Conception of God attributes, Descartes' foundationalism, and Newtonian gravity

Conceptions of God, argumentation strategy, and foundationalism

• Opening premise: If you accept a conception of God as omnipotent, benevolent, and a free creator, you don’t have to agree with every argument. You can start from first premises and demand defense: “Prove to me why you think God has all these attributes.”
• Common contemporaries share certain divine attributes, which Descartes and others use as a starting point for argumentation.
• Descartes’ added divine attributes (as discussed by contemporaries):
  • God is simple (indivisible) and immutable (unchanging).
  • God is omnipotent and supremely good.
• Strategy for arguing about God:
  • Use widely shared premises about God to draw implications of divine action (e.g., what omnipotence entails).
  • Build a comprehensive, compelling argument from these common premises to persuade others.
• Important caution: not all premises are commissible (widely shareable). You should be prepared to defend premises that may be contested and address objections.
  • If your opponents don’t share a premise, you should explain why you think the objection does not undermine it.
  • Example objection: some people might deny a key premise; you need to show why the objection fails.
• Question: should we start from ground up by defending foundational theological commitments? Answer given: it’s not necessary to start from a fully loaded theology; it’s often adequate to state that God is omnipotent and supremely good, but you must address possible objections from those who disagree.
• Practical note for writing about violence or other controversial topics: consider objections that someone may not share your conception of God, and be prepared to respond.

Newtonian gravitation: the formula, evidence, and epistemic status

• The slide presents Newton’s law of universal gravitation in short form: there is a universal gravitational force between any two bodies that depends on their masses and the distance between them.
• Core formulae:
  • Direct proportionality to masses and inverse square with distance:
    F \propto m1 m2 \\propto \(\frac{1}{r^2}\)
  • Combined into the universal law:
    F = G \frac{m1 m2}{r^2}
  • Action–reaction (Newton’s Third Law):
    \vec{F}{12} = -\vec{F}{21}
• How Newton argues for universality:
  • He generalizes from observed data to propose a single law that governs both terrestrial and celestial motions.
  • He does not rely on direct measurement of the tiny gravitational force between ordinary bodies (which was technologically inaccessible in his time).
  • Instead, he derives the premise that a consistent law must explain planetary motions (e.g., moons orbiting planets, planets orbiting the sun) and the way massive bodies attract
    toward each other, unifying celestial and terrestrial gravity.
• Historical context and challenges:
  • In the 17th century, precise instrumentation to measure tiny inter-body attractions did not exist.
  • It wasn’t until the late 20th century that devices could directly measure the attraction between ordinary bodies with high precision.
  • Newton’s claim relies on theoretical deduction from premises in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and the Third Law of Motion, plus observational data about planetary motion.
• Key premises and how they unfold:
  • Premise: There exists a force that acts to keep celestial bodies in orbit (e.g., the sun’s influence on planets).
  • Premise: The force behaves similarly across different contexts (terrestrial and celestial).
  • Premise: The force obeys a specific mathematical relationship with distance and masses, leading to a central force model with inverse-square dependence.
  • Using the Third Law, forces acting on bodies are mutual: the sun attracts planets just as planets attract the sun (equal magnitude, opposite direction).
  • From these premises, Newton concludes the existence of universal gravitation as the mutual attraction between any two bodies in the universe.
• Important historical anecdotes:
  • The famous apple story is used to illustrate a relatable moment that invites the intuition of a universal attractive force, though the formal argument rests on the mathematical premises and observed planetary motions, not the anecdote itself.
• Takeaway on method:
  • Scientific argument often builds from a network of premises drawn from prior theorems and experimental data.
  • The strength of the conclusion rests on the coherence of the premises and their compatibility with observed phenomena, not on a single measurement.

