review & preview
DESCRIPTION
Review & Preview. The Classical Trinity, parts 2 and 3 Teleological argument, version 3 Seems unsound now that we have Darwin’s theory of evolution Ontological Argument Perhaps(?) has something wrong with it… but what?!? The problem of evil Pascal’s Wager William James. A note on Hume. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Review & Preview
The Classical Trinity, parts 2 and 3– Teleological argument, version 3
Seems unsound now that we have Darwin’s theory of evolution
– Ontological Argument Perhaps(?) has something wrong with it… but what?!?
The problem of evil Pascal’s Wager William James
![Page 2: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
A note on Hume
Cleanthes: “A further objection: in tracing an eternal series of items, it seems absurd to ask for a general cause or first author of the enitre series. How can something that exists from eternity have a cause, since the causal relation implies priority in time and a beginning of existence?”
![Page 3: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A note on Hume
Demea is giving a version of the First Cause argument:
– (P1) Everything exists must have a cause.– (P2) The chain of causes can’t be infinitely long.– (C) So there must be a first cause: God.
We asked: why believe (P2)?? Demea’s answer: “[To deny (P2)] is absurd… the
whole chain… obviously requires a cause… as much as any particular thing that begins to exist in time.”
Cleanthes’ point: this doesn’t make sense
![Page 4: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
An argument against the existence of the Basic JCM God
![Page 5: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Some preliminaries
If God exists, He is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), perfectly good, and loves mankind.
But there has been and continues to be an enormous amount of suffering in the world.
![Page 6: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Some preliminaries
– Some suffering is caused by people War, torture, unkindness
– Some suffering is not caused by people Disease, hurricanes
– Among the sufferers are people (e.g. young children) who cannot be guilty of any sin or wickedness.
– Why would God do that?
![Page 7: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Some preliminaries
The existence of this suffering seems incompatible with the existence of the Basic J-C-M God:
– If God is omnipotent (all powerful), He could prevent the suffering if he wanted to.
![Page 8: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Some preliminaries
– If God is omniscient, He has always known that the suffering would occur. Indeed, he knew it when he created the Universe.
not like US foreign policy– It is impossible to be good and loving, and to
allow suffering that you can prevent. – An omnipotent, omniscient Being who allowed
vast suffering to occur would not be morally good. He would be a sadist!
![Page 9: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Problem of Evil argument, version 1
(P1) The world contains vast amounts of suffering.
(P2) If there was a Basic JCM God, the world would not contain this suffering.
(C) There is no Basic JCM God.
![Page 10: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Objections to Version 1
Plantinga’s distinctions:– Logical vs. Evidentiary problems– Defense vs. Theodicy
An easy defense: God might have reasons that we cannot understand.
![Page 11: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The Problem of Evil argument, version 2
(P1) The world contains vast amounts of suffering.
(P2) If there was a Basic JCM God, we would not expect the world to contain this suffering.
(C) We have strong evidence against the existence of the Basic JCM God.
![Page 12: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Theodicy: The attempt to answer the Problem of Evil Argument (v2)
Warning: Beware of the “bait & switch” strategy – using an ordinary word with a new meaning.
– Suffering is not real. Reply: BS! (Bait & Switch). If ‘suffering’ and ‘real’ mean what
they ordinarily mean, it is absurd to suggest that suffering is not real.
– God’s love &/or God’s goodness are Divine love and Divine goodness, not to be judged by human standards.
Reply: More BS!
![Page 13: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Objection 1: Pain is necessary as a warning system
Replies to Objection 1:– Pain is an imperfect warning
mechanism. Surely an all-powerful God would make a perfect one?
– Why do the sources of pain exist? An omnipotent God could just take them away.
![Page 14: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Objection 2: Evil is punishment for wrongdoing
Replies to Objection 2:– Being a bad person and
suffering do not always seem to be go together
– This objection cannot explain why innocent babies, and animals, suffer
![Page 15: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Objection 3: Evil is necessary in order for us to appreciate the good
Imagine a perfect world…?? Replies:
– We don't need this much suffering in order to appreciate the good!
– An omnipotent God could just create very appreciative people.
![Page 16: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Objection 4: The Free Will Defense
God could have built us without free will. But a world with no free creatures would not be such a good world. Since He chose to give us free will, we must be free to do evil.
Vs.
![Page 17: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
First reply to the Free Will Defense
A distinction: Moral evil vs. natural evil– Reply: The Free Will Defense can only explain
moral evil, not natural evil. Counter-objection: Natural evil (as well as
moral evil) helps to build character.– Replies:
We don't need this much suffering! Why couldn't God just create people with great
moral character?
![Page 18: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Second reply to the Free Will Defense
Mackie's point: It is possible for people to have the freedom to choose evil, but never to do so.
– Most people do this most of the time.
