Transcript Philosophy 1010 Class #9 Let’s discuss the class essay.

Philosophy 1010
Class #9
NEXT Week: Essay Due &
Final Exam
Let’s discuss the class essay.
Gates of Hell
COURSE EVALUATION
Electronic/Online Course/Instructor
Feedback
13/WI Availability until February 20, 2013.
Instruction Sheet will be on Quia site.
Chapter 4
Philosophy and God
(Continued)
Atheism
•
Atheists such as Richard Dawkins (1941-) state
unequivocally that there is no God.
•
In taking a metaphysical position on the issue, Atheism
assumes the same burden in regard to all the issues of
meaning and evidence that Theism does.
•
Atheism must assert reasons that God does not exist
just as we expected the Theist to provide “proofs” for the
existence of God.
•
Many would argue that Atheism requires just as much
faith as does Theism, but is it really a matter of faith or
the strength of your argument?
•
The primary argument given by Atheists that God does
not exist is the problem of evil.
The Problem of Evil
•
The Problem of Evil in its simplest form argues that
since evil exists in the world, then God is either not all
powerful or all good. David Hume subscribed to this
view.
•
St. Augustine took a position against this view,
arguing that God created the universe and all the
good in the world but the universe he created is not
itself God and is imperfect, finite, and limited. In this
way, it allows the existence of evil as incomplete
goodness.
•
Many argue that St. Augustine does not resolve the
issue. Why would not God who is all good ensure
that there was no evil in His universe?
The Problem of Evil
•
A popular theological argument is that evil is necessary
for the Good to exist. But then is God not omnipotent if
he cannot create Good without Evil?
•
Another argument the Theist gives is that God allows
Evil in order to give man Free Will. But how does this
account for natural disasters such as hurricanes?
•
Or maybe, they think, we are confused about what is
Good? What we think is Evil is Good in the mind of
God?
•
John Hick (1922- ) argues that the presence of evil is
necessary for Man to be made into the likeness of God.
Experiencing evil gives meaning to virtue for Man and
allows him to develop into virtuous beings.
Immanuel Kant
•
That injustice exists in the world should not lead us to
reject God. Rather it should compel us pursue a
perfectly just world. It is a moral obligation.
•
To believe that such a world is possible with evil fully
punished and good rewarded would require a belief in
God and an afterlife.
•
And since all moral obligations must be possible, then
God must exist.
•
According to Kant’s argument, we must believe in God
although perhaps we cannot know that God exists.
Agnosticism
•
Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) argued that it is
incorrect to say that one is certain of the truth of a
proposition unless he can produce evidence that
logically justifies that certainty.
•
Sigmund Freud suggested that our belief in God is
an “illusion” and had its origins in infantile needs
for a “father.”
•
Freud’s view was influential throughout the 20th
century but is considered by most today as an
insufficient explanation. Further, even if it were
true as a psychological explanation, that does not
make the claim that the belief is an “illusion” and
that God does not exist true. Such an argument
commits what is known logically as the Genetic
Fallacy.
“The Will to Believe”
•
William James (1842-1910 ) proposed that in the
absence of irrefutable evidence for the existence of
God, there still is justifiable reason to believe.
•
James suggests that in this condition, we have the
option to choose what we believe. We do not have an
option not to choose, as perhaps an agnostic might
suggest. To choose not to make a decision is, for
James, to decide.
•
James discusses three fundamental characteristics of
such options:
•
1) “living or dead”
2) forced or avoidable
3) momentous or trivial
An Option is a person's decision among a set of hypotheses. A
genuine option is living, forced, and momentous.
1. A living option in one in hypotheses are live, i.e., they
are real possibilities for someone. Since I grew up
attending a Christian church and was raised to believe
that way, it may not be a real option for me to become a
Buddhist, but it is a real option for me to become a
Presbyterian.
2. A forced option is a dilemma— the hypothesis cannot
be avoided. I.e., for someone enrolled in this class to
come to class or not is forced. Deciding whether or not
God exists and/or we will conduct ourselves according to
that may be forced in this sense.
3. A momentous option is one that is unique and may
well be one's only opportunity. The choice is not trivial,
but significant, because one only has one chance to do it.
“The Will to Believe”
•
James then argues when an option is genuine
(that is, living, forced and momentous) and cannot
be decided on intellectual grounds, it is justifiable
to choose on the basis of our passional nature. In
fact, James would argue one should so choose.
•
For James, our “passional nature” consists of all
nonintellectual interests, emotions, desires, hopes,
fears, commitments, our deepest personal needs,
etc.
•
James would hold that when an option is not
genuine, it makes the best sense to decide to
withhold judgment until “the evidence is in.”
In Conclusion
•
W. K. Clifford, 1845-1879, argued against James (as did
Thomas Huxley), asserting that it is absolutely and always
wrong to make any judgment without sufficient evidence. By
doing so, you make yourself vulnerable to logical and factual
error.
•
To the contrary, James pointed out that this was one option
that could be chosen and one that would have the advantage
that it might protect us from believing what was false.
•
On the other hand, another option is to try to protect
ourselves from missing out on the truth and the truth that
would be the one that is ultimately significant to ourselves.
