CHAPTER TWO

1
CHAPTER TWO

• THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

2
Section A. Challenges to Religious Belief

• 1. The Irrationality of Believing in Miracles
  David Hume
• 2. Religion as the Opium of the Masses Karl Marx
• 3. The Death of God Friedrich Nietzsche

3
2.A.1. The Irrationality of Believing in
Miracles David Hume

• Humes Thesis it is never reasonable to believe
  second hand reports concerning miracles

4
Reasons for not trusting testimonies

• The opposition of contrary testimony when
  witnesses contradict each other
• The character or number of the witnesses too few
  or of a doubtful character
• The manner of delivering the testimony when
  delivered with bias, hesitation, violent
  declaration

5
Definition of a Miracle

• General definition "a miracle is a violation of
  the laws of nature"
• More accurate definition "a transgression of a
  law of nature by a particular volition of the
  deity, or by the interposition of some invisible
  agent"

6
Main argument against miracles

• The evidence from experience in support of a law
  of nature is extremely strong.
• A miracle is a violation of a law of nature.
• Therefore, the evidence from experience against
  the occurrence of a miracle is extremely strong.

7
Four additional arguments against miracles

• Witnesses lack Integrity
• Predisposition to Sensationalize
• Abound in Barbarous Nations
• Miracles Support Rival Religious Systems

8
Closing quotation

• "And whoever is moved by faith to assent to it
  i.e. belief in the Biblical miracles, is
  conscious of a continued miracle in his own
  person which subverts all the principles of his
  understanding and gives him a determination to
  believe what is most contrary to custom."

9
Two interpretations of closing quote

• Friendly interpretation the miracles and
  prophecies in the Bible are not rational, and can
  only be believed through an act of divinely
  inspired faith
• Unfriendly interpretation belief in miracles is
  so irrational that it requires miraculous
  stupidity on the part of the believer

10
2.A.2. Religion as the Opium of the Masses Karl
Marx

• The Opium of the People Religion is created by
  people as a means of dealing with genuine
  suffering and oppression. b. Marxs Naturalism
• Theologians often defend the concepts of God and
  religion with arguments about the first cause of
  the world Marx believes that these questions are
  misguided and prove nothing

11
2.A.3. The Death of God Friedrich Nietzsche

• Parable of the madman announces the death of
  God, who civilization killed (i.e., outgrew)
  through advances.

12
The Consequences of the End of Religious Belief

• The value system of religion is gone, and we have
  no fixed truth to rely on not even science,
  which is left over from belief in God

13
Religion, Science, Pessimism, and Need

• People are reluctant to give up religion because
  of a certain need to believe and to rely on
  something. The instinct of weakness preserves
  religions, metaphysics, and other kinds of
  convictions

14
Section B. The Problem of Evil

• 1. God and Human Suffering Fydor Dostoevsky
• 2. The Logical Problem of Evil John L. Mackie
• 3. The Logical Problem of Evil Challenged
  William Rowe
• 4. A Soul-Making Theodicy John Hick

15
2.B.1. God and Human Suffering Fydor Dostoevsky

• Thesis the suffering of innocent animals and
  children seems to serve no greater good, and we
  would expect God to prevent these things

16
2.B.2. The Logical Problem of Evil John L.
Mackie

• Thesis belief in an all good and all powerful
  God is logically inconsistent with the fact of
  suffering in the world
• The only adequate solutions to the problem are to
  deny Gods goodness, Gods power, or the
  existence of evil. However, theologians do not
  take this route.

17
Inadequate solution 1 Goodness cannot exist
without evil.

• Mackie responds that evil may be necessary to
  recognize goodness, but evil is not ontologically
  necessary for goodness to exist.

18
Inadequate solution 2 The universe is better
with some evil in it

• For example, without poverty (a first-order evil)
  there would be no charity (a second-order good).
• Mackie responds that first-order evils like
  poverty will also allow for second-order evils,
  such as malevolence

19
Inadequate solution 3 Free will defense

• Evil is the result of free human choice, for
  which God bears no responsibility.
• Mackie responds that God could have created a
  world containing free creatures that always
  freely chose to do good..

