Post on 23-Dec-2015
PART TWO: Phi losophy & Rel ig ion
Introduction to Philosophy
The Problem of Faith & Reason
Early Christian Thought Greeks Jewish Tradition Cause of the problem
Two sources: faith & reason Classic Questions Points of Disagreement Points of Agreement Biblical tradition: anti-philosophy Biblical tradition: pro-philosophy
The Problem of Faith & Reason
11th & 12th Century Introduction Reason as predominant
John Scotus Erigena Roscelin Abelard
Faith as predominant Monastic reforms Peter Damian St. Bernard
Anselm’s View Reason & Faith Proof through deduction
Synthesis of faith & reason-Aquinas Theology & philosophy
The Nature & Existence of God
Questions Metaphysical questions
What is the nature of God? Does God exist?
Epistemic Questions How do we know the nature of God? How do we know God exists?
Reason & Logic View A priori reasoning and God
A Priori Reasoning St. Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz
A posteriori reasoning and God A posteriori reasoning St. Aquinas, David Hume
The Nature & Existence of God
Rejection of Reason & Logic View Approaches
God can be known through faith. God can be known through mystical experience/divine revelation. God cannot be known by any means. Pascal’s Wager
Regresses & Absurdity
Regress & Absurdity Methodology Introduction
Circular Regress Defined Form & Examples
A requires A A requires B, B requires C…Z requires A Job-Experience
Infinite Regress Defined Form
1 requires 2 2 requires 3 3 requires 4 X requires X+1
Regresses & Absurdity
The Evil BureaucratReductio Ad Absurdum (Reducing to Absurdity)
Defined Form #1
Assume P is true. Prove that assuming P leads to something false, absurd or contradictory. Conclude that P is false.
Form #2 Assume P is false. Prove that assuming P is false leads to something false, absurd or
contradictory. Conclude that P is true.
Example
Regresses & Absurdity
ExampleUsing a regress in a Reductio Ad Absurdum
Introduction Example
St. Anselm
Background Background (1033-1109) Goal
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Anselm’s A Priori Argument for God’s Existence The fool understands
“God”: a being than which nothing can be conceived (NGCBC). Fool says there is no God. The understands what he hears. What he understands is in his understanding. It is one thing for an object to be in the understanding. It is another to understand the object exists.
Painter analogy The fool is convinced something exists in his understanding.
From Understanding to Reality Whatever is understood is in the understanding. That than which NGCBC cannot exist in the understanding alone. If NGCBC exists in the understanding alone, it is something GCBC.
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Suppose it exists only in the understanding-it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater.
If NGCBC exists in the understanding alone it is GCBC. This is impossible. There exists NGCBC in reality & understanding.
God cannot be conceived not to exist NGCBC exists so truly it cannot be conceived not to exist. It is possible to conceive of a being that which cannot be conceived not to
exist and this is greater than one that can be conceived not to exist. If NGCBC can be conceived not to exist, it is not NGCBC. This is a contradiction. There is so truly a NGCBC that it cannot even be conceived not to exist.
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
God alone cannot be conceived not to exist God exists and cannot be conceived not to exist. If one could conceive of a being better than God, the creature would rise
above its creator, which is absurd. Everything, except God, can be conceived not to exist. God alone exists more truly than all others and hence in a higher degree. Whatever else exists does not exist so truly so it exists to a lesser degree. So the fool denies God because he is a fool.
Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm
Challenge & Doubt Gaunilo’s Challenge
Suppose it is said a being which cannot be even conceived in terms of any fact, is in the understanding.
Gaunilo accepts that this being is in his understanding. He will not accept that it has a real existence until a proof is given.
Gaunilo’s Doubt Anselm claims this being exists-otherwise the being which is greater than all
will not be greater than all. Gaunilo doubts that this being is greater than any real object. The only existence it has is the same as when the mind, from a word heard,
tries to form the image of an unknown object.
Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm
How is the existence of that being proved from the assumption that it is greater than all other beings?
He does not admit that this being is in his understanding even in the way which many objects whose real existence is uncertain and doubtful, are in his understanding.
It should be proved first that this being really exists. Then, from the fact that it is greater than all, we would conclude it also
subsists in itself.
Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm
Gaunilo’s Perfect Island Argument The Perfect Island
There is an island that is impossible to find, the “lost” island. This island has inestimable wealth and no owner or inhabitant. Hence it is more excellent than all other countries, which are inhabited. If someone claims there is such an island, Gaunilo would understand his
words. The parity of reasoning: But suppose he said:
You cannot doubt that this most excellent of island exists somewhere. You have no doubt that it is in your understanding. It is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist in the
understanding and in reality. Hence, the island must exist. If it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent. Hence, the island understood to be more excellent will not be more
excellent.
Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm
Gaunilo’s Criticism of this line of reasoning. If someone tried to persuade him by such reasoning, he would assume the person
was jesting or regard him or himself a fool. It ought to be shown that: The hypothetical excellence of this island exists as a real and indubitable fact. It is not an unreal object, or one whose existence is uncertain in Gaunilo’s
understanding. A note of Gaunilo’s method.
He is combining parity of reasoning with a reduction to absurdity. Parity of reasoning: to use reasoning that parallels the reasoning in question. In this case Gaunilo is using the same line of reasoning as Anselm. Reducing to absurdity: to prove that a claim is implausible by drawing an absurd or
contradictory conclusion from it. In this case Gaunilo draws an absurd conclusion by using Anselm’s method.
He thus concludes that the method is flawed.
Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo
The Island Anselm’s Summary of Gaunilo’s Objection
One should suppose an island in the ocean, which surpasses all lands in its fertility.
Because of the impossibility of discovering what does not exist is called a lost island.
There can be no doubt that this island truly exists in reality. Hence one who hears it described understands what he hears.
Anselm’s Challenge If any shall devise anything existing in reality or in concept alone
(except that than which a greater cannot be conceived) to which he can apply Anselm’s reasoning, he will discover it.
Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo
Anselm’s Reply Part one: God cannot be conceived not to be.
This being than which a greater is inconceivable cannot be conceived not to be. Because it exists on so assured a ground of truth. Otherwise it would not exist at all.
Part Two: The dilemma So, if one claims he conceives this being not to exist, at the time when he conceives of
this either he conceives of a being than which a greater is inconceivable or he does not conceive at all.
If he does not conceive, he does not conceive of the nonexistence of that of which he does not conceive.
If he conceives, he certainly conceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to exist.
If it could be conceived not to exist, it could be conceived to have a beginning and an end.
This impossible.
Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo
Part Three: It’s inconceivable. He who conceives of this being conceives of a being which cannot
be even conceived not to exist. But he who conceives of this being does not conceive that it does
not exist. If he does so, then he conceives what is inconceivable. The nonexistence of that than which a greater cannot be conceived
is inconceivable.
St. Thomas Aquinas
Background (1224-1274) Early Life
Son of the count of Aquino Imprisoned in a tower Albert the Great Eastern Orthodox Church Mystic Experience Canonized in 1323 1879 Pope Leo XIII
The Ox Nickname The flying Cow
Works 25 Volumes Summa Theologica
St. Thomas Aquinas
Aristotle & Aquinas Complete Works
12th-13th Century: the complete works of Aristotle became available in Europe.
Aristotle’s works presented a systematic and developed philosophy. Conflict
Aristotle: the world is eternal and uncreated. Apparently did not accept personal immortality. Ibn Rushd’s commentaries on Aristotle Neo-Platonism
Aquinas’ View Aristotle’s view could be adopted without heresy. Regarded Aristotle as a rich intellectual behavior. “The Philosopher.” Aristotle as a pagan lacking divine revelation.
St. Thomas Aquinas
Shift from Plato to Aristotle Platonic notions of the eternal & other worldliness. Aristotle’s works presented a systematic and developed philosophy.
Faith & Reason Reconciliation: Augustine
Sin damaged reason Grace Faith as necessary condition for philosophical understanding
Reconciliation: Aquinas Sin did not criple our rational facilities Reason as autonomous source of knowledge Distinguishes between philosophy & theology Two sources of knowledge
Theology yields knowledge via faith & revelation Philosophy yield knowledge via reason and experience
St. Thomas Aquinas
Truth: Christian teachings that a matter of faith Known via revelation Beyond reason, not contrary to reason Objections and problems Cannot be proven/disproven by reason Examples: trinity, incarnation, original sin, etc.
