ch4ppt velasquez12

CHAPTER FOUR: PHILOSOPHY AND GODCHAPTER FOUR: PHILOSOPHY AND GOD

P H I L O S O P H YP H I L O S O P H YA TEXT WITH READINGSA TEXT WITH READINGS

1212thth EDITION EDITIONManual VelasquezManual Velasquez

Chapter 4: “Philosophy and God”Chapter 4: “Philosophy and God”

Outline of Topics in Chapter 4Outline of Topics in Chapter 4

• 4.1 The Significance of Religion

• 4.2 Does God Exist?

• 4.3 Atheism, Agnosticism, and the Problem of Evil

• 4.4 Traditional Religious Belief and Experience

• 4.5 Nontraditional Religious Experience


4.1 4.1 The Significance of ReligionThe Significance of Religion

• Belief and unbelief can be influential aspects of one’s life. – For example, when thinking about the ultimate nature

and destiny of humanity, contrast a Jew or Christian’s beliefs, and those of agnostic or atheist.

– Yet, as the John Hick parable, “The Road” shows (see 240) , the choice to accept or reject religious belief will not be definitively validated or refuted until the end of our journey.

• Which, then, should we choose? Which choice is more reasonable during the journey? How reasonable is religion?


Defining ReligionDefining Religion

• In discussing religion, the first order of business is defining it, yet this is surprisingly difficult.– Religion is difficult to define because some religions do not

believe in God, some have no official beliefs, some are not institutionalized, and some do not value personal commitment.

– How would you define religion?• It is probably easier to note common features of religion than to define

it, and that is the approach this chapter will take, although qualifications may still be necessary.

• Ninian Smart has developed an influential treatment of religion.

•


The Six Dimensions of ReligionThe Six Dimensions of Religion

• According to Smart, religion has six dimensions.• Although not all six dimensions are found in all

religions, every religion shares in most of these to some degree: 1. Doctrinal

2. Experiential

3. Mythological

4. Ritual

5. Moral

6. Organizational/Institutional


Religious Belief, Religious Religious Belief, Religious Experience and TheologyExperience and Theology

• In this chapter, the term religious belief will be used in its most general sense as meaning “the doctrines of a religion about the universe and religion’s relation to the supernatural.”– On the other hand, the term religious experience refers to an

experience of this supernatural dimension.

• We also need to clear about the difference between philosophy of religion and theology, the study of religious beliefs, which assume that God exists and the beliefs are true.– While studying religious belief, the philosophy of religion, does

not assume that they are true or that God exists.


4.24.2 Does God Exist? Does God Exist? • Theism is the belief in a personal God who is

creator of the world. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God.

• The growth in the prestige and power of natural science is viewed by many as a serious challenge to theism.– This raises questions about the rationality of religious

belief. – Addressing such questions through arguments for

God’s existence has been a perennial feature of the philosophy of religion.


Arguments for God’s existenceArguments for God’s existence

• The arguments for God’s existence are one way that philosophers have tried to determine the extent to which humans can have rational knowledge of God and the extent to which science has a bearing on our knowledge of God.– The arguments rely on reason and sense experience

– and so contrast with approaches which foreground non-rational grounds for belief.

– Well look at three main arguments: Ontological, Cosmological and Design Arguments.


The Ontological ArgumentThe Ontological Argument

• This argument was first clearly developed by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033–1109).

• The main thrust of the argument is to argue that if we merely think about what God is, we will see that God has to exist. The argument, in brief, works as follows:

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived

2. That than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality and not merely in the mind.

3. So God exists in reality


In Anselm’s WordsIn Anselm’s Words– “Hence, even the fool [who denies that God exists]

must agree that he has in his understanding, at least, the idea of that than which nothing greater can be conceived…. But assuredly that than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot merely exist in his understanding. For, suppose he believed it existed only in his understanding. Then he could conceive of this being also existing in reality, which would be greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, existed only in the understanding, it would be that than which something greater could be conceived.” (245)


A Key NotionA Key Notion• What does Anselm mean when he writes that

God is that than which nothing “greater” can be conceived, and when he says something that exists in reality is “greater” than something that merely exists in the mind? – In section 3.1 of chapter 3, Robert Nozick suggests

that to say something is real is to say that it has importance, weight, and power.

