Rowe’s Philosophy of Religion – Chapter 1
0. Preliminaries: Varieties of Views about God(s)
0.1 Polytheism: many gods
0.2 Henotheism: many gods, but one limits one’s worship/adherence to just the god of one’s tribe
0.3. Anthropomorphic Monotheism: the God “up there”
0.3.1 A physical being
0.3.2 Located in a specific region of space
0.3.3 Associated with a pre-scientific cosmology
0.4 Non-anthropomorphic Monotheism: the God “out there”
0.4.1 Our focus
0.4.2 The concept of God developed by the famous philosopher-theologians (Augustine, Boethius, Bonaventure, Avicenna, Anselm, Maimonides, Aquinas)
0.4.3 A spiritual, immaterial being
0.4.4 All-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good, creator and sustainer of the universe (from which God is separate and independent), omnipresent, self- existent, and eternal
1. Omnipotence and Perfect Goodness
1.1 Omnipotence: being all-powerful
1.1.1 Relative vs. absolute possibility
1.1.1.1 A relative possibility is something that a being or type of being can do. E.g., flying is a relative possibility: it falls within the scope of a bird’s abilities, but not a human’s.
1.1.1.2 An absolute possibility is something that isn’t logically impossible, i.e., isn’t self-contradictory
1.1.2 The classical definition of God’s omnipotence is in terms of absolute possibility: God can do anything that isn’t self-contradictory
1.1.2.1 Power itself is limited to what is logically possible.
1.1.2.2 Therefore, to say that God can’t do the logically impossible isn’t to say that God’s power has limitations, since they aren’t things that can be accomplished by power
1.1.3 Non-logical limits? God’s attributes
1.1.3.1 God’s goodness: can God do what is unethical?
1.1.3.2 God’s eternity: can God commit suicide?
1.1.4 Revising the definition of omnipotence: the ability to do anything that is absolutely possible, and consistent with God’s essential attributes.
1.1.4.1 This helps resolve the paradox of the stone – can God make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?
1.1.4.2 For now we can say that making such a rock would mean that God could not lift it, which is a task that is inconsistent with his essential attribute of omnipotence
1.1.5 A problem for the new definition of omnipotence: changing the past
1.1.5.1 The description of such a task isn’t self-contradictory
1.1.5.2 Also, such a task doesn’t conflict with God’s essential attributes
1.1.5.3 Still, it seems impossible for any being to change the past – even God
1.1.5.4 So it looks as though we need to modify our definition of omnipotence further to eliminate this problem and others
1.2 Perfect Goodness
1.2.1 Unsurpassible, essential goodness
1.2.1.1 Many theologians have thought that if God isn’t perfectly good, then God isn’t worthy of unconditional worship and gratitude
1.2.1.2 Thus, many theists hold that God is unsurpassably good
1.2.3 Also, theists don’t typically think that God just happens to be perfectly good, but rather that he’s perfectly good by nature – essentially perfectly good.
1.2.2 Good in both moral and non-moral senses
1.2.2.1 God is morally perfect: perfectly virtuous (benevolent, just, patient, etc.)
1.2.2.2 But also, his life is good: happy, worthwhile, full, etc.
1.2.3 God’s moral goodness as the standard for morality
1.2.3.1 A common view: The source of positive and negative duties
1.2.3.1.1 How is God the “ground” of morality?
1.2.3.1.2 morality grounded in his commands
1.2.3.1.3 a worry: the Euthyphro Dilemma
1.2.3.1.4 compare: mathematical truths: grounded in God?
1.2.3.2 Other common views
1.2.3.2.1 Even if God is not the ground of moral facts, still, God plays the crucial role of revealing morality to us – say, by commanding them and then revealing them to us via scripture or conscience
1.2.3.2.2 God is required to motivate us to be moral by rewarding good actions and punishing bad actions (in this life or in an afterlife)
1.2.3.2.3 A worry: if we do what’s right only if someone threatens to punish or harm us, are we truly virtuous, or are we merely imitating virtue?