Truth: Empirical Knowledge & Self Evident Philosophical Principles Not known via revelation Examples: Aristotle’s logic, biological functions of heart
Truth: Overlap of philosophy & theology Known via revelation or reason Examples: God’s existence & qualities, existence of the soul, immortality,
natural moral law Two Type of Theology
Revealed supernatural Natural theology Conflict
St. Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas’ Epistemology & Metaphysics Epistemology
Aristotle’s Influence Blank slate No innate knowledge Senses provide reason with content Intellect
Intellect Passive & active Passive operations Objects of experience Active aspect Potential Natural process
St. Thomas Aquinas
Metaphysics: Hierarchy Actuality & Potentiality
Prime matter-potentiality Forms-actuality God-pure actuality Change
Great Chain of Being Hierarchy Variety Angels Knowable Purpose Objective Values
St. Thomas Aquinas
Metaphysics: Existence & Essence Essence & Existence
Essence Existence
God His essence entails He exists God Necessity Rejection of ontological argument Empirical experience
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
Introduction Introduction
Aristotle General Form
If the world has X, then God exists. The world has X. God exists.
Cosmological argument Assumption: infinite regress of causes is not possible
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
The First Way (the Way of Motion) Some things are in motion Whatever is moved is moved by another Potentiality A thing moves Reduction from potentiality to actuality
Fire Actuality & potentiality in different respects
Hot Cold
Impossible to be both moved and mover. Whatever is moved is moved by another Moved by another
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
Moved by another This cannot go on to infinity
No first mover No other mover Moved by first mover
Staff First mover This everyone understands to be God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
The Second Way ( Efficient Cause) Order of efficient causes Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself Not possible to go on to infinity Efficient causes following an order
First Intermediate
Take away the cause If no first cause, then neither intermediate nor ultimate If it is possible to go on to infinity
No first efficient cause No ultimate effect No immediate efficient causes Plainly false
First efficient cause to which everyone gives the name God.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
The Third Way (Possibility & Necessity) Possible to be and not to be Impossible for these to always exist One time there was nothing Nothing would exist now Impossible for anything to have begun to exist Thus now nothing would be in existence There must exist something whose existence is necessary Every necessary thing either has its necessity cause by another or not Impossible to go on to infinity
As per efficient causes Therefore we must admit the existence of a being
Having of itself its own necessity Not receiving it from another Causing necessity in others
This all men speak of as God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
The Fourth Way (Gradation) Among beings are some more and some less More or less are predicated by resemblance to a maximum There is something truest, best, noblest There is something most in being The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus
Fire There must be something which is the cause of being, goodness, perfection This being we call God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
The Fifth Way (Governance of the World) Things that act from knowledge act for an end Evident from acting in the same way Whatever lacks knowledge must be directed Therefore some intelligent being directs all natural things This being we call God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
Common Mistakes in Interpreting the 5 Ways Everything must have a cause
Does not assume this What is potential must be cause by what is actual Created beings
The world has a beginning in time Does not attempt to prove this Does not disprove Aristotle’s eternal world and unmoved mover Possibility of an eternal universe First cause
Eternal flame God as a continuously sustaining cause Not possible to prove an eternal world St. Bonaventure Beginning in time Revelation, not proof
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
Common Criticisms Five beings
Five different beings Being distinguished by qualities Perfect and unlimited being Two perfect beings would be identical Cannot be two unlimited beings
“And this everyone understands to be God” Different from the personal God Not a complete view of God Important qualities Way of gradation
Gottfried Leibniz
Background German Culture
Stagnant Languages Reformation & 30 Years Way (1618-1648) No other significant thinkers
Background for Leibniz Early Years Professional career Diplomacy Works Logical Method
Leibniz: Arguments for God
God Proofs for God’s Existence
Ontological argument Eternal & necessary truths Design argument Cosmological argument
Proof of God’s Existence for God’s Existence God
Supreme substance Unique, universal, necessary Nothing else independent Incapable of limits, as much reality as possible.
