Philosophy 1010

1
Philosophy 1010 Class 2/11/13
Title Introduction to Philosophy Instructor P
aul Dickey E-mail Address pdickey2_at_mccneb.edu
Tonight Turn in your Essay Argument
Summary Hand back your Pragmatism Essays.
Next Week Assignment Velasquez, Philosophy A
Text With Readings Chapter 6, Sections 6.1
6.2. Dont procrastinate on your essays! If
you have any questions, please ask either now or
by e-mail.
2

• COURSE EVALUATION
• Electronic/Online Course/Instructor Feedback
• 13/WI Availability until February 20, 2013.
• Instruction Sheet will be on Quia site.

3
Chapter 3 Reality and Being (a Metaphysical
Study)
4

• Discussion
• Being Practical vs. Pragmatism
• A Thought Experiment
• How was Benjamin Franklin interested in
  lightning? For its usefulness or for its
  potential beauty? Thus, was he practical? So,
  was he a philosophical pragmatist? What if ol
  Ben suggests to us that lightning is beautiful
  because it can be harnessed as electricity?

5

• Video
• What is Real?

6
The Problem of Free Will
The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for Free
Will

• From common sense
• I have a direct consciousness of being able to do
  otherwise.
• I have a direct consciousness of causing my own
  behavior.
• I accept responsibility for my decisions.

7
The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for
Determinism

• From common sense
• Everything appears to have a scientific cause.
• It is not understood by what mechanism a mental
  state such as a will or an intention can cause
  behavior in the physical world.
• We seem to be think it quite appropriate to
  explain the behavior of others (and they us)
  simply in terms of behavior or reasons that they
  are unaware of, even when the person themselves
  would have said they chose to do so.

8
Determinism

• Determinists argue that previous events and the
  laws of nature cause all human acts.
• Human acts are predictable theoretically if we
  knew all prior conditions and the laws governing
  those conditions on the model of physics.
• Sir Isaac Newton (1642 1727) argued that all
  bodies in the universe both the smallest atoms
  and the largest planets act in accordance with
  the universal laws of nature.

9
Determinism

• The Marquis de LaPlace (1749-1827) applied the
  Newtonian conception and argued that humanity is
  part of a causal chain, as is all phenomena.
• For LaPlace, free will is an illusion that we
  have since we are ignorant of the appropriate
  laws of human nature.
• John Hospers (1918 - ) argues that the
  unconscious motivations for behaviors discovered
  by Sigmund Freud determine all human action.
• Subsequently in the view of hard line
  determinists, humans are not responsible for
  their acts.

10
Libertarianism

• Libertarianism is the view that our choices are
  not determined by the laws of nature. It is often
  referred to as indeterminism.
• One prevalent view of libertarianism is John Paul
  Sartres existentialism. Sartre claims that
  humans can be motivated by a future state, not a
  past state.
• Thus, we can conceive and choose what is not,
  i.e. negativity or non-being. (that is, what does
  not yet exist). To be determined would mean that
  what is past or present could determine the
  future (what does not exist.)
• Although man is radically free, most forms of
  existentialism allow that man can also choose to
  sell out his freedom and act as if he is
  determined by desires and emotions. Yet, man is
  always responsible for his actions.

11
Compatibilism

• Compatibilism argues that free will can be made
  compatible with determinism.
• The general strategy of compatibilism is
  typically to re-define freedom.
• Thomas Hobbes said that freedom was only the
  absence of physical restraints and causal
  determinants do not act as physical restraints.
• Although classical compatibilist views such as
  Hobbes appeal to our need to explain the paradox
  of free will and determinism, most philosophers
  find it unconvincing and ignores the real issue
  that cannot be defined away.

12
Compatibilism

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) gives us a
  compatibilist proposal that does not merely
  redefine freedom. It suggests that whether we
  have free will or not is not absolute, but
  contextual.
• Kant says that when we act, we have to assume we
  are free and when we try to explain our acts
  scientifically we have to assume that those same
  acts are causally determined.
• Even as determinists, when we go to a restaurant
  we still must take upon ourselves to order from
  the menu. We cannot sit back and just let our
  desires and tastes take care of it for us.

13
Chapter 4 Philosophy and God (a Metaphysical
Study)
14
Does God Exist?

• Theism is the belief in a personal God who is
  creator of the world and present in its processes
  and who is actively engaged in the affairs of
  humans.
• Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe
  and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a
  whole). God exists but is not personally involved
  in the lives of men.
• Atheism is the denial of Theism. (Metaphysical
  View) It states that there is no God.
• Agnosticism is the view that it cannot be known
  whether God exists or not. (Epistemological
  View)
• According to Logical Positivism, the question
  Does God Exist? is meaningless.

15
First, Can We Even Make Sense of the Question?

• Surely before trying to answer the question, one
  needs to ask the following questions
• What does one mean by the word or concept of
  God?
• What is the sense of existence that is being
  asserted when one says God exists.
• Without being clear about these issues, the
  argument often becomes mostly subjective.

