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!
Sept. 5 -
David Hearn
Philosophy is the study/love of wisdom.
Philia = love that leads you to act
Sophia = wisdom
Wisdom is – understanding
-Insight
Philosophy should affect you and lead you to try and get you
insight and understanding of the “Good life”, logic, and
science
Good life = Ethics, aesthetics. What you ought to do
Logic = persuasion through good reasoning backed up by evidence
Science = an explanation of why/how the Earth is the way it is.
Metaphysics goes beyond where physics can go and tries to answer
questions such as “Why is there anything at all?”
Philosophers are interested in the fundamentals of society and the
basic features of existence.
- Does every event have a cause? Ex) dents in a
car, choice by “free will”
Human beings need to know things Epistemology
Methods: How to prove/ answer questions.
Ex) Is there a God?
First, define what you mean by God.
- God is the creator of the universe.
Next, speculate
- What ca I find?
- Try and get an answer
Ask others who have studied the topic before
- Follow up on the authors who seem to be headed
in the right direction
Be critical of
- Analysis of concepts
- Arguments (proof people offer to defend their
arguments)
- Assumptions
Toolbox of a Philosopher.
What tools are inside? You already have them but do not
necessarily know how to use them yet. They are something everybody
has. NOT a religious experience.
- Reasoning
- Ability to see reality. Must be publicly
observable/experiencable. Not private knowledge
Cannot depend on religion, political, or scientific ideologies
because not everyone has them.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014 -- Michael Abernethy
What is Religion?
Remembering that Speculative philosophy is the love of wisdom and
the pursuit of it by means of questions WITHOUT SUPPOSITION
(although personal bias may be hard to avoid in some cases), we
must ask questions like:
- Does God exist?
- Why do people pray?
As speculative philosophers, we cannot simply comply and agree
with what our religions dictate to us. We must ask these
questions, and use what tools we have, namely 1. Reason and 2.
Reality.
Thus, to understand whether or not what is taught is true, we must
ask the question: What is Religion?
- And when we ask What
is Religion, we do not ask “What does it mean”, but rather what it
ACTUALLY IS in essence.
There are many definitions for religion:
A. Oxford Dictionary: 1. One of the prevalent systems of worship.
- A set of practices
(prayers) and rituals.
[one must ask “who deserves worship”]
- Including the
institutions (systems of dogma) associated with it.
- Containing doctrines
and dogmas (what you “ought” and “ought not” to do)
2. The human recognition of
superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God
entitled to obedience.
- Providential/watching
over humanity and the universe.
B. Faith, religious convictions, belief.
This definition leads the speculative philosopher to ask whether
faith is rational, or irrational? Believing in something that you
can not really explain or pinpoint?
You have faith in your friends and family, but is the faith in God
the same as the faith in your friends?
The existence of your friends is not necessarily in question with
your faith in them, but rather you have faith that they will be
there for you.
In the same way, one has faith that God will be there for them.
However we are not sure whether God exists or not, and it may very
well be that the only authority to tell us otherwise 100%
CERTAINLY, would be the very authority in question. But I'm not an
authority on that subject anyway.
C. Purports to explain:
- Why there is anything
at all. (the Big Bang)
- What is valuable (a
standard; system of values; a set of moral rules like the Ten
Commandments)
- “Locates” us in the
universe; explains why we exist. (answering the questions to the
“meaning of life”)
D. Gives a feeling of peace and security.
But perhaps people only become peaceful once they follow the
standards set in by the religion. And if this is the case, perhaps
they are worrying about an eternal punishment, and never really at
peace at all.
The concept of religion, then, is very broad: from personal to
communal beliefs/rituals.
Thus to say that religion is absolutely TRUE is to say a lot!
SO
Is any essential definition possible? Even if there was one, just
because something has a defined function does not mean it will be
used that way.
Wittgenstein said (roughly): “You can't give an essential
definition to most things.”
But in looking at the definition of a
“game”:
And a religion:
1. Activity producing
enjoyment.
1. Has some concept of the sacred and an object of devotion.
2. One or more
people.
2. A system of thought and action shared by a group
3. Sometimes has
rules.
3. Involves some kind of ultimate concern or commitment
which gives a frame of obligation*.
*Religion thus involves some kind of obligation or commitment, and
often people do things because they feel they have to rather than
wanting to.
While we may not arrive at an essential definition, we can
pinpoint some characteristics:
- Things are sacred
- it is shared by a
group
Sept 10, 2014 -Zack Boulter
Philosophy of religion examines the content
and methodology of religious questions
Content: is there a God? Are we capable of
knowing if God exists? If so, what are God’s traits? Is God
perfectly just? Could God have traits that lead to
contradictions? For example, would God be capable of creating
an object so that he is incapable of lifting it? Could God be
multiple beings in one single being? Should God be bound by
the ethical responsibilities of humans? If so, are His/Her
actions ethical?
Methodology: the critical analyses of authors
with ideas pertinent to questions regarding the nature of God
and religion. The critical analyses of arguments and concepts
for, and opposed, to the existence of God. Trying to find
answers to speculative questions concerning the nature of God
and religion
Religions deal with content. For example, the
existence of Jesus. Religions also deal with giving value
judgment to said content. For example, how does the existence
of Jesus effect the individual and humanity as a whole.
Is reason compatible with faith?
