Intro to Philosophy Phil 110 Lecture 3: 1-16 Daniel Kelly I. Mechanics A. Upcoming Readings 1. Today we ll discuss a. Aquinas s The Summa Theologica (The Cosmological Argument) b. Anselm, Proslogium (The Ontological Argument) 2. Thursday a. Paley, Natural Theology (The Teleological Argument) b. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion c. Dennett, Show Me the Science A. Down the road a bit: 3. Sign up for Monitored Attendance: Today 1/16 a. Sign in sheets will begins in lecture Thursday 1/18) 4. First Papers Due: In class, Tuesday 2/6 5. Midterm Exam: in class, Thursday 3/1 New Chapter: Philosophy of Religion I. Some Preliminaries A. Loosening Up Some Intuitions B. General points 1. We need to do more preliminary work than usual in this chapter 2. These are questions and issues that many of you already have beliefs and opinions about a. Sometimes strongly held beliefs and opinions b. Sometimes beliefs and opinions that are emotionally laden c. Sometimes opinions that others don t agree with 3. Some ground rules need to be set down a. To help make discussion and debate productive, stimulating, and respectful b. Also to pin down exactly what it is that we re going to be talking about, so people are talking about the same thing C. Basic God or Basic JCM God, Central claims of Western Monotheism 1. God is omnipotent (all powerful) 2. God is omniscient (all knowing) 3. God is perfectly benevolent (completely good) 4. God created the universe 5. God loves us, his human creations 6. God is worthy of our praise, worship, and awe 7. God is still around (i.e. he is not dead, as Nietzsche claimed) D. These claims are shared by the 3 major Western Monotheistic religion 1. Judaism 2. Christianity 3. Islamic or Muslim religions a. This is the god we will focus on in this chapter b. I ll call the Basic God, or JCM God
E. There are other religious claims accepted by some of these major Western Monotheistic religions, but not accepted by others 1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God (C)/ Jesus is not Son of God (just an important prophet) (J,M) 2. Mohammed visited heaven on a winged horse (M)/ Mohammed did not visit heaven on a winged horse (C,J) F. Some fundamental questions about religion are 1. Which of these claims is true? 2. Which of these claims should you believe? G. They can t all be true, and they can t all be believed 1. Both of these claims can t be true a. Mohammed visited heaven on a winged horse b. Mohammed did not visit heaven on a winged horse 2. Likewise, a person can t (rationally) believe both a. That Mohammed visited heaven on a winged horse AND b. That Mohammed didn t visit heaven on a winged horse 3. Different people certainly can and do believe different things 4. It s a delicate issue, but everyone can t be right some of us have religious beliefs that are false H. Tolerance and Truth 1. Tolerance is accepting people with different or opposing views, that you might disagree with 2. While we want tolerance, we re not going to pretend there isn t any disagreement a. In particular, locutions like true-for-me don t make any sense i. It can t be true-for-me that the JCM God exists ii. But true-for-you that the JCM God doesn t exist b. Similarly, it doesn t make any sense to say i. It s true-for-you that Oswald shot JFK, but truefor-me that Oswald didn t shoot JFK ii. Or it s true-for-you that the Purdue Bell tower is taller than 150 feet, but true-for-me that the Purdue Bell tower shorter than 150 feet tall 3. In cases of disagreement like this a. Where one of us believes one claim b. And the other believes an incompatible claim 4. One of us has a false belief a. We might not know which of us has the true belief and who has the false one (epistemological issue) b. But that s very different point than the truth or falsity of the beliefs themselves (metaphysical issue) II. The Cosmological Argument A. Preliminaries 1. 1 st of 3 major arguments, called the Classical Trinity of arguments for the existence of God (along with Ontological and Teleological) a. The God in all of them is the Basic JCM God
i. We re stipulating these features for our discussion, but they aren t arbitrary ii. Come from, are tacit in the tradition, we re making explicit b. All 3 arguments that make up the Classic Trinity seek to establish same conclusion the Basic JCM God exists c. They re all trying to establish that conclusion using only nonreligious premises i. So as not to beg the question ii. You might think of this as starting from point of Socratic Ignorance 2. St. Thomas Aquinas Fun Facts a. 1225-1274, Italian, Dominican Monk, Catholic Saint, instrumental in bringing issues of faith and reason into dialogue b. Summa Theologica i. Translate as, roughly, Compendium of Theology ii. We read only a snippet from it iii. It is Aquinas most famous writing, which was used as an introduction manual for priests & theologians iv. Largly because of the discussion of it, Aquinas remains one of the names most closely associated with the Cosmological Argument A. Also called Unmoved Mover or 1 st Cause Argument B. There are a couple of versions