Philosophy of Religion Lecture Notes
What is Religion?
Creation Story
Explains how the universe came into being.
Posits a Creator
Usually a powerful being at the center of existence.
Provides Moral Guidance & Meaning Through:
Scriptures
Rituals
Prayer
Connection to transcendence/awe.
Hope in Afterlife & Justice
Provides comfort against suffering and death.
Difference from Philosophy/Psychology
Religion’s Role:
Doesn’t just explain; it prescribes morality, offers meaning, and promises ultimate justice.
Why is Religion Pervasive and Influential?
Functions as a Problem-Solver / Terror Management System:
Explains natural phenomena, suffering, especially death.
Provides parent-like comfort with the presence of a powerful, benevolent being overseeing us.
Offers hope of justice in an afterlife, relieving death anxiety.
Fulfills the desire for transcendence, spirituality, and experiences beyond the ordinary.
Builds community which relieves loneliness and provides social support.
⚠️ Note:
This explains the appeal of religion, not the truth of any specific doctrines.
The Design (Teleological) Argument
A. Key Thinkers
Thomas Aquinas (13th c.)
Presented the “Fifth Way” in Summa Theologica.
William Paley (18th c.)
Authored Natural Theology. Famous for the Watchmaker Analogy.
David Hume (18th c.)
Critiqued the design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Charles Darwin (19th c.)
Proposed natural selection as an alternative explanation in Origin of Species.
B. Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy
If one finds a watch on the ground, one assumes it has a maker because its parts fit together for a purpose.
The universe is akin to a watch, showcasing complexity, order, and purpose.
Thus, one concludes that the universe must have a designer, identified as God.
C. General Structure of an Analogy Argument
A has property P.
B is like A in relevant respects.
Therefore, B also has property P.
Applied to Paley:
A watch’s parts work together for a purpose.
Whenever this occurs, there should be a designer.
The universe resembles a watch in this regard.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a designer (God).
D. Examples of “Teleological Systems” in Nature
Human eye: complex design for vision.
Organs like heart, kidney, and liver: serve life-preserving purposes.
Photosynthesis: plants convert sunlight into energy.
Models of goal-directed systems (telos = purpose).
Problems with the Design Argument
Is the Inference Valid?
Does the similarity between a watch and the universe genuinely prove a designer?
Just because things exhibit order doesn’t imply design.
Who is the Designer?
Even if design exists, why presume it’s God, characterized as all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good?
Alternatives such as multiple designers or a flawed designer are possible.
Darwin’s Critique (19th c.)
Evolution by natural selection provides an explanation for apparent “design” without necessitating a designer.
Organisms adapt and thrive through mutations over time.
This challenges the assertion that purpose serves as evidence of design.
Simplified Example:
A watch necessitates a watchmaker.
However, an eye can evolve gradually through random mutations and the survival of useful traits.
Thus, complexity does not equate to evidence of a divine creator.
Key Quotes to Remember
Paley: “The existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.”
Lab Formula: “Universe is like a watch → therefore universe has a designer.”
Critique: “3 does not imply 4.”
The assertion that the universe is ordered does not prove that God created it.
Quick Takeaways
Religion provides explanations, moral frameworks, experiences of transcendence, and community engagement, contributing to its widespread appeal.
Teleological Argument = “Design implies Designer.”
Key Thinker: Paley and his Watchmaker analogy.
Problems Identified: Weak analogy and alternative explanation (Darwin’s evolution).
Big Question: Even if design exists, does that implicate the God of traditional religion?
What is the Cosmological Argument?
A family of arguments aiming to prove God’s existence.
A posteriori reasoning, depending on worldly experience rather than purely logical deduction as used in the Ontological Argument.
The main assertion:
Things exist and have causes; thus, there must be a first cause or an explanation for the universe.
Aquinas’ Version (13th c.)
Aquinas proposed “Five Ways” to demonstrate God’s existence, with the first two being cosmological arguments.
A simplified version of his second argument:
Causes and effects transpire in a sequence.
Nothing can cause itself.