According to Fideism, reason is not
compatible with faith. According to a Fidesit God is so
overwhelmingly complex that the human mind is unable to
comprehend Him/Her. As such, reason cannot be used to prove
the existence of God. In place of reason, Fideism advocates
faith as the only possible way to ascertain the existence of
God.
One famous Fideist is Karl Barth. Barth was
fond of quoting the biblical passage “Hath not God made
foolish the wisdom of the world?” this passage typifies Fidest
though
Another famous Fidist is Tertullian. Tertullian
acknowledged the absurdity of the belief that God could be
killed, buried, and then resurrected, but claimed that the
absurdity of the notion is in fact evidence of its factuality.
He believed because it is impossible/absurd.
Sept 12
September
16, 2014 - Caitlin Thomas Psychoanalyst:
(Freud)
True
religious belief is tough, but if it is meaningless then why would
intelligent, well-educated people become religious?
-seems extreme to say it’s meaningless, therefore it must
not be entirely meaningless or irrational
What does
religion mean? Maybe not what we think – religion and beliefs are
disguised
e.g. Thor
– god of lightening and thunder
-see a being of great
strength – an important virtue for warriors – Norse
culture/tradition is very warlike.
IDEAL of Strength – Thor
(very important) / we
deify/reify it to emphasize importance to our tradition.
e.g.
Church of St. Sofia/ was there a
St. Sofia?
Story of
Sofia – used to be a Greek church, then a mosque, now a museum.
Wisdom is important: God is wise (divine attribute?)
Sofia – had
3 children: Faith, Hope and Love
-family refused to
worship false gods, therefore King took Faith and tortured her
(limbs cut off, milk instead of blood, did not die)
-Hope put into a furnace,
emerged untouched then killed. Love/charity is also tortured and
killed
Story of
Sofia: perhaps an allegory
à persistence
despite persecution, you should have faith/love/hope despite
trials.
Stories: are they
literally true or are they disguised? (contain an important
message – get the point without literal truth).
e.g Romulus
– (Remus) twin founders of city state of Rome – threatened and
raised up to be a god
-was a great hero (its as if he was a god…) : Elevated Person -->
god.
Psychologists
say looking
at the origin of some religious traditions (Roman, Norse, etc.)
there is something important going on à they
represent values and virtues that were important to a society.Standards: which are
necessary for a society.What better way to preserve them? Make them divine – better
way to get people to follow them.
-Who knows what will happen in the future – the Gods, so
put your hope and trust/faith in them
-gives us a way of managing this mystery of life
Therefore:
it is
reasonable to believe in the gods – you need standards that are
higher than self.
But not needed now that
we’ve grown up (put aside childish things)
At one time
it was useful and sensible but we’ve grown up “sometimes its
really difficult to let go of things”
“The sun
rose” a way people
think about things – not literally true.A way of thinking –
comfortable.
-‘hangovers’ not al together harmful, doesn’t matter if its
not true.
-Religious
illusions (some) are relatively harmless but ultimately
religions are an illusion we need to get rid of.
Reason tells us
that sometimes we have to say things that are false because
sometimes they have value – e.g. Santa – brings gifts to good boys
and girls
Reason tells us
certain things don’t need to be true – also tells us that it can
be important for our values.
Religion can be
useful, but its not true….and at this point in our lives, not
important to believe.
Philosophical
Theist (Aquinas)
-Faith and Reason
are compatible.
not only
reasonable to believe, but also it can tell us truths.
September
17th 2014 Brennan Neve
4th
position on Faith / Reason
The
Philosophical
Theist
-
Faith and Reason are compatible, it is reasonable to believe and
faith can tell us truths.
Some
things surpass our ability to prove with reason so we rely on
faith to uncover truths on these matters.
Romans:1:20
: "When one considers the works of God in the world,
his eternal power and divinity are manifest"
-
simply by looking at the complex, intricate world you can prove
God's existence
Leo
XII: "In the first place, then.. Human reason...
demonstrates that God is; for by the greatness of the
beauty and of the creature the
Creator
of them may be known thereby."
Pius
XII: "The human intellect approaches that demonstration of
the existence of God.. which are already known to you in the
presentation of the
"five
ways"
which... St.Thomas Aquinas offers as a speedy and safe road to
lead the mind to God."
-
Thomas Aquinas would say that there is no contradiction between
faith and reason.
In
the Summa Contra Gentiles (The Book on the Truth of the
Catholic Faith)
-
Aquinas tries to prove as much about faith in God as he can by
reason. He uses philosophical reason to support his claims,
including
quoting
The Philosopher(Aristotle). Because he is able to prove the
importance of faith using reason, Aquinas thinks that if you are
agnostic or
theist,
that simply means that you are unreasonable.
-
Not every truth is made to be known in the same way (You can't use
the rules of one game in another different game). You need the
right kinds of
proof.
-
Not all intellects are capable of the same degree of knowledge
(one person can prove the theory of relativity, another can
explain God).
Aquinas
says that we are hindered from knowledge for various reasons. Some
people are just not able to grasp certain concepts (the subtleties
of
philosophy,super
symmetry);
other people are simply lazy or too occupied with other matters.
It can take a lot of practice before you can grasp
difficult
philosophical
answers. Often things can be proven even if everyone cannot see
the proof.
-
Some things can be proven by reason while other things are beyond
reason (transubstantiation, the holy trinity). These things that
are beyond
reason,
are not necessarily false because reason is not stating them as
false, but rather is incapable of proving them. Our finite minds
cannot
grasp
the infinite nature of God.
