Transcript Philosophical Questions

Philosophical Questions
Problems?
•
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one
there to see it, does it make a sound?
•
•
If God created all things? Who created God?
If it is about the survival of the fittest - then I can
do whatever I am able to do?
• How do I know I am not a brain in a jar?
• If I transport my brain into a robot - is it still me?
• If God is good - why is there evil/suffering in the
world?
•
When is a chair not a chair?
Philosophy
•
•
Philosophy: the love of wisdom
Philosophical argument [deductive]
•
The Eiffel tower is in Paris [premise], Paris is in France [premise]
The Eiffel tower is in France [conclusion]
•
The Eiffel tower is in London [premise]
London is in England [premise]
The Eiffel tower is in England [conclusion]
•
A proof - ‘that which results from a valid argument
constructed from a set of true premises’
•
Philosophical argument [inductive]
•
•
•
If it rains, I shall get wet [premise] I get wet [conclusion]
The premises provide some but not absolute support
You need to decide how persuasive the inductive argument is
Existence of God
•
There are five classical proofs for the existence of God
•
•
Four of these are a posteriori arguments [from the
evidence]
•
The cosmological argument which infers God from the
existence of the world or from phenomena within it, such as
causality
•
The teleological argument which infers from a designer
from the occurrence of order and regularity in the world
•
The moral argument which infers God as the explanation for
moral consciousness or the guarantor for the highest good
•
The religious experience argument which see God as the
best explanation for experiences that people claim that are
beyond the normal
One is an a priori argument [from deduction]
•
The ontological argument which concludes that God’s
definition entails his existence
The Ontological Argument I
•
•
•
Ontological means ‘concerned with being’
•
The argument goes:
Anselm (1033-1109) in Prologion (1077-78)
Anselm defines God as ‘a being than which nothing
greater can be conceived’
•
God is the greatest possible being (nothing greater can be
conceived)
•
If God only exists in the mind (as an idea) then a greater being could
be imagined to exist both in the mind and reality, as existing in
reality is greater than existing in the mind
•
This being would then be greater than God
•
Thus God cannot exist only in the mind but must exist in reality
•
Thus God exists
The Ontological Argument II
•
•
•
Criticisms of the ontological argument
The definition of God
•
We do not know what ‘God’ means. We need to start with
causes and then argue for God from these (a posteriori) [Aquinas]
•
Is it logical (possible) to move from a concept to a reality?
•
Are we starting from the definition in order to prove it?
•
To exist states that a concept has an actuality [Kant] it adds nothing to
our understanding of the concept
•
You cannot define things into existence
Conclusion
•
Does the ontological argument convince the atheist?
•
At best we can say that if God exists then he has necessary existence
The Cosmological Argument
I
•
Infers the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos
or the phenomena within in
•
Plato says that every created thing must come from some
cause [Timaeus] and the argument is also found in Aristotle. Aquinas
presented the idea in three forms and further support was given by
Descartes and Leibniz
•
Three of Aquinas’ five ways are concerned with the Cosmological
argument
• The Unmoved Mover: Everything that is in a state of change is changed by
something so there must be a first mover [infinite regress is impossible]
• The Uncaused Causer: Everything that is, is caused by something so there
must be a first causer [infinite regress is impossible]
• Possibility and Necessity: Contingent [things that are born and die] exist, if
all things were contingent there would be a time where there was nothing,
there could not be such a time as contingent beings have prior cause, thus a
necessary [immortal] being must exist
•
All these arguments are a posteriori [from experience]
The Cosmological Argument
II
•
Criticisms
• Assumptions are out of date e.g. things can be created from other
things
• Why cannot there be an endless sequence of causes?
• Contingency may be true for some beings - they have just not shown it
yet
• If nothing can cause itself why is God an exception to this premise?
• Why a single first cause - not a multiplicity (gods not god?)
• Could each of the ways lead to a different god?
• The argument is from experience but considers non-experienced things
e.g. infinity
• The universe is not contingent - matter and energy are eternal - form
changes but not substance
• Why cannot things come from nothing?