• Anselm’s word “greater” can be understood in terms of this notion of reality. Within Anselm’s argument, we can understand “greater” to mean something like “more potent” or

“more powerful.”


A Famous ObjectionA Famous Objection

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argues that the ontological argument fails because it confuses two categories: the concept or idea of a thing, and its existence, i.e., the fact that it exists. – In his argument Anselm says that the idea of God

with existence is “greater” than the idea of God without existence.

– But in saying this, the argument is in effect saying that existence can be part of the idea or concept of God.

• Kant expresses this criticism with the now famous slogan that “existence is not a real predicate.”


Reply to KantReply to Kant• Kant claimed that Anselm wrongly assumed

existence is a real property (or “predicate”) that can be part of the concept of a thing—of the concept “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” – Some philosophers have defended Anselm’s

argument against this criticism by arguing that existence can be a property.

• If we understand the notion of “greater” in terms of being more powerful, and agree that if something exists in reality it has more power than if it is only in our minds, then we are in effect agreeing that existence is a predicate.


A Second Objection and ReplyA Second Objection and Reply

• Guanilo argued that if Anselm was right then one could “foolishly” prove that anything existed by defining it as “the x than which nothing greater can be conceived.” – For example, one could prove that a perfect island

existed since it was that than which no greater island could be thought.

– Anselm replies to this argument by asserting that his argument worked only with an infinitely perfect being, and only God was infinitely perfect.


The Cosmological ArgumentThe Cosmological Argument

• The thirteenth-century Christian philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) also proposed a series of arguments for God’s existence.– Because the two proofs covered in this chapter begin

with an observation about the physical universe, they are said to be a kind of cosmological argument.

– The two cosmological arguments we cover start from motion and the fact of causation, respectively.


The Argument from MotionThe Argument from Motion• Aquinas first cosmological argument works as

follows:1. Some things move.

2. What moves must be moved by another moving thing, which must be moved by another moving thing, and so on.

3. This series of moving movers cannot be infinite, for then their motion would have no origin.

4. The origin of their motion cannot be moving, for then it would have to be moved by another.

5. So, this unmoving origin of motion is God.


The Argument from CausationThe Argument from Causation

• Aquinas’s second cosmological proof says: 1. Some things are caused to exist by other things.

2. What is caused to exist must be caused by another thing, for nothing can cause itself to exist.

3. The series of causes cannot extend back infinitely, for then there would be no beginning to the existence of the series of causes, so no causes would exist at all.

4. So, there is a first cause of existence, and this is God.


Objection Objection • Numerous objections to Aquinas’ arguments

have been advanced. We’ll cover only a few of them, together with replies to them.– One objection to Aquinas’s argument from motion is

suggested by Sir Isaac Newton three laws of motion and universal gravitation.

– Newton’s first law of motion showed that a moving object continues moving forever on its own without needing anything to keep it moving, so long as an external force does not interfere with its motion.

• So, critics conclude, God is not needed to explain why the objects we see all around us are moving as they are.


ReplyReply

• Defenders of Aquinas have responded to this objection by saying that his argument should be interpreted as applying to the initiation of motions or, more simply, to acceleration.– For an object to accelerate or begin moving, even

according to Newton’s laws, it must be acted on by an outside force.

• Something, therefore, is needed to explain how all of the motion we see in the universe ultimately began, and this

“something” is God. • Are you convinced by this reply?


Objection Objection

• A second objection focuses on Aquinas’ assertion in both argument that there cannot be an infinite regress of movers or causes.

