Transcript PHIL104 - 2010 Philosophy of Religion

Philosophy of Religion
Lecture 1: Intro
Dan Turton
PHIL104-2010
What We’re NOT Asking
• Theological questions:
– Usually presuppose that God exists
• Descriptive Questions:
– E.g. When exactly did the Jewish and
Christian movements divide?;
– Who wrote the Bible?;
– What political and social structures
influenced the rise of Scientology
The Kind of Thing We’re Asking
• Philosophical questions:
– Usually makes no assumptions about the
existence of God
• Normative Questions:
– E.g. Is it reasonable to have religious
beliefs?
– Under what conditions would one be
justified in believing (or disbelieving) in
the existence of God?
– Should one be required to give reasons in
support of religious judgments at all?
The Main Question
• For the next 9 lectures, we are
trying to answer the question:
• Is there a good justification for
believing in the existence of God?
• Some major arguments and
objections to them will be
discussed
Words of Warning
Students
in this
class
must
respect
the
opinions
of others
when
debating
the
question
‘Does God
exist?’
Basic Vocab(ulary)
• Theist
– believes there is a God
• Atheist
– believes there is no God
• Agnostic
– is neither a theist nor an atheist
– could think it’s equally likely that God
exists and that God doesn’t
– or perhaps hasn’t thought about the
question enough to form any beliefs on the
matter
You are Not Alone
• Participants: 172 students in
PHIL104
Theists
Atheists
Agnostics
52
42
78
30%
25%
45%
Advanced Vocab(ulary)
• Main Question: Is there a good
justification for believing in the
existence of God?
• Existence
• God
• Justification
Existence
• Primitive notion
• To say that something (x) exists
is not to say that:
– there exists an idea or concept of x
– x exists ‘in the mind’
– x exists for me but (perhaps) not for
you
– it’s true for me that x exists but
(perhaps) it’s not true for you
God
• An absolutely perfect being
• A first cause: a being that causes other
things to exist but is not itself caused to
exist
• An intelligent creator: a being that
created the universe
• A being that possesses every property
attributed to a being named ‘God’ in the
Bible (Torah, Koran, etc.)
• An invisible, vastly powerful intelligence
who deserves to be worshiped and loved
• A being who sends those who do not believe
in him to hell, and sends those who do
believe in him to heaven
• A perfectly loving, all powerful, and all
knowing being
Justification
• To say that one is
justified in
believing
something is just
to say that I have
good reason to
believe it
• Theoretical
reasons
• Practical reasons
Structure of Section
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Intro
Paley’s Design Argument
More on the Design Argument
Pascal’s Wager
More on Pascal’s Wager
The Argument from Evil
More on the Argument from Evil
Even more on the Argument from Evil
Summary and exam revision
Faith
• “The whole point is to have faith”
– If faith is believing in something
without question, then how is faith
in religion different to faith in
fairies?
– You can have faith and still be
interested in whether there is also
good reason to believe that God
exists
– You can even still have faith if you
think that we have more reasons not
to believe in god, than to believe in
God
Religious Experience
• “I have experienced God and
require no more evidence/
discussion that he exists”
– So have millions of others, but lots
of them are aligned to different
religions
– Our experiential evidence can be
surprisingly deceiving
– E.g. spiritual or religious
experience
• Derren Brown
Arguments Against Religion in
General
• “No one should believe in a
religion because they were all
made up by people”
• Being “managed” or “conveyed” by
people doesn’t necessarily mean
that a religion is false
• We are being more specific in this
course anyway
– Focus is just on God, not religion
Science
• “There is no scientific evidence
for God, therefore God probably
doesn’t exist”
• “It’s impossible to prove or
disprove God’s existence with
science, therefore we should be
agnostic”
• Science is not the last word on
the existence of God
Philosophy of Religion
Lecture 2: Paley on Design
Dan Turton
PHIL104-2010
Intro
• William Paley 1743-1805
• Watches appear to be
designed, so they
probably have a
designer
• The same goes for
natural things, e.g. eyes
• God probably exists
because he probably
designed natural things
How did the watch come to be?
• It’s so complex
• All of it’s complex
parts seem to
serve minor
functions that
allow the whole
watch to do
something useful
• It appears
designed
Paley’s Argument from Design
(P1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable
fact that many watches appear to have been
designed.
