Philosophy
of
Religion
Summaries
of
classes
Please
note
that these are summaries, not 'the notes' for the class.
These have been prepared by students in the class, and I
have posted them here, unchanged, as a ready reference for
those who could use a quick idea of what topic(s) have been
discussed. But there is no guarantee of accuracy (or even
proper spelling)! Caveat lector!
September 14th 2015 / Jack Buckley
What does philosophy mean?
Philosophy means the love of wisdom
Philia:
meaning love. Wanting to acquire something.
Sophiá:
meaning wisdom.
Is the experience of things, not just knowledge.
Knowing what is and is not important.
So philosophy is desiring to become wise.
To be considered wise is to be respected for your
opinions because they have value.
Philosophy is divided into different
themes/topics.
1. What are the fundamental elements or reality?
(Metaphysics)
Questions under this theme look at insight into
nature, creation, freewill.
A few famous philosophers and scientists that
have explored this topic in great detail are: Aristotle,
Albert Einstein, and David Hume.
2. Ethics How ought I
to live?
Who’s to say if there is a right or wrong way to
live?
What government ought we to have?
What is better a democracy, or a dictatorship?
In the theme of ethics it is important to
question thing about your life.
Why do you do the things you do? ought you to become a vegetarian? what ought you to spend your money on?
what type of vehicle should you
drive?
A few famous philosophers and scientists that
have explored the topic of ethics are: Plato, Aristotle,
Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Immanuel Kant.
3. Epistemology
Knowledge, facts, beliefs.
How do you know when you know? Can you stake your
life on provided knowledge?
Can you be absolutely certain about any one thing
at any moment?
Facts can only exist in the system that they were
designed to fit into. Never try to import standards of one
specifically designed system into another system.
What is the standard or benchmark for knowledge?
A few famous philosophers within epistemology
include: James Frederick Ferrier, Descartes, and Edmund Gettier.
4. Logic How do I go
about proving something? Different systems and institutions
have different rules about how evidence/ knowledge must be
proven.
For example: In Law/courts there is the burden of
proof. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven
guilty.
In philosophy logic and reasoning must be a part
of all arguments/debates/ theories. Having logical and
reasonable evidence gives them real meaning.
Method
The main thing to do in philosophy is ideally to
get answers for our questions. How do we get them? We can
speculate on what an answer is. For example: Is ethics
objective or subjective? We can imagine what the answer might
be and then look for supportive reasoning and evidence.
At this point we then must be critical. Look at
the proposed answers (by authorities) and evaluate the
reasoning and arguments of that person or text.
Sometimes more than one piece of writing or
opinion is needed to dismiss or support an argument.
You can also look at the tools that philosophers
and you yourself have to aid them in the research being
conducted.
Rational capacity to reason/natural instinct to
reason.
Experience in principle is public..
We all vary in in different depths of experience
but those experiences are for the most part publicly
accessible. Some experiences are individual in the form of
private revelations, dreams, ideology, and visions. These
private pieces of experience are not usable in philosophy.
They can add an extra dimension/interesting viewpoint but
ultimately are dismissible because they are an experience that
no one else can have.
Religion —> from the word religare = to bind
Organized way of worship of god/gods.
History of beliefs/faith Is
personal but also communal
Sense of community and belonging
Hope
Sep.16 -
Content
Questions
- Metaphysics,
why does life exist at all?
- Epistemology,
studying of knowing
- Knowledge
vs Faith, What is the criteria to know something. Law goes off
beyond reasonable doubt (OJ and the gloves, don't fit =
reasonable doubt)
- Math
is not problemistic, history is problemistic (bits of a
skeleton)
- Ethics
- How I ought to do anything
- Logic,
Rules and procedures, determine reasonable belief
Method
Questions
- Critical
analysis, look at what you are being convinced of as well as
assumptions , justifications they make.
- Speculative
thinking, provides answers for the problems
Religion
(Faith , Beliefs, Doctrines)
- Religious
beliefs generally much stronger, belief has emotional
attachment.
- Catholics
saying I believe in God example of doctrines being repeated
- Institutions
such as the Catholic Church, take action (crusades)
- Practices
(activities of praise) Since at first glance (priest washing his
hands)
- Aim,
many aim at salvation, to break out of a cycle. Explain the now
- Provide
a source of morality (historically) therefore grants security
and peace
What
makes a belief Religious? (Religious, Scientific, Historical)
- Who
it talks about? Did Jesus have long hair?
- Not
just who but who is asking the question is what makes it
religious. It is part their faith.
- Subject
not enough.
Content
- Metaphysics,
Is God real? Afterlife? Souls? Are souls immortal?
- Epistemology,
Can I prove this? Probable? Certain? Belief?
- Ethics,
God necessary to morality?
- Logic,
what is the standard for proof?
Method
- Critical
analysis, Speculative questions
- Don't
have faith why be ethical?
- Can
we even talk about religion?
Fideist
(Karl Barth)
- Reason
has no role in faith, Fides (faith). 1 Corinthians God made
wisdom foolish.
Tertullian
- How
can God die? “Intellectually Outrageous” buried and rose again,
not possible.
- Belief
in religion contradicts all other rationality.
Logical
Empiricist
- Statements
of reason or of fact.
- Reason
= All beagles are canines
- Facts
= This beagle has rabies. True at one time could be false at
another. Used to have 9 planets.
- Does
God exist? Reason or Fact
September 21, 2015 - Jason Fitzpatrick
What
is Religion?
-
Belief in
something “higher”
o Transcendent
(goes beyond our observable reality
o Generally
tied to a desire to be liberated
-
Practices (prayer,
worship, rituals)
-
Shared in Community
o ‘Heresy’
is to go outside/against this community
-
Orientation
o tries
to orient the person
§ Why
am I here? What is my purpose of existing? How should I live?
o Dr.
