May 28: Philosophy of Religion
|
|
To do for next class - 1) Read pp. 254-303; 2) Be prepared to defend one of the arguments for the existence of God; 3) Is the theory of evolution more scientific than creationism? Why? 4) Try to summarize Kant's refutation of the Ontological argument. |
To do for next class - 1) Read pp.304-349; 2) What do you think of the skeptics position? 3) What is epistemology and how is it important? |
Introduction
For many, religion and philosophy are not all that different. Is this true? Why? Why not? Philosophy and religion both: argue about a priori truths; concern themselves with the nature of the universe; provide explanations of how things work; have agreed on the existence of an unmoved mover/God. How are they different? (Philosophy is not dogmatic and encourages questions; does not mandate a spiritual aspect; should/does not worship major figures; can be compatible or not with religion). In fact, philosophy is often a tool used to evaluate religion. Philosophy of religion is often concerned with the validity of religious truth claims. It is also concerned with the coherence of the concept of God (If God is all-powerful can he create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?), and whether such a being exists. Philosophers of religion seek rational answers to these questions. In religion, there is often a distinction made between things which can be known by reason (natural theology) and things which can be know by divine disclosure (revealed theology). The latter class seldom has a place in philosophical arguments. But its possible existence is of interest to philosophers.
One of the more traditional discussions in philosophy of religion has been (not surprisingly) whether or not God exists. There have been a number of attempts to prove God's existence, especially during the Middle Ages when monk/philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm were trying to show the consistency of ancient thought with Christian doctrine. Such proofs are less common currently, but those which are presented can generally be classed as using the tactics of one of the classic arguments. What are the 3 classic arguments presented by Wolff? (Argument from design/analogical argument; cosmological argument; ontological argument).
Argument from design
This argument, presented by Bishop William Paley uses an extended analogy to argue for the rationality of believing in the God (it is still supported by some). He asks us to image walking on a beach and finding a watch. Where, he asks, would we expect this fine, complex machine to have come from? Why a watchmaker, of course. The analogy is clear. We are the watch, God is the watchmaker. Paley uses the eye as an example, which is an extremely impressive piece of engineering (point spread function, blurring for better sampling, hyperacuity, low moment of inertia, etc.). It is simply inference to the best explanation. Wolff says this kind of argument is philosophically weak. Do you agree? Why? What can it prove? (not the existence of God; only something that designed us; reason to effects from causes is suspect)
He presented this idea in 1818, Darwin's theory of evolution was not published until 1856. Would this argument have been taken seriously with Darwin's theory already available? Notably, Darwin's theory is constantly used as the source for analogical arguments by the likes of Dawkins (memes), Pinker (evolutionary psychology), and Fodor (language of thought, modules). Are these arguments better? Note that great scientific discoveries have been attributed to analogies (the benzene ring = snake eating its tail).
Cosmological arguments
St. Thomas Aquinas is the most famous of religious philosophers know as the scholastics. They had as their purpose to reconcile the teachings of Aristotle with those of the church. It is not surprising, then, that the cosmological arguments which Aquinas presented can be found first in Aristotle. In fact, this sort of argument relies on the 'chicken and the egg' type of reasoning. When we ask which came first, not only are we not sure, but we assume something that was neither a chicken nor an egg really came first. This same sort of backward causal reasoning is used by Aquinas (and Aristotle) to prove the existence of God. Aquinas reasoned that everything is caused by something. A motion is caused by a previous motion. That previous motion was caused by something else and so on. Somewhere, this chain of causation must end. Somewhere there must be something that can move things, but is note caused to move by something else otherwise we are in an infinite regress. Of course, that first mover (unmoved mover for Aristotle) is necessary for the rest of the motion. In fact, it's existence is necessary and the only necessary being we know of is God. Aquinas casts this same argument in the guise of a discussion of motion, efficient cause, and possibility/necessity.
What is Hume's refutation? (That anything that exists from eternity doesn't need a first cause or author). Notice that these arguments can be aligned with the steady-state and big bang theories of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory is more widely accepted. Does that mean that God exists?
Ontological arguments
This argument is a classic piece of philosophy. It is an argument which has no basis in data, or sense perception yet which proves the existence of something. Furthermore, it is persuasive! These kinds of arguments are called a priori (Latin, literally, from the former - 'before evidence', presupposed) and contrasted with a posterori (derived by reasoning from observed facts) arguments. The example Wolff provides (aardvark is a mammal because it bears its young live) is also called a tautology. But not all a priori statements have to be tautological (or analytic) - at least according to Kant. However, the Ontological proof relies precisely on a tautology, but a very special kind of tautology.
How does the argument proceed? It basically says 1) God could possible exist or actually exist. 2) Actually existing is better than possibly existing. 3) God is, by definition, perfect so we'd expect him to do/be what is better. 4) Therefore God actually exists.
Well, how is God different than a perfect aardvark? It simply comes down to the concept of what God is. God is necessary, infinite, perfect in every way (all else is imperfect in some way). There is only one concept like this, and that is the concept of God. That is why this argument is only convincing for God and not for the existence of the perfect aardvark.
