Intro to Philosophy Phil 110 Lecture 6: 1-25 Daniel Kelly I. Mechanics A. Upcoming Readings 1. Today we ll discuss a. Dennett, Show Me the Science b. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (10) c. Mackie, Free Will and the Problem of Evil 2. Next Week a. Pascal, Pensées : Notes on Religion and Other Subjects b. Saka, Pascal s Wager About God c. James, The Will to Believe A. Down the road a bit: 3. First Papers Due: In class, Tuesday 2/6 4. Midterm Exam: in class, Thursday 3/1 New Chapter: Philosophy of Religion I. Some Preliminaries II. The Cosmological Argument III. The Ontological Argument IV. The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design) A. William Paley (1743-1805) B. Definition: teleological C. Two more types of arguments (adding to the syllogism and reductio ad absurdum forms of argument that we ve seen so far) D. The Argument E. Hume s Reply F. Darwinian Reply: 1859 The Origin of Species G. The Rub 1. This continued debate over the Teleological Argument is very near the heart of the conflict between science and religion a. This argument definitely motivates the resistance of a vocal segment of society to evolutionary theory in particular b. It s not that evolution implies that we are related to monkeys and other apes that is mainly rhetoric 2. What made Darwin s theory so controversial was that it undermined what had previously been the most convincing and persuasive positive argument for God s existence a. Prior to Darwin, the only plausible explanation for the spectacular design found in the biosphere was some extraordinary intelligence b. But Darwin showed that there was another explanation c. In the years since, the Darwinian explanation has again and again proven to be the better of the two i. Simpler
A. Doesn t need to posit the existence of a supernatural entity of any sort B. Ockham s Razor ii. Can account for more of the available evidence A. Including, particular, suboptimality B. But also fossils, etc. iii. Is consilient, or fits better with what we know in other areas of knowledge A. Physics B. Chemistry C. Genetics D. Geology 1. Especially deep geological time 2. Tectonic Plate theory 3. Does the failure of the Teleological Argument mean, or show, or imply that God does not exist? a. In and of itself, NO! i. It just means that those premises don t establish, or provide good reason to believe, that conclusion ii. Remember, a bad or unconvincing argument can still have a true conclusion iii. Consider an example: A. P1: Roses are blue B. P2: Violets are red C. Con: The Earth is the 3 rd planet from the sun b. Rejecting the Argument from Design does not show that God exists is false c. What it does show is that one important argument i. Fails to establish that God exists is true ii. So no longer provides a good positive reason to believe that God exists is true H. Dennett s polemic: So why is Intelligent Design theory still around? 1. The theory of evolution is complicated, and even more counterintuitive hard to get one s mind around a. The process is slow and dumb, but cumulative b. Given enough time a process that is not intelligent, foresighted nor has any purpose of its own c. Can create organisms that are intelligent, foresighted and have their own purposes 2. But other sciences are complicated and counterintuitive, too: quantum physics, relativity theory, game theory a. One might very well ask: i. Why isn t there similar resistance to these other counterintuitive theories? ii. Why all the fuss over and resistance to Darwinian evolution, to this one in particular? b. To which Dennett provides the answer:
i. Evolution by natural selection is different because there is a (vocal, well-funded) motivation to resist it ii. Namely, this theory seems to knock down one of the best reason we had for believing in God 3. Dennett is not arguing that God doesn t exist a. (Though he is a confirmed atheist, he is not directly arguing for that position here) b. In this piece, Dennett is arguing that despite what it claims Intelligent Design (ID) Theory and evolution are not i. On equal epistemological footing ii. Nor are they equally credible c. Dennett mainly holds this because Intelligent Design Theory is not a legitimate science i. It does not play by the same rules as sciences do A. He implies that it is not a science, but what is sometimes called a pseudoscience B. That ID theory is more like astrology or alchemy than astronomy or chemistry ii. Dennett concludes that ID theory A. Is not even in genuine scientific competition with evolutionary theory B. So should not be taught in science classes 1. For more on what sets sciences apart from pseudosciences 2. Consider taking our Philosophy of Science course PHIL 421 V. The Problem of Evil (P of E): Perennial Problem in the Philosophy of Religion A. David Hume (1711-1776) 1. Lived in Edinburgh, Scotland, where he was a major figure in the Scottish Enlightenment 2. Worked as a librarian, in minor government positions, and briefly as a paid companion to a mad nobleman (?!?) 3. A Central British Empiricist, 1 of greatest philosophers of all time a. He is Philo in the Dialogues you read b. He s a great skeptic, and probably an atheist 4. His magnum opus Treatise on Human Nature was published before he was 30, and either panned or ignored a. In his own words, fell stillborn from the press b. Now regarded as a Masterpiece of philosophy c. Philosophy and his skeptical conclusions so depressed him he eventually gave it up & became a historian a good one B. Best argument against the existence of the Basic JCM God 1. Still directly about God s existence a. The conclusion tries to establish that God does not exist b. Not anything about belief or rationality 2. Opposite from the conclusion of the Classic Trinity of arguments C. Quick and Dirty Version 1. In Philo s words (who is largely expressing Hume s view):