Sweet doesn’t think that religion is meant to teach about heaven
or the past (origins of life, historical events, life of certain
figures)
§ Instead,
he proposes that religion and these stories are meant to tell us
something about the present.
·
Otherwise, why would it
even matter? What difference would it make?
-
Involves an idea of the Sacred
o Something
deemed to be holy
o Commands
respect
How
can you Prove these
things (religious ideas)?
Some think it is impossible to prove.
4 main approaches:
-
Fidiest
o Believe
that it can’t even be discussed
§ Based
of faith not reason
§ Some
things cannot be publicly discussed
§ Ideas
go Beyond
reason/comprehension
·
Anything finite (humans)
cannot understand the infinite (God)
o It
would take an infinite amount of thought to comprehend
o We
need faith because reason can’t tell you anything provable about
God
-
Logical Empiricist
o Can’t
talk about religion because it is meaningless
§ This
is worse than being false
·
Something which is false
can be true given changing circumstances (e.g. “Thomas Mulcair
is the Prime minister of Canada”)
·
Something that is
meaningless can never be true because it doesn’t make sense
§ A
statement has to have meaning in order to be useful
§ Meaningful
statements can fall into two categories
·
Statements of fact
(relative truth)
o Tell
us about the world (“it is raining.”)
o Are
true in some circumstances and false in others
·
Statements of reason
(True by definition – never false)
o Don’t
tell us anything about the world
o They
tell us how concepts are related (“Humans are mortal”)
·
“God Exists”
o Not
a statement of fact (it’s truth does not change based on
circumstance)
o Logical
empiricist would argue that it is not a statement of reason
either.
o This
is deemed possible because the statement is meaningless
-
Psychoanalyst (Freud)
o Thought
religion was meaningful
but that meaning was disguised
o Important
figures and events disguised in religious fables
§ Great
emperors talked about as gods
o Some
legends could be the embodiment of human values
§ E.g.
“Hagin Sophia” (St. Sophia) could actually be the embodiment of
wisdom (‘Sophia’)
o Religion
is a fabricated story which we (humanity) eventually grow out of
(much like the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, etc.)
o Sees
religion as a lie that was necessary at a certain time
§ Good
lies – teach important values and morals
o Meaningful but false
o Calls
religion a ‘universal obsessional neurosis’
-
Philosophical Theist
(Aquinas)
o There
are some statements
of God that are reasonable and can be known to be true
§ True
to everyone, not just the individual who believes them
o When
you look at the world you see order and intelligent design
§ Implies
an eternal power and divinity
o Statements
of religion are meaningful
and can be discussed
because they are matters of fact
Reading
(Aquinas)
-
Aquinas wants to look at
3 things
o What
can be demonstrated
(by reason alone)
o The
relation between faith and
reason (Separate or
compatible?)
o That
reason can prove
many core religious beliefs (to prove it doesn’t mean to believe
or make others believe)
-
What is
proof/demonstration?
o Proof/truth
is relative to the subject matter being discussed
§ 5+7=12
is always true because it is a relation of concepts
§ Can
you prove that you love someone?
·
The nature of the subject
does not allow you to prove it with the same certainty and
levels of proof as math
Thomas Aquinas - Philosophical theist example
Chapter III
Is faith beyond reason?
Statements can be
demonstrated/proven (sort of? Could be wrong?)
-Standard of varies (Different standards with different
subject matter) (What I know depends on the subject matter.
Some people don't have the mental
capacity) “Knowledge is
relative to the intellect of the known”
-Can’t demonstrate some things (Holy Trinity). Some things we
can (that God exists)
*Reason can prove some aspects of faith*
Chapter IV
-Why some people will
not ever ‘get’ it.
1) Some people don’t have the intellectual ability.
2) Preoccupied with other things in daily life.
3) Laziness.
4) It takes a huge amount of time.
5) Our intellects are weak.
Faith steps in when reason
fails.
Faith: not necessarily true
or false, more of an attitude of trust (trust in wife even if
it seems like she might be cheating)
Chapter V
“Necessary also for those
things which surpass reason to be proposed by God to man as an
object of faith”
Some times faith in things
(believing that its true/will happen) can make them happen. If
you have evidence (that you think is correct) you will follow
through and promote it to happen
ex. If you see a person looking at you from across the bar and
you go over and
start
talking to them and hit it off. You find out later that they
weren't looking at you but at
the
clock above your head. You wouldn't have talked to them if you
hadn't believed that
they
actually were looking at you.
After you believe in it and
find out that its true you find the evidence - same with
religion
You can’t reason about
everything, reason makes mistakes.
“Presumption which is the
mother of error” - You must challenge assumptions.
Chapter VII
Why is it that faith and
reason have conflict?
If there is conflict between
the two you need to reconsider that your faith is not inline
with the religion or that there is something wrong with your
reason.
“Now the knowledge of
naturally known principles is instilled into us by God”
*NEXT CLASS*
- What is God?
Characteristics? (Not like omnipotent, omniscient etc…)
Recap: Aquinas is defined
as a philosophical theist because he believes there isn’t a
conflict between faith and reason in fact they work together.
He says some aspects of God can be understood and proven by
reason and that God is one.
Discussion: What are
divine attributes?
·
Infinitely
good
·
Eternal
·
Omnipotent
·
Provident
·
Creator
·
Omniscient
·
Infinite
Illuminated the paradox of
omnipotent by using the god and stone paradox. The argument
works like such; Can there be a God that is completely
omnipotent that can create a stone that even he can’t lift. If
he can create the stone that he can’t lift then he is not
omnipotent because he is limited and if he cannot create the
stone he cannot lift then he is also limited.
Then the jump is made to
ask could there be a God who could create beings that he could
not control.