-
Faith can give you answers without having to fully comprehend
them. If we left understanding to reason alone a lot of people
wouldn't understand
things..
Faith deals with things that are beyond our understanding.
- We
are
tempted to think that we know everything, faith humbles us.
Ultimately
Reason
can know some things about God but human intellect has limits and
that is where faith comes into the picture. Is it possible for
reason
to prove something that disagrees with faith?
well..
When
was the Earth created?
-
Bishop Usher says On October 23rd at 9am, 4004 B.C.E...
-
Stephen Hawking says 4.6 billion years ago...
It
would be a contradiction for these both to be true at the same
time. Is chronologically tracking the history of the bible really
a religious
belief?
Maybe this kind of issue is for scientific study and not important
for religious believers.
September
19, 2014-Keegan Stephenson
- The fact
that one person can’t prove something does not make it false. The
proof of God doesn’t rely on previous faith. Faith and reason
can’t conflict; it’s impossible according to Aquinas (page 13 in
coursepack).
- Aquinas
would say the way we know things is through God; he/she is the
author of our intellect. God gives our natural abilities according
to Aquinas, so we ought to know what is true. If we know something
by good reason and something by faith and they contradict, this is
conflicting knowledge and hinders us from the truth. ------Bishop
Usher has a historical question of when the world was created,
which for Aquinas, is not a religious view but a scientific.
Bishops assessment of this question was a chronological viewpoint
before modern earth sciences. Aquinas would say this isn’t a
conflict between faith and reason, but two different viewpoints
stemming from reason.
- Reason
will bring us to the answers and if your faith or reason differs,
then go back and check your faith or reason again. Either reason
or faith has led you to incorrectly arrive at a proof. Both
conflicting views can’t be true.
-Scripture
statements are cognitive and these statements are not attitudes or
feelings. God’s existence doesn’t depend on ones belief; he is a
fact. Religious belief is a matter of the intellect, thus can’t
conflict with faith. If something is a fact, Aquinas would say
there must be a proof.
- Pascal’s
prayer was not for public consumption, but was a private writing.
He describes a God who is interested in us which in turn makes us
care about God. He is more than just a creator in this aspect. God
is a person like us. Religion for Pascal is concerned about an
actual relationship with God. A believer does not want to be
separated from this relationship with God.
-God doesn’t
change, and this makes it hard for a philosopher to prove that God
is providential.
The idea of an eternal God would suggest that God is a
function of time. It is hard to say what time is and
whether time is a function of creation or when time started,
if time/ the universe is not infinite. If time and the
universe is finite than infinite would be a better term to
describe God, as God must exist infinitely, but not eternally
in order to bring everything that exists into creation.
This means that anything that has been created cannot
therefore be God. In the Bible God is described as the
“Alpha and the Omega”, meaning the first and the last.
God has existed infinitely and everything that was created can
be traced back to the first mover, God.
Omnipotent?
Is God really omnipotent? There are things that God cannot do
such as sin, which would make human beings more omnipotent
than God? If humans have complete free will, the humans
are a creation of God that is more omnipotent than God.
Is Gods goodness and knowing like ours?
Univocal
It is hard for religion and concepts such as God to be
univocal or unambiguous, as it requires a lot of contemplation
to even attempt to understand the nature and/or the essence of
God.
Equivocal
God’s nature/essence is more likely to be equivocal as it is
open to interpretation and requires a high level of
contemplation.
Analogical
God’s goodness and knowing can be analogical as well as God is
such a supreme being that it is hard for human beings to
understand God and must therefore use analogies to try to
explain the complex nature of God, which transcends human
understanding.
September 24, 2014 - Adam
McNamara
P.T. Geach on Omnipotence - Covers and adds material to
Aquinas' theory of Omnipotence
Aquinas says that God is not omnipotent, he claims this as to
allow objections to his claim, and then he can refute those
objections.
God cannot sin, or deny himself, thus he cannot be omnipotent.
Aquinas: If omnipotence means all that you can do, then it is
a viscous circle.
Walking to the Moon- Is causally possible, and is logically
possible if it does not imply contradiction.
"Dog person" -You could imagine such a thing in a long time. 2
natures in one living thing
Jesus- Had two natures in one person.
GOD can do anything logically possible, and causally
impossible and possible. However for God to do something
logically impossible is not feasible.
Square circle - God can make the words, but cannot make it
true to the form.
Sinning is logically possible, It is not a limitation of God's
power to sin.
*When you act; humans can error, but God cannot; to sin is to
fall short of a certain action, and God does not fall short...
God does not sin.
"Counter Factual"
|If X then Y. ---------->|Statements with a false
proposition, and a false conclusion.
|True in its own reality
If a man is a donkey, he has four feet. He is not a donkey;
therefore he has two feet.
If God wills it, he could do it; But it is not in God's will
to do such a thing.
Descartes- God could change the law's of addition and could
create a world where 7+5=13
God is more omnipotent then Aquinas thinks.
Geach - If we are interested in what God can and cannot do,
then the true meaning of omnipotence tricks us.
The problem with omnipotence is that it forces us to think of
'impossible things'.
Almighty-------------Omnipotence
Power
| Having the power to
do anything.
Geach - Almighty deals with having power over something.
