PART TWO: Philosophy & Religion Introduction to Philosophy.

PART TWO: Phi losophy & Rel ig ion

Introduction to Philosophy

The Problem of Faith & Reason

Early Christian Thought Greeks Jewish Tradition Cause of the problem

Two sources: faith & reason Classic Questions Points of Disagreement Points of Agreement Biblical tradition: anti-philosophy Biblical tradition: pro-philosophy

The Problem of Faith & Reason

11th & 12th Century Introduction Reason as predominant

John Scotus Erigena Roscelin Abelard

Faith as predominant Monastic reforms Peter Damian St. Bernard

Anselm’s View Reason & Faith Proof through deduction

Synthesis of faith & reason-Aquinas Theology & philosophy

The Nature & Existence of God

Questions Metaphysical questions

What is the nature of God? Does God exist?

Epistemic Questions How do we know the nature of God? How do we know God exists?

Reason & Logic View A priori reasoning and God

A Priori Reasoning St. Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz

A posteriori reasoning and God A posteriori reasoning St. Aquinas, David Hume

The Nature & Existence of God

Rejection of Reason & Logic View Approaches

God can be known through faith. God can be known through mystical experience/divine revelation. God cannot be known by any means. Pascal’s Wager

Regresses & Absurdity

Regress & Absurdity Methodology Introduction

Circular Regress Defined Form & Examples

A requires A A requires B, B requires C…Z requires A Job-Experience

Infinite Regress Defined Form

1 requires 2 2 requires 3 3 requires 4 X requires X+1


The Evil BureaucratReductio Ad Absurdum (Reducing to Absurdity)

Defined Form #1

Assume P is true. Prove that assuming P leads to something false, absurd or contradictory. Conclude that P is false.

Form #2 Assume P is false. Prove that assuming P is false leads to something false, absurd or

contradictory. Conclude that P is true.

Example


ExampleUsing a regress in a Reductio Ad Absurdum

Introduction Example

St. Anselm

Background Background (1033-1109) Goal

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Anselm’s A Priori Argument for God’s Existence The fool understands

“God”: a being than which nothing can be conceived (NGCBC). Fool says there is no God. The understands what he hears. What he understands is in his understanding. It is one thing for an object to be in the understanding. It is another to understand the object exists.

Painter analogy The fool is convinced something exists in his understanding.

From Understanding to Reality Whatever is understood is in the understanding. That than which NGCBC cannot exist in the understanding alone. If NGCBC exists in the understanding alone, it is something GCBC.


Suppose it exists only in the understanding-it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater.

If NGCBC exists in the understanding alone it is GCBC. This is impossible. There exists NGCBC in reality & understanding.

God cannot be conceived not to exist NGCBC exists so truly it cannot be conceived not to exist. It is possible to conceive of a being that which cannot be conceived not to

exist and this is greater than one that can be conceived not to exist. If NGCBC can be conceived not to exist, it is not NGCBC. This is a contradiction. There is so truly a NGCBC that it cannot even be conceived not to exist.


God alone cannot be conceived not to exist God exists and cannot be conceived not to exist. If one could conceive of a being better than God, the creature would rise

above its creator, which is absurd. Everything, except God, can be conceived not to exist. God alone exists more truly than all others and hence in a higher degree. Whatever else exists does not exist so truly so it exists to a lesser degree. So the fool denies God because he is a fool.

Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm

Challenge & Doubt Gaunilo’s Challenge

Suppose it is said a being which cannot be even conceived in terms of any fact, is in the understanding.

Gaunilo accepts that this being is in his understanding. He will not accept that it has a real existence until a proof is given.

Gaunilo’s Doubt Anselm claims this being exists-otherwise the being which is greater than all

will not be greater than all. Gaunilo doubts that this being is greater than any real object. The only existence it has is the same as when the mind, from a word heard,

tries to form the image of an unknown object.


How is the existence of that being proved from the assumption that it is greater than all other beings?

He does not admit that this being is in his understanding even in the way which many objects whose real existence is uncertain and doubtful, are in his understanding.

It should be proved first that this being really exists. Then, from the fact that it is greater than all, we would conclude it also

subsists in itself.


