metaphysics bits

omnibenevolence

characteristics are personal, metaphysical, ethical

god’s goodness is understood in terms of his love and mercy for us which is seen in scripture where he provides rules and guidance to help us live well

god’s goodness is understood in its metaphysical sense as a perfection of God, as a property

God’s goodness is understood in terms of his providing a moral standard of behaviour for us to follow, in this sense it guides human action

euthyphro dilemma aim

first offered by Plato, to show the concept of supreme goodness is incoherent and therefore theism is untenable, asks whether moral goodness is a property independent of god or one which is dependent on him

god as eternal

is outside of time, does not experience temporal succession i.e. does not experience the birth of caesar before he experiences the birth of hitler, experiences life as one eternal present, has life

god as everlasting

located in physical time but exists at all points in physical time, has limitless duration, experiences temporal succession

euythphro dilemma

does god command moral actions because they are morally right, or are moral actions morally right because god commands them? either a) god commands an action such as love others because it is morally good, or b) an action such as love others is morally good because god commands it

if a is true, moral goodness is independent of god and outside his control which limits his sovereignty because he is bound something external to himself (the moral law), if b is true then morality is arbitrary so if god decided to command murder then it would be morally good and therefore god is not essentially morally good

compatibility issue logical form (god and free will)

1) if god is omniscient he must have foreknowledge

2) in order to be free, humans must have libertarian free will

3) if god knows future propositions, then these propositions were already true in the past

4) the past cant now be changed: it is now necessary

5) therefore the only option i can now take is the one that god knew in the past

6) if i only have one option i do not have libertarian free will

7) therefore i am not free

qualia

'intrinsic and non-intentional phenomenal properties that are introspectively accessible'

phenomenal property

property of an experience that gives it a certain subjective quality, apprehended in consciousness. some philosophers use the term ‘qualia’ to refer to these properties. eg the taste of honey.

intentional property

property of being about something. When I think, I am always thinking about something. My thoughts are directed towards an object of my cognition. This object is not necessarily a physical thing in the world; it could be a mental entity. For example, I could think about Sherlock Holmes

features of mental states

All or at least some mental states have phenomenal properties

• Some, but not all, philosophers use the term 'qualia' to refer to these properties

• All or at least some mental states have intentional properties (ie intentionality).

physicalism

Physicalists believe that everything is physical or supervenes upon the physical (this includes properties, events, objects and any substance(s) that exist).

hard philosophical behaviourism claim

all propositions about mental states can be reduced without loss of meaning to propositions that exclusively use the language of physics to talk about bodily states/movements

carl hempel

soft philosophical behaviourism claim

propositions about mental states are reducible to statements about behavioural dispositions ie use ordinary language in certain circumstances

gilbert ryle

eliminative materialism claim

some or all common-sense (“folk-psychological”) mental states/properties do not exist and our common-sense understanding is radically mistaken (as defended by Patricia Churchland and Paul Churchland)

argues that many central mental concepts (belief, desire, pain):

1. do not refer to anything real

2. are in fact actively misleading

3. should be abandoned

folk psychology

an empirical theory which refers to the everyday psychological concepts and explanations of behaviour we use. For example, he ran away because he was scared.

category mistake meaning

when we use a concept as though it refers to something in a completely different logical category to the concept

eg a foreigner is shown around a University. He sees a quad, a series of lecture theatres, a library, students etc. At the end of his tour he says, “that’s all very well, but where was the University?”​

ryle view of the mind (category mistake objection)

To say that somebody has a mind is to say they have the disposition to behave in certain ways in certain situations. If you want to see thinking, you will see a person frowning, scratching their head, pacing etc

ontological args

aim to establish that god exists by reflecting on his nature, based on reason alone, all versions use a deductive arg form and use premises which are known a priori

kant objection to ontological args

argues that existence is not a predicate, descartes treats the proposition ‘god exists’ as an analytic truth which can therefore be known a priori, kant defines an analytic truth as one in which the predicate is contained in the subject and therefore clarifies what the concept is, but kant argues the proposition god exists cannot be thought of in this way because exists does not function logically as a predicate, it does not clarify what the concept god means, therefore because existence does not function logically as a predicate does in an analytic truth, the arg fails

descartes ontological arg explanation

descartes thinks that when he attends to the definition of god as a supremely perfect being more closely it is clear that these qualities entail that there is no point at which god does not exist, this is because if god is omnipotent and eternal it follows that he must have the property of self existence

from premise 1 it follows that god has necessary existence (he cannot not exist because there is no time at which he does not exist), and if this is the case then it follows that god exists because if god always exists then it is contradictory to say that he does not exist

unique case objection to design arg from analogy logical form

my knowledge that one event is caused by another is established by induction but this type of inference is not possible in the case of the universe because it is unique

1. we can only infer that one thing causes another if we have observed that they are constantly conjoined