Perfection God is absolutely perfect Perfections from God, imperfections from their own nature
Leibniz: Arguments for God
Existence God is the source Existence of a necessary being God alone must exist if he is possible
Leibniz: Arguments for God
The Cosmological Argument Two principles on which reasons are founded
Contradiction False True
Sufficient reason Reason why it is so Known
Two kinds of truth Those of reasoning
Necessary Analysis
Those of fact Contingent Possible
Leibniz: Arguments for God
Sufficient Reason Contingent truths Resolution Contingents Sufficient/final reason
God Necessary substance Change exists eminently God suffices
Leibniz: Problem of Evil
Best of All Possible Worlds The best world
“best of all possible worlds” Single event Entirety God’s choice
God’s Choice Infinity of possible universes Reason Best Wisdom Goodness Power
Diversity Only God is perfect God must pick the best Variety & order
Leibniz: Problem of Evil
No Better World Possible Intellectualist view
God’s will The problem and reply
God lacks goodness Defects Big picture Not made for us alone
The Best Impossible Reply
Denial of Pantheism Infinite divisibility Infinity is not a whole God Universe is not an animal or substance
Leibniz: Problem of Evil
Evil as Privation Whence does evil come? Origin of Evil-Ancients
Matter Uncreated
Origin of Evil-intellectualist view Eternal verities Original imperfection Errors
Understanding & Necessity Plato God & Nature Understanding Necessity Understanding Primitive Form Ideal Cause Formal cause Evil is deficient
Leibniz: Problem of Evil
The Analogy of the Boat Boats
Cargo Slower Receptivity Slower
The Analogy Current is like God Inertia is like imperfection Slowness is like defects Current causes motion not retardation God causes perfection Limitation in receptivity God causes the material element of evil not the formal Current is the material cause of retardation but not the formal
It causes the speed but not the limit God and sin
Defects God produces all that is positive, good and perfect Imperfections arise from the original limitations God cannot give all Degrees of perfection
David Hume
Background (1711-1776) Life & Philosophical Writings
Born 1711 Edinburgh University France Works
A Treatise of Human Nature An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals Natural History of Religion Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion History of England
Died 1776 (still dead today)
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God
Skepticism Introduction
Skeptical A priori & a posteriori arguments fail Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Cleanthes: a posteriori arguments Demea: faith & a priori arguments Philo: skeptic All arguments for God fail First cause arguments
Reason Matters of fact Existence A priori reasoning Conceiving Demonstrable Relations of ideas
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God
Causation Assumption Causality as habit House analogy Universe No constant conjunction No empirical argument based on causation
Rejection of Design Mechanistic assumption Resembles animal/vegetable more than a machine Matching environment Ideally suited
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God
Five Problems Introduction
Like effects First Problem
Finite effect Cause as great as the effect
Second Problem Perfect Perfect universe Falls short No other universes
Third Problem As good as possible Many worlds Labor lost Slow improvement
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God
Fourth Problem One God Analogy
Fifth God as physical being
Hume’s Problem of Evil
Establishing the Misery Philo-Feeling
Misery Eloquence Feel it more
Demea-Truth Truth Miseries Cannot be doubted
Philo-Agreement Learned Poets
Demea-Writers & Misery All complain
Philo-Leibniz Denied
Hume’s Problem of Evil
Demea-Leibniz First Denial
Demea-Catalog of Evils Earth War Necessity Birth Weakness
Philo-Chain of Misery Prey Torment Enemies
Demea-Man as an exception Partial exception Master lions, tigers and bears
Hume’s Problem of Evil
Philo-Man creates his own demons Real enemies Imaginary enemies Death Timid flock
Demea-Society Man is the greatest enemy of man Torments Dread
Demea-Problems External problems Labor & poverty Few Goods of life Stranger visiting the world Pleasure
Hume’s Problem of Evil
Philo-Misery No reason to complain Why stay alive Objection: false delicacy Reply: delicacy Objection: rest Rely: rest leads to disappointment
Cleanthes Sees problems in others, not self
Demea-Reply to Cleanthes Cleanthes is unique
Hume’s Problem of Evil
Philo-The Problem of Evil Philo challenges Cleanthes
Anthropomorphism Power argument
Power is infinite Wills No happiness Does not will
Wisdom Argument Wisdom is infinite Never mistaken Not to felicity Not for that purpose
Conclusion Benevolence Epicurus’ Questions
Willing but not able Able, but not willing Able and willing
Hume’s Problem of Evil
More Problem of Evil Philo-Refutation of Divine Benevolence
Cleanthes: nature has a purpose & intention Preservation and propagation No resources for the happiness of individuals Racking pains Mirth Divine benevolence Mystics
Cleanthes If proven unhappy, all religion ends.