20
2.B.3. The Logical Problem of Evil Challenged
William Rowe

• Thesis the presence of suffering is not
  logically inconsistent with the existence of an
  all good and powerful God

21
Logical contradiction vs. inconsistency

• Logical contradiction asserting a particular
  statement and its negation at the same time
• Logical inconsistency two statements lead to a
  contradiction, but are not explicitly
  contradictory themselves

22
A third statement is needed to generate a
contradiction

• Mackie suggests A good omnipotent thing
  eliminates evil completely, but Rowe argues that
  this statement is not necessarily true
• Alternative statement A good, omnipotent,
  omniscient being prevents the occurrence of any
  evil that is not logically necessary for the
  occurrence of a good which outweighs it Rowe
  maintains that this statement is true, but it
  will not generate a contradiction

23
2.B.4. A Soul-Making Theodicy John Hick

• Thesis human creation is a developmental process
  during which time we evolve to eventually become
  a more perfect likeness of God suffering is part
  of the process

24
Irenaeus human creation involves a two step
process

• We are created in the image of God.
• After much development, become re-created in the
  likeness of God.

25
Section C. Mysticism and Religious Experience

• 1. Hindu Mysticism
• 2. The Limited Authority of Mystical Experiences
  William James
• 3. The Untrustworthiness of Mystical Experiences
  Bertrand Russell
• 4. The Trustworthiness of Religious Experiences
  Richard Swinburne

26
Background

• Mystical experiences are a kind of religious
  experience that specifically involves a sense of
  union with God
• Unanimity thesis there is a presumption in favor
  of the reliability of mystical experiences
  because mystics in different religions generally
  report the same thing (i.e., a unity of all
  things)

27
2.C.2. Hindu Mysticism

• Experiencing the Self-God (Atman Brahman), the
  ultimate reality of all things that lies at the
  core of identities
• Yoga Sutra describes an eight-step meditative
  process that lead to this mystical experience
  appetitive restraint, social observance, bodily
  postures, breath regulation, suppression of the
  senses, focus, even awareness, and meditative
  union

28
2.C.3. The Limited Authority of Mystical
Experiences William James

• Thesis the claims of various mystics and
  concluded that they may be justly authoritative
  for the mystic having the experience, but they
  have no authority over the nonmystic

29
James defends three points

• Mystical states are authoritative for the mystic
  because they are directly perceived in a way
  similar to the way our senses perceive the world
  around us
• No authority emanates from them which should
  make it a duty for those who stand outside of
  them to accept their revelations uncritically
• Mystical experiences show that our normal
  consciousness of the world is only one type of
  consciousness that human beings are capable of

30
2.C.4. The Untrustworthiness of Mystical
Experiences Bertrand Russell

• Thesis mystical claims about the world are
  untrustworthy because they require abnormal
  physical states

31
Three common points in reports of mystical
experiences

• the unity of the world,
• the illusory nature of evil
• the unreality of time

32
Mysticism the bad and the good

• In spite of the unanimity of reports of mystical
  experiences, Russell argues that they should be
  dismissed because they require abnormal bodily
  states
• There may be some psychological benefits to
  moderate mystical experiences, particularly as it
  gives the sense of Breadth and calm and
  profundity

33
2.C.5. The Trustworthiness of Religious
Experiences Richard Swinburne

• C.D. Broads thesis abnormal physical states are
  needed to tap into the reality beyond our
  ordinary perceptions
• Swinburnes thesis mystical experiences are
  trustworthy since they fulfill the general
  criterion of trustworthiness that we all adopt

34
Principle of credulity (i.e., trustworthiness)

• if we perceive that an object is there, then it
  probably really is there, unless there are
  special reasons to think otherwise

35
Uniform past experience

• Critics of mystical experience argue that, for a
  report to be trustworthy, there must be
  uniformity in past experiences.
• Swinburne replies that uniform past experience
  isnt required for trustworthiness, since
  uniformity relies on induction, which is flawed.
  That is, when demonstrating that past experiences
  are similar, we ultimately rely on our memories
  to prove the reliability of our memories.

36
Section D. The Ontological Argument for Gods
Existence

• 1. Anselms Proofs
• 2. Against the Ontological Argument Gaunilo,
  Aquinas and Kant

37
2.D.1. Anselms Proofs

• Thesis the greatest conceivable being must
  exist since existence is a greater quality than
  nonexistence.

38
First proof shows that God exists

• (1) We have the concept of God, and in that sense
  God exists in the understanding.
• (2) The concept of God is the concept of the
  greatest conceivable being.
• (3) Real existence is greater than mere existence
  in the understanding.
• (4) Therefore, God must exist in reality, not
  just in the understanding.