We then worked out the
definition of “good.” Started out by suggesting it brought
positivity or pleasure. After discussion the term good is to
follow a standard. God is the ultimate good and the ultimate
standard, God cannot sin, therefore when we sin we fail to
meet the standard of good.
Lastly we talked about the
difference between Univocal, Equivocal and Analogy. The
importance of using proper language when discussing topics
such as religion is key to forming sound arguments.
·
Univocal Term: A terms that has
only one meaning. That is, it signifies only one
concept, and thus corresponds to only one
definition. Such a term always has the same
intension wherever it is used. E.g. the term
"entomology" signifies the study of insects.
·
Equivocal Term: A term that has
more than one meaning. That is, it signifies more
than one concept, and thus corresponds to more than one
definition. An equivocal term has different
intensions when it is used. E.g. the term "chihuahua" can
signify (a) a breed of dog; (b) a state of Mexico.
·
Analogous Term: A term
that is intended to convey one or more similar characteristics
that exist between two concepts. E.g. the term "data
owner" is applied to individuals who have no legal title to
the data they manage, but are expected to exercise
responsibilities like those owners would typically
exercise. Sometimes an analogous term can be no
different to an equivocal term.
(http://definitionsinsemantics.blogspot.ca/2012/03/univocal-equivocal-and-analogous-terms.html)
We have to use analogical
terms when speaking about God.
September 30
Review
Divine Attributes
Divine Omnipotence
-
Aquinas –Being able to do anything that is logically
possible
-
Anything
that doesn’t involve being and not being at the same
time
-
No
contradictions
-
Geach – Is omnipotence the correct word?
-
Words
describe reality
-
EX.
Stephen Harper likes kids vs. Stephen Harper is a pedophile
-
Is
problematic to describe God
Tangent
Do numbers exist?
-
Numerals
do exist
-
Where
do numbers exist
-
Are
numbers concepts? Do they exist separate of humans?
-
Does
math represent reality
Is omnipotence a good word
to use?
Theories
1)
Descartes
God can
do anything (including logical impossibilities)
a)
Religious
à God can break his/her promises
b)
Any
Person à What can we say about God?
2)
Aquinas
God can
do anything that is a logical possibility
Sin?
Human
activities
ànot applicable to God
3)
Aquinas
2.0
God can
do anything that is logically possible for a being like God
Only in
regards to the future
4)
Geach
God can’t
do anything to change the future
God
breaking promises
à If yes, unreliable
à If no, not omnipotent
Maybe we shouldn’t use
omnipotence
2 words used to describe
God’s power: Omnipotent and Almighty
Almighty
God has power over all
things
-Cannot do everything (sin)
- Has power over sinners
EX. Stephen Harper vs.
Private in army in a pushup contest
Get rid of Omnipotence
Things religious people
would deny (most)
1.
God
has a body
2.
God
gets tired
3.
God
can be defeated
4.
God
can decay
5.
God
can get angry
Christians do not deny
these things.
October 5, 2015 - Rosemary Gregg
Midterm information
·
October 22nd (
given full class but should take approx. an hour)
·
Two essay questions
(there will be a few different choices)
Review of last class
·
Why is it important to
know divine attributes?
o The
knowledge of what God is just, if not, more important than
knowing that God exists
o We
cannot identify God unless we know the characteristics that God
has
o It
is for this reason that Geach would say that words matter (
words describe reality)
·
Geach believes that the
word “omnipotence” is not appropriate to describe what God is
(instead he uses the term almighty) and opposes 4 definitions of
omnipotence
1)
God can do anything
(Descartes)
2)
God can do anything
logically possible ( one version of Aquinas)
3)
God can do anything
logically possible for God to do
4)
God can do anything that
is logically possible for God to do in the future
·
Geach then continues his
opposition with the help of Michael Foster who says that there
are things that God could do, if he were omnipotent, in so far
as he could do anything logically possible, that contradict
religious beliefs. For instance the notion that:
o God
has a body
o God
can be tired
·
These, however, are
believed to be true if an individual is Christian because they
believe Jesus (who did all those things) is also God
o So,
in actuality there are elements in Christianity that contradict
the notion of God as being omnipotent
·
How might Aquinas respond
to this problem
o Aquinas
might say that God as God may not be able to do these things (
eg, have a body, be tired, suffer, decay, etc.) but God as Jesus
may be able to
o In
this sense God may be omnipotent but Jesus is not (a little iffy
on this matter)
o Why is this
even significant?
§ It might
suggest that if omnipotence means anything at all then it
probably doesn’t apply to the sort of God that Pascal talks
about (in a religious sense)
§ That
omnipotence is not interested in the God that philosophers are
talking about
Ø Main point of all this:
The idea of omnipotence is a kind of puzzle and causes a lot
of confusion
New material
·
How can we solve the
stone paradox ( can God create a stone that God can’t lift?)
o One proposed
option: its not logically possible to say that God can’t lift
a stone that God created.
§ This is a
problematic option because first we would have to accept a
definition of “omnipotence” for that to be true
o Another
proposal is the opinion held by professor Sweet (among others)
·
Sweet’s proposal
addresses a difference between omnipotent and impotent
o Suppose
a person, P: P would be limited in power if he was unable to
make stones of some poundage (say more than 70 kgs)
§ Thus,
to be omnipotent here means that one could create a stone of any
specific weight
o Similarily,
suppose a person Y: Y would be limited in power if he were
unable to lift stones of a particular weight
§ Thus,
to be omnipotent here means that one could lift a stone of any
specific weight
o But,
it is no limit on P’s (creating) power if he is unable to make
stones which he (or anyone else) cannot lift
§ For
example, if P can create stones of any poundage and Y can lift
stones of any poundage, then P cannot create a stone which Y
cannot lift yet P is not thereby limited in power
§ Therefore,
exactly the same situation holds where P is both the same
creator and the stone lifter
Omniscience
§ Suggested
readings
o Divine
omniscience and involuntary action (185- )
o The
consolation of philosophy ( 17-33)
·
The consolation of
philosophy
o This
text is a dialogue of between Boethius and Lady Philosophy
o Problem
in text: is there a conflict between omniscience and the
existence of human freedom?
