Transcript July 18th as a powerpoint file (requires Powerpoint)

Today’s Lecture
• Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of
Religion
• Anselm
• Gaunilo
• Comments about the first assignment
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• We can divide most of the concerns of Philosophy of
Religion between epistemology and metaphysics.
• Under epistemology, philosophers consider the positive
or negative epistemic status of various religious beliefs
(from belief in God, or an Absolute Ground of Being,
to belief in an after-life).
• Under metaphysics, philosophers consider the
metaphysical import or lack of metaphysical import of
various religious beliefs (from whether a particular
conception of God can be instantiated to whether
certain views of life after death are compatible with
plausible theories of mind or personhood).
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• It is customary to distinguish between Natural and
Dogmatic theology.
• Natural Theology, though pursued within a theistic
religious tradition, relies on arguments which do not depend
on premises drawn from traditional (e.g. scriptural) sources.
• Dogmatic Theology on the other hand relies on arguments
which do depend on premises drawn from traditional (e.g.
scriptural) sources.
• Religious philosophers, on the whole, concern themselves
with Natural rather than Dogmatic Theology.
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• Philosophers who are either atheist or agnostic
can be sometimes described as Natural
Atheologians in the literature.
• It is important to distinguish two senses of
‘atheist’ that reflect historical uses of the term:
An atheist is either (1) someone who does not
have a positive or negative belief about the
existence of God, (2) or someone who believes
that God does not exist.
• An agnostic, then, is an atheist according to (1).
Preliminary remarks about
Philosophy of Religion
• Remember that not all religions involve a
belief in a divinity. Jainism and certain
forms of Buddhism are cases in point in this
regard.
• Since theology literally means ‘Theory of
God’ (from theos or ‘god’ and logos or
‘theory or account’), neither Jainism nor
certain forms of Buddhism contain
theologies, natural or dogmatic.
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• There are various ways to understand divinity across
traditions and cultures.
• (1) Pantheism: This is, crudely, the view that All is
God/Goddess.
• (2) Panentheism: This is crudely, the view that
God/Goddess encompasses but is not limited to the cosmos.
Alternatively every-thing that exists is in God.
• (3) Deism: This is the view that there is a Creator
God/Goddess that has created the cosmos but Who has no
further interactions with the creation.
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• (4) Theism: This is the view that a personal
God/Goddess exists, and is both immanent in and
transcendent to the physical universe.
• (5) Polytheism: This is the view that there are many
Gods/Goddesses.
• (6) Henotheism: This is the view that there are many
Gods/Goddesses, but also one supreme
God/Goddess from whom all other Gods/Goddesses
derive their being.
• (7) Monotheism: This is the view that there is only
one God/Goddess.
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• Certain forms, though only certain forms, of devotional
Hinduism can be regarded as either pantheistic or
panentheistic.
• Deism was very popular in Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Century European philosophy.
• Theism can be found in traditions as diverse as the Judaic
Tradition and Hinduism.
• Certain Hindus, though only certain Hindus, are polytheists.
• Henotheism is represented in the literature by (high) Greek
and Roman religion. You can also find textual echoes of this
view in such Biblical phrases as ‘God of gods and Lord of
lords’.
Preliminary remarks about
Philosophy of Religion
• Muslims, Jews, and Christians are
monotheists.
Preliminary remarks about
Philosophy of Religion
• Though no one view of divinity should be
excluded from Philosophy of Religion,
discussions in the West are often restricted
to Theism and Monotheism.
• This in itself reveals a disturbing bias in the
literature.
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• In our section on Philosophy of Religion we will be
primarily concerned with the rationality or
irrationality of theistic belief.
• We will also critically evaluate certain traditional
arguments for the belief that ‘God exists’ is true.
• We will also briefly consider whether certain
conceptions of divinity are compatible with what we
do know about the universe. This will aid us in
deciding which conceptions of God can be
reasonably thought to be instantiated.
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• Some scholars have usefully divided up the
landscape into three available camps on the issue of
the rationality of religious belief: Strong
Rationalism, Critical Rationalism and Fideism.
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• Strong Rationalists are the evidentialists within Philosophy
of Religion. They hold that “in order for a religious beliefsystem to be properly and rationally accepted, it must be
possible to prove that the belief system is true” where
‘prove’ means “show that a belief is true in a way that
should be convincing to any reasonable person” (Peterson,
Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach and David
Basinger. 1998. Reason and Religious Belief: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York:
Oxford University Press, p.45).
Preliminary remarks about Philosophy
of Religion
• Fideism emphaiszes the role of faith in religious belief (fide
is Latin for ‘faith’). It is basically the view that “religious
belief-systems are not subject to rational evaluation”
(Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach
and David Basinger. 1998. Reason and Religious Belief: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York:
Oxford University Press, p.49).
• Fideists view their position in one of at least three ways: (1)
That it is, in itself, a rational position to adopt, (2) that it is
an arational position to adopt, or (3) that it is an irrational
position to adopt (and that’s fine).
Preliminary remarks about
Philosophy of Religion
• Critical Rationalism comes somewhere in
between Strong Rationalism and Fideism. It is the
view that “religious belief-systems can and must
be rationally criticized and evaluated although
conclusive proof of such a system is impossible”
(Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce
Reichenbach and David Basinger. 1998. Reason
and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the
Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford
University Press, p.53).