•
James would choose this option, while recognizing that it
itself must be chosen not on rational grounds, but on
passional grounds.
Break!
Chapter Six:
TRUTH
(with a bit ABOUT
KNOWELDGE TOSSED
IN FOR FREE)
What is Knowledge?
•
Knowledge requires a belief. It would be nonsensical
to say that “I know that my car is in the parking lot,
but I do not believe it.”
•
Of course, we can believe something that we do not
know, but we cannot know something that we do not
believe. Example: “I believe that I am in good health
but I haven’t had a thorough checkup for five years.”
•
Knowledge appears to be more than a simple
belief. It requires evidence or justification. One
would not take seriously a person’s belief for which
there is no evidence – for example, “I know the stock
market will crash this week because I just know it.”
What is Knowledge?
•
That is, a belief must be warranted to count as
knowledge.The criteria for when a statement is
warranted depends on the type of statement.
•
Some beliefs are “a priori” and others are “a
posteriori”, that is, “prior to” experience or “after
experience.” Some beliefs are considered to be
“foundational” and others not.
•
For example, the basis for justification of all the
following beliefs is different –
•
•
•
•
“A rose is a rose.”
“No circle is a square.”
“John loves Sam.”
“John feels embarrassed by what
happened.”
What is Warranted Belief?
•
1. Logical Warrantability.
•
•
2. Semantic Warrantability.
•
•
A circle is not a square.
3. Systemic Warrantability.
•
•
This pencil is either 4” long or it is not.
Two plus two is four.
4. Empirical Warrantability.
•
•
This bird that I am looking at right now is a robin.
John Kennedy was a President of the U.S.
What is Knowledge?
•
But all warranted belief is not true. You only know
what is warranted and “TRUE”. You do not know your
car is in the parking lot even if you believe it is and
your belief is warranted (you parked it there just
before class), but in fact I am looking out the window
here and (I hate to tell you this but) campus security
just towed you car off campus.
•
In the above example, you can only claim to know
that your car is in the parking lot if it is true that it is in
the parking lot.
•
Generally speaking, knowledge is understood
thus to be warranted, true belief.
What is Knowledge?
•
However, is true, warranted belief enough? Consider the
following “thought experiment”:
1) John who is a trustworthy person goes to the store
intending to buy a gallon of low-fat milk.
2) As a joke on his friend Sam or by mistake, he tells
Sam that he is going to buy whole milk.
3) At the store, John mistakenly buys whole milk by
getting distracted by how sexy the store manager is.
•
Now, did Sam know that John was going to buy whole milk?
1) Sam believed John was.
2) Sam’s belief appeared to be warranted. It is
what John said he was going to do & John usually
does what he says.
3) And in fact, it is what John did.
Break!
What are the Traditional
Theories of Truth?
•
There are three Fundamental Theories of Truth:
1) the correspondence theory of truth says that a
belief is true when it corresponds to what is “out there”
in the real world.
2) the coherence theory argues that a belief is true
when it fits in consistently with our other beliefs and
meanings.
•
3) the pragmatic theory suggests that what is true
depends on what gets us what we want.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
•
The Correspondence Theory specifies that truth is an
agreement between a proposition and a fact.
•
Thus, the correspondence theory assumes the
existence of an external, material world which is
composed of facts.
•
The view was first proposed by Aristotle and then by
Aquinas. The most formal, systematic presentation of
the view was by the 20th century philosopher, Bertrand
Russell.
•
Russell argues that truth and falsity are properties of
beliefs, but that property depends on the relationship
of the belief to the world of facts.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
•
The Correspondence Theory may seem to be obviously
right and implied by common sense, but actually it has
serious difficulties.
•
First of all, it assumes there is an external world, i.e. a
particular metaphysical position and seems to beg the
question of “how can we we ever get outside our sensory
experiences to know what the facts are.”
•
Secondly, there is the problem about what a fact is,
anyway. How can a fact even be identified or discussed
without referring to the proposition that it is meant to be the
conditions for it being true? Thus, the very notion of “facts”
appears to be circular.
For example, to what fact does the proposition “The
cat is on the mat” refer? The fact that the cat is on
the mat? But isn’t this circular reasoning?
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
•
Finally, the theory is based on the notion of
“correspondence.” But it is objected by critics, what
does this really mean? What is the nature of
correspondence?
•
Clear examples of correspondence are:
•
1.
resemblance like a paint chip resembles the
color of paint on your wall, or
2.
portrayal like when a picture copies the scene it
copies
But neither of these can be the kind of correspondence
that is being asserted when we say a statement in a
language corresponds to a state of affairs in the world.
The Coherence Theory of Truth
•
The Coherence Theory specifies that a statement is
true based on its consistency with other statements
that considered as a whole we regard as true. This
coherence is the fundamental factor, not coherence of
a single statement with a single state of the world.
•
Geometry is the perfect example of the coherence
theory, but also science understood as general
theories also demonstrate the principle.
•
Brand Blanshard (1892-1987) argued that the
correspondence theory itself presupposes the
coherence theory. He argues that we can verify one
statement only by using other statements.