2. we have not observed examples of worlds being designed by god

3. therefore we cannot infer that the cause of design in the world is god

why god not only explanation for design objection to design args

the cause of adjustment of means to ends could be something other than a designer, for example the epicurean hypothesis ie even if the universe started out in chaos it is possible that it may settle by itself and order will come out of it, it does not need to be plausible only possible and because it is we cannot say that god must be responsible for design in the universe

spatial disorder objection to design args

the natural world contains features which suggest it is not well ordered/adjusted which suggest that the designer cannot be omnipotent omniscience and perfectly good because we would expect such a being to have designed a world without such defects eg sentient beings experiencing unnecessary pain, could be adjustments to avoid suffering, natural forces going beyond their utility, advantages handed out too frugally

swinburne design arg logical form

1) there are ultimate temporal regularities in the universe such as the laws of gravity etc

2) these ultimate temporal regularities require an explanation - they are not ‘brute facts’

3) the explanation for them cannot be a scientific explanation

4) the ultimate temporal regularities resemble other temporal regularities such as the notes of a song or the movements of a dance

5) regularities such as the notes of a song/movements of a dance are caused by something independent of the laws of nature ie free rational agency

6) therefore the best explanation for the regular causal laws of nature is a supremely powerful free rational being

7) therefore god exists

zombie arg logical form

1. According to physicalism, all that exists in our world (including consciousness) is physical.​

2.If physicalism is true, then in any metaphysically possible world which contains all the same physical facts in our world, consciousness would exist (because consciousness supervenes on physical facts).

3. In fact we can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world). ​

4. From this it follows that such a world is metaphysically possible.​

Therefore, (5) physicalism is false​

functionalism view

all mental states can be characterised in terms of functional roles, which can be multiply realised

philosophical zombies not conceivable issue

Dennett argues that we the zombie argument is like asking us to conceive of a person who has the exact same physical properties as a healthy person, but somehow lacks the property of being healthy. But health is exactly the possession of those physical properties, and nothing else.

A zombie world is only really conceivable if you think of consciousness as being something separate from physical processes – and that begs the question in Dualism’s favour.​

philosophical zombies not telling us about real world issue

the physicalist could respond that all Chalmers has proven is that a zombie world exists: he has shown that it is logically possible for phenomenal properties of consciousness not to supervene on physical facts.

However, all the physicalist needs to argue is that consciousness as a matter of fact, contingently supervenes on physical facts in this world.

mary arg applied to functionalism

Mary knows all the physical and functional facts about the mental state of seeing red

But when she leaves the black and white room for the first time and sees red she learns something new about the mental state of seeing red

So, there is more to the mental state of seeing red than simply the physical and functional facts

So, functionalism is wrong – there is more to mental states than their function

category mistake applied to property dualism

the behaviourist could argue the concept of a mental property is a category mistake, the qualia of what it is like to see a rose is reducible to the things I might do when I see a rose (smiling, gasping in appreciation etc)

Eg when Mary leaves the room, she does not gain any new factual piece of knowledge. Instead, she behaves in a certain way in a certain situation. And it is her behaviour that is new, not any piece of knowledge.

teleological/design args

begin with the observation that the world has certain features suggestive of design and then infer from this that a mind or something intelligent was responsible for designing it, this feature is some kind of order or regularity which is either the regular causal laws of the universe or parts are ordered to achieve a purpose

design arg from analogy

aim to establish that god exists by arguing that the world resembles human designed objects in an important way, because the cause of this in manmade objects is a designer the cause of it in natural objects is also a designer

design arg from spatial order/purpose

use the fact that we observe some things in nature which are compromised of parts which are ordered spatially in such a way that they achieve a purpose, this spatial order must have been produced by an intelligent mind therefore god exists

design arg from temporal order/regularity

use the fact the universe is governed by a simple set of regular laws, the ‘order’ is regularity, and the regularity is a striking feature of the universe which requires explanation and the best explanation for this is a personal being ie God

inductive vs deductive args for god

ontological args use deductive arg form, design args are inductive eg swinburne’s

atemporal vs temporal causation cosmo args

temporal claim that the fact the universe had a beginning in time requires explanation and the only possible explanation for this is the existence of god eg kalam arg

atemporal not about events in time but things coming into existence/being caused to exist eg aquinas second way which uses the fact that entities are brought into existence to argue that god is the only possible explanation for this

causal principle

claim that the universe itself or the entities in it require a cause of their existence

aquinas third way logical form

1) In the natural (physical) world we find things which are contingent.

2) At ‘one time’ it was possible that nothing existed – this is because if there is nothing in the world that always exists, there is no reason why something should always exist rather than nothing.

3) If there were no contingent entities in existence in the world then no entities could come into existence because there would be nothing to bring them into existence.

4) Therefore there would be nothing in existence now.

5) However there are things in existence now.

6) Therefore there must be a being who is necessary who brings all contingent things into existence.

7) Therefore there must be a being who is necessary in himself.

