PHIL120 Final REV1
Philosophy of Religion Questions
(1) Kinds of Questions: Recognize the types of inquiries within the philosophy of religion.
(2) Natural vs. Revealed Theology:
Natural/Philosophical Theology: Explores theological concepts through reason and observation of the natural world.
Revealed Theology: Relies on divine revelation (e.g., scriptures, religious experiences) as the primary source of theological knowledge.
(3) David B. Hart on God:
(a) Proper Use of 'God': According to various religious traditions, when one uses the word 'God' properly, one is referring to the ultimate source and ground of all being, the transcendent reality that encompasses all things.
(b) 'Gods': Speaking of 'gods' implies finite, limited beings or powers, often associated with specific domains or aspects of reality, lacking the comprehensive and ultimate nature of the singular 'God'.
(4) Investigating God vs. Fairies/Gods:
(a) Investigating God (Hart): One investigates God through philosophical inquiry, examining the nature of existence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of a necessary being.
(b) Investigating Fairies/Gods: Investigating fairies and gods would involve empirical observation, gathering evidence of their existence and attributes, similar to how one might study natural phenomena.
(5) Monotheism: The belief in one God.
(6) Pantheism: The belief that God is everything and everything is God; God is immanent in the world.
(7) Panentheism: The belief that God is in everything and everything is in God, but God is also more than everything; God is both immanent and transcendent.
(8) Models of God's Nature:
(a) Two Models: Classical Theism and Neo-Theism.
(b) Filling the Blanks:
(i) Classical Theism: we are in very significant ways unlike God; even in the ways we are like God, e.g., in being personal, i.e., beings that know, will, and love, we are radically unlike God.
(ii) Neo-Theism: we begin talking about God begins by emphasizing ways we are like God, e.g., in knowing, willing, and loving. We are unlike God insofar as, unlike us, God is maximally perfect, good, and powerful.
(9) Senses of 'Person' and 'Personal': In philosophical theology, we tend to use the sense of 'person' as a being with consciousness, rationality, and the capacity for moral agency, and 'personal' as having qualities associated with persons, such as the ability to relate to others and experience emotions.
(10) Classical and Neo-Theist Views:
(a) Classical Theists: With just a few exceptions, classical theists accept Divine Simplicity.
(b) Exceptions: The one kind of exception are open theists, who deny God's foreknowledge of future contingent events.
(c) Neo-Theists: All neo-theists accept divine temporality but reject divine simplicity.
(d) Most neo-theists accept divine passibility, but some also reject different members of the divine attributes.
(11) Examples of Theists:
(a) Pagan Classical Theists: Plato, Aristotle.
(c) Jewish Classical Theists: Moses Maimonides, Philo.
(d) Christian Classical Theists: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas.
(e) Islamic Classical Theists: Avicenna, Al-Ghazali.
(12) God's Uncaused Existence:
(a) Uncaused Existence: God's existence is uncaused, meaning that it is in the very nature of God to exist. In saying that it is in the very nature of God to exist, we are already saying that God is utterly different from every other existent thing.
(b) Argument for No Cause: Argument from Necessary Existence.
(13) Metaphysical Simplicity:
(a) Definition: God is metaphysically simple means that God has no parts; God's essence and existence are identical.
(b) Argument: Argument from Divine Independence.
(c) God as Non-Spatial: God cannot be material or spatial since material/spatial beings are composed of parts.
(14) Mixed and Unmixed Perfections:
(a) Mixed Perfection: A quality that is good only in combination with other qualities or under certain conditions.
(b) Examples of Mixed Perfections: Courage (good in the face of danger, but not always), Mercy (good when tempered with justice).
(c) Unmixed Perfection: A quality that is good in itself, without any limitations or conditions.
(d) Examples of Unmixed Perfections: Knowledge, Love, Goodness, Power.
(15) Definition of Absolutely Perfect Being: An absolutely perfect being is one that possesses all unmixed perfections to the greatest possible degree, without any limitations or imperfections.
(16) God's Knowledge, Will, and Love:
(a) Classical Theist Argument: God's existence as an absolutely perfect being entails that God must possess knowledge, will, and love, as these are unmixed perfections.
