Page 1 of 24
32
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.6
Publication Date: June 25, 2020
DOI:10.14738/assrj.76.8337.
Gomez, E. M. (2020) Is the Existence of God Reasonable? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 32-55.
Is the Existence of God Reasonable?
Eva Martino Gómez
Universitat de València, Spain.
ABSTRACT
In this article the question of whether the existence of God is reasonable
will be addressed. The start point will be the debate between Dr. Craig
and Dr. Rosenberg that took place in 2013 around the question “Is faith
in God reasonable?” This debate has been chosen for being
representative of general theist and atheist positions. The former
usually believe in God first, and then try to formulate arguments that can
help them transmit their faith to others, whereas atheists usually find
arguments first that they consider illogical or incoherent related to the
existence of God, and in a second moment they come to reject faith. It
will be analyzed following the pragma-dialectical approach defined by
Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, that considers argumentation as a
speech act that aims to solve a difference in opinion. This analysis will
show the main obstacles that prevented the speakers to arrive to an
understanding, mainly a different vision of God and the goal that they
were seeking.
Keywords: God, faith, reasonable, argumentation.
INTRODUCTION
The question of the existence or non-existence of God today maintains its entire force, despite the
agnostic environment that often surrounds us, especially in Europe. Along the history of philosophy,
you can find numerous approaches that aim to analyze this question and give it an answer.
Traditionally, logical analysis has been called upon to verify the validity of arguments related to
thesis on the existence of God. However, philosophers have usually considered that rhetoric is not
suitable for rigorous philosophical analysis, understanding that it prioritizes the persuasion of the
audience over the real search for truth. We believe that this perspective is not adequate, and that
rhetoric can and should be used in the analysis of arguments about the existence of God.
In this article, we will address the question of whether the question of God's existence is reasonable.
We will analyze the genuine argumentative debate between William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg
in 2013. We chose this debate because we find it representative of general theist and atheist
positions although, as any generalization, it might be reductionist. Theists usually in a first moment
believe in God, and in a second moment try to formulate arguments to give a base to that faith, and
transmit it to others. On the other hand, atheists work in the opposite way. First, they find
arguments that they find illogical or incoherent related to the existence of God, and in a second
moment they come to reject faith. We decided to analyze this debate using the pragma-dialectical
approach defined by Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, because it can help us find where the main
obstacles that prevent speakers to come to an agreement are.
Page 2 of 24
33
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
Van Eemeren & Grootendorst ‘s pragma-dialectical perspective
In the pragma-dialectical perspective, Van Eemeren & Grootendorst [1] describe argumentation "as
a complex speech act, the purpose of which is to contribute to the resolution of a difference of
opinion, or dispute". For Celso López and Ana María Vicuña [2], this proposal wants to strike the
balance between an overly rhetorical approach to discourse (marked by a relativistic conception of
reasonableness) and an overly normative one (in which an idea of logical-deductivist
reasonableness that is hardly achievable in everyday life dominates). López and Vicuña distinguish
in it two aspects:
1. The pragmatic: based on the amended theory of the speech acts of Austin [3] and Searle [4,5]
and the proposal for a series of rules of communication, allowing them to extend the analysis
beyond what is achieved through a purely logical approach. "In a speech act, one or more
propositions are expressed in which reference is made to something and a particular
predicate is assigned to that referent" [6].
2. The dialectic: that starts from their conception of argumentative discourse as the exchange
between two parties who want to resolve a difference of opinion through a methodical
exchange of speech acts.
3.
By defining the stages of the discussion and the roles that the different parties assume, as well as
formulating the rules to be enforced in each of them, this approach allows us to discover the
obstacles that prevent a dispute from being resolved and how they could be overcome. In addition,
Van Eemeren & Grootendorst [7] define fallacies, not as errors of reasoning only, but as obstacles
that prevent the resolution of the dispute and violations of some of the defined discussion rules.
Speech elements
Van Eemeren & Grootendorst [8] define a person's views regarding a certain proposition such as:
1. Positive, when the proposition is considered true. The person is positively committed to it.
2. Negative, when the person considers that the proposition is not true, committing negatively
to it.
3. Zero, where no point of view is adopted, either because he does not want to compromise or
because he does not know what to think about it.
In the case of positive and negative views, the person is obliged to defend his or her standpoint if its
acceptability is questioned.
On the other hand, for a dispute to exist there must be a doubt related to one standpoint, so there is
no need of having two opposing standpoints [9]. In addition, they classify disputes in:
1. Implicit: when doubt is not clearly expressed, but it is taken for granted.
2. Complex: when they can be divided into simpler ones.
3. Single and multiple.
a. In a single dispute the standpoint that is questioned relates to a single proposition.
b. In a multiple dispute, a standpoint that relates to two or more propositions is questioned.
4. Mixed and nonmixed.
a. In a mixed dispute there is a mutual denial of the opposing standpoints, and also mutual
doubt is assumed about the acceptability of these opposing standpoints.
b. A nonmixed dispute questions only a positive or a negative standpoint.
Page 3 of 24
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8337 34
Gomez, E. M. (2020) Is the Existence of God Reasonable? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 32-55.
They present the stages that are ideally given to resolve a dispute [10]:
1. Confrontation Stage, which establishes that there is a dispute. A standpoint is presented and
is called into question.
2. Opening Stage, in which the decision is made to establish a regulated argumentative
discussion to try to resolve the dispute. One of the speakers assumes the role of protagonist,
which implies that he is prepared to defend his point of view through argumentation. The
other takes on the role of antagonist, prepared to challenge the protagonist to defend his
point of view.
3. Argumentation stage, in which the protagonist defends his point of view and the antagonist
may require more argumentation from him, if he has more doubts. It is often considered the
core of the real discussion. If the dispute is non-mixed there is only one protagonist who
argues, while in a mixed there are several protagonists who must argue.
4. Concluding stage, which establishes whether the dispute has been resolved, that is, whether
the point of view or its opposite has been withdrawn. If the point of view has been
withdrawn, the dispute is resolved in favor of the antagonist; if the doubt is withdrawn, the
dispute is resolved in favor of the protagonist. If the protagonist withdraws his point of view,
he can take an opposite point of view, modify his original point of view, or take a zero point
of view. If it is the antagonist who withdraws his doubt, then he must accept the point of view
of the protagonist.
In addition, they present five rules of communication [11]:
1. Be clear, honest, efficient and to the point
2. Do not perform any insincere speech acts
3. Do not perform any superfluous speech acts
4. Do not perform any futile speech acts
5. Do not perform any speech acts that do not appropriately connect to preceding speech acts.
When analyzing and evaluating an argumentative discourse, it is necessary to define the aspects of
it that are crucial to resolve the difference of opinion. To do this, they state that the following
analytical operations must be carried out:
1. determining the points at issue,
2. recognizing the positions that the parties adopt,
3. identifying the explicit and implicit arguments, and
4. analyzing the argumentation structure. [12]
The rules for critical discussion and fallacies
The rules for critical discussion defined by Van Eemeren & Grootendorst [13] are:
• Rule 1: Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on
standpoints.
• Rule 2: A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if the other party asks him
to do so.
• Rule 3: A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been
advanced by the other party.
• Rule 4: A party may defend his standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that
standpoint.