•
For example, to say that “the chair is red” is
validated only with other statements that give
testimony to the reliability of our sense
perception abilities.
The Coherence Theory of Truth
•
Of course, the Coherence Theory is not also without its
problems.
•
Critics point out that in the past of course, societies
accepted statements that were quite consistent with
the belief systems but were false such as that the sun
revolved around the earth.
•
Critics also ask how a fundamental set of statements
about the world can come to be accepted with a
Coherence Theory when there is no group of
statements to which they could cohere.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
•
The Pragmatic Theory says that a belief is true if it
works and is useful.
Looking for truth is looking for beliefs that will
help you get what you want…. Richard Rorty
•
According to the Pragmatists, there are no abolute and
unchanging truths. A statement is true if it is useful to
believe it.
•
The classic Pragmatic view of truth was formulated by
William James.
•
James argued that truth existed in its practical
consequences. True ideas are those that we can
assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify.
•
An idea is validated if by believing it, we find
experiences that are “progressive, harmonious, and
satisfactory.”
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
•
James challenged the traditional correspondence view
by asking: What difference does it make in someone’s
life for an idea to be true?” What is the “cash value?”
What different experiences should we be expected to
have?
•
Richard Rorty suggests that it is improper however to
refer to a Pragmatic Theory of Truth. For him, the
Pragmatist position only is a claim about individual
statements that are good and proper to believe it or
not. Pragmatism is not a general theory of Truth (with
a capital T).
•
In Rorty’s view, different truths emerge from different
communities having different procedures of verifying
appropriate statements to use.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
•
The primary criticism of the Pragmatic approach is that
it makes truth entirely relative to the potential
mistakable judgments of human communities.
•
Pragmatism equates truth with justified belief of a
community.
•
But surely just because we once believed the earth
was flat, it wasn’t really flat.
•
The pragmatist could reply that what is true is what an
ideal community would be justified in believing if
continuing its investigations indefinitely.
•
But this notion seems to be “metaphysical” in the very
sense that Pragmatism wished to reject.
Does Your Theory of Truth Matter?
•
The theory of truth that you hold may determine
whether a given claim is true or not.
•
Only the Correspondence Theory of Truth holds that
truth is absolute. Both the Coherence Theory and the
Pragmatic Theory hold that truth is relative to the
group who is making the claim.
•
By rejecting an objective theory of truth, the latter two
theories allow for the potentiality of views to be
accepted as true that normally we would consider
aberrant, e.g. racist, sexist, immoral, etc.
•
On the other hand, one might argue for a relativist
theory that it is more tolerant of cultural differences.
One culture does not have a monopoly on truth.
A Reconcilation?
•
Perhaps we should simply understand that all three
views have validity and are suggestive within different
realms of knowledge.
•
In this account, the Correspondence theory is strong
when explaining the empirical world, the Coherence
theory helps us to understand logical and mathematical
truths, and the Pragmatic theory gives us the better
guidance to deal with value judgments.
•
The attempt to find one characterization of truth that
covers every kind of truth, seems doomed to failure.
….Hilary Putnam
•
Ultimately however, such a resolution may be too easy
and not truly satisfying for most philosophers. It seems
to many as not fully answering the paradoxes posed by
the subsequent consequences of each theory.
Does Science Give Us Truth?
The Instrumentalist View
•
There are fundamentally three views which attempt to
allow science to say that a theory is true, roughly
corresponding to the three theories of truth.
•
First of all, the Instrumentalist view argues that a
theory is true if it makes accurate predictions. The view
thus, is closely aligned with the pragmatic theory of
truth.
•
The instrumentalist view does not assert that the
theoretical and unobservable entities that we posit in
our theories in order to explain observable events
actually do exist.
•
In the instrumentalist view, science is not required to
describe the world. To say that the earth revolves
around the sun is a useful framework or schema
simply to calculate the positions of the planets.
Does Science Give Us Truth?
The Realist View
•
A second option is the Realist view which relies on the
correspondence theory of truth. According to this view,
a scientific theory is true or false based on how it
describes reality.
•
Historically, Galileo was condemned for heresy indeed
because he claimed that the Copernican view was
real, not just a mathematical calculation as it had been
assumed Copernicus had thought.
•
The realist view asserts that scientific theories make
accurate predictions because they are true, that is
they “correspond” with things in the world and not the
other way around.
•
For the realist, scientific theory is discovered. For the
instrumentalist, it is invented for the sake of continuing
productive scientific activity.
Does Science Give Us Truth?
The Conceptual Relativist View
•
The third option is the conceptual relativist view which
relies on the coherence theory of truth. According to
this view, a scientific community theory provides a
paradigm consisting of theories, research methods,
programs, and values that a “conceptual framework”
which is true.
•
The leading proponent of this view is Thomas Kuhn.
•
According to this view and in contrast with
instrumentalism and realism, theories cannot be
checked against independently observed reality for all
observation is theory-laden.
•
Scientific paradigms are replaced by “conceptual
“revolutions,” however when that happens one cannot
necessarily say the changes occurred for rational
reasons or that the new paradigm is “more true.”