• However, it’s possible that the universe has simply existed forever and that things in it have simply been moving forever?

• Aquinas


ReplyReply• Aquinas knew that it was possible that the

universe may have existed forever.– However, Aquinas argued that even if we assume that

the universe has existed forever and that the chain of motions and causes stretches back in an infinite regress, a First Cause is still necessary.

• While it’s true that each individual link in an infinite regress of moving things or causes would be accounted for by a previous link, the existence of the entire chain itself would still need to be explained.

– Dave Hume challenged Aquinas’ assumption that one should expect an explanation of the whole, beyond the sum of its linked parts. Is he right?


The Big Bang and the The Big Bang and the Cosmological Argument Cosmological Argument

• Most scientists now accept that the universe began 13.75 billion years ago with “The Big Bang.”– Many philosophers have asserted that the Big Bang is

exactly the kind of starting point of the universe that the cosmological argument points toward.

• If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe has not existed forever.

• And, supporters of the cosmological arguments claim, only an infinitely powerful being—God—can account for the big bang beginning of the universe.


Objection to the Objection to the Big Bang Argument Big Bang Argument

• Critics question whether the Big Bang theory proves that there is a God that created the universe.

• They assert that something other than God have caused our universe to come into existence?– Some cosmologists have speculated, for example,

that the universe we know was caused by events in some other unknown universe, which in turn was caused by some other unknown universe, and so on to infinity.

• This lead us back to the debate over infinite regresses.


Explanation not Causation.Explanation not Causation.

• Recently a number of philosophers have attempted to clarify the debate. They have argued that the endless series that the argument tries to dismiss should not be understood as a mere regress of events in time but as a regress of explanations. – The issue would then be does the universe as a

whole have an explanation?

• CHAPTER FOUR: PHILOSOPHY AND GODCHAPTER FOUR: PHILOSOPHY AND GOD

A ChoiceA Choice

• John Hick (1922–), for example, argues that the cosmological argument sets a choice before us. – We can choose to see the universe around us as an

ultimately intelligible home that makes sense and can be explained in a rational way; that choice is the choice to accept the basic rightness of the cosmological argument.

– Or we can see the universe as something that is just an unexplainable, unintelligible, ultimately “absurd” place into which we have been cast for no reason at all; to make that choice is to reject the cosmological argument.


Introducing the Design Introducing the Design ArgumentArgument

• A final problem with the cosmological argument that we should consider is the objection that it does not seem to prove that a loving personal God exists– The argument shows only that there is some powerful

force that is the source of all the motions and causes we see operating in the cosmos.

– Aquinas acknowledges this shortcoming, and thus proposes another type of argument, the Design Argument, to get us closer to proving the existence of a personal God.


How the How the Design Argument Works Design Argument Works

• In 1802, theologian William Paley presented what is now the classic exposition of the design argument. Here’s how it works:1. If we find an artifact, like a watch, that is designed to

achieve a purpose, we can conclude it was made by an intelligent being.

2. But things we find in nature, especially living things and their parts, such as eyes, are designed to achieve a purpose.

3. So, by analogy, we can conclude they were made by an intelligent being, and this is God.


In Paley’s WordsIn Paley’s Words

• “Were there no example in the world of contrivance, except that of the eye, it would be alone sufficient to support the conclusion which we draw from it, as to the necessity of an intelligent Creator. . . . If there were but one watch in the world, it would not be less certain that it had a maker. . . . So it is with the evidences of a Divine agency.” (254)


Hume’s ObjectionHume’s Objection• David Hume (1711-1776) raised an objection to

Paley’s argument, even before he wrote it.– Hume pointed out that while we have experience of

people making and designing watches, and thus know that the orderly design we see in the mechanism of the watch was put there by an intelligent agent.

– But we have never experienced how an animal, or an eye, or a universe is made.