16
What Do We Mean by God?

• If we say that God is the creator of the
  universe, do we mean
• 1) that there is a Being that is God that could
  or could not be the one who created the universe,
  but as a matter of fact is the creator of the
  universe? Or
• 2) that by definition that God is the Being that
  created the universe such that it would be a
  logical error to say that God did not create the
  universe.
• Note that if we mean the first, we have still not
  said who (or what) God is, apart from what he has
  done.
• If we mean the second, of course given the
  inherent assumptions, then God exists. But have
  we committed the logical fallacy of begging the
  question?

17
What is the Meaning of Existence that is Being
Used to Say that God Exists?

• Is existence a property of an entity? I say This
  chair is black. Blackness is a property of the
  chair. So that I would say that this chair has
  the property of existing and thus there could
  be chairs some of which have the property and
  some dont. Then would I say that some chairs
  exist and some do not like I would say some
  chairs are black and some are not?
• Or is existence of the chair identified in terms
  of its relationship to a real world, say Hobbes
  material world or Berkeleys mental world? But
  then what sense does it make to say that Gods
  existence is dependent upon a world that He
  created and itself came into existence after
  Him?
• If not, then what is this form of existence (or
  reality) for God that we are asserting?

18
So, is Logical Positivism right after all?

• Theism is so confused and the sentences in which
  'God' appears so incoherent and so incapable of
  verifiability or falsifiability that to speak of
  belief or unbelief, faith or unfaith, is
  logically impossible.
• A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic
• Wikipedia suggests A. J. Ayer (1910-1989) was an
  atheist. Ayers position on the existence of God
  should not be confused with atheism. Of course,
  claiming that God does not exist also lacks
  analytic or empirical verifiability and is thus
  also meaningless.
• Many (perhaps most?) mid to late 20th century
  philosophers who abandoned strict logical
  positivism (including Russell and Wittgenstein)
  still found Ayers response to this issue quite
  credible.
• On the other hand, maybe the question is too
  obvious and important to give up on, so lets
  stumble on .

19
The Traditional Proofs The Ontological
Argument

• Saint Anselm (c. 1033-1109) provided the
  classical ontological argument (proof) for the
  existence of God
• First of all, Anselm argues, God is that Being
  for which none greater can be conceived.
• But if God did not exist, then we could conceive
  a greater Being, namely a God that does exist.
• Thus, God must exist.
• Note This argument does not give evidence of
  Gods existence. It attempts to prove it.
• Unfortunately, the argument seems to suppose that
  
• Existence is a property of a thing, and
• Non-existence is an imperfection.

20
The Ontological Argument Kants Objection

• Immanuel Kant argued against Anselms Ontological
  Argument that it defines God into existence, that
  is, Anselm has formed a concept of God that
  itself requires existence as a property.
• Nonexistence was an imperfection, thus God could
  not have that property since he by definition is
  perfect.
• And thus, Anselm is begging the question.
• Few philosophers or theologians today accept
  Anselms Ontological Argument.

21
The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument

• Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) provided several
  cosmological arguments (proofs) for the
  existence of God that were of the following form
• First of all, Aquinas argues, Some things move.
  
• What moves must be moved (caused) by something
  prior.
• This movement (causation) can not have an
  infinite regression for it must have an origin.
• The origin of the movement (the cause) cannot
  itself move (or be caused).
• Thus, God (the original mover or first cause)
  must exist.

22
The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument

• After Newton, it is necessary to refine Aquinas
  first argument to refer to acceleration rather
  than motion.
• More damaging to his argument however is an
  objection that questions the assumption that
  there can be no infinite regress in the causal
  sequences of the universe. How do we know that
  the universe is not infinite?
• The Big Bang theory seems potentially to
  counter this objection. The universe (along with
  space and time) does appear to have had a
  beginning.
• But the argument still does not preclude
  alternatives. Could our universe have come into
  existence from events in another universe and
  thus we could still have an infinity of events in
  multiple universes?

23
The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument

• Aquinas believed that even if the universe
  existed forever, then there would still need to
  be a First Cause which would be God.
• David Hume (1711-1776) disagreed. He claimed that
  if one had an explanation for all the parts of a
  thing (in particular, all individual causal links
  in the universe), it did not require an
  additional explanation for the whole.
• Many analysts, most notably Arthur Schopenhauer
  (1788-1860), have argued that the arguments
  premise that every event must have a cause is
  actually inconsistent with his conclusion that
  God does not have a cause.

24
The Traditional Proofs The Argument From
Design

• The Argument From Design, also known as the
  teleological argument (thus being traced back to
  Aristotle) states that the order and purpose
  manifest in the working of nature, and
  particularly, human nature require that there be
  a logical designer or God.
• This argument is very popular today and is
  probably the most prevalent and popular argument
  for the existence of God.
• The best known early formulation of this argument
  was given by the theologian William Paley
  (1743-1805).
• Paley compared natural organisms to the mechanism
  of a watch and by analogy argued that as the
  design of the watch demonstrates the existence of
  a watchmaker, natural design shows the work of a
  Divine Agency.