o Example
provided by Sweet
§ If
God knows what will happen in 2015 then God has always known
what will happen in 2015
§ Let
us suppose that God knew that ISIS would seize territory in Iraq
in 2015 AD so God knew in 5000BC that ISIS would seize territory
in 2015
§ If
God knew this then it had to be true and there is nothing that
anyone could do to change ISIS from seizing the territory
§ Therefore,
if God is omniscient then can humans really be free?
o If
God is omniscient then he knows what will happen in the future
§ If
God knows something then it must be true
§ So
then it was already true from the day I was born either that I
would be saved or I wouldn’t
§ But
what must, of necessity, be true, I cannot change ( then there
is no use in trying)
§ If
I am saved then I can do whatever I want in the meantime and
still go to heaven and,
§ If
I am not saved then no matter what I do, I am doomed anyway
§ The
conclusion that we might draw from this is that there is no point to human
freedom. This is known as the religious doctrine of
predestination.
o It
should be made known that God doesn’t necessarily make anything
happen but by nature of God knowing something it has to be true
o How
does the of predestination mesh with religious ideas
§ In
religious beliefs eternal life is granted by God regardless of
person does
§ In
theory Christians could believe in pre destination
o According
to Lady Philosophy predestination is a very old problem
o She
suggests that others have been sloppy when thinking about
predestination and it needs to be observed in more clarity
·
For next class
o Start
on page 18 and start thinking about the statement:
§ “there
is a conflict between divine forknowledge and the human free
will”
The idea of omniscience poses a problem [a
paradox] with freedom (free will). Boethius
expresses concern to Lady Philosophy that if God knows all that
has happened, is happening, and will happen then all things will
necessarily take place because God knows it. Because of this,
there should be neither reward, for any acts of heroism nor
punishment for wrongdoings because their actions were
pre-destined, and were not free .
Humans are in the realm of time:
→ Past
→ Present
→ Future
Time is
→ Sequential/linear
God is not in the realm of time:
→ Sees Everything at a glance
→ Sees past, present, future as one
God is not in time
→ Eternal
This paradox also means
that God is also responsible for all humanly right and wrongs.
_____
Lady Philosophy proposes a solution for
Boethius’ dilemma through the explanation of capacity of
knowledge. She believes that divine knowledge does not equate to
human knowledge. Humans work through media (our senses) to come
to conclusions. On the other hand, divine knowledge is too
simple for us to understand.
Lady Philosophy states that all known
things are not known according to it’s own power, but according
to the capacity of the knower.
For Example:
Fido the Cat knows about things such as:
birds, mice.
Dr. Sweet knows things such as: the origin
of Fido, concept of time, philosophy.
Similarly, there is a difference
between human knowing and God's knowing.
Fido represents humans’ capacity of
knowledge; Dr. Sweet represents God’s capacity of knowledge. The
higher ability contains the lower ability, however the lower
ability can never understand the higher (Fido can never
understand the things Dr. Sweet understands).
Our perspective: we see choice in our
freedom.
God’s perspective: things that God
knows must happen.
Lady Philosophy concludes that there is no
conflict between freedom and voluntary actions because God sees
things as a single instant and has a present comprehension of
everything that has and will happen, while humans only
understand things in a sequential way.
[I think that more could be said here]
We then started to look at Divine
Omniscience and Voluntary Action written by Nelson Pike. Free
will is not the same as voluntary action. To prove
this we look at an example of a prisoner. A prisoner has a
choice of what he or she wants to do but is unable to actually
carry out the action because of being placed in prison.
Pike gives the example of Jones.
Pike also explains that Jones had no other
choice but to mow his lawn in that specific Saturday, because
God knew this thing was to happen 80 years prior. He poses the
argument:
Modus Tollens:
If P, then Q
Not Q
Therefore not P
P= Humans have freedom
Q= God believes something false
If humans have freedom, then we make God
believe something that is false.
God is omniscient.
Therefore, humans do not have free will.
What is eternal and everlasting?
-God is outside of time, otherwise we would have to consider
him to be temporal. How can be be acting in time?
-Nelson Pike raises the paradox of omniscience and free
action. We are looking for a solution.
Knowledge means you believe it and it is true.
If ‘A knows X”, then “A believes X” is true and X is true.
This claim about knowledge applies to God
Omniscient beings hold no false beliefs
when we say that God is eternal, we do not mean that he is
“outside of time” ( So that God has no relation to temporal
events) but that God is “perpetually present”.
Therefore, what God knows, God has always known
“God is omniscient” means that God knows everything that has
happened, is happening now and will happen in the future”
Jones and the lawnmower paradox.
God did not cause Jones to do this.
There are three options that come out of this particular
paradox. Pike feels they are incorrect but he offers them
anyways.
Leibniz- Is it necessary that Jones mow his lawn? Is it an
absolute and conditional necessity. In relation to God’s
knowledge our actions are hypothetically necessary, but not
absolutely necessary. There is a difference between it being
absolutely necessary that you do X and it being
hypothetically necessary that you do X. Pike responds to
this by saying it misses the point. It does not say that it
was necessarily true that Jone’s acted as he did- just that
he had to, he could not have done otherwise.
2) Molina - Claims that God knows what we will freely
decide. It is not because God foresees it that it will
happen, but because it will happen ( by free choice) that
God foresees it. So God knows that Jones will freely mow his
lawn. God does not know peoples choices because they choose
them. God just knows.
