Westfield Academy



AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHYMain tasks: Use fact files, poster, notebook and flow diagrams to summarise the information in each section. Research the meaning of unfamiliar terms if they are not given. Finally, in each section with essay points, try to develop each point presented based on the notes given and your own research.Building Blocks – Plato and AristotlePhilosophy – Phileow (Greek for friendship love), Sophos (Greek for wisdom), therefore in its most basic form philosophy means: ‘The Love of Wisdom’.Plato was the pupil of Socrates and later Aristotle became the pupil of Plato. Socrates was known as the ‘wisest of the wise’. He was famous for his art of asking questions, known as ‘The Socratic Method’. The technique is to not answer questions, but to ask them. Socrates was known for using this method to challenge people, which amongst the nobility created enemies that eventually led to his execution. Socrates did not write anything so what we know about him today is largely due to Plato. Plato’s early writings are more likely to conform to Socratic teaching, although his later writing (after the death of Socrates) reveals more about Plato.It is vital to note that Plato and Aristotle have two very different ways of looking at the world. For example, Aristotle would hold fact to be something that can be proved through the senses (empiricism), such as sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing, where as Plato would only hold a fact as absolute and since there is nothing absolute in material things (they are mutable – always changing), then he would hold the view that science, empiricism is not fact but opinion (i.e. it is not a fact that water always boils at 100oC, it is an opinion).Aristotle’s way of looking at the world is a posteriori.Plato’s way of looking at the world is a priori.Plato (428-347 BCE)A priori verses a posteriori.A prioriA posterioriRationalismMaterialismAbsoluteRelativeNon empiricalEmpiricalMetaphysicalPhysicalRealityIllusionPlato was a dualist – a belief that there are two separate worlds – The World of Forms (a priori, absolute, perfection, beyond space and time) and The World of Appearances (a posteriori, relative, and imperfect, within space and time, the world in which we currently inhabit). He argued that our Body and Soul is joined together for the duration of life and will separate at death. He believed that the Soul is from the World of Forms and is therefore perfect and will possess perfect knowledge (omniscience). It enters the physical body and will forget its perfect knowledge (amnesia - forgetfulness), however as we learn, we reawaken what our souls already knew (anamnesis – loss of forgetfulness). Therefore what we know is innate – we are born with it, we don’t actually learn anything new, we just remember what we had forgotten!He argued that the soul will yearn to return to the World of Forms, from where it came, however our body wishes to reside in this world, the World of Appearances. He further argued that it is important for there to be a balance (harmony) between the body and soul, whereby he used the analogy of ‘The charioteer and the two horses’ whereby the two horses (body and soul) have to be led in harmony through life.Plato believed that the world in which we live is a form of virtual reality, in that truth is what appears to us – an illusion. It is the philosopher who comes to a realisation of this and is able to break free from the chains of this illusion that shackle us to this earthly life and its illusionary pleasures and anxieties.The Allegory of the CaveAn allegory is a story that has deeper or hidden meanings. It is metaphoric and similar in nature to a parable (parallel fable), like Jesus would have taught. The images within the allegory therefore carry a symbolic meaning.This allegory is to be found in Plato’s book ‘The Republic’ which consists of a discussion (dialogue) between Plato and Glaucon, although Plato is likely to have been Socrates as the dialogue embodies the Socratic Method – the art of asking questions.The allegory is set in a cave with prisoners, from birth being chained, fixed, staring at the wall. Upon the wall shadows are cast from the puppeteers behind the prisoners. The prisoners cannot see the puppeteers, not the large fire that is used to project the light to create the illusions on the wall of the cave. The prisoners’ entire world is what they make of these shadows and the games they play. They are conditioned and led by the puppeteers who will manipulate their lives.Plato raises the question of what would happen ‘if they are disabused of their error’, that is their chains are cut and free to turn and to see where the shadows come from. Many would want to be re-chained due to their desire to remain in that which is familiar. It is the philosopher, who will have the strength and courage to make the journey into the ‘unknown’!The main source of light in the cave is cast by the great fire, however, there is a secondary source that is difficult to find, but it is the passage out of the cave (the ascent), into the greatest light of them all – the Sun. It is with difficulty that the one making the journey will have when adjusting their eyes to the brilliance of the new light. It will take time to get accustomed to it. It is here that they exist in perfect, full knowledge – the World of Forms, as opposed to the dimly lit world of the prisoners in the World of Appearances.One will wish to stay in the World of Forms but will be forced back into the World of Appearances (the descent). This will be as equally difficult and will also take time to adjust to the darkness. However, when they return they will be full of wisdom and see things quite differently to the chained prisoners. They will wish to disabuse them of their error, however they will not understand and will wish to kill the one who has been enlightened, so the philosopher will have to ‘play their games more artfully’, that is, join with them, not let them know (disingenuous)but virtuously lead them to a better way of life. This is why Plato argued that the true leaders of this world should be the virtuous philosopher.The metaphors (symbols) within the allegory:Prisoners – the ordinary people (materialists) who believe that the only world that exists is this material world in which we live.Puppeteers – the ones who control the lives of the prisoners. They manipulate the ‘games’ and exploit them for their advantage (like some world leaders, or multi-national companies may).The fire – this is a diminished (less than) light, to represent that the puppeteers are also using sources less than reality.The shadows – the games created by the puppeteers to manipulate the lives of the prisoners (materialists)The ascent – the journey into wisdom is not easy and one with which you will want to do. It will be uncomfortable at times as it will take you out of your comfort zones. You must be prepared to do this; however, the rewards and satisfaction can be great.The Sun – this is the ultimate, most perfect source of wisdom, full enlightenment, the World of Forms.The descent – the journey back is hard, as one can see so much that needs to be done within the physical, temporary world – the world of the prisoners. However, this is difficult and one will have to use their new found wisdom carefully or it can be dangerous for themselves and for others.Weaknesses of Plato’s argumentIt is an absolutist theory and is therefore fixed. It would have to be universal (for all people); however there is no concrete (empirical evidence) to suggest that the World of Forms is ‘more real’ let alone ‘real’. However (i.e. to counter argue), today, quantum mechanics in physics would suggest that it is likely for there to be additional dimensions to the one we live in. Also, is it possible to prove something which is metaphysical (a priori) with empirical/physical (a posteriori) evidence?Aristotle was critical of Plato’s argument as he did not agree with the World of Forms as this is something separate (i.e. exists in a different dimension – a priori) and not particular (existing in our three dimensional world of time and space - a posteriori). Particulars are imperfect copies of the Forms. To him, the particular, the empirical object would be more real as it is something which has direct relevance to our lives today.A philosopher as a ruler may have the academic (theoretical) skills to lead, but could well lack the practical as it is the one who works hard producing, doing things that has the greater relevance to life. Note: At one end is a priori - perfection, perfect knowledge – the World of Forms. At the other is a posteriori - imperfection, opinion, illusion – the World of Appearances.Simile of the divided lineA prioriA) Pure thought KnowledgeB) ReasonC) Belief OpinionA posterioriD) IllusionPlato’s theory of FormsPlato’s theory of Forms is based on the belief that there is a higher dimension of existence, beyond the world we currently live in (World of Appearances), the World of Forms. Forms therefore represent perfection, the ultimate reality. Life in the World of Appearances is a pale imitation of the World of Forms, hence the metaphor lying behind the Allegory of the Cave.Plato would argue that certain characteristics are innate (we are born with them), like the recognition of beauty (e.g. all babies will express fundamental emotions on their faces etc. Are they just instinctive or genetic?) He argued that we have this ‘sense’ from the World of Forms, which is why we are able to recognise it. The highest, greatest Form is the Form of the GoodA priori The GOOD Justice Truth Beauty (Universal qualities) (Concepts and Ideals) (Physical living objects) (Physical inanimate objects)A posterioriPlato argued most things conform to a Form (not things like number and evil). Ideal forms have the goodness in common as the most important is the Form of Good. Note that in the diagram above are different levels, a hierarchy or pyramid. The top three all relate to a priori and the bottom two to a posteriori (see the simile of the divided line). Furthermore, Plato would argue that every physical thing as a Form, for example, a cat has a Form – the Form of a cat, a human has one – the Form of a human. All cats, for example will be a diminished version of the Form of a cat and so on. The cat will be mutable (changing) in the World of Appearances, whereas the Form of a cat will be immutable (unchanging) in the World of Forms.Strengths:Explains how we can readily recognise a dog as having a ‘dogness’ about them, although there are many varieties of dog.Explains imperfection.Encourages questioning, not accepting physical things as being absolute.Weaknesses No physical evidence to ‘prove’ Plato’s World of Forms.Goodness is ‘impossible’ to define.Can every physical thing have an ideal Form? Can you have a Form of a cat and a human? If so what would it be like, a ‘humat’?Our senses work, why should they be inferior?How does the World of Forms actually relate to the ‘World of Appearances’?Aristotle (384-322 BCE)Plato argued reason (a priori) comes first when seeking true knowledge.Aristotle argued we must start with experience (a posteriori).What is proof?This can be argued from either an a priori or an a posteriori position.A proof is a premise or proposition (ideas) with an agreed conclusion.An argument is at least two premises/propositions and a conclusion.The dimensions1st dimension - a straight line – backwards and forwards2nd dimension- a flat shape (e.g. a square) – backwards and forwards; left and right.3rd dimension- a shape with volume/space (e.g. a cube) – backwards and forwards; left and right; up and down.4th dimension- a lot of philosophers argue this is outside space and timeDifference between eternity and everlastingEternity – outside of space and timeEverlasting – infinity (going on forever) within space and timeDifference between potentiality and actualityPotentiality – when something contains the ingredients to become something else, or what can be possibly