Chaffee, 3e Chapter 7.pptx

7/30/2019 Chaffee, 3e Chapter 7.pptx

1/52

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.


2/52


THINKING PHILOSOPICALLY

What Are Your Religious Beliefs?

What is your definition of religion? What do you think is the purpose of religion?

How would you describe your religious beliefs? Do they include a belief in God?If so, describe your concept of God.

What was the origin of your religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs)? If your

beliefs are different from those you were raised with, explain what caused you tochange your religious views.

What religious activities do you engage in (for example, worship, prayer,meditation, communion, singing, chanting, liturgy)?

Describe the role that religious leaders and holy books play in your religion.

Describe some of the symbols and myths of your religion.

How does your religion view other religions?


3/52


FEUERBACH AND MARX ON RELIGION

LUDWIG FEUERBACH

Through feeling, human beings worship their own positive traits writ large as God.

KARL MARX

Religion is the opiate of the masses.


4/52


HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM

HINDUISM: FIVE THEMES

Contemplation of the Luminous Self

Reincarnation

Karma

Yogic Practices

Five Sacrifices

BUDDHISM: FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS

Life inevitably involves suffering, is

imperfect and unsatisfactory

Suffering originates in our desires

Suffering will cease if all desires cease

There is a way to realize this state: the

Noble Eightfold path


5/52


JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM

All are monotheistic religions

Judaism emphasizes rituals based on key historical events, such as the Exodus fromEgypt, that function as moral paradigms relevant to contemporary lives

Christianity, like Judaism, focuses on key historical events, but differs from Judaism

in its view that Jesus is the Son of God and savior whose sacrificial death andresurrection make it possible for people to have eternal life in heaven

Islam focuses on the Five Pillars

Shahadah: There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet

Salat: a regular life of prayer (prayer five times a day is required)

Zakat: a yearly setting aside of a portion of ones wealth for others Sawm: the observation of the holy month of Ramadan

Hajj: the pilgramage to Mecca required once in a Moslems life (assuming adequate health andeconomic means to make the journey)


6/52


READING CRITICALLY:

Analyzing the Argument forReligious Plurality

John Hicks argument for religious plurality contends that the various

religions of the world embody different responses to the ultimate divineReality. Each religion, in attempting to express the human experience of thisdivine Reality, has built its own distinctive way of thinking and experiencingthis Reality and has developed its own answers to the perennial questions ofour origin and destiny. What is your reaction to Hicks argument? Do youagree with it? Why or why not?

Hick believes that all of the major religions are based on the concept ofsalvation, moving human existence from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. Based on what you know of various religions, do you believethis broad and inclusive definition of salvation is accurate? Why or whynot?

Imagine yourself in the position of someone who disagrees with Hicksposition. What arguments would you make againstreligious pluralism andforthe existence of one true religion?


7/52


The Ontological Argument

The strategy is to argue that the denial of Gods

existence results in a contradiction

And so it must be the case that God does exist Reductio ad Absurdem

You want to prove that p is true so you assumenot p and show that a contradiction results.

Since not p leads to a contradiction it must bethe case that p is true


8/52


The Analogy with Shapes

How do we know that there are no squarecircles?

Maybe there is a square circle on Pluto and we just

havent discovered it

But, if there were there would have to be someobject that was both a square and a circle

Something that was and was not a square

That is a contradiction Therefore round squares dont exist


9/52


Good Strategy

It is often claimed that belief in God is irrational

Belief in something that conflicts with science andwhich no one can see

St. Anselms argument tries to turn the table onthe atheist by arguing that it is they who havethe irrational belief

To deny that God exists is as irrational as it is to saythat square circles exist

It is to assert something contradictory


10/52


The Ontological Argument II

We can conceive of a being than whichnothing greater can be thought

We grasp the concept of perfect being as a being

which has no equal, and we see that we cannotthink of something better

We understand what it would mean for there to bea being which was the greatest possible being andwe see that we cant think of anything greater

So far we are only talking about the idea of Godin our mind, NOT an actually existing thing


