Philosophy of Religion Final Exam

Philosophy of Religion Final Exam Notes taken from Dr.Wilson

Divine Command Theory

“X is right (wrong) just because God commands (prohibits) X”

With this theory, if God does not exist, then nothing would be either right or wrong.

Euthyphro Dilemma

Is X good because God approves of it, or does God approve of X because it is good?

The first option is Divine Command Theory. On the first option, God cannot have a moral reason for God’s command what is right or wrong depends on God’s commands/attitudes.

The second option (God approves of X because it is good) assumes Objectivism and the falsity of Divine Command Theory.

R Adams Modified Divine Command Theory

He does not use it to explain all values, but just ethical rightness and wrongness.

His DCT defines right and wrong in terms of God’s commands, on the assumption that God is perfectly loving.

To say that God is good is just to 1) express gratitude/praise for God and 2) say that God has virtuous character traits.

Hick’s Soul-Making (Irenaean) Theodicy

Part of God’s goal is that we progress from “self-regarding animality to self-giving love.” (273)

We must be at an epistemic (knowledge) distance from God in order to freely come to know and love God.

It is better that we develop our moral characters ourselves, rather than simply being created with perfect moral characters. (268-9)

Free will is not necessarily good for its own sake, but a freely developed virtuous character is.

Problem Of Evil extra stuff

Ivan Karamazov – We should rebel against a God who would allow the suffering of one innocent person as a means to creating a paradise for everyone else.

Marilyn McCord Adams – God would ensure that each person’s life is overall a good for them, not just that their life contributes to some general greater good.

Problem of Evil, Anti-Theist Responses

Theism is proven to be false.

It is irrational to believe in theism.

Atheism is better supported by the evidence than is theism.

Atheists are justified in rejecting theism.

Problem of Evil, Theist Responses

The POE gives no evidence against theism.

The POE gives some evidence against theism, but it is not as strong as the atheist claims.

The POE does not make theistic belief irrational.

Given certain religious background beliefs, the POE does not make theistic belief irrational.

Swinburne Two Types of Evil

Moral Evil – Evil caused by human free actions.

Natural Evil – Evil not produced by human free actions. (This includes animal suffering, etc…)

2 Types of Evil Defense+ Theodicy

Defense – Tells a possible story that makes God’s existence compatible with the existence of evil.

Theodicy – Attempts to give a reason that actually explains why God allows evil.

Plantinga on Natural Evil

Perhaps natural evil is caused by the free actions of supernatural beings

Swinburne’s Free Will Theodicy

1.) Humans have morally significant freedom. (We have genuine responsibility for either helping or harming ourselves and others.)

2.) It is very good that the world contain creatures with morally significant freedom.

3.) God cannot give creatures morally significant freedom without allowing evils.

4.) The goodness of morally significant freedom outweighs the badness of the resulting evils.

5.) So, God is justified in permitting evil for the sake of morally significant freedom.

Natural evil is justified because it gives us opportunities to respond in good or bad ways. Swinburne uses the Parent/Child Analogy as a justification.

2 Versions of the Problem of Evil

Logical POE – The existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. (Mackie)

Greater Goods Defense: An omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible.

Free Will Defense: Human free will may be a good logically connected to evils. (Alvin Plantinga)

Evidential POE – The existence of evil is strong evidence against the existence of God. (Rowe)

Rowe’s Evidential POE

1.) God would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering that God can, unless by doing so some greater good would be lost, or an evil equally bad or worse would occur.

2.) Many instances of intense suffering occur.

3.) Probably, for many of these instances, their occurrence is not necessary for some greater good or the prevention of some equal or greater evil. (The fawn example)

4.) So, probably, there are instances of intense suffering that God would not allow.

5.) So, probably, God does not exist.

Draper’s Theism

Our world was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.

Draper’s Evidential Argument

The Hypothesis of Indifference = The cause of the world is indifferent to human/animal pain and pleasure. (This would cover Naturalism, morally indifferent Deism, etc.)

1.) The distribution of pain and pleasure in the world is better explained by the Hypothesis of Indifference than by Theism.

-Pain and pleasure have clear biological roles (survival and reproduction), but no clear moral roles.

2.) Theism is no more intrinsically likely that the Hypothesis of Indifference.

3.) So, given the distribution of pain and pleasure in the world, the Hypothesis of Indifference is more probable than Theism.

Cumulative Cases

A cumulate case for atheism, then, would argue that

1) the overall evidence favors atheism over theism and

2) theism is no more intrinsically probable than atheism,

3) atheism is more likely than theism.

Unfriendly and Friendly Atheism

Unfriendly Atheism – “no”

Friendly Atheism – “yes”

We could similarly define friendly and unfriendly versions of theism.