– So for all we know, the order we see in an animal, or an eye, or the entire universe may not have been produced in the same way that the order we see in a watch was produced.


Darwin’s ObjectionDarwin’s Objection

• A powerful, empirical objection to Paley was the theory of evolution that Charles Darwin proposed. – Darwin provided a mechanism that could produce

order and the appearance of design but one that was not intelligent: natural selection (see Section 2.2)

– Darwin argues that the appearance of purpose in the eye is an illusion since the eye (and the organism with the eye) is the result of the long-acting and unintelligent processes of natural selection.


In Darwin’s WordsIn Darwin’s Words

• “In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and enduring each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?” (257)


Reply to Paley’s CriticsReply to Paley’s Critics

• Despite Darwin’s challenge, some philosophers continue to embrace the argument from design.– They argue that although Darwin showed that living

organisms evolved through natural selection, this merely means that natural selection is the instrument God used to design and produce life.

– One version of this response is called Intelligent Design.


Paley’s Defenders: Paley’s Defenders: Intelligent Design Intelligent Design

• William A. Dembski, for example, has argued that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by random processes but requires the admission of “intelligent design” or purpose.– He claims that the genes that direct how every living

organism is formed and how it operates provide evidence of intelligent design.

– Arrangements of genes exhibit “complexity” as well as “specificity,” i.e., directedness to a specific goal.


Intelligent DesignIntelligent Design

• Dembski makes an argument to the best explanation – different from Paley’s argument by analogy.– He argues that it requires intelligence to produce such

an arrangement because it requires selecting a specific arrangement whose complexity is so great that it is improbable that it would ever be selected without the intervention of an intelligent agent.

– Critics have attacked this argument, claiming that there are mechanical non-intelligent forces that can produce specified complexity.


Paley’s Defenders:Paley’s Defenders:The Fine-Tuning ArgumentThe Fine-Tuning Argument

• Fine-Tuinng arguments offer still a different approach to the notion of an Intelligent Designer.

• Proponents of this argument contend that if the features of the universe that make human life possible were slightly different, human life could not exist. – For example, if the force of gravity had been stronger

by a tiny degree or weaker by a tiny amount, then galaxies, stars, and planets could not have formed.

• The best explanation for these extremely improbable facts is an intelligent designer.


Criticisms of the Criticisms of the Fine-Tuning ArgumentFine-Tuning Argument

• Some critics of this new argument, borrowing a page from Hume, argue that for all we know, some physical process, not God, selected the “improbable” features that make life possible. – Others suggest that an infinite number of universes

exist and that it is to be expected that in such a “multiverse”, at least one universe would have the features that make life possible.

– Supporters of the fine tuning argument respond that these “multiverse” scenarios are bizarre and farfetched speculations unsupported by evidence.


4.3 Atheism, Agnosticism, and 4.3 Atheism, Agnosticism, and the Problem of Evilthe Problem of Evil

• Noting the indecisiveness of the arguments for God’s existence, many philosophers have adopted agnosticism.– Agnosticism is the position that one does not know if

God exists.

• Other philosophers have embraced atheism.– Atheists claim to know or have warranted belief that

God does not exist.


AtheismAtheism

• Most atheists share some common beliefs.1. Sense observation and public verification are

instrumental to truth; the scientific method is the best approach to gain reliable knowledge.

2. Reality is made up of matter, or reducible to matter.

3. We ought to focus our attention on moral and social concerns in the world.

4. There are good reasons to believe that God does not exist.• The most powerful arguments that atheists point to center on

the problem of evil.


The Problem of EvilThe Problem of Evil

• Everyday we run into examples of suffering, caused by humans but by nature.

• Are these kinds of events compatible with belief in an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator?– If God is all-good, wouldn’t God want to prevent

suffering?– If God is all-knowing, wouldn’t God be aware of it,

and know how to prevent it?– If God is all-powerful, wouldn’t God be able to prevent

any suffering he wants to prevent?


