Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Binitarianism wikipedia , lookup
God the Father wikipedia , lookup
Wiccan views of divinity wikipedia , lookup
God in Sikhism wikipedia , lookup
Divine providence in Judaism wikipedia , lookup
Holocaust theology wikipedia , lookup
State (theology) wikipedia , lookup
Re-Imagining wikipedia , lookup
Jewish existentialism wikipedia , lookup
Intro to Philosophy Phil 110 Lecture 4: 1-19 Daniel Kelly I. Mechanics A. Near Future 1. Today a. Paley, Natural Theology b. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (2,5,9) c. Dennett, Show Me the Science 2. Next week a. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (10) b. Mackie, Free Will and the Problem of Evil c. Pascal, Pensées : Notes on Religion and Other Subjects d. Saka, Pascal’s Wager About God i. Like all the readings for this course, these can be downloaded from the course website, which, if you’ve found these lecture notes, you’ve found B. Down the road a bit: 1. First Papers Due: In class, Tuesday 2/7 2. First Outlines Due: by the end of the first chapter on Philosophy of Religion, which will be around Tuesday 2/7 3. Mark your calendars, we will not meet on these days: a. Thursday February 2nd b. Thursday March 2nd (Central APA) c. Thursday March 9th (UC Irvine) d. Week of March 13-17 Spring Break (woo!) e. Thursday March 23rd (Purdue Sustainability Workshop) f. Thursday April 6th (Duke) New Chapter: Philosophy of Religion I. Some Preliminaries II. The Cosmological Argument III. The Ontological Argument A. Preliminaries 1. St. Anselm Fun Facts 2. Proving the “right” God 3. Some important concepts used in the Ontological Argument a. Possibility: as we’re going to interpret it, in Anselm’s argument, “possible” means logically possible b. Existing in thought vs. existing in reality c. Perfections: Those properties which make an entity that has them greater or better d. Reductio ad absurdum arguments i. This is a particular form of argument often used in math and logic ii. These arguments prove their conclusion by A. Assuming the opposite of what they want to prove B. Deriving, or showing how that assumption, together with some other true premises, logically leads to an something absurd, like a contradiction C. Concluding the initial (opposite) assumption is false iii. For this class, we’re going to formulate the Ontological argument as a reductio ad absurdum B. The Ontological Argument (in full detail) 1. (Reductio assumption) God does not exist in reality 2. (Premise) God exists in the understanding 3. (Premise) Existence in reality is a perfection 4. (Premise) The existence of God in reality is possible (not a contradiction) 5. (conjoining 1&2) God exists in the understanding, but not reality 6. (follows from 3) If something exists only in the understanding, but it is possible for the object to exist in reality as well, then it is possible for that object to be greater than it is 7. (from 4,5,6) It is possible for God to be greater than he is. 8. It is possible for [A BEING GREATER THAN WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE] to be greater than it is 9. Step 8 clearly expresses a contradiction (is absurd) 10. The initial reductio assumption is false 11. Therefore, God does exist in reality C. Comments 1. Obviously, this is a very complicated line of reasoning, it’s probably the most complex argument we’ll look at 2. I’ve made all of these steps as explicit as I can – it’s a lot to keep track of, but you can follow each step of the reasoning (as opposed to Anselm’s text, which goes by it all a lot quicker, no?) 3. Intuitively, you might think of the gist or basic idea behind this argument in terms of a short and dirty version: a. Simply from the existence and nature of the concept of GOD b. It must follow that God himself exists in reality c. Analogously: i. Just like from the concept of a TRIANGLE, it must follow that triangles have exactly 3 closed sides ii. Or from the concept of a BACHELOR it must follow that bachelors are unmarried 4. Compare how the fool said in this heart what cannot be thought: a. This triangle has 5 sides b. This bachelor has a wife c. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously d. God doesn’t exist in reality D. What’s wrong with the Ontological argument? 