2. Epicurus old questions have still not been answered. Is He [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then were does evil come from? D. Fleshed Out Argument 1. Premise 1: Western Monotheisms maintain that God is omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and loves mankind a. This comes from the definition of the Basic JCM God b. The God whose existence is under consideration here 2. Premise 2: There has been and continues to be an enormous amount of pain and suffering in the world a. More specifically: i. Some suffering is caused by other people A. Battle of Gettysburg July 1-3, 1863: ~50,000 casualties in 3 days B. Holocaust killed an estimated 6 million Jews ii. Some suffering is not caused by other people A. Haiti Earthquake: January 12 th 2010: 1. ~230,000 people died 2. ~300,000 injured 3. ~1,000,000 made homeless B. Boxer Day Tsunami, December 26 th 2004: resulted in the deaths of ~230,000 people C. In 1931, floods in China killed between 1 and 4 million people 1. Insurance companies call natural disasters like these, tellingly 2. Acts of God D. Black Death or Bubonic Plague 1. Swept through Europe mid 1300 s 2. Estimated to have killed 1/3 of the population iii. Among the sufferers are people, like young children, who are clearly not guilty of any sin or wickedness A. Many die horrible deaths in natural disasters B. SIDS still results in the death of about 2500 infants a year b. This premise is supported by observation of difficult to deny empirical facts about our world 3. Premise 3: The existence of this suffering is incompatible with the existence of the Basic JCM God a. An omnipotent God would be all powerful i. So he d have the power prevent that suffering ii. Thus could prevent it, provided that he knew how and wanted to b. An omniscient God would be all knowing i. So he d know that and when indeed, would have always known the suffering would occur
ii. He would also know how to prevent it, provided he had the power and wanted to iii. So he d have the knowledge to prevent the suffering c. A perfectly benevolent God would love us completely i. So he would want to prevent our suffering ii. Thus should prevent it, provided that he had the power and knew how iii. Further support: A. In general, it seems impossible to be both 1. Good and loving, on the one hand 2. To allow pain and suffering that you can prevent, on the other hand B. An omnipotent, omniscient being who allowed such vast suffering to occur would not be morally good C. Indeed, would seem to be a little sadistic! 4. Therefore, God doesn t exist. E. Theodicy: 1. In general, a theodicy is an attempt to vindicate God, or reconcile a. God s existence and goodness b. With the evil, pain, and suffering evident in the world 2. In other words: an attempt to answer or respond to the P of E 3. Many famous theodicies in the Western tradition a. Leibniz (from whom the term is taken) b. Kant c. Various Biblical theodicies 4. Editorial Comment a. When evaluating these, beware argumentative or rhetorical strategies that avoid engaging with the P of E argument b. By using some kind of semantic shenanigans i. Changing the meaning of the words involved in the statement of the argument ii. And the meaning of the same words in the response to the argument c. Or by attempting to alter the terms of the argument itself F. 5 Responses and Replies 1. Suffering is not real, it is only apparent a. Perhaps this idea is more plausible when paired with some (perhaps mystical or Buddhist) other claim, that the entire world of the senses is itself an illusion, and so not real b. Defender of P of E: This is mere semantic shenanigans, a sort of verbal bait and switch that depends on subtly switching the meaning of the terms involved i. If the terms suffering and real A. Mean what they normally mean to us B. And retain that meaning in the context of the Problem of Evil argument ii. Then claiming suffering is not real is simply absurd
2. God s love and goodness are Divine love and goodness, and are thus not to be judged by human standards a. Defender of P of E: this is explicitly semantic shenanigans, an explicit shift in the meaning of the terms involved i. We now have two different sets of words in play A. Love DIVINE, goodness DIVINE. pain DIVINE, suffering DIVINE B. Love HUMAN and goodness HUMAN, pain HUMAN, suffering HUMAN ii. This theodicy isn t even talking about the same thing that the Defender of the P of E is talking about iii. So this attempt can not even engage with the P of E b. The Defender of the P of E is concerned with a God that is good and loves us in our sense of those terms 3. Suffering builds character a. Sometimes, suffering results in good outcomes i. Going through hard times builds character, temperance, fortitude, and other virtues ii. Through pain and suffering comes greater good b. This response doesn t involve semantic shenanigans i. Suffering has not changed meanings here ii. good means what we usually take it to mean, and what the defender of the P of E means by it c. Defender of P of E has two replies: i. An unconstrained, omnipotent and omniscient God could have found a better way to build character A. Some less horrible way B. A way that avoids such terrible suffering ii. Intense pain and suffering does not always lead to better character, or even good outcomes A. Sometimes it turns people bitter and cold B. Sometimes it leads straight to (sometimes horrible) death 4. Argument from Free Will: a. Skeptics of the P of E: i. God could have, of course, built us without free will ii. He gave us free will, however, because A. Without it we would not really be people B. Free will is itself a great good iii. Since God did give us free will, though, we must be free to choose and do evil ourselves b. Defenders of P of E has two replies: i. First Reply (Mackie): A. It is possible for people to 1. Have the freedom to choose evil 2. But to never do so B. It s not just possible, but in fact 1. Most people do this
2. Most of the time C. An omnipotent & omniscient God could have created a world full of such people and only such people! ii. Second Reply (Traditional): A. Much suffering is not caused by people or their freely made choices 1. Haitian Earthquake 2. Bubonic Plague 3. Boxing Day Tsunami 4. China Floods 5. SIDS deaths B. In these cases, the free will objection fails to engage all of the elements of the argument 1. For these types of causes of suffering 2. Just reiterate the P of A argument: a. An omniscient God would know they were coming, b. An omnipotent God could prevent them from happening c. And a benevolent God would