Peter Boghossian on The cosmological argument
Boghossian sees the cosmological argument as a sophisticated-sounding justification for a conclusion reached by faith, not reason.
Boghossian's critique of the cosmological argument is characteristically focused on epistemology rather than metaphysics. He does not typically engage with the technical details of whether actual infinities are possible or whether the universe had a temporal beginning. Instead, he asks a more fundamental question: is the cosmological argument the actual reason the person believes in God, or is it a post hoc rationalization for a belief held on other grounds?
In his experience as a philosopher and street epistemologist, Boghossian has found that virtually no one comes to believe in God because of the cosmological argument. People believe because of upbringing, community, personal experience, or emotional need — and then find arguments like the cosmological argument to justify what they already believe. This does not make the argument logically invalid, but it should make us skeptical of its persuasive role.
Boghossian also presses the question of confidence calibration. Even if the cosmological argument gives some reason to think the universe has a cause, the leap from 'the universe has a cause' to 'that cause is the God of a particular religion' involves enormous unwarranted confidence. The argument, at most, gets you to a vague first cause — and the journey from there to Christianity or Islam requires faith, not logic.
“If someone tells you they believe in God because of the cosmological argument, ask them: if the argument were refuted, would you stop believing? The answer tells you everything.”