Today’s Lecture

1. Today’s Lecture • Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Anselm • Gaunilo • Comments about the first assignment

2. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • We can divide most of the concerns of Philosophy of Religion between epistemology and metaphysics. • Under epistemology, philosophers consider the positive or negative epistemic status of various religious beliefs (from belief in God, or an Absolute Ground of Being, to belief in an after-life). • Under metaphysics, philosophers consider the metaphysical import or lack of metaphysical import of various religious beliefs (from whether a particular conception of God can be instantiated to whether certain views of life after death are compatible with plausible theories of mind or personhood).

3. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • It is customary to distinguish between Natural and Dogmatic theology. • Natural Theology, though pursued within a theistic religious tradition, relies on arguments which do not depend on premises drawn from traditional (e.g. scriptural) sources. • Dogmatic Theology on the other hand relies on arguments which do depend on premises drawn from traditional (e.g. scriptural) sources. • Religious philosophers, on the whole, concern themselves with Natural rather than Dogmatic Theology.

4. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Philosophers who are either atheist or agnostic can be sometimes described as Natural Atheologians in the literature. • It is important to distinguish two senses of ‘atheist’ that reflect historical uses of the term: An atheist is either (1) someone who does not have a positive or negative belief about the existence of God, (2) or someone who believes that God does not exist. • An agnostic, then, is an atheist according to (1).

5. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Remember that not all religions involve a belief in a divinity. Jainism and certain forms of Buddhism are cases in point in this regard. • Since theology literally means ‘Theory of God’ (from theos or ‘god’ and logos or ‘theory or account’), neither Jainism nor certain forms of Buddhism contain theologies, natural or dogmatic.

6. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • There are various ways to understand divinity across traditions and cultures. • (1) Pantheism: This is, crudely, the view that All is God/Goddess. • (2) Panentheism: This is crudely, the view that God/Goddess encompasses but is not limited to the cosmos. Alternatively every-thing that exists is in God. • (3) Deism: This is the view that there is a Creator God/Goddess that has created the cosmos but Who has no further interactions with the creation.

7. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • (4) Theism: This is the view that a personal God/Goddess exists, and is both immanent in and transcendent to the physical universe. • (5) Polytheism: This is the view that there are many Gods/Goddesses. • (6) Henotheism: This is the view that there are many Gods/Goddesses, but also one supreme God/Goddess from whom all other Gods/Goddesses derive their being. • (7) Monotheism: This is the view that there is only one God/Goddess.

8. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Certain forms, though only certain forms, of devotional Hinduism can be regarded as either pantheistic or panentheistic. • Deism was very popular in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century European philosophy. • Theism can be found in traditions as diverse as the Judaic Tradition and Hinduism. • Certain Hindus, though only certain Hindus, are polytheists. • Henotheism is represented in the literature by (high) Greek and Roman religion. You can also find textual echoes of this view in such Biblical phrases as ‘God of gods and Lord of lords’.

9. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Muslims, Jews, and Christians are monotheists.

10. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Though no one view of divinity should be excluded from Philosophy of Religion, discussions in the West are often restricted to Theism and Monotheism. • This in itself reveals a disturbing bias in the literature.

11. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • In our section on Philosophy of Religion we will be primarily concerned with the rationality or irrationality of theistic belief. • We will also critically evaluate certain traditional arguments for the belief that ‘God exists’ is true. • We will also briefly consider whether certain conceptions of divinity are compatible with what we do know about the universe. This will aid us in deciding which conceptions of God can be reasonably thought to be instantiated.

12. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Some scholars have usefully divided up the landscape into three available camps on the issue of the rationality of religious belief: Strong Rationalism, Critical Rationalism and Fideism.

13. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Strong Rationalists are the evidentialists within Philosophy of Religion. They hold that “in order for a religious belief-system to be properly and rationally accepted, it must be possible to prove that the belief system is true” where ‘prove’ means “show that a belief is true in a way that should be convincing to any reasonable person” (Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach and David Basinger. 1998. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, p.45).

14. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Fideism emphaiszes the role of faith in religious belief (fide is Latin for ‘faith’). It is basically the view that “religious belief-systems are not subject to rational evaluation” (Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach and David Basinger. 1998. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, p.49). • Fideists view their position in one of at least three ways: (1) That it is, in itself, a rational position to adopt, (2) that it is an arational position to adopt, or (3) that it is an irrational position to adopt (and that’s fine).

15. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Critical Rationalism comes somewhere in between Strong Rationalism and Fideism. It is the view that “religious belief-systems can and must be rationally criticized and evaluated although conclusive proof of such a system is impossible” (Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach and David Basinger. 1998. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, p.53).

16. Preliminary remarks about Philosophy of Religion • Note that the likes of Descartes, Locke, Russell and Clifford are Strong Rationalists. • Soren Kierkegaard was famously a Fideist. • A growing number of contemporary religious or theistic philosophers are critical rationalists.

