Philosophy Exam 3
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
-
Ontological Argument
overview -
God's a perfect being
-must hold all positive attributes (including the positive attribute of existence)
--->so god posseses existence & exists -
First in Time
[cosmological argument]
overview -
we can't count to infinity
-so if past time were infinite there would be no now
---so past time had to have a beginning
---->something outside of time must have created time
---->GOD created time -
First in Being
[cosmological argument]
overview -
in infinite time every possibility would have occured
-that means everything would stop existing at one point
--since this didn't happen something must have caused the sustaining of our continued existence
-GOD sustains everythings existence -
Teleological Argument
overview -
since machines display order & complexity & are designed by humans
and the universe displays order & complexity
-it must have a designer as well
-the designer of the universe is GOD -
Makie
basic argument -
"triiemma"
-to say that all three are true is a logical contradiction
[1)god is all powerful; 2)god is all good; 3)evil exists] -
Mackie's logically adequate solutions to problem of evil
(list 3) -
-solved by denying one of three propositions[if 2 are true the 3rd is false] (either denying that god is all good, all powerful, or that evil exists)
1)god has limited goodness
2)god has limited power
3)evil doesn't really exist / evil is an illusion
-beleives religious beleifs are IRRATIONAL == parts of the arguments are inconsistent with other parts
-->even if say they deny 1/3 they beleive it somewhere else in the argument -
Mackie's fallacious solutions to the problem of evil
(list 3) -
-saying that all 3 propositions are true ---(but in the process of explaining them they end up rejecting one-don't defend themselves adequately)
1)good can't exist w/o evil (they're necessary counterparts)
2)the world is better with some evil & with the virtues that result than w/o evil & w/o virtues [the virtue defense]
3)evil is due to the misuse of human freewill [freewill defense] -
Mackie's Critism of:
1)for goodness to exist evil must exist -
[ARGUMENT FOR: is that good and evil must exist in relation to eachother -necessary counterparts- like taller can't exist w/o smaller.
-1-epistemilogically necessary - must have knowledge of one to have knowledge of the other
-2-metaphysical necessary counterparts- can't exist w/o eachother]
MACKIE'S CRITICISM:
-1-even if we didn't know the world was good God still could have made it good
-2-Good & Evil are independently measurable of eachother. They don't have to exist in equal proportions. an All Good God would have made amount of good much larger than amount of evil. -
Mackie's Critism of:
2)the world is better with some evil + virtues than no evil & no virtues [VIRTUE DEFENSE] -
(ARGUMENT: if there were never an occasion to be afraid then there would never be an opportunity of showing courage)
mackie's levels of goods & evils:
-level 1-pleasure & pain
*pain leads to
-level 2-virtue & vices
*vices lead to
-level 3
*leads to INFINITY
-for vices to be justified there must be a higher level good to justify it (but would lead to that level evil and to infinity)
--you'd never have a good w/o a corresponding evil
so evil is not justified ever -
Mackie's Critism of:
3)Evil is due to misuse of human freewill [FREEWILL DEFENSE] -
(Argument for: god wanted some creatures to enter into rela relationship w/ god so we could freely choose to accept/reject it)
Mackie's Criticism:
-god could have allowed for men always freely choosing good--if not it is inconsistent with god being omnipotent & wholly good
-doesn't make sense bc of chance - Hick's 3 different theodicies
-
1)Augustinian Theodicy
2)Irenaean Theodicy
3)Process Theodicy -
1)Augustinian Theodicy
-in Hick's article -
-gave christian interpretation of plato's theory
-take scripture seriously -not literally
:::there is a GREAT CHAIN OF BEING:::
God--
Angels--
Humans <transition between spiritual & physical realm>
==========Free will ends=========
mammals
reptiles...etc
--everything is created perfect in respective level
--humans used free will badly (beginning w/adam&eve
free will defense........
