Comprehensive Study Notes: Philosophy of Religion - Arguments for and against the Existence of God

Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and Conceptions of Deity

• General Ground Rules: In philosophical inquiry, the focus is on critiquing arguments rather than attacking individuals. Discussions on sensitive religious topics require mutual respect, acknowledgment of students' strong personal beliefs, and the understanding that personal disclosures are not mandatory.
• Conceptualizing God: Determining the definition of "God" is a primary goal. Various conceptions exist:
  • Classical Theism: Embraced by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. God is the separate creator of the universe, personal in nature (man made in God's image), and possesses three primary attributes: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good/morally perfect). This God performs miracles.
  • Pantheism: God and nature are identical; God is not separate from the universe but is omnipresent within it. This is favored by some Asian religious traditions and Romantics.
  • New-Age Conception: A broad, diffuse category where God is viewed as a personal, spiritual guide. It often distinguishes between structured religion and individual spirituality.
• Core Positions in Philosophy of Religion:
  • Theism: Asserts there are good reasons to believe God exists.
  • Atheism: Asserts there are good reasons to believe God does not exist.
  • Agnosticism: Suggests reason cannot establish God's existence; it is inherently unknowable.
• Faith vs. Reason: A central debate concerns whether belief must be supported by reason or if faith is sufficient. Fideism (associated with thinkers like Kierkegaard) suggests religious belief should not be scrutinized by reason. However, an obligation to reason is argued through hypothetical scenarios: if a radical individual intends to bomb a school based on religious belief, one would use reasoned arguments, not just force, to convince them they are mistaken, implying we should apply the same standards to our own beliefs.

The Cosmological Argument: Aquinas’s Five Ways

• Context: Outlined in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. Aquinas addresses two main objections to God: the problem of evil and the perceived lack of necessity for God to explain the world's workings. He responds with five proofs, focusing primarily on the first three (the core cosmological arguments).
• The Five Ways Overview:
  • First Way: Argument from Motion.
  • Second Way: Argument from Causation.
  • Third Way: Argument from Contingency.
  • Fourth Way: An archaic argument regarding degrees of perfection (not covered).
  • Fifth Way: Teleological argument/argument from design (covered separately).
• The First Way (Argument from Motion):
  1. Some things in the world are currently in motion (defined as movement, change, or activity).
  2. Change/motion is the transition from "potentiality" to "actuality."
  3. This transition must be catalyzed by something already in a state of actuality (e.g., something potentially hot is made actually hot by something already actually hot).
  4. A thing cannot move or change itself, as it would simultaneously need to be potential and actual in the same respect.
  5. An infinite regress of movers is impossible because without a first mover, there is no source for subsequent motion.
  6. Conclusion: There must be a "first mover" moved by no other; this is God.
• The Second Way (Argument from Causation):
  1. Efficient causes (ordinary causation where an earlier event causes a later one) exist in the natural world.
  2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, as it would have to precede itself.
  3. Infinite sequences of causes (infinite regress) are impossible.
  4. Removing a cause removes all subsequent effects.
  5. Without a first efficient cause, nothing in the sequence would exist today.
  6. Conclusion: There must be a first efficient cause, caused by no other; this is God.
  • Distinction: The First Way concerns the cause of change/motion; the Second Way concerns the cause of existence.
• The Third Way (Argument from Contingency):
  1. Objects in nature exist contingently (their existence depends on external conditions).
  2. Anything that can fail to exist must, at some point in infinite time, not exist.
  3. If everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed.
  4. Something cannot come from nothing ($0 \rightarrow 1$ is impossible).
  5. If there were once nothing, nothing would exist now, which is absurd.
  6. Conclusion: Some things must be necessary. We cannot have an infinite regress of necessary beings whose necessity is derived from others. Thus, a being exists that is necessary in itself and causes necessity in others; this is God.

