PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION NOTES

Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

Basic Concepts/Vocabulary in Philosophy of Religion

1. Atheism = the belief that there is no god(s) of any kind.

2. Agnosticism = the belief that we don't have sufficient reason either to affirm or to deny any god's existence.
   We may distinguish agnosticism into two different types:
   1. Superficial agnosticism: the belief that we don't have sufficient reason either to affirm or to deny god's existence because there's insufficient evidence either way (even though the concept of god is coherent).

   2. Deep agnosticism: the belief that we don't have sufficient reason either to affirm or to deny god's existence because the very concept of god is incoherent.

3. Naturalism = the theory that everything can be wholly explained in terms of natural phenomena (i.e., no supernatural explanations needed).

4. Theism = belief in the existence of god(s).

5. Deism = the belief in an "absentee" god, i.e., one who long ago set things in motion but thereafter left it alone.

6. Polytheism = the belief in a multitude of personal gods, each responsible for a different department of life.

7. Henotheism = the belief that there are many gods, but only one to which I owe my allegiance.

8. Monotheism = the belief that there is only one supreme being, who is both personal and moral.
   
   
   

PASCAL'S WAGER

1. There is good evidence/argumentation for the truth of X.

2. Believing in X is in your best interest, despite either the absence of evidence/argumentation in its favor or the presence of good evidence/argumentation to the contrary.

The Background Argument

1. It's possible to believe something infinite exists without knowing/understanding its nature.
   
2. It's possible to believe something indivisible exists without knowing/understanding its nature.
   
3. God, if He exists, must be both infinite and indivisible.
   
4. Thus, it's possible to believe God exists without knowing/understanding his nature.
   
5. As finite, extended beings, we can know about, and understand, only the existence and nature of other finite, extended beings.
   ______________________________
   
6. Thus, it's possible to believe God exists, even though we cannot know if He exists and we cannot understand His nature.

The Wager

1. Either God exists or He doesn't. (There's a 50/50 chance He exists.)
   
2. If God exists and I believe He exists, I get an eternal reward.
   
3. If God exists and I don't believe He exists, I get eternal damnation.
   
4. If God doesn't exist and I believe He exists, I get the tiny harm of being wrong.
   
5. If God doesn't exist and I believe He doesn't exist, I get the tiny benefit of being right.
   _________________________________________
   
6. Thus, belief in God is a very good bet.

EVALUATION OF THE WAGER

1. Expected Utility (EU)
   Utility = a payoff/benefit. So how does one calculate expected utility?
   1. Compute the probability of each possible occurrence at stake.
      
   2. Multiply those probabilities by the value you attach to those occurrences.
      
   3. Add up those products.
      
   4. The sum = the expected utility of that occurrence.

   God Exists

   God Doesn't Exist

   I believe

   I don't believe

   
   So the EU of believing in God =
   And the EU of not believing in God =

2. The "Many Gods" Objection
   1. Pascal's argument justifies bets on many different gods.
      
   2. It's impossible to make all these bets.
      
   3. We have no reason to choose any one of the bets over all others.
      _________________
      
   4. Thus, the wager doesn't provide us with a sufficient reason to believe in any particular god(s), not even the Christian one.

   
   
   
3. Blackburn's Wager
   The Wager is illegitimately built on the assumption that:
   
   
   

   God Exists

   God Doesn't Exist

   I believe

   I don't believe

   
   
   
4. Fideism: the view that belief in god is entirely a "leap of faith," i.e., there can be no justifying reasons for it whatsoever.
   Problems with Fideism:
   1. Internal Worry:
      
      
      
   2. External Worry:
      
      
      
      

ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

1. God exists in our minds (i.e., we understand the concept of God; it exists in our minds).

2. God could have existed in reality.

3. If X exists only in our minds and yet could have existed in reality, X could have been greater than it is.
   (Assumes that having the quality/property of existence in reality can make a thing greater than merely having the quality/property of existence in the mind.)
   [BEGINNING OF REDUCTIO]

4. Suppose God exists ____________________________

5. Then God could have been ______________________

6. Thus (on this supposition), God is a thing than which ____________________________________

7. Definition of "God." (God is by definition a thing than which nothing greater can be thought.) Contradiction.

8. Thus, God does not exist ______________________

9. Thus, God must ______________________

Objections

1. Gaunilo's Objection:
   
   
   