3) Schliermacher- God’s foreknowledge does not entail
determinism or predestination. A friend can have
foreknowledge of another’s voluntary actions, this does not
make them any less voluntary. Is this possible? Ms Smith
knows that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. What she
knows and what he does are two different things. It may be
true but it could have been otherwise. Jones always had the
power to make Ms Smith’s beliefs false. Ms Smiths belief and
the truth of Ms Smith’s belief are only factually connected.
Is God’s belief and the truth the same as Ms Smiths?
This leaves us with some options. We can :
Find another solution
Give up one of the assumptions
Redefine the definition of omniscience to be more general
than particular.
Essay due November 10, 2015.
Omniscience continued…
Does God know what God will do in the future?
God’s
negotiation with Abraham:
• If
God
knew he wasn’t
going to destroy the city, why would he negotiate with Abraham?
• If
God
is really negotiating he doesn’t know what he’ll do in the
future.
Can God Make free choices? Is God free? Does God
know what he’ll
choose before he
Chooses it?
• If
God
knows what he’ll
choose ahead of time is it really a choice?
• If
people
believe in miracles does this mean God can change what was
previously going to happen?
• Do
prayers
and negotiation influence God?
Paradox: If we have omniscience we have no free
will. If there is free will there is no omniscience.
• We
believe
God knows everything
• We
believe
in free will
Logical problem: We believe these two hypotheses
are true, but they are inconsistent with each other, they can’t both be
true at the same time.
Having both divine omniscience and free will
leaves us in a paradox. Lady Philosophy offers a way to solve
this paradox. She argues God doesn’t ‘foreknow’
anything because he is outside of time. God doesn’t see things
in a linear way, he sees everything at the same time, an eternal
present. God has knowledge but no foreknowledge. However
if Lady Philosophy is right there are problems:
• How
does
God know history?
• Is
it
possible to forgive someone at the same moment they sin?
Pike takes on Lady Philosophy’s argument
and states that talking about God outside of time is a mess
because we only understand what’s in time. The idea
that God lasts forever is a temporal idea, so instead
of talking about God outside of time(eternal) we should talk
about him lasting throughout time; past, present, and
future (everlasting). This gets Pike out of the history problem.
However thinking of God in this way causes problems because if
God exists in this way he needs foreknowledge to be omniscient.
What are we left with? Pike offers several
solutions:
A. Deny
basic assumptions: To say God is timeless. It is inappropriate
to say he ‘foreknows’
anything because he lives in an eternal present(Boethius,
Lady Philosophy’s
idea).
B. To
accept the argument that we are not free but should still be
held responsible for our actions. To argue that just because we
couldn’t have done
otherwise does not mean that we should not be held responsible.
To accept we are not free, but if we’re not free
wouldn’t it be
unjust to be punished? People believe we are motivated by the
things that control our freedom. Example: did Sweet
become a Philosophy prof because he wasn’t good at
math? It looks as if we’re
free but maybe we’re
not. However because we think we’re free we
can be held responsible.
C. Accept
the soundness of the argument but deny one of the suppositions.
God cannot know a free choice before it happens. If God is
omniscient we are not free.
D. Conclude
that God has a general providence but not a particular one.
E. Perhaps
Gods omniscience is a concept we can’t grasp
because it is beyond our understanding, and therefore shouldn’t be discussed.
- Omnipotence
vs Almighty:
• Omnipotence:
power
to do everything( something that isn’t logically
possible
isn’t something.
Example: square circle; you can’t describe
or imagine this, it doesn’t exist.
• Almighty:
Having
Power over all things
- Conditional
vs Absolute
• Conditional:
If something happens the other is inevitable, depends on
condition. Example: if I'm walking today i’ll use my legs
• Absolute:
things
that are true by definition. Example: bachelors are
unmarried, humans will die.
- Active
Power vs Passive Power
• Active
Power:
Ability to do. Example: to punch
• Passive
Power:
capacity of being able to be moved. Example: getting punched
Midterm
Aprox. 50 mins.
covers all material up until perfection
(Aquinas, Geach, Boethius, Pike)
3 kinds of questions
1) 3
Definitions-around 50 words each, on terms and concepts, define
and explain how they relate to the course.
2) 1
short essay around 100-150 words. Explain something and state
your view.
3) 1
long essay question, around 200-250 words. You’ll be asked
to explain someones argument and position, then state whether
you agree or disagree.
Is God Eternal?
-
To be eternal is to be
perfect.
-
To be perfect means to
be complete.
-
If you’re
complete you couldn’t get
better, or worse.
-
If you could get worse
there would be a defect, and having a defect isn’t perfect.
-
If God is perfect he
can’t
get better/worse.
-
If God can’t get
better or worse he never changes.
-
Could God change his
mind/emotions? Can god be happy, sad, disappointed?
-
If you can’t change
your emotional state wouldn’t that make you
indifferent?
- If
you can’t
change is it possible to be compassionate? Is it possible to
care?
- We
believe God does care, so is it possible for him to be
perfect?
- If
God is perfect then is it possible to have a relationship with
someone who is complete?
Next Class
•
Read Chapter VIII
(Starting on Page 31): Discussing whether or not God is
compassionate
•
Read “The Divine Reality”
(133-150): Discussing perfection, is God perfect? What
does it mean to be perfect?
October 26 - Josie Phillips
-The new readings for the essay topics are found
on the moodle site. Choose 2. No outside research necessary.
-An A+ paper consists of a thesis that defends a
claim/a position and evidence or reasons that rationally
persuade the rationally neutral reader.
God as “perfect”/supreme:
-
Perfect à complete. Can’t
add or take anything away.
-
Metaphysical
attributes: eternal, “absolute”, immutable (unchanging),
transcendent, independent
-
From a
philosophical point of view, a “traditional” view of God, with
“Platonic” attributes. (from the World of Forms (Ideos) which
are eternal and unchanging).