Critiques and Variations of the Cosmological Argument

• The Conclusion Gap: Even if Aquinas proves a "first cause," critics argue this entity lacks the rich attributes of the Classical Theistic God (omniscience, etc.). Defenders claim the argument is a "first step" requiring supplemental arguments.
• The Infinite Regress Problem: Aquinas views a causal series ($A \rightarrow B \dots W \rightarrow X \rightarrow Y \rightarrow Z$) as dependent on $A$. If $A$ is removed, the rest vanish. However, a truly infinite series does not deny the existence of any member; it simply denies the existence of a first member. Mathematically, infinite series are common (e.g., the set of natural numbers).
• The Counter-Intuition of Counting: Imagine a man counting backwards: "$...4, 3, 2, 1$. Finished!" He claims to have counted all natural numbers. While absurd due to human lifespan, mathematically, limits of infinite series exist (e.g., $1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} \dots = 2$).
• The Analogy of the Books (Paul Edwards): Contrast a finite vs. infinite series.
  • Finite: A book $Z$ is $100$ miles in the air, supported by $Y$, which is supported by $X$. If this ends at $1,000,000$ books with no earth, the pile crashes. Our intuition demands a "first" support (the earth).
  • Infinite: Logically, if every book has a book beneath it, there is no point where the pile falls. Each member is supported. Intuition struggles with this, but it is conceptually consistent.
• Causal Web/Net: Causation may not be a linear chain but a web. Multiple events could cause one, or one event could cause many. This allows for a beginning with multiple initial events rather than a single "First Cause."
• Turtles All the Way Down: Stephen Hawking relates an anecdote of a scientist (possibly Bertrand Russell) interrupted by an old lady who claims the world rests on a tortoise. When asked what the tortoise stands on, she replies, "It's turtles all the way down!"
• The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): The claim that everything must have a reason or cause; no state of affairs can be true unless there is a reason why it is not otherwise.
• The Inuit in Manhattan Example (Paul Edwards): Countering Father Copleston’s claim that a series needs a "transcendent cause" beyond its members. If you explain why five individual Inuits are in New York:
  1. Inuit $1$: Wanted warmer climate.
  2. Inuit $2$: Spouse of Inuit $1$, loves them.
  3. Inuit $3$: Child of Inuit $1$ and $2$, too weak to stay behind.
  4. Inuit $4$: Responding to a New York Times ad for TV.
  5. Inuit $5$: Pinkerton detective watching Inuit $4$.
  • Conclusion: Once each individual is explained, asking why the "group" is there is redundant. The group is nothing over and above its members.

The Russell-Copleston Debate (1948 Transcript Summary)

• Copleston's Position: God is his own "sufficient reason"—an explanation adequate for existence to which nothing further can be added. He argues the universe is intrinsically "unintelligible" without God. If you add contingent chocolates to infinity, you still have chocolates (contingent beings), not a sheep (necessary being).
• Russell's Position: He rejects the need for a "total" explanation. He argues "Sufficient Reason" is not well-defined. He views the word "universe" as a handy but meaningless collective term, equivalent to words like "the" or "than" which have no objective referent. He famously states: "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all."
• The Sartre Link: Copleston asks if the universe is "gratuitous" (meaning it could be otherwise). Russell prefers the term "just there."

The Teleological Argument (Intelligent Design)

• Definition: Teleology is the study of purposes, functions, or final causes. The argument posits that design in nature implies an intelligent designer (God).
• William Paley’s Watchmaker Argument:
  • If you find a stone in a field, you might assume it was always there.
  • If you find a watch, its complexity and the way parts work together to produce motion require the conclusion of a designer.
  • This holds even if: the watch is broken, we don't understand it, or it was produced by a previous watch (self-replication). A series of watches still requires an original "contriver."
• Analogy of the Eye: Comparing an eye to a telescope. Both have specialized parts for vision/optics. Since the telescope is designed, the eye likely is too.
• Objections and Paley's Responses:
  • Imperfection (e.g., bad eyes): Blemishes should be referred to other causes, not a lack of skill in the author.
  • The Atheist ‘Randomness’ Claim: The idea that matter must be in some form, so why not this one? Paley finds this as unlikely as wind shaping metal into a watch.
  • Pre-Darwinian Evolution: The idea that all forms were tried and only functioning ones survived. Paley dismisses this because he had no account of natural selection.
• Hume’s Criticisms of Teleology:
  • Weak Analogy: Analogy strength depends on similarity. Humans and dogs are similar (both circulate blood); humans and plants are less similar (inference fails). Hume argues the universe and a watch are not sufficiently similar.
  • Lack of Sample Size: We use induction to link effects (rashes) to causes (poison ivy) because we've seen many cases. We have no sample size of universes being created.
  • Regress of Design: If nature needs a designer for its order, why doesn't God’s intelligence need a designer for its order?
  • Multiple Designers: Why assume one God? Why not a team of deities?