(P2) The best explanation for this appearance
of design is that watches have been
designed.
(P3) Inference to the Best Explanation: If an
hypothesis H is the best explanation of an
observation O, then it is rational to believe
that H is true.
(C) Therefore, one should believe that
watchmakers exist.
Inference to the Best
Explanation
• A theory should minimize the number
of entities it postulates
• A theory should be consistent with the
evidence
• A theory should make reliable
predictions
• A theory should minimize the number
of unexplained coincidences
• A theory should be, as far as possible,
simple and elegant
Inference to the Best
Explanation
• The Knight
Watchman’s dog
spews watches all
over the place
and watchsellers find them
and sell them
• Have you ever met
a watchmaker?
Watchmakers Exist
• Even if we have never
met one, Paley thinks
we do and should
believe in them because
of watches
• Most importantly,
watches really appear
to have been designed…
• Which gives us good
reason to think that
they have been designed
Design
• Intentionally
created for
some
purpose(s)
• Therefore,
requires a
designer - an
intentional
creator
The Appearance of
Design
An object bears the marks of design
if:
1. It is structurally complex,
2. It has a purpose or function, and
3. It has the purpose it does in
virtue of its structural
complexity.
• Watches really appear to be
designed!
(Bad) Reasons Watches Might
Not be Designed
• Malfunction
• Some components
do not help produce
the main function
• You don’t
understand how
they work, so how
can you say that
they appear to be
designed?
Paley’s Argument - Watches
(P1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable
fact that many watches appear to have been
designed.
(P2) The best explanation for this appearance
of design is that watches have been
designed.
(P3) Inference to the Best Explanation: If an
hypothesis H is the best explanation of an
observation O, then it is rational to believe
that H is true.
(C) Therefore, one should believe that
watchmakers exist.
Paley’s Argument - Nature
(P1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable
fact that many natural things appear to have
been designed
(P2) The best explanation for this appearance
of design is that many natural things have
been designed
(P3) Inference to the Best Explanation
(P4) Therefore, one should believe that a
designer of natural things exists
(P5) God is the designer of natural things
(C) Therefore, one should believe that God
exists
Are Natural Objects Designed?
•
Some certainly
appear to be so
1. The eye is
structurally
complex,
2. It has a purpose or
function, and
3. It has the purpose
it does in virtue of
its structural
complexity.
Eyes
(P1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable
fact that eyes appear to have been designed.
(P2) The best explanation for this appearance
of design is that eyes have been designed.
(P3) Inference to the Best Explanation: If an
hypothesis H is the best explanation of an
observation O, then it is rational to believe
that H is true.
(C) Therefore, one should believe that eyemakers exist.
Paley’s Argument - Watches
(P1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable
fact that many watches appear to have been
designed.
(P2) The best explanation for this appearance
of design is that watches have been
designed.
(P3) Inference to the Best Explanation: If an
hypothesis H is the best explanation of an
observation O, then it is rational to believe
that H is true.
(C) Therefore, one should believe that
watchmakers exist.
Eyes
(P1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable
fact that eyes appear to have been designed.
(P2) The best explanation for this appearance
of design is that eyes have been designed.
(P3) Inference to the Best Explanation: If an
hypothesis H is the best explanation of an
observation O, then it is rational to believe
that H is true.
(C) Therefore, one should believe that eyemakers exist.
Philosophy of Religion
Lecture 3: More on Design
Dan Turton
PHIL104-2010
Today
• Recap of Paley’s
argument
• Are eyes designed?
– Science: “no”
• The fine-tuning variant
of the design argument
– The chances of a universe
evolving that supports
intelligent life is tiny
– So, God probably finetuned/designed the
universe
What is the Best Explanation
for this Appearance?
• Theories are better if they:
–
–
–
–
–
minimize # of entities they postulate
are consistent with the evidence
make reliable predictions
minimize unexplained coincidences
simple and elegant
• Is there a better explanation for
eyes appearing to designed… than
them being designed? (P2)
Evolution by Natural Selection
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
Darwin: natural objects will
evolve to bear the marks of
design if the following four
conditions are met:
There is variation among
the objects/traits
Traits are inherited
Variation in traits is
random
The objects/organisms
compete
But the Eye?
Really!?!
• "To suppose that the eye, with all
its inimitable contrivances…
could have been formed by
natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest
degree." Charles Darwin, The
Origin of Species
• The eye gave him a “cold shudder”
Yes, It Could Have Evolved!