Hume’s SpeculationHume’s Speculation

• In David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Philo speculates:– “If a very limited intelligence whom we shall suppose

utterly unacquainted with the universe were assured that it were the production of a very good, wise, and powerful being, however finite, he would, from his conjectures, form beforehand a different notion of it from what we find it to be by experience; nor would he ever imagine, merely from these attributes of the cause of which he is informed, that the effect could be so full of vice and misery and disorder, as it appears in this life.” (264)


Two Problems of EvilTwo Problems of Evil

• Philo is saying that even if one were convinced that the world were the product of a finite (not infinite) God, one would expect the world to be filled with much less suffering and misery than it is.

• Hume’s point can fashioned into either – The logical problem of evil – a deductive argument.– The evidential problem of evil – a probabalistic

argument.


The Logical Problem of EvilThe Logical Problem of Evil• The logical problem of evil is usually fashioned

as a deductive argument:1. If a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God

exists, then there could be no evil in our world.

2. But there is evil in our world.

3. Therefore, a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God does not exist.

• Explain why the first two premises seem to imply the conclusion.– The challenge for believers is to come up with a

situation that disproves either premise 1 or 2.


The Evidential Problem of EvilThe Evidential Problem of Evil• The evidential problem of evil is a probabalistic

argument and works as follows:1. There is evil in our world.

2. The best explanation of the evil in our world is that there is no benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God.

3. Therefore, there probably is no benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God.

• Explain how this argument differs from the logical problem of evil.– How might a believer respond to this argument?


Theistic Responses to the Theistic Responses to the Problem of EvilProblem of Evil

• Philosophical theists have offered a number of different responses to the problem of evil:– Evil is the absence of something good.– There is a significant good, free will, that justifies evil.– Without evil, human being would be unable to fully

develop as responsible agents.


Evil is the Absence Evil is the Absence of Something Good.of Something Good.

• According to Augustine, evils, such as sickness, are negative things, the absence of something good, such as bodily integrity. – Only God is perfectly and completely good, so

anything that is not God – God’s creation-- must necessarily lack some good and contain evil

– Moreover, because God produces only what is good, He does not produce that part of the world where goodness is absent, so He is not responsible for evil, nor does He produce it.

– How do critics respond to Augustine’s argument?


The Free Will DefenseThe Free Will Defense• Many theists have adopted a defense of religious

belief that appeals to a significant good that justifies the existence of evil.

• One common justification is the existence of free will: – According to proponents of this view, God made us

free. – Because we are free, we are free to do evil as well as

good. – It would be contradictory for a God to make us free in

all other respects but not free to do evil.


Criticisms of the Criticisms of the Free Will DefenseFree Will Defense

• The most common criticism of the free will defense is that it fails to distinguish between natural and moral evils.– Natural evils are produced by natural processes, and

do not require intentional actions.– Moral evils are intentionally produced by a human

being.

• Give two examples of natural and moral evils.• How do critics use this distinction to argue

against the free will defense?


Evil as Necessary for Human Development

• The philosopher John Hick, has offered a different response to the problem of evil, that can be traced back to the Christian theologian Irenaeus.– Hick argues that evil “in a paradise” without pains,

harms, injuries, needs, suffering, dangers, or difficulties, ethical concepts would be meaningless and people could not develop into virtuous beings.

– Thus, evil is the consequence of living in a world that allows for the development of responsible agency.


In Hick’s WordsIn Hick’s Words

• “It would seem, then, that an environment intended to make possible the growth in free beings of the finest characteristics of personal life, must have a good deal in common with our present world. It must operate according to general and dependable laws; and it must involve real dangers, difficulties, problems, obstacles, and possibilities of pain, failure, sorrow, frustration, and defeat. If it did not contain the particular trials and perils which—subtracting man’s own very considerable contribution—our world contains, it would have to contain others instead.” (268-269)


The Atheist’s FaithThe Atheist’s Faith

• Atheists tend not to be satisfied with any of the theist’s responses to the problem of evil.