The Cosmological Argument
III
•
Arguments from science
•
The nature of the universe
•
Big-Bang - implies a finite history of the universe and
that all that is was created from nothing, including time
•
Steady State - the universe has always been
•
Oscillating universes - the universe comes and goes for infinity
[infinity is not a single concept]
•
Energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed (after the
initial creation)
•
Matter does come into and out of existence
The Teleological Argument I
•
The cosmological argument said that things cannot just come into
being, the teleological argument infers the existence of God because
of purpose in the world
• Teleological refers to order or purpose
• This is an a posteriori argument [from experience]
• Swinburne identifies two elements the ‘argument from design’ and the
‘argument to design [Anthropic argument]
•
Argument from design
• Aquinas: Order must come from an intelligent being
• Hume: [Dialogues concerning Natural Religion] A dialogue which uses the
idea of analogy of machines. Intelligent humans makes simple machines,
the world is complex so needs a more (most) intelligent designer. Hume
uses houses and watches as particular examples.
• Paley: [Natural Theology] If you came across a watch you would not think it
had come about by accident
• Swinburne: [The Existence of God] Suspicious of Hume and Paley. Nature
conforms to a formula but you cannot explain law by law - appeals to
Occum and God is the simplest explanation
The Teleological Argument II
•
Argument to design
• Also called the Anthropic Argument. Nature seems to plan for higher order
organisms. Life is highly improbable so there must be a plan and thus a
planner ... God
• Davis [God, Reason and Theistic Proofs] argues that modern science
supports this argument as a number of things are fine tuned for life
• Cosmological constants - e.g. gravitational, speed of light, plank,
quarks
• The rate of expansion of the big-bang
• Thermal properties of water
•
An initial problem: Is the analogy to the whole or part of the
universe? Can it be said that the whole of the universe is working
towards a purpose? Ir order to know this you would have to be outside
the universe or have special revelation. It is a logical fallacy to assume
that because parts of the whole are working that the entirety is
working.
The Teleological Argument
III
•
Hume’s Criticisms
• The analogy between a machine and the world is weak
• Why should we assume intelligence and not nature?
• The world does not closely resemble a created object - and why infer one and not
many gods as a team are often involved in machine creation
• Analogy makes God more human than divine as the created world is imperfect
• Analogy makes a non-moral god as the world contains natural disasters and disease
•
Other criticism
• We can only know what ‘designed’ and not ‘non-designed’ looks like, hence it is a
WYSIWYG universe
• We define the world as designed but this is a language game
•
From science
• Richard Dawkins [The blind watchmaker] - the octopus’ eye
• Richard Dawkins [The selfish gene] - why do we assume purpose?
• Charles Darwin [origin of the species] evolution and natural selection
• The multi-verse concept - that there are many universes and the one we can observe
is the one we are in
The Moral Argument I
•
It is God that is best explanation for the common human experience of
moral consciousness and obligation
•
Four approaches
• Aquinas: We experience things which are good, noble, true and valuable
these must take form from things which are even more so - this is God
[influenced by Plato and the cave, and Aristotelian forms]
• Moral experience: There seems to be an agreement that there is right and
wrong, these seem to be objective values, conscience is a popular name for
the voice of right and wrong. If this moral law is so then there must be a
lawgiver
• Criticisms
• Cultural relativism: Morality is a product of culture there are no
universal morals
• Emotivism: A statement of wrongness is a personal expression
i.e it is good if I approve and bad if I do not
• Evolution: Humans who were kind, helpful etc... were more likely
to survive - this trait has been genetically transmitted
The Moral Argument II
• “Anything goes”: In denying God we remove any sanction and thus any need to
act morally. John Hick [Arguments for the Existence of God] points out that selfsacrifice makes no sense and it is difficult to justify such acts is God does not
exist.
• Criticisms
• There is much amoral and immoral behaviour in the world
• Self-sacrifice can be justified in other ways or be delusional
• Kant: God is required for morality to achieve its end. Kant argued that the mind
determines the way we experience the world, all we know about the world is the
way that our mind organises the sense experiences, we cannot know things only
how we perceive them. The mind imposes categories on experience - we cannot
prove a cause we assume it and confirm it by experience. The reason for being
good is comes from how we organise experience of goodness - this is his
categorical imperative. So we strive for the summum bonum (the highest good)
and this highest good is personified in God.
