Você está na página 1de 52

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

THINKING PHILOSOPICALLY What Are Your Religious Beliefs?


What is your definition of religion? What do you think is the purpose of religion? How would you describe your religious beliefs? Do they include a belief in God?

If so, describe your concept of God.


What was the origin of your religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs)? If your

beliefs are different from those you were raised with, explain what caused you to change your religious views.
What religious activities do you engage in (for example, worship, prayer,

meditation, communion, singing, chanting, liturgy)?


Describe the role that religious leaders and holy books play in your religion. Describe some of the symbols and myths of your religion. How does your religion view other religions?
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

FEUERBACH AND MARX ON RELIGION

LUDWIG FEUERBACH

KARL MARX

Religion is the opiate of the masses.


Through feeling, human beings worship their own positive traits writ large as God.

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM

HINDUISM: FIVE THEMES Contemplation of the Luminous Self


Reincarnation

BUDDHISM: FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS Life inevitably involves suffering, is imperfect and unsatisfactory
Suffering originates in our desires

Karma Suffering will cease if all desires cease Yogic Practices There is a way to realize this state: the Five Sacrifices

Noble Eightfold path

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM


All are monotheistic religions Judaism emphasizes rituals based on key historical events, such as the Exodus from

Egypt, that function as moral paradigms relevant to contemporary lives


Christianity, like Judaism, focuses on key historical events, but differs from Judaism

in its view that Jesus is the Son of God and savior whose sacrificial death and resurrection make it possible for people to have eternal life in heaven
Islam focuses on the Five Pillars

Shahadah: There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet Salat: a regular life of prayer (prayer five times a day is required) Zakat: a yearly setting aside of a portion of ones wealth for others Sawm: the observation of the holy month of Ramadan Hajj: the pilgramage to Mecca required once in a Moslems life (assuming adequate health and economic means to make the journey)

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

READING CRITICALLY: Analyzing the Argument for Religious Plurality


John Hicks argument for religious plurality contends that the various

religions of the world embody different responses to the ultimate divine Reality. Each religion, in attempting to express the human experience of this divine Reality, has built its own distinctive way of thinking and experiencing this Reality and has developed its own answers to the perennial questions of our origin and destiny. What is your reaction to Hicks argument? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
Hick believes that all of the major religions are based on the concept of

salvation, moving human existence from self-centeredness to Realitycenteredness. Based on what you know of various religions, do you believe this broad and inclusive definition of salvation is accurate? Why or why not? position. What arguments would you make against religious pluralism and for the existence of one true religion?
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Imagine yourself in the position of someone who disagrees with Hicks

The Ontological Argument


The strategy is to argue that the denial of Gods

existence results in a contradiction


Reductio ad Absurdem

And so it must be the case that God does exist


You want to prove that p is true so you assume

not p and show that a contradiction results. Since not p leads to a contradiction it must be the case that p is true

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Analogy with Shapes


How do we know that there are no square

circles?

Maybe there is a square circle on Pluto and we just

havent discovered it

But, if there were there would have to be some

object that was both a square and a circle


Something that was and was not a square

That is a contradiction
Therefore round squares dont exist

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Good Strategy
It is often claimed that belief in God is irrational Belief in something that conflicts with science and which no one can see

St. Anselms argument tries to turn the table on

the atheist by arguing that it is they who have the irrational belief
that square circles exist It is to assert something contradictory

To deny that God exists is as irrational as it is to say

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Ontological Argument II


We can conceive of a being than which

nothing greater can be thought

We grasp the concept of perfect being as a being

which has no equal, and we see that we cannot think of something better We understand what it would mean for there to be a being which was the greatest possible being and we see that we cant think of anything greater
So far we are only talking about the idea of God

in our mind, NOT an actually existing thing

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Ontological Argument III


But, Anselm continues, if it is possible for us to

conceive of such a being then that being must exist


Then it would be the case that I have the idea of a

For, assume that the contrary is true,

being than which nothing greater can be thought (i.e. I am thinking about the greatest thing that I can think of) And yet there were no such being in reality