8) Therefore God exists.

leibniz cosmo arg logical form

1) the world is a totality of contingent things/contingent facts

2) there must be a reason why this set of contingent things exist/this set of contingent facts are true rather than not

3) the reason/explanation cannot be found in the aggregate of the individual explanations/reasons for the totality of contingent beings/facts because this would not be a complete explanation

4) the explanation for the set of contingent truths must lie outisde of the world

5) there must be being who is not contingent i.e. who is necessary who provides this explanation

6) therefore god exists

hume objection to causal principle relation of ideas

the only things that are certain are relations of ideas, there are only five relations between ideas such as resemblance and contrariety, none of these relations apply to the causal principle and therefore the onus is on the person who claims otherwise to identify a necessary relation between existing entities and a cause of their existence

hume objection to causal arg inconsistent

people who accept principle are inconsistent, claims that the physical object requires a cause of its existence but assume the existence of time and place, both of which are required for it to come into existence, hume sys that this means that they do accept that there is something that does not require a cause of its existence

hume objection to causal arg separation

it is possible to separate a particular effect from its cause, we know this because it is possible for us to conceive of an effect existing without its cause and therefore it cannot be necessary for a particular effect to have a cause

fallacy of composition cosmo args effected

aquinas’ second way because he claims that because the entities in the universe have a cause of their existence, the totality of entities also requires a cuase of its existence

lebniz’s version because he claims that because the world is made up of contingent things/facts the world in its totality is contingent

impossibility of a necessary being objection to cosmo args

there can be no such thing as a necessary being because hume says something can only be necessary if its denial involves a contradiction but god does not exist is not a contradiction, so the proposition there is a necessary being cannot be a piece of knowledge, russell says the term necessary can only apply to propositions not to beings

effects contingency args, aquinas third and leibniz arg because both of these versions argue that because the entities in the universe are contingent there must be a being who is necessary otherwise they woudln’t exist

kalam understanding of infinite regress

wants to show universe has a beginning in time so will have determinant for its existence

so has to show universe is not eternal ie there is no backwardly infinite series of temporal events, Al Ghalzali invoked the Aristotelian claim that an actual infinite is a contradiction, is not possible for there to be an infinite series which is complete/has an end to it because an infinite series has no end.

if the universe were eternal, we would have already have passed through an infinite amount of time (the past history of the world would be infinite) but an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed because it is infinite.

possibility of infinite regress

an actual infinite is possible in the form of an infinite set which would mean that Al Ghazali’s justification for the universe having a beginning is untrue.

In the early 20th century the mathematician Georg Cantor claimed that there are infinite sets, some of which are countable (such as the set of natural numbers) i.e. put into a list of infinite length and some of which are uncountable (e.g. the set of real numbers). These are examples of actual infinites and therefore an actual infinite is possible

aquinas understanding of infinite regress

if there were an infinite regress of change/causes then we could not explain the subsequent members of the series because nothing would be responsible for them,

sees infinite series as a very long series with a first member, which, if removed would lead to there being no cause of the whole series

possibility of infinite series objection to aquinas cosmo args

Aquinas misunderstands the notion of an infinite series, if his view were true, then this would contradict the need for a First Cause and leave us with the problem of explaining the subsequent causes

Clearly, however, in a genuine infinite series this supposed ‘first cause’ could neither be identified or removed from the series and therefore there is no issue with explaining the ‘subsequent’ members of the series

logical positivism

claims a proposition is meaningful if we can specify a set of conditions in which we know it to be true eg the verification principle

challenges the cognitive status of religious language ie claims that religious statements such as ‘god exists’ do not make truth claims and are therefore meaningless

falsification principle

claims that a proposition is only cognitive and therefore meaningful if there is a possible state of affairs which will falsify it, doesnt mean the proposition in fact needs to be proved false only that it must be possible to identify what would make it false

bliks

cant falsify bliks, are mindsets which express our attitudes about the world and make a difference to our life, they are things that matter to us

logical problem of evil

by john mackie, one of consistency ie that the theist accepts a set of inconsistent or contradictory beliefs god is omnipotent, god is wholly good, evil exists (not themselves inconsistent but will be if ‘quasi logical rules’ are added connecting the terms ‘good’, ‘evil’ and ‘omnipotent’, these would be ‘there are no limits to what an omnipotent god can do’ and ‘an omnibenevolent god would prevent evil as far as he can’)

and therefore that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist, belief in the god of theism is suggested to be irrational

evidential problem of evil

by william rowe, the existence of certain types and amounts of evil ie are instances of suffering which an omnipotent and omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or preventing some evil equally bad or worse, which makes it probable that the theist god does not exist and/or they provide the atheist with rational support for her view that god does not exist

eg a fawn trapped in a forest fire that is horribly burned for several days before death relieves its suffering, this type of evil is such that we can see no reason for it in terms of producing a greater good, doesnt prove there isnt a greater reason but gives us good rational grounds for thinking it and provides evidence for atheism