• Reason tells me, that despite it being
hard to imagine, many subtle random
changes exposed to the pressure of
selection over time can lead to the
evolution of a perfect and complex eye
from a simple and imperfect one.
Furthermore, there exist examples of
the steps along the way. Paraphrase of
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
• From the same page!!
Dawkins on How to Climb Mount
Improbable
• How can we get to (explain) the
eye on top of Mount Improbable?
• To get to the eye in one leap is
impossible
• But, if we take lots of slow steps,
then Climbing
Mount Improbable
Doesn’t seem that
hard
Slow Steps to the Eye
• The eye didn’t just evolve in one
step or by random
• A slow process of organisms
competing over thousands of
iterations gave a selective
advantage to various stages of
proto eyes
– Note that the process involves
random mutation, but it is not a
‘random process’
• Lightsensitive
cells
• Information
sent to
brain
• Pin-hole
camera
• Lens for
focusing
• Etc
The Evidence is Out There
• Link to more on evolution
The Fine-Tuning Argument
(P1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable
fact that the universe appears to have been
designed
(P2) The best explanation for this appearance
of design is that the universe has been
designed
(P3) Inference to the Best Explanation
(P4) Therefore, one should believe that a
designer of the universe exists
(P5) God is the designer of the universe
(C) Therefore, one should believe that God
exists
Does the Universe Appear to be
Designed 1?
•
•
If the initial explosion of the big
bang had differed in strength by as
little as 1 part in 1060, the universe
would have either quickly collapsed
back on itself, or expanded too
rapidly for stars to form. In either
case, life would be impossible.
Calculations indicate that if the
strong nuclear force, the force that
binds protons and neutrons together
in an atom, had been stronger or
weaker by as little as 5%, life would
be impossible.
Does the Universe Appear to be
Designed 2?
•
•
Calculations by Brandon Carter show
that if gravity had been stronger or
weaker by 1 part in 1040, then lifesustaining stars like the sun could
not exist. This would most likely make
life impossible.
If the neutron were not about 1.001
times the mass of the proton, all
protons would have decayed into
neutrons or all neutrons would have
decayed into protons, and thus life
would not be possible.
Does the Universe Appear to be
Designed 3?
1. The universe is structurally
complex,
2. It has a purpose or function
(supporting intelligent life),
and
3. It has the purpose or function
it does in virtue of its
structural complexity.
 So P1 seems correct – the
universe appears to be
designed
Best Explanation for the
Universe’s Appearance of Design?
• God is all-powerful and allknowing
– He and only he has what it takes to
design and create this marvelous
universe
• The universe can support life as
we know it by chance
– Different physical laws may well
have allowed for the existence of a
different kind of universe and other
kinds of life
Intergalactic Lotto
• The odds of winning
intergalactic lotto are
999billion to 1
• Everyone is
automatically enrolled
• You win intergalactic
lotto
• Did chance or divine
creation cause your
win?
Best Explanation for the
Universe’s Appearance of Design?
• God-centered explanation
postulates one more
entity
• The scientific explanation
involves some pretty big
and fairly poorly
explained coincidences
• Which is the best
explanation?
Philosophy of Religion
Lecture 4: Pascal’s Wager
Dan Turton
PHIL104-2010
Today
• Decision Theory
primer
• Pascal’s Wager
• Practical reason for
being a theist (of a
particular type)
• Because of heaven
and hell, the
expected utility of
belief in god
outweighs disbelief
Primer on Decision Theory
• We are practically rational to the
extent that we do what’s in our best
interests.
• Utility is a measure of our happiness
or preference satisfaction.
• Decision Theory: we do what’s in our
best interests when (and only when) we
perform actions that maximize our
expected utility
Decision Theory tries to be
Precise
•
In order to determine which action
maximizes expected utility, we need
to set up a consequence matrix,
which includes:
–
–
–
–
all relevant choices available to the
agent (in the left column)
all relevant possible outcomes after the
agent has acted (in the top row)
the probability of each outcome-choice
pair (in parentheses next to the utility
values)
the utility of each outcome-choice pair
(in each of the remaining empty boxes)
‘The One’
• So, you have met
‘the one’ in your
PHIL104 lecture
• You are
agonizingly in
love with
him/her
• What should you
do??