There are good philosophical reasons for using 'Almighty'
instead of Omnipotent
Sept
26, 2014 -- Kyle Tully
Page 17 – The Consolation of Philosophy
“Boethius cannot reconcile God’s foreknowledge with man’s free
will.
-If God knows what we are going to do before we do it, do we
really have free will? If we don’t have free will, can we be
punished for what we do wrong?.. This leads us to wonder if
God’s knowledge conflicts with free will.
-We must have a clear idea of what God is to find out if He
exists. We can’t be sure if He exists if we don’t know
anything about Him.
-Peter Geach on why he doesn’t like to use the word
“omnipotent” in describing God..
4 theories of omnipotence:
1. God can do anything (including things that are
self-contradictory) – the theory of “absolute omnipotence”..
(Descartes shares this view).
-God could create another world where 1+1=3
-If God could change anything at any time, everybody would be
confused about current ethics, rules, laws, etc.
2. God can do anything that is logically possible (a version
of Aquinas’ view).
-God couldn’t make a square circle because it isn’t logically
possible.
-We (humans) can create something that we can’t destroy, but
if God is omnipotent, he can destroy everything he creates,
therefore it is not logically possible for him to build
something he can destroy.
3. God can do anything that is possible for God to do.
- God can do some things at one time that he can’t do at
another time.
Aquinas’ example:
-It is true that at “time 1”, God can arrange events so that
someone doesn’t lose their virginity, but if something happens
that changes his planning of events and that person loses
their virginity, God is unable to undo that.
4. God can do anything that is possible for God to do in the
future.
-God has the power to break his promises, but his power is
controlled by his wisdom and goodness, so he wouldn’t break
his promises.
According to Christianity:
-God can be a body of something of the sort
-God can be tired or oblivious
-God can be angry or sorrowful
-God can suffer violence or be overcome
-God can undergo corruption
How can you have these properties if you are omnipotent?
September 30th -- Evan Sobey
-We discuss omnipotence because we want to know about the
nature of God
-Geach: Let’s see if omnipotence is a clear concept.
-If we don’t know what it means, we cannot
say it is true.
-How can we best state what we know about God?
(The following four options are responses to options discussed
in class on September 26th)
->Option 1: Geach says this is implausible. If God could
truly do anything, how could we really
know anything about God? We
would have no idea what to expect from God.
->Option 2: This doesn’t make sense. It is logically
possible for people to sin, but God cannot sin.
->Option 3: God cannot change the past. Once you’ve done
something it cannot be undone. God can make it so that you
never sin again; but he cannot make it so that you never
sinned in the first place.
->Option 4: This option would not work. i.e. it is not
logically possible for God to break promises.
-Omnipotence X: ability to do things; can God make a stone God
cannot lift? If so then he is limited.
-Almighty Y: Refers to having power over something or all
things.
-“Almighty” is a quality one can possess.
-Almighty is a better way of describing God’s power.
-How is it possible for God to…
-be abody
-be tired or oblivious
-be angry or sorrowful
-suffer violence or be overcome
-undergo corruption.
-…no? Christians say it is possible.
-If Sweet were PM, he could live at 24 Sussex Drive.
Sweet as PM comes with benefits
-Does God as God have a body?
-If God had a human nature.
-According to Christians, Jesus has a human nature and divine
nature.
-Jesus as a human can die, but the “divine”
Jesus cannot die.
-“Divine” Jesus has always existed, but
human Jesus only came to be about 2000 years ago.
-Omniscience
If God is omniscient, the He
knows/understands everything past/present/future.
-Are there things God cannot know?
-Can God learn/come to know things?
-Is God’s knowledge compatible with human freedom?
-If God knows everything, then he must know what will happen
in the future.
-i.e. He knew the day I was born whether or
not I would be saved.
-Now, if God knows this, then it must be true.
-So, it was already true, from the day I
was born, either that I would be saved or that I wouldn’t.
-But what must, of necessity, be true, I cannot and there is
no use in trying.
-Now suppose that God knew that I would not
be saved. Therefore, it has been true since the say I was born
that I wouldn’t be saved. So, no matter what I do, I am
damned.
-The possible conclusion we can always draw is that God knows
everything then human freedom of will cannot truly exist.
-This is known as pre-destination.
October
1, 2014 -- Caitlin Thomas
Omniscience
Paradox: a puzzle: two different beliefs that don’t seem to
go together but actually have solutions.
-Omniscience: the paradox of divine
foreknowledge and humans free will.
Past
Present
vs.
Freedom
Foreknowledge
-God foresees every motive, thought, etc.
if foreknowledge is otherwise than God never really knew
about it before.
If I am free, is this compatible with God’s foreknowledge?
-By my actions, can I change what God
knows?
*We have free acts, but God knows about them – God isn’t
making them do it.
-when you know your friends – you can
predict the way they will act. But Boethius says we
can’t make God’s foreknowledge false – he knows so much
more.
-our predictions are just opinions, but
God knows it, therefore it cant be wrong.
Problems with Omniscience:
1. If God knows what we are going to do … then my actions
aren’t really free, therefore, I should not be rewarded or
punished.
-if there is foreknowledge, there is no
freedom.
2. If God knows everything we do, and we have no choice to
do otherwise, I’m not responsible for my choices – in fact,
God is responsible for all evil – because he is causing it.
e.g. car being pushed into an
intersection – other cars fault.