(b) God's Way of Knowing/Willing/Loving: God knows, wills, and loves in a way that is unique to God's nature, i.e., perfectly, completely, and without any limitations.
(17) Why Only One God?: If God is absolutely perfect, there is only one God because there cannot be two beings each possessing all perfections to the maximum degree; otherwise, they would limit each other.
(18) God's Immutability:
(a) Why Immutable: God is immutable because change implies imperfection. An absolutely perfect being cannot be subject to change.
(b) Weinandy's Distinction: God's immutability is different from a rock's immutability because God's immutability is active and dynamic, not static. God's immutability is the perfection of his being, while a rock's immutability is a lack of being.
(19) Objection to Immutability:
(a) Objection from Hebrew Scriptures: Passages in the Hebrew Scriptures portray God as changing his mind or being affected by human actions raising questions about immutability.
(b) Maimonides/Aquinas Response (5 Stages):
Literal Interpretation: Recognize that some biblical passages are not meant to be taken literally.
Accommodation: Acknowledge that scripture often accommodates human understanding by using anthropomorphic language (describing God in human terms).
Divine Condescension: Understand that God condescends to communicate with humans in ways they can grasp, even if these ways don't fully capture God's true nature.
Reinterpretation: Reinterpret passages that seem to contradict divine immutability in a way that aligns with God's unchanging nature.
Emphasis on Divine Attributes: Focus on God's essential attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, which are consistent with immutability.
Ethics Questions
(20) Cheating:
(a) Examples: Copying answers, using unauthorized materials, plagiarism.
(b) Definition: Cheating is attempting to gain an unfair advantage in an academic context through dishonest means.
(21) Moral Differences: The four ways of making sense of the phenomenon of moral differences among human beings that Creel talks about on pp. 162-175 are moral nihilism, individual relativism, social relativism, and ethical absolutism.
(22) Ethical Nihilism:
(a) Definition: The view that there are no objective moral truths or values.
(b) Arguments in Defense:
Argument from Moral Disagreement: The widespread and persistent disagreement about moral issues suggests that there are no objective moral truths.
Argument from Lack of Proof: There is no way to prove the existence of objective moral truths.
(c) Argument Against: The existence of moral progress suggests that there are objective moral standards.
(23) Individual Relativism:
(a) Definition: The view that morality is relative to individual opinion or preference.
(b) Argument in Defense: The fact that people have different moral beliefs suggests that there is no objective moral truth.
(c) Strange Understanding of Tolerance: It is strange because tolerance seems to imply that there is something to tolerate, i.e., a moral view that one disagrees with, but relativism denies that there are any objective moral values, so there is nothing to tolerate.
(d) Argument Against: Individual relativism makes it impossible to criticize the moral beliefs or actions of others.
(24) Social Relativism:
(a) Definition: The view that morality is relative to the norms of a particular society or culture.
(b) Argument in Defense: Different societies have different moral codes, suggesting that morality is a social construct.
(c) Argument Against: Social relativism makes it impossible to criticize the moral practices of other cultures, even if those practices are harmful.
(25) Ethical Absolutism:
(a) Definition: The view that there are objective and universally valid moral principles.
(b) Naïve Ethical Absolutism: The belief that moral rules are simple, rigid, and without exceptions.
(c) Non-Naïve Ethical Absolutism: The belief that moral rules are complex and may have exceptions in certain circumstances.
(d) Argument to the Best Explanation: Ethical absolutism provides the best explanation for the existence of moral progress, moral disagreement, and our sense that some moral judgments are more justified than others.
(26) Classical Act Utilitarianism:
(a) Primary Principle: The principle of utility, which states that actions are right insofar as they promote happiness or pleasure and wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain.
(b) Consequentialism: The view that the morality of an action is determined solely by its consequences.
(b) Bentham on Happiness: Jeremy Bentham thought about happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain; he believed that pleasure and pain are the ultimate motivators of human action.
(c) Radical Altruism: Act utilitarianism is seen as a form of radical altruism because it requires individuals to consider the happiness of everyone affected by their actions, not just their own.