11/52


The Ontological Argument III

But, Anselm continues, if it is possible for us to

conceive of such a being then that being must

exist

For, assume that the contrary is true,

Then it would be the case that I have the idea of abeing than which nothing greater can be thought(i.e. I am thinking about the greatest thing that I

can think of) And yet there were no such being in reality


12/52


The Ontological Argument IV

That would mean that I am at the same time

both

thinking of a being than which none greater can

be conceived (i.e. I am thinking about God)

and not thinking of a being than which nonegreater can be conceived (since I can think of agreater being: namely one who exists)

Which is a contradiction; so God must exist


13/52


A Reply on Behalf of the Fool

I can think of an island which is the greatest I canconceive

So it to must exist or else I am caught in the samecontradiction

I am thinking of the greatest island I can conceiveof

And not thinking of the greatest island that I canconceive of

So the island must exist

But this is silly! So the original argument must betoo


14/52


St. Anselms Reply

I can conceive of the perfect island not existing

Because the perfect island, no matter how

great, is not the greatest thing that I can think of

Yet, the argument is only supposed to work forthings which I cant think of something greater

In other words, I can always think of a greater

island than which ever one we happen to bethinking about but I cant think of a greaterbeing than God


15/52


Kants Response

Consider the sentence Cats are brown

Cats is the subject

brown is the predicate

George is a cat

cat is the predicate

A predicate names a property

brown names the property of being brown

cat names the property of being a cat


16/52


Kants Response II

A predicate names a property that an objectmay or may not have

A cat may or may not be brown

An object may or may not be a cat

Now what about the sentence God exists?

It looks like exists is a predicate

It looks like it stands for a property, like cat orbrown

This it is because it is grammatically the same


17/52


Kants Response III

But it isnt logically a predicate

If it were it would name a property

That an object may or may not have

If it were then it would have to be the case thatsome object, say a cat, could lack the propertyof existence

But that is absurd

What could it mean to say that there was someobject (that exists) which lacked existence?


18/52


Kants Response IV

If existence were a property then it would be

impossible to say that anything did not exist

Consider Smurfs do not exist

For this sentence to be true it would have to be thecase that there was an object which was a smurfand which lacked the property of existence

Just like to say that the table is not blue is to saythat there is an object which is a table and lacksthe property of being blue


19/52


Kants Response V

The problem with Anselms argument, then, isthat it treats existence as a predicate

It assumes that existence is something that an

object can have (or lack) And since God is thought of as having everything

He must have existence (or else He wont be thegreatest)

But existence doesnt name a property It is not something that we can add to an object to

make it better


20/52


Kant VI

So what is existence? Predicates are contrasted with quantifiers

A quantifier tells you how many of a thing youhave some, none, all, every, many, most, one,

two, no one, somebody, a lot, etc

Existence is not a predicate, it is a

quantifier It tells you how many of something there is

at least one


21/52


Kants Response VII

So to say that God doesnt exist is to answer thequestion how many Gods?

With none

So to deny Gods existence is not contradictory

Instead of both thinking and not thinking of anobject that has maximum greatness

We are thinking there are no objects with

maximum greatness

A G C CA


22/52


READING CRITICALLY:

Analyzing the Ontological Argument

Describe in your own words Anselmsontological argument for the existenceof God. If you did not believe in God,or if your belief in God was shaky,would this argument help convince

you that there is indeed a supremebeing whom we have traditionallycalled God? Why or why not?

Describe in your own words Gauniloscritique of Anselms ontologicalargument for the existence of God. Doyou find Gaunilos reasoningpersuasive? Why or why not?