Answer: Nature of Foreknowledge
-The way Boethius (and us) knows is
different than the way God knows.
Foreknowledge exists but brings no necessity to the cause.
-foreknowledge does not cause things, but
they just know its going to pass.
E.g. Squeeky and Professor Sweet understand some of the same
things (meal time, etc.). But Professor Sweet knows reasons
and causes.
Knowledge doesn’t have to do with the subject matter – has
to do with the knower.
-e.g. General Theory of Relativity – I
can’t know it, doesn’t mean it can’t be known.
-what you know depends on who you
are.
How does God know?
-how do I know things in a linear
manner – certain observations and then I generalize
e.g. Modus Pones (Linear, sequentially,
historically)
But: God doesn’t know things sequentially/historically – God
looks upon it as a conceptual whole.
-he knows things all at once.
-e.g. a mural – look at one part, then
another, than another (really close)
or
-stand back and look
at whole picture (not a perfect analogy)
God doesn’t know things like we know things. Not just
me everything.
Then how is that possible if God is in time?
Difference between eternity and everlasting:
Eternity: not seeing things historically,
God sees everything as if they are happening right now –
sees in the present. Therefore, there is no
foreknowledge because God is outside of time (sees a large
picture).
*we are looking through the perspective of time.
-We see things in our temporal
presence. God sees things in his eternal
presence.
Therefore, present knowledge is not in conflict with
freedom.
-if you see someone doing it right now –
it is necessary that they are doing it. Not past or
future – eternal presence.
Necessity: in what sense are my actions necessary or not
necessary? who starts my actions?
Oct. 3, 2014 - David Hearn
NB: Midterm Oct. 22
-Repeat someone’s position and explain
view, give their reasons for that view. Evaluate position.
(Omniciene, omnipotent, etc..) (Gietch can evaluate Aquinas)
-Essay
-Short answer. Ex) What is a logical
empiricist view, what would they say
-Definitions (maybe)
Divine Omniscience &
Voluntary Action
Boethius’s problem
-Lack of free will
-God knows events I future therefore you
can’t change your actions therefore you’re not responsible
therefore God is responsible for good and evil
God is outside time. Eternal.
God sees everything that has happened, is happening, and will
happen as if it is happening right now. “Only knows the present”
– everything that will happen in future he sees as the present
We see things linearly
p. 188 “you fasten me … contemplator of the divine.” If
God knows itthen I
must do it. It’s a necessity
2 kinds of necessity
-Categorical = Absolutely necessary. Ex)
All human beings are mortal
-Hypothetical =
If I’m doing it, God knows I’m doing it. Ex) If I am walking,
then I am walking.
p. 118 “All thing that God … come to pass”
God doesn’t know in advance that it is happening. Not making you
do something, just knows.
Pike :
Has Boetheus really given the strongest argument?
p. 185 “Boetheus was right … voluntary.”
“His suspicions … developed.”
Free Willvs.Free Action
Wish, wantoften signs of free will
Dreamex) chained in jail =no free action but still have free will, just can’t act
Write letters, etcon it
Boetheus’ Assumptions (p. 186-187)
1)If ‘A knows X’ to be true, then ‘A
believes X’ to be true, then ‘X’ is true
2)God cannot in anything be mistaken
Did God create the best possible world?
Does God intervene in the word?
p. 187 “No temporal relations … natural world.”
- If there is no involvement, there’s no room for miracles.
Unless you say God setup the world so that miracle would happen.
p. 188 God has always existed and always will exist
John Calvin: God can’t forgive until after the sin happens,
therefore it must be some kind of temporal series. Could have
planned for it but this implies foreknowledge
p. 189 :
Jones mowing lawn example
- Link between Jones mowing and not having any other choice
8 Oct. 2014 - Evan
Sobey
-Pike
-Paradox between
omniscience and human freedom
-3 ways put forth to get out of the paradox (last class)
-Pike claims that all 3 ways fail.
-Where do we get our information about the divine attributes
(i.e. omniscience, immutability…)?
-How do we know about God?
-Tradition (Church…)
-Innate (Born with
knowledge of God)
-A religious
experience (i.e. “talking with God”)
-From
texts 1. religious scripture
2. philosophical texts (theologies)
-Philosopher’s God and believers God, not a contradiction but
definite difference in focus.
-Where does our knowledge of omnipotence come from?
-tradition, innate,
experience.
-A theology would use the word omnipotence whereas a scripture
most likely would not.
-Geach says
omnipotence is not a good way to talk about God (he prefers
almighty)
-Could all-knowing be a better way to talk about God than
omniscience?
-Immutable
-“God is simple.” -> Aquinas
-Is God independent of the Universe or dependent on it?
-Student Question: Does God need to know the details or simply
the outcomes?
-Why would he need
the details?
-Providence: To be provident is to be “looking after things.”
-In some religions, this gets confused with…
-Predestination: (40 spots left in Heaven) Set in your course.
-Being providential is what the believer wants.
-What are we looking for when we say that God is perfect?
-Did God know
everything from the Big Bang onward?
-It is the belief that we don’t need predestination to get
providence.
-God can be
“pleasantly surprised.”
-Perfect: completeness, thoroughness. Perfection is a
philosophical term.
-Theologians are influenced by their languages and cultures when
writing about religion.
-Is culture relevant to God? Does he care?
-Greek philosophy influences christianity and Islam.