1. Reasons to think there is something wrong a. The argument strikes many as involving a trick with words, a linguistic shell game b. Others tout this same feature as a virtue of the argument, rather than a disadvantage i. It is based purely on ideas, concepts, abstractions ii. Does not attempt to establish the existence of God starting from or by appeal to merely contingent facts about the world c. Guanilo’s Response to the Ontological Argument: i. The same form of argument can be used to prove the existence in reality of the perfect mountain (mountain more perfect than which is not possible) ii. This, of course, is patently absurd iii. So there must be something wrong with the Ontological argument, if the form of reasoning can be used to prove the existence in reality of the perfect anything d. This won’t be completely satisfying or convincing unless we can pinpoint the location of the error in reasoning i. Where is it? ii. Is the argument valid but unsound? A. If so, there must be a false premise B. But then which one is it? iii. Is the argument invalid? A. Which step in the reasoning is incorrect, then? B. The way we’ve spelled it out, it looks fairly airtight 2. Current state of debate a. Philosophers have been debating this for 1000 years i. The argument strikes many as somehow dodgy ii. But it has proven very difficult to clearly state why b. Even today there is no single widely accepted diagnosis of what is wrong with it or where the mistake is c. Indeed, some philosophers think nothing is wrong with it! d. Also note how, if the Ontological Argument is correct, then i. Contrary to what they claim, atheists can not coherently conceive of God not existing ii. This point can be plugged back into the debate over our 2nd version of the Cosmological Argument IV. The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design) A. William Paley (1743-1805) 1. British philosopher and Christian 2. Most famous for this, but wrote many textbooks 3. Was a bit of a public intellectual, famous lecturer in his day B. Definition: “teleological” 1. From teleology –study of design or purpose in natural phenomena 2. Telos is greek for “goal” C. Two more types of arguments (like reductio ad absurdum) 1. Argument by analogy: if 2 things have some properties in common, they will likely also have other properties in common, to i. X has properties A & B ii. Y has property A iii. Therefore Y probably has properties B as well A. Paul likes Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven B. Melissa likes Bach and Brahms C. Melissa probably likes Beethoven, too b. These are common in everyday reasoning c. Often used for rhetorical purposes d. Beware sloppy analogies! i. Hitler had a funny little mustache and was evil ii. Joe has a funny little mustache iii. Joe is probably evil, too 2. Argument or Inference to the best explanation – sometimes called hypothetical deductive arguments a. Very common in both everyday reasoning and science b. Best explanation for the retrograde motion of the planets, ocean tides, why this piece of chalk falls when I drop it (Newton’s theory of gravity) c. Best explanation of my missing Chinese Leftovers i. Space aliens stole them for experiments ii. Spontaneous disintegration iii. Vast global conspiracy iv. Drunken roommate ate them d. What “best” amounts to can be complicated, and we’ll talk more about that more in the next chapter, but some key elements are that an explanation i. Fits with the known evidence, ii. Is simple A. Doesn’t posit the existence of more entities that required B. This is one version of Ockham’s Razor: 1. “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” 2. All other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better iii. Is consistent with what else we know – sometimes called “consilient” D. The Argument 1. Premise 1:Pattern, order, and superb design are present everywhere in the biological world; well-designed organisms that are highly adapted to their environments and tasks are everywhere in biological nature a. These organisms & systems serve their purpose very well b. Examples abound i. The eye ii. Reproductive organs and instincts iii. Bees pollinating flowers (example of symbiosis) iv. The functioning of our immune system c. This premise is about biological nature i. Not ‘order’ like beautiful lattice structure of crystals ii. Paley contrasts biological design with a stone 2. Premise 2: The only, and thus best explanation for the existence of a well-designed, well-ordered seemingly purposeful system is the hypothesis that an intelligent mind did the designing a. Paley supports this premise w/ his argument from analogy: the watch on the heath i. It is complex, well-designed, and appears to have a purpose (to keep time) ii. The best explanation for that design is that it was designed by an intelligent mind b. Analogy from the watch to biological nature: i. The systems in bio nature are also complex and welldesigned and appear to have purposes ii. So by analogy this is because they were also designed by an intelligent designer c. In fact, claims Paley i. The design we find in biological nature is of a much higher order than that we find in even the most complex human made artifacts ii. Therefore, the designer of those biological entities and systems must be much more intelligent than human beings 3. Conclusion: the superb design in nature must be the product of a vastly intelligent mind/designer – and that is God