:::MORAL EVIL::: due to misuse of freewill (suffering caused by bad choices)
:::NATURAL EVIL::: punishment for moral evil (floods earthquakes etc)
-god is all powerful and all good... bc of our own sin evil came into play (god created perfection at first) -
2)Irenaean Theodicy
-in Hick's article -
-hick's own view
-adopted from st. ireneaus [we were created in god's image & likeness]
-->HICK ADDS: creation didn't occur all at once but in 2 stages:
STAGE 1)god creates natural order & places us in it with free will
STAGE2)we learn to use of free will correctly so we can become true sons & daughters ---become good moral people
2 positions we need to accept for irenaean theory to work:
-1-goodness we achieve by struggling is much better than goodness given to us (that we were created w/)..then WE are responsible for our own goodness
-2-for us to be truly free we're created at an epistemic distance from god...
so we have a choice in beleiving/not beleiving...if god showed himself to us we wouldn't have a real choice
DEFENDS MORAL EVIL:
free will defense - must learn to use it correctly
DEFENDS NATURAL EVIL:
virtue defense ---natural laws provide consequences (just people suffer so we learn sympathy/empathy) -
3)Process Theodicy
-in Hick's article -
-god didn't create universe -- god + universe always existed together
-everything is constantly changing through time
-past is gone-no longer exists
-future isn't here-doesn't yet exist
-*the only part of time that exists is THE NOW. the "Actual Entities"
-you're now somewhat determined by what you were then (you wanted possibilities then to be actual now)
-power is relative to awareness (coffee mug exists = has power, but not aware = small amt of power)
-god not all powerful, but awareness much higher than ours
god : us :: us : mug
-god can't make us use our power correctly but if we do then we will reach a moment of complete
HARMONY & INTENSITY
(the 2 goods)
-the 2 evils are DISCORD & NEEDLESS TRIVIALITY
-god promotes complexity to increase harmony & intensity
--complexity brings more good & more evil but much more good than evil
FREE WILL DEFENSE FOR MORAL EVIL:
if we follow gods plan = brings good
if we don't follow gods plan = brings evils
-Natural Evils are a BRUTE FACT because god didn't create the universe - PASCAL's basic beleifs
-
-god is infinite
-our rationality is finite
-we can never know whether god exists or does not exist in this life
-->there's an insufficiency of evidence in both directions
-agnostic view no different than atheist view [neither says prayers - neither are convinced there are reasons for morals]
-set up WAGER
-->set up probabilities for betting outcomes of god's existence - Pascals Wager
-
1)I beleive god exists *AND* god exists:
INFINITE GAINS
2)I beleive god DOES NOT exists *AND* god exists:
INFINITE LOSS
3)I beleive god exists *AND* god doesn't exist
FINITE LOSS / FINITE GAIN
4)I beleive god DOES NOT exist *AND* god does not exist:
FINITE LOSS / FINITE GAIN
*No smart wagerer would take a chance of infinite loss.
*the only way to avoid infinite loss is to beleive god exists - JAMES -general, no definitions
-
If you're faced with a genuine option [one that is LIVE, FORCED, & MOMENTOUS]
you are justified in making a passionate decision
(if there's insufficient evidence)
-we have 2 epidtomological duties (to gain beleif):
1)gain truth
2)avoid error
genuine options arise in morals & personal relationships
-you can help create a fact by having faith in a fact
NO POSITION IS ANY MORE RATIONAL THAN THE OTHER
-theists & atheists beleive in hope of gaining truth [put an emphasis on the 1st duty]
-agnostics don't beleive for fear of falling into error
[put an emphasis on the 2nd duty]-->though may miss out on momentous benefits -
WHO?:
-god all good, god all powerful, evil exists-cannot all be true at the same time
-sidesteps freewill issue
-atheist - MACKIE
-
WHO?:
-its a faith commitment - PASCAL
-
WHO?:
-we have finite intellect & god is infinite --- we'll never know in this life - PASCAL
-
WHO?:
-beleives there's no rational position in debate -
JAMES
&
PASCAL -
WHO?:
-says agnosticism only ration position bc insufficient rational evidence for either side
-James is trying to disprove him - CLIFFORD
-
THEISM
vocab -
beleif that god exists
-positive beleif claim -
ATHEISM
vocab -
beleif that god DOES NOT exist
-positive beleif claim -
AGNOSTICISM
vocab -
"holds no beleif"
does not beleive that god exists &
does not beleive that god does not exist
-not positive beleif claim -
problem with saying:
"I don't beleive god exists" -
could be
ATHEISM
or
AGNOSTICISM -
IRRATIONAL
vocab -
-simply "not rational"
-2kinds:
1) logical contradictions:
impossible to be true
-self contradictory
*Square Triangles
2)Beleifs that are possible but go against experience
-statements themselves not directly contradictory -
NON-RATIONAL
vocab -
beleifs that don't lend themselves to any rational explanation/investigation
-most theists think of themselves as these
2 Kinds:
(1)SUB-RATIONAL:
-beleifs based on emotions/intuitions (can't explain why..)