-Theory of the Forms: Reality as it appears to us, is different
than reality as it is in itself.
-“To be is to be perceived???” (…maybe?)
-Concepts and ideals
-Though many ideals
are unattainable, concepts are eternal. Even after this world is
gone, 2 will always be 2, though it it is not an ideal.
-“My God is a perfect God, he does not change.”
-Is this an ideal?
-Theologies in the Western tradition are very platonic
(perfection oriented). Deep attempts to express perfection.
Oct. 14 - Michael Abernethy
Is
God Immutable?
God
is perfection in the metaphysical sense, a concept borrowed
from the Greeks. According to Plato, perfection was found in
ideas/forms.
If
God changes, then He has imperfection: Either he is moving
from a state of imperfection to perfection (implying He was
imperfect to begin with), or he is moving from a state of
perfection to imperfection (implying that He is getting
worse).
-But since God is described as perfect, He can
have neither of these traits.
Aquinas
gives 3 arguments for this stance:
1.God is “pure act”. There is no potentiality
in God, and thus cannot change into something else.
2.Change or movement involves
composition (getting older, movement of matter). Composition
implies having parts: a part that remains the same, and a part
that changes. But God is “simple”, and has no parts. Therefore
God has no composition, and thus does not change.
3.When something changes, it acquires
something else it did not have before. But since God is
infinite, he cannot have anything more added to Him.
It
is in these ways that Aquinas argues that if God is not
immutable, then He is not perfect.
Anselm
questions whether or not God can be both compassionate and
passionless.
-God is described as an all-loving/caring God,
but God also cannot suffer the feelings we feel.
Anselm
answers that in terms of our experience, God is
compassionate, but in terms of God Himself, He's
not.
-God can be compassionate by being the source
of our consolation in times of need, while at the same time
not suffering what we feel.
-The “consoler” (cause) does not feel the
effects of the consolation.
Ex:
Being in a dark house away from the Sun (God) has no effect on
the Sun, and is a result of your own decision rather than the
Sun's. The Sun will be there regardless. Similarly, God will
be there regardless of whether you are or not, and provides
consolation if you need it.
This
then provides another problem: is God dependant, or
independent?
Hartshorne
says that either God must love all beings, or religion is a
fraud.
If
God did not love us, but rather felt indifferent towards us,
then why would he have created the universe? There must be an
important reason why human beings were created. If God is
all-loving, then He must have something to love.
Thus,
can God be dependant on something? Can God be independent?
Well,
a tyrant (one who sets all the rules) who does not care about
those who follow the rules is not admirable.
-But a tyrant who sets the rules and
cares for those who follow them is admirable, and thus
presents an ethical, impartial, neutral independence, one free
of bias.
November 4 - Kyle Tully
The problem with evil:
-God is all powerful
-God is all knowing
-** God is perfectly good – This
is the main problem because if God is perfectly good, He should
have the ability to omit all evil.
David Hume: What do you see around you?
There is good, and there is evil. What can we conclude from
this? Maybe there is a cause, but we probably can’t conclude
from this that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly
good God.
What is evil?
Mackie – There are two types of
evil.
1) Moral (free will) – (example:
terrorism, murder, dishonesty, genocide) – These are things that
humans choose to do.
2) Natural – (example: natural
disasters, sickness/disease) – Things that humans have no
control over.
Much of this evil is arbitrary.
It happens to both good and bad people.
Theodicy – Justification for evil (no
contradiction between evil and God).
Defence – Can’t show the
justification, but it is possible that there is justification
(not obviously contradictory).
No Justification – There is a contradiction
between evil and God.
Two views of evil:
1) Evil is an
illusion/unreal/purely subjective. (Example: evil is just
harmony misunderstood. There is actually no evil in the first
place). There are no good or bad people/things. Something evil
could have some kind of good consequences at some point.
2) “Good cannot exist without
evil”
-This suggests that there is some
limit to what an omnipotent being can do.
November 5 - Chris Moore
(to come)
November 12, 2014 -
Marissa Prosper
The
problem with evil
Evil is the privation, or absence, of good
(Augustine, Aquinas).
1.The
existence of evil is a “good” thing.
2.Evil
is the absence of a good that naturally should be present. You
need something in order to lack it. Example: being blind.
3.Therefore,
evil is real, but it can’t exist on it’s own.
4.Evil
is part of the nature of finite/limited beings.
5.Moral
evil=product of defect in will. God isn’t the cause of moral evil,
and since it’s in the nature of contingent things to suffer from
certain evils.
Evil is a defect.
We have the free will to choose, and sometimes
we choose the bad (evil) over the good. Therefore, evil is not a
by-product of God (moral evil).
What is evil? Privation, the opposite of good
(painful, etc.)
All evil is a privation; all privation is an
evil.
The average person has 32 teeth, if someone has 30 teeth
but their teeth are wider than normal, therefore there are no
spaces – would this be a privation? Aquinas would say no because
it causes no pain to the individual.
Therefore, not all privations are evil.
E.g. Starvation; lack of food is not a
privation of something you naturally need.
And not all evils are privations.
Knowing what evil is does not solve the
problem.
Why would God allow evil? – He created finite
limited beings.
Why would God create these types of beings?
Aquinas=evil is real, but it doesn’t exit on
it’s own.
Evil people, evil events, evil actions, etc. –
evil is more of an adjective than a noun.
However, you could say the same about good.