An infinite series of causes is impossible (a series must have a starting point).
Therefore, a first cause must exist.
Aquinas identifies this first cause as God.
Problem:
Step 5 fails to logically follow. Why assume that the first cause is God with divine attributes?
Alternatives could include multiple first causes or non-divine causes.
Key Idea to Memorize: Aquinas’ argument suggests the necessity of a first cause but does not automatically confirm the God of religious tradition.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Originating from medieval Islamic philosophy and gaining traction in modern philosophical discussions.
Steps involved:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause beyond itself.
A plausible answer: God.
Notes:
Step 2: Supported by scientific evidence (e.g., the Big Bang).
Step 1: Controversial; it is debated if all things require a cause.
For example, Stephen Hawking suggested the universe could self-generate.
Key Idea to Memorize: While the Kalam argument concentrates on the universe’s inception, it does not definitively prove that the cause embodies the attributes of God.
Principle of Sufficient Reason Version
Based on the premise that everything necessitates an explanation.
Steps involved:
Every event must have an explanation
Necessary events explain themselves.
Contingent events hinge on external causes.
The universe as a whole constitutes a contingent event.
Thus, it needs an explanation that exists outside of itself.
A plausible answer: God.
Problems:
Some argue not everything necessarily requires an explanation.
The universe may exist without any reason.
Even if an external explanation exists, it is arguable why it has to be God.
The Big Disagreement
Theist’s View: Suggests it’s unfulfilling to assert that “the universe just exists.” They argue that proposing God provides a more comprehensive explanation, identifying God as a necessary being (existing independently, not requiring anything else).
Secularist’s View: Contends that stopping at “God” presents an equivalent mystery. God serves as an unexplained explainer, similarly enigmatic to asserting that the universe carries no explanation.
Both Perspectives Encounter a Paradox:
Secularist: The universe remains unexplained.
Theist: God does explain the universe; yet, God lacks explanation.
Key Terms
A posteriori: Based on empirical observation or experience.
Contingent: Relies on external factors (could have not existed).
Necessary Being: Must exist across all possible worlds, independent of anything else (typically applies to the concept of God in theology).
Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): All things necessitate an explanation.
What to Memorize (for tests/essays)
Three versions of the Cosmological Argument:
Aquinas’ “First Cause” argument.
Kalam Argument (everything that begins has a cause; hence, the universe must have a cause).
Principle of Sufficient Reason Argument (the universe is contingent and requires an explanation).
Criticisms:
The transition from “first cause” to “God” lacks justification.
Doubts on the necessity of causes for all entities.
Issues regarding God as an “unexplained explainer” are problematic.
Big Picture: The discourse raises the question of whether the universe indeed necessitates an explanation but fails to conclusively prove the God of classical theism.
What is the Ontological Argument?
This represents an a priori argument, attempting to affirm God’s existence strictly through rational thought, devoid of physical world examination (unlike the Cosmological or Design arguments).
First proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury (11th century).
Anselm’s Basic Argument
Anselm defines God as: "That being greater than which none can be conceived.”
Meaning: God embodies the most perfect conceivable being.
The structure of his argument proceeds as follows:
God is imperfect being.
Perfection encompasses existence.
Thus, God exists.
💭 In Simple Terms:
If God is genuinely perfect, He must exist; otherwise, a non-existing God would denote imperfection.
Why People Find This Argument Confusing
Initially, it appears logically sound: if perfection necessitates existence, and God is perfect, God must exist.
However, critiques arise given that philosophers argue the reasoning doesn't validate existence.
4. “Question-Begging” (a Logic Problem)
An argument is considered to beg the question when it presupposes the very thing it seeks to demonstrate.
Example:
The Bible asserts God exists. Everything stated in the Bible is accurate. Thus, God exists.
This fails as it only convinces those already believing in the Bible’s truth.
Anselm’s argument exhibits similar assumptions. Beginning with the premise, "God is a perfect being," presupposes the existence of such a being.
5. The Fixed (Less Question-Begging) Version
Philosophers restate the argument to limit excessive assumptions:
The concept of God is that of a perfect being.
Perfection entails existence (a genuinely perfect being must exist).
Thus, the concept of God refers to a being that exists.
Therefore, God must exist (both in thought and reality).
Anselm posited that for this extraordinary being (God), if one can conceive of Him, He must exist, as existence forms a part of His perfection.
⚠️ But this adjustment elicits skepticism.
6. Guanilo’s “Perfect Island” Objection 🌴
A monk named Guanilo, a contemporary of Anselm, created a parody to illuminate the fallacy:
I can envision a perfect island.
Perfection incorporates existence.
Therefore, the notion of a perfect island asserts its existence.
Hence, a perfect island exists. 😅
This absurdity indicates that while one can envision a perfect island, envisioning does not equate to reality.
Guanilo illustrated that if Anselm’s logic were appropriately valid, one could similarly prove any perfect entity, such as a perfect vehicle or companion, into existence, making the argument invalid.
7. Concept vs. Reality — The Core Problem
The central dilemma is Anselm’s conflation of conceptualization with actual existence.
✅ Example: You can envision a perfect unicorn, with part of that idea dictating its existence. However, that does not establish the reality of unicorns; it merely remains a concept.
Thus, even if God’s concept involves existence, it is imperative to question: "Does this concept apply to any real being?" Anselm neglects to demonstrate this.
8. Valid vs. Invalid — What Does That Mean?
Validity: An argument is considered valid if, when the premises hold true, the conclusion also must be true.
Invalidity: An argument is invalid when the conclusion does not necessarily emerge from the premises even if they seem related.
Example Valid Argument:
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
(If 1 and 2 are true, 3 must be true — thus valid.)
Example Invalid Argument:
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is a human.
(Invalid; other mortals outside of humans exist, such as pets.)
Considering Anselm, his conclusion of "God exists" does not logically derive from his premises. Even if the notion that "perfection entails existence" were accurate, it does not validate the actual existence of such a perfect being, rendering the argument invalid.
Key Takeaways 🧩
Anselm’s Ontological Argument:
Attempts to establish God’s existence using reason alone, without empirical evidence.
Defines God as the most perfect conceivable being.
Asserts that existence is integral to perfection.
Thus, concludes that God must exist.
Main Criticisms:
Question-begging: presupposes God’s existence from the outset.
Invalid: The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Guanilo’s Island: Similar reasoning could erroneously prove the existence of any perfect entity.
Concept versus reality: Imagining something as perfect doesn't imply it realistically exists.
💡 Easy Way to Remember:
Anselm's proposition: “If we can envision the ultimate perfect being, He must exist.”
Guanilo's counter: “Then my perfect island must also exist, which is nonsensical.”
Therefore, the argument fails to hold.
Study Guide: Pragmatic (Practical) Arguments for God’s Existence
Date of Guide: October 9, 2025
1. What Are Pragmatic Arguments?
They do not aim to confirm God’s existence but rather inquire: “Even if we cannot substantiate God’s existence, could believing in God be useful or reasonable?”
Thus, it doesn't focus on truth, but on whether belief in God benefits us practically or morally.
2. W.K. Clifford (19th Century) — The Ethics of Belief 🌊
The Shipowner Story:
A shipowner dispatches an old, potentially unsafe vessel laden with passengers.
He reassures himself of the ship’s safety without verifying the facts.
The ship ultimately sinks.
Clifford's Lesson:
“It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
Meaning: It is morally irresponsible to hold beliefs simply based on desire if substantiation is lacking.
Example: Believing your car’s brakes are operational without confirmation can lead to significant harm.
⚖️ Objection to Clifford:
A critic may argue that:
The shipowner’s faith caused genuine harm to others.
In contrast, believing in God—even with flimsy evidence—does not inherently cause harm.
Hence, perhaps not all evidence-lacking beliefs are equally detrimental.
Example:
Belief in fictitious concepts (e.g., a “spaghetti monster” or “Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun”) may neither harm nor help anyone.
