CHAPTER TWO - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 72
About This Presentation
Title:

CHAPTER TWO

Description:

CHAPTER TWO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Section A. Challenges to Religious Belief 1. The Irrationality of Believing in Miracles: David Hume 2. Religion as the Opium of ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:111
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 73
Provided by: NeilA76
Category:
Tags: chapter | two | hume

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CHAPTER TWO


1
CHAPTER TWO
  • THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

2
Section A. Challenges to Religious Belief
  • 1. The Irrationality of Believing in Miracles
    David Hume
  • 2. Religion as the Opium of the Masses Karl Marx
  • 3. The Death of God Friedrich Nietzsche

3
2.A.1. The Irrationality of Believing in
Miracles David Hume
  • Humes Thesis it is never reasonable to believe
    second hand reports concerning miracles

4
Reasons for not trusting testimonies
  • The opposition of contrary testimony when
    witnesses contradict each other
  • The character or number of the witnesses too few
    or of a doubtful character
  • The manner of delivering the testimony when
    delivered with bias, hesitation, violent
    declaration

5
Definition of a Miracle
  • General definition "a miracle is a violation of
    the laws of nature"
  • More accurate definition "a transgression of a
    law of nature by a particular volition of the
    deity, or by the interposition of some invisible
    agent"

6
Main argument against miracles
  • The evidence from experience in support of a law
    of nature is extremely strong.
  • A miracle is a violation of a law of nature.
  • Therefore, the evidence from experience against
    the occurrence of a miracle is extremely strong.

7
Four additional arguments against miracles
  • Witnesses lack Integrity
  • Predisposition to Sensationalize
  • Abound in Barbarous Nations
  • Miracles Support Rival Religious Systems

8
Closing quotation
  • "And whoever is moved by faith to assent to it
    i.e. belief in the Biblical miracles, is
    conscious of a continued miracle in his own
    person which subverts all the principles of his
    understanding and gives him a determination to
    believe what is most contrary to custom."

9
Two interpretations of closing quote
  • Friendly interpretation the miracles and
    prophecies in the Bible are not rational, and can
    only be believed through an act of divinely
    inspired faith
  • Unfriendly interpretation belief in miracles is
    so irrational that it requires miraculous
    stupidity on the part of the believer

10
2.A.2. Religion as the Opium of the Masses Karl
Marx
  • The Opium of the People Religion is created by
    people as a means of dealing with genuine
    suffering and oppression. b. Marxs Naturalism
  • Theologians often defend the concepts of God and
    religion with arguments about the first cause of
    the world Marx believes that these questions are
    misguided and prove nothing

11
2.A.3. The Death of God Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Parable of the madman announces the death of
    God, who civilization killed (i.e., outgrew)
    through advances.

12
The Consequences of the End of Religious Belief
  • The value system of religion is gone, and we have
    no fixed truth to rely on not even science,
    which is left over from belief in God

13
Religion, Science, Pessimism, and Need
  • People are reluctant to give up religion because
    of a certain need to believe and to rely on
    something. The instinct of weakness preserves
    religions, metaphysics, and other kinds of
    convictions

14
Section B. The Problem of Evil
  • 1. God and Human Suffering Fydor Dostoevsky
  • 2. The Logical Problem of Evil John L. Mackie
  • 3. The Logical Problem of Evil Challenged
    William Rowe
  • 4. A Soul-Making Theodicy John Hick

15
2.B.1. God and Human Suffering Fydor Dostoevsky
  • Thesis the suffering of innocent animals and
    children seems to serve no greater good, and we
    would expect God to prevent these things

16
2.B.2. The Logical Problem of Evil John L.
Mackie
  • Thesis belief in an all good and all powerful
    God is logically inconsistent with the fact of
    suffering in the world
  • The only adequate solutions to the problem are to
    deny Gods goodness, Gods power, or the
    existence of evil. However, theologians do not
    take this route.

17
Inadequate solution 1 Goodness cannot exist
without evil.
  • Mackie responds that evil may be necessary to
    recognize goodness, but evil is not ontologically
    necessary for goodness to exist.

18
Inadequate solution 2 The universe is better
with some evil in it
  • For example, without poverty (a first-order evil)
    there would be no charity (a second-order good).
  • Mackie responds that first-order evils like
    poverty will also allow for second-order evils,
    such as malevolence

19
Inadequate solution 3 Free will defense
  • Evil is the result of free human choice, for
    which God bears no responsibility.
  • Mackie responds that God could have created a
    world containing free creatures that always
    freely chose to do good..