Evil is free will.
Theodicy=proof/justification.
Is this trying to justify why there is evil?
It could be a defence, not a theodicy.
Defence=
possible explanation.
This statement is a lot weaker; you don’t have
to prove innocence, just that you had an alibi or that you didn’t
do it.
The difference between a “free will theodicy”
and “free will defence”
A.Freedom
requires the ability to act wrongly as well as rightly.
B.It
is better that human beings have the ability to act freely then if
we were innocent automata, acting rightly in a
wholly-determined way.
C.Therefore,
cause of evil is not God, but independent acts of human beings.
Just like you cannot blame your computer for not working.
Wouldn’t it be better for humans to always do
what’s right?
We have the power to resist temptation.
November 14 - Caitlin Thomas
The Problem of Evil
Evil is due
to
free will
Criticisms
-Is free will such an important
thing? What about prayer? —> when we ask for
intervention into our lives or
into others?
-Free will is important in order
to be held responsible for our actions (what we
deserve or merit, free will has
real value)
-it is better to
have free will then not, for its better than
being robots.
Are
humans then ultimately responsible for evil?
1. Is it
true that all evil is due to
human free will?
-> no, e.g. natural disasters,
some disease, animal suffering
-> this view answers the moral
evil, but not natural evil.
Can God do
evil?
Heaven and Hell (eternal suffering
- which God would be the cause of the
punishment)
2. Why
couldn’t God have made human beings so that
they always freely choose the good?
“Since I can freely choose the
good at T1, then I can do it at T2.
Therefore, I can, in principle, do it
all at T. So it is logically possible that
humans could always freely
choose to do good…. "
Nor is there any logical
inconsistency in always freely choosing to do
the good; God presumable does so
(for, assuming that God has free will, and he
doesn’t do evil). As well, do the
good angels or others do evil?
Suppose that much evil is due to
ignorance. Therefore,
choosing the good depends on what we
know.
-but then, if we knew more, we
would be more free and more frequently choose
‘the good’ Why couldn’t God have
made us like this? e.g. Superman.
Why is this the best we can
be?
3. How
important/how good is free will?
- is it with all the
suffering?
- soul - building? —> why so
much evil though?
Human
souls —> product of God:
If I put someone in a bad
position, aren’t I responsible for that person …
?
e.g. Agent
of the University
If God
created us, then who is ultimately responsible?
God.
4.
This defence suggests that God is creating
beings that he cannot control.
Like Frankenstein.
God is
responsible for our coming and our continuation
in existence, so isn’t God responsible some how
for evil?
Ultimately:
’evil is due
to human free will’ : this explanation cannot
explain all evil … and holds God
responsible for some of it.
Theodicy or
Defence?
Theodicy:
a justification: ‘evil is justified by human
free will’
Defence:
‘evil is possibly justified’
-God could have his reasons/an
explanation
that goes beyond the ability to know.
-maybe there is a justification
(though we don’t know it)
-impossible to justify this
question
There are
a number of distinct problems of evil:
i) a logical contradiction in
there being any evil at all.
ii) a logical contradiction in
there being as much evil as there
is.
iii) the moral incompatibility of
God and evil.
iv) the moral (or even logical)
incompatibility to a limited God.
Final
Comments/Replies:
Distinguish: is the existence of
evil justified vs. could it be justified.
Logical incompatibility vs moral
incompatibility (no morally sufficient reasoning
for evil)
Does God
have a morally sufficient reason for allowing
evil?
Fideists
Response: can’t
understand what God is like (story of Job ->
'Job, you can’t even begin to
understand what I am like..’) (I don’t
understand this, but I still believe in
God … and so I believe there is an answer
somewhere).
Logical
Empiricist: Hume: ‘lets
take a look at facts - what do you see? … good
and you see evil. What can you
conclude? No reason for anything? Two forces at
work?’
Maybe an explanation, but no
reason for believing all powerful, good God.
Does not
fit with reasonably believing in a perfectly
good God.
Philosophical
Theist’s Response:
if we put all the defences together (the soul
building, the aesthetic, the
‘illusion’, the free will) - they may constitute
a possible
explanation of why God would permit so much evil.
This does
not ‘justify’ evil (i.e. no theodicy) BUT, a
defence.
Perhaps,
even if the existence of evil does not make
it obviously irrational that God exists….
Freud:
wants to know why people have
belief in God and ultimately believes it is a
psychological response to
environment.
Freud
thought there was a neurological reason for why
someone acts the way they do.
-he moved from neurology to
psychology
- believes that Religion is a
response to a problem
- religious symptoms look a lot
like neurosis
-humans try to cope through unity
-law is a really ineffective way
of controlling people —> so we all police
ourselves.
Desires
and social control —> neurotic behaviour,
superstition, religion
Neurosis
and Religion: both attempts to deal with
stress.
Freud
believes that psychology gives explanation.
November 18 - Evan Sobey
-Neurology ->
neurotic behaviour
-How do neuroses come
about?
-3 basic elements of
our psychological aparatus:
1. id : instinct (for pleasure)
2. ego : the (realistic) sense of self that a person has
3. superego : the socially desired internalization of parental
control
-> thus the ego is
disabled in its relations with reality -> it's not so much
that the neurotic is mistaken; neuroses are.
-If we can't bring the
id, ego, and superego together, we develop neuroses
.
.
.