• Atheists themselves however are vulnerable to the charge that their position is based on a commitment that rests on a kind of faith.– The atheist’s commitment rests on empiricism as a

method of knowing a material world. – If this is so, what makes the atheist’s faith in

empirical-rational reasons for commitment better than the religionist’s faith?


AgnosticismAgnosticism• Many thinkers find neither the theist nor atheist

position convincing and so adopt a form of agnosticism.– For example, for Thomas Huxley (1825-1895),

agnosticism expressed absolute faith in the validity of the principle that “it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.” (269)

• Thus, Huxley suspended judgment, about the existence of God, just as he did on the real nature of such ultimates as matter and mind


Why Do We Believe?Why Do We Believe?

• If the agnostic is correct, why then do so many of us continue to believe? Freud and Kant offer contrasting answers to this question:– Freud argues that religion fills our infantile needs for a

protective father figure.– Kant claims our morality forces us to believe in the

possibility of a just world where evil is punished and good is rewarded, and this is possible only if there is a God and an afterlife. So, we have to believe in a God and afterlife.

• Do either of their answers make sense to you?


4.44.4 Traditional Religious Belief Traditional Religious Belief and Experienceand Experience

• The faith of many religious believers is based on their experience – not on rational arguments. – They believe because believing allows them to make

sense of what they have experienced and fits who they are.

– They choose to believe “for reasons of the heart” even though they do not have conclusive evidence that the beliefs they have chosen to adopt are true beliefs.


To Believe or Not to BelieveTo Believe or Not to Believe• William James (1842-1910) argues that when the

decision to believe is a genuine option, one may decide to believe on passional grounds, in the absence of decisive proof.– The passional grounds for a choice are those arising

from our emotions, hopes and fears and non-intellectual interests.

– James identifies three sets of options:

1. living or dead;

2. forced or avoidable;

3.momentous or trivial.


Genuine OptionsGenuine Options• For James options are genuine when they are:

– Living : proposing a belief that we can take seriously. – Forced: you cannot escape making the choice.– Momentous : the opportunity is unique, the stakes are

important, and the decision is irreversible.

• For James, this does not imply we can always or even usually rely on our emotions alone for decisions.– When options are not living, forced, and momentous,

we should save ourselves from making mistakes by deciding only after all the evidence is in.


James’ ArgumentJames’ Argument

• Here’s how James makes his argument in “The Will to Believe:” – “Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must,

decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, “Do not decide, but leave the question open,” is itself a passional decision,—just like deciding yes or no,—and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.” (274)


Clifford’s ChallengeClifford’s Challenge• James’ seemed especially to be responding to a

challenge posed by the philosopher W. K. Clifford.– Clifford argued in “The Ethics of Belief” that “it is

wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

– Against Clifford, James argued we have two options: • We can choose to protect ourselves from ever believing

something false by strictly withholding our belief when the evidence is insufficient;

• Or we can choose to protect ourselves from missing out on the truth by choosing to believe even when evidence is

insufficient.


The Fundamental OptionThe Fundamental Option• James’ seems to be arguing that either of these

options carries a cost:– If we adopt the policy of withholding our belief until we

have sufficient evidence, the cost is that we may miss out on discovering the truth.

– If we adopt the policy of choosing to believe when faced with a “genuine” option, despite having insufficient evidence, the cost may be that we believe in something false.

– James’ might be suggesting that prior to the choice of religious belief, one must choose – on passional grounds --between these two fundamental options

CHiAPTER FOUR: PHILOSOPHY AND GODCHiAPTER FOUR: PHILOSOPHY AND GOD

Personal Experience Personal Experience of the Divine of the Divine

• Many people trace their religious faith to the personal experience of the divine – such as described in this passage:– “Sometimes as I go to church, I sit down, join in the

service, and before I go out I feel as if God was with me, right side of me, singing and reading the Psalms with me… When I am taking Holy Communion at the altar, I try to get with him and generally feel his presence.” (277)

• William James and Rudolph Otto have offered influential accounts of religious experience.