presented, all have a roughly similar form, or at least gist C. We ll collapse them down, focus on two versions 3. Editorial Comment: a. Aquinas s text i. Starts with 2 objections, which he sets aside ii. He then gives 5 positive argument for the existence of God iii. Then returns to the 2 objections that he started with and offers replies to them b. Our purposes i. I ll present the gist of the general line of thought behind the Cosmological argument in 2 versions ii. You ll only be responsible for these two versions on exams and papers B. 1 st Version 1. Every event ( movement actuality ) must have a cause 2. This chain of causation events caused by other events can t extend backwards in time indefinitely or forever 3. So there must be a First Cause (Prime or Unmoved Mover) 4. That First Cause is God GOD -> -Event t=1 -> -> Event t=n-2 -> Event t=n-1 -> Event t=now
C. Skeptical Objections to the 1 st Version 1. Questioning the 2 nd premise: a. Why can t there be an infinite chain extending backwards in time? b. Looping or circular causal chains? i. Nothing seems to definitely rule these possibilities out, and no argument has been given against them ii. Modern physics finds out some exceedingly strange things indeed, relativity theory says that spacetime is infinite but bounded, etc. 2. Questioning the 1 st premise: a. Why can t some natural event occur with no cause at all? b. Again, no argument is given c. And modern physics comes up with some strange things i. Perhaps radioactive decay is an appropriate example ii. Probabilistic but random, not caused in the traditional, mechanistic, clockwork sense 3. Questioning the validity of the argument a. Quick review of terminology: i. An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows from the premises ii. When a conclusion does not follow from the premises, it is sometimes called a non-sequitur iii. The argument is invalid iv. An example of an invalid argument A. All men are mortal B. Socrates is a man C. Therefore, Earth is the 3 rd planet from the sun v. Obviously, the set of premises does not provide good reason to think that the conclusion is true vi. Note, however, that in this case A. Each premise is, in fact, true B. The conclusion is, in fact, true as well C. Upshot: 1. An argument being invalid does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false 2. It just means that those particular premises fail to establish or give reason to believe that conclusion b. In the case of the Cosmological Argument, even if the 3 premises can be defended, objections responded to, the argument fails to establish that God exists c. It certainly doesn t get us very close to the Basic JCM God i. The argument provides no reason to think that the first cause is something worthy of our worship
ii. The argument provides no reason to think the first cause would be omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent iii. The argument provides no reason to think that the first cause it still exists D. 2 nd Version (Why is there something rather than nothing?) 1. Since the entire universe exists, there must be some explanation for why it exists 2. The best explanation for why it exists seems to be that it was created by a supernatural creator 3. That creator is God E. Skeptical Objections to 2 nd version, and some replies 1. If God created the universe, skeptics can simply ask the question: what created God? (apply the 1 st premise to God) a. If it s possible that nothing created God, if His existence doesn t require explanation b. Why isn t it equally as possible that nothing created the universe itself, and that it doesn t require explanation? c. Or, if God has a creator, well, what created and explains her existence? 2. Defenders of the Cosmological argument might respond: a. God doesn t need a creator or cause, and we don t need to explain why he exists, because God exists necessarily b. The existence of the universe itself requires an explanation because the universe itself doesn t exist necessarily i. A skeptic might ask here: A. Why think that God exists necessarily but the universe itself doesn t? B. What are the reasons or arguments in support of the claim that God exists necessarily? ii. Defenders of the Cosmological Argument reply: A. It is inconceivable that God does not exist it is not even a coherent possibility B. But we can coherently conceive of the universe not existing at all c. Skeptic s Objection: i. If that s the criterion for necessary existence, it doesn t seem like it applies to God either ii. Atheists conceive of his not existing quite easily iii. Indeed, they don t just conceive of the possibility, but believe it to be the actually case! A. Or at least atheists certainly claim to be able to conceive that God doesn t exist B. As we ll see, Anselm s Ontological argument involves a challenge to this claim F. Comments: 1. The general question behind the 2 nd version, why does something exist rather than nothing?, is a real and deep one
2. The skeptic holds, however, that the proposed solution doesn t really answer the question, so much as trade one mystery for another