the biological or physical designs of the known universe. The primary criticism of the teleological argument would point to its lack of causality: the fact that the universe appears to be intelligently designed does not necessarily mean that there is an intelligent designer.

The cosmological argument in favor of the existence of God is similar in that it points to the physical universe as proof of God's existence. However, the cosmological argument seeks for an ultimate cause of creation. The primary objection to the cosmological argument raises the issue of the ultimate cause: if everything in the cosmos has a causal force, then what, if anything, can cause God? Some cosmological arguments are temporal in nature, that is, they refer to the nature time when determining the cause of creation. Because it is theoretically possible that God has no cause and is a causeless force or being, the cosmological argument cannot actually prove that God exists, only that God is one possible cause of the universe.

The ontological argument for the existence of God rests entirely on the logical fallacy of a priori reasoning. While a logically cohesive whole, the argument falls short of offering any clear-cut proof for the existence of God. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is an ontological argument that demonstrates the difficulty in using ontology to prove the existence of an abstract being or concept. However, the ontological argument is appealing for the very fact that it is as abstract as the principle of God itself.

Arguments in favor of God that are rooted in morality, the miraculous, and in personal religious experience are different from teleological, cosmological, and ontological arguments because they are inherently more subjective than rational. Nevertheless, personal experience is a powerful method of argument, especially when the credibility of the individual is not called into question. The moral argument in favor of the existence of God is weak because the existence of human morality does not in itself mean that God is the origin of morals. Rather, God has often been used as a motive to prompt people to act a certain way, according to religious scripture or doctrine. Miracles pose a significant problem for the philosopher of religion, because if an act is deemed miraculous, it supercedes the laws of nature. However, the laws of nature are always subject to God; therefore, a miracle cannot theoretically exist.

Pascal's "wager" is yet another theistic philosophy of religion, one that is based primarily on self-interest. Pascal suggested that believing in God is a "better bet" than not believing in God. The individual who believes has nothing to lose and everything to gain, whereas the non-believer could stake his soul on a simple philosophical principle. Pascal's wager is weak in that it offers no proof of the existence of God. Like many theistic arguments, Pascal's wager relies heavily on a Christian concept of God and of Heaven and Hell.