Preliminary remarks about
Philosophy of Religion
• Note that the likes of Descartes, Locke,
Russell and Clifford are Strong Rationalists.
• Soren Kierkegaard was famously a Fideist.
• A growing number of contemporary
religious or theistic philosophers are critical
rationalists.
The Ontological Argument for the
existence of God
• The Ontological Argument for the existence of God
is, perhaps, the strangest of the family of traditional
arguments for the existence of God that we will be
examining.
• It typically moves from a conception of God to that
God’s necessary existence.
• It typically involves an argument form known as a
Reductio ad Absurdum (or Argument from
Absurdity).
• It promises, if successful, to yield a relatively rich
view of the nature of God.
The Ontological Argument for
the existence of God
• Descartes himself suggests an Ontological
Argument for the existence of God in the
“Third Meditation” or “Fifth Meditation”
(i.e. depends on how you interpret
Descartes in the “Third Meditation”).
• The most famous of this argument type in
the Western literature is Anselm’s argument.
Anselm
• He was born in 1033 and died in 1109 C.E.
• He was a devote Benedictine Monk.
• He is often credited with being the first
thinker in the Western Canon to develop the
Ontological Argument.
• This argument is designed to yield a priori
knowledge that God exists.
Reductio
Imagine a set of premises; P1, P2, P3 ... PN.
Imagine further that these premises are true. To
create a reductio, suppose another proposition to be
true. If such a supposition, in conjunction with the
original premises, generates a contradiction (using
valid rules of deductive inference), you then have
good reason to believe that it is false. If the
supposition is false, its negation must be true. From
the generation of this contradiction, then, you can
conclude that the negation of the supposition is true.
Reductio
• The idea is this. Contradictions are statements that
cannot be true (e.g. ‘God exists and God does not
exist’). If, by supposing the truth of a statement and
using sound rules of deductive inference you can derive
a contradiction, then the statement you supposed must
be false. This is because sound rules of deductive
inference will preserve the truth of the statements in an
argument as you move from premises to conclusion.So
if they preserve the truth of the premises, but the
conclusion of the argument is false (contradictions are
false), then one of more of the premises had to be false.
Anselm: Distinctions
Object in the understanding: An object is said to
exist in the understanding exactly when it exists as a
mental object - something towards which a thought
(broadly construed) can be directed. Anselm
believes that God can be such an object.
Object in reality: An object exists in reality exactly
when it exists in the actual world, our world (broadly
construed).
An object may exist in the understanding but not in
reality, and exist in reality but not in the
understanding (see FP, p.21).
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(1) Suppose that than which nothing greater can be
conceived exists in the understanding alone.
(2) That which can conceivably exist in the
understanding, can conceivably exist in reality.
(3) It is conceivable that that than which nothing
greater can be conceived exists in reality.
(4) That which can conceivably exist in the
understanding and in reality is greater than that
which can conceivably exist in the understanding
alone.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(5) So, from (1) through (4), it is conceivable
that there exists a being which is greater than
that than which nothing greater can be
conceived.
(6) But this is contradictory.
(7) So, it is false that that than which nothing
greater can be conceived exists in the
understanding alone.
(8) So, that than which nothing greater can be
conceived must also exist in reality (FP, p.25).
A second possible argument in the
reading
(1) Suppose that it is conceivable that that than
which nothing greater can be conceived does not
exist.
(2) It is possible to conceive of a being which
cannot not exist.
(3) That which cannot conceivably not exist is
greater than that which can conceivably not
exist.
(4) So, one can conceive of a being which is
greater than that than which nothing greater can
be conceived.
A second possible argument in the
reading
(5) But this is contradictory.
(6) So, it is false that it is conceivable that that than
which nothing greater can be conceived does not
exist.
(7) So, that than which nothing greater can be
conceived cannot conceivably not exist.
(8) That which cannot conceivably not exist must
exist.
(9) So, that than which nothing greater can be
conceived exists (FP, p.25).
A second possible argument in
the reading
• “No one, indeed, understanding what God is
can think that God does not exist, even
though he may say these words in his heart
either without any [objective] signification
or with some peculiar signification” (FP,
p.25).
• What do you think?
A second possible argument in
the reading
• Some questions that fall out this discussion:
• (1) Should we grant that it is possible that
God does exist? What if the concept of God
is incoherent?
• (2) What if we deny that God exists based
on, say, the problem of evil? Wouldn’t that
entail, given the form of this argument that
it isn’t possible that God exists?
Comments about the first
assignment
(1) Don’t take my criticisms personally.
(2) Do look over the comments.
(3) If you don’t agree with the grade come
and see me and we can talk about it.
(4) Remember to submit your papers to
Turnitin.com. If you don’t, or forget to do
so, you won’t receive an official grade for
your assignment.
Comments about the first assignment
Common problems:
(1) Don’t use more than one direct quote.
(2) Don’t use gender exclusive language. This is
Department policy.
(3) Take care to properly footnote or cite your
sources. If you get your ideas from anyone, they
have to be acknowledged.
(4) Proof read your work before you submit it. I can
only go on what you write. If it’s unclear it will
adversely affect your grade.
Comments about the first assignment
(5) Take care not to make claims you don’t defend.
Remember that nothing should be taken as obvious.
(6) Take care to get the philosopher right on whom
you are focusing.
(7) Take care not to make any fallacious moves.
(8) Take care not to contradict yourself.
(9) Fight the urge to include material that is
irrelevant to the discussion at hand.