What is Hume's argument against this argument? (Hume says we can just as well conceive of something being non-existent as conceive of its being existent. Since we can't demonstrate something without it's contrary being a contradiction (we can't show aardvarks exist without showing that the claim that they don't is contradictory), and since our conception of God not-existing does not imply such a contradiction, we can not prove that God exists in the manner suggested).
What's Kant's argument against the Ontological argument? (Two parts. 1) It's a tautology:He claims that the existence predicate is always synthetic. However, the ontological argument is using the existence predicate as if it were subject to the rules of analytic theorizing - this, he claims, is just a mistake. In fact, he claims it is a mistake to include the 'is' predicate in any concept of something which is purported to be possible. If we do, we are merely uttering a tautology when we claim it exists. If we don't then the ontological argument fails. 2) The predicate 'is' can't be part of the concept of a thing. He draws a distinction between logical and real/determining predicates. He claims that the latter is something which enlarges the concept of the predicate's subject. Now the question is, what is the status of the 'is' predicate. Kant argues that the predicate 'is' is merely logical and does not add to the concept of a possible thing. The real contains no more than the merely possible.)
Were you convinced by any of these proofs or refutations? Why/why not?
Kierkegaard was the founder of the existentialist school of philosophy. One whose problems and concerns are those of many people in our society today. They ask questions like: Why am I here? How can I deal with the fact of my own death? How do I approach the meaninglessness of my life? These sorts of fundamental problems of human existence can lead to despair, what has been termed 'existential angst'. However, for Kierkegaard (unlike some existentialists who came after him), there was a kind of hope. The hope provided by the Christian promise of eternal life. What Kierkegaard was concerned with was a belief in God. But not in the mere existence of God as most of those before (and perhaps since) him. He was concerned with how we can believe that God will keep the promise of eternal life; life after death. This became the central problem of religion for Kierkegaard, the problem of faith.
Though it seems that fruits of God's promise is great, and the price we must pay is small, how can we know we are paying the price? How do we know we really believe? We can just 'say' it, for God knows the truth - he can see any doubt. How can we rid ourselves of this doubt when the proof of the validity of the pact is so hard to see? In some sense, Kierkegaard turned is questions into warnings. Warnings for the sedate, habitual church goers. Warnings for the 'socially correct' bourgeoisie. Warnings for the preachers who didn't understand the import of their own words.
Like the romantics, Kierkegaard argued against Hegelians that truth is subjective. What does it mean to say truth is subjective? What does it mean to say truth is objective? (Correspondence theory. Truth is a relation between a proposition or belief and the world. For subjectivity, truth is a relation between the proposition and the person who makes it. For objectivity, the emotional or other properties of the statement maker don't matter to its truth - note the problems for think it's in principle impossible for a sub-group to come up with universal truths.) Kierkegaard is most interested in applying subjective truth to salvation. How you believe is as important as what you believe.
Furthermore, and this is perhaps K's most famous doctrine, the subjective truth of your faith can have no proof. You must make a leap of faith. You can not expect a rational justification for your faith. There is too much of a gap between finite people and an infinite God. Our only hope to achieving God's promise is to utter, with all our hearts and absolutely unconditionally Credo (i believe). Kierkegaard believed in an absolute separation of the secular and the religious. That is, between reason and faith, the objective and the subjective, and wisdom and salvation. What is K's argument? (Teachers like Socrates are expendable and only help change our state of knowledge. Salvation (for which we are dependent on God) is a matter of the fate of our souls and existential.) This leap of faith is not silly or random or mindless, in fact we must prepare for it significantly. However, it can not be justified or proved to be right - there is no such thing as a little bit of faith.
The problem of evil is simple to understand, yet its solutions are seldom simple or obvious and it has perplexed philosophers and theologians almost as long as there have been philosophers and theologians. The problem is this:
Leibniz's solution was to say that, in fact, we are in the best possible world. He believed that it was just beyond our abilities to comprehend the infinite wisdom of God, so things may seem evil to us, but in fact they aren't. The famous French satirist Voltaire dedicated an entire book to ridiculing Leibniz's position. In his well-known Candide, Voltaire introduces us to a well-meaning Dr. Pangloss who staunchly supports Leibniz's position in the face of ridiculously terrible situations (e.g. his own blindness, lost love, massacre, war). Can you think of other solutions? Wolff gives them short shrift, but in fact, many have variously redefined what they mean by the benevolence, omnipotence or omniscience of God in order to solve the problem of evil. However, Wolff does seem right in noting both that solutions in the rationalist vein are unnecessary and even disgraceful in the eyes of the subjectivist and also that these discussions seldom, if ever are roads to and from religious faith.
What are the competing theories? What counts as science? Can you construct an argument for creationism, or have you been too blinded by evolutionary propaganda? Can either have more proof than the other? Should both be taught in school? What about astrology and astronomy or Dianetics? How can we responsibly choose which theories to teach in school? Are these choices white/Western biased?
1) Read pp.304-349; 2) What do you think of the skeptics position? 3) What is epistemology and how is it important?