Gaunilo’s Perfect Island Argument The Perfect Island

There is an island that is impossible to find, the “lost” island. This island has inestimable wealth and no owner or inhabitant. Hence it is more excellent than all other countries, which are inhabited. If someone claims there is such an island, Gaunilo would understand his

words. The parity of reasoning: But suppose he said:

You cannot doubt that this most excellent of island exists somewhere. You have no doubt that it is in your understanding. It is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist in the

understanding and in reality. Hence, the island must exist. If it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent. Hence, the island understood to be more excellent will not be more

excellent.


Gaunilo’s Criticism of this line of reasoning. If someone tried to persuade him by such reasoning, he would assume the person

was jesting or regard him or himself a fool. It ought to be shown that: The hypothetical excellence of this island exists as a real and indubitable fact. It is not an unreal object, or one whose existence is uncertain in Gaunilo’s

understanding. A note of Gaunilo’s method.

He is combining parity of reasoning with a reduction to absurdity. Parity of reasoning: to use reasoning that parallels the reasoning in question. In this case Gaunilo is using the same line of reasoning as Anselm. Reducing to absurdity: to prove that a claim is implausible by drawing an absurd or

contradictory conclusion from it. In this case Gaunilo draws an absurd conclusion by using Anselm’s method.

He thus concludes that the method is flawed.

Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo

The Island Anselm’s Summary of Gaunilo’s Objection

One should suppose an island in the ocean, which surpasses all lands in its fertility.

Because of the impossibility of discovering what does not exist is called a lost island.

There can be no doubt that this island truly exists in reality. Hence one who hears it described understands what he hears.

Anselm’s Challenge If any shall devise anything existing in reality or in concept alone

(except that than which a greater cannot be conceived) to which he can apply Anselm’s reasoning, he will discover it.


Anselm’s Reply Part one: God cannot be conceived not to be.

This being than which a greater is inconceivable cannot be conceived not to be. Because it exists on so assured a ground of truth. Otherwise it would not exist at all.

Part Two: The dilemma So, if one claims he conceives this being not to exist, at the time when he conceives of

this either he conceives of a being than which a greater is inconceivable or he does not conceive at all.

If he does not conceive, he does not conceive of the nonexistence of that of which he does not conceive.

If he conceives, he certainly conceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to exist.

If it could be conceived not to exist, it could be conceived to have a beginning and an end.

This impossible.


Part Three: It’s inconceivable. He who conceives of this being conceives of a being which cannot

be even conceived not to exist. But he who conceives of this being does not conceive that it does

not exist. If he does so, then he conceives what is inconceivable. The nonexistence of that than which a greater cannot be conceived

is inconceivable.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Background (1224-1274) Early Life

Son of the count of Aquino Imprisoned in a tower Albert the Great Eastern Orthodox Church Mystic Experience Canonized in 1323 1879 Pope Leo XIII

The Ox Nickname The flying Cow

Works 25 Volumes Summa Theologica

St. Thomas Aquinas

Aristotle & Aquinas Complete Works

12th-13th Century: the complete works of Aristotle became available in Europe.

Aristotle’s works presented a systematic and developed philosophy. Conflict

Aristotle: the world is eternal and uncreated. Apparently did not accept personal immortality. Ibn Rushd’s commentaries on Aristotle Neo-Platonism

Aquinas’ View Aristotle’s view could be adopted without heresy. Regarded Aristotle as a rich intellectual behavior. “The Philosopher.” Aristotle as a pagan lacking divine revelation.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Shift from Plato to Aristotle Platonic notions of the eternal & other worldliness. Aristotle’s works presented a systematic and developed philosophy.

Faith & Reason Reconciliation: Augustine

Sin damaged reason Grace Faith as necessary condition for philosophical understanding

Reconciliation: Aquinas Sin did not criple our rational facilities Reason as autonomous source of knowledge Distinguishes between philosophy & theology Two sources of knowledge

Theology yields knowledge via faith & revelation Philosophy yield knowledge via reason and experience

St. Thomas Aquinas

Truth: Christian teachings that a matter of faith Known via revelation Beyond reason, not contrary to reason Objections and problems Cannot be proven/disproven by reason Examples: trinity, incarnation, original sin, etc.