20
2.B.3. The Logical Problem of Evil Challenged
William Rowe
  • Thesis the presence of suffering is not
    logically inconsistent with the existence of an
    all good and powerful God

21
Logical contradiction vs. inconsistency
  • Logical contradiction asserting a particular
    statement and its negation at the same time
  • Logical inconsistency two statements lead to a
    contradiction, but are not explicitly
    contradictory themselves

22
A third statement is needed to generate a
contradiction
  • Mackie suggests A good omnipotent thing
    eliminates evil completely, but Rowe argues that
    this statement is not necessarily true
  • Alternative statement A good, omnipotent,
    omniscient being prevents the occurrence of any
    evil that is not logically necessary for the
    occurrence of a good which outweighs it Rowe
    maintains that this statement is true, but it
    will not generate a contradiction

23
2.B.4. A Soul-Making Theodicy John Hick
  • Thesis human creation is a developmental process
    during which time we evolve to eventually become
    a more perfect likeness of God suffering is part
    of the process

24
Irenaeus human creation involves a two step
process
  • We are created in the image of God.
  • After much development, become re-created in the
    likeness of God.

25
Section C. Mysticism and Religious Experience
  • 1. Hindu Mysticism
  • 2. The Limited Authority of Mystical Experiences
    William James
  • 3. The Untrustworthiness of Mystical Experiences
    Bertrand Russell
  • 4. The Trustworthiness of Religious Experiences
    Richard Swinburne

26
Background
  • Mystical experiences are a kind of religious
    experience that specifically involves a sense of
    union with God
  • Unanimity thesis there is a presumption in favor
    of the reliability of mystical experiences
    because mystics in different religions generally
    report the same thing (i.e., a unity of all
    things)

27
2.C.2. Hindu Mysticism
  • Experiencing the Self-God (Atman Brahman), the
    ultimate reality of all things that lies at the
    core of identities
  • Yoga Sutra describes an eight-step meditative
    process that lead to this mystical experience
    appetitive restraint, social observance, bodily
    postures, breath regulation, suppression of the
    senses, focus, even awareness, and meditative
    union

28
2.C.3. The Limited Authority of Mystical
Experiences William James
  • Thesis the claims of various mystics and
    concluded that they may be justly authoritative
    for the mystic having the experience, but they
    have no authority over the nonmystic

29
James defends three points
  • Mystical states are authoritative for the mystic
    because they are directly perceived in a way
    similar to the way our senses perceive the world
    around us
  • No authority emanates from them which should
    make it a duty for those who stand outside of
    them to accept their revelations uncritically
  • Mystical experiences show that our normal
    consciousness of the world is only one type of
    consciousness that human beings are capable of

30
2.C.4. The Untrustworthiness of Mystical
Experiences Bertrand Russell
  • Thesis mystical claims about the world are
    untrustworthy because they require abnormal
    physical states

31
Three common points in reports of mystical
experiences
  • the unity of the world,
  • the illusory nature of evil
  • the unreality of time

32
Mysticism the bad and the good
  • In spite of the unanimity of reports of mystical
    experiences, Russell argues that they should be
    dismissed because they require abnormal bodily
    states
  • There may be some psychological benefits to
    moderate mystical experiences, particularly as it
    gives the sense of Breadth and calm and
    profundity

33
2.C.5. The Trustworthiness of Religious
Experiences Richard Swinburne
  • C.D. Broads thesis abnormal physical states are
    needed to tap into the reality beyond our
    ordinary perceptions
  • Swinburnes thesis mystical experiences are
    trustworthy since they fulfill the general
    criterion of trustworthiness that we all adopt

34
Principle of credulity (i.e., trustworthiness)
  • if we perceive that an object is there, then it
    probably really is there, unless there are
    special reasons to think otherwise

35
Uniform past experience
  • Critics of mystical experience argue that, for a
    report to be trustworthy, there must be
    uniformity in past experiences.
  • Swinburne replies that uniform past experience
    isnt required for trustworthiness, since
    uniformity relies on induction, which is flawed.
    That is, when demonstrating that past experiences
    are similar, we ultimately rely on our memories
    to prove the reliability of our memories.

36
Section D. The Ontological Argument for Gods
Existence
  • 1. Anselms Proofs
  • 2. Against the Ontological Argument Gaunilo,
    Aquinas and Kant

37
2.D.1. Anselms Proofs
  • Thesis the greatest conceivable being must
    exist since existence is a greater quality than
    nonexistence.

38
First proof shows that God exists
  • (1) We have the concept of God, and in that sense
    God exists in the understanding.
  • (2) The concept of God is the concept of the
    greatest conceivable being.
  • (3) Real existence is greater than mere existence
    in the understanding.
  • (4) Therefore, God must exist in reality, not
    just in the understanding.