39
Second proof shows that God exists necessarily

• (1) We have the concept of God, and in that sense
  God exists in the understanding.
• (2) The concept of God is the concept of the
  greatest conceivable being.
• (3) Necessary existence is greater than mere
  contingent.
• (4) Therefore, God must exist necessarily, not
  just contingently.

40
2.D.2. Criticisms

• a. Gaunilo ontological-type arguments could
  prove the existence of almost anything, such as
  the greatest possible island.
• b. Aquinas although existence is part of the
  notion of God, it is possible to deny that there
  is any such essence.
• c. Kant Anselm misuses the notion of existence
  when asserting that the greatest conceivable
  being exists in reality by treating it as an
  ordinary predicate on the same level as red.

41
Section E. The Cosmological Argument for Gods
Existence

• Aquinass Proofs
• Clarkes Proof and Humes Criticisms

42
Background

• Muslim version of argument the chain of causal
  connections in the world cannot go back through
  time forever there must be some first cause to
  the series, and this cause is God
• Criticism it is logically possible for causal
  chains to go back through time forever

43
2.E.1. Aquinass Proofs.

• Thesis an infinite chain of simultaneous causes
  is impossible, and such a sequence of causes must
  terminate in God.

44
Two kinds of causes.

• Accidental causes (causes per accidens) causes
  that occur through time (e.g., Abraham begetting
  Isaac, who begat Jacob).
• Essential causes (causes per se) causes that
  occur simultaneously (e.g., a hand moving a stick
  moving a stone).

45
Proof from efficient cause.

• (1) Some things exist and their existence is
  caused.
• (2) Whatever is caused to exist is caused to
  exist by something else.
• (3) An infinite series of simultaneous causes
  resulting in the existence of a particular thing
  is impossible.
• (4) Therefore, there is a first cause of whatever
  exists.

46
2.E.2. Clarkes Proof and Humes Criticisms.

• Clarkes thesis God is needed as an explanation
  for the fact that the entire infinite series of
  causes exists at all.

47
Clarkes proof.

• (1) The world contains an infinite sequence of
  contingent facts.
• (2) An explanation is needed as to the origin of
  this whole infinite series, (which goes beyond an
  explanation of each member in the series).
• (3) The explanation of this whole series cannot
  reside in the series itself, since the very fact
  of its existence would still need an explanation
  (principle of sufficient reason).
• (4) Therefore, there is a necessary being which
  produced this infinite series (and which is the
  complete explanation of its own existence as
  well).

48
Humes criticisms.

• General problem with a priori arguments a priori
  arguments fail because the are based solely on
  conceptual notions (such as an infinite sequence
  of dependent beings) without focusing on things
  that we actually experience.
• The material universe itself might be the
  necessarily existent being that the
  cosmological argument attempts to demonstrate.
• The existence of the entire series of dependent
  beings is fully explained by the existence of
  each dependent being in the series.

49
Section F. The Design Argument for Gods Existence

• 1. Against the Design Argument David Hume
• 2. The Design Argument Revisited William Paley
• 3. Evolution and the Design Argument Charles
  Darwin
• 4. The Fine Tuning Argument Robin Collins

50
Argument from analogy.

• (1) Machines (which have orderly and purposeful
  arrangements of parts) are the products of
  intelligent design.
• (2) The universe resembles a machine (insofar as
  it has an orderly and purposeful arrangement of
  parts).
• (3) Therefore, the universe is the product of
  intelligent design.

51
2.F.1. Against the Design Argument David Hume.

• Thesis the design argument fails because the
  analogy between machines and the universe is very
  weak.

52
Three main criticisms.

• The universe does not sufficiently resemble human
  machines, and thus the analogy falls apart.
• Even if parts of the universe exhibit some
  design, this does not entitle us to say that the
  whole universe was created by God.
• Even if parts of the universe exhibit design, we
  cannot justly conclude that the designer was a
  single, all powerful, all intelligent and good
  being.

53
2.F.2. The Design Argument Revisited William
Paley

• a. Thesis the analogy between the universe and
  objects of human design is strong enough for us
  to infer the existence of a supremely intelligent
  designer.

54
2.F.3. Evolution and the Design Argument Charles
Darwin.

• a. Thesis evolution offers an alternative and
  naturalistic explanation of the origin of
  apparent design in the world.

55
Two main principles of evolution

• Naturally occurring random mutations in
  organisms
• Organisms compete for survival, and those with
  the most advantageous mutations are likely to
  survive.