17. The Ontological Argument for the existence of God • The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is, perhaps, the strangest of the family of traditional arguments for the existence of God that we will be examining. • It typically moves from a conception of God to that God’s necessary existence. • It typically involves an argument form known as a Reductio ad Absurdum (or Argument from Absurdity). • It promises, if successful, to yield a relatively rich view of the nature of God.

18. The Ontological Argument for the existence of God • Descartes himself suggests an Ontological Argument for the existence of God in the “Third Meditation” or “Fifth Meditation” (i.e. depends on how you interpret Descartes in the “Third Meditation”). • The most famous of this argument type in the Western literature is Anselm’s argument.

19. Anselm • He was born in 1033 and died in 1109 C.E. • He was a devote Benedictine Monk. • He is often credited with being the first thinker in the Western Canon to develop the Ontological Argument. • This argument is designed to yield a priori knowledge that God exists.

20. Reductio • Imagine a set of premises; P1, P2, P3 ... PN. Imagine further that these premises are true. To create a reductio, suppose another proposition to be true. If such a supposition, in conjunction with the original premises, generates a contradiction (using valid rules of deductive inference), you then have good reason to believe that it is false. If the supposition is false, its negation must be true. From the generation of this contradiction, then, you can conclude that the negation of the supposition is true.

21. Reductio • The idea is this. Contradictions are statements that cannot be true (e.g. ‘God exists and God does not exist’). If, by supposing the truth of a statement and using sound rules of deductive inference you can derive a contradiction, then the statement you supposed must be false. This is because sound rules of deductive inference will preserve the truth of the statements in an argument as you move from premises to conclusion.So if they preserve the truth of the premises, but the conclusion of the argument is false (contradictions are false), then one of more of the premises had to be false.

22. Anselm: Distinctions • Object in the understanding: An object is said to exist in the understanding exactly when it exists as a mental object - something towards which a thought (broadly construed) can be directed. Anselm believes that God can be such an object. • Object in reality: An object exists in reality exactly when it exists in the actual world, our world (broadly construed). • An object may exist in the understanding but not in reality, and exist in reality but not in the understanding (see FP, p.21).

23. Anselm’s Ontological Argument • (1) Suppose that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone. • (2) That which can conceivably exist in the understanding, can conceivably exist in reality. • (3) It is conceivable that that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in reality. • (4) That which can conceivably exist in the understanding and in reality is greater than that which can conceivably exist in the understanding alone.

24. Anselm’s Ontological Argument • (5) So, from (1) through (4), it is conceivable that there exists a being which is greater than that than which nothing greater can be conceived. • (6) But this is contradictory. • (7) So, it is false that that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone. • (8) So, that than which nothing greater can be conceived must also exist in reality (FP, p.25).

25. A second possible argument in the reading • (1) Suppose that it is conceivable that that than which nothing greater can be conceived does not exist. • (2) It is possible to conceive of a being which cannot not exist. • (3) That which cannot conceivably not exist is greater than that which can conceivably not exist. • (4) So, one can conceive of a being which is greater than that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

26. A second possible argument in the reading • (5) But this is contradictory. • (6) So, it is false that it is conceivable that that than which nothing greater can be conceived does not exist. • (7) So, that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot conceivably not exist. • (8) That which cannot conceivably not exist must exist. • (9) So, that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists (FP, p.25).

27. A second possible argument in the reading • “No one, indeed, understanding what God is can think that God does not exist, even though he may say these words in his heart either without any [objective] signification or with some peculiar signification” (FP, p.25). • What do you think?

28. A second possible argument in the reading • Some questions that fall out this discussion: • (1) Should we grant that it is possible that God does exist? What if the concept of God is incoherent? • (2) What if we deny that God exists based on, say, the problem of evil? Wouldn’t that entail, given the form of this argument that it isn’t possible that God exists?

29. Comments about the first assignment • (1) Don’t take my criticisms personally. • (2) Do look over the comments. • (3) If you don’t agree with the grade come and see me and we can talk about it. • (4) Remember to submit your papers to Turnitin.com. If you don’t, or forget to do so, you won’t receive an official grade for your assignment.

30. Comments about the first assignment • Common problems: • (1) Don’t use more than one direct quote. • (2) Don’t use gender exclusive language. This is Department policy. • (3) Take care to properly footnote or cite your sources. If you get your ideas from anyone, they have to be acknowledged. • (4) Proof read your work before you submit it. I can only go on what you write. If it’s unclear it will adversely affect your grade.

31. Comments about the first assignment • (5) Take care not to make claims you don’t defend. Remember that nothing should be taken as obvious. • (6) Take care to get the philosopher right on whom you are focusing. • (7) Take care not to make any fallacious moves. • (8) Take care not to contradict yourself. • (9) Fight the urge to include material that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.