2. Self-existence
2.1 Part of the very nature of God is to exist; He can’t fail to exist -- he exists of necessity
2.2 Why think this?
2.2.1 Anselm: God’s existence must be explained either by something else, nothing, or his own nature.
2.2.2 But he can’t be explained by something else. For God is supremely great, and if he depends on something else, then he wouldn’t be supreme or superior to all other things.
2.2.3 And we can’t say that his existence is explained by nothing whatsoever, for nothing exists without a sufficient reason for why it exists.
2.2.4 Therefore, God’s existence must be explained in virtue of God himself – it’s part of his very essence to exist
2.2.5 How could this be? The “stone and fire” analogy
2.3 My side note: a debate among theists: factually vs. logically necessary existence
2.4 We’ll talk more about self-existence when we discuss the cosmological argument
3. Separation, Independence, and Eternity
3.1 Unlike pantheism (the view of God expressed in forms of Hinduism and Buddhism), the god of theism is distinct from the material world, and the creator and sustainer of it
3.2 God can exist apart from the material world, and from anything else whatsoever; the universe cannot exist without God creating it and sustaining its moment-by- moment existence.
3.3 God is not in space and time. What does that mean? God is subject to neither the law of space nor the law of time
3.3.1 Unlike material objects, all of God can be present at multiple regions of space at the same time – indeed, all of God is simultaneously present at every region of space
3.3.2 Unlike material objects, God’s whole life – past, present, and future – is simultaneously present to him at every moment of time
3.4 The idea that God is not in time (i.e., timeless) is currently controversial among theists. Some think he’s timeless -- outside of time altogether. Others think he’s everlasting – inside the stream of time, but he has no beginning or end to his life.
4. Summing it all up: Theism is the view that there is exactly one god, and that this god is a self-existent immaterial spirit, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal (whether timeless or everlasting), perfectly good, creator of the universe, from which he is distinct and independent.
5. Basic stances about the god of classical theism
4.1 Theist: believes that a theistic god exists
4.2 Atheist: believes that no god exists
4.3 Agnostic: suspends judgment either way: don’t know/can’t tell whether a god exists
Notes on Clifford's Famous Paper, "The Ethics of Belief"
Notes on Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief”
1. Thesis: It’s immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation.
2. First Argument: Four Cases
2.1 1st Ship owner case: A ship-owner sincerely believes his ship is seaworthy without sufficient evidence – indeed, against the evidence -- and acts on that belief, and the belief turns out to be false.
2.1.1Verdict: blameworthy
2.1.2 He had no right to believe it, since his evidence didn’t support it
2.2 2nd Ship owner case: Same as before, except the belief turns out to be true:
2.2.1 Verdict: still blameworthy
2.2.2 The rightness or wrongness of holding a belief doesn’t depend on its truth or falsity, but on how one came to believe it.
2.2.3 But in this case, he came to believe it without good evidence, and that’s what makes his believing it immoral
2.3 1st Persecution case: A group of citizens come to sincerely believe, without sufficient evidence, (unsubstantiated rumors) that a religious group in their certain country illicitly indoctrinated children with certain unpopular religious beliefs (denial of original sin and eternal punishment). The citizens act on that belief and persecute the religious group, but the belief turns out to be false. A commission was formed to look into the allegations. The evidence discovered clearly showed that the religious group was innocent of the charge. The group of persecutors could’ve easily discovered this if they had looked into it, but they chose not to.
2.3.1.1 Verdict: Blameworthy
2.3.1.2 The rest of the citizens came to see the persecutors as unreasonable and untrustworthy
2.4 2nd Persecution case: Same as before, except that in this case the belief turns out to be true:
2.3.2.1 Verdict: Still blameworthy
2.5 The underlying point: It’s wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence.
3. Objection:
3.1 The illustrations don’t show that’s it’s wrong to believe without sufficient evidence.
3.2 Rather, what they show is that it’s wrong to act on a belief that has insufficient evidence.
4. Reply: it’s impossible to compartmentalize beliefs so that they don’t affect one’s actions – or at least so that they don’t affect others in some way or other
4.1 Once you believe something, your ability is diminished to fairly evaluate evidence that has the potential to undermine that belief.