Metaphysical Terms: (Philosophical
claims)
-
Act/potency:
o Act: To posses a
certain quality in its completeness. What you are right now.
o Potency: The
ability to one day, possess certain qualities. What you could
be.
o Example: Stephen
Harper has the actuality of being prime minister, while Justin
Trudeau has the potentiality to be prime minister.
o Applies to
everything that can change.
-
Form/matter:
o Matter: The stuff
you are made out of. (Philosophically, not atoms, bones,
flesh, etc.)
o Form: (not shape)
How matter is organized to be the way you are. You have the
same form your entire life; it makes you who you are.
o If you are dead,
you no longer have a form, you are just a body.
o The activating
principle in animate objects is the soul.
o For inanimate
objects, the form is an organising principle. For example, a
table has the form of being a table.
-
Body/soul:
o Body: All that I
am made of
o Soul: The form of
an animate/living body. What makes it “me.”
o Even if the
material body changes (i.e. if you were to loose a hand) your
soul would remain the same.
-
Essence/existence:
o Essence: “What it
is,” a definition, continues after your existence. (Human:
animal, self-conscious, aware, free, etc.) It is all things
that physics cannot identify. Also contains all the thinks
that you can possibly be. (Your potentiality).
o Existence: “That
it is,” the actual thing. (For example, if all bachelors
(unmarried men), were married off right when they were born,
and there was no such thing as a bachelor, we would still know
what a bachelor is).
Divine Attributes related to Perfection:
-
Absolute
(“supreme”): absolutely powerful, knowledgeable, perfect, etc.
There is no room for improvement.
-
Transcendent:
goes beyond physical nature
-
Separate from and
independent of creation: God could have chosen to not
create the world.
-
Eternal and
timeless
-
Cannot change
(immutable): God does not have potency
-
Impassible: (no
“movement” with regard to emotions) God can’t start or stop
loving you.
-
“Pure Act”
-
Simple: God does
not have any parts, no essence separate from existence.
This view of God combines relics of Greek
philosophical thinking (Plato) and Christian philosophical
thinking.
If God is impassible, how can we say that God has
any personality? (Is caring, loving, forgiving, etc.)
-- Anselm and
Aquinas
October 28 -- Aidan
Hassell
November 2nd 2015 - Mehgan Turner
God – Traditional view: Immutable
(Unchangeable/no movement), impassible (God’s passions can’t
be moved therefore feelings can’t change)
Humans are passionate beings, God is not.
Absolute – so God as supreme, Pure Act (No
Potential). All of this is metaphysical (Abstract), Plato
based philosophy of God being the 1st cause so
unchangeable/independent of humans or Creation. God didn’t
have to create us but we need God to exist.
Hartshorne: We
don’t need the idea of God’s independence, the freedom is good
when he can be independent/unaffected by anything so he’s
ethically independent (Right is always right & he will
always do right thus avoiding bias). Sometimes independence
can be bad I.E. if a good person encourages something maybe
they should influence you. A good parent is often influenced
by their child so this is a good thing/supporting them. So a
balance is needed to be appropriately influenced when it’s a
good thing but independent when necessary.
God is immutable as reliable, does not die/decay,
he is constant: Last paragraph of pg. 137. But god is also a
social being: loves, in a sympathetic union, humans can have a
relationship to god, PG 149 there is a proportionality in
God’s awareness of humanity and sympathetic dependence. Pg.
148 God is indebted to us and has no desire to end this
dependence because he is not conceited or envious. God is
supreme among social beings but still dependant/he will always
be there. Without the social connection god would merely be a
tyrant/love is shared so without humanity/creation god would
actually be worse off as the social being could not be.
Therefore absolute immutability in every respect
is not a divine attribute (Perfection).
So how should we understand god’s attributes? If
Hartshorne is right, what do we gain/loose? If A/A is right
what do we gain/loose? H – God isn’t perfect as pure
act/immutable. A/A lose God’s personality/relation to
creation. So who has the better understanding of the concepts?
A/A needs god as a complete being. H- pg. 147 God: completely
admirable with possibility of enrichment. So he has room to
grow/improve (Be more loving). A/A are using “perfection” in a
different way then; independence as a concept may also be used
differently then so comparison is harder. So how should we
understand what god is? What is the most consistent way to
talk about God? Only after determining what god is can you
discuss that god is. Attributes matter to discuss existence.
So now suppose there is a God. As all
powerful then he has the power to eliminate all evil. As
omniscient he can locate all evil. A perfectly Good being
would eliminate evil as best he can.
i)
One
world is better than another if it contains the same/more good
than the other & less evil than the other
ii)
And an
all perfect being will always chose a world containing more
good & less evil than any other option
Therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly
good being eliminates all evil. So if there is a god, he’d do
this. Yet evil still exists why?
· There is no god
· St. Augustus – God can’t do this
· Hume – God is a maleficent being
· Maybe 1/3 attributes isn’t accurate – Believers
dislike this problem/solution
· Maybe we don’t understand what evil is?
John Mackie addresses this on the essay on page
171. How can a religious person accept all of this?
We also got midterms back. Final exam will be similar and we
should review the midterms in preparation for it.
November 4, 2015
EVIL
The problem with
evil is we have a contradiction between understanding God and
what is in the world.
If God is (1)
omnipotent, (2) omniscient and (3) perfectly good, then 1+2+3
= elimination of evil.
A being with these
attributes would eliminate evil—so then, why is there evil? We
are faced with a logical contradiction and a moral
inconsistency.
Definition of Evil
What is evil? It can
be war, killing, disasters, suffering and dying. It can be against one
another or evils of nature, (natural evils). Other evils involve
human agency. Natural
evil is not deliberate. Some evils are moral evils, meaning
they deliberately done, otherwise it would not happen. The
word ‘justifiable’ is important when talking about evil.
Other discussions
about evil include:
*If there is no free
will involved, then it is a natural evil.