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Ontological Argument IV


That would mean that I am at the same time

both

thinking of a being than which none greater can

be conceived (i.e. I am thinking about God) and not thinking of a being than which none greater can be conceived (since I can think of a greater being: namely one who exists)
Which is a contradiction; so God must exist

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

A Reply on Behalf of the Fool


I can think of an island which is the greatest I can

conceive

So it to must exist or else I am caught in the same

contradiction

I am thinking of the greatest island I can conceive

of And not thinking of the greatest island that I can conceive of So the island must exist

But this is silly! So the original argument must be

too

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

St. Anselms Reply


I can conceive of the perfect island not existing Because the perfect island, no matter how

great, is not the greatest thing that I can think of


things which I cant think of something greater island than which ever one we happen to be thinking about but I cant think of a greater being than God

Yet, the argument is only supposed to work for In other words, I can always think of a greater

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kants Response
Consider the sentence Cats are brown
Cats is the subject brown is the predicate

George is a cat
cat is the predicate

A predicate names a property


brown names the property of being brown cat names the property of being a cat

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kants Response II
A predicate names a property that an object

may or may not have

A cat may or may not be brown

An object may or may not be a cat

Now what about the sentence God exists? It looks like exists is a predicate It looks like it stands for a property, like cat or brown This it is because it is grammatically the same

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kants Response III


But it isnt logically a predicate If it were it would name a property That an object may or may not have

If it were then it would have to be the case that

some object, say a cat, could lack the property of existence


But that is absurd What could it mean to say that there was some

object (that exists) which lacked existence?

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kants Response IV
If existence were a property then it would be

impossible to say that anything did not exist


Consider Smurfs do not exist

For this sentence to be true it would have to be the

case that there was an object which was a smurf and which lacked the property of existence Just like to say that the table is not blue is to say that there is an object which is a table and lacks the property of being blue

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kants Response V
The problem with Anselms argument, then, is

that it treats existence as a predicate

It assumes that existence is something that an

object can have (or lack) And since God is thought of as having everything He must have existence (or else He wont be the greatest)
But existence doesnt name a property It is not something that we can add to an object to make it better

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kant VI
So what is existence? Predicates are contrasted with quantifiers A quantifier tells you how many of a thing you

have

some, none, all, every, many, most, one,

two, no one, somebody, a lot, etc

Existence is not a predicate, it is a

quantifier

It tells you how many of something there is at least one


Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kants Response VII


So to say that God doesnt exist is to answer the

question how many Gods?


With none

So to deny Gods existence is not contradictory


Instead of both thinking and not thinking of an

object that has maximum greatness We are thinking there are no objects with maximum greatness

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

READING CRITICALLY: Analyzing the Ontological Argument


Describe in your own words Anselms

ontological argument for the existence of God. If you did not believe in God, or if your belief in God was shaky, would this argument help convince you that there is indeed a supreme being whom we have traditionally called God? Why or why not?
Describe in your own words Gaunilos

critique of Anselms ontological argument for the existence of God. Do you find Gaunilos reasoning persuasive? Why or why not?

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

A Posteriori Arguments
We have so far been looking at an a priori

argument for the existence of God

The ontological argument relies only on the kind of

being God is and concludes that He must exist

We will now turn to looking at a posteriori

arguments

These kind of arguments all start with some fact

about the world And conclude that God must exist in order to explain the fact
The Cosmological The Teleological

Two major kinds of a posteriori arguments

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Teleological Argument


Commonly called the Argument from

Design

From Greek telos meaning end, purpose or

goal It starts from the observation that the world looks designed and concludes that there is a designer

A version of this argument is given as

Aquinass fifth way

His version focuses on the design of the universe The modern version focuses on the design of living

organisms We will come back to this argument

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Cosmological Argument


Takes its name from the Greek cosmos
Which means orderly system Starts from the observation that things come

into existence, undergo change, and cease to exist

These kind of arguments all have their

origins in Aristotle

He gave these arguments for the conclusion

that the cosmos (world) always existed These arguments are taken over by early Muslim philosophers and then find their way into Western philosophy via Aquinas

