Nature and The Human Person - Chapter 1 and 2

Mythology (Stories)

Using narrative, metaphor, and archetype to explain human origins and meaning.

Religion (Revelation)

Making sense of the world through divine disclosure, faith, and sacred texts.

Philosophy (Reason)

Using critical thinking, logic, and rational inquiry to understand reality.

Mythology vs. Philosophy

Myth relies on traditional storytelling and metaphor, while philosophy relies on logical argument and questioning.

Role of Revelation

Provides absolute moral frameworks and answers to existence through perceived divine communication.

Function of Worldviews

Providing structured lenses to help humans navigate existence, ethics, and their place in the universe.

Philosophy (Etymology)

Derives from the Greek words philia (love) and sophia (wisdom).

Philosophy

An attempt to develop a big-picture view of the universe with the help of reason.

First Element of Philosophy

To philosophize, we need to know more about arguments.

Second Element of Philosophy

Philosophy emerges as a response to persistent questioning.

Third Element of Philosophy

Doing philosophy is a social activity.

Fourth Element of Philosophy

It has a tendency to lead to a plurality of different answers.

Philosophical Questions

Open-ended questions that do not have one obvious or easily proven answer and require reasoning and critical thinking.

Meaning of Life

A classic example of a philosophical question that explores the purpose and significance of human existence.

Existence of God

A fundamental philosophical question regarding whether a supreme being exists.

Philosophy and Science Boundary

Not fixed; philosophical questions can become scientific ones once appropriate methodology is developed.

Is there life on Mars?

An example of a question that used to be philosophical but is now clearly a scientific question.

Science vs. Philosophy Answers

Science can provide more convergent answers, whereas philosophical questions often yield diverse responses.

Basis of Philosophical Disagreement

Different past experiences lead people to answer questions differently.

Five Main Branches of Philosophy

Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and logic.

Metaphysics

The study of clarifying how various entities are related to each other.

Epistemology

The study of knowledge; skeptics deny that we can know certain answers.

Ethics

Deals with questions of value and clarifies how people ought to act.

Aesthetics

The study of art and beauty, involving aesthetic experiences.

Logic

Clarifies how we can distinguish good arguments from bad ones.

What method of making sense of the world primarily relies on revelation?

A. mythology

B. religion

C. philosophy

D. science

B. religion

Methods of Religion and Philosophy

Philosophy uses reason and logic, while religion relies on revelation from God.

Are Religion and Philosophy at Odds?

Not necessarily, because they are both concerned with discovering truth despite using different methods.

Truths of Reason and Revelation

The truths discovered through reason can be identical with truths revealed through religion.

Relationship Between Reason and Revelation

They can complement each other rather than contradict each other.

logical consistency

reason demands that our big-picture view of the universe contain only claims that can be true together

Logical Possibility

In order to test conceptual claims, we need to explore all logical possibilities.

Definitions

In order to avoid ambiguities and vagueness, we need to develop precise definitions

Arguments

our assessment of philosophical theories requires that we understand the structure and types of arguments

What does it mean for two claims to be logically consistent?

They are logically consistent if it is possible for both claims to be true at the same time.

What does it mean for two claims to be logically inconsistent?

They are logically inconsistent if it is impossible for both claims to be true at the same time.

What is Claim A in the example?

"It is always morally wrong to take the life of a human being."

What is Claim B in the example?

"It is morally permissible to execute serious criminals."

Are Claims A and B logically consistent?

No. They are logically inconsistent because if executing a serious criminal is taking the life of a human being, then A says it is always wrong, while B says it can be morally permissible.

How do you determine whether two claims are logically consistent?

Ask: "Could both claims be true at the same time?" Yes -> logically consistent, No -> logically inconsistent

What is the key difference between logical consistency and inconsistency?

Consistency = possible for both to be true. Inconsistency = impossible for both to be true.

Give an example of two logically consistent claims.

A: "Exercise is good for your health." B: "Some people dislike exercising." Both can be true at the same time.

Give an example of two logically inconsistent claims.

A: "All humans are mortal." B: "At least one human is immortal." They cannot both be true in the same sense.

How can I quickly test logical consistency?

Ask whether the two claims could both be true at the same time. If yes, they are consistent. If no, they are inconsistent.

What makes Maria's four beliefs about God and Salvation logically inconsistent?

a: God loves all people

b. if God loves somebody, then God makes sure that the person will be saved

c. some people will go to hell

d. all people who go to hell are not saved by God

The contradiction: her beliefs commit her to two mutually exclusive conclusions.

Conclusion 1 (From A & B): All people will be saved

Conclusion 2 (From C & D): Some people will not be saved

The takeaway: A person cannot logically hold both conclusions to be true at the same time

contradiction

a sentence that both denies and asserts that something is the case

definiendum

The specific term or phrase that is being clarified or defined

context: before you can argue if two claims are logically consistent, you must first explicitly define the definiendum so everyone is using the same meaning

Why are claims (1) "it is always morally wrong to kill innocent person" and (2) "Abortion is morally acceptable" not immediately clear-cut in their consistency?

The core issue: their consistency depends entirely on the definition of a "person"

The question: only after establishing whether a fetus meets the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a "person" can you determine if these two claims contradict eachother

Necessary Condition

a requirement that must be true for a definition to apply. If this condition is missing, the thing cannot belong to that category.

What does it mean when conditions are jointly sufficent?

It means that when all the indiviual necessary conditions are met together, they are enough to fully define or guarantee something.

What are the three necessary conditions listed for an object to be a square?

1. They must have exactly four sides

2. It must be a closed figure lying in a plane

3. all of its sides must be of equal length