Studied by 6 people
Philosophy
To approach and answer difficult questions, in an evidence-guided way.
What is evidence?
Reasons to believe a proposition
What is an argument?
A sequence of reasons supporting a conclusion
What is logic?
The patterns of goodness or badness of arguments
Two key concepts
Strength: do the premises (if true) support the conclusion?
Plausibility: are the premises plausibly true?
Is it self-evident that God exists?
It seems that ‘God exists’ is self-evidently true. For we say that things are self-evident to us when we know them by nature, as by nature we know first principles. But as Damascene observes when beginning his book, ‘the knowledge that God exists is implanted by nature in everybody’.1 So, ‘God exists’ is self-evidently true.
Can we demonstrate that God exists?
Moreover, a proposition is self-evident if we perceive its truth immediately upon perceiving the meaning of its terms – a characteristic of first principles of demonstration (according to Aristotle).2 For example, when we know what wholes and parts are, we know at once that wholes are always bigger than their parts. But once we understand the meaning of the word ‘God’, we immediately see that God exists. For the word means ‘that than which nothing greater can be signified’. So, since what exists in thought and fact is greater than what exists in thought alone, and since, once we understand the word ‘God’, he exists in thought, he must also exist in fact. It is, therefore, self-evident that God exists.
Does God exist?
Again, it is self-evident that truth exists, for even denying so would amount to admitting it. If there were no such thing as truth, it would be true that there is no truth. So, something is true and, therefore, there is truth. But God is truth itself: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ 3 So, it is self-evident that God exists. On the contrary, as Aristotle’s discussion of first principles makes clear, nobody can think the opposite of what it self-evident. 4 But we can think the opposite of the proposition ‘God exists.’ For ‘the fool’ in the Psalms ‘said in his heart: “There is no God.”’ 5 So, it is not self-evident that God exists.
Anselm: The ontological argument
The concept of god involves the idea that he is the greatest-most perfect-being possible.
A being who fails to exist in any possible world (including the actual world), is less perfect than one who lives in all possible worlds.
Therefore God exists in all possible worlds-hence in the actual world
Gaunilos response:
If Anselm's argument were a good one, the following relevantly similar argument would be good too:
The concept of the perfect island involves the idea that it is the most perfect perfect-island possible
An island that fails to exist in any possible world (including the actual world), is less perfect than one that exists in all possible worlds
Therefore the perfect island exists in all possible worlds-hence in the actual worlds
This is a bad argument.
So the ontological argument is bad too.
Anselm: The ontological argument 2
1. A perfect (necessarily existing) God is possible, because he is conceivable.
2. If such a God is possible, then—by definition —he exists in the actual world (since he exists in all possible worlds including the actual one).
3. Hence, a perfect God exists.
The argument from design (analogical version)
1. Machines (e.g. watches, houses) are the products of design.
2. Machines and the natural world (e.g. trees, eyes) are positively analogous.
3. So the natural world is a product of design.
4. So God exists.
The argument from design (abductive version)
1. The natural world (e.g. trees, eyes) has the appearance of design.
2. The best explanation of the appearance of design is the existence of a designer. (There are only a finite number of possible explanations for the appearance of design, and they are all worse than the design hypothesis. E.g. random chance, ‘generation or vegetation,’ a ‘blind watchmaker,’ are all less plausible than the design hypothesis.)
3. So God exists.
Humes Fork
Matter of fact
Things we can observe
Ex. There are 43 species of duck in Ontario
Relations of ideas
Logical reasoning
Ex. There are no married bachelors
Hume: The argument from design
1. All similar effects have similar causes.
2. The natural world is an effect which is similar to a machine (artefact).
3. So their causes are similar.
4. So God exists.
The argument from design (analogical version)
1. Machines (e.g. watches, houses) are the products of design.
2. Machines and the natural world (e.g. trees, eyes) are positively analogous.
3. So the natural world is a product of design. 4. So God exists.
The argument from design (abductive version)
1. The natural world (e.g. trees, eyes) has the appearance of design.
2. The best explanation of the appearance of design is the existence of a designer. (There are only a finite number of possible explanations for the appearance of design, and they are all worse than the design hypothesis. E.g. random chance, ‘generation or vegetation,’ a ‘blind watchmaker,’ are all less plausible than the design hypothesis.)
3. So God exists.
The god dialectic
The argument X for claim P is a poor argument and does not show that P is false
The absence of any good argument for P may be evidence that P is false or unjustified
A good argument against P is evidence that P is false
The problem of evil
If god exists, he is G.O.O.D (perfectly good, omniscient, omnipotent, enduring)
If such a being existed, there would be no ‘evil’ (sub-optimality)
Good wants everything to be good.