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Five Ways


St. Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence

of God

The Argument from Motion The argument from Efficient Causation The Argument from Possibility and Necessity The Argument from Degrees of Perfection The Argument from the Governance of the World

The first three are the traditional

cosmological arguments and the last is a teleological argument (all from Aristotle)
The fourth is an argument similar to the kind that

Plato gave for the existence of the forms

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Argument from Motion


When Aquinas says moved he means

changed

So change in location (what we would call

motion) is one kind of movement But so also is a piece of wood burning, a leaf turning brown etc.

Based on Aristotles theory of change


Any instance of change is some potential quality

that the object has becoming actual So when the wood is not on fire it is potentially hot In order to become actually hot the wood must be brought into contact with something that is itself actually hot
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Four Causes


Also based on Aristotles theory of the four

causes

Efficient- the agent that makes something Formal- the essence of the thing Material- the material it is made of Final- the reason that the thing is made

The wood becoming hot is explained as the

material (wood) coming to posses a new form (the form of heat) form could transmit it to receptive material

Only something which already possessed the


So, a match can light the wood on fire But something had to make the match hot, and so on
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cause and Effect


But we dont need to put the argument in

Aristotles terms

Any given change must be preceded by some thing

which brings about the change (the cause)

If you take away the cause then you take away

the effect

So consider some causal chain A1A2A3A4A5 If we take away A4 then we wouldnt have A5 If we take away A2 we wouldnt have A3, A4, or A5 If we take away A1 the whole chain would disappear So if there were no first cause then there would

be no change now; but there is. So there must be a first cause

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Objections
Maybe there is a first cause
But why think that its God?

If the argument works it shows that there

must have been a first cause

Why not the Big Bang? Or an all-powerful evil

being? Or an all-powerful stupid being? Or 20 gods working together?

Why think there has to be a first cause?


going back forever There is always some preceding cause so you cant take away the first cause (because there isnt one)

Maybe there is just an infinite series of causes

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

No First Cause
A 1 A-n A 2 A1 A 3 A 0 A 4 A 1 A n A 2 A n

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Argument from Possibility and Necessity


Possible being=a being that can exist or not exist The technical term for this is contingent Contingent beings are things like you, me, this room, your book, etc. We know that these things exist contingently because we see things that are created and destroyed A Necessary being is one that has to exist It is not possible for it not to exist A necessary being cannot be created or destroyed It always exists

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Possible Worlds
Lets introduce some technical language

that we will be using throughout the course

A possible world is a world just like the actual world

but where there are a different set of truths So, there is a possible world where Hitler won World War II, and a possible world where you did not come to class today, and so on

We can put the distinction between

necessary and contingent existence in terms of possible worlds


A contingent being is one that does not exist in

some possible world A necessary being is one that exists in every possible world

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Possibility and Necessity II


Can every being be a contingent being? If a being is a contingent being then there was a

time at which they did not exist

So, if every being were a contingent being there

would be a time at which nothing existed

But if there were a time when nothing existed

then this would be a time at which nothing existed


You cant get something from nothing

So, since something exists now not every being is

a contingent being
necessary

But if not every being is contingent then one is

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Objections
Same as before
Maybe there is a necessary being, maybe it is

matter, or the universe One unexplainable fact is as good as another

Why think there has to be a necessary

being

Maybe there is just an infinite chain of

contingent beings going back forever There is no time at which nothing exists There is always a contingent being around to create more contingent beings and each contingent being has one that precedes it

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Argument from the Governance of the World


