Title: Philosophy 1010
1Philosophy 1010 Class 8/8/13
Title Introduction to Philosophy Instructor P
aul Dickey E-mail Address pdickey2_at_mccneb.edu
Tonight Pop Quiz (Chapter 3 4) Chapter
Four Tomorrow (8/9) Final Exam will be posted
on Quia. Next week No Class. Submit Final
Essay FINAL EXAM by e-mail BEFORE 8/15, 530
P.M. For every 4 hours the essay and/or exam
is late, a full grade will be reduced. NO
EXCEPTIONS.
2Chapter 4 Philosophy and God (a Metaphysical
Study)
3Does God Exist?
- Theism is the belief in a personal God who is
creator of the world and present in its processes
and who is actively engaged in the affairs of
humans. - Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe
and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a
whole). God exists but is not personally involved
in the lives of men. - Atheism is the denial of Theism. (Metaphysical
View) It states that there is no God. - Agnosticism is the view that it cannot be known
whether God exists or not. (Epistemological
View) - According to Logical Positivism, the question
Does God Exist? is meaningless.
4First, Can We Even Make Sense of the Question?
- Surely before trying to answer the question, one
needs to ask the following questions - What does one mean by the word or concept of
God? - What is the sense of existence that is being
asserted when one says God exists. - Without being clear about these issues, the
argument often becomes mostly subjective.
5What Do We Mean by God?
- If we say that God is the creator of the
universe, do we mean -
- 1) that there is a Being that is God that could
or could not be the one who created the universe,
but as a matter of fact is the creator of the
universe? Or - 2) that by definition that God is the Being that
created the universe such that it would be a
logical error to say that God did not create the
universe. - Note that if we mean the first, we have still not
said who (or what) God is, apart from what he has
done. - If we mean the second, of course given the
inherent assumptions, then God exists. But we
have committed the logical fallacy of begging
the question.
6What is the Meaning of Existence that is Being
Used to Say that God Exists?
- Is existence a property of an entity? I say This
chair is black. Blackness is a property of the
chair. So that I would say that this chair has
the property of existing and thus there could
be chairs some of which have the property and
some dont. Then would I say that some chairs
exist and some do not like I would say some
chairs are black and some are not? - Or is existence of the chair identified in terms
of its relationship to a real world, say Hobbes
material world or Berkeleys mental world? But
then what sense does it make to say that Gods
existence is dependent upon a world that He
created and itself came into existence after
Him? - If not, then what is this form of existence for
God that we are asserting?
7Is it Possible to Talk About Something that Does
Not Exist?
- We generally believe that only things that exist
can have properties. Thus, by referring to God
with properties, I.e. omnipotent, do we prove
that God exists? - Probably not of course. We do refer to Santa
Claus as having a white beard and living at
the North Pole. And then turn around and say
Santa does not exist. - Bertrand Russell proposed a Theory of
Descriptions to account for how we refer to
things that appear to have properties or
characteristics but may or may not exist.
8How is it Possible to Talk About Something that
Does Not Exist?
- Russells solution is to take names to be
shorthand for descriptions. For example, Santa
Claus is a person who goes by the description
that he lives on North Pole, and delivers toys to
kids for Christmas, and the sentence Santa
doesnt exist should be understood as There is
no X, such that X is a person that lives on North
Pole, etc., etc. - Thus, presumably for Russell to say God does not
exist would be to say There is no Being, such
that the Being existed prior to the creation of
the universe, and then created the universe,
etc., etc.
9So, is Logical Positivism right after all?
- Theism is so confused and the sentences in which
'God' appears so incoherent and so incapable of
verifiability or falsifiability that to speak of
belief or unbelief, faith or unfaith, is
logically impossible. - A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic
- Wikipedia suggests A. J. Ayer (1910-1989) was an
atheist. Ayers position on the existence of God
should not be confused with atheism. Of course,
claiming that God does not exist also lacks
analytic or empirical verifiability and is thus
also meaningless. - Many (perhaps most?) mid to late 20th century
philosophers who abandoned strict logical
positivism (including Russell and Wittgenstein)
still found Ayers response to this issue quite
credible. - On the other hand, maybe the question is too
obvious and important to give up on, so lets
stumble on .
10 The Traditional Proofs The Ontological
Argument
- Saint Anselm (c. 1033-1109) provided the
classical ontological argument (proof) for the
existence of God - First of all, Anselm argues, God is that Being
for which none greater can be conceived. - But if God did not exist, then we could conceive
a greater Being, namely a God that does exist. - Thus, God must exist.