4.2 Each new belief influences one’s total system of beliefs to some extent, and one’s actions are based on this system of beliefs
4.3 Beliefs are not private, but are public property, and serve as the basis of human action.
4.3.1 from the beginning of human history until now, human beings have collectively generated a huge network of beliefs about the world
4.3.2 these are constantly added to, either by careful investigation and testing, or by irresponsible acceptance
4.3.3 they are transmitted to others and handed down from generation to generation
4.3.4 the human community bases their actions and lives on this network of beliefs
4.3.5 thus, communicating an unjustified belief results in it being added it to the publicly held network of beliefs, in which case it can have potentially harmful effects on others if they act on it
5. Every belief must be based on sufficient evidence
5.1 No belief exists for the good of any particular individual alone, but for the sake of the public good
5.2 They all contribute to the common network of beliefs
5.3 Thus, they all contribute to binding humans together and directing their cooperative actions
5.4 But if so, then every belief, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can have an impact on the lives of others
6. Every person has this duty to believe only upon sufficient evidence
6.1 Every person has the power to either diminish or strengthen harmful superstitions in the home, among friends, or at work by what they say
6.2 But if so, then each person is morally responsible for the beliefs that form the basis of what they say to others
7. Second Argument: Unjustified Beliefs Can Harm Others Due To Their Content:
7. 1 Beliefs determine our ability to predict, control, and navigate our way in the world
7.1.1 When they are true, they enhance our ability to do these things
7.1.2 When they are false, they diminish our ability to do these things
7.2 Beliefs have two features that give them the power to potentially shape the behavior and character of the whole human race
7.2.1 Beliefs have the power to alter human behavior and character, individually and collectively
7.2.2 Once a belief resides in one person, it can be transmitted to others through communication and thereby affect their behavior and character
7.3 Thus, beliefs – the public network of beliefs – have a huge impact on the lives of human beings
7.4 Given this picture of the nature and power of beliefs, and thus their impact on human lives, it’s easy to appreciate why it’s important to form beliefs responsibly
8. Third Argument: Consistently Believing Things Without Sufficient Evidence Harms People By Making Them Gullible
8.1Your gullibility is harmful to others
8.1.1 you send the message to others that evidence doesn’t matter
8.1.2 Historically, this leads to a return to savagery
8.1.3 think of the Jim Jones case, the Heaven’s Gate case, The Salem Witch Trials, etc.
8.2 Your gullibility is harmful to yourself
8.2.1 if you don’t care about truth, then others will take advantage of this
8.2.2 think of the scams that tens of thousands of people get sucked into every year
9. Application: Morally Irresponsible Religious Belief
10. Objection: Most people don’t have time to inquire into the evidence regarding their religious beliefs.
11. Reply: “Then he should have no time to believe”.
1. Thesis: It’s immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation.
2. First Argument: Four Cases
2.1 1st Ship owner case: A ship-owner sincerely believes his ship is seaworthy without sufficient evidence – indeed, against the evidence -- and acts on that belief, and the belief turns out to be false.
2.1.1Verdict: blameworthy
2.1.2 He had no right to believe it, since his evidence didn’t support it
2.2 2nd Ship owner case: Same as before, except the belief turns out to be true:
2.2.1 Verdict: still blameworthy
2.2.2 The rightness or wrongness of holding a belief doesn’t depend on its truth or falsity, but on how one came to believe it.
2.2.3 But in this case, he came to believe it without good evidence, and that’s what makes his believing it immoral
2.3 1st Persecution case: A group of citizens come to sincerely believe, without sufficient evidence, (unsubstantiated rumors) that a religious group in their certain country illicitly indoctrinated children with certain unpopular religious beliefs (denial of original sin and eternal punishment). The citizens act on that belief and persecute the religious group, but the belief turns out to be false. A commission was formed to look into the allegations. The evidence discovered clearly showed that the religious group was innocent of the charge. The group of persecutors could’ve easily discovered this if they had looked into it, but they chose not to.