Descartes’ meditation on knowledge and foundationalism

• Descartes’ overarching goal in the First Meditation:
  • To demolish all previous beliefs and start anew, establishing a stable foundation for the sciences that can withstand future developments.
• Why he doesn’t demolish everything at once:
  • It would be too time-consuming to enumerate every belief; instead, he seeks reasons to doubt enough to undermine the entire edifice.
• Foundationalism (bedrock theory of knowledge):
  • Some beliefs are foundational and do not require justification from other beliefs.
  • Other beliefs depend on these foundational beliefs for their epistemic status.
  • Raw sensory data are often invoked as foundational examples (e.g., “this cup is red”).
• The problem of foundations:
  • If sensory beliefs are foundational, then questions arise about whether they can be trusted in all cases.
  • The idea is that you should be able to justify other beliefs by appealing to foundational beliefs without infinite regress.
• The role of God in Descartes’ epistemology (in later meditations):
  • Although not deemed foundational in the First Meditation, God is later argued to be essential to guarantee the truth of perceptual beliefs.
  • Thus, God can function as a foundational guarantee for perception in the subsequent meditations (e.g., the Third Meditation).
• The question of whether there are distinctions between foundational and non-foundational beliefs:
  • Some authors argue there is a sharp distinction; others argue there is no such clear division (a potential point of disagreement with Descartes’ model).
• The source of our beliefs:
  • Whether you trust senses directly or through scientific theories, the raw sensory data ultimately come from experience and observations.
  • Descartes considers objections that senses can deceive, but he also notes that immediate, near experiences (e.g., sensations in one’s own vicinity) are harder to doubt than distant perceptions.
• The “dream” doubt and skeptical challenge:
  • The worry: perhaps we are dreaming now; if so, no sense-grounded belief is certain.
  • The exercise is to assess how such doubt affects the foundations of knowledge and what methods can restore certainty.
• Stepwise approach to the introspection project:
  • Step 1: State the goal (foundational certainty).
  • Step 2: Identify foundations (which beliefs can secure justification for others).
  • Step 3 (implied): Evaluate whether God becomes necessary to guarantee the truth of sensations, thereby affecting the foundational status of sensory beliefs.
• Practical implications and objections:
  • If you accept a strict foundationalist view, some beliefs must rest on a secure bedrock without further justification.
  • If you reject foundationalism, you may adopt a more coherentist or non-foundational account, wherein justification arises through the coherence of the entire system rather than a fixed bedrock.

Foundationalism, objection handling, and argument design in practice

• Building a defense for premises:
  • If a premise is not widely accepted, you should either defend it or acknowledge a reasonable objection and explain why it does not defeat your case.
  • You should not assume that all premises used in an argument are immediately agreeable; anticipate objections and respond.
• The role of common ground in argumentation:
  • It is effective to start from premises that most listeners already accept and then explore the implications of those premises.
  • When necessary, extend the discussion to defend less common premises or show why objections fail.
• Real-world relevance:
  • These discussions illustrate how to construct coherent, persuasive arguments about foundational topics (divine attributes, epistemology, science), balancing intuitive premises with rigorous reasoning.
  • They also highlight the importance of acknowledging and addressing opposition in debates about religion, science, and knowledge.

Break and context

• The speaker notes a ten-minute break and indicates a transition to continue the discussion after 03:40.
• Practical takeaway: pauses in lectures are opportunities to reflect on arguments, reassess premises, and anticipate counterarguments before proceeding to more technical detail.

Quick recap of key points and connections

• God concepts and argumentative strategy:
  • Use commonly shared divine attributes to justify implications of God’s action.
  • Be prepared to defend non-common premises and address objections.
• Descartes and foundationalism:
  • Aim to identify a secure foundation for knowledge, using sensory beliefs as a starting point in the First Meditation.
  • God’s role as a guarantor of truth emerges in later meditations, shaping the status of perceptual beliefs.
• Newtonian gravitation:
  • The universal law of gravitation ties terrestrial and celestial phenomena to a single inverse-square law.
  • The mathematical form is concise and powerful: F = G \frac{m1 m2}{r^2} with the third-law symmetry \vec{F}{12} = -\vec{F}{21}.
• Methodological takeaway:
  • Scientific and philosophical arguments rely on a network of premises, theoretical principles, and empirical data; they require defense against objections and careful consideration of foundational assumptions.
• Skepticism and epistemology:
  • Skeptical challenges like the dream argument test the robustness of foundations.
  • The balance between foundational and non-foundational beliefs shapes how we justify knowledge claims.

Key formulas and references

• Newton’s universal gravitation: F = G \frac{m1 m2}{r^2}
  • Where: $F$ is the gravitational force, $G$ is the gravitational constant, $m1$ and $m2$ are the masses, and $r$ is the distance between the centers of the two masses.
• Inverse-square law implication for orbits and universal attraction.
• Third Law of Motion (action–reaction):
  \vec{F}{12} = -\vec{F}{21}

Real-world relevance and ethical/philosophical implications

• The discussion illustrates how foundational beliefs shape methods in science and philosophy, and how common ground can facilitate debate on contentious topics.
• It highlights the importance of defending premises in arguments and anticipating objections, which is essential for ethical and public discourse in science, religion, and policy.
• The unity of celestial and terrestrial phenomena under a single law (gravity) demonstrates the power of simple, universal principles to explain complex systems, a foundational insight in the philosophy of science.