39
Second proof shows that God exists necessarily
  • (1) We have the concept of God, and in that sense
    God exists in the understanding.
  • (2) The concept of God is the concept of the
    greatest conceivable being.
  • (3) Necessary existence is greater than mere
    contingent.
  • (4) Therefore, God must exist necessarily, not
    just contingently.

40
2.D.2. Criticisms
  • a. Gaunilo ontological-type arguments could
    prove the existence of almost anything, such as
    the greatest possible island.
  • b. Aquinas although existence is part of the
    notion of God, it is possible to deny that there
    is any such essence.
  • c. Kant Anselm misuses the notion of existence
    when asserting that the greatest conceivable
    being exists in reality by treating it as an
    ordinary predicate on the same level as red.

41
Section E. The Cosmological Argument for Gods
Existence
  • Aquinass Proofs
  • Clarkes Proof and Humes Criticisms

42
Background
  • Muslim version of argument the chain of causal
    connections in the world cannot go back through
    time forever there must be some first cause to
    the series, and this cause is God
  • Criticism it is logically possible for causal
    chains to go back through time forever

43
2.E.1. Aquinass Proofs.
  • Thesis an infinite chain of simultaneous causes
    is impossible, and such a sequence of causes must
    terminate in God.

44
Two kinds of causes.
  • Accidental causes (causes per accidens) causes
    that occur through time (e.g., Abraham begetting
    Isaac, who begat Jacob).
  • Essential causes (causes per se) causes that
    occur simultaneously (e.g., a hand moving a stick
    moving a stone).

45
Proof from efficient cause.
  • (1) Some things exist and their existence is
    caused.
  • (2) Whatever is caused to exist is caused to
    exist by something else.
  • (3) An infinite series of simultaneous causes
    resulting in the existence of a particular thing
    is impossible.
  • (4) Therefore, there is a first cause of whatever
    exists.

46
2.E.2. Clarkes Proof and Humes Criticisms.
  • Clarkes thesis God is needed as an explanation
    for the fact that the entire infinite series of
    causes exists at all.

47
Clarkes proof.
  • (1) The world contains an infinite sequence of
    contingent facts.
  • (2) An explanation is needed as to the origin of
    this whole infinite series, (which goes beyond an
    explanation of each member in the series).
  • (3) The explanation of this whole series cannot
    reside in the series itself, since the very fact
    of its existence would still need an explanation
    (principle of sufficient reason).
  • (4) Therefore, there is a necessary being which
    produced this infinite series (and which is the
    complete explanation of its own existence as
    well).

48
Humes criticisms.
  • General problem with a priori arguments a priori
    arguments fail because the are based solely on
    conceptual notions (such as an infinite sequence
    of dependent beings) without focusing on things
    that we actually experience.
  • The material universe itself might be the
    necessarily existent being that the
    cosmological argument attempts to demonstrate.
  • The existence of the entire series of dependent
    beings is fully explained by the existence of
    each dependent being in the series.

49
Section F. The Design Argument for Gods Existence
  • 1. Against the Design Argument David Hume
  • 2. The Design Argument Revisited William Paley
  • 3. Evolution and the Design Argument Charles
    Darwin
  • 4. The Fine Tuning Argument Robin Collins

50
Argument from analogy.
  • (1) Machines (which have orderly and purposeful
    arrangements of parts) are the products of
    intelligent design.
  • (2) The universe resembles a machine (insofar as
    it has an orderly and purposeful arrangement of
    parts).
  • (3) Therefore, the universe is the product of
    intelligent design.

51
2.F.1. Against the Design Argument David Hume.
  • Thesis the design argument fails because the
    analogy between machines and the universe is very
    weak.

52
Three main criticisms.
  • The universe does not sufficiently resemble human
    machines, and thus the analogy falls apart.
  • Even if parts of the universe exhibit some
    design, this does not entitle us to say that the
    whole universe was created by God.
  • Even if parts of the universe exhibit design, we
    cannot justly conclude that the designer was a
    single, all powerful, all intelligent and good
    being.

53
2.F.2. The Design Argument Revisited William
Paley
  • a. Thesis the analogy between the universe and
    objects of human design is strong enough for us
    to infer the existence of a supremely intelligent
    designer.

54
2.F.3. Evolution and the Design Argument Charles
Darwin.
  • a. Thesis evolution offers an alternative and
    naturalistic explanation of the origin of
    apparent design in the world.