A Consequence Matrix
Getting
‘the one’
to go out
with you
Ask them
Don’t ask
them
You don’t
get to go
out with
them –
(“no”)
[0.8]
[0.99]
You get Expected
How likely
to go out Utility
are
with
outcomes
them –
given the
(“yes”)
decision?
[0.2]
[0.01]
Must add
up to 1
going
across
A Consequence Matrix
Getting
‘the one’
to go out
with you
Ask them
Don’t ask
them
You don’t
get to go
out with
them –
(“no”)
[0.8]*-20
= -19.2
You get Expected
to go out Utility
with
them –
Calculate
(“yes”)
the
[0.2]*50
expected
= 10
[0.99]*-10 [0.01]*75
= -9.01
= 0.75
utility for
each
choice/out
come pair
A Consequence Matrix
Getting
‘the one’
to go out
with you
Ask them
Don’t ask
them
You don’t You get
Compare
the
get to go to go out
expected
out
with utility
with for
choice
themeach
–
them –
(“no”)
(“yes”)
[0.8]*-20 [0.2]*50
= -19.2
= 10
Expected
Utility
-19.2 + 10
= -9.2
[0.99]*-10 [0.01]*75 -9.01 + 0.75
= -9.01
= 0.75
= -8.26
Decision Theory
Helps Us…
• … To see how dire our
lovestruck position is
– Neither of the two options
available to us will produce
positive utility!
• The best choice is not to
ask though
– It minimises our disutility
(suffering)
• But, maybe we should make
the decision in a couple of
days…
The Whole Consequence Matrix
Getting
‘the one’
(“no”)
(“yes”)
Expected
Utility
Ask them
[0.8]*-20
= -19.2
[0.99]*-10
= -9.01
[0.2]*50
= 10
[0.01]*75
= 0.75
-19.2 + 10
= -9.2
-9.01 + 0.75
= -8.26
[0.5]*-20
= -10
[0.5]*50
= 25
-10 + 25
= 15
Don’t ask
them
Ask them
+ pimped
Don’t ask
+ pimped
[0.95]*-10 [0.05]*75 -9.5 + 3.75
= -9.5
= 3.75
= -5.75
Wrong Question
• Pascal thinks that ‘what is God?’
and ‘does God exist?’ are the
wrong questions
– These questions involve the
infinite and so are beyond us
• He thinks we should ask ‘should
we believe in God or not?’
– Theoretical reasons are
inconclusive, but
– We have practical reasons to believe
How Will You Bet?
• You have to play
• If you choose A, I flip a coin
– ‘Heads’ = you get the worst existence
possible and it continues for ever
– ‘Tails’ = you have a normal
unrestricted life
• If you choose B, I flip a coin
– ‘Heads’ = you get the best existence
possible and it continues for ever
– ‘Tails’ = you have a normal life, but
slightly more restricted than
normal
Pascal’s Wager
Should I
God
believe in Exists
God?
God
doesn’t
exist
Expected
Utility
Believe
[0.5]*∞
=∞
[0.5]*10
=5
∞+5
=∞
Don’t
believe
[0.5]*10
=5
[0.5]*10
=5
5+5
= 10
Standard Presentation of
Pascal’s Wager
Should I
God
believe in Exists
God?
(p≠0)
God
doesn’t
exist
Expected
Utility
Believe
[p]*∞
[1-p]*-10 = ∞
Don’t
believe
[p]*-∞
[1-p]*10
= -∞
The Upshot?
• If the standard Pascalian setup of the
wager is correct, then we have a good
(practical) reason to believe in God
Should I
believe
in God?
God
Exists
(p≠0)
God
doesn’t
exist
Expected
Utility
Believe
[p]*∞
[1-p]*-10 = ∞
Don’t
believe
[p]*-∞
[1-p]*10
= -∞
I Can’t Make Myself Believe in
God!
1. I can’t force myself to believe in
God!
•
Pascal: you should learn from those who
have converted to theism
2. Even if I could, then God wouldn’t
appreciate my only believing in him
for my own best interests!
•
•
Perhaps God doesn’t mind as long as you
believe
It may start like this, but turn into
belief regardless of your interests
Philosophy of Religion
Lecture 6: The Argument
from Evil
Dan Turton
PHIL104-2010
Today
• Based on Dostoevsky’s
‘Rebellion’…
• Being clear about what
God and evil are
• Asking why God might
allow evil
• Concluding that even if
there is a reason for
the evil, it’s probably
not good enough
What is Evil?