• Criticisms
• Why should we strive for the summum bonum? Evidence suggests many do
not
• Why make the assumption that the personification of goodness is God ..
again this may just be a language game
The Religious Experience
Argument I
•
Many people claim to have had experiences of God which are, in some way,
revelatory. The premise is that God can be experienced and having been so
exists.
•
The Religious Experience Research Unit (RERU) in Oxford reports that 2545% of people in the UK reported having been aware of a ‘presence or
power beyond themselves’
•
Difference between religious and ordinary experience
•
Religious experiences have an experience of “otherness”
•
It can be difficult to describe the religious experience
•
A religious experience is often subjective
•
Religious experiences may be uncheckable
•
Religious experiences only happen if God permits
The Religious Experience
Argument II
•
Types of religious experience: these may be spontaneous or the result of training
and discipline but they share a sense of an awareness of the divine, this may be:
• A sense of oneness or union with the divine
• A sense of dependance on the divine
• A sense of separateness from the divine
•
Swinburne [The existence of God] has centred on religious
experience as a key argument for God’s existence:
•
Is a religious experience authentic / philosophically sound?
• An encounter with God is not a sense experience in the same way as
encountering a table - it is not verifiable
• Is it like an experience with another person (do we experience people in more than a
physical way?). This assumes duality (mind-body) or accepts some corporality in
encounter is either sense it is different from an encounter with the divine
• How do you know it is God? Can you recognise things that are outside of your
experience? e.g. creator, omniscience?
• Can the finite encounter the infinite?
The Religious Experience
Argument III
•
Is there a natural explanation?
• Experience is often deceptive: however many people who we trust claim to have had this
experience we cannot logically assume all experiences are hallucinations
• Does religious experience fulfil a psychological need? Freud saw religious experience as
a reaction to a hostile world - seeking a ‘perfect’ father figure to protect us. Is there a
religious gene?
• Further questions?
• There is no God thus the experience of God is invalid. This is an a priori conviction which
is only as valid as its opposite
• There is a lack of uniformity of experience. A variety of experience does not swing the
argument either way - this lack of uniformity may be different to interpretation and not
falsity of the experience
• If there was a God wouldn’t experience be universal? It could be that a precondition, such
as faith is needed or that God does reveal ‘himself’ to everyone but that only some are
receptive
Miracles I
Miracles II
•
Key questions: “What is a miracle” and “Is it reasonable to
believe that a miracle has taken place?”
•
If God is good and loving will ‘He’ intervene in ‘His’ creation in
special ways?
•
Miracles as interventions: An event that without God
would not have taken place, Aquinas defined three
types of such miracle
•
Events that nature could never do: The sun
goes backwards
•
Events that nature can do but not in this
order: Someone living after death
•
Events that nature can do but outside of normal
principles: A very quick recovery from an illness
Miracles III
•
Hume defined a miracle as “A transgression by the law of nature by
a particular volition of the Deity or by the imposition of some invisible
agent”
•
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1777
•
Problems with this - the idea of a law of nature and the nature of
god
•
Laws of nature
• Is a law of nature being broken - or is this or lack of understanding?
Should we not redfine any law to take account of new experience?
• Is it coherent to talk about laws of nature at all? If, to some extent, as
quantum / choas theory suggests nature is to some extent random then
we should expect the unexpected
•
Nature of God
• The idea of an interventionist God denies classic theism where God is
the sustainer and preserver of the universe
• If God is outside of space and time then is it incoherent to suggest an
entry into time and space
Miracles IV
•
Miracles as having religious significance
• Some people think that miracles need to have a deeper significance
than intervention
• “If a god intervened in the natural order to make a feather land here
rather than there for no ultimate purpose, or to upset a child’s box of
toys for spite these would not be described as miracles”
• The Concept of Miracle, Swinburne, 1970
• Miracles are a ‘sign from God’
• The gospel miracles were not ends in themselves but were pointers
to something beyond the actual event
• Problem about the nature of God, if God is all good and all powerful
why then are there so few miracles? Is such a God worthy of
worship?
Miracles V
•
Miracles as interpretations
• A boy is in his toy car, the car gets caught on the train track, the train is
approaching. The mother can see both her son and the approaching train.
The train starts to slow even though the driver could not have seen the boy.
The train stops a few metres from the boy. The mother sees this as a
miracle, even when she was told later about the driver’s heart attack which
caused the automatic break to come on.
