Philosophy 024: Big Ideas

1
Philosophy 024 Big Ideas Prof. Robert DiSalle
(rdisalle_at_uwo.ca) Talbot College 408,
519-661-2111 x85763 Office Hours Monday and
Wednesday 1130-1230 Course Website
http//instruct.uwo.ca/philosophy/024/

2
Descartes vs. Hume on truth and
belief Descartess objectivist view there is
something in the ideas themselves that helps us
to tell whether they correspond to something
real. To recognize these marks is to believe
truly in the reality that the idea
represents. Humes question what is the nature
of belief? What are the qualities of an idea that
we assent to, that are lacking in those that we
dont assent to? Humes subjectivist view Ideas
do not have different characteristics when we
believe in them. The difference between the idea
that we believe, and that which we dont, lies in
our manner of conceiving them.
3
What are the marks that tell us whether our
ideas correspond to something real? Descartes
From my doubts I know that I am limited and
imperfect. But the idea of God has such
perfection in it that I know that its cause must
be something outside of me, i.e., a perfect
being. Nothing in any other idea implies the
existence of the corresponding thing. I can be
certain of the properties of a triangle, but
nothing I can know about the essence of a
triangle can tell me whether there is such a
thing as a triangle. But the idea of God
contains existence in its essence. That God
exists is as certain as that a triangle has three
sides. (Ontological Argument)
4
Hume The idea of existence of some object can
add nothing to the idea of the object itself. The
belief in the objects existence similarly adds
nothing to the idea of the object. The belief
that God exists can neither increase or diminish
the idea of God himself. Therefore the
distinction must lie in us, in the lively
impression that we have of ideas that we actually
believe. In philosophy we can go no further,
than assert, that it is something felt by the
mind, which distinguishes the ideas of the
judgment from the fictions of the imagination.
5
Humes general theory of knowledge Relations of
ideas Logical connections among ideas that
belong to formal systems such as mathematics.
Our knowledge of these is certain, since we know
that the contrary is a logical contradiction. But
they concern only abstract terms defined by us
they dont describe the real world. Matters of
fact what we know from experience about the
nature, existence, and behavior of real things.
Our knowledge of these cannot be certain, since
the contrary of any fact is logically possible.
The imagination is free to consider both sides of
any factual question.
6
Humean skepticism Certain knowledge concerns the
relations of ideas, not matters of fact and
existence knowledge of matters of fact and
existence is inherently uncertain. The problem of
induction From any number of past experience
that B follows A, can we logically infer that the
next occurrence of A will be followed by
B? Deduction All Xs are Y. F is an X. Therefore
F is necessarily Y. Induction All Xs observed
in the past are Y. F is an X not yet observed.
Therefore F is not necessarily Y. The
imagination is free to consider either side.
7
Humes conclusion All reasoning about cause and
effect is not really logical reasoning, but
expectation based on habit. We think of A as the
cause of B if they are constantly conjoined --A
always precedes B --A and B are contiguous in
space. So our minds form the expectation of B
whenever A occurs. That if A happens, B must
follow necessarily, is an idea arising from our
psychological expectation-- not an empirical
fact. It represents our instinctive expectation
that the future will resemble the past.
8
Arguments for the existence of God Ontological
Existence belongs to Gods essence, therefore his
non-existence is inconceiveable. Cosmological
Every effect must have a cause, but the chain of
cause and effect must begin with a first,
uncaused cause. Teleological The purposeful
organization of nature indicates creation by a
divine intelligence. Moral Objective moral
values require a basis in Gods authority.
9
Descartess argument for the existence of
God Descartes From my doubts I know that I am
limited and imperfect. But the idea of God has
such perfection in it that I know that its cause
must be something outside of me, i.e., a perfect
being. Nothing in any other idea implies the
existence of the corresponding thing. I can be
certain of the properties of a triangle, but
nothing I can know about the essence of a
triangle can tell me whether there is such a
thing as a triangle. But the idea of God
contains existence in its essence. That God
exists is as certain as that a triangle has three
sides. actual argument may differ
10
Pascals Wager on the existence of God Belief
in God is a gamble what are the stakes? Let us
weigh up the gain and the loss in calling heads
that God exists. Let us assess the two cases if
you win you win everything, if you lose you lose
nothing. Do not hesitate then wager that he does
exist. William James (ca. 1900) Some people
are afraid of believing something that might be
false others are afraid of not believing
something that might be true. It is better not to
be so afraid of being duped.