*If there is pain
and suffering involved, then we have evil.
*If blame is
involved, we have
evil.
*If no humans
involved, we have
evil.
*Evil can be
arbitrarily inflicted on innocents and evil-doers alike.
*Some evil is
unnecessary. Some deserve the pain of evil, but not animals.
*Some evil is
avoidable: an example is war. War may bring about courage and
be good for business but does that justify the evil? (If evil is
arbitrary and avoidable, then why is there evil?
Because of the
contradiction involved people look for answers and
justifications for this problem.
The justification is
called Theodicy. Theodicy is an attempt to answer the question
of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. It is the
vindication of divine goodness in view of the existence of
evil.
One way is to
imagine a way out of it.
I can imagine a way to describe evil, but I don’t know
the answer just yet. An example is: “humans have free will but
they mess up sometimes”.
Another way is to show
one of the assumptions is wrong. If one assumption is
gone there is no evil.
(1)
Maybe evil is an
illusion or not real.
Given what I see
from my perspective I may have a defect. I don’t exactly see
what was going on or I could not grasp it due to my limited
abilities. Evil
looks like it exists, but does not exist after all.
It is subjective;
or “just stuff”; or a misrepresentation. People who believe in
God have a problem with this. They are called to fight evil. This position would
solve the problem but is not sensible or plausible.
(2)
Good cannot exist
without evil.
There is a problem
what this really means.
In addition, it
also challenges the formula of (1)omnipotent (2), omniscience
and (3)perfectly good =elimination of evil.
(1+2+3=evil gone.)
If we use the word
knowing, then “knowing” good can’t exist without “knowing”
evil.
We can also
appreciate and know evil without having to suffer. Do we need
pain to experience pleasure? Not necessarily.
(3) The universe is
better with some evil rather than no evil.
To illustrate we
used a painting of Jesus coming down from the cross. Most of
the canvas was dark except for Jesus and a few others. The
images of Jesus (goodness) was enhanced because of the
lightness of the paint. So, if it wasn’t for the darkness the
center of attention (Jesus and goodness) would not be
highlighted. Evil
(darkness) is necessary for the greater good (lightness).
2.
“Good cannot exist without
evil” (“knowing that good can’t exist without evil”)
a.
Suggests that there is
some limit to what an omnipotent being can do
b. Not
clear what this means
3.
Evil is a necessary
means to good
4.
The universe is better
with some evil in it than it could be with no evil in it at
all
a.
The
Aesthetic Justification: (Augustine)
i. In
making
something, a good agent will seek to produce an effect which is
the best it can
ii. Thus,
in
creating the universe, a perfect being will create that which is
best in it’s entirety
iii. But
“this
does not mean he makes each part of this entirety
absolutely perfect, but perfect in accord with the whole”
(Augustine on free will III 68-9)
(Ex. The painting
of Jesus being taken off the cross)
iv. God
uses evil as an “antithesis” or “counterpart”
v. Therefore
evil
is necessary to the perfection of the universe
b.
“The
soul-building Justification” (Irenaeus: John Hick)
i. The
world
is not supposed to be a paradise, but a place of soul-making
ii. If
there
were no physical evil and no moral evil, there would be
1. None
of the benefits of physical evil
a.
No self-care, no need to
work, no need to call for others in time of need
b. And
the world would not operate according to natural law
2. No
overcoming of evil
I.e. No generosity, kindness
iii. Thus,
evil
is necessary for soul-making, developing certain moral virtues
5.
Evil is due to human free
will
n.b a difference between a
“free will theodicy” and a “free will defence”
a.
Freedom requires the
ability to act wrongly as well as rightly
b. It
is better (on the whole) that human beings should act freely
than that they should be innocent automata, acting rightly in a
wholly- determined way
c.
Therefore, the cause of
evil is not god, but the independent actions of human beings.
November 11 - Remembrance Day
November
16th, 2015 _ Ryan MacNeil
Defense of Evil
-
Due
to human free will
-
Freewill
requires the ability to act wrongly as well as properly
-
Evil
is not God’s fault, but ours
-
Better
humans act freely then be innocent automata (act according to God)
*a
defence, but not a theodicy*
Criticisms of the defence
1. Humans
responsible for evil? Yes.
- but if other beings can, then… how can we be wholly
responsible?
- Satan, demons… can all do evil
- God is
responsible for us = God can be to blame for evil
- creator responsible for the created
2. Why couldn’t God make humans always choose freely
the good?
- if I can do good at one time, as well as another, why
can’t I always do the right
thing?
- you can have
freedom without evil then
- evil can also be attributed to ignorance; just don’t
know when we are doing
something evil
- choosing
depends on what we know
3. How important/good is freewill?
-
freewill can lead to good things, but also bad things like
greed, excess, harm…
- is the good
from freewill > than the evil from it?
- do we need freewill to get into Heaven?
- if a machine can be made to never make mistakes and
do what its told, why
can’t humans?
Distinguish:
existence of evil justified vs. could evil be justified?
-
Distinguish
the problem of evil
-
Fideist’s
response
- can’t know God’s ways for reasoning behind why there
is evil in the world
- Logical Empiricist’s
response
- no justification of evil if there is an all knowing,
all powerful God
- Philosophical
Theist’s response
- if all defenses put together, they may be able to
produce a possible defense of
Why God let evil in the universe
Sigmund
Freud
-
3 main
components to the human psychic:
1. Id:
instinct (pleasure/satisfaction)
2. Ego:
sense of self that a person has
3. SuperEgo:
socially desired internalisation of parental control
-
Ego
is disabled in its relations with reality
-
Future
of an Illusion
(1927)
- why is
civilization good?
- 2
purposes of civilization:
-
control humans
-
control nature
-
civilization is based on:
-
limiting the id and working the people in it
- why?