55
Two main principles of evolution
  • Naturally occurring random mutations in
    organisms
  • Organisms compete for survival, and those with
    the most advantageous mutations are likely to
    survive.

56
No role for God
  • The evolutionary mechanism itself is not the
    product of divine design there is no inherent
    design to simple random variations in biology, in
    spite of the spectacular things that the process
    of natural selection can make of them.
  • God may have foreseen the evolutionary outcomes
    of random variations in biology, but this does
    not mean that God intentionally ordered those
    evolutionary outcomes.

57
2.F.4. The Fine Tuning Argument Robin Collins
  • Thesis the physical conditions that make life
    possible on earth are extraordinarily delicate,
    and their occurrence is more probable under a
    theistic hypothesis than an atheistic one.
  • Example if the initial big bang as physicists
    describe it had differed in strength by only the
    tiniest fraction of a fraction, life on earth
    would have been impossible.

58
Main argument.
  • (1) The existence of the fine-tuning is not
    improbable under theism.
  • (2) The existence of the fine-tuning is very
    improbable under the atheistic single-universe
    hypothesis.
  • (3) Therefore, the fine-tuning data provides
    strong evidence in favor of the design hypothesis
    over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

59
Section G. Faith and Rationality.
  • 1. Waging on Belief in God Blaise Pascal
  • 2. The Will to Believe William James
  • 3. Can we Know God without Arguments Alvin
    Plantinga and Jay M. Van Hook

60
Two approaches
  • Fideism belief in Gods existence is largely or
    entirely a matter of faith rather than reason
    (e.g., Tertullian What does Athens have to do
    with Jerusalem?).
  • Religious rationalism belief in Gods existence
    can be supported through rational demonstration
    (e.g., Toland).

61
2.G.1. Waging on Belief in God Blaise Pascal.
  • Thesis reason is neutral on the question of
    Gods existence, and that our belief should be
    based on faith.

62
Pascals position
  • The wager when reason is neutral on the issue of
    Gods existence, the balance of positive and
    negative consequences of believing vs.
    disbelieving in God should compel us to move
    towards a faith-based belief in God.
  • Steps towards faith reduce our passions, and do
    all religious things as if you believed in them,
    e.g., in using holy water, in having masses
    said, etc..

63
2.G.2. The Will to Believe William James.
  • Thesis we have a right to believe in God based
    on our passions when reason is neutral and such
    belief constitutes a genuine option for us.

64
Types of options (or choices between two
hypotheses).
  • Living vs. dead (e.g., becoming Muslim is a dead
    option).
  • Forced vs. avoidable (e.g., choosing to go out
    with an umbrella or without one).
  • Momentous vs. trivial (e.g., going to the North
    Pole.
  • Genuine option living, forced, and momentous.

65
Two criticisms of Pascals wager
  • (1) the same argument applies to belief in other
    deities
  • (2) it is too cold and impersonal.

66
William Cliffords position
  • When reason is neutral on any matter (including
    belief in God), we should not believe on the
    basis of passions, but instead abstain from
    belief.

67
Friendship analogy
  • We must first make an assumption that someone is
    interested in our friendship, otherwise we would
    never have benefit of the friendship similarly,
    we must first believe in God, otherwise we would
    miss out on the possible benefits.

68
Religious belief and our passionate nature.
  • i. Two essential points of the basic religious
    hypothesis (1) the best things are the more
    eternal things (2) we are better off even now if
    we believe the first hypothesis.
  • ii. Religion is a genuine option it is obviously
    live and momentous it is forced since by
    abstaining we lose a possible good as if we chose
    not to believe.
  • iii. Rejection of the agnostic's position "a
    rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent
    me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if
    those kinds of truth were really there, would be
    an irrational rule".

69
2.G.3. Can we Know God without Arguments
  • Alvin Plantinga and Jay M. Van Hook.

70
Three positions.
  • Evidentialism questions of Gods existence must
    be subjected to rational scrutiny
  • Fideism (1) Gods existence cannot be rationally
    demonstrated, and (2) belief in God rests solely
    on personal faith, and not on reason
  • Reformed epistemology (1) Gods existence cannot
    be rationally demonstrated (2) Gods existence
    is a foundational belief

71
Plantingas thesis
  • Belief in God is properly basic that is, it is a
    foundational notion, not deduced from other
    principles, and we are rationally justified in
    holding to this belief without needing to offer
    any proof for it.

72
Van Hooks thesis
  • Belief in God is not a foundational belief for
    everyone, but is instead a conviction relative to
    ones peer group.
  • We should abandon the claim to know that God
    exists and be content to simply believe this.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com