56
No role for God

• The evolutionary mechanism itself is not the
  product of divine design there is no inherent
  design to simple random variations in biology, in
  spite of the spectacular things that the process
  of natural selection can make of them.
• God may have foreseen the evolutionary outcomes
  of random variations in biology, but this does
  not mean that God intentionally ordered those
  evolutionary outcomes.

57
2.F.4. The Fine Tuning Argument Robin Collins

• Thesis the physical conditions that make life
  possible on earth are extraordinarily delicate,
  and their occurrence is more probable under a
  theistic hypothesis than an atheistic one.
• Example if the initial big bang as physicists
  describe it had differed in strength by only the
  tiniest fraction of a fraction, life on earth
  would have been impossible.

58
Main argument.

• (1) The existence of the fine-tuning is not
  improbable under theism.
• (2) The existence of the fine-tuning is very
  improbable under the atheistic single-universe
  hypothesis.
• (3) Therefore, the fine-tuning data provides
  strong evidence in favor of the design hypothesis
  over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

59
Section G. Faith and Rationality.

• 1. Waging on Belief in God Blaise Pascal
• 2. The Will to Believe William James
• 3. Can we Know God without Arguments Alvin
  Plantinga and Jay M. Van Hook

60
Two approaches

• Fideism belief in Gods existence is largely or
  entirely a matter of faith rather than reason
  (e.g., Tertullian What does Athens have to do
  with Jerusalem?).
• Religious rationalism belief in Gods existence
  can be supported through rational demonstration
  (e.g., Toland).

61
2.G.1. Waging on Belief in God Blaise Pascal.

• Thesis reason is neutral on the question of
  Gods existence, and that our belief should be
  based on faith.

62
Pascals position

• The wager when reason is neutral on the issue of
  Gods existence, the balance of positive and
  negative consequences of believing vs.
  disbelieving in God should compel us to move
  towards a faith-based belief in God.
• Steps towards faith reduce our passions, and do
  all religious things as if you believed in them,
  e.g., in using holy water, in having masses
  said, etc..

63
2.G.2. The Will to Believe William James.

• Thesis we have a right to believe in God based
  on our passions when reason is neutral and such
  belief constitutes a genuine option for us.

64
Types of options (or choices between two
hypotheses).

• Living vs. dead (e.g., becoming Muslim is a dead
  option).
• Forced vs. avoidable (e.g., choosing to go out
  with an umbrella or without one).
• Momentous vs. trivial (e.g., going to the North
  Pole.
• Genuine option living, forced, and momentous.

65
Two criticisms of Pascals wager

• (1) the same argument applies to belief in other
  deities
• (2) it is too cold and impersonal.

66
William Cliffords position

• When reason is neutral on any matter (including
  belief in God), we should not believe on the
  basis of passions, but instead abstain from
  belief.

67
Friendship analogy

• We must first make an assumption that someone is
  interested in our friendship, otherwise we would
  never have benefit of the friendship similarly,
  we must first believe in God, otherwise we would
  miss out on the possible benefits.

68
Religious belief and our passionate nature.

• i. Two essential points of the basic religious
  hypothesis (1) the best things are the more
  eternal things (2) we are better off even now if
  we believe the first hypothesis.
• ii. Religion is a genuine option it is obviously
  live and momentous it is forced since by
  abstaining we lose a possible good as if we chose
  not to believe.
• iii. Rejection of the agnostic's position "a
  rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent
  me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if
  those kinds of truth were really there, would be
  an irrational rule".

69
2.G.3. Can we Know God without Arguments

• Alvin Plantinga and Jay M. Van Hook.

70
Three positions.

• Evidentialism questions of Gods existence must
  be subjected to rational scrutiny
• Fideism (1) Gods existence cannot be rationally
  demonstrated, and (2) belief in God rests solely
  on personal faith, and not on reason
• Reformed epistemology (1) Gods existence cannot
  be rationally demonstrated (2) Gods existence
  is a foundational belief

71
Plantingas thesis

• Belief in God is properly basic that is, it is a
  foundational notion, not deduced from other
  principles, and we are rationally justified in
  holding to this belief without needing to offer
  any proof for it.

72
Van Hooks thesis

• Belief in God is not a foundational belief for
  everyone, but is instead a conviction relative to
  ones peer group.
• We should abandon the claim to know that God
  exists and be content to simply believe this.