Sometimes called the argument from design There is a modern version of this argument But Aquinas version of it depends on the

given by Paley that focuses on the design of animals and Humans


fact that there seems to be purpose in the universe

Plants follow the sun during the course of the day


But plants dont have minds, so cant have goal-

This is something that is in their best interest


directed behavior unless it is designed Just like inanimate objects we design

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

WILLIAM PALEY: The Watch and the Watchmaker

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Teleological Argument


Cleanthes makes the argument in Humes

Dialogue

The world is a giant machine We can infer by analogy that the machine had to

be designed by a mind far greater than a human one

Philo responds that the argument from

analogy is only as good as the analogy

So, consider our going to a desert island and

seeing a watch (Paleys example) We have seen watches before and know that they do not spontaneously arrange themselves So we can conclude that the watch must have been made
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Teleological Argument II
But in the case of the universe the analogy

breaks down

In the first place we do not have the necessary

experience to know whether or not the universe could spontaneously generate

In the second place we only have

experience with a small part of the universe


It is not wise to infer that the whole universe is

designed because of the way things act around here Hume make the comparison to using the growth of hair to learn about human birth

Therefore the analogy is bad


Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Teleological Argument III


But even if we were to take the analogy seriously

there are more severe problems world

A perfect God would have created a perfect


But this world contains many imperfections, so it

follows that the designer is imperfect.

In fact this is what the analogy with human

design really shows

Humans make mistakes and design imperfect things This looks like what is going on in nature So the analogy doesnt establish a perfect God

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Teleological Argument IV
Even if we can show that the world is perfect there is

no evidence that it is due to a perfect God

Analogy with human design suggests that there is usually a

long process of design and re-design where the kinks are ironed out Maybe this is just the latest in a long process of trial and error

Finally, there is no reason to think that the designer

was just one perfect God

Why not 100 gods working together One in charge of flowers, one in charge of trees, one in

charge of weeds, one in charge of beetles, etc, etc.

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

READING CRITICALLY: Analyzing the Argument from Morality


Consider your conscience or your

ingrained sense of morality. Do you believe that the existence of this deeply felt moral sense supports belief in the existence of a supremely moral mindGod? Why or why not?
In line with Kants reasoning, do

you believe in cosmic justice, the belief that good people must be rewarded with personal happiness, whether in this world or the next. Why or why not?

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

God either cannot or will not

prevent evil
If God cannot prevent evil, then

God is limited in power If God will not prevent evil, then God is limited in benevolence But if God is not limited in either power or benevolence, why is there evil in the world?

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pascals Wager
Pascal starts from the assumption that we

cannot rationally prove the existence of God


have problems None of them rationally compel a person to believe

All of the various proofs for the existence of God

So what should a rational person do?


Pascal argues that it is rational to believe in God

even in the absence of a proof of his existence

It is in our best interest to believe

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Wager
God exists Believe Infinite reward God does not exist Nothin g

Dont believe

Infinite punishme nt

Nothin g

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Process
Given the options and the fact that we must

choose it is obvious what the best choice is


We should believe

Why must we choose? Pascal argues that to not make a choice is really to choose not to believe
So what we should do is to start to go through

the motions of someone who believes


believers

Eventually we will come to actually believe We in effect brainwash ourselves into being true

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Objections
Which religion should we go and join?
Christianity? Islam?

The wager does not tell us which specific

God we should believe in

A lot of gods promise punishment for non-believers

Ignores the option of agnosticism


Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve Pascal argues that not choosing is choosing not to

believe

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Agnostic
I dont believe there is a God can

be read two different ways

On one way of reading it, it says that I do

not have a belief that God exists (nor do I have the belief that He does not exist) On the other reading it says that I do in fact believe that God does not exist The difference between ~B(G) (& ~B(~G)) and B (~G) To refuse the wager is to choose the first option
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cliffords Objection
Choosing what to believe based on which

beliefs are in your self interest is immoral

Doing so would lead to people believing all kinds

of things which would result in innocent deaths and the downfall of society

The owner of the ship knows that the

people will die, but it is in his best interest to believe that the ship is seaworthy
He is guilty of murder

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cliffords Objection II
But it is worse than that
He who believes without evidence harms mankind The danger to society is not that it should believe

wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

WILLIAM JAMES Characteristics of Mystical States of Consciousness


Ineffability

Noetic quality
Transiency Passivity

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

KIERKEGAARD, THE LEAP OF FAITH

For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it.

Without risk there is no faith.

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Você também pode gostar