PHI 215: Week 9
Week 9: Philosophy of Religion
Chapter 1: The Intertwining of Philosophy and Religion in the Western Tradition
Most philosophers throughout history have had religious beliefs of some sort, and many of the nonreligious minority have been interested in, even consciously influenced by, religion
Having traced the intertwined history of philosophy and religion in the Western tradition from the pre-Socratics to the 1800s, we can now address the reputation of philosophy as dogmatically or closed-mindedly atheistic
Chapter 2: REASONS TO BELIEVE – THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS
This chapter reviews the most influential theoretical arguments for God’s existence: the teleological, the cosmological, and the ontological arguments
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The teleological argument takes as its starting point the appearance of purpose or design in the world. If there is design, there must be a designer.
Paley argues that organisms are analogous to human-created artifacts in that they involve a complex arrangement of parts that serve some useful function, where even slight alterations in the complex arrangement would mean that the useful function was no longer served. Had this arrangement been different in any minute detail, the eye would not successfully serve its higher function. To Paley, God is a powerful and simple hypothesis that must be invoked to explain the design resplendent in nature
Counter Argument: Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory of evolution by natural selection is widely taken to show that the complex arrangement of parts and the functions of the parts of organisms can be accounted for without reference to a designing mind. The appearance of design is merely appearance; the analogy between artifacts and organisms is a misleading one.
Teleological arguments continue to thrive in other forms. One line of thinking is the fine tuning argument. Our universe seems to be governed by a batch of laws of nature—e.g. gravity, the strong nuclear force
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The cosmological argument suggests God as the only adequate hypothesis in explaining why there is something rather than nothing
Clarke argues for the conclusion that God is the reason for the universe’s existence by showing the bankruptcy of the alternatives. Something must have existed from eternity, Clarke reasons, since to suppose otherwise would be to suppose that something arose from nothing, which is absurd. Further, this eternal something must be independent of the universe
Counter Argument: Hume questions why the universe itself may not be the necessary being. Clarke’s reason for rejecting this idea was that everything in the universe is contingent. But, Hume notes, Clarke is committing the fallacy of composition (A fallacy of composition involves assuming that parts or members of a whole will have the same properties as the whole)
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The ontological argument is unusual in that it has no empirical premises at all; God is not called upon as an explanation for anything. Rather, God’s existence is proven by reflection on the concept of God
Anselm is saying that God is the greatest conceivable being, that it is part of the concept of God that it is impossible to conceive of any being greater than God. I
To say something exists is not to say anything about the concept of it, only that the concept is instantiated in reality. But if existence cannot be part of a concept, then it cannot be part of the concept of God, and cannot be found therein by any sort of analysis.
Each argument has formidable proponents and detractors, and both the arguments and the responses to them raise difficult philosophical problems about the nature of thought (concepts, beliefs, arguments) and the nature of nature itself (time, causality, purpose)
Chapter 3: NON-STANDARD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE
PASCAL’S WAGER: The argument that attempts to show that one should believe in God even if there is no evidence for or against God’s existence.
Pascal holds that there are four possibilities:
Option (a): God exists and one believes that God exists
Option (b): God exists and one believes that God does not exist
Option (c): God does not exist and one believes that God exists
Option (d): God does not exist and one believes that God does not exist
Pascal argues that each possibility will have a particular outcome or payoff. Further, on the assumption that there is no evidence available to decide whether or not God exists, Pascal thinks we should choose the option which has the best payoff. Since we cannot choose whether or not God actually exists, our only choice is whether or not we believe that God exists. We are in the game, as it were, and we must place our bets.
However, Pascal thinks the outcomes for possibilities (a) and (b) are more striking. In fact, he thinks that if God exists and we choose to believe that God exists, then our gain will be unlimited. Further, if God exists and we choose to believe that God does not exist, Pascal says our loss will be unlimited. Since unlimited gains and losses will always outweigh limited gains and losses, we should choose to believe that God exists even if there is no evidence that would demonstrate God’s existence or nonexistence. If Pascal’s wager is a correct assessment of our options, then it turns out that not believing in God is irrational in terms of our self-interest.
C.S. LEWIS’S ARGUMENT FROM DESIRE: Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.