• All things equal, a
state of affairs is
evil if it involves
the suffering of an
innocent
• The more suffering
of innocents in any
situation, the more
evil it is
• There can be other
types of evil
Varieties of Evil
• We can
distinguish
between the
following kinds
of evil:
• Natural evil v.
human evil
• Necessary evil v.
unnecessary evil
• Mild evil v.
horrendous evil
What is God?
• God is, by definition,
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and
omniscient
• An individual x is omnibenevolent if
and only if it is perfectly loving
• (all good/perfectly good)
• An individual x is omnipotent if and
only if it can do anything
• (all powerful)
• An individual x is omniscient if and
only if it knows everything
• (all knowing)
The Argument from Evil
(P1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent,
omnipotent and omniscient. [By Definition]
(P2) An omnibenevolent being would prevent
any unnecessary evil if she could and knew
how.
(P3) An omnipotent being could prevent all
unnecessary evil.
(P4) An omniscient being would know all about
unnecessary evils and how to prevent them.
(P5) Therefore, if God exists, there is no
unnecessary evil. [From (P1), (P2), (P3) & (P4)]
(P6) But there is unnecessary evil. [Evidential
Premise]
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. [From 5 & 6]
P6) Dostoevsky’s Examples of
Unnecessary Horrendous Evil
• A 5-y.o. girl is mistreated by her
parents, beaten, forced to eat her
own excrement etc.
• A young boy is ripped apart by
hounds in front of his mother
• A soldier cuts an unborn baby out
of it’s mother’s womb, throws it
in the air and catches it with his
bayonet
Is that Suffering Unnecessary?
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ivan discusses a few reasons why it
might be considered necessary, but
rejects them:
We need evil to understand good
Humans allowed evil by choosing free
will
All humans must suffer for the
mistakes of our ancestors
God has a plan which makes this
suffering necessary for us all to
share harmony in the end
We Need Evil to Understand Good
• Evil and good are like two sides of
a coin
– you can’t have a 1-sided coin
– could you know dark without light?
– Good would be meaningless normalcy
without evil
• Ivan: If the price to know goodness
is so high, then I would prefer we
knew nothing of goodness
– Perhaps we could know goodness by
evil occurring to adults only
Evil is a Necessary Consequence
of Human Freewill
• God gave humans the power to
choose to be good or evil
– We would be like ants without this
choice
– A consequence is that sometimes we
choose to be evil
• Ivan?: If such great evil results
from our freewill, then God
should never have let us have it
We All Must Suffer for the
Mistakes of our Ancestors
• Adam needn’t have eaten the
apple, but he did
– This made him guilty, and
– Us guilty too, since we are of him
• Ivan: Our real-world sense of
justice does not allow guilt to be
inherited
– Why does God allow it?
– It doesn’t make sense to us
God’s Plan Requires the Evil
• We cannot fathom God’s infinite
goodness, power and intellect
– All suffering that we see is necessary for
the ultimate good of us all being united in
harmony
– (Or some other great good)
• Ivan: it’s unfair that some innocents
suffer in this plan, esp. children!
– I won’t go to a heaven where the mother of
the killed baby/child forgives the evil
people who caused innocents to suffer for
their own pleasure!
Is that Suffering Unnecessary?
1. We need evil to understand good
2. Humans allowed evil by choosing
free will
3. All humans must suffer for the
mistakes of our ancestors
4. God has a plan which makes this
suffering necessary for us all to
share harmony in the end
• Any other ideas how to make the
evils we see necessary?
Philosophy of Religion
Lecture 7: More on the
Argument from Evil
Dan Turton
PHIL104-2010
Today
• Recap
– Argument from Evil
• Mackie
– Evil and God are logically
incompatible
• Rowe
– Evil and God are not
logically incompatible,
– But evil provides a good
reason to be an atheist
– But, we should still be
friendly
Mackie on Evil
• Thinks the argument from evil
shows that most forms of theism
are internally inconsistent
• Theists believe all of these 3:
– God is all-powerful
– God is all-good
– There is evil in the world
• But no more than 2 of these could
be true at any one time
Mackie Considers Responses
• He finds that all of them don’t
fully work
• They generally alter the
definitions of the important
terms
Evil is an Illusion
• There is no evil, just the illusion
of evil because…
– E.g.