Mackie Problem of Evil

These three claims are logically incompatible:

God is omnipotent.

God is wholly good.

Evil exists.

-An adequate solution to the problem of evil is to give up one of the three claims.

“Fallacious Solutions”:

-Good cannot exist without its opposite, evil. -The existence of some evils is necessary for the existence of greater goods.- Evil exists because of human free will.

Worship Features

Beliefs (e.g. the greatness/superiority of the object of worship)

Emotional Attitudes (e.g. awe and reverence)

Relational Features (e.g. thankfulness toward, and dependence on, the object of worship)

A sense of the “otherness” of the object of worship

Uniqueness Thesis

There can be at most one appropriate object of worship.

Brian Leftow and Worship

Worship is a form of address, so a proper object of worship must be personal

Why do we worship?

1) The Prudential-Reasons Account: We are made better off if we worship God.

2) Creation-based Accounts: We owe God worship because God is our creator.

3) The Maximal-Excellence Account: We owe God worship because of what God is. God’s essential properties (maximal power, knowledge, goodness, etc.) ground the obligation to worship.

4) Could some combination of 1-3 be sufficient grounds for worship?

Problems with why we worship

Problems: Is creation enough to ground this obligation? Would we be obligated to worship a deistic God?

Would the obligation hold for someone who lives a horrible life?

If our obligation is to worship God because God has benefitted us, does this make worship too similar to mere thankfulness?

Do any of these properties individually ground the obligation? Since they come in degrees, would we have reasons to worship (but to a lesser extent) very powerful or good people?

Perhaps holiness explains why God is worship-worthy. But holiness is a difficult concept to understand, and often believers hold that other things besides God are holy.

Brody Responding to the Euthyphro Dilemma

God’s being our creator is part of our reason to follow God’s commands.

His claim is that God’s will gives us obligations we would not otherwise have.

Parent/Child Analogy: Do we have obligations to God analogous to those we owe our parents? (493)

Property-Rights Analogy: Is the world God’s property, since God is its creator?

Epicurus and Death

Epicurus – Death is annihilation, but it is not bad, or something to be feared.

Hedonism – The only kind of intrinsic good is the experience of pleasure; the only bad is experience of pain. At death, you no longer exist, you experience nothing, so there is nothing bad that can happen to you with death

Aristotle and Death

Aristotle – Pleasure and pain are not the only things that are good and bad, respectively. It is good that one live a full human life.

So premature death, or death after a long but bad life, would be bad. Even what happens after your death can be bad for you (e.g. if the terms of you will are ignored.)

Merwin and Life Meaning

Meaning is found directly in the moment

Bernard Williams and Eternal Life

An eternal afterlife would be tedious.

Tolstoy and the meaning of life

“Is there any meaning in my life that will not be destroyed by my death?”

Science cannot tell us what to value and reveals a world unconcerned with us.

Having previously rejected religious belief as irrational superstition, Tolstoy concludes that, although we cannot find meaning in life through reason, we find it through faith like that of ordinary believers (God)

Problem for Tolstoy – Eternal life is only an ever-expanding finite life. So, the meaning we find in any activity is always deferred (depending on whether we have eternal life). But why think meaning at a time is deferred in this way?

Zagzebski’s 3 Theories of Personal Identity

1.) Materialism – Identity is determined by sameness of body or organism.

2.) Soul Hypothesis – Identity is determined by sameness of immaterial soul.

3.) Psychological Continuity – Identity is determined by a chain of memory.

Plato, Aquinas, and Karma views on Afterlife

Plato – 1) A thing ceases to exist when it is broken up into parts. However, 2) the soul is simple and indivisible, unlike the body. So, 3) the soul cannot be destroyed; it is immortal.

Aquinas – Humans by nature have a desire for immortality (specifically, union with God), and God would not give us such a desire unless it could be satisfied.

Karma – If the universe contains a law of karma, there must be an afterlife (in this case, a reincarnation) for good/bad actions to be rewarded/punished.

Clifford

If a captain has doubts about his ship’s safety but sends it out anyways and people die, what does that mean?

It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. Any unjustified belief can negatively affect the whole.

Doxastic Voluntarism

We have voluntary control over our beliefs

James and why we believe

James – In many cases, it is not possible to control our beliefs. However, we should not think that our beliefs are typically formed just in response to evidence, by reason. Rather, beliefs are often formed by a “willing nature” – including factors such “fear and hope, prejudice and passion, imitation and partisanship.” (373)

James and Choice

A live hypothesis for a person is one that appears as a real possibility to them.

A forced choice between hypotheses is one that cannot be avoided. Whether to be a theist or an atheist is not forced, since one could be an agnostic. But whether to believe in God or not is forced.