(2)SUPRA-RATIONAL
-certain beleifs beyond our rational ability to understand (ex. trinity = 1 god but 3 people in one god)
(ex. jesus was both god & man)
-our rationality is limited - 2 PURPOSES FOR ARGUMENTS
-
1) argument given as rational proof for the truth of a conclusion [through progression of rational steps]
*EX. COGITO*
...so that we can CONCLUDE something
2)to offer rational justification for beleifs already held to be true
(proving something you already beleive)
**the arguments for existence of god**
...want to offer evidence for their beleif to show that there is a rational basis for it. - a priori
-
belief based on reason alone
(the ontological argument = only one... descartes discounted senses & experiences so could only rely on reason & couldnt be aposteriori)
*before experience - a posteriori
-
beleif based on experience
(1st in time, 1st in being, teleological)
*beleifs that we get from experience
(ex. 1st in time relies on understanding that time must have a beginning) - "reductio ad absurdum"
-
"reduced to the absurd"
-both cosmological arguments
-a point is given for sake of discussion
--->later disproven by a contradiction
----->proving initial assumption was false - FINITE v INFINITE
-
FINITE: limited
INFINITE: w/o bound -- no limit
*difference between two is qualitative, not quantitative
-->not a difference in amount, but a difference in KIND of existence
*you can't accumulate more & more finite to reach the infinnite
*you can't count to infinity
--logically impossible -
Deductive Reasoning
vocab -
if premisis is true the conclusion must be true
(1. all humans mortal
2. socrates is human
3.therefore socrates is mortal)
*ontological & both cosmological arguments* -
Inductive Reasoning
vocab
+ 3 kinds -
if premesis is true it give us good reason to think conclusion is true
(doesn't guarantee conclusion, just increases probability)
3KINDS:
1)GENERALIZATIONS:
ex. all swans seen always white
-->conclusion = all swans are white
-->later discovered black swan
2)PREDICTIONS
predict sun will rise tomorrow
3)ANALOGIES
--arguments from comparison
-bc things have similarities then characteristics are common in both
*teleological argument* - DAVIS' criticism of the VIRTUE DEFENSE
-
the reason that virtues are valuable is bc they can alleviate suffering & increase pleasure
*ex. kicking in the shin to get the virtue of sympathy **god kicked world in the shin**
Davis says pleasure could be an inrinsic good (good by itself) & virtue an instrumental good (lower quality good - only good bc brings about existence of other kind of good) -
Intrinsic v Instrumental Goods
[distinction by Davis] -
Intrinsic Goods:
-good by themselves
*health*
Instrumental Goods:
-lower quality goods
-only good bc bring about existence of another kind of good
*exercise & eating right only good bc contribute to health -
LIVE v DEAD
HYPOTHESIS
distinguished by James -
Live Hypothesis:
-willing to consider it - might accept it
-fits in line w/rest of your beleifs
-you have a christian background --Jesus=live hypo
Dead Hypothesis:
-unlikely to accept it
-alien to the rest of your beleifs
-ex. Mahde (messiah of islamic faith) dead hypothesis for someone with christian background -
DEFINE Hypothesis
DEFINE Option -
HYPOTHESIS: a statement given to either accept or reject
(live or dead according to James)
OPTION: decision between competing hypotheses
(live or dead, forced or avoidable, momentous or trivial-- according to James) -
types of OPTIONS
according to James -
1)LIVE or DEAD
[option live if both hypo's are live -- option dead if one or both hypo's are dead]
2)FORCED or AVOIDABLE
[forced if the 2 hypo's exhaust all options *come to class or don't come to class* -- avoidable if there is a 3rd choice available *come to class or take a nap* (don't HAVE to do either one)]
3)MOMENTOUS or TRIVIAL
[momentous if a once in a lifetime opportunity or if deciding right now could bring benefits immediately *extending self in friendly matter better benefits sooner than later* -- trivial doesn't matter] -
Genuine Options
ARISE IN / DO NOT ARISE IN
according to James -
Genuine options NEVER arise in:
-Science [usually not momentous or forced]
-Law [don't make unjustified decisions (bad to make decision when facts not present)]
Genuine options DO arise in:
-Morals
-Personal Relationships [faith in fact can help create fact *think people will be friendly - make friends**think promotion is yours*
-RELIGION
--->so theists are justified in making decision without full evidence (out of passion) -->bc option is Live Forced & Momentous -
2 Epistomological Duties
according to James -
1) GAIN TRUTH
{hope}
-what atheists & theists are doing
2)AVOID ERROR
{fear}
-what agnostics are doing
(epistomological = study/validity of knowledge) - which of the 4 arguments are said to be the strongest?