James on Religious ExperienceJames on Religious Experience

• In his Varies of Religious Experiences, William James claims that religious experiences have 2 common attributes:– ineffability—that is, the experience cannot be

adequately described in words.

– a noetic quality—that is, to the individual the experience is a source of knowledge, often containing illuminations full of meaning, truth, and importance.


Otto on Religious ExperienceOtto on Religious Experience

• Rudolf Otto used the term “numinous experience” to describe an experience in which the power or presence of a divinity or supernatural reality was felt or perceived. – Otto claimed such experiences were accompanied by

a kind of amazement, fear, even terror, at the power and awesome nature of what is being experienced.

– At the same time they attract and fascinate the person undergoing the experience, who feels unworthy and insignificant in the presence of a sacred reality, while also filled with bliss and contentment.


An Argument Based on An Argument Based on Religious ExperienceReligious Experience

• The philosopher Stephen T . Davis offers an argument based on religious experience:1. Throughout human history, and in very many human

societies and cultures, people claim to have experiences of God or of some Godlike being.

2. The claim that those experiences are veridical is more probable than the claim that they are delusive.

3. Therefore, probably God or some Godlike being exists. (278-279)

• How convincing is this argument?


The Principle of CredulityThe Principle of Credulity

• Davis defends premise (2) by appealing to the “principle of credulity” proposed by philosopher Richard Swinburne. – The principle of credulity basically says that we are

justified to rely on our perceptions, unless we have a special reason not to trust a particular perception.

• Such “special considerations” might include things like: I was dreaming when I had the perception; I was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the time, etc.

– Explain Swinburne’s argument for why we must rely on something like the principle of credulity? (279)


CriticismsCriticisms

• Critics of Swinburne may object that even if we must accept the principle of credulity for ordinary perceptions, it is not acceptable to apply it to perceptions during a “numinous experience.” – They might argue that the very unusualness of

numinous experiences should count as a “special consideration” against relying on one’s perceptions during such experiences.

– How does Swinburne reply?– What are your views on the reliability of religious

experience as a basis for belief?


4.54.5 Nontraditional Religious Nontraditional Religious Experience Experience

• Many thinkers have sought to explore radically different approaches to the questions of God and religion. – These thinkers have developed distinctive experiential

religious frameworks and rethought our relationship to God in a manner that deviates significantly from the assumptions of traditional theistic religion and philosophy.

– In the West, we can trace the modern roots of these viewpoints to the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855).


Kierkegaard on Objective versus Kierkegaard on Objective versus Subjective ThinkersSubjective Thinkers

• Kierkegaard begins his radical theology by distinguishing objective and subjective thinkers. – The objective thinker strikes an intellectual,

dispassionate, scientific posture toward life, adopting the point of view of an observer.

– In contrast, the subjective thinker is passionately and intensely involved with truth, which is not a matter of accumulating evidence to establish a viewpoint, but something of profound personal concern.

– How does Kierkegaard conceive of the relationship between faith and objective and subjective thinking?


Confronting the UnknownConfronting the Unknown• Kierkegaard contends that life’s most important

questions defy objective analysis. – Religious belief in particular, says Kierkegaard, is not

open to objective thinking because it involves a relationship with God.

– Stated more exactly, religious belief is a confrontation with the unknown, not something knowable.

• “But if when I speak of proving the God’s existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is the God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception. . . .” (282)


AnguishAnguish

• On the one hand, rational approaches to God, through argument and proof, give individuals little on which to erect a relationship with God.