– An omnipotent God could build a world like that.
![Page 19: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Objection 5: Reasons We Don’t Understand
Analogy: Parents sometimes allow their children to suffer for very good reasons which the children cannot understand.
Reply: This perhaps shows that the Problem of Evil does not prove that God does not exist. (It solves the Logical Problem; i.e. it provides a 'defense’; i.e. it shows that Version 1 of the argument is not sound.)
![Page 20: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Reply to Objection 5, cont’d
But to be convinced by a mere ‘defense’, we need some reason to believe that the Basic God exists.
Hume’s way of making this point:– “Let us allow that if the goodness of the Deity …could be
established on any tolerable reasons a priori, these phenomena [suffering], however untoward, would not be sufficient to subvert that principle, but might easily, in some unknown manner, be reconcilable to it. But let us still assert that, as goodness is not antecedently established but must be inferred from the phenomena, there can be no grounds for such an inference while there are so many ills in the universe, and while these ills might so easily have been remedied, as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge on such a subject…. (Dialogues, Part XI)
![Page 21: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Pascal’s Wager
Or, You Bet Your (After)Life
![Page 22: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Pascal’s Wager
Two kinds of reasons for belief:– Believing something because you have good reason to
think that it's true I believe that someone was mugged because I was an eye-
witness I believe that the basic JCM God exists because I don't think
there's anything wrong with (say) the Ontological Argument– Believing something because having that belief makes your
life better I believe that I won the women's 100m because it makes me
happy Pascal's reason for believing in the Basic JCM God
![Page 23: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
“Expected value” (or "expected utility") theory:
Expected value theory: A theory of how we should work out what is the best thing to do
A (fair) coin is going to be flipped Choosing which bet to take
– Bet 1: Heads: you win $20 Tails: you win $70
– Bet 2: Heads: you win $30 Tails: you win $50
– Which is better?
![Page 24: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Expected value theory says…
For each bet:– Write down the probability of each possible state of affairs– Write down the value of what you get in each state of affairs– for each possible state of affairs, multiply the value of what
happens by the probability of that state of affairs– add up the resulting numbers.– This gives the expected value of this bet.
Do this for each bet– Now you have the expected values for all the bets.
It is rational to choose the bet with the highest expected value.
![Page 25: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
How to choose between bet 1 and bet 2, according to expected value theory
Evaluating Bet 1– probability of heads: ½– probability of tails: ½– value I get if coin comes up heads ($20): 20– value I get if coin comes up tails ($70): 70
![Page 26: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Calculating the expected value of Bet 1
probability of heads x value you get if heads happens= ½ x 20
= 10 probability of tails x value you get if tails happens
= ½ x 70= 35
Add these numbers together: Expected value of bet 1
= 10 + 35= 45
![Page 27: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Evaluating Bet 2
Evaluating bet 2:– probability of heads: ½– probability of tails: ½– value I get if coin comes up heads ($30): 30– value I get if coin comes up tails ($50): 50
![Page 28: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Calculating the expected value of Bet 2
probability of heads x value I get if heads happens= 1/2 x 30= 15
probability of tails x value I get if tails happens= 1/2 x 50= 25
Expected value of Bet 2= 15 + 25
= 40.
![Page 29: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Choosing between Bet 1 and Bet 2
The expected value of Bet 1 (45) is higher than the expected value of Bet 2 (40)
So, expected value theory says: the rational choice is bet 1!
![Page 30: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
A diagram to illustrate the choice between Bet 1 and Bet 2
HeadsP=1/2
TailsP=1/2
Bet 1 20 70
Bet 2 30 50
Value of bet 1 = ½ x 20 + ½ x 70 = 10 + 35 = 45
Value of bet 2 = ½ x 30 + ½ x 50 = 15 + 25 = 40
![Page 31: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
A second example to illustrate expected utility theory
Another example: a weighted coin. Probability of heads is 1/3, probability of tails is 2/3
Bet 1: – Heads: you win NOTHING.– Tails: you win $50
Bet 2: – Heads: you win $15– Tails: you win $45
Q: Which bet is it rational to choose?
![Page 32: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Pascal’s argument
There are two possible states of affairs: either God exists, or he doesn't exist.
The bets I am choosing between are: believe in God, or don't believe in God.
First question: what is the probability that God exists?– We can suppose (with the atheist) that the
probability that God exists is very low.