Truth: Empirical Knowledge & Self Evident Philosophical Principles Not known via revelation Examples: Aristotle’s logic, biological functions of heart

Truth: Overlap of philosophy & theology Known via revelation or reason Examples: God’s existence & qualities, existence of the soul, immortality,

natural moral law Two Type of Theology

Revealed supernatural Natural theology Conflict

St. Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas’ Epistemology & Metaphysics Epistemology

Aristotle’s Influence Blank slate No innate knowledge Senses provide reason with content Intellect

Intellect Passive & active Passive operations Objects of experience Active aspect Potential Natural process

St. Thomas Aquinas

Metaphysics: Hierarchy Actuality & Potentiality

Prime matter-potentiality Forms-actuality God-pure actuality Change

Great Chain of Being Hierarchy Variety Angels Knowable Purpose Objective Values

St. Thomas Aquinas

Metaphysics: Existence & Essence Essence & Existence

Essence Existence

God His essence entails He exists God Necessity Rejection of ontological argument Empirical experience

St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways

Introduction Introduction

Aristotle General Form

If the world has X, then God exists. The world has X. God exists.

Cosmological argument Assumption: infinite regress of causes is not possible


The First Way (the Way of Motion) Some things are in motion Whatever is moved is moved by another Potentiality A thing moves Reduction from potentiality to actuality

Fire Actuality & potentiality in different respects

Hot Cold

Impossible to be both moved and mover. Whatever is moved is moved by another Moved by another


Moved by another This cannot go on to infinity

No first mover No other mover Moved by first mover

Staff First mover This everyone understands to be God


The Second Way ( Efficient Cause) Order of efficient causes Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself Not possible to go on to infinity Efficient causes following an order

First Intermediate

Take away the cause If no first cause, then neither intermediate nor ultimate If it is possible to go on to infinity

No first efficient cause No ultimate effect No immediate efficient causes Plainly false

First efficient cause to which everyone gives the name God.


The Third Way (Possibility & Necessity) Possible to be and not to be Impossible for these to always exist One time there was nothing Nothing would exist now Impossible for anything to have begun to exist Thus now nothing would be in existence There must exist something whose existence is necessary Every necessary thing either has its necessity cause by another or not Impossible to go on to infinity

As per efficient causes Therefore we must admit the existence of a being

Having of itself its own necessity Not receiving it from another Causing necessity in others

This all men speak of as God


The Fourth Way (Gradation) Among beings are some more and some less More or less are predicated by resemblance to a maximum There is something truest, best, noblest There is something most in being The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus

Fire There must be something which is the cause of being, goodness, perfection This being we call God


The Fifth Way (Governance of the World) Things that act from knowledge act for an end Evident from acting in the same way Whatever lacks knowledge must be directed Therefore some intelligent being directs all natural things This being we call God


Common Mistakes in Interpreting the 5 Ways Everything must have a cause

Does not assume this What is potential must be cause by what is actual Created beings

The world has a beginning in time Does not attempt to prove this Does not disprove Aristotle’s eternal world and unmoved mover Possibility of an eternal universe First cause

Eternal flame God as a continuously sustaining cause Not possible to prove an eternal world St. Bonaventure Beginning in time Revelation, not proof


Common Criticisms Five beings

Five different beings Being distinguished by qualities Perfect and unlimited being Two perfect beings would be identical Cannot be two unlimited beings

“And this everyone understands to be God” Different from the personal God Not a complete view of God Important qualities Way of gradation

Gottfried Leibniz

Background German Culture

Stagnant Languages Reformation & 30 Years Way (1618-1648) No other significant thinkers

Background for Leibniz Early Years Professional career Diplomacy Works Logical Method

Leibniz: Arguments for God

God Proofs for God’s Existence

Ontological argument Eternal & necessary truths Design argument Cosmological argument

Proof of God’s Existence for God’s Existence God

Supreme substance Unique, universal, necessary Nothing else independent Incapable of limits, as much reality as possible.

Perfection God is absolutely perfect Perfections from God, imperfections from their own nature


Existence God is the source Existence of a necessary being God alone must exist if he is possible


The Cosmological Argument Two principles on which reasons are founded

Contradiction False True

Sufficient reason Reason why it is so Known

Two kinds of truth Those of reasoning

Necessary Analysis

Those of fact Contingent Possible


Sufficient Reason Contingent truths Resolution Contingents Sufficient/final reason

God Necessary substance Change exists eminently God suffices

Leibniz: Problem of Evil

Best of All Possible Worlds The best world

“best of all possible worlds” Single event Entirety God’s choice

God’s Choice Infinity of possible universes Reason Best Wisdom Goodness Power

Diversity Only God is perfect God must pick the best Variety & order


No Better World Possible Intellectualist view

God’s will The problem and reply

God lacks goodness Defects Big picture Not made for us alone

The Best Impossible Reply

Denial of Pantheism Infinite divisibility Infinity is not a whole God Universe is not an animal or substance