23/52


A Posteriori Arguments

We have so far been looking at an a prioriargument for the existence of God The ontological argument relies only on the kind of

being God is and concludes that He must exist

We will now turn to looking at a posterioriarguments These kind of arguments all start with some fact

about the world And conclude that God must exist in order to

explain the fact

Two major kinds of a posteriori arguments The Cosmological The Teleological


24/52


The Teleological Argument

Commonly called the Argument fromDesign From Greek telos meaning end, purpose or

goal

It starts from the observation that the world looksdesigned and concludes that there is a designer

A version of this argument is given asAquinass fifth way

His version focuses on the design of the universe The modern version focuses on the design of living

organisms

We will come back to this argument


25/52


The Cosmological Argument

Takes its name from the Greek cosmos Which means orderly system Starts from the observation that things come

into existence, undergo change, and ceaseto exist

These kind of arguments all have theirorigins in Aristotle He gave these arguments for the conclusion

that the cosmos (world) always existed These arguments are taken over by early

Muslim philosophers and then find their way into Western

philosophy via Aquinas


26/52


The Five Ways

St. Aquinas gives five proofs for the existenceof God The Argument from Motion

The argument from Efficient Causation The Argument from Possibility and Necessity

The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

The Argument from the Governance of the World

The first three are the traditionalcosmological arguments and the last is ateleological argument (all from Aristotle) The fourth is an argument similar to the kind that

Plato gave for the existence of the forms


27/52


The Argument from Motion

When Aquinas says moved he meanschanged So change in location (what we would call

motion) is one kind of movement

But so also is a piece of wood burning, a leafturning brown etc.

Based on Aristotles theory of change Any instance of change is some potential quality

that the object has becoming actual So when the wood is not on fire it is potentially hot

In order to become actually hot the wood must bebrought into contact with something that is itselfactually hot


28/52


The Four Causes

Also based on Aristotles theory of the fourcauses Efficient- the agent that makes something Formal- the essence of the thing Material- the material it is made of Final- the reason that the thing is made

The wood becoming hot is explained as thematerial (wood) coming to posses a new form(the form of heat)

Only something which already possessed theform could transmit it to receptive material

So, a match can light the wood on fire But something had to make the match hot, and so

on


29/52


30/52


Objections

Maybe there is a first cause But why think that its God?

If the argument works it shows that there

must have been a first cause Why not the Big Bang? Or an all-powerful evilbeing? Or an all-powerful stupid being? Or 20gods working together?

Why think there has to be a first cause? Maybe there is just an infinite series of causes

going back forever There is always some preceding cause so you cant take away the first cause

(because there isnt one)


31/52


No First Cause

A

1

A

2

A

4

A

n

A

3

A

1

A

2

A

n

A

0

A-

1

A-n


32/52


The Argument from Possibility and

Necessity Possible being=a being that can exist or not exist The technical term for this is contingent

Contingent beings are things like you, me, this room,your book, etc.

We know that these things exist contingently becausewe see things that are created and destroyed

A Necessary being is one that has to exist It is not possible for it not to exist

A necessary being cannot be created or destroyed It always exists


33/52


34/52


Possibility and Necessity II

Can every being be a contingent being?

If a being is a contingent being then there was atime at which they did not exist

So, if every being were a contingent being therewould be a time at which nothing existed

But if there were a time when nothing existedthen this would be a time at which nothingexisted You cant get something from nothing

So, since something exists now not every being isa contingent being But if not every being is contingent then one is

necessary


35/52


Objections

Same as before Maybe there is a necessary being, maybe it is

matter, or the universe One unexplainable fact is as good as another

Why think there has to be a necessarybeing Maybe there is just an infinite chain of

contingent beings going back forever

There is no time at which nothing exists There is always a contingent being around tocreate more contingent beings and eachcontingent being has one that precedes it


36/52


The Argument from the

Governance of the World Sometimes called the argument from design

There is a modern version of this argumentgiven by Paley that focuses on the design of

animals and Humans But Aquinas version of it depends on the

fact that there seems to be purpose in theuniverse Plants follow the sun during the course of the day

This is something that is in their best interest But plants dont have minds, so cant have goal-

directed behavior unless it is designed Just like inanimate objects we design

WILLIAM PALEY:


37/52


WILLIAM PALEY:

The Watch and the Watchmaker


38/52


The Teleological Argument

Cleanthes makes the argument in HumesDialogue The world is a giant machine We can infer by analogy that the machine had to

be designed by a mind far greater than a humanone

Philo responds that the argument fromanalogy is only as good as the analogy So, consider our going to a desert island and

seeing a watch (Paleys example) We have seen watches before and know that theydo not spontaneously arrange themselves