• Roy Holland presents this as a “miracle of interpretation” an event that has
taken place within natural law but than can be taken as a religious sign, he
calls this a “contingency miracle”
• Holland seems to argue for the concept of “divine providence”
• Some call this an “anti-realist” approach - a miraculous event is an event
that is a disclosure, it is not a supernatural event but a supernatural
interpretation of a natural event
• Strauss and Bultmann used this approach to the gospel miracles - the
mythological world-views as portrayed by the gospels was unacceptable
and needed to be reinterpreted and the spiritual truths made clear.
Miracles VI
•
Is it reasonable to believe in miracles?
• This depends on the definition of miracles - if we accept Holland’s interpretation
then miracles occur whenever someone interprets an event as a miracle. Most
debate centres on the more traditional understanding of miracle.
• Hume: As an empiricist he believed that all questions of truth should be based
on experience - which involves an enquiry into evidence.
• It will always be more reasonable to assume that the laws of nature have not been
broken - especially as there were no modern day equivalents of biblical miracles
• Hume argued that no miraculous event could be proved to be true because:
•
No miracle has a sufficient number of witnesses: A quantity of educated trustworthy
witnesses who would have much to lose if found to be lying
•
People are prone to look for marvels and wonders: We all like stories and are prone to
repeat them even when we do not believe them
•
The source of (gospel) miracles stories are from ignorant people: The miracle stories
in the bible (gospels) gained authenticity without critical or rational enquiry
•
The writers of the gospels had a vested interest : This was particularly the case if a
miracle is being used to establish a religion i.e. the Resurrection
•
Miracles from different tradition contradict each other: The evidence from the
witnesses of one miracle is contradicted by the evidence from the witness of others
Miracles VII
•
Responses to Hume
• Hume and his empiricism: An event is only miraculous if it violates natural law
and its empirical nature suggested that the law has no exceptions. However this
suggests that law should never change in response to exceptions of which the
miracle may be one. Logically, thus, we should never accept an exception and
therefore never change a law - which contradicts empiricism.
• Probability: Hume assumes that the should be more miracles. If naturalism
(assuming the world runs on natural law) is assumed miracles will be rejected.
For theists miracles are about God’s purpose not about quantity.
• Criteria for testimony: Many think Hume’s criteria (before) as too rigid, if we
applied these to other areas we would have no history. It is doubtful if Hume
would ever have accepted any miracles.
• Self-cancelling argument: Many people are now willing to accept that different
religions have aspects of truth (Hick et alea). Also the evidence for miracles is not
equitable - it could be more impressive in one religion than another.
• Other evidence: In Hume’s time evidence was based on testimony. Now we can
appeal to other forms of evidence.
Miracles VIII
•
What might miracles prove?
• Proof of God: Miracles have been viewed as inductive proof of the
existence of God. It is the best explanation for inexplicable events
•Questions
•How do we identify an irregular state of events?
•Is it justifiable to introduce God as the explanation?
•Is Hume’s definition correct?
• Authenticity of revelation: Miracles could be a divine signature.
Swinburne argues if we expect revelation we should accept
miracles.
• Nature of God: Miracles are an essential part of the content of
Christian revelation (virgin birth, resurrection, gospel miracles)
•Questions
•Is the historical evidence convincing (Hume’s tests)
•Is the incarnation coherent with the nature of God?
•If Jesus is God, how can he die? (c.f proofs of existence of God)
•Why does God intervene so few times and so often in such limited situations
(the problem of evil)?
•How can a timeless God intervene in time?
The Mind Body Problem I
•
Our views on the mind-body problem affect our understanding of
human nature and life after death
•
Humans appear to have both body (physical) and mind
(consciousness) properties.
•
Body properties include: mass, size, shape, spatial and temporal
position, it is composed of material parts. These exist independent
of what you think about them - you cannot will changes - your bum
does look big in this!
•
Mind properties include self-consciousness. The characteristics of
mind include:
• Qualia: Felt experiences - the senses
• Intentionality: “aboutness” we don’t just think we think about things
•
It would make no sense to talk about a chair directing its attention
so philosophy often makes a distinction between body and mind
• Monistic: Mind and body are of one nature
• Dualistic: Mind and body have different natures - which begs the
question how do they interrelate?