   
2. Existence and Properties Objection:

AQUINAS'S (1225-1274) ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Aquinas's 2nd Way (The Cosmological Argument)

1. Everything that exists was caused to exist, either by itself or by something else.

2. It's impossible for a thing to cause itself to exist.

3. Thus, everything that exists was caused to exist by something else, which itself was caused by something else, etc.

4. This series of causes must either go back infinitely or have its starting point in a first cause.

5. This series cannot go back infinitely.
   _________________________________________
   
6. Thus, there must have been a first cause, itself uncaused, called God.

PALEY'S ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

The Argument

1. If a thing exhibits Property D, then it (probably) exists as the result of an intelligent designer.
   
2. The universe exhibits Property D.
   
3. Thus, the universe (probably) exists as the result of an intelligent designer, i.e., God.

Defense of Premise #1 Against Possible Objections
(All objections of the form: "watch may not imply watchmaker")

1. If we've never seen a watch made before, we may not be able to infer that the watch has a watchmaker.
   Paley's Response:

2. Suppose the watch made mistakes. If so, we shouldn't infer the existence of a watchmaker.
   Paley:

3. If a watch had parts with no discernable function, we shouldn't infer it had a watchmaker.
   Paley:

4. If a new, different watch popped out of the original watch, we'd be right to doubt the existence of a watchmaker.
   Paley:
   
   

Defense of Premise #2

1. The rotation of the planets.

2. The regular procession of the seasons.

3. The ozone layer protects life.

4. Animals suited to surroundings.

5. Human brains.

6. The eye.
   
   

1. ____________________________________________________

2. ____________________________________________________

3. _____________________________________________________

OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

1. If a thing exhibits Property D, then it (probably) exists as the result of an intelligent designer.
   
2. The universe exhibits Property D.
   
3. Thus, the universe (probably) exists as the result of an intelligent designer, i.e., God.

1. Contrivance, e.g., the Panda's thumb.

2. Vestigial structures, i.e., bits of useless anatomy, preserved as remnants of functional parts in ancestors. Examples?
   
   
   

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Cleanthes: an empiricist anthropomorphite (believes the properties of God are like human properties, only much greater).
Demea: a non-empiricist mystic (believes the properties of God are incomprehensible to us).
Philo: a skeptic (one who suspends judgment).

The Argument

1. If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, then God is not omnipotent.

2. If God is able to prevent evil, but not willing to, then God is not benevolent.

3. If there is evil in the world, then God must be either not omnipotent or not benevolent.

4. There is evil in the world.
   _________________________________________________________________
   
5. Thus, God must be either not omnipotent or not benevolent.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (AND REBUTTALS) TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

1. Accept the conclusion, i.e., God is either not omnipotent or not benevolent.

2. Denial of evil/the good far outweighs the evil.
   Philo's Response:
   1.  

   2.  

   
   
3. There is no god.

1. Evil contributes to the good of the whole (ultimate harmony).
   Rebuttal:
   
   
2. Evil is a necessary by-product of nature.
   Rebuttal:
   
   
3. We need evil to understand what good is.
   Rebuttal:
   
   
4. Evil is a punishment for sin.
   Rebuttal:
   
   
5. Evil tests humans' faith.
   Rebuttal:
   
   
6. Evil is God's warning to man.
   Rebuttal:
   
   
7. Evil builds character (virtues).
   Rebuttal:
   
   
8. This is the best of all possible worlds.
   Rebuttal:
   
   
9. God's ways are a mystery to us.
   Rebuttal:
   
   
10. God is not the cause of evil.
    Rebuttal:
    
    
11. Free Will.
    Rebuttal:
    1.  

    2.  

    3. The Divine Foreknowledge Problem:
       1. If God foreknows that I shall perform a certain act at a certain time, and
          
       2. If I am nevertheless able to refrain from that act when the time for performing it arrives, then
          
       3. I am able to thwart an item of divine knowledge, whether or not I actually do so.
          But this is absurd, if God is omniscient. So (ii) must be false, which means I have no free will.