A momentous choice is one that is unique, has significant stakes, and is not reversible.

Argument against Clifford

It may be bad to have beliefs that are not justified by the evidence, but it is also bad to forego true beliefs in order to avoid falsehood.

In cases of moral belief and personal relations, we should not withhold belief since those involve forced and momentous choices.

Religious belief involves a forced, momentous choice. If it is also a live option and is intellectually undecidable, then it is not wrong to choose on the basis of our passional nature (to take a leap of faith).

Stenmark’s 3 Models of Science & Religion Compatibility

1) The Irreconcilability Model – Science and Religion are in conflict and cannot be reconciled “God-of-the-Gaps” Argument

2.) The Independence Model – Science and Religion are not in conflict because they deal with completely different topics. Stephen Jay Gould – Science and Religion constitute “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA).

3.) The Contact Model – Science and Religion are concerned with different kinds of questions, but the ways of answering them sometimes overlap.

Stenmark – Religion is primarily concerned with questions of salvation and values, but also makes truth claims which may overlap with science.

Adams Traditional View of Hell

I) Some people go to hell.

II) There is no escape from hell.

III) Hell is a place of unending unhappiness.

IV) The damned deserve hell.

Problem of Hell

God’s nature as a perfectly good, loving and just being seems to be incompatible with the Traditional View of Hell.

Hell and Justice

Does God’s perfect justice require God to punish wrongdoers with eternal hell? This would require a theory of punishment as just retribution.

M. Adams – This argument requires justice to be understood as requiring treating similar cases similarly (fairness) and treating no one better or worse than they deserve.

Does anyone deserve Hell? Adams, Aquinas, Anselm

It seems we can only do a finite amount of harm to others, and a finite harm cannot justify an infinite punishment.

Adams – Even if we could do an infinite amount of harm, that would not make us deserve infinite punishment.

Aquinas – We could will infinite suffering on another, and this is as deserving of punishment as causing it.

Anselm – Any sin against a perfect being deserves infinite punishment.

Adams thinks the accounts of Aquinas & Anselm violate basic principles of justice.

Free will justification of Hell

God gives us the gift of free will. This includes the ability to freely reject God. Hell is not retributive punishment.

Walls & Kvanvig choosing Hell

Jerry Walls & Jonathan Kvanvig – Sinners in hell do not suffer extreme torment, but they lose their greatest good – union with God.

Universalism & Thomas Talbott’s view

Universalism – everyone (eventually) gets into heaven.

Thomas Talbott’s Universalist Argument:

1.) Either God wants no one to suffer eternally in hell or not.

2.) If not, then God is not perfectly loving (which is impossible.)

3.) So, God wants no one to suffer eternally in hell.

4.) If anyone suffers eternally in hell, then God’s plans are eternally frustrated (which is impossible.)

5.) So, no one suffers eternally in hell.

Annihilationism and Escapism

Annihilationism – Punishment in hell is finite. Eventually, God annihilates the damned from existence.

Escapism – Those in hell can freely choose to stop rejecting God and so leave hell.

Rowe’s evidential problem of evil argument

“Noseeum” argument:

1.) So far as we can tell, there is no reason that would justify God in permitting certain evils (or the amount of evil.)

2.) Probably, we would detect such a reason if there were one.

3.) So, probably, there is no reason that justifies God in permitting those evils.

Howard-Snyder and Bergmann challenge premise (2). We know of many types of goods (love, friendship, pleasure, virtue, freedom, etc.) But why think that we have an adequate grasp of all the goods there are? Why think we know all the logical connections between goods and evils?

Skeptical Theism

We do not have any reason to think that there are no goods beyond our knowledge that would justify God in permitting the evils we observe.

Problems: Too much skepticism? –Moral Skepticism?; Divine Deception?

Guy Kahane’s Axiology of Theism

Axiological (Value) Question – Would it be good if God exists? (Should we want God to exist?)

Metaphysical Question – Does God exist?

Prudential Question – Are we better off believing in God?

Pro-Theism – It would be (far) better if God exists than if God doesn’t.

Anti-Theism – It would be (far) better if God does not exist than if God does.

Global views and Personal Views

Global views: God’s existence would make things better/worse overall

Personal views: God’s existence would make things better/worse for me

Reasons for Pro Theism

Cosmic Justice: virtue is rewarded; vice punished.

Happy afterlife? Objective meaning? No gratuitous evil

Relationship with God

Value of the Greatest Possible Being

Reasons for Anti-Theism

Necessary moral subordination to a superior and lack of equality among rational beings. Lack of Privacy. No free will? Freedom and foreknowledge problem

Kahane – God’s existence would likely make things better overall, but may make some people’s lives worse, if values like privacy and independence are central to their sense of meaning.