Philosophy 1010

1
Philosophy 1010 Class 9
NEXT Week Essay Due Final
Exam
Gates of Hell
Lets discuss the class essay.
2

• COURSE EVALUATION
• Electronic/Online Course/Instructor Feedback
• 13/WI Availability until February 20, 2013.
• Instruction Sheet will be on Quia site.

3
Chapter 4 Philosophy and God (Continued)
4
Atheism

• 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.

5
The 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?

6
The 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.

7
Immanuel 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.

8
Agnosticism

• 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.

9
The 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

10

• 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.

11
The 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.

12
In 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.

13
Break!
14
Chapter Six TRUTH (with a bit ABOUT KNOWELDGE
TOSSED IN FOR FREE)
15
What is Knowledge?

• Knowledge requires a belief. It would be
  nonsensical to say that I know that my car is in
  the parking lot, but I do not believe it.
• Of course, we can believe something that we do
  not know, but we cannot know something that we do
  not believe. Example I believe that I am in
  good health but I havent had a thorough checkup
  for five years.
• Knowledge appears to be more than a simple
  belief. It requires evidence or justification.
  One would not take seriously a persons belief
  for which there is no evidence for example, I
  know the stock market will crash this week
  because I just know it.

16
What is Knowledge?

• That is, a belief must be warranted to count as
  knowledge.The criteria for when a statement is
  warranted depends on the type of statement.
• Some beliefs are a priori and others are a
  posteriori, that is, prior to experience or
  after experience. Some beliefs are considered
  to be foundational and others not.
• For example, the basis for justification of all
  the following beliefs is different
• A rose is a rose.
• No circle is a square.
• John loves Sam.
• John feels embarrassed by what happened.

17
What is Warranted Belief?

• 1. Logical Warrantability.
• This pencil is either 4 long or it is not.
• 2. Semantic Warrantability.
• A circle is not a square.
• 3. Systemic Warrantability.
• Two plus two is four.
• 4. Empirical Warrantability.
• This bird that I am looking at right now is a
  robin.
• John Kennedy was a President of the U.S.

18
What is Knowledge?

• But all warranted belief is not true. You only
  know what is warranted and TRUE. You do not
  know your car is in the parking lot even if you
  believe it is and your belief is warranted (you
  parked it there just before class), but in fact I
  am looking out the window here and (I hate to
  tell you this but) campus security just towed you
  car off campus.
• In the above example, you can only claim to know
  that your car is in the parking lot if it is true
  that it is in the parking lot.
• Generally speaking, knowledge is understood thus
  to be warranted, true belief.

19
What is Knowledge?

• However, is true, warranted belief enough?
  Consider the following thought experiment
• 1) John who is a trustworthy person goes to the
  store intending to buy a gallon of low-fat milk.
• 2) As a joke on his friend Sam or by mistake,
  he tells Sam that he is going to buy whole milk.
• 3) At the store, John mistakenly buys whole
  milk by getting distracted by how sexy the store
  manager is.
• Now, did Sam know that John was going to buy
  whole milk?
• 1) Sam believed John was.
• 2) Sams belief appeared to be warranted. It is
  what John said he was going to do John
  usually does what he says.
• 3) And in fact, it is what John did.

20
Break!
21
What are the Traditional Theories of Truth?

• There are three Fundamental Theories of Truth
• 1) the correspondence theory of truth says that
  a belief is true when it corresponds to what is
  out there in the real world.
• 2) the coherence theory argues that a belief is
  true when it fits in consistently with our other
  beliefs and meanings.
• 3) the pragmatic theory suggests that what is
  true depends on what gets us what we want.

22
The Correspondence Theory of Truth

• The Correspondence Theory specifies that truth is
  an agreement between a proposition and a fact.
• Thus, the correspondence theory assumes the
  existence of an external, material world which is
  composed of facts.
• The view was first proposed by Aristotle and then
  by Aquinas. The most formal, systematic
  presentation of the view was by the 20th century
  philosopher, Bertrand Russell.
• Russell argues that truth and falsity are
  properties of beliefs, but that property depends
  on the relationship of the belief to the world of
  facts.

23
The Correspondence Theory of Truth

• The Correspondence Theory may seem to be
  obviously right and implied by common sense, but
  actually it has serious difficulties.
• First of all, it assumes there is an external
  world, i.e. a particular metaphysical position
  and seems to beg the question of how can we we
  ever get outside our sensory experiences to know
  what the facts are.
• Secondly, there is the problem about what a fact
  is, anyway. How can a fact even be identified or
  discussed without referring to the proposition
  that it is meant to be the conditions for it
  being true? Thus, the very notion of facts
  appears to be circular.
• For example, to what fact does the proposition
  The cat is on the mat refer? The fact that the
  cat is on the mat? But isnt this circular
  reasoning?

24
The Correspondence Theory of Truth

• Finally, the theory is based on the notion of
  correspondence. But it is objected by critics,
  what does this really mean? What is the nature of
  correspondence?
• Clear examples of correspondence are
• resemblance like a paint chip resembles the color
  of paint on your wall, or
• portrayal like when a picture copies the scene it
  copies
• But neither of these can be the kind of
  correspondence that is being asserted when we say
  a statement in a language corresponds to a state
  of affairs in the world.