Evil as Privation Whence does evil come? Origin of Evil-Ancients

Matter Uncreated

Origin of Evil-intellectualist view Eternal verities Original imperfection Errors

Understanding & Necessity Plato God & Nature Understanding Necessity Understanding Primitive Form Ideal Cause Formal cause Evil is deficient


The Analogy of the Boat Boats

Cargo Slower Receptivity Slower

The Analogy Current is like God Inertia is like imperfection Slowness is like defects Current causes motion not retardation God causes perfection Limitation in receptivity God causes the material element of evil not the formal Current is the material cause of retardation but not the formal

It causes the speed but not the limit God and sin

Defects God produces all that is positive, good and perfect Imperfections arise from the original limitations God cannot give all Degrees of perfection

David Hume

Background (1711-1776) Life & Philosophical Writings

Born 1711 Edinburgh University France Works

A Treatise of Human Nature An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals Natural History of Religion Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion History of England

Died 1776 (still dead today)

Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God

Skepticism Introduction

Skeptical A priori & a posteriori arguments fail Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Cleanthes: a posteriori arguments Demea: faith & a priori arguments Philo: skeptic All arguments for God fail First cause arguments

Reason Matters of fact Existence A priori reasoning Conceiving Demonstrable Relations of ideas


Causation Assumption Causality as habit House analogy Universe No constant conjunction No empirical argument based on causation

Rejection of Design Mechanistic assumption Resembles animal/vegetable more than a machine Matching environment Ideally suited


Five Problems Introduction

Like effects First Problem

Finite effect Cause as great as the effect

Second Problem Perfect Perfect universe Falls short No other universes

Third Problem As good as possible Many worlds Labor lost Slow improvement


Fourth Problem One God Analogy

Fifth God as physical being

Hume’s Problem of Evil

Establishing the Misery Philo-Feeling

Misery Eloquence Feel it more

Demea-Truth Truth Miseries Cannot be doubted

Philo-Agreement Learned Poets

Demea-Writers & Misery All complain

Philo-Leibniz Denied


Demea-Leibniz First Denial

Demea-Catalog of Evils Earth War Necessity Birth Weakness

Philo-Chain of Misery Prey Torment Enemies

Demea-Man as an exception Partial exception Master lions, tigers and bears


Philo-Man creates his own demons Real enemies Imaginary enemies Death Timid flock

Demea-Society Man is the greatest enemy of man Torments Dread

Demea-Problems External problems Labor & poverty Few Goods of life Stranger visiting the world Pleasure


Philo-Misery No reason to complain Why stay alive Objection: false delicacy Reply: delicacy Objection: rest Rely: rest leads to disappointment

Cleanthes Sees problems in others, not self

Demea-Reply to Cleanthes Cleanthes is unique


Philo-The Problem of Evil Philo challenges Cleanthes

Anthropomorphism Power argument

Power is infinite Wills No happiness Does not will

Wisdom Argument Wisdom is infinite Never mistaken Not to felicity Not for that purpose

Conclusion Benevolence Epicurus’ Questions

Willing but not able Able, but not willing Able and willing


More Problem of Evil Philo-Refutation of Divine Benevolence

Cleanthes: nature has a purpose & intention Preservation and propagation No resources for the happiness of individuals Racking pains Mirth Divine benevolence Mystics

Cleanthes If proven unhappy, all religion ends.

Demea-big picture reply to the problem of evil Point & moment Other regions & future Benevolence

Cleanthes-Enjoyments outweigh pains Deny misery & wickedness Exaggeration

Health Pleasure Happiness


Philo-Pain exceeds pleasure More violent & durable Pain Torment Pleasure Pain Death

Philo-No foundation for religion unless Human life is happy Existence is desirable

Philo-Not what we expect Estimate Uncertain Does nothing Not what we expect


Philo-why any evil at all? Not by chance Contrary to his intention Attack

Philo-Compatibility Compatible Mere possibility Pure from impure Insufficient Insufficient

Philo-Conclusion Faith alone

Hume & the Immorality of the Soul

Soul & Substance Reason

Difficult to prove Metaphysical, moral or physical

Metaphysics Unknown Substance

Immaterial & material Confused & Imperfect Unknown Cause & effect Abstract reasoning

Spiritual Substances analogous to Material Substance Analogy Clay Dissolved Immortal substance