Demea-big picture reply to the problem of evil Point & moment Other regions & future Benevolence
Cleanthes-Enjoyments outweigh pains Deny misery & wickedness Exaggeration
Health Pleasure Happiness
Hume’s Problem of Evil
Philo-Pain exceeds pleasure More violent & durable Pain Torment Pleasure Pain Death
Philo-No foundation for religion unless Human life is happy Existence is desirable
Philo-Not what we expect Estimate Uncertain Does nothing Not what we expect
Hume’s Problem of Evil
Philo-why any evil at all? Not by chance Contrary to his intention Attack
Philo-Compatibility Compatible Mere possibility Pure from impure Insufficient Insufficient
Philo-Conclusion Faith alone
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul
Soul & Substance Reason
Difficult to prove Metaphysical, moral or physical
Metaphysics Unknown Substance
Immaterial & material Confused & Imperfect Unknown Cause & effect Abstract reasoning
Spiritual Substances analogous to Material Substance Analogy Clay Dissolved Immortal substance
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul
Memory, Consciousness & Substances Loss of memory & consciousness Incorruptible & ingenerable Existence before birth
Animals Animals Souls
Moral Arguments God’s Justice
Moral arguments Punishment Attributes This universe
Present Life Present Life Fostering fears
Fear the Future Fear Riches Present life Deceit
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul
Humans & Animals Powers Parity of reasoning
Women Mortal soul Religious theory Equal
No Object of God’s Punishment First cause Ordained by Him Nothing
Punishment without purpose Proportion in punishment
Proportional Damnation
Additional concerns Heaven & Hell Lenience Infancy
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul
Physical Physical Arguments Sleep Argument
Connected Sleep
Proportion Argument Proportional Dissolution
Condition Argument Analogy Dissolution
Souls of Animals Mortal Analogy
Change Argument Flux Immortal
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul
Infinite Number of Souls Infinite Planets
Lack of Argument Argument Insensibility Argument Horrors & Passions
Horrors Nothing in vain Postpone Death Passions Hopes
Defending a Negative Advantage Arguments New logic Divine revelation
Immanuel Kant
Background Personal Information
1724-1797 Contributions
Arguments for God Introduction
Reason cannot be used Three ways Method of elimination
Immanuel Kant
Ontological Argument Can conceive of a perfect being The conceivable is possible Possible a perfect being exists If PB exists, then has all perfections Existence is a perfection If PB exists, then it has existence Possible that a PB necessarily exists Absurd Thus a perfect being must exist of necessity
Kant’s First Refutation of the Ontological Argument Concept of God includes concept of absolutely necessary being Compares to nature of a triangle Does not show triangles exist If God, then being exists necessarily-deniable. Cannot go from concept to existence.
Immanuel Kant
Second Refutation of the Ontological Argument Existence is not a predicate Existence is not a property that adds to the concept of X If existence is not a property, then it cannot be an essential part of God’s
concept Merchant analogy
The Cosmological Argument A necessarily existing first cause Assumes the principle that everything has a cause The principle only applies to the realm of experience Defects of the ontological argument
The Teleologicial Argument Intelligent designer Praise Design imposed on pre-existing matter Need for cosmological argument
Immanuel Kant
Conclusion Attempts to prove God’s existence are fruitless Impossible to prove God does not exist Theist and Atheist cannot know Possibility of basing religion on practical or moral faith “To deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
Blaise Pascal
Background Life
1623-1662 Contributions Major Works
Lettres Provinciales Pensees
Pascal’s Wager
Part One God
Do not know God’s nature or existence Existence is known through faith
God cannot be known If God exists, He is infinitely incomprehensible No parts or limits, so no affinity to us Incapable of knowing if or what He is Dare not undertake
God’s Existence Cannot be Proven Christians cannot be blamed If the proved it Objection
The Wager God is or He is not Reason can decide nothing here What to Wager?
Pascal’s Wager
Choice Don’t Reprove Blame Must wager
Which to Chose Two things to lose: true, good Two things at stake: reason & will, knowledge & happiness Two things to shun: error & misery Must choose
Wager for God Weigh gain and loss If gain, gain all If lose, lose nothing Wager that He is
Objection & Reply Perhaps one wagers too much Equal risk, 2 lives 3 lives to gain
Pascal’s Wager
Eternity of life & happiness Infinity of chances, wager 1 to win 2 1 against 3, 1 in infinity, infinity of infinitely happy life There is What you stake is finite Give all Renounce reason
Uncertainty Useless to say
Uncertain gain Certain risk Infinite distance
Not so: staking a certainty against an uncertainty Not an infinite distance Infinity between certainty of gain and certainty of loss Uncertainty of gain proportioned to certainty of stake
Pascal’s Wager
Risks If equal risks, then play even Certainty of stake = uncertainty of gain Proposition has infinite force Demonstrable
How to Make Yourself Believe Seeing the cards Believing
Force to wager Learn inability to believe Attain faith Learn Follow Lessen passions
Concerns Regarding Pascal’s Wager
Disjunction The disjunction False dilemma/many gods
False dilemma Options
Knowledge of God Lack of knowledge
Need the wager Problem
If we cannot know God, we cannot know how He will react Payoff and loss cannot be known No rational way to bet
Ethics Abandoning reason Ethics