– Change is required for evil and
nothing actually ever changes
– All of our worldly perceptions are
illusory
• This illusion sure seems mean
(evil) though!
God’s Plan Requires the Evil
• We cannot fathom God’s infinite
goodness, power and intellect
– All apparent evils are necessary for
the ultimate good - being united in
harmony
– So apparent evils are really just part
of the overall good
• But apparent evils are actually a
bit evil
– If we can imagine a way to bring about
the great good without evil, then an
all-powerful being could do it
Good cannot Exist without Evil
• But, God is omnipotent, so he can
make good exist without evil
• Omnipotence = being able to do
anything that is logically
possible
• Good is logically possible
without evil (unlike relative
terms e.g. bigger/smaller)
We Cannot Appreciate Good
without Evil
• Our perceiving suffering in the world
creates a juxtaposition with the goods
we see, making them much better
– The net result is more goodness overall
• Surely there is enough evil in our
history and imaginations to juxtapose
the goods we see?
• Only a tiny amount of non-horrendous
suffering is needed for this and we see
more than that
Some Evil is Needed for
Expression of Virtues
• The whole world is better if there is
evil because it allows for heroism,
compassion, benevolence etc.
• But evil also allows vices of cruelty,
malevolence, callousness, cowardice
etc
• There doesn’t seem to be a net gain
here
• And why let innocents like children be
the target of vices?
Evil is Due to Freewill 1
• Is it better on the whole to have
freewill?
– How much evil can we bear for freewill?
– Is there more or less evil than that?
• ‘Free’ choices are constrained already
– Why do we not have the freewill to choose
from just the neutral and good options?
– Imagine if we never thought of the
possibility of doing evil
– If God is all-powerful, then he either
controls our choices or they are random
– If we really have full freewill, then God is
not all-powerful
Evil is Due to Freewill 2
• If we really have full freewill, then
God is not all-powerful
– God could prevent willful acts of
human evil but refrains from doing
so…
• But why would he do this?
– because freedom to carry out evil
deeds outweighs the evil
consequences?
• But this is not justice as we know
it!
The Paradox of Omnipotence
• Can an omnipotent God create rules
that restrict itself?
• Can God make a rock so heavy that
it is un-liftable? …YES
– Can God lift that rock? …YES
– Contradiction
• Can God make people with complete
freedom of choice? …YES
– Can God control those people? …YES
– Contradiction
What about Natural Evil?
• Natural evil is not caused by
freewill
– Is there another reason why natural
evils are necessary?
• Consistent laws of nature
required to allow freewill to
operate properly
– Couldn’t consistent laws of nature
prevent all natural suffering?
– E.g. natural force-fields for babies
Rowe
• Just because we can’t see why an evil
might be necessary does not mean that
it cannot be necessary
• Therefore, the Argument from Evil
does not logically prove that an allknowing, -powerful and -good God
does not exist
• But, not knowing a good reason for why
evil is necessary does give us a reason
to be atheists
• Is it reasonable to believe that all of
the evil in the world is necessary for
some greater good? …No
Varieties of Atheism
• Unfriendly Atheism:
– Theistic belief is not rationally
justifiable
• Indifferent Atheism:
– Agnostic about whether theists’
belief in God is rationally
justifiable
• Friendly Atheism:
– Some theists’ belief in God is
rationally justified
Friendly Atheism
• Can a Friendly Atheist really think
that they are justified in not
believing in God while theists might
well be justified in believing in God?
• We can think of the Argument from
Evil as a reason not to believe in God
and the Fine-Tuning Design Argument
as a reason to believe
• Throw in religious experience for the
theist but not the atheist and both
seem to be reasonably justified in
their beliefs
Philosophy of Religion
Lecture 8: Even More on
the Argument from Evil
Dan Turton
PHIL104-2010
Today
• Recap
– Mackie, Rowe and ‘Ivan’ on the
Argument from Evil
• Howard-Snyder
– There are reasons why evil
might be necessary, some of
which we can’t even imagine
– Do these reasons (taken
together) justify the huge
amount of evil in the world?
