(Originally Written February 18, 2008 in the Journal)
Part III Introduction to Amiel's Journal (1893)
"A writer is precious and necessary for us only to the extent to which he reveals to us the inner labor of his soul... not the architectural structure in which usually, and I think perhaps always, distorting it, he packs his thoughts and feelings" (Maude, 14).
Amiel's undistinguished teaching career and his works poured into ready made molds (his lecture, treatises, and poems) are dead. But, his journal, which is formless is full of life, wisdom, instruction, and consolation will remain one of the best books ever written like other accidental works left to us by Marcus Aurelius, Pascal and Epictetus.
Pascal states there are three types of people:
1. Those who have found God and serve Him
2. Those who have not found him and are seeking him
3. Those who have not found him and are not seeking him
Tolstoy believes that this second category does not exist because those who are seeking and suffering have found God already. He states that Amiel's journal is a lifelong exposé of seeking God.
The power of Amiel's journal is it never ceases to be a search. He does not end at a truth; it is merely a search for it.
Showing posts with label Pascal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pascal. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2008
Monday, July 16, 2007
Mixed Opinions and Maxims B
(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)
Mixed Opinions and Maxims (continued)
157: Sharpest Criticism
We criticize those who picture our ideal the sharpest
168: Praise of Aphorisms
Aphorisms never lose their savor and are unaffected by time
200: Original
Truly original minds do not see things that are new, but see what is old as new. Those who see the new first normally do so by accident
201 Philosopher's Error
The philosopher believes the value of his work lies in the whole structure, but in reality it is valuable because it can be torn down and rebuilt better. A philosophy is most valuable as building material.
206: Why scholars are nobler than artists
Science requires a sobriety and a simplicity that poetry does not. The scholar must willingly submit to a loss of posthumous fame and therefore is nobler than a poet.
251: In parting
How a soul moves away from another, not how two come together, show how much they belong together.
298: Virtue has not been invented by the Germans
The nobility and lack of envy of Goethe, the noble hermit resignation of Beethoven, the charm and grace of Mozart's heart, the manliness of Handel, and confidence and transfigurement of inner life of Bach do not find it necessary to renounce splendor and success. If these are not German qualities, "it at least shows for what Germans should strive and what they can attain" (157).
309: Siding against oneself
Siding against oneself is unforgivable by our adherents because it is rejection of their love.
325: Opinions
People are nothing without general convictions and public opinions. But the exceptional person rises above this and opinions cease to become public.
341: Loving the monster
Monsters love monsters as apprentices cannot
346: Being Misunderstood
When one is misunderstood completely he must realize it is impossible to remove completely a single misunderstanding. If he does not realize this he will waste all of his energy on defending himself.
404: How duty acquires splendor
"The means for changing your iron duty to gold in everyone's eyes is this: always keep a little more than you promise" (158).
405: Prayer to man
Forgive us our virtues, thus one should pray to man.
408: The journey to Hades
I have spoken to the dead. 8 Men do I always keep my eyes upon: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. These men, though dead appear to me lusting for life. Eternal aliveness is what counts.
Mixed Opinions and Maxims (continued)
157: Sharpest Criticism
We criticize those who picture our ideal the sharpest
168: Praise of Aphorisms
Aphorisms never lose their savor and are unaffected by time
200: Original
Truly original minds do not see things that are new, but see what is old as new. Those who see the new first normally do so by accident
201 Philosopher's Error
The philosopher believes the value of his work lies in the whole structure, but in reality it is valuable because it can be torn down and rebuilt better. A philosophy is most valuable as building material.
206: Why scholars are nobler than artists
Science requires a sobriety and a simplicity that poetry does not. The scholar must willingly submit to a loss of posthumous fame and therefore is nobler than a poet.
251: In parting
How a soul moves away from another, not how two come together, show how much they belong together.
298: Virtue has not been invented by the Germans
The nobility and lack of envy of Goethe, the noble hermit resignation of Beethoven, the charm and grace of Mozart's heart, the manliness of Handel, and confidence and transfigurement of inner life of Bach do not find it necessary to renounce splendor and success. If these are not German qualities, "it at least shows for what Germans should strive and what they can attain" (157).
309: Siding against oneself
Siding against oneself is unforgivable by our adherents because it is rejection of their love.
325: Opinions
People are nothing without general convictions and public opinions. But the exceptional person rises above this and opinions cease to become public.
341: Loving the monster
Monsters love monsters as apprentices cannot
346: Being Misunderstood
When one is misunderstood completely he must realize it is impossible to remove completely a single misunderstanding. If he does not realize this he will waste all of his energy on defending himself.
404: How duty acquires splendor
"The means for changing your iron duty to gold in everyone's eyes is this: always keep a little more than you promise" (158).
405: Prayer to man
Forgive us our virtues, thus one should pray to man.
408: The journey to Hades
I have spoken to the dead. 8 Men do I always keep my eyes upon: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. These men, though dead appear to me lusting for life. Eternal aliveness is what counts.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Notes Theistic Proