Ancient philosophy

‘compare plato’s form of the good with Aristotle’s prime mover’

Thesis: empiricism is clearer than rationalism

• Aristotle constructed four causes from individual changes we see in the world e.g efficient cause from what brought it about

• something perfect and immutable cannot be caused and therefore primary cause of all in the universe

• Antithesis: Richard Dawkin’s book ‘the god delusion’ refutes the concept that god creates a regress in which he himself terminates. the question of what explained god is not answered. A fallacious argument

• counter: it is a logical argument however that the universe has a start point. There must be an uncaused cause

• despite criticism, empirical ‘a posteriori’ approach it is considerably more easy to grasp than Plato’s rational FOG

Thesis: Both are idealistic and incoherent

• a prime mover that is immutable where everything else is changing, is a deductive leap

• this flaw of perfection is one that effects both the prime mover and the FOG

• Karl Popper saw Plato as looking for permanence and perfection in a world of uncertainty. Equally an inductive leap to arrive at forms from premise their must be truths

• Antithesis: neo-platonists, Iris Murdoch in favour of plato’s rationalism as goodness must be the centre of all things. Drawing on Kant, as moral law presents itself ‘synthetic a priori’ makes it out duty to postulate a higher being

• counter: Despite way in which they began to argue the existence of god, they are inconsistent in the formation of their theories

Thesis: They are more metaphorical than practical

• As Bertrand Russell argues the universe is infinite and has no cause, philisophical formulations of its existence are unnecessary

• therefore FOG is a better metaphorical concept in its focus on moral values over practical observation

• Antithesis: Neitchze, as a perspectivist, argued a ‘dangerous error’ in philosophers inventing ideas to justify emotional prejudice. Plato theory of the forms devaluated the world we live in leading to focus of otherworldly ideals

• counter: when questioning which holds more value however, in making us question our epistemological positioning, we wish for love but do we know what love is?

‘To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of god’

Thesis: Anselm defines god into existence

• Psalm 14:1 ‘the fool says in they heart there is no god’

• Anselm argues that through defining god as that ‘nothing greater can be conceived’, by accepting this definition god must exist

• something that exists in the mind is never greater than that exists in reality e.g Anselm’s example of painter’s idea in the mind until it is painting

• Antithesis: Gaunilo’s letter ‘on behalf of the fool’ in which he uses Anselm’s reasoning with the example of the ‘greatest island’. This island is the greatest and therefore cannot be inferior so must exist. Applied ‘redact ad absurdum’ to fault Anselm by reducing it to its absurdity

• counter: Anselm introduces idea of necessity into reasoning

• Hick: An island can’t be compared to god as it has no intrinsic maxim and can therefore be constantly improved

• an island is contingent therefore the greatest island cannot be the greatest conceivable thing as it is not necessary

• for god to not be necessary it would contradict his definition therefore necessity must be an attribute of god

Thesis: Malcom argument based on established belief in god

• Malcom argues for god to exist he must exist today or his existence is impossible

• god is either necessary or impossible and as gods definition is not self contradictory than he is not impossible therefore he must exist

• Antithesis: Malcom’s argument is cyclical on it lies on the premise that one accepts gods existence in the first place. He himself admits his reasoning would not work on atheist and therefore does little to prove gods existence. There are things that have existed In the past and no longer do now yet there past existence would be deemed impossible

Thesis: Logical fallacy in ontological arguments

• Descartes uses the definition of god to claim he has all the perfections including existence

• he provides 2 examples:

• 180 degrees is a predicate to a triangle that without it is no longer a triangle. this applies to existence as a predicate of god

• there is no mountain without a valley. there is no god without existence

• antithesis: Kant: existence is not a predicate. it does not tell us anything about the object to identify it. to remove the notion of a triangle than there is no necessity for it having angles of 180 degrees. to describe something into existence is logical fallacy

• Antithesis: Bertrand Russell: ‘the present king of France is bald’ is an untrue statement yet ‘he isn’t bold’ isn’t either. There is no present king of France and therefore applying predicates doesn’t prove an existence

‘Evaluate the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body’

Thesis: The distinction between the mind and the body is a ‘category errory’

• substance dualism: the mind and the body are separate substances

• Descartes idea of substance dualism stems from his book ‘meditations’ which led him to the conclusion ‘cogito ergo sum’ meaning I think therefore I am

• The only thing Descartes could not doubt without a contradiction yet could not be certain he had a body

• antithesis: Ryle: ghost in the machine. He sees talk of a self beyond the physical body is a fallacy in language e.g being show around colleges and asking where the university is. Just as mind is not a physical thing doesn’t make it a non physical ‘thing’. e.g ‘the brittleness of glass’ which is a disposition of glass under certain conditions. to apply Descartes argument the brittleness of glass isn’t divisible yet still must be a ‘thing’

• counter:Ryle behaviourist view may be extreme to reduce mind to set of behavioural dispositions

Thesis: Substance dualism does not account for our physical responses

• Leibniz law: if something is identical then it must share the same properties

• by this reasoning than the soul and the body must be different due to one being divisible and one not, one being an extension and one not, one being tangible and one not

• antithesis: Daniel Dennett: Cartesian theatre. By Descartes logic it is as if we are the audience to our mind. I can observe and control what is happening yet this does not account for how the mind actually works. It can be effected by physical substances and intern effect the body. Mental illnesses can effect how one is able to move etc..

• antithesis: split brain patients in which two hemispheres of brain control different halves. two arms could act counter intuitively meaning not that the mind could be divided but the mind is the brain

Thesis: there is no part of the body that is non-physical

• Richard Dawkins’ materialist view from this book ‘the selfish gene’ that there is no scientific evidence for the soul

• failed attempt by Descartes pineal gland

• we are nothing more than survival machines and any idea of a dualism is to validate a belief in the afterlife. Dawkins accepts a use of the mind/soul in terms of its metaphorical ability to describe human feeling

• Antithesis: David Chalmer: easy and hard problem of consciousness. He argues scientists like Dawkins can easily describe brain processes for mental response yet cannot explain which brain process is responsible for consciousness itself. Neuroscientists may mix these two

• counter:This does not however, validate the theories of substance dualists who believe in the mind as its own entity

‘There is no designer of the universe’ Discuss

Thesis: If the universe came about by chance than would be fallacious to theorise a transcendent creator

• aquinas’s fifth way interprets Aristotles final cause in belief everything has a purpose (move from actual to potential) and this purpose cannot be achieved without god

• Analogy of when seeing an arrow you wouldn’t assume there wasn’t an archer who shot it

• Antithesis: Hume: analogy calls for criticism. stating more particularly about paley that the world greater resembles a cabbage than a watch. Aquinas equally uses an analogy without logical foundation. the world is more organic than mechanical yet no one searches for cabbage maker

• Counter: Ockham’s razor: the simplest logic would be that god is responsible for such purpose and regularity

• antithesis: descartes: very fact of god is beyond human comprehension so there is no way of reducing god to philosophical simplicity

• epicurean hypothesis: so many combinations of atoms that this earth would have come into existence at one point

Thesis: scientific discovery shows more congenial view of world than teleological argument

• Paley’s natural theology; watch analogy embodies concept of world ordered and designed

• enlightenment thinker who saw complexity and intricacy of watch mirrors that of the world where there must be a maker

• to come across a rock has natural causes yet a watch has no natural explanation

• antithesis: Charles Darwin ‘origin of species’: the world may seem perfectly designed yet it is perfectly adapted as a result of theory of evolution, survival of the fittest

• counter: RF Tennant ‘anthropic principle’: argues universe exists for the sake of humankind, if the conditions weren’t as they are we would not exist to observe them. This must be due to a loving creator

• Antithesis: argues that world isn’t created for us. JSM argues world was clearly not set up for good of humans, humans and nature are cruel. David Attenborough ‘the god who put the whale in the sea is the god who put the parasite in the eye of the starving child’

Thesis: not plausible to prove existence of god therefore must rely on faith over theoretical arguments

• Wittgenstein’s language games: existence of god cannot be disproved so validity of teleological argument based on ones religious position

• if someone playing game of religion the rules of the argument make sense. If someone is playing game of science the rules of religion won’t make sense. meaning conditioned by language

• antithesis: Dawkins ‘the god delusion’ : issue of fideism that faith is the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. faith is belief in spite or because of lack of evidence

• John cottingham: believers find proof ‘reassuring as formal confirmations of the intellectual respectability of their religious outlook’

• to ask if god exists is not logical or theoretical question but one of faith

• Karl Rahner: ‘letting go of oneself into the incomprehensible mystery’

‘conversion experiences are the most convincing form of religious experience’

Thesis: these experiences are psychologically willed by the individual

• more validity in an experience which alters life suggesting higher power

• the experience was profound and powerful e.g st Paul on his road to damascus

• Antithesis: Frued asserts that religious experience are no more illusions constructed by the psycho to satisfy neuroses

• Timothy Oleary argues they are illusory where LSD users and those claiming they have religious experience were indistinguishable

• Counter: William James argues despite being ‘psychological phenomena’ these are not illusions

• he argued as they are passive they are more credible as not wiled by individual contrary to frued

• James postulates that ‘good disposition’ of knowledge revealed points to distance of ‘something larger’

• teresa of Avila argued the experience is only ‘religious’ if recipient is left feeling at peace e.g James ‘good disposition’

• pragmatism: judge effects and not its validity

• frued findings based on select number of patients in a hospital, James conducted far more thorough research

Thesis: corporate experience may be more valid

• more reliable as multitude of people claiming to experience the same thing

• e.g Toronto blessing, pentecost, etc..

• antithesis: as conversions are passive, the kinds of people attracted to evangelical worship already predisposed to behaviour such as mass hysteria, thus experience is byproduct of church atmosphere (god would want you to do good not bark or laugh)

• Counter: Swinburne proposition of the two principles of credulity and testimony

• credulity: we have good reason to believe what we experience is true as so far as empiricist view of world demands us to do so

• testimony: just as someone is truthful in their claim doesn’t mean they have correct fully grasped truth of perception

• this is open to varying interpretations however when accounts of transcendent ineffable being

Thesis: we cannot prove or disprove religious experience instead judged on accordance with impact and value for individual

• epistemological question of other minds

• accept instead of question the highly valuable and powerful effect of potential higher power

• Antithesis: most religious experience fit into culture of the persons worship, religious people predisposed to religious experience , attracted to unusual snd bizarre arguing people search for conversions

• counter: Wittgenstein notion of ‘seeing as’ developed by John Hick to explain how people interpret the same things in different ways (duck rabbit picture)

• everything can be in different ways

‘The via negativa is the best approach to religious language’. Discuss

Thesis: Psuedo-Dionysisu saw a medative state as one closest to god

• He was theologian of between late 5th and earl 6th century of neoplatonic school of thought (belief our soul will unite god)

• ‘the cloud of unknowing’ is idea of going beyond realm of sense perception and reality

• despite characterised as Apophatic theology, stems from idea naming characteristics at all of god isn’t suffice in understand of being closer to him

• Antithesis: One may lose faith in god as the via negativa removes possibility of projecting one own ind. need for god onto their understanding of him

• Counter: This is the best approach regardless as one that puts false pretences onto god does not bring us closer to a dialogue about god within realm of truth

• doesnt allowed for more objective understanding of the oneness of god

• Human projection onto god runs risk of turning god into ideological tool

Thesis: Maimonides saw crucial distinction between the apophatic and cataphatic attempts to understand god

• ‘Apophatic’ stems from greek word ‘Apophemi’ meaning to deny

• jewish scholar inspired by Aristotelian idea of god as transcendent saw one will always faiul to truly characterise god with linguistic understanding

• cataphatic epithets (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, etc.. could only be projection of limited human ideals and deeply flawed

• the aforementioned characteristics only provide provisional knowledge

• gives example of describing unknown object. Its not flat, doesn’t travel by land, doesnt sink. Maimonides illustrates that we would reach conclusion of a ship as we would through what god isnt

• Antithesis: This does Maimonides a disservice as he makes deductive leap

• Philosopher, Brian Davies claims he could equally be thinking of a wardrobe. It exposes from those negations it proves unreasonable to end up with conclusion of ship.

• Davies claims we gain no understanding of god if we are not to speak of him with explicit sense of what he is

• Counter: Direct positive talk of god only anthropomorphises a god that is only a transcendent oneness

• we may not reach conclusion of a ship but his claim does not misconstrued our understanding of a ship

Thesis: Aquinas is able to give argument that tackles Apophatic theology with Analogy

• Maimonides and Psuedo-Dyonysius may dispute the literality of cataphatic theology, we must make distinction between this and positive attributes of god as metaphorical devices to describe feelings

• The summa theologica argues we are able to say positive things about god as long as we realise our words are analogically (just as we see diagrams to describe scientific explanations)

• ‘via emitetiae’ (the way of eminence) is the acknowledgement that what we say of god can only be partial

• attributes of god are inevitably flawed however much more consistent with scripture e.g the bible tells us god is loving. we cannot understand what that means yet we may understand through the analogy of proportion

• describe god as loving may be compared to flawed partial understanding od love yet understand gods love is proportionally greater