The Problem of Evil

• Core Concepts: The conflict between an Omni-God (All-powerful, All-knowing, Perfectly Good) and the existence of suffering.
• The Logical Problem of Evil (Deductive):
  1. If God exists, He is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  2. Omnipotence implies the power to eliminate evil.
  3. Omniscience implies knowledge of evil.
  4. Omnibenevolence implies the desire to eliminate evil.
  5. Evil exists.
  6. Therefore, God does not exist.
  • Counter-argument: God might allow evil for a "greater good" or to preserve free will.
• The Evidential Problem of Evil (Inductive/Probabilistic):
  1. Certain evils exist that are intrinsically bad and seem preventable without losing a greater good (e.g., an animal dying an agonizing death in a forest fire, or a baby dying from cancer).
  2. An omnipotent, morally perfect being would prevent these seemingly "pointless" evils.
  3. Since they are not prevented, it is highly unlikely such a God exists.
  • Note: This relies on our inability to see a justifying reason for specific, horrific events.

Pascal’s Wager and Game Theory

• Game Theory Basics: Analyzing strategies based on outcomes and payoffs.
  • Dominant Strategy: A choice that is better than or equal to others in all cases.
  • Expected Value (EV): The sum of probabilities multiplied by the value of outcomes.
• Decision Matrix for God:
  • Decision: Believe
    • God Exists: Eternal happiness ($+\infty$).
    • God Does Not Exist: Wasted time/missed fun (small finite negative).
  • Decision: Don’t Believe
    • God Exists: Eternal damnation ($-\infty$).
    • God Does Not Exist: More fun (small finite positive).
• The Calculation:
  • $EV(\text{Believe}) = (p \times \infty) + ((1-p) \times -\text{small}) = \infty$.
  • $EV(\text{Don't Believe}) = (p \times -\infty) + ((1-p) \times \text{small}) = -\infty$.
  • Conclusion: Prudence dictates belief regardless of the low probability ($p$) of God's existence.
• Objections to the Wager:
  1. Involuntary Belief: You can't force yourself to believe just for profit. Pascal suggests "fake it until you make it"—attending church and rituals until habituation breeds real belief.
  2. The Spirit of Religion: Belief for personal gain seems un-pious/mercenary.
  3. The Many-Gods Objection: If there are infinite possible gods with different requirements, the probability ($p$) of choosing the correct one is infinitesimally small ($\frac{1}{\infty} \rightarrow 0$), neutralizing the infinite expected value.

The Ontological Argument (St. Anselm)

• Nature: An a priori argument; it claims the non-existence of God is a logical contradiction.
• Anselm’s Definition: God is "that greater than which nothing can be conceived."
• The Logic of Existence:
  • Existing in reality is greater than existing only in the mind.
  • Verbatim Examples: An actual soulmate is better than the idea of one; an actual "JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure" binge-watching marathon is better than the idea of one.
  • If God exists only conceptually, then we can conceive of a greater being (one that also exists in reality).
  • But this contradicts God's definition as the "greatest."
  • Conclusion: God must exist in reality.
• Counter-Arguments:
  • Gaunilo’s Perfect Island: Use the same logic to prove a "Perfect Island" exists. If we imagine one, it must exist in reality to be perfect. Anselm replied this only applies to necessary beings, not contingent islands.
  • The Devil Corollary: Applying the logic to a being "than which nothing worse can be conceived." If reality is worse than conception, this proves the ultimate evil being exists.
  • Immanuel Kant: Existence is not a "predicate" (quality). Adding "exists" to a definition (like a triangle having three angles) doesn't mean a triangle actually appears in the world. You can define a chair perfectly whether or not any chairs currently exist.
  • David Hume: You cannot prove a matter of fact (a posteriori) through a priori reasoning. We can conceive of anything's non-existence without contradiction.
  • Thomas Aquinas: We cannot fully know God’s essence; therefore, we cannot use His definition as a starting point for proof.