So we can conclude that the watch must havebeen made


39/52


Teleological Argument II

But in the case of the universe the analogybreaks down In the first place we do not have the necessary

experience to know whether or not the universe

could spontaneously generate

In the second place we only haveexperience with a small part of the universe It is not wise to infer that the whole universe is

designed because of the way things act aroundhere

Hume make the comparison to using the growth ofhair to learn about human birth

Therefore the analogy is bad


40/52


Teleological Argument III

But even if we were to take the analogy seriouslythere are more severe problems

A perfect God would have created a perfect

world But this world contains many imperfections, so it

follows that the designer is imperfect.

In fact this is what the analogy with humandesign really shows Humans make mistakes and design imperfect things This looks like what is going on in nature

So the analogy doesnt establish a perfect God


41/52


Teleological Argument IV

Even if we can show that the world is perfect there isno evidence that it is due to a perfect God Analogy with human design suggests that there is usually a

long process of design and re-design where the kinks areironed out

Maybe this is just the latest in a long process of trial anderror

Finally, there is no reason to think that the designerwas just one perfect God Why not 100 gods working together

One in charge of flowers, one in charge of trees, one incharge of weeds, one in charge of beetles, etc, etc.

READING CRITICALLY:


42/52


READING CRITICALLY:

Analyzing the Argument from Morality

Consider your conscience or youringrained sense of morality. Do youbelieve that the existence of thisdeeply felt moral sense supportsbelief in the existence of a

supremely moral mindGod? Whyor why not?

In line with Kants reasoning, doyou believe in cosmic justice, thebelief that good people must be

rewarded with personal happiness,whether in this world or the next.Why or why not?

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL


43/52


THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

God either cannot or will notprevent evil

If God cannot prevent evil, then

God is limited in power

If God will not prevent evil, thenGod is limited in benevolence

But if God is not limited in either

power or benevolence, why is there

evil in the world?


44/52


Pascals Wager

Pascal starts from the assumption that wecannot rationally prove the existence ofGod All of the various proofs for the existence of God

have problems

None of them rationally compel a person tobelieve

So what should a rational person do?

Pascal argues that it is rational to believe in Godeven in the absence of a proof of his existence

It is in our best interest to believe


45/52


The Wager

God exists God does not exist

Believe

Dont

believe

Infinite

reward

Nothin

g

Nothin

g

Infinitepunishme

nt


46/52


47/52


Objections

Which religion should we go and join? Christianity?

Islam?

The wager does not tell us which specificGod we should believe in A lot of gods promise punishment for non-believers

Ignores the option of agnosticism Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve

Pascal argues that not choosing is choosing not tobelieve


48/52


Agnostic

I dont believe there is a God canbe read two different ways

On one way of reading it, it says that I donot have a belief that God exists (nor do I

have the belief that He does not exist) On the other reading it says that I do in

fact believe that God does not exist

The difference between ~B(G) (& ~B(~G))

and

B (~G)

To refuse the wager is to choose the firstoption


49/52


Cliffords Objection

Choosing what to believe based on which

beliefs are in your self interest is immoral

Doing so would lead to people believing all kinds

of things which would result in innocent deathsand the downfall of society

The owner of the ship knows that the

people will die, but it is in his best

interest to believe that the ship is

seaworthy

He is guilty of murder


50/52


Cliffords Objection II

But it is worse than that

He who believes without evidence harms mankind

The danger to society is not that it should believe

wrong things, though that is great enough; but thatit should become credulous, and lose the habit oftesting things and inquiring into them; for then itmust sink back into savagery

WILLIAM JAMES


51/52


WILLIAM JAMES

Characteristics of Mystical States of Consciousness

Ineffability

Noetic quality

Transiency

Passivity

KIERKEGAARD, THE LEAP OF FAITH


52/52

KIERKEGAARD, THE LEAP OF FAITH

For if God does not exist it

would of course be impossible toprove it; and if he does exist it

would be folly to attempt it.

Without risk there is no faith.

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 7.pptx

Documents