2.3.1.1 Verdict: Blameworthy
2.3.1.2 The rest of the citizens came to see the persecutors as unreasonable and untrustworthy
2.4 2nd Persecution case: Same as before, except that in this case the belief turns out to be true:
2.3.2.1 Verdict: Still blameworthy
2.5 The underlying point: It’s wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence.
3. Objection:
3.1 The illustrations don’t show that’s it’s wrong to believe without sufficient evidence.
3.2 Rather, what they show is that it’s wrong to act on a belief that has insufficient evidence.
4. Reply: it’s impossible to compartmentalize beliefs so that they don’t affect one’s actions – or at least so that they don’t affect others in some way or other
4.1 Once you believe something, your ability is diminished to fairly evaluate evidence that has the potential to undermine that belief.
4.2 Each new belief influences one’s total system of beliefs to some extent, and one’s actions are based on this system of beliefs
4.3 Beliefs are not private, but are public property, and serve as the basis of human action.
4.3.1 from the beginning of human history until now, human beings have collectively generated a huge network of beliefs about the world
4.3.2 these are constantly added to, either by careful investigation and testing, or by irresponsible acceptance
4.3.3 they are transmitted to others and handed down from generation to generation
4.3.4 the human community bases their actions and lives on this network of beliefs
4.3.5 thus, communicating an unjustified belief results in it being added it to the publicly held network of beliefs, in which case it can have potentially harmful effects on others if they act on it
5. Every belief must be based on sufficient evidence
5.1 No belief exists for the good of any particular individual alone, but for the sake of the public good
5.2 They all contribute to the common network of beliefs
5.3 Thus, they all contribute to binding humans together and directing their cooperative actions
5.4 But if so, then every belief, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can have an impact on the lives of others
6. Every person has this duty to believe only upon sufficient evidence
6.1 Every person has the power to either diminish or strengthen harmful superstitions in the home, among friends, or at work by what they say
6.2 But if so, then each person is morally responsible for the beliefs that form the basis of what they say to others
7. Second Argument: Unjustified Beliefs Can Harm Others Due To Their Content:
7. 1 Beliefs determine our ability to predict, control, and navigate our way in the world
7.1.1 When they are true, they enhance our ability to do these things
7.1.2 When they are false, they diminish our ability to do these things
7.2 Beliefs have two features that give them the power to potentially shape the behavior and character of the whole human race
7.2.1 Beliefs have the power to alter human behavior and character, individually and collectively
7.2.2 Once a belief resides in one person, it can be transmitted to others through communication and thereby affect their behavior and character
7.3 Thus, beliefs – the public network of beliefs – have a huge impact on the lives of human beings
7.4 Given this picture of the nature and power of beliefs, and thus their impact on human lives, it’s easy to appreciate why it’s important to form beliefs responsibly
8. Third Argument: Consistently Believing Things Without Sufficient Evidence Harms People By Making Them Gullible
8.1Your gullibility is harmful to others
8.1.1 you send the message to others that evidence doesn’t matter
8.1.2 Historically, this leads to a return to savagery
8.1.3 think of the Jim Jones case, the Heaven’s Gate case, The Salem Witch Trials, etc.
8.2 Your gullibility is harmful to yourself
8.2.1 if you don’t care about truth, then others will take advantage of this
8.2.2 think of the scams that tens of thousands of people get sucked into every year
9. Application: Morally Irresponsible Religious Belief
10. Objection: Most people don’t have time to inquire into the evidence regarding their religious beliefs.
11. Reply: “Then he should have no time to believe”.
Another Outstanding Article Surveying Cutting-Edge Responses to the Problem of Evil
And by the leading contemporary philosopher on the topic, to boot! You can access it here.
Philosophy Talk
This is an excellent, one-of-a-kind show. It's a radio show hosted by famous philosophers, and who discuss philosophical issues with other famous, guest philosophers. Here is a link to the archive of past shows.
A Very Helpful Audio Dialogue on Presuppositional Apologetics
Can be found here
There are several there, actually, and all of them are downloadable. James Lazarus presents a lucid critique of a kind of apologetical argument commonly espoused by Christians who are also Calvinists.
There are several there, actually, and all of them are downloadable. James Lazarus presents a lucid critique of a kind of apologetical argument commonly espoused by Christians who are also Calvinists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)