PHI 2010 Exam 1

Philosophy

Is a rational inquiry that seeks to explore fundamental questions about the nature of reality

Philosophy vs. Religion

Both seek to answer fundamental questions on the nature of reality BUT religion relies on evidence based in faith whilst philosophy relies on rationality.

Philosophy vs. Science

Both seek to answer fundamental question on the nature of reality BUT science relies on empirical evidence whilst philosophers rely on armchair reasoning

Armchair Reasoning

The process of forming opinions, theories, or conclusions through logic and pure thought without gathering real-world data or having direct experience

Argument

A set of propositions, or statements, one of which (the conclusion) is said to be true on the basis of the others (the premises)

Deductive Argument

An argument which claims to definitively prove or demonstrate its conclusion. In this argument, the conclusion is necessarily true, and follow from the truth of the premises.

Validity

Proves a deductive argument. If a deductive argument is this, then it is impossible for the premises of the argument to be true and the conclusion false

Soundness

Proves a deductive argument. If a deductive argument is valid and it contains true premises, then it is this.

Inductive

An argument that claims that its conclusion is likely true based on the strength of its premises. These arguments deal in probability rather than necessity.

Strength

An inductive argument is rated in terms of this based on how likely the conclusion is to be true on the basis of the premises

Problem of Induction

A philosophical question that challenges whether our reasoning from past observations to future or unobserved events is logically justified.

Bandwagon Fallacy

A fallacy in which the speaker argues that because a large number of people believe a claim, it must be true

Appeal to Authority

Relies on the prestige or status of the person making the argument, rather than any proof

Strawman

A fallacy in which the speaker presents a misrepresented version of an argument’s claim and attacks that claim instead of the argument itself, thus creating the illusion of having refuted the argument.

Ad Hominem

A fallacy in which the speaker attacks some feature of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself

Slippery Slope

A fallacy in which the speaker starts with a (relatively) small action or event and claims that this will cause a chain of events leading to a far larger negative effect

Appeal to Pity

Relies on emotional manipulation, specifically sympathy or guilt, rather than reasoning or evidence

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Argues that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second

3 Characteristics of God

Omnipotent (all-powerful), Omniscient (all-knowing), Omnibenevolent (all-good)

Ontological Arguments

Arguments that begin with a definition or conception of God and from this definition, conclude that God exists. God’s existence is proven “through reason alone”

Cosmological Arguments

Arguments that begin with an alleged fact or feature of the world and from this feature of the world, conclude that God exists. Can be thought of as a search for explanation of an existent thing

Teleological Arguments

Arguments that begin with the idea that things in the universe, or even the universe itself, seem to be intelligently designed.

Infinite Regress

An endless series of ideas, causes, or events where each step depends on the one before it without a final foundation

The Watchmaker Analogy

An analogical teleological argument by William Paley

1. complicated machines (like watches) are created by an intelligent designer

2. the universe resembles a complicated machine

Therefore, the universe was produced by an intelligent designer, i.e. God

The Analogical Teleological Argument

Because the universe and living things resemble human-made machines in their complexity and purpose, the universe must also have an intelligent designer, or God

Argument by Analogy

A form of reasoning that claims if two or more things are similar in specific wats, they are likely similar in another, unobserved way

Objections to the Analogical Teleological Argument

David Hume: leads us to a radically different conception of God

Charles Darwin: Evolution and natural selection

Problem of Evil Argument

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

2. An omnipotent being has the power to do anything

3. An omniscient being knows when evil exists

4. An omnibenevolent being always prevents evil, as far as it can

5. Evil exists

Therefore, God does not exist

2 Types of Evil

Moral Evil: Evil committed by human beings

Natural Evil: Evil that exists in the world that does not stem from moral agents

The Soul-Making Response

Argues that experiencing some evil is necessary to build or strengthen the soul and because of this, the universe is better than it would be with no, or even less, evil

• Attacks premise 4

The “Mysterious Ways” Response

Rests on the idea that “God works in mysterious ways” and argues that evil is part of God’s larger plan that we, due to our comparatively limited cognition, cannot understand.

• Attacks premise 4

The “Diminishing God” Response

Reduces one or more of God’s characteristics, typically omnipotence or omnibenevolence, thus “diminishing” God’s perfection

• Attacks premise 1

• An adequate response for Mackie

The Free Will Response

Evil exists in the world because God gave human beings free will, or a significant kind of control over your own actions and as free will is infinitely valuable for human beings, evil is thus the necessary cost of free will

• Attacks premise 4

Free Will

The power to control one’s choices and actions; we are the ultimate sources of our actions and our actions and choices are “up to us”

Determinism

Refers to the idea that everything that happens or will happen is, without exception, completely determined; we can think of this as resulting in a progression of events that can only unfold in one way

Surface vs. Deeper Freedoms

The everyday ability to act on your wants without external interference vs. having the ability to be the author and original source of those desires

The Garden of Forking Paths

We have the experience or belief of having alternative possibilities

The Argument for Hard Determinism

1. Determinism is true

2. Determinism does not allow for alternative possibilities

3. Free will requires that we have alternative possibilities for our actions or choices

4. Therefore, human beings do not have free will

5. Think: in a deterministic world, no one has the power to do otherwise

The Divine Foreknowledge Argument

1. Billions of years ago, an omniscient God predicted every human action

2. If we act in any way other than what God predicted, then God will have been mistaken

3. God cannot be mistaken

4. Therefore, we cannot act in any way other than what God predicted, i.c. there are no alternative possibilities

5. Free will requires alternative possibilities

Therefore, if there is an omniscient God, we do not have free will

Briefly explain the Analogical Teleological argument. What is one objection to this

argument? Explain.

The analogical teleological argument argues that God exists because the universe is like a complex machine, meaning there was a maker. One objection to this argument is that we have evolved over time and therefore, God did not make us as perfect, meaning he is not omnipotent and omniscient.

Briefly explain the Soul-Making response to the problem of evil. What is one objection to this response? Explain.

The soul making response attacks premise 4 of the problem of evil by arguing that some evil is necessary for the strengthening or making of a soul. One objection to this response is that there is some evil that isn’t soul-making, like the holocaust, which is just pure cruelty.

Briefly explain the “Mysterious Ways” response to the problem of evil. What is one

objection to this response? Explain.

The mysterious ways response to the problem of evil attacks premise 4 and argues that God works in mysterious ways that we could not understand as we are not omniscient. One objection to this response that there are many pointless evils in the world which take away from God being an omnibenevolent being.

Briefly explain the “Diminishing God” response to the problem of evil. What is one

objection to this response? Explain

The diminishing God response attacks premise one of the problem of evil and argues that evil reduces the idea of God’s perfect characteristics like omnibenevolence. One objection to this response is that this removes our separation from God.

Briefly explain the Free Will response to the problem of evil. What is one objection to this response? Explain.

The free will response attacks premise 4 of the problem of evil and argues that evil exists in the world because God gave human beings free will. One objection to this response is the idea of natural evils, as human have no control over natural evils so they could not possibly be the result of free will.