There is evil
Therefore god does not exist.
The Problem of Evil
If A, then B
If god exists then he is good
If B, then C
If being existed, there would be no evil
Not-C
If there is evil then not true
(Therefore not B)
Therefore not A
Good and reason
Arguments that a G.O.O.D God does not exist:
Indirect arguments from empirical data (and theory) - Ex. the problem of evil
Direct arguments from empirical data
(Arguments from reason/logic - Ex. the paradox of Omnipotence)
(indirect arguments from lack of positive evidence for God.)
Good and reason
What’s at stake?
What are the roles of faith (as opposed to reason)?
How committed are we to a particular notion of God (e.g. Being G.O.O.D.)?
How susceptible are these kinds of questions to human enquiry?
Is there an ‘error theory’ for religious belief?
Appearance and reality
One starting point: Naїve realism
But is this tenable? Aren’t some of the ways things appear illusory?
So what is involved in telling the differences between how things appear (false beliefs) and how they really are (knowledge)?
Plato’s Hierarchy 1
Perceptual images (the shadows of artificial objects/puppets)
Not the real thing, what they are copies of.
What we wanna do is to get do the thing that the shadow is the real thing.
According to Plato something not a million miles away, an abstract way of understanding material things, that gets closer to what they really are.
The world itself is particles, we are built to have smells and touches and senses but that is our relationship with the world.
Platos Hierarchy 2
Material objects (artificial objects) seen in the light of the sun (the fire)
Platos Hierarchy 3
Mathematical objects (shadows of natural objects) seen in the light of reason(?) (the sun)
Platos hierarchy 4
Platonic forms (abstract ideas) (natural objects)
Is the fundamental reality of things and it is an abstract identity, everything has a common with it.
The platonic form of being a horse, named tickle - partakes the form of being a horse so they have that in common.
The horse wouldn't be a horse if they didn't participate in its own identity.
Main definition: Is like the essence of something, essential nature.
Platos Hierarchy 5
The form of the good (the Sun)
Epistemology
(the theory of knowledge)
Q: What is knowledge
A: Justified belief
Q: What do we know?
A: At most, what we can find justification for.
Q: How do we know what we know?
A: I.e. what is it to be justified?
Descartes epistemology
sought the highest form of justification: a guarantee that your beliefs are true - a kind of proof.
Descartes epistemology reasoning
He wanted to put knowledge in the following structure: a foundation of certainly true beliefs, with all other pieces of knowledge following from that foundation axiomatically
The hypothetical cartesian tree of knowledge
A belief is foundational if and only if it is all by itself certainly true, and it is certainly true only if we cannot doubt it—i.e. if it is indubitable.
This is the ‘Method of Doubt.’
So we can show which beliefs are not foundational by showing that they can be doubted.
The argument from illusion
i. Sometimes our senses deceive us.
ii. Right now might be an occasion on which I am suffering from a perceptual illusion.
iii. So I can doubt the accuracy of my current sense perceptions.
iv. This argument can always be made, at any moment in time.
v. So I can never fully trust my current sense perceptions.
The dream argument
i. Sometimes when we dream, we firmly believe that we are awake: we cannot distinguish our dreaming state from one where we are awake.
ii. Right now I firmly believe I am awake, but nevertheless I might be dreaming.
iii. If I were dreaming, then many of my beliefs and perceptions need not be accurate.
iv. So I cannot fully trust many of my current beliefs and perceptions.
The evil demon
i. There might be a powerful evil demon who tries to make everything I believe false—such an entity is logically possible.
ii. If there were such a demon, I could never tell—it would seem to me just as it does now.
iii. So, for all I can tell, I could be under the influence of an evil demon right now.
iv. So I cannot fully trust almost all of my current beliefs and perceptions (including, e.g., my memories and mathematical intuitions).
Cogito ergo sum
I think therefore I am.
the mental side
There are no innate ideas: every idea is caused by a perceptual interaction with the world, or from pleasure and pain or by other ideas
Complex ideas are constructed out of simple ideas
The world side:
All “real” qualities are reducible to a small number of basic qualities
Qualities can be primary or secondary
Primary qualities
our ideas of primary qualities resemble their causes: shape, size, motion, number
secondary qualities
Our ideas of secondary qualities do not resemble their causes; colour taste heat
Locke on substance
We have ideas only of qualities
Substance is (supposed to be) what underlies qualities, and not itself a quality
So we can never have an idea - even a complex idea of substance
This is a limit to a scientific knowledge - it will never get at the ‘essences’ of things
Radical Sceptism
Descartes project of putting knowledge into a footing of certainty failed
Apparently all we have direct, certain access to are the contents of our own mind; our sense data are the other things
The problem of evil
1. If God exists, he is G.O.O.D. [perfectly good,
omniscient, omnipotent, enduring]
2. If such a being existed, there would be no
‘evil’ [sub-optimality].