- Note This argument does not give evidence of
Gods existence. It attempts to prove it. - Unfortunately, the argument seems to suppose that
- Existence is a property of a thing, and
- Non-existence is an imperfection.
11The Ontological Argument Kants Objection
- Immanuel Kant argued against Anselms Ontological
Argument that it defines God into existence, that
is, Anselm has formed a concept of God that
itself requires existence as a property. - Nonexistence was an imperfection, thus God could
not have that property since he by definition is
perfect. - And thus, Anselm is begging the question.
- Few philosophers or theologians today accept
Anselms Ontological Argument.
12 The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument
- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) provided several
cosmological arguments (proofs) for the
existence of God that were of the following form - First of all, Aquinas argues, Some things move.
- What moves must be moved (caused) by something
prior. - This movement (causation) can not have an
infinite regression for it must have an origin. - The origin of the movement (the cause) cannot
itself move (or be caused). - Thus, God (the original mover or first cause)
must exist.
13 The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument
- After Newton, it is necessary to refine Aquinas
first argument to refer to acceleration rather
than motion. - More damaging to his argument however is an
objection that questions the assumption that
there can be no infinite regress in the causal
sequences of the universe. How do we know that
the universe is not infinite? - The Big Bang theory seems potentially to
counter this objection. The universe (along with
space and time) does appear to have had a
beginning. - But the argument still does not preclude
alternatives. Could our universe have come into
existence from events in another universe and
thus we could still have an infinity of events in
multiple universes?
14 The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument
- Aquinas believed that even if the universe
existed forever, then there would still need to
be a First Cause which would be God. - David Hume (1711-1776) disagreed. He claimed that
if one had an explanation for all the parts of a
thing (in particular, all individual causal links
in the universe), it did not require an
additional explanation for the whole. - Many analysts, most notably Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788-1860), have argued that the arguments
premise that every event must have a cause is
actually inconsistent with his conclusion that
God does not have a cause.
15 The Traditional Proofs The Argument From
Design
- The Argument From Design, also known as the
teleological argument (thus being traced back to
Aristotle) states that the order and purpose
manifest in the working of nature, and
particularly, human nature require that there be
a logical designer or God. - This argument is very popular today and is
probably the most prevalent and strongest
argument for the existence of God. - The best known early formulation of this argument
was given by the theologian William Paley
(1743-1805). - Paley compared natural organisms to the mechanism
of a watch and by analogy argued that as the
design of the watch demonstrates the existence of
a watchmaker, natural design shows the work of a
Divine Agency.
16 The Argument From Design
- Relying on a multitude of examples including the
migration of birds, the adaptability of species,
and the human eye, Paley seemed to make a pretty
convincing argument given the science of the day,
- David Hume did object however on the basis that
as an argument from analogy, the argument was
weak. Arguments from analogy are only as strong
as our knowledge of the relevant similarities.
In this one, we do not know how nature and living
things are made and thus that it is at all like
a watch being made. - Hume was arguing against Paleys assumption that
complex order can be produced only by an
intelligent being. That may or may not be the
case, Hume would say. Anticipating Darwin, he
suggested that perhaps a finite amount of
particles in random motion might achieve order.
17The Argument from Design Darwinism
- Charles Darwin (1809-1882) filled in the missing
pieces of Humes argument by producing scientific
evidence for just what the mechanism could be in
nature to produce the order and appearance of
design that Hume was suggesting. - Darwin suggested that the process was one he
called natural selection. Over millions of years,
Darwin argued, random mechanical processes could
produce organisms that seemed perfectly designed.
- Darwin contended that life forms exhibit
inherited variations that were gradually
selected in a struggle for survival to produce
new characteristics of species and even new
species.
18The Argument from Design Darwinism
- Others continue to defend the Argument From
Design while granting the possibility of natural
selection processes, rationalizing that it is
then just the process by which God produces
living things. - But this later posture gives up a lot of
theological ground. It allows for God to act
randomly and that He allows harmful consequences
to exist in his creation. - For many others, the Darwinian theory of
evolution was taken as a threat to the Argument
From Design which seemed to be the last bastion
of a ultimate support for the existence of God.
Thus many theists to this day resist the
Darwinian view which meanwhile has become the
dominant scientific theory within Biology and has
also developed extended applications in other
sciences and our entire intellectual culture.
William Dembski (1960- ) argues for an empirical
theory of intellectual design and specified
complexity.