![Page 33: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Bet 1: Believe in God
Bet 1: Believe in God ('wager for God')– Probability that God exists: 0.01– Probability that God does not exist: 0.99– Value I get if I believe in God, and God exists:
infinity! (I go to heaven)– Value I get if I believe in God, and God does not
exist: 0, say
![Page 34: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Bet 2: don’t believe in God
Bet 2: Don't believe in God– Probability that God exists: 0.01– Probability that God does not exist: 0.99– Value I get if I don't believe in God, and God
exists: 0, say– Value I get if I don't believe in God, and God does
not exist: 100, say
![Page 35: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Choosing whether to believe in God or not
God existsP=0.01
God does not existP=0.99
Bet 1: Believe in God ∞ [heaven]0 [no heaven, church]
Bet 2: Don’t believe in God 100 [have fun on Sundays]
100 [have fun on Sundays]
Expected value of bet 1 = 0.01 x ∞ + 0.99 x 0 = ∞ + 0 = ∞
Expected value of bet 2 = 0.01 x 100 + 0.99 x 100 = 1 + 99 = 100
![Page 36: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Choosing whether to believe in God or not
Calculating the value of these two bets, we find that the expected value of believing in God is infinity, and the expected value of not believing in God is 100
Infinity is larger than 100 So, according to expected value theory, it is
rational to believe in God!
![Page 37: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
First objection to Pascal’s argument: Belief is not voluntary!
Belief is not voluntary! i.e. It is not something you can decide to do, no matter how advantageous it would be.– Try deciding to believe that world peace will break
out tomorrow.– For the atheists: Try deciding to believe in a basic
JCM God!
![Page 38: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Pascal’s reply to the first objection
Pascal’s reply: You can’t decide to believe, but you can decide to do things that will lead to belief, e.g.:– read inspirational books– associate with religious people
![Page 39: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Second objection to Pascal’s argument: Other Gods and other bets
Pascal assumes that the only choice is between believing in the Basic JCM God or not believing in Him. But an entirely parallel argument can be given for believing in a very different God.
![Page 40: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
WILLIAM JAMES: THE WILL TO BELIEVE
![Page 41: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Overview of James’ Thesis:
Against "scientific absolutism”: the idea that belief without ‘sufficient evidence’ is somehow irresponsible
Under certain circumstances, it is not irrational for one’s belief to be determined by one’s “passional nature” (i.e. one’s emotions & desires).
– Religion is a case like this.– People may have different emotions, but
James' emotions pull him towards accepting religion.
![Page 42: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Some definitions
Hypothesis: "anything proposed to belief", a suggestion that might be true or false
Option: A choice between two hypotheses Living option: one where both answers
“appeal to you as a real possibility.” – For most of us, one or more of the JCM religions
is a live hypothesis, and so is atheism, but Greaves-ism is not.
![Page 43: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
More definitions
Forced Option: One on which you can’t avoid taking a position.
– You can’t avoid deciding whether to (i) believe in God or (ii) not to believe in God (where this includes both atheism and agnosticism).
??
![Page 44: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Yet more definitions
Momentous Option: One which has a profound effect on your life & the way you view the world.
– Scientific belief is not momentous.– Religious belief is momentous
because it offers the possibility of life after death, reward for the deserving and punishment for the undeserving.
Genuine option: One which is living, momentous and forced.
![Page 45: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
How to choose whether to believe something or not
The two maxims for choosing beliefs: 'Know the truth!' 'Avoid error!'
– But these conflict!– In the case of religious belief, some
people decide to withhold belief because they have no adequate evidence. But those who adopt this principle do so for emotional (“passional”) reasons, too!
![Page 46: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
James’ thesis
If an option meets two conditions, then it is not irrational (and in fact it is obligatory) to allow it to be settled by our “passional” nature. Those conditions are:– The option is genuine (i.e. living, momentous &
forced).– The issue at hand cannot be decided on
intellectual grounds. Religion is a case like this.
![Page 47: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
James’ argument for his thesis
(P1) The decision between believing in God, disbelieving and remaining agnostic is a forced option (so, it cannot be left unsettled).
(P2) The issue of God’s existence or nonexistence cannot be settled on intellectual grounds.
(P3) If an option cannot be settled on intellectual grounds, and it is a living option, it must be settled on emotional grounds.
(C1) The decision between believing in God and not believing must be settled on emotional grounds. (from (P1), (P2), (P3))
(P4) It is not irrational for one's emotions to favor not believing in God, but it is not irrational for the emotions to favor believing in God, either.
(C2) It is not irrational not to believe in God, but it is not irrational to believe in God, either.
![Page 48: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Reasons your emotions might agree with James':
If God does not exist, then “death ends all” and much of the suffering and apparent injustice in the world is meaningless.
The idea of such a universe fills James (and many others) with despair & loathing.
![Page 49: Review & Preview](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042720/56815ded550346895dcc168c/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Critique of James:
He has not shown that the issue of God’s existence cannot be settled on intellectual grounds. (i.e. (P2) is dubious)– Many philosophers think that it has been settled
by the arguments we’ve considered.– But even if currently existing arguments do not
suffice to settle the issue, showing that the cannot be settled on intellectual grounds would require a powerful argument that no one knows how to construct.