achieved (I have a target minimum grade of a C, but potentially can achieve a B)Actuality – when an object fulfils it potential and becomes something else, or when what was possible to achieve has been achieved (e.g. I got my grade B in my A Level)Aristotle is known as the father of science as it was he who first established the scientific method of testing hypothesis. He travelled widely and had written over 400 books on subjects such as logic, physics, biology, zoology, ethics, politics, economics, psychology and metaphysics, although his writings survive today in the form of lecture notes that were preserved in the early Islamic universities. Due to his lecture notes being difficult to read, it is acknowledged that this can lead to difficulties in interpretation.Aristotle and causeAristotle developed the universal theory of causation, in that everything has a cause and an effect. Things come into existence as a product of something else. Generally, nothing can be in existence because of itself.Aristotle’s Four Causes(Mnemonic: Mary Eats Fish Fingers)Material cause – what something is made of (e.g. a chair is made of wood)Efficient cause - who, what or how something came into being (e.g. a chair is made by a carpenter)Formal cause – the features that enable the object to fit into a category (e.g. the chair has legs and is designed to be sat on).Final cause – the ultimate reason for its existence, what is it for, the teleology (its end or purpose) of movement (can link to Plato’s Forms). It is conceptual, metaphysical.Aristotle’s idea of GodAristotle argued for the existence of a Prime Mover (something that caused everything to come into existence in the first place). Later, philosophers like Aquinas would argue this was God. Based on Aristotle’s universal theory of causation he came to the conclusion that there would be the problem of infinite regression. That is, things can’t go back forever infinitely as there would have to be some point where the very first thing began. However, this would have to be something out of nothing. This is impossible, so there would have to be something outside of space and time to start the process. This he called ‘The Prime Mover’, the Prime Mover had to exist: ‘There must be a mover which moves them, without being moved, eternal and a substance and actual’. Aristotle Metaphysics.He argued everything must have a Final Cause; a purpose for being here, nothing can come from nothing. Ultimately this Prime Mover is the Final Cause.Aristotle’s idea of God is therefore something not dependent upon something else, immutable, no potential to change, so is pure actuality, perfect. It is eternal, immaterial, thought of thought and can only think of himself. This idea will portray God as sterile, unable to interact with imperfection (as this will make him imperfect) and is often viewed in philosophy as the simple notion of God. God is therefore a Form without Matter.Weaknesses How can a God be so powerful and not know of it?How can matter come from thought alone?Does there have to be a reason for the existence of the universe? It could just be!Could there be an everlasting chain, like reincarnation?Building blocks – Judaeo/Christian understanding of GodThe Euthyphro Dilemma‘Are things good because God commands them to be good, or does God command them because they are already good?’ Platoi.e. Does goodness come from God, or is goodness external to God and God has to be subject to these external rules which would make him less than omnipotent?God the CreatorAristotle’s view of God (Simple notion)Biblical view of God (Complex notion – Classical Monotheism)EternalPrime MoverSterileLogicEternalPrime MoverGod interactsFaithAlso, in the Biblical view, God is immanent, transcendent.He is the master craftsman, creates by word alone and commands things into existence.Creatio ex nihilo – God creates out of nothingGenesis 1 & 2 contains two creations stories.Genesis 1 – God creates the world in 6 days and rests on the 7th. Adam is created on the 6th. It is argued to be largely an a posteriori account, describe the creation of a physical world.Genesis 2 – God creates Adam first, in Eden. It is largely a priori, metaphorically providing an account for the fall of Adam and Eve. God gives free will, through the eating of the Tree of Knowledge between good and evil (conscience). Humans are created in the image of God, to be able to choose (free will). Will live for a short period in an a posteriori existence (Genesis 1), before returning after eating of the Tree of Life.The Goodness of GodAnthropomorphisation – to ascribe to God human like attributesAttributes – qualities that are assigned to someone, or God in particular (e.g. God is good, God is merciful, God is omnipotent etc)Epistemic distance – the distance between God’s knowledge and ours. Humans have a tendency to ascribe qualities onto God in the way we think of them. For example, what may appear good to us may be loathsome to God, or vice versa.Righteous indignation – God rightfully gets angry.Issues:God as portrayed through the Bible can be mixed:Good qualities:Benevolent – loving, kindOmnipotent - all powerfulOmniscient – all knowingOmnipresent – all presentEternal – going on forever outside of space and timePerfection – nothing can be greater, of a higher standard, absoluteImmutable - unchangingInteractive - a perfect, immutable being getting involved in an imperfect, mutable existenceGiver of free will – basis of the Free Will Defence argumentCreatio ex nihilo – God creates out of nothingForgiving – God is able to make reparationsMerciful - forgiving wrongsCompassionate – to suffer withQuestionable qualities:Jealous – to feel bitterness or anger to someone for what they possessPetty - doing small things that are selfish or unkindUnjust - unfairUnforgiving – not being able to make reparationsVindictive – being deliberately hurtfulBloodthirsty – eager to use violenceGenocidal – the murder of all members of a particular group or raceMisogynist - woman haterHomophobic – fearful of homosexualityFilicidal – the killing of one’s own son’s or daughter’sPestilential - dangerous, troublesome, harmful, annoyingMegalomaniacal - delusional fantasies of wealth, power, omnipotenceCapriciously malevolent - subject to whim, impulsive and unpredictable, wish harm on othersJewish Biblical response:Jews respond to God’s goodness through obedience. God is the Law Giver. God is like a concerned parent – righteous indignationGod punishes wrong-doersJob suffers and does not question God’s judgement; he accepts the calamities set upon him graciously from God.Christian Biblical response:Christians see God’s goodness equates to love and see the creation of the world as an act of love.Christians respond to God’s goodness through obedience. God is the Law Giver. Christians see God’s goodness in the person of Jesus: ‘For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.’ God is interactive, interacting as a human through Jesus (i.e. God is anthropomorphised through Jesus – hence the incarnation).The teachings and actions of Jesus reflect God’s goodness.God’s goodness is not potential but actual.Arguments for the existence of God – The Ontological ArgumentAn argument for the existence of God is an attempt to try to prove God exists through the use of argument.The arguments will use either a priori or a posterior evidence as a means to attempt to prove God.A priori arguments:A posteriori arguments:Ontological argumentCosmological argumentMoral argumentTeleological argumentPhilosophical definitions of:Proof: a premise/proposition with an agreed conclusion. Proof is always self authenticating.Argument: at least TWO premises/proposition with a conclusion.The Ontological Argument‘Ontos’ is old Greek for ‘being’ or ‘exist’. In philosophy ontology is the study of existence, i.e. how do we know something exists?Anselm’s argument (1st Formulation): P1‘God is a being than which nothing greater can be thought of’.P2Something that exists in reality (a posteriori) has to be greater than that just in thought (a priori).P3A greater being may be thought (a priori) of, but it cannot be God unless it exists in reality (a posteriori) as well.CTherefore God exists.Issues:God, by this definition has to exist, it is impossible to be an atheist.Does it actually define God? God could be anything that embodies ‘greatness’. God could be ‘the universe’, could be ‘you’!Note: this is an a priori argument, it is based on thought (concept), but then it forces it to be a posteriori (in reality). Is this fair? Does it work? Can a metaphysical God ever be a posteriori?Gaunilo’s (The monk) criticism:One could imagine a perfect island. Gaunilo suggested ‘the island would be even better if it was real rather than just in imagination, then, according to Anselm, that island must exist.’But does it?Anselm replies (2nd Formulation):P4 God is eternal, so is not limited by physical restraints, like a physical island.P5Anything mortal cannot be as great as that which is immortal.P6God is immortal, he exists necessarily (has to exist). CGod therefore has to exist, both in thought (a priori) and in reality (a priori).From a conceptual point of view, the argument has to succeed, although it will fail from a posteriori view.Key words:Contingency – (a posteriori) things come into and out of existence.Necessary – (a priori) absolute, logically impossible not to be true.Analytic (a priori) (necessary) – a statement that is true by definition, no evidence (a posterior) is needed.Synthetic (a posterior) (contingent) – a statement in which the predicate is not a necessary part of the description of the subject. E.g. ‘The mermaid has a large comb.’Anselm’s Ontological Argument is analytic, necessary.Descartes (1596-1650) – Rationalist.‘God is a supremely perfect being’ – will contain all attributes of perfection.Existence is a necessary part of God.Descartes used analytic statements – e.g. all triangles have three sides and angles, all mountains have valleys.(The exam may try to catch you out! For example, they could ask the question ‘(a) Explain Descartes version of the Ontological Argument. (b) Does Descartes version of the Ontological Argument succeed? Discuss’)Critics of the Ontological ArgumentEmmanuel Kant (1724-1804) – the first to call this type of argument ‘Ontological’. He believed in the existence of God but challenged the premises of the argument.Kant’s 1st criticism:The Ontological Argument is analytic, so by definition has to be true. A definition alone will not be able to prove God’s existence, it only proves the concept. That is, something cannot be defined into existence (a posteriori).Kant’s 2nd criticism:Predicate – the part of the sentence that is not the subject, e.g. ‘I decided what to do’ – the subject is ‘I’ and the predicate is ‘decided what to do.’ Note, ‘decided what to do’ tells you nothing about the subject ‘I’! Likewise the statement: ‘God exists’ is similar. ‘God’ is the subject, ‘exists’ is the predicate, it tells you nothing about what God is! By definition, God has to exist anyway!Kant used the example of silver coins. An imaginary number of a 100 coins will be the same number as a 100 real coins, the ‘number’ being the predicate does not bring the coins into existence.Conclusion:It is not possible to define God in words; God cannot be experienced through the senses. It is impossible to define God through earthly, worldly experiences as they are mainly a posteriori. Human language is limited in explaining metaphysical experiences.The Ontological Argument is a priori and has to always be true by definition. However an argument has to have more than two premises. Does the Ontological Argument actually have more than one (i.e. God exists)?Many argue the argument to be weak as in the end there is nothing empirical in it.Arguments for the existence of God - The Cosmological ArgumentAlso known as causationThis argument is ‘a posteriori’Aquinas – 5 Ways:Mnemonic (My Cat Plays Nearby Most Days)Unmoved MoverUncaused CauserPossibility & NecessityMoral ArgumentDesign ArgumentAquinas said:P1: Nothing comes