25
The Argument From Design

• Relying on a multitude of examples including the
  migration of birds, the adaptability of species,
  and the human eye, Paley seemed to make a pretty
  convincing argument given the science of the day,
  
• David Hume did object however on the basis that
  as an argument from analogy, the argument was
  weak. Arguments from analogy are only as strong
  as our knowledge of the relevant similarities.
  In this one, we do not know how nature and living
  things are made and thus that it is at all like
  a watch being made.
• Hume was arguing against Paleys assumption that
  complex order can be produced only by an
  intelligent being. That may or may not be the
  case, Hume would say. Anticipating Darwin, he
  suggested that perhaps a finite amount of
  particles in random motion might achieve order.

26
The Argument from Design Darwinism

• Charles Darwin (1809-1882) filled in the missing
  pieces of Humes argument by producing scientific
  evidence for just what the mechanism could be in
  nature to produce the order and appearance of
  design that Hume was suggesting.
• Darwin suggested that the process was one he
  called natural selection. Over millions of years,
  Darwin argued, random mechanical processes could
  produce organisms that seemed perfectly designed.
  
• Darwin contended that life forms exhibit
  inherited variations that were gradually
  selected in a struggle for survival to produce
  new characteristics of species and even new
  species.

27
The Argument from Design Darwinism

• Others continue to defend the Argument From
  Design while granting the possibility of natural
  selection processes, rationalizing that it is
  then just the process by which God produces
  living things.
• But this later posture gives up a lot of
  theological ground. It allows for God to act
  randomly and that He allows harmful consequences
  to exist in his creation.
• For many others, the Darwinian theory of
  evolution was taken as a threat to the Argument
  From Design which seemed to be the last bastion
  of a ultimate support for the existence of God.
  Thus many theists to this day resist the
  Darwinian view which meanwhile has become the
  dominant scientific theory within Biology and has
  also developed extended applications in other
  sciences and our entire intellectual culture.

28
Do We Prove God Exists Because We Can Talk
Meaningfully about HIM?

• We generally believe that only things that exist
  can have properties. Thus, by referring to God
  with properties, I.e. omnipotent, do we not
  prove that God exists?
• Probably not of course. We refer to Santa Claus
  as having a white beard and living at the
  North Pole.
• Bertrand Russell proposed a Theory of
  Descriptions to account for how we refer to
  things that may or may not exist.
• Russells solution is to take names to be
  shorthand for descriptions. For example, Santa
  Claus is a person who goes by the description
  that he lives on North Pole, and delivers toys to
  kids for Christmas, and the sentence Santa
  doesnt exist should be understood as There is
  no X, such that X is a person that lives on North
  Pole, etc., etc.

29
How is it Possible to Talk About God without
Affirming that He Exists?

• For Russell to say God does not exist is to say
  There is no Being, such that the Being existed
  prior to the creation of the universe, and then
  created the universe, etc., etc.
• Thus, Russell (as we mentioned last week) in
  using philosophical analysis of language to
  clarify misguided metaphysical constructions of
  supposed reality.
• This seems reasonable enough, but Omaha native
  and renowned philosopher of logic Saul Kripke has
  a problem with Russells view. (Kripke graduated
  from Central High.)

30
How is it Possible to Talk About God if We are
Not Asserting He Exists?

• Kripke counters But if Santa does exist,
  wouldnt we be able to imagine Santa not living
  on the North Pole? Or wouldnt we be able to
  imagine him not delivering presents for
  Christmas? If that is so, then Santa cant be a
  shortened description of the type we presented,
  because it would fail to refer to Santa in these
  cases.
• And now we are back to Square One! Or are we?
• Has what Kripke shown is that there are still
  difficulties in Russells analysis, but NOT that
  the approach of using language analysis by logic
  will not work!
• Thus, as we discussed before, Russells theory
  though technically perhaps in error has furthered
  the clarification of the issue and has advanced
  our knowledge, as has Kripkes criticism of
  Russell.

31
Wrapping it up (perhaps) .

• If any of these arguments were successful, they
  still do not demonstrate that God is necessarily
  personally engaged in the affairs of you or I
  today.
• Thus, they still may only be an argument for a
  form of pantheism or panentheism, not Theism.
• Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) argued that if God is
  omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all
  powerful), and omnipresent (always present), then
  God must be everything. There can be no world
  outside God (even one he created).
• Panentheism is an alternate view that all of the
  universe is in God, but God is GREATER than the
  universe. God is unchanging but also among all
  that HE is, HE is a unity of all diversity, being
  and becoming. This is the view of the Pragmatist
  Charles Peirce (1839-1914).