19Atheism
- Atheists such as Richard Dawkins (1941-) state
unequivocally that there is no God. - In taking a metaphysical position on the issue,
Atheism assumes the same burden in regard to all
the issues of meaning and evidence that Theism
does. - Atheism must assert reasons that God does not
exist just as we expected the Theist to provide
proofs for the existence of God. - Many would argue that Atheism requires just as
much faith as does Theism, but is it really a
matter of faith or the strength of your argument?
- The primary argument given by Atheists that God
does not exist is the problem of evil.
20The Problem of Evil
- The Problem of Evil in its simplest form argues
that since evil exists in the world, then God is
either not all powerful or all good. David Hume
subscribed to this view. - St. Augustine took a position against this view,
arguing that God created the universe and all the
good in the world but the universe he created is
not itself God and is imperfect, finite, and
limited. In this way, it allows the existence of
evil as incomplete goodness. - Many argue that St. Augustine does not resolve
the issue. Why would not God who is all good
ensure that there was no evil in His universe?
21The Problem of Evil
- A popular theological argument is that evil is
necessary for the Good to exist. But then is God
not omnipotent if he cannot create Good without
Evil? - Another argument the Theist gives is that God
allows Evil in order to give man Free Will. But
how does this account for natural disasters such
as hurricanes? - Or maybe, they think, we are confused about what
is Good? What we think is Evil is Good in the
mind of God? - John Hick (1922- ) argues that the presence of
evil is necessary for Man to be made into the
likeness of God. Experiencing evil gives meaning
to virtue for Man and allows him to develop into
virtuous beings.
22Immanuel Kant
- That injustice exists in the world should not
lead us to reject God. Rather it should compel us
pursue a perfectly just world. It is a moral
obligation. - To believe that such a world is possible with
evil fully punished and good rewarded would
require a belief in God and an afterlife. - And since all moral obligations must be possible,
then God must exist. - According to Kants argument, we must believe in
God although perhaps we cannot know that God
exists.
23Agnosticism
- Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) argued that it is
incorrect to say that one is certain of the truth
of a proposition unless he can produce evidence
that logically justifies that certainty. - Sigmund Freud suggested that our belief in God is
an illusion and had its origins in infantile
needs for a father. - Freuds view was influential throughout the 20th
century but is considered by most today as an
insufficient explanation. Further, even if it
were true as a psychological explanation, that
does not make the claim that the belief is an
illusion and that God does not exist true. Such
an argument commits what is known logically as
the Genetic Fallacy.
24The Will to Believe
- William James (1842-1910 ) proposed that in the
absence of irrefutable evidence for the existence
of God, there still is justifiable reason to
believe. - James suggests that in this condition, we have
the option to choose what we believe. We do not
have an option not to choose, as perhaps an
agnostic might suggest. To choose not to make a
decision is, for James, to decide. - James discusses three fundamental characteristics
of such options - 1) living or dead
- 2) forced or avoidable
- 3) momentous or trivial
25- An Option is a person's decision among a set of
hypotheses. A genuine option is living, forced,
and momentous. - A living option in one in hypotheses are live,
i.e., they are real possibilities for someone.
Since I grew up attending a Christian church and
was raised to believe that way, it may not be a
real option for me to become a Buddhist, but it
is a real option for me to become a
Presbyterian. - A forced option is a dilemma the hypothesis
cannot be avoided. I.e., for someone enrolled in
this class to come to class or not is forced.
Deciding whether or not God exists and/or we will
conduct ourselves according to that may be forced
in this sense. - A momentous option is one that is unique and
may well be one's only opportunity. The choice is
not trivial, but significant, because one only
has one chance to do it.
26The Will to Believe
- James then argues when an option is genuine (that
is, living, forced and momentous) and cannot be
decided on intellectual grounds, it is
justifiable to choose on the basis of our
passional nature. In fact, James would argue one
should so choose. - For James, our passional nature consists of all
nonintellectual interests, emotions, desires,
hopes, fears, commitments, our deepest personal
needs, etc. - James would hold that when an option is not
genuine, it makes the best sense to decide to
withhold judgment until the evidence is in.
27In Conclusion
- W. K. Clifford, 1845-1879, argued against James
(as did Thomas Huxley), asserting that it is
absolutely and always wrong to make any judgment
without sufficient evidence. By doing so, you
make yourself vulnerable to logical and factual
error. - To the contrary, James pointed out that this was
one option that could be chosen and one that
would have the advantage that it might protect us
from believing what was false. - On the other hand, another option is to try to
protect ourselves from missing out on the truth
and the truth that would be the one that is
ultimately significant to ourselves. - James would choose this option, while recognizing
that it itself must be chosen not on rational
grounds, but on passional grounds.