from nothingP2: The universe exists, so something must have made itC: That can only be GodHume criticises it:Does the universe have to have a beginning – could the universe be infinite – everlasting?A belief in God is an arbitrary (random) act of the mind, therefore there is no a posterior evidence to support it.Cause and effect could be a statistical conjunction, in that we observe things (e.g. the domino effect) but we must not assume how it began. It may be logical, but not necessarily true.Why should Aristotle’s view of God be associated with the Christian view? It could be more of a simple God (i.e. Aristotle’s sterile view of God). Why not have male and females gods that could be causal. J.L. Mackie – series of hooks need a wall to support it. What if there is no wall? The chain would fall apart, just like the argument. If there’s no wall, there’s no Prime Mover.Aquinas’ first three of his five ways links to the Cosmological Argument.1st Way: Movement (Motion), everything that physically exists moves, changes. All change is changed by something, because nothing can come from nothing. Therefore there must be a Prime Mover, who is God.2nd Way: Causation, everything is caused, something cannot cause itself, so there must be a First Causer, who is God.3rd Way: Possibility and Necessity, nothing physical is permanent (immutable) in a physical world, it is contingent. It could equally not exist, however we know that things do exist. They can’t come from nothing. All things are contingent, so must come from God.The Copleston (Catholic/Theist) vs Russell (Agnostic) radio debate 1948.Copleston argued that objects exist, no object can be the reason for its own existence. The universe is an object, therefore must have a reason for its existence (look at Aquinas’ argument). Conclusion, there must be a being outside the universe.Russell then argued that the word necessary applies to propositions (look at Kant’s objection to the Ontological Argument), so by definition God has to exist. However, God could be logically denied. Russell challenges Copleston over the definition of sufficient reason.Copleston saw ‘cause’ as a kind of sufficient reason, with only contingent beings having a cause, but God is his own sufficient reason, not the cause of himself.Russell challenges by arguing when is a reason sufficient enough? He goes onto argue that we cannot know the cause of the universe due to there perhaps being many chains of events – we just don’t know (i.e. is it relevant asking the question in the first place?)Copleston later argued against Russell point of the universe being just there and that’s all with the analogy of a game of chess. ‘One refusing to sit at a chessboard and make a move, then one cannot be checkmated’, that is philosophical arguments will get nowhere if one doesn’t engage in the argument. Arguments for the existence of God – The Teleological ArgumentThe Teleological Argument is otherwise known as the ‘Design Argument’Teleos – Old Greek for ‘End’ or ‘Purpose’. For example, one designs things for a given end or purpose, hence ‘Teleological Argument’. Think of the words ‘Telephone’, ‘Television’, ‘Telepathy’ and consider why the word ‘Tele’ is used!Two main types of Teleological Argument:Argument to design (Aquinas) – God planned, designed the world leading to a purpose.Argument from design (Paley) – Paley looked at regularity and purpose in the world and from this induced the existence of God.i.e. God was looking to what was to be done, Paley was looking from what was done to God.Aquinas’ argument:P1: When you look at the natural world you can see that everything in it follows natural laws, even if the things are not conscious, thinking beings.P2:If things follow natural laws they tend to do well and have some goal or purpose.P3: However, if a thing cannot think for itself it does not have any goal or purpose unless it is directed by something that thinks: Take an arrow as an example. It can only be directed to its goal and used for its purpose by someone, such as an archer.C:Everything in the natural world that does not think for itself heads towards its goal or purpose because it is directed by something which does think. That something we call ‘God’.Issues:Aquinas provides no a posteriori evidence to support his arguments:He assumed the natural world to have a purpose, it may not.Does, as Aquinas claimed, everything follow a general law set down by a designer? The natural world could be as it is without any designer. Richard Swinburne argues Aquinas’ position assumes that God imposes regularity on the universe. Would this make God responsible for bad design, evil?Paley’s argument:Part 1If you found a rock you could conclude that it had been there forever and think nothing more about it. However, if you found a watch and examine it to find it had moving parts, this will demonstrate that:P1:The watch was designed for a purpose.P2:The watch must have a watch maker.P3:The World is a much more complicated machine.P4:The World must have a World maker.C:The maker of the world must be God.Part 2P5:Suppose the watch had another imaginary function: that of producing other watches.P6:If this were the case, your admiration for the watchmaker would be increased.C:Any person finding such a watch would conclude that the design of the watch implies ‘the presence of intelligence and mind.’, e.g. God. Issue:Paley’s watch is a machine and he assumed the world is likewise an organised machine. However, is it appropriate to compare a human made, inanimate machine, to that of an eye? Is the analogy too wide to make it valid? Perhaps it would be better to compare a carrot to the world. Why? Richard Dawkins in his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ examines this issue.Hume’s criticism’s of the Teleological Argument (remember Hume is a materialist).