11
Humes Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion Demea Believes that Gods existence is
unquestionable, and his nature unfathomable to
human beings. Cleanthes Believes in natural
theology, i.e. in the possibility of
demonstrating the existence of God by studying
the order and purposeful arrangement of the
universe Philo Represents Hume himself, and
applies his skeptical view of our reasoning about
cause and effect to this case, the attempt to
reason about God from the nature of the created
world. We must be far removed from the smallest
tendency to skepticism not to be apprehensive,
that here we have got quite beyond the reach of
our faculties.
12
Cleanthes All the order that we see in nature
represents contrivance in order to fulfill
obvious purposes. In this respect the products of
nature resemble the intentional products of human
intelligence. Since the effects resemble one
another, we can reason by analogy that the causes
must resemble one another. We can therefore
conclude that the universe was designed by an
intelligence that resembles, but greatly exceeds,
our own. It was brought into being by a power
that resembles, but greatly exceeds, our
own. (the Argument from Design, or teleological
argument)
13
Demea If these arguments from experience are the
foundations for our beliefs, then theism is in an
extremely sorry state. God is reduced to our
level-- the differences between our intelligence
and Gods is reduced to a matter of
degree Belief in God is reduced to
probabilistic, scientific reasoning-- not founded
in unquestionable a priori reasoning, or even in
faith.
14
Philo Reasoning by analogy has to be judged by
the standards that we normally apply to reasoning
about cause and effect. But a strong argument
requires a strong analogy the effects have to be
exactly similar to allow a logical inference to
the same cause. But wherever you depart, in the
least, from the similarity of the cases, you
diminish proportionally the evidence and may at
last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is
confessedly liable to error and
uncertainty. Surely you will not affirm that
the universe bears such a resemblance to a house,
that we can with the same certainty infer a
similar cause
15
Cleanthes Even if there is little specific
resemblance between human and natural
contrivance, there is a general similarity
between the ways in which both are well adapted
to their purposes-- the economy of final
causes. This reasoning is less than certain, but
more than conjecture. Demea Good God! Is this
the best that philosophy can do?
16
Philo If we abstract from our empirical
knowledge, then we are incapable of forming any
idea a priori of what the universe must be
like. We could imagine infinitely many logically
possible universes, but the mind itself would
have no reason to prefer any one over the
others. We can imagine any number of possible
causes for any event, but the mind itself would
have no reason to choose any one. Experience
alone can point out the true cause of any
phenomenon.
17
Philo The purposeful arrangement of nature is
not by itself an argument for design, except to
the extent that experience has shown the two to
be connected. All we can say is that there is a
principle of order in mind, but not in matter. We
can compare the creation of the universe to the
human design and creation of objects, but only to
the extent that we can see resemblance between
the two. But the disproportion between human
contrivances and the universe itself is so great,
that inferences by analogy are suspect.
18
Philos questions How can we infer from the
contrivance of tiny parts to the contrivance of
the whole? How can we infer from the operations
of our own tiny minds to the operation of the
intelligence that we suppose to have created the
universe? How can we infer from the limited part
of space and time that we survey to the entire
extent of the universe? How can we reason about
causes when the objects, as in the present case,
are single, individual, without parallel, or
specific resemblance? What experience do we have
of the creation of worlds?
19
Cleanthes Wouldnt this be an argument against
any scientific reasoning? Did Copernicus ever see
other earths move? Philo Yes! In a manner of
speaking-- because he, and Galileo, and Newton
had the opportunity of comparing the motions of
the earth with those of similar objects with
similar characteristics. These analogies and
resemblancesare the sole proofs of the
Copernican system. The subject in which you are
engaged exceeds all human reason and inquiry
20
Is atheism positive or negative? Is it
scientific to deny the existence of God? Bertrand
Russell (1925) Religion, since it has its
source in terror, has dignified certain kinds of
fear.In this it has done mankind a great
disservice all fear is bad. I believe that when
I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will
survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I
should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought
of annihilation. Even if the open windows of
science at first make us shiver after the cosy
indoor warmth of traditional humanising myths, in
the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the
great spaces have a splendour of their own.
21
Sigmund Freud (1928) Your religious doctrines
will have to be discarded.You know why in the
long run nothing can withstand reason and
experience, and the contradiction which religion
offers to both is all too palpable. Religious
belief is the product of infantile fears,
generally of the father. Scientific beliefs are
often mistaken, but with time they come closer
and closer to the understanding and control of
nature.