This viewpoint aligns with philosophers like Pascal and William James, who contend that certain beliefs might be commendable even in the absence of strong evidence, provided they prove practically advantageous.
3. William James — When It’s OK to Believe Without Proof
James posits that under specific conditions, it is acceptable to believe without complete substantiation. He delineates four such conditions:
Judgment is unavoidable: You cannot indefinitely remain neutral; a decision must be made.
Momentous: The choice holds significant, impactful consequences.
No strong evidence either way: Neither belief nor disbelief is substantiated.
Practically useful: Holding a belief enhances your life, mindset, or behavior.
💭 James’ Idea:
Believing in God potentially conforms to all four stipulations:
You must ultimately decide your position (unavoidable).
Selecting a belief in God ranks as the most significant decision (momentous).
Absolute proof remains elusive on both sides.
Faith fosters beneficial behavior, hope, and life’s meaning (useful).
Example:
Trust in friendships is pertinent; lacking 100% assurance that a friend won’t betray you, you still must choose to trust to cultivate a genuine relationship.
Belief in God may mirror this process, wherein one “takes the leap” that yields emotional or moral benefits.
4. Blaise Pascal — Pascal’s Wager 🎲
Pascal asserts belief in God constitutes a rational bet, analogous to a gamble involving infinite stakes.
The Outcomes Are:
If God Exists:
Infinite reward (Heaven) 🌟
If God Does Not Exist:
Small loss (wasted time, ritual)
Don’t Believe:
If God Exists:
Infinite loss (Hell/no afterlife) 💀
If God Does Not Exist:
Small gain (freedom, time saved)
💡 Conclusion of Pascal’s Bet:
It is more prudent to believe, as the prospective reward is infinite compared to a minuscule potential loss.
Illustrative Example: Betting $1 for a chance to secure a billion dollars demonstrates that even with slight odds, the potential gain justifies the risk.
5. Why Pragmatic Arguments Appeal to Some People
Scientific proof may not always substantiate how belief can aid one’s life (in terms of hope, purpose, and moral integrity).
Example:
Optimists frequently outperform pessimists health-wise and success-wise; attitude exerts influence.
A teacher's faith in their students often translates to higher success rates (refer to Rosenthal’s study).
Likewise, faith in God may similarly benefit one’s mindset and behaviors positively.
6. Problems with Pragmatic Arguments
❌ Problem 1: Can You “Choose” to Believe?
Can belief be chosen solely due to perceived utility?
Example: You cannot simply declare the belief of your dog speaking because it may enhance enjoyment.
Belief typically arises from evidence and emotions, not mere will.
It could be possible to execute behaviors analogous to belief, with time leading to genuine belief, yet the process isn’t immediate.
❌ Problem 2: Would God Approve of That?
Is it conceivable that an omniscient God would reward individuals whose belief is dictated by pragmatism rather than sincere devotion?
Or conversely, condemn honest individuals unable to find compelling evidence for belief?
This scenario appears unjust and misaligned with the notion of divine justice.
❌ Problem 3: The “Multiple Gods” Problem
Which deity is the appropriate wager?
Considerations include:
Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Ancient Greek deities?
One cannot believe in all concurrently; determining the correct wager is critical.
7. Key Ideas to Memorize
Clifford:
“It is wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence.”
Shipowner Story: Emphasizes that beliefs lacking substantiation can lead to harm.
James:
“Sometimes, it is acceptable to believe without sufficient evidence if consequences dictate, they are significant and beneficial.”
Pascal:
“Belief in God exemplifies a rational wager, with minimal risk yet expansive potential rewards.”
Criticisms:
Belief cannot be arbitrarily chosen.
Acting solely for reward may lack moral or religious integrity.
The multiplicity of deities complicates the ‘bet’.
💡 Easy Summary to Remember:
Clifford: “Never believe without evidence—it’s reckless.”
James: “Sometimes it’s permissible if belief benefits you and entails no harm.”
Pascal: “Belief is a sound gamble—benefiting infinitely while risking little.”
Critics: “Belief isn’t merely a switch, and God might perceive through this transactional faith.