(Note: Hume wrote a few years before Paley, although his criticisms will still apply to Paley’s arguments.) To compare God to anything created in the world is an invalid analogy (look at the carrot example above).Since we live in the world, we can’t compare it to any other worlds as we have no experience of them, making the analogy invalid.The world contains many faults, irregularities, it is not perfect. How far can this be reconciled (compared to) an omni-benevolent God?Machines can go wrong, so too can the world. How could this be compared to God?In theory God may have created the world, but this does not imply God exists now (neglect theory).Machines can be seen to be made by humans, no one has seen who makes the world.If the universe is created by God, why one God and not many?The Epicurean Thesis:Hume suggested this as a possible explanation for design.Epicurus suggests an everlasting notion of time, with a huge number of finite particles. Given such long periods of time, there would, by chance, be certain combinations of particles that will present a stable order (e.g. natural selection), appearance of design. Such stable groups of particles would again at random link to others, thus by a degree of naturally ordered chance, the world came into being. (Perhaps Darwin wasn’t the first to develop such a theory!)Charles Darwin (1809 -1882)During Darwin’s voyage around the Galapagos Islands, he noted species shared similarities, but had their differences. He argued that over time this would lead to greater variations (developed from Lyell’s work and inspired by Malthus’ calculus – where animals thrive and die depending on food supplies).From this Darwin developed the theory of ‘Natural selection’ and ‘Survival of the fittest’.Darwin initially supported Paley’s teleological argument, but due to his scientific studies rejected it. Hence, his theory suggested humans have evolved as a result of natural selection, to later develop the power of rational thought. This is a contrast to the account in Genesis where humans were created at the beginning, being perfect and falling into sin.John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)Mill challenged the ‘goodness of nature’ due to the apparent cruelty within it. He used the example of the female digger wasp who would lay her egg in another insect (caterpillar, grass hopper etc), whilst doing so, will sting the prey, paralysing it, but not killing it so that its egg can thrive. He argued that suffering in life should take into account animal suffering and not just be anthropocentric from its point of view. The point being, if the design of the world is from God, then it is not perfect.Anthropic PrincipleF.R. Tennant in the 1930’s put forward this principle whereby nature will plan in advance for the needs of humans. God could have readily planned the world to be self regulating, have the food chain that will readily be deemed as being a chain of suffering, but it is set for the purpose of humans.Consider:God may want the world structured the way it is. Humans are destined to suffer (Free Will Defence argument). Ultimate perfection will not be found in this world but in the transcendent one beyond – heaven.Arguments for the existence of God - Kant’s Moral ArgumentKant’s argument is a priori as it starts from an a priori point, leading to a posteriori evidence to support it. His argument does not attempt to prove God exists, but points to probability of God existing. He uses the idea of ‘the moral law within us’ as evidence for this.‘Good will shines forth like a precious jewel.’ KantKant’s Moral Argument:Some actions can be universally deemed to be either right or wrong and are not culturally relative (e.g. murder, rape). Such universals are objective (i.e. you can potentially physically see a murder or a rape), hence is notion of a moral objective law. Thus, we should all have an obligation to follow it as this is rational. To know what is right means to follow the categorical imperative (an end in itself). Duty is doing the right thing for no other reason than duty (hence deontological). Virtue can only then be for duty’s sake.Kant argued that we are obliged to be moral without the expectation of a reward (otherwise it would be the hypothetical imperative (a means to an end). Ultimate happiness or perfection cannot occur in this world, hence the importance of a belief in immortality. One should however, strive for the Summum Bonum (the highest good). It is the movement from potentiality to actuality in this life. God must therefore exist for there to be a Summum Bonum.The argument put simply:P1: Universal moral objective law exists (e.g. murder, rape)P2: It is the duty to do the right thing for duty’s sakeP3: All leads towards the Summum Bonum.C: Since the Summum Bonum exists, then so too must God.Kant’s Three Postulates (probable) of MoralityFreedom – one can only make a moral decision if one is free to carry it out.Immortality – Virtuous acts don’t always end in good things, happiness. Perfection will ultimately come in Heaven, the life after.God – Since there is an afterlife, where the Summum Bonum is achieved, then God is the necessary connection with virtue.The challenge of FreudSigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) argued that morality was the product of the mind and not of any divine (godly) intervention. It has psychological causes. He argued that the mind regresses into the comforts of childhood, rather than face the awareness of an external force.Id (pleasure principle) – expression of physical needsEgo (reality principle) – we learn to regulate our needs in accordance with our surroundingsSuper ego – internalised echoes of the past, the conscience is a component of thisA neurosis is a clash between the rational and the irrational.Kant – morality is something everybody reasons for themselvesFreud – our superego is the result of experience and unbringingChallenges to Religion - The Problem of Evil Augustine (354-430 CE) wrote: ‘Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot then he is not omnipotent; if he will not then he is not omni-benevolent’ (Otherwise known as ‘The Inconsistent Triad’).Put simply: ‘How can an all loving God allow innocent suffering?’Difficulties:Is it fair for