(27) Motivation for Act Utilitarianism: A possible motivation for classical act utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham is the desire to create a more just and equitable society, where everyone's happiness is taken into account.
(28) Argument Against Act Utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism can lead to counter-intuitive results, such as justifying actions that violate individual rights or seem unjust.
(29) Kantian Deontologism:
(a) Primary Principle Formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
(b) Non-Consequentialism: The view that the morality of an action is not determined by its consequences, but by its intrinsic nature or conformity to moral rules.
(c) Kant's Strong Non-Consequentialism: Kant's moral theory is a particularly strong form of non-consequentialism because he believes that the only thing that is good in itself is a good will, and a good will is one that acts out of duty to the moral law.
(d) Only One Right Reason for Acting: Kant thinks there is only one right reason for acting, i.e., only one proper motivation for doing something where that doing something would count as a morally good action which is duty.
(30) Categorical Imperative:
First Formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Second Formulation: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
(31) Direct Moral Obligations: According to the second form of the Categorical Imperative, we have direct moral obligations to all rational beings, including ourselves.
(32) Limitations of Kant's Deontologism:
(a) Two Potential Limitations:
Rigidity: Kant's moral rules can be too rigid, making it difficult to deal with complex or conflicting situations.
Abstractness: Kant's moral rules can be too abstract, making it difficult to apply them to concrete situations.
(b) Nazis-at-the-Door Example: Example in which Nazis ask if you have any Jews in your home; according to Kant lying is always wrong, so one must tell the truth and reveal the Jews.
(c) Alternative Way of Thinking about Lying: Lying is wrong because it violates trust and undermines social cooperation.
(d) Comparison: Kant thinks we have a duty, no matter the consequences, to not lie. The alternative view thinks that the wrongness of lying has to do with it's impact on those who are lied to.
(e) Illustration: It illustrates the problem because it shows how Kant's rules can be too rigid and abstract and how they can lead to counter-intuitive results.
(33) Aristotelian Virtue Ethics:
(a) Definition: A moral theory that emphasizes the development of good character traits (virtues) as the foundation of ethical behavior.
(b) Moral Virtue: A character trait that enables a person to act in accordance with reason and to achieve human flourishing (eudaimonia).
(c) Four Cardinal Virtues:
Prudence: The ability to discern the appropriate course of action in a given situation.
Justice: The disposition to treat others fairly and equitably.
Courage: The ability to face danger and adversity with fortitude and resilience.
Temperance: The ability to moderate one's desires and passions.
(d) Moral Particularism: The view that moral principles are not universal or absolute, but depend on the particular context of a situation.
(e) Not Moral Relativism: Moral particularism is not a form of moral relativism because it still believes in objective moral values, but it holds that these values must be applied in a flexible and context-sensitive way.
(f) Argument to the Best Explanation: Aristotelian virtue ethics provides the best explanation for the importance of character, the role of emotions in moral decision-making, and the complexity of ethical life.
Philosophy of Mind Questions
(34) Philosophical Problem: Creel is addressing the mind-body problem in chapter sixteen.
(35) Dualistic Interactionism (DI):
(a) Substance Dualism: The belief that the mind and body are distinct substances with different properties.
(b) Interactionism: The belief that the mind and body causally interact with each other.
(c) Philosophers: René Descartes, Nicolas Malebranche, and possibly Samuel Clarke.
(36) Descartes' Argument for DI: Descartes argues for DI on the basis of the reality of libertarian freewill, i.e., that our introspective awareness of our freedom to choose one alternative over another provides evidence against materialism.
(37) Argument from Personal Identity: One argument in defense of DI that Creel mentions is an argument that a materialist account of mind can’t make sense of personal identity through time and change, i.e., materialism can’t make sense of our common belief that we can remain numerically the same persons, despite the fact that our bodies undergo constant replacement of their parts.
(38) Criticisms of DI: Creel mentions criticisms of DI such as the problem of interaction (how can two fundamentally different substances causally interact?) and the problem of explaining consciousness within a dualistic framework.