3. There is evil.
4. Therefore God does not exist.
Premises
is a proposition used to justify a conclusion
Deductive
If your premises are true then your conclusion must be true
One fact leads to another
Entailment if A is true B must follow, A necessarily leads to B
Validity - an argument is valid if the truth of the premises guarantees (entails) the truth of the conclusion
Vailidity is not the same as truth!!!
If one or two premises are false the conclusion can still be invalid
FOR EXAMPLE:
All humans have tails
My brother John is a human
John green had a tail
Vaild premises but two of the premises is false
But this argument is not deductively sound
inductive
Using past experience to make future predictions
What can’t be true so you can focus on what can be true
Example: Aspirin pill can cure your headache because it has cured it countless times in the past
Unlike deduction, where true premises entail true conclusions, inductive premises only mean that the occlusion is likely to be true
Inductive arguments don’t provide you with certainty. Instead they work in terms of probabilities
Useful for more then predicting whats going to happen
For example
1. Most men in ancient Athens had beards
Starts with what we already know about the habits and time and place
2. Socrates was a man who lived in ancient anthems
Same timeline of this
3. Therefore, Socrates probably had a beard
Educated guess based on that information
The future doesn’t always resemble the past
always has the potential produce false results
Abductive
Drawing a conclusion based on the explanation that best explains a state of events rather then from evidence provided by the premises
Does not give us certainty
Useful way to get through situations
Doctors use this
Argument from motion
We currently live in a world in which things are moving. Movement is caused by movers. (Things that cause motions)
Everything thats moving must have been set into motions by something else that was moving something must have started the motion in the first first place
Infinite regress =in a chain of reasoning, the evidence for each point along the chain relies on the existence of something that came before it. Which in turn relies on something even future back, and so on, with no starting point
Everything or series of events began with nothing never really began and could have been gong on forever
He figured there must have been a beginning
Watching blocks fall and being told that nothing had hit the block
There must of been a static being that started the motion
That being is god - the unmoved mover
Argument from causation
Sets out to avoid the problem of an infinite regress
Somethings are caused anything thats caused has to be caused by something else (since nothing causes itself) there can’t be an infinite regress of causes, so there must been a first causer itself uncaused and that is God
It can’t go back forever
Argument from contingency
Contingent being
Any being that could have not existed
Includes me, the world could go on without me
Necessary being
A being that has always existed that always will exist and that can’t not exist
Argument from degrees
Properties come in ——-. In order for there to be regress of perfection there must be something perfect against which everything else is measured. God is the pinnacle of perfection
Many are upset with the last four arguments because they don’t seem to establish the existence of any particular god
His arguments done rule out polytheism
Doesn’t prove the existence of a sentient god
Aquinas takes it as given that there had to be a starting point for everything whether its the movement of objects or causes and effects or contingent being being created
If infinite regress can be possible then Aquinas first two arguments fall apart
If aquinas is right that everything must have been put in motion. By something else and everything must have a cause other then itself, then it seems that god should be subject to those stipulations and if god somehow exempt from those rules then why couldn’t other things exempt from them too??
If they can exist without god being responsible for them then we don’t need god to establish things in the first place
You can execept a conclusion but reject the argument
You can agree with aquinas that god exists but think none of his arguments prove it
Anselm
Believe that god is the best thing
In anselms word: God is that than which no greater can be conceived
Any good thing would be better if it existed in reality as well as in our minds
Gaunilo argument against anselm
suggested that we could run the sam line of reasoning to prove the existence of anything we imagine
He proposed the best island Ican imaginesone where I can swim and relax on a tropical beach and ski down snow-covered mountains all in one afternoon
“I can imagine it so it must exist"
The god dialectic
The argument X for claim P is a poor argument and does not show that P is false
The absence of any good argument for P may be evidence that P is false or unjustified
A good argument against P is evidence that P is false
The problem of evil
If god exists, he is G.O.O.D (perfectly good, omniscient, omnipotent, enduring)
If such a being existed, there would be no ‘evil’ (sub-optimality)
Good wants everything to be good.
There is evil
Therefore god does not exist.
Note 
Flashcard (39)