Because we wouldn’t survive otherwise
-
solution: individual is coerced in society
- 3
ways of addressing wishes:
-
dreams: attempts at surrogate wish fulfilment
- cultural achievement: deny direct gratification
- religion: product of wish fulfilment
- Religion
- a) provides explanations
- b) makes life feel more secure
- c) So – effect
- God explains ‘fate’, explanation for evils of
civilization and a
better afterlife
- perpetuates infantile behaviour patterns
- reflects refusal to distinguish reality and what we
want it to be
Religious
ideas are…
- descriptive and meaningful
- what we’d like to exist
-
what is valuable
- valuable
- helps civilization
- response to stress in civilization
- not
responding rationally to civilization
- not an error….
*but an
illusion (derived from human wishes)*
Nov
18 - Alexander Thistle
-Freud’s
future of a illusion:
-religion
is an illusion, Freud identified neuroses with religion.
-Neuroses
were physical ailments until Freud said they had a purpose,
effect of a struggle, of desirous passion and inappropriate
behavior, instability between ID and superego.
-Neuroses
are responses, over reactions.
-Religion
is a illusion to fulfill neuroses, a product of human wishs.
-Illusions
are reactions, cannot be proved or disproved.
Religious
ideas are:
-descriptive
and meaningful
-valuable
-not
an error, cannot prove/disprove
-but
are illusions, derived entirely from human wishs
-strong
analogy between neurotic and religious behavior, simulates
include: infantile behavior, repressive behavior, problems
with self-image.
-Freud
says religion is a non-functional way of dealing with
repression, irrational and dangerous, but helpful for
childhood neuroses.
-3
questions:
What
evidence is needed to prove Frueds theory?
What
assumptions does he make?
Does
he have sufficient evidence?
Criticisms
of Freud:
1)
He assumes that cultural behavior is analgous to
individual behavior, does religion arise in individuals or
society? (wish fulfillment doesn’t make society)
2)
Does Freud give account of all theistic beleifs?
3)
Is it an account of everyones religious beleifs?
4)
If Frueds right, does it prove religion is purly
natural?
5)
Similarities between neuroses/religion are only
surface similarities, doesn’t prove their the same.
6)
If religion was true wouldn’t we see different
behavior.
Summary:
What does Freudism prove?
Does it prove religious belief is false?
Does it prove religious belief is reasonable?
Nov 23rd - Alexander
Thistle
-3 kinds of proof, legal standard is needed to
prove God.
-Paley: is there sufficient evidence?
Is there plausible alternative explanations?
If there are no other plausible explanations one
must accept paleys argument to be rationally true.
-1802 paley dissucess intelligent design, looking
for purpose through teleological argument on intelligent
design
-Argument: you find a rock in a field, don’t
question where it comes from. Find a watch in a field and one
will question where it came from, someone built it, designed
it and left it there.
1) Production of humans use intelligence to
create watch, intelligence is key.
2) the universe is like a machine with moving
parts, like a clock.
3) similar effects have similar causes
4)therefor the universe must have a creator.
Paley gives half argument, must focus on 1) and
2), is there evidence for design?
-Is there other evidence for where a clock comes
from? A watch making watch acts like a animal and reproduces
itself, whoever made this clock is intelligent, actually
reduces possibilities for alternatives.
-Effect of conclusion: either
1) increases admiration and provides additional
reasons for intelligent design
2) the making of the watch is different between a
watch maker and a watch making watch, shows difference between
unintelligent production and intelligent purposeful design.
|
Aquinas: 1st
efficient cause
The
Second Way
1.
Recognize
a series of efficient causes based on experience
2.
Nothing
can be its own efficient cause, or it would have to exist
before it existed.
3.
There
cannot be an infinite series of causes.
-
A: in a series of
causes, the first cause causes the
intermediate causes and ultimate effect.
-
B: if you remove a 1st
cause, then you
remove its effect.
-
C: suppose 3 is false,
and there is an infinite
series, by definition there is no 1st cause.
-
D: by removing the 1st
cause, you remove
the intermediary causes and ultimate cause.
-
E: there is an
ultimate effect, us/world.
-
F: the supposition
must be wrong.
-
G: therefore, 3 must
be true.
4.
The
1st efficient cause, which causes all people, is
called God. (from 2
& 3)
God as efficient cause
-
The statements 2 and 3
do not necessarily apply to
God. God is not like us, necessary, and does not need a
cause. Nothing caused
God.
There can be an
infinite causes going forward, but not
backward.
Do not confuse
material things with something that is
not material, E.g. The Big Bang, and God.
Everyone assigns 1st
efficient cause as
God, yet it could be assigned a different name.
Cannot ask what cause
1st cause because it
would not longer be the 1st cause.
The Third
Way: Possibility and
Necessity
-
Possible Beings: can
be and cannot be
-
Necessary Beings: must
be and cannot not be
All possible beings
need a cause in order to come into
existence.
-
Can be generated, and
can be corrupted. Possible to
be, and not be.
Cosmological argument
1.
In
nature, there are “things which are possible to be and not,
since they are
found to be generated and to be corrupted”, such as possible
beings.
2.
It
is impossible that there are only possible beings in the
universe because “its
impossible for these always to exist”
I.
For that which that
cannot be and at sometimes is not
II.
If everything could
not be, there would be a time when
nothing existed
III.
Now that which does
not (have to) exist, beings to
exist only through something already existing.
IV.
If everything can
not-be there was a time when nothing
existed, and there wouldn’t have been anything to cause
anything else to being
to act.
V.
Thus, there would be
nothing not, which is absurd.
VI.
Therefore, not all
things can not-be, and there must
be a necessary being.
3.
“every
necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another,
or not.”
2 kinds of causes:
non-transitive (accidental) and
transitive (essential)
-
transitive is ordered,
and happening right now in a
specific sequence
-
there is no specific
sequence in non-transitive causes