Transcript RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY  Forget faith, brothers, I’ve got logic. Religious Rationalism: The existence of God can be proven. Unbelief is irrational.

RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY

Forget faith, brothers, I’ve
got logic.
Religious
Rationalism: The
existence of God
can be proven.
Unbelief is
irrational. Anselm,
Aquinas, Paley.
BELIEF WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS AMBIGUOUS.

Fideism: Objective evidence
for God’s existence is
neither possible nor
desirable; it must be
accepted on faith.
Kierkegaard.

Voluntarism: The existence
of God cannot be proven or
disproven, but religious belief
is rational if our passions
lead us to prefer the religious
hypothesis. (James)
AMBIGUITY AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF

Religious empiricism: The
existence of God cannot be
demonstrated, but reports
of religious experience
provide evidence for the
existence of an Ultimate
Reality.

Naturalism: Naturalistic
explanations (of the origin of
the universe and human life,
and of claims to religious
experience) are superior to
supernaturalistic
explanations. Hence,
religious belief is probably
illusory.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
P1. God=df. a being than which nothing
greater can be conceived.
 P2. This concept exists in the understanding.
 P3. If this concept exists only in the
understanding, and not in reality, then it is not
the concept of a being than which nothing
greater can be conceived.
 \ A being than which nothing greater can
be conceived exists in reality.

PROBLEMS WITH P3

Assumes that something is
greater if it is both
conceived of and really
existing than if it is merely
conceived of. Implies that
existence is a perfection.
Existence is not a perfection


A being can exist without
being just or wise, but it
cannot be just or wise
without existing (for then it
has no attributes whatever).
Existence isn’t an attribute:
My future son will be better
off if he is honest. My future
son will be better off if he
exists. (?)
THE FIVE WAYS OF AQUINAS




First Way: change,
motion.
P1. Everything moved is
moved by something
outside itself.
P2. Infinite sequence of
movers- impossible.
\ A first, unmoved
mover must exist = God.
This argument is so moving!
2ND WAY OF THOMAS
Whatever exists has a cause.
 Nothing can be the cause of itself.
 Causes can’t go back infinitely, for, if there was
no first cause, there could be no subsequent
causes.
 \ There must be a first uncaused cause of the
causal series. = God.

WHERE TRUE CHARITY IS FOUND, GOD HIMSELF IS THERE.
THOMAS AQUINAS



3rd way: Many things are
contingent.
If everything is contingent,
then once there was
nothing.
\ Something must be
necessary =God

4th Way: Some things are
sort of wise and not too
pretty. Something is sort of
wise by sharing in perfect
wisdom. \ A supreme being
exists. = God
TELEOLOGY (5TH WAY)

Nature operates according
to regular patterns that
allow life to flourish. It is no
accident that the goal of
flourishing is everywhere
attained. An unconscious
thing attains its goal only
when guided by intelligence.




\ An intelligent force guides
the universe. = God.
Paley: Find a watch, infer a
watchmaker.
The human eye is more
complex than a Rolex.
\ It is highly probable that a
divine eye designer exists.
DISTELEOLOGY
Natural selection
and genetic
mutation explain
the slow evolution
of the eye.
 The big bang
hypothesis explains
the origin of our
universe.

Are you sure the fossil
record will confirm this?
IS THE UNIVERSE DESCRIBED BY THEISM THE
UNIVERSE WE INHABIT?


David Hume 1711- 1776
Hume’s critique:
The design argument rests
on a weak analogy. The
universe is unlike any product
designed by humans. Living
things differ from artifacts in
relevant ways (begotten not
made; organic; etc.)
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION
•
•
•
We have no past experience of
the origins of a universe.
The design argument fails to
show that the designer is all
powerful, morally good, or one
god rather than a divine
committee.
Wouldn’t an all powerful creator
display better craftsmanship?
•
Our experience, so imperfect in
itself, and so limited both in
extent and duration, can afford
us no probable conjecture
concerning the whole of things.
But if we must needs fix on
some hypothesis; is there any
rule other than the similarity of
the objects compared? And
does not a plant or animal
which springs from vegetation
or generation bear a stronger
resemblance to our world than
does any machine which arises
from reason and design?
J.S. MILL’S NATURAL THEOLOGY

The empirical evidence suggests that our
universe was probably designed by a finite god
who is benevolent but not clearly just. A god
who allows evil, disease, ignorance, and
suffering to attain some greater good is not
omnipotent. If the creator is morally good that
Being intended nature as a scheme to be
amended, not imitated, by man. We must
assist god in ameliorating the human condition.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
God is all powerful.
 God is perfectly good.
 Evil exists. [Inconsistent statements]
 If God is all powerful, he could eliminate evil
and suffering. If God is perfectly good he would
wish to eliminate evil and suffering.

THEODICIES


Deny omnipotence. Kushner When
Bad Things Happen to Good
People.
Denying omnipotence solves the
logical problem but leaves the
question of God’s apparent
absence unresolved
Deny the reality of evil:
Christian Science.
 Claiming that evil is illusion
creates a new evil, viz., the
widespread delusion that evil
exists.
 Cosmic harmony.
The extent of evil and suffering
leaves one wondering, does the
harmonious end justify the
means?

If evil is just an illusion then the illusion
that evil exists is an evil
.
AUGUSTINE OR IRENAEUS


Evil enters the world when
angels and humans choose
to disobey God.
Evil, pain, and suffering are
the consequence of free
will.
Free will helps with moral
evil but doesn’t adequately
address natural evils.


Soul making: A pilgrim’s long
journey towards moral
perfection. Evil and suffering
are necessary to provide us
with the opportunity to
develop courage and
compassion.
How much suffering is
required to shape a soul?
BLAISE PASCAL 1623- 1662


Brilliant mathematician
and scientist who also
wrote on theology.
In order to show that a
hypothesis is evident, it
does not suffice that all
the phenomena follow
from it; instead, if it leads
to something contrary to a
single one of the
phenomena, that suffices
to establish its falsity.
PASCAL’S WAGER
Belief Options
Disbelieve
Believe
Possible
Realities
Existential
Outcomes
Eternal Bliss!
Eternal Hell!!!
Wasted Sundays.
Had less fun.
Lived without illusion.
God is
No God
THE COSMIC CASINO

God is, or he is not. But to which side shall we
incline? Reason cannot decide it at all. There
is an infinite chaos that separates us. A game
is being played, at the extremity of this infinite
distance, in which heads or tails must come
up…. Let us weigh the gain and the loss, in
taking heads that God exists…. If you gain, you
gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager,
then, That He is, without hesitation. (Blaise
Pascal)
WILLIAM JAMES



Philosopher and Psychologist. Founder
of the Psychology Department at
Harvard University.
Radical empiricist, pragmatist, and
pluralist.
After all that reason can do has been
done, there still remains the opacity of
the finite facts as merely given…. To
the very last there are various ‘points
of view’ which the philosopher must
distinguish in discussing the world.
THE WILL TO BELIEVE
I. Our epistemic situation-- theoretic ambiguity
(evidence for and against God’s existence is
inconclusive).
 II. Our existential situation:

 A.
Importance- “it matters greatly to us.” A
momentous hypothesis
 B. Inevitability of choosing; forced hypothesis.
WILLIAM JAMES CONCLUDES:

When we are forced to
decide on a momentous
issue with inconclusive
evidence, it is rational to
follow our instincts and
desires, to embrace the
religious hypothesis.


John Hick wonders: Is the
will to believe a license for
wishful thinking?
Can the argument support a
right to believe if religious
experience confirms that an
Ultimate Reality exists?