one who has committed a minor sin like becoming angry to be punished (i.e. go to hell) the same as one who has deliberately killed millions?The issue may not be to do with whether there is evil in the world, but rather can God be compatible with it?If God is the creator/originator of everything, then he must be responsible for the origin of evil. Even if he allowed a lesser being (e.g. the devil) to instigate evil, God still allowed it to happen.If God saw that his creation was ‘good’, perfect, then how could evil originate from that which is perfect?If God is the originator of evil and has created man like him (i.e. give humans free will), then does that give licence for humans to commit evil?These of course would not be a problem for the atheist.What is evil? A priori – a concept perceiving wickedness, harmful, immoral activity.What is suffering? Both a priori and a posteriori – both conceptual and physical/mental affliction of wicked, harmful, immoral activity – this focuses on the experience of evil.Types of evil:Moral evil – evil that arises from human actions like murder, rape, theft etc.Natural evil – evil that is a result of events beyond human control like earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis etc.Issue: Which of the two (moral or natural evil) is harder to reconcile with an omni-benevolent God?TheodiciesA theodicy is an attempt to justify the existence of evil with an omni-benevolent God.(Gk: Theos – God, Dike – righteous = righteous God)A theodicy is a defence argument against evil.Does evil exist?Only as a concept, suffering exists both physically and conceptually.Dualist view: God = Good; Devil = Bad. They are opposing (two – dual) forces in conflict.Monist view: God = Good. The only force is God (goodness). Evil does not exist as a force, but is purely the lack of goodness – it is a privation (e.g. darkness is the absence of light, black the absence of white, evil the absence of good). Therefore if evil does not exist, then there is no problem.Can it ever be possible to find absolute answers to the problem of evil?Wiesel’s play ‘Trial of God’ Three rabbis put God on trial in Auschwitz, find him guilty. Punishment – they went off to pray!They knew, they did not know the answers!The two classical theodiciesThe Augustinian theodicy (354-430 CE) – he doesn’t formulate a direct theodicy, but it is induced from his writings.Augustine’s inconsistent triad:Evil, God is Omnipotent, God is Good.P1Soul deciding – people’s response to evil that decides their destiny.P2God created everything good.P3Evil is not a substance of God.P4Evil is a privation.P5Evil therefore does not exist as a product of God.CTherefore there is no problem!God created ex nihilo (out of nothing).God created humans with the ability to be free, made in His image. Since, humans have free will, they can actualise evil. So evil does exist in the world, but not as a force from God, but as a force from humans.This may answer the problem from a moral evil perspective, but not natural.The response: God created angels – they are the source of natural evil.Augustine also taught (as a Christian), Adam brought sin in the world, the fall of Adam (not God), Christ brings redemption (forgiveness). This was part of God’s plan – note, God may not be directly responsible for evil, but he endorses the hypothetical imperative!God can be omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, can do anything within his power, but will not do things inconsistent with his nature.The Irenaean theodicy (130 – 202 CE)P1 Soul making – the presence of evil that helps one’s soul to grow and develop spiritually.P2 Humans were not created perfect, but develop towards perfection.P3 Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise to mature them.C Evil is not to be viewed as a problem, but as a means to achieve a knowledge of perfection, evil thus becomes part of what it means to be human.John Hick (1922-) develops Irenaeus’ theodicy further:Making man in God’s image is the culmination of evolution.Humans been given the challenge of responsibility.God created humans at an epistemic distance (distance of knowledge between God and man is so great, it is difficult for humans to understand it, therefore a human perception of God, like in the problem of evil the distance is so great, what might appear as a problem to us, is a mercy from God).This theodicy necessitates a belief in the free will defence argument. That is there has to be evil to instigate a knowledge of good.AugustineSoul decidingFree will defencePrivationMonistIrenaeusSoul makingFree will defenceEvil necessary for spiritual growthDualistWeaknesses (look back at the difficulties)Augustine:What if evil isn’t a privation, but a force in its own right? The Bible does explicitly refer to the Devil on many occasions.Why would some have to suffer more than others? His idea about human’s beginning as perfect and then falling from grace is the opposite of the Theory of Evolution.Hell and Satan would have to have been created by God, making God culpable for evil.If God created angels as the source for natural evil, then he becomes responsible for such evil, in the same way, if he created humans to be evil, the same applies.Irenaeus:As a means to an end, how much suffering is necessary to teach a lesson.Why would God single some out more than others for greater reward or punishment?Would a loving God use evil?God could have created humans to be morally perfect in the first place.Challenges to Religion - Religion verses ScienceIs God the most rational way to explain the existence of the universe?Do faith answers go beyond contemporary science or is science just merely a faith stance like any other?Empiricism (a posteriori) asks ‘how’, non-empiricism (a priori) asks ‘why’.How far is science at odds or compatible with religion?The relationship between science and religion is often over simplified through the media.In Hinduism and Islam in particular there never has really been this conflict. Both faiths view religion and science in harmony. The