• On the other hand, the very inconclusiveness of objective analysis and rational debate leaves us anguished, which is compounded by the anticipation of our own death and our feeling of smallness and insignificance.– All of this leaves us with the necessity of making a

decision – but without an objective guarantee.


Leap of FaithLeap of Faith

• Kierkegaard calls the decision to believe the “leap of faith.”– This is a commitment to a relationship with God that

exceeds rational justification or grounds.– We can choose not to make the leap of faith, by

minimizing our suffering through rational understanding and knowledge and objective analysis.

– Kierkegaard speaks sarcastically of this second alternative to faith, when he says of the two “ways:” : “one is to suffer; the other is to become a professor of the fact that another suffered.” (283)


Tillich’s Radical TheologyTillich’s Radical Theology

• Paul Tillich (1886-1965) is the chief contemporary proponent of a radical theology.– Tillich argues that traditional theism posits a tyrannical

conception of God which leaves us in a inferior position, the controlled to the controller. An antagonistic tension results:

– “He deprives me of my subjectivity because he is all-powerful and all-knowing. I revolt and try to make him into an object, but the revolt fails and becomes desperate. God appears as an invincible tyrant, the being in contrast with whom all other things are without freedom and subjectivity.” (283)


The Ground of BeingThe Ground of Being

• In place of traditional theistic conceptions and categories, Tillich creates a new understanding of God as:– Ground of being

• the foundation and source of all existence, the hidden Ground of Being is neither an object nor a subject.

– Depth• the religious aspect points to that which is ultimate, infinite,

unconditional in man’s spiritual life.

– Source of Ultimate Concern• whatever one takes seriously without reservation.


What Atheism Really MeansWhat Atheism Really Means

• Tillich claims atheism is virtually impossible.– A genuine atheist would have to be someone who

does not believe that there is anything that is worth caring about deeply.

– Anyone who has an “ultimate concern” believes in God.

– The only people who can rightly call themselves atheists are those who can say, “Life has no depth. Life is shallow. Being itself is surface only.” (284)


Objections to TillichObjections to Tillich

• Critics have offered a number of objections to Tillich’s theology, including: – By identifying God as the object of a person’s ultimate

concern, Tillich contradicts what most people mean by God, and waters down the meaning of religion.

– Tillich’s personalized view of God effectively makes it unquestionable, placing it outside the bounds of reasoned discourse.


Feminist TheologiesFeminist Theologies

• Feminist philosophers and theologians have offered both a critique of the traditional notion of God and an alternative conception– For example, the feminist philosopher and theologian

Mary Daly has argued that the traditional notion of God (God the “father”) is profoundly male, has had an oppressive impact on women and legitimates patriarchy.

– The concept must be abandoned, allowed to wither and die, and replaced with new religious symbols and concepts associated with “the Goddess.”


Eastern Religious Traditions: Eastern Religious Traditions: HinduismHinduism

• Eastern religious traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism also offer radical alternatives to Western religions.– For Hinduism ultimate reality is the absolute, or

Brahman, a reality that is present behind everything, that causes whatever there is, and that is unlimited, incomprehensible, all-pervasive, omnipresent, and unchangeable.

• The realities we perceive with our sense are really manifestations of Brahman, their independence is an illusions.


Eastern Religious Traditions: Eastern Religious Traditions: BuddhismBuddhism

• Buddhism departs even more radically from traditional Western religion.– The Buddha did not advocate belief in a personal

God, or an impersonal Brahman, but instead offered a diagnosis of the causes of suffering and a prescription for ending it.

• At the heart of the Buddha’s philosophy is the notion that suffering is caused by ignorance (avidya) about the ultimate nature of reality, which is impermanent (annica) and empty of self (annata). Our ignorance leads us to cling to things, which causes suffering.

• Liberation arises from insight and letting go of clinging.


ch4ppt velasquez12

Education

philosophy of religion

personal god

religion shares

religiondefining religion

term religious belief

traditional religious

god p h i

common features of religion