25
The Coherence Theory of Truth

• The Coherence Theory specifies that a statement
  is true based on its consistency with other
  statements that considered as a whole we regard
  as true. This coherence is the fundamental
  factor, not coherence of a single statement with
  a single state of the world.
• Geometry is the perfect example of the coherence
  theory, but also science understood as general
  theories also demonstrate the principle.
• Brand Blanshard (1892-1987) argued that the
  correspondence theory itself presupposes the
  coherence theory. He argues that we can verify
  one statement only by using other statements.
• For example, to say that the chair is red is
  validated only with other statements that give
  testimony to the reliability of our sense
  perception abilities.

26
The Coherence Theory of Truth

• Of course, the Coherence Theory is not also
  without its problems.
• Critics point out that in the past of course,
  societies accepted statements that were quite
  consistent with the belief systems but were false
  such as that the sun revolved around the earth.
• Critics also ask how a fundamental set of
  statements about the world can come to be
  accepted with a Coherence Theory when there is no
  group of statements to which they could cohere.

27
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

• The Pragmatic Theory says that a belief is true
  if it works and is useful.
• Looking for truth is looking for beliefs that
  will help you get what you want. Richard Rorty
• According to the Pragmatists, there are no
  abolute and unchanging truths. A statement is
  true if it is useful to believe it.
• The classic Pragmatic view of truth was
  formulated by William James.
• James argued that truth existed in its practical
  consequences. True ideas are those that we can
  assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify.
• An idea is validated if by believing it, we find
  experiences that are progressive, harmonious,
  and satisfactory.

28
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

• James challenged the traditional correspondence
  view by asking What difference does it make in
  someones life for an idea to be true? What is
  the cash value? What different experiences
  should we be expected to have?
• Richard Rorty suggests that it is improper
  however to refer to a Pragmatic Theory of Truth.
  For him, the Pragmatist position only is a claim
  about individual statements that are good and
  proper to believe it or not. Pragmatism is not a
  general theory of Truth (with a capital T).
• In Rortys view, different truths emerge from
  different communities having different procedures
  of verifying appropriate statements to use.

29
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

• The primary criticism of the Pragmatic approach
  is that it makes truth entirely relative to the
  potential mistakable judgments of human
  communities.
• Pragmatism equates truth with justified belief of
  a community.
• But surely just because we once believed the
  earth was flat, it wasnt really flat.
• The pragmatist could reply that what is true is
  what an ideal community would be justified in
  believing if continuing its investigations
  indefinitely.
• But this notion seems to be metaphysical in the
  very sense that Pragmatism wished to reject.

30
Does Your Theory of Truth Matter?

• The theory of truth that you hold may determine
  whether a given claim is true or not.
• Only the Correspondence Theory of Truth holds
  that truth is absolute. Both the Coherence Theory
  and the Pragmatic Theory hold that truth is
  relative to the group who is making the claim.
• By rejecting an objective theory of truth, the
  latter two theories allow for the potentiality of
  views to be accepted as true that normally we
  would consider aberrant, e.g. racist, sexist,
  immoral, etc.
• On the other hand, one might argue for a
  relativist theory that it is more tolerant of
  cultural differences. One culture does not have a
  monopoly on truth.

31
A Reconcilation?

• Perhaps we should simply understand that all
  three views have validity and are suggestive
  within different realms of knowledge.
• In this account, the Correspondence theory is
  strong when explaining the empirical world, the
  Coherence theory helps us to understand logical
  and mathematical truths, and the Pragmatic theory
  gives us the better guidance to deal with value
  judgments.
• The attempt to find one characterization of truth
  that covers every kind of truth, seems doomed to
  failure. .Hilary Putnam
• Ultimately however, such a resolution may be too
  easy and not truly satisfying for most
  philosophers. It seems to many as not fully
  answering the paradoxes posed by the subsequent
  consequences of each theory.

32
Does Science Give Us Truth? The Instrumentalist
View

• There are fundamentally three views which attempt
  to allow science to say that a theory is true,
  roughly corresponding to the three theories of
  truth.
• First of all, the Instrumentalist view argues
  that a theory is true if it makes accurate
  predictions. The view thus, is closely aligned
  with the pragmatic theory of truth.
• The instrumentalist view does not assert that the
  theoretical and unobservable entities that we
  posit in our theories in order to explain
  observable events actually do exist.
• In the instrumentalist view, science is not
  required to describe the world. To say that the
  earth revolves around the sun is a useful
  framework or schema simply to calculate the
  positions of the planets.

33
Does Science Give Us Truth? The Realist View

• A second option is the Realist view which relies
  on the correspondence theory of truth. According
  to this view, a scientific theory is true or
  false based on how it describes reality.
• Historically, Galileo was condemned for heresy
  indeed because he claimed that the Copernican
  view was real, not just a mathematical
  calculation as it had been assumed Copernicus had
  thought.
• The realist view asserts that scientific theories
  make accurate predictions because they are true,
  that is they correspond with things in the
  world and not the other way around.
• For the realist, scientific theory is discovered.
  For the instrumentalist, it is invented for the
  sake of continuing productive scientific
  activity.

34
Does Science Give Us Truth? The Conceptual
Relativist View

• The third option is the conceptual relativist
  view which relies on the coherence theory of
  truth. According to this view, a scientific
  community theory provides a paradigm consisting
  of theories, research methods, programs, and
  values that a conceptual framework which is
  true.
• The leading proponent of this view is Thomas
  Kuhn.
• According to this view and in contrast with
  instrumentalism and realism, theories cannot be
  checked against independently observed reality
  for all observation is theory-laden.
• Scientific paradigms are replaced by conceptual
  revolutions, however when that happens one
  cannot necessarily say the changes occurred for
  rational reasons or that the new paradigm is
  more true.