The argument concisely: 1. We have good reason to think that all of our natural desires have existing objects that satisfy those desires. 2. There exists, in most people, a natural desire (that is, the inconsolable longing) which is satisfied by neither anything within the range of sensory experience nor by anything in the natural world. 3. Therefore, we have good reason to think that something exists beyond the range of sensory experience and beyond the natural world that can satisfy the inconsolable longing. (from 1 and 2)
Now we add another premise that brings us to the final conclusion of the argument: 4. If we have good reason to think that something exists beyond the range of sensory experience and beyond the natural world that can satisfy the inconsolable longing, then we have some good reason to think that God exists. 5. Therefore, we have some good reason to think that God exists. (from 3 and 4)
Week 9: Philosophy of Religion
Chapter 1: The Intertwining of Philosophy and Religion in the Western Tradition
Most philosophers throughout history have had religious beliefs of some sort, and many of the nonreligious minority have been interested in, even consciously influenced by, religion
Having traced the intertwined history of philosophy and religion in the Western tradition from the pre-Socratics to the 1800s, we can now address the reputation of philosophy as dogmatically or closed-mindedly atheistic
Chapter 2: REASONS TO BELIEVE – THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS
This chapter reviews the most influential theoretical arguments for God’s existence: the teleological, the cosmological, and the ontological arguments
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The teleological argument takes as its starting point the appearance of purpose or design in the world. If there is design, there must be a designer.
Paley argues that organisms are analogous to human-created artifacts in that they involve a complex arrangement of parts that serve some useful function, where even slight alterations in the complex arrangement would mean that the useful function was no longer served. Had this arrangement been different in any minute detail, the eye would not successfully serve its higher function. To Paley, God is a powerful and simple hypothesis that must be invoked to explain the design resplendent in nature
Counter Argument: Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory of evolution by natural selection is widely taken to show that the complex arrangement of parts and the functions of the parts of organisms can be accounted for without reference to a designing mind. The appearance of design is merely appearance; the analogy between artifacts and organisms is a misleading one.
Teleological arguments continue to thrive in other forms. One line of thinking is the fine tuning argument. Our universe seems to be governed by a batch of laws of nature—e.g. gravity, the strong nuclear force
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The cosmological argument suggests God as the only adequate hypothesis in explaining why there is something rather than nothing
Clarke argues for the conclusion that God is the reason for the universe’s existence by showing the bankruptcy of the alternatives. Something must have existed from eternity, Clarke reasons, since to suppose otherwise would be to suppose that something arose from nothing, which is absurd. Further, this eternal something must be independent of the universe
Counter Argument: Hume questions why the universe itself may not be the necessary being. Clarke’s reason for rejecting this idea was that everything in the universe is contingent. But, Hume notes, Clarke is committing the fallacy of composition (A fallacy of composition involves assuming that parts or members of a whole will have the same properties as the whole)
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The ontological argument is unusual in that it has no empirical premises at all; God is not called upon as an explanation for anything. Rather, God’s existence is proven by reflection on the concept of God
Anselm is saying that God is the greatest conceivable being, that it is part of the concept of God that it is impossible to conceive of any being greater than God. I
To say something exists is not to say anything about the concept of it, only that the concept is instantiated in reality. But if existence cannot be part of a concept, then it cannot be part of the concept of God, and cannot be found therein by any sort of analysis.
Each argument has formidable proponents and detractors, and both the arguments and the responses to them raise difficult philosophical problems about the nature of thought (concepts, beliefs, arguments) and the nature of nature itself (time, causality, purpose)
Chapter 3: NON-STANDARD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE
PASCAL’S WAGER: The argument that attempts to show that one should believe in God even if there is no evidence for or against God’s existence.
Pascal holds that there are four possibilities:
Option (a): God exists and one believes that God exists
Option (b): God exists and one believes that God does not exist
Option (c): God does not exist and one believes that God exists
Option (d): God does not exist and one believes that God does not exist
Pascal argues that each possibility will have a particular outcome or payoff. Further, on the assumption that there is no evidence available to decide whether or not God exists, Pascal thinks we should choose the option which has the best payoff. Since we cannot choose whether or not God actually exists, our only choice is whether or not we believe that God exists. We are in the game, as it were, and we must place our bets.
However, Pascal thinks the outcomes for possibilities (a) and (b) are more striking. In fact, he thinks that if God exists and we choose to believe that God exists, then our gain will be unlimited. Further, if God exists and we choose to believe that God does not exist, Pascal says our loss will be unlimited. Since unlimited gains and losses will always outweigh limited gains and losses, we should choose to believe that God exists even if there is no evidence that would demonstrate God’s existence or nonexistence. If Pascal’s wager is a correct assessment of our options, then it turns out that not believing in God is irrational in terms of our self-interest.
C.S. LEWIS’S ARGUMENT FROM DESIRE: Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.
The argument concisely: 1. We have good reason to think that all of our natural desires have existing objects that satisfy those desires. 2. There exists, in most people, a natural desire (that is, the inconsolable longing) which is satisfied by neither anything within the range of sensory experience nor by anything in the natural world. 3. Therefore, we have good reason to think that something exists beyond the range of sensory experience and beyond the natural world that can satisfy the inconsolable longing. (from 1 and 2)
Now we add another premise that brings us to the final conclusion of the argument: 4. If we have good reason to think that something exists beyond the range of sensory experience and beyond the natural world that can satisfy the inconsolable longing, then we have some good reason to think that God exists. 5. Therefore, we have some good reason to think that God exists. (from 3 and 4)