– We cannot be sure that they do
not
– We should not even say it is
likely that they do not
Howard-Snyder
• Not all of the article will be
covered
• He discusses some theodicies
(explanations of why evil is
necessary)
• But, he thinks theists don’t
really need them because the
argument from evil contains a
bad noseeum inference
Evil and Suffering
• “the history of our planet is… stuffed
with undeserved, horrific evil and
suffering”
• Intentional human evil
– A child dies from abuse by its parents
every 6 hours in the US
• Unintentional human evil
– On a boiling hot day, a Kentucky professor
left his child in the back of his car all day
• Natural evil
– Children and animals suffer because of
famine, disease and natural disasters
Two Problems
• The practical problem of evil
– Assumes God exists
– Observing evil may cause a theist to
despair or rebel against God
– Like ‘Ivan’: “put God on trial for
negligence and gross incompetence”
• The theoretical problem of evil
– Does not assume that God exists
– Is evil evidence that we should not
be theists?
– “Philosophical twaddle” is his focus
Why Does God Permit Evil?
• Why do so many innocents suffer?
– And why do they suffer so much?
• When asked like this, an
assumption is hidden
• The questioner assumes that:
– If we cannot give a good reason for
why God permits this suffering, then
there is no good reason
– This assumption is wrong
Is God only Semi-Potent?
• Theists might say that
God is not all-powerful
• Problem:
– How can a being be
powerful and
knowledgeable to create
and sustain the universe
but not be powerful enough
to prevent evil?
– Is there something special
about evil that makes him
powerless to stop it?
Why the Evil, God?
• “If there was some greater good
that could not possibly occur
unless evil were permitted, it
might well figure in God’s reason
to permit evil.”
• Theodicies:
– Attempts to explain why God permits
evil
Punishment
Theodicy
• God is justified
in punishing
evildoers
• But what about
natural evil?
• This response
doesn’t get
anywhere without
reincarnation
Counterpart Theodicy
• Good requires evil to exist and
vice versa
• But God is omnibenevolent
– Just before God created the
universe, only he existed
– God is all-good (no evil)
– Therefore, good can exist without
evil
Free Will Theodicy
• Self-determination is the greater
good for which we must
countenance evil
• But why not block others from
harm without evil-doers
realising?
– Then I can still determine my
character and actions, but no
innocents suffer as a result
What about Natural Evil?
• The free choices of nonhuman
people (e.g. Satan & his demons)
causes all natural evils
• But, science can better explain
natural evils than Satan and
demons can
– This will not convince any atheists
Natural Law Theodicy
• Without rigid laws of nature, we
would live in a random world
where fruitful exercise of
freewill would be impossible
– I want to hug you but my limbs act
so erratically that I poke you in the
eye and crush your ribs
– The natural laws that govern the
movement of physical bodies also
result in earthquakes and landslides
“The Reason”
• There are reasons why evil might
be necessary
– Let’s call all of them together “The
Reason”
• “would The Reason justify God in
permitting so much evil rather
than a lot less?”
– E.g. same but no dementia or Ebola
virus or genocide
– The Reason does not justify so much
evil
The Argument from Amount
1) There is no reason that would
justify God in permitting so
much evil rather than a lot less
2) If God exists, then there must be
such a reason
C) So, God does not exist
•
2 is usually conceded… but is 1
true?
Noseeum Inferences
• I can’t see it
• So, it’s probably not there
• Good noseeum inferences
– Looking for milk in the fridge
• Bad noseeum inferences
– Looking for slugs in the
garden
• Is it reasonable to believe
that we are very likely to
see (comprehend) the thing
in question?
Noseeum ‘The Reason’
• So far as we can tell, there is no
reason for God to permit so much
evil
• Therefore, there probably is no
reason for God to permit so much
evil
• Is this a reasonable inference to
make?
– Are we likely to see (comprehend)
The Reason if there is one?
Chances of Comprehending The
Reason
• There are several reasons to doubt
that we could understand it
• We have finite intellect
– We’re unable to understand infinite goods
• There are probably lots of goods we
are yet to discover
– We’re limited by evolution in this
• The Reason is probably too complex
for us to understand
– Great goods are often complex e.g. wine
Is there Unnecessary Evil?
• And how sure can we be?
• Does our inability to see a good
reason for so much evil justify belief
that there isn’t one?
• Where is the burden of proof here?
– Definitely on anyone trying to convert
someone else either way
• We can imagine a world with lots of
goods, and without so much evil…
– but what of the greater goods that we
don’t know about?
– That depends… are there any?