-
FIRST IN BEING
-even an atheist would accept all steps but #10 (that necessarily existing being is god)
-a naturalist would call the necessary thing the matter of the universe instead of god
--->consistent with science--the sum of matter/energy remains the same -
WHO?:
thinks no position is any better than the others (atheism theism agnosticism) -
JAMES & PASCAL
-but James beleives that it essentially comes down to making a choice from a genuine option
-Pascal essentially beleives that it comes down to making a leap of faith - Cartesian Circle
-
a circle argument
such as the ontological argument?? (CHECK)
-descartes finds a distinct perfect being within him - proving god's existence - all good god of course guarantees his clear & distinct ideas - difference between positive & negative attributes
-
positive attributes = those that actually exist
---such as "existence"
negative attributes: the lacking of a positive attribute -- the absence of something
-baldness (absence of hair)
-non-existence (absence of existence) - which argument uses positive/negative attributes to prove god's existence?
-
the ONTOLOGICAL argument
the concept of god is a perfect being
-perfect beings posses all positive attributes
--existence = positive attribute
---god possesses existence
----god exists -
WHO?:
"if god had good reason for all 3 propositions to exist it would work" - HICK
- Rational Arguments
- knowledge based on reason
- religious beleifs can be what kind of rationality
-
1)non-rational
2)irrational - why is davis flawed when he criticizes the ontological argument?
-
davis says the perfect being would posses all attributes
-therefore he would possess non-existence
->its NOT PoSSIBLE to possess non-existence - cosmology & science
-
cosmologists say when big bang occured everything was reduced to single pt called singularity
(no dimensions / no space / no time)
-->meaningless question to ask "prior to the big bang?"
*Davis sucks bc he asks about infinite future... who cares?* - theory of relativity
- V = D/T
- Hume's criticism of the Teleological argument
-
-the things being compared are too different from one another
-a good analogy would require our universe being compared to another universe
-this universe could be a "botched effort" from the gods' workshop - intellegent design is bringing back which argument
- the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
- biggest criticism of the teleological argument?
- so much evil in the world
- extra possibilities for the existence of evil....
-
-god lacks power to eliminate evil
-god's goodness is different than ours [might not be opposed to evil]
-evil doesn't exist --> a negative attribute (st augustine)
-evil's an illusion (christian science [this whole words is an ilusion -- testing ground to prove ourselves) -
james / pascal
&
agnosticism -
James takes agnosticism into account (fear + 2nd epistemological duty)
Pascal doesn't take agnosticism into account (living life no different than atheist -- infinite loss) -
WHO?:
the first step is placed on us -
JAMES
*like faith in fact creating fact* -
Which arguments are
-a priori
-a posteriori -
a priori:
ontological (reason alone)
a posteriori:
first in time
first in being
teleological
(based on expericnce - which argument states that past time must be finite because the now wouldn't exist yet if it were infinite
-
FIRST IN TIME
-COSMOLOGICAL - which arguments are deductive
-
-ontological
-first in time
-first in being
(if premise is true conclusion must be true) - which argument is inductive
-
teleological
--->based on analogy
-->men : machines :: god : men
(if premise is true conclusion is likely to be true) -
what are the "ACTUAL ENTITIES"
in hick's process theodicy -
-those things that exist right now
-finite centers of creative power