The Mind Body Problem II
• Dualism has been the prevalent view. Dualists argue that people have
composite natures both material and non-material
• The non material element is often called the mind, spirit or soul (some
argue for separation between mind and soul: mind being the rational and
soul the spiritual - which begs another question!)
• Dualism is key in concepts such as reincarnation and life after death in
many religions
• Descartes: argued the body is spatial and not conscious and the mind is
non-spatial and conscious. He held that the mind was affected by the
state of the body and the body affected by the state of mind - known as
interactionism. Examples would be drugs (body) changing my
perceptions (mind) or a nightmare (mind) causing me to screm (body)
• Epiphenomenalism: Bodily events can cause mental events but not
vice-versa. Causal effect is one way. “Man has a computer is not a
computer” [Wilder Penfield - Neurosurgeon]
• Does our mind survive death? We know the body does not but the nature
of dualism allows the possibility that our mind or soul does.
The Mind Body Problem III
•
Materialism: Holds that “so-called” mental events are really physical events that happen
to physical objects
•
Dualism is attacked as “the ghost in the machine”
•
Philosophical Behaviourism: Mental events are a complex pattern of physical
behaviours (including body and brain behaviour)
•
The identity theory: Mind and brain (body) while having different meanings are the
same. Developments in neurosurgery which link thoughts/actions with part of the brain
popularise this theory
•
Functionalism: Mental states are defined in terms of their function - so pain is a damage
detector: inputs include damage and disease, outputs include groan and escape
behaviour. All mental states have a causal role: the concept of mental state is therefore of
an internal state caused by sensory input and causing behavioural output
•
Implications of materialism
•
•
Moral responsibility: Is free will compatible with the idea that all brain events are
physically determined?
•
Nature of the universe: Do we live in a causally enclosed physical universe that
excludes the metaphysical?
•
Life after death: Dualism favours survival more than materialism
A couple of thoughts from scientific development
•
Artificial Intelligence and cloning
Exam Specifications I
AS/A2: AQA
•AS: Unit C: Philosophy of Religion
•
The cosmological Argument: Aquinas – God as first cause and necessary being, different
understandings of the role of God, key criticisms of the argument; Religious Experience:
Variety of religious experience, argument from religious experience for the existence of God,
the challenges to religious experience from philosophy and science
•AS: Unit D: Religion, Philosophy and Science
•
Miracles: As violation of of Natural Law, as an event of religious significance, events of religious
significance; Creation: Religious beliefs about the creation of the world, outline of the scientific
principles, an outline of evolutionary theory and the challenge to religious belief presented by
these theories; The design argument: Aquinas, Paley, Hume and Dawkins; Quantum mechanics
and a religious world view: Key ideas from quantum mechanics linked to parallels with mystic
insights e.g. Capra’s, “The Tao of Physics”
•A2: Unit 3B: Philosophy and religion
•
Ontological Argument: Anselm and Descartes, key objectives of the argument, relationship between faith and
reason; Religious Experience: Questions about language, verification principle (Hare, Hick), Body Soul and
personal identity: Nature of body/soul, possibility of existence after death, nature of near death experiences; The
problem of evil: Concept of evil (natural and moral), religious responses to the question of evil, Augustine and
Hick
Exam Specifications II
•AS/A2: Edexcel
•A2 Unit 1: Foundations
•
A study of philosophical arguments about the existence of God: including
design, cosmological
•
A study of the key problems in the philosophy of religion including problems
of suffering and evil, different types of problem and solution.
•
A study of the philosophical deabtes about miracles, concepts of miracles,
reasons to believe in miracles, philosophical problems with reference to Hume
•AS: Investigations [an enquiry–based approach to teaching and learning]
•
Religious belief, faith and reason, revelation OR Religious experience,
meditation OR Relationships between mind and body OR Religion
and Science OR A study of one or more philosophers of religion
•A2: Developments
•
Religious experience, ontological arguments, non-existence of God and critiques of religious belief
•A2: Implications
•
Religious language, religious experience, emergence of modern philosophy of religion
Exam Specifications III
•AS/A2: OCR
•AS: G571: Foundation for the study of religion - Plato, concept of
forms, body/soul distinction, Aristotle, God as Creator, the goodness of God
ontological argument (Anselm, Descartes, Gaunlio and Kant), Cosmological
argument (Aquinas, Coppleston, Hume,Russell); Teleogical argument
(Aquinas, Paley, Hume, Mill Darwinism); Moral argument (Kant, Freud),
problem of evil, religion and science.