-The future of
illusion
-Freud's first book
-Context: attempt to
explain human social life/civilization
-2 purposes of
civilization
1. Allows humans to conquer nature/natural environment
2. Allows us to conquer the social environment
-Some people don't go
along with civilization
-riots
-anarchy
-social discord
-Why? Because
sometimes civilization makes us do things we don't want to do.
-why do we renounce our instinct for pleasure (id) and go to
Monday morning 8:15am classes? --------->
COERCION
-We are
lazy/unintelligent beings; we are forced into
motivation/intelligence by society,
-We must give up our
instinctual search for pleasure or society would not progress
-How do we deal with
this conflict?
- Give up all benefits of society and resort to an instinctual
lifestyle (survival of the fittest etc...) -There are three ways
of addressing these wishes (for pleasure - id, ego, super ego) :
1. Dreams
-attempts at surrogate wish fulfillment
-dreams are full of symbols
-fair amount of eroticism
-since I don't succumb to my desires (for pleasure) in real
life, I find my release in my dreams
2.Culture and Cultural Achievement
-denying direct gratification/sublimation
-deal with frustrations by throwing oneself into culture (work,
art, writing, music)
3. Religion (product of wish fulfillment)
-provides explanations
-can give people purpose
-makes life more 'secure' (moral codes - 10 commandments)
-thus, "God" explains fate, "terrors of nature"....He becomes an
explanatory hypothesis. He becomes a moral guardian; he
compensates for the evils of civilization ( and God becomes a
'representation' of civilization)
BUT
-Religion perpetuates
infantile behaviour patterns
-relationship between God and followers = child - parent-esque
relationship
-Reflects a refusal to
distinguish between what reality is and what we want it to be
-Freud does not
believe that religious ideas are inherently bad; He claims that
it is important to know about religion
-Freud would say
religious ideas are
1. Descriptive and meaningful; they are a response to the world
and have significance for believers.
-tells your "history"
-tells you things that you can't discover for yourself
----> Our lives are
based off of having faith (Will this floor hold? ... Does anyone
love me?)
2. Valuable
-religious beliefs have contributed to our culture/civilization
in the 'internalization' of moral principle.
3. Not an error
-they are not the product of thinking so they are not
necessarily false
----> They are
illusions; they are based off of wishes
-what evidence do we
have that would confirm Freud's theory? -what assumptions does
Freud make? -has Freud given us
sufficient evidence?
Nov. 19 - Brennan Neve
In the past religion was used to explain natural
phenomenon. It has often provided the roots for
civilizations (e.g.laws, cultures). According to Sigmund
Freud we don't need
religion anymore because we have better societal and natural
explanations.
- Civilization is a frustration, its good but we don't always
like it we only choose to be part of it because we know its
better for the greater good.
Freud thinks there is a close relationship between neurotic and
religious behaviour.
Reasons:
1. Infantile behaviour. We want a God
who acts like a parent telling us what we can and cannot do, A
God who will smite us down if we do something wrong or who will
alwayslove us no matter how tough things get (like a
mother).
2. Tendency to repression, an innappropriate
response to reality. Like a child sucking his/her thumb
seeking a substitute for breastfeeding. We repress things
that we
can't have by performing rituals or keeping to moral
codes. There is a lot of obssessive behaviour in religion
(e.g. washing hands and feet before entering a temple).
3. Problems with self-image: Some people
don't use their "id" and need religion to guide them.
Religion tells us that we are the imperfect who must praise the
higher
power. Religion says you can't follow your "id".
4. Freud says religion is a non-functional
way of dealing with repression. It may have been in a
primitive society but it now only presents problems.
Just like childhood neuroses like fear of the dark we grow out
of these habits or we ought to. Freud does believe that
some things are lost without religion but ultimately we are
better off because we deal with our own problems, we use our
"id".
What evidence do we have that would confirm Freud's theory?
- He is providing a naturalistic explanation that everyone can
understand no matter their background.
Society often gives us religion, the dominant religion that
surrounds us. So is religion just a culmination of our
culture? Often people say they get religious experiences when
they are under threat, or they are converted when they are under
threat (e.g. death of a loved one, war). "There are no
atheists in a foxhole". Freud would just say this is
an
easy response to these worries, or that they are
hallucinating. Just as when someone is fasting or
participating in a sweat lodge ritual and their bodies are
dehydrated or
mal-nourished they may hallucinate.
Critique:
- Freud is offering both a psychological and sociological
account of religion
BUT these are two separate issues: religion in a culture and
religion in the individual. While one can speak of certain
impulses and memories being repressed in an individuals
over their lifetimes, how can one speak of it being repressed
over a "culture's lifetime". To explain why belieft exists
in a culture is one thing but why an individual believes
is quite another. Culture is not just the culmination of
individual beliefs and rituals, it is also law, ideals,
stories.
Does Freud provide an account of all theistic belief?
- different people come to religion in different ways,
revelation, philosophy. Is it an adequate account of
everyone's religious belief? Couldn't the psychological
origins of
belief differ from person to person? There are many
strange examples of people converting to religion (Paul Claudel
walked into Notre-Dame and was instantly converted).
If all neuroses are harmful (by definition), then a person who
has theistic belief is less able to function effectively than
s/he would have been without it. There are many
functional believers, often people are nicer because of their
religious beliefs. If religion were true, wouldn't we
expect different behaviour (e.g. putting aside worldly things)?