debate has largely been centred around a literal understanding of the Bible in Christianity and as a consequence has dominated in the West, centring around whether the Bible is the reflection of truth or is it Science?Richard Dawkins – Biological materialist, atheist. Takes the position that our a posteriori world is all that there is. Any form of other ‘dimensional existence’ has no empirical evidence to support it. The soul is the mind/brain, dying at death with the brain being like a complex computer. He takes a determinist position arguing that freedom is therefore an illusion. He regards to believe in God is to be as ridiculous as to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.Charles Darwin – Developed the theory of evolution by natural selection. It does not argue whether God exists or not, but does provide a theory for the existence of the universe without the need for a God. Neo-Darwinists argue that the world needs to be at least 4.6 billion years old in order for evolution to take place.Creationists generally believe in the literal interpretation of the Creation Story in the Bible, with the earth being created in six days and being about 6,000 years old.The different positions:Empiricist – the truth is as based on empirical evidence.Creationist – the truth is based on Biblical revelation.The Bible makes claims: God created the worldThe world is about 6,000 years old (according to its genealogies)Man is in dominion over the earthScience can claim:The world can exist physically through chanceThe world has to be at least 4.6 billion years old for evolution to take placeMan is like any other virus on the earthIt becomes clear why both were at odds – the Bible is based on faith claims, whereas Science is using a posteriori evidence to support its claims. What would you believe?Much of the challenge comes through the insistence on believing in the Bible literally (i.e. it has to be word for word true), whereas if the Bible were to be understood non-literally (analogically) then many of the problems would cease and a number of the issues would be bridged.In the early Church, bishops like Augustine argued that the Bible should not be understood literally, but rather symbolically. It was not until the reformation that certain Churches started to place greater interpretation on a literal one. It was this that largely led to the confrontation.CreationScientists and theologians both agree and disagree about how the earth came into existence. No one was there, so any answers are based on either rational theories or statements of faith based on revelation. They can be either at odds or in harmony with each other.The Big Bang theoryEdwin Hubble (1920’s) - Red Shift – he observed that stars become redder the further they travelled away from the earth. He induced the belief that the universe is expanding. Through calculating the rate of movement he argued when the universe must have began, which he called ‘the Big Bang’, a cosmic explosion of massive energy from which all matter is formed.Theological explanationsCreationists believe the Bible gives factual accounts as to how the universe began. Creationism is a reaction to the growth of Darwinism in the 19th century and is particularly strong in the USA. Such Christians often take a literal view of the creation story.Other theologians see creation and evolution as being linked, a part of God’s ongoing plan. Such Christians take a metaphorical view of the creation story.The Rev. John Polkinghorne, professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge believes that the Big Bang doesn’t stop a belief in God, as God upholds and maintains the universe. He sees this through the rational order and beauty of the universe. The creation story is not a tale told by an idiot, but one that gives hope and deepens an understanding of the relationship between God and his creation.The astronomer Professor Fred Hoyle, an atheist, recognises the difficulties in explaining some of his discoveries as there must be some form of super-calculating intelligence designing the properties of the carbon atom as it could not happen by chance, like a tornado sweeping through a scrap yard and assembling a Boeing 747.Richard Dawkins sees evolution as not being a faith position, but fact as it is supported by scientific evidence.EvolutionDarwinThe book ‘On the Origin of Species’ was Darwin’s work based on his observations on his voyage on the HMS Beagle through the South Pacific, visiting the Galapagos Islands etc. He continued to develop the theory of natural selection, noting how animals adapt to their environment, with the survival of the fittest. Animals that survive pass on their characteristics to future generations, thus allowing for evolution to take place.This challenged the Church’s teaching of God being the creator with each species being created for a specific purpose. Darwin was putting forward a theory that could explain creation without God.These theologians see evolution as part of God’s plan:Rev Arthur Peacocke, Oxford physical biochemist and Anglican priest – humans possess the capacity to know the processes of how they evolved, thus distancing them from other primates.Denis Alexander, Cambridge geneticist - argues that God uses evolution in order to create intelligent life.Michael Behe – Professor of microbiology – argues that the bacteria flagellum is so complex, with a motor, that it could not have evolved by chance, but evolved through design. He uses the argument of irreducible complexity (organisms are too complex to evolve by chance) and Intelligent Design (the universe has a designer, rather than existing through random or undirected natural processes).Main tasks: Use fact files, poster, notebook and flow diagrams to summarise the information in each section. Research the meaning of unfamiliar terms if they are not given. Finally, in each section with essay points, try to develop each point presented based on the notes given and your own research. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download