Memory, Consciousness & Substances Loss of memory & consciousness Incorruptible & ingenerable Existence before birth

Animals Animals Souls

Moral Arguments God’s Justice

Moral arguments Punishment Attributes This universe

Present Life Present Life Fostering fears

Fear the Future Fear Riches Present life Deceit


Humans & Animals Powers Parity of reasoning

Women Mortal soul Religious theory Equal

No Object of God’s Punishment First cause Ordained by Him Nothing

Punishment without purpose Proportion in punishment

Proportional Damnation

Additional concerns Heaven & Hell Lenience Infancy


Physical Physical Arguments Sleep Argument

Connected Sleep

Proportion Argument Proportional Dissolution

Condition Argument Analogy Dissolution

Souls of Animals Mortal Analogy

Change Argument Flux Immortal


Infinite Number of Souls Infinite Planets

Lack of Argument Argument Insensibility Argument Horrors & Passions

Horrors Nothing in vain Postpone Death Passions Hopes

Defending a Negative Advantage Arguments New logic Divine revelation

Immanuel Kant

Background Personal Information

1724-1797 Contributions

Arguments for God Introduction

Reason cannot be used Three ways Method of elimination

Immanuel Kant

Ontological Argument Can conceive of a perfect being The conceivable is possible Possible a perfect being exists If PB exists, then has all perfections Existence is a perfection If PB exists, then it has existence Possible that a PB necessarily exists Absurd Thus a perfect being must exist of necessity

Kant’s First Refutation of the Ontological Argument Concept of God includes concept of absolutely necessary being Compares to nature of a triangle Does not show triangles exist If God, then being exists necessarily-deniable. Cannot go from concept to existence.

Immanuel Kant

Second Refutation of the Ontological Argument Existence is not a predicate Existence is not a property that adds to the concept of X If existence is not a property, then it cannot be an essential part of God’s

concept Merchant analogy

The Cosmological Argument A necessarily existing first cause Assumes the principle that everything has a cause The principle only applies to the realm of experience Defects of the ontological argument

The Teleologicial Argument Intelligent designer Praise Design imposed on pre-existing matter Need for cosmological argument

Immanuel Kant

Conclusion Attempts to prove God’s existence are fruitless Impossible to prove God does not exist Theist and Atheist cannot know Possibility of basing religion on practical or moral faith “To deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”

Blaise Pascal

Background Life

1623-1662 Contributions Major Works

Lettres Provinciales Pensees

Pascal’s Wager

Part One God

Do not know God’s nature or existence Existence is known through faith

God cannot be known If God exists, He is infinitely incomprehensible No parts or limits, so no affinity to us Incapable of knowing if or what He is Dare not undertake

God’s Existence Cannot be Proven Christians cannot be blamed If the proved it Objection

The Wager God is or He is not Reason can decide nothing here What to Wager?

Pascal’s Wager

Choice Don’t Reprove Blame Must wager

Which to Chose Two things to lose: true, good Two things at stake: reason & will, knowledge & happiness Two things to shun: error & misery Must choose

Wager for God Weigh gain and loss If gain, gain all If lose, lose nothing Wager that He is

Objection & Reply Perhaps one wagers too much Equal risk, 2 lives 3 lives to gain

Pascal’s Wager

Eternity of life & happiness Infinity of chances, wager 1 to win 2 1 against 3, 1 in infinity, infinity of infinitely happy life There is What you stake is finite Give all Renounce reason

Uncertainty Useless to say

Uncertain gain Certain risk Infinite distance

Not so: staking a certainty against an uncertainty Not an infinite distance Infinity between certainty of gain and certainty of loss Uncertainty of gain proportioned to certainty of stake

Pascal’s Wager

Risks If equal risks, then play even Certainty of stake = uncertainty of gain Proposition has infinite force Demonstrable

How to Make Yourself Believe Seeing the cards Believing

Force to wager Learn inability to believe Attain faith Learn Follow Lessen passions

Concerns Regarding Pascal’s Wager

Disjunction The disjunction False dilemma/many gods

False dilemma Options

Knowledge of God Lack of knowledge

Need the wager Problem

If we cannot know God, we cannot know how He will react Payoff and loss cannot be known No rational way to bet

Ethics Abandoning reason Ethics

PART TWO: Philosophy & Religion Introduction to Philosophy.

Documents

nature of god

conceived ngcbc

reality understanding

problem of faith reason

goal slide

prophilosophy slide

david hume slide

pascals wager slide