•A2: G581: Religious language use and purpose, via negativia, verification
and falsification, use of symbol and analogy the Vienna circle (Ayer, Flew
Wittgenstien, Tillich); Religious Experience, arguments from experience (James)
visions, voices, numinous, conversions, corporate experience, revelation from
experience, Miracles, definitions including Hume, Biblical concepts, miracles and the concept of evil.
Modern nature of miracles. Nature of God, God as eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omni-
benevolent – and the philosophical problems arising from these concepts; Boethius; Life after
Death, body soul, Plato, Aristotle, Hick and Dawkins, resurrection and reincarnation,
disembodied existence, afterlife and the problem of evil.
P4C - I
• http://sapere.org.uk
• Education is what survives when you’ve forgotten all that you
learned (B.F.Skinner)
• Education is a social process, education is growth, education is not a
preparation for life, education is life itself (John Dewey)
• If your plan is for one year, plant rice; If your plan is for ten years, plant trees; If your plan
is for one hundred years, educate the children (Confucius)
• Philosophy for children (P4C) is a programme developed by Matthew Lipman to
encourage children to be more reasonable - that is able to reason. Like the Greeks he saw
‘practical wisdom” as the goal of education.
• Lipman emphasised the importance of questioning or enquiry in the development of
reasoning. He also appreciated from Lev Vygotski, the Russian psychologist, that we learn
to think much as we learn to speak - by internalising the patterns of speech and thought
that we hear around us. Thinking to ourselves is, in effect, borrowing the language of
others to talk to ourselves.
• Lipman developed a new model of learning - the ‘community of enquiry”
P4C - II
• The approach is generally to use narratives - “thinking stories” and then encourage students to
ask questions of the narrative - these are not closed questions that demand a correct answer
but open questions that encourage debate, reason, logic
• The group is encouraged to create its own question set from the narrative, to decide which
questions to pursue, to respect, but not jsut accept, the contributions of every member of the
group, to demand reasons for answers
• The teacher is seen as a guide and a modeller NOT as a ‘sage’ (S)he should be using
language like
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Challenge: Can anyone respond to that?
Questions: What don’t we understand, what kind of questions can we ask?
Hypotheses: Does anyone have an alternative idea?
Reasons: What is the evidence / reason for thinking / believing this?
Examples: Can anything think of an example or this / a counter-example?
Assumptions: What assumptions lie behind / underpin this?
Intentions: What is really happening? Is that what we really mean?
Criteria: What makes that an example of X? What are the important things here?
Consistency / Logic: Does that conclusion follow? Are these premises consistent?
P4C - III
•
Example: A story about vegetarians and meat eaters who are trying to understand each other.
•
Incoherence: Why should vegetarians want meat eaters to give up eating meat while meat eaters don't particularly care whether vegetarians eat meat or
not?
•
Reason
•
•
•
•
•
Vegetarians think meat eating is morally wrong.
•
Meat eaters think it's just a taste preference.
Respective Assumptions:
•
Animals have rights that we must respect.
•
Preferences are a just a matter of personal taste.
Unacceptable Implications:
•
All animals have rights including houseflies.
•
It’s perfectly all right to drop horses off high buildings if you like to
see them splash.
Questioning assumptions:
•
All humans have rights but are all animals lives to be treated with respect?
•
Should any preferences be treated with tolerance?
•
It's all right to prefer chicken to pork.
•
Is it all right to prefer splashing horses to splashing water filled balloons?
Articulating new assumptions
•
How should we think about animals so that we could eat them with a clear conscience?
•
How should we think about preferences to avoid splashing horses?
Task
•
Choose one of the things that we have looked
at this morning.
•
•
Choose a target group (KS3 / KS4 / KS5)
Plan a sequence of tasks to introduce this
concept to the group, including:
• lesson objectives
• key questions
• success criteria
• tasks
• resources
•
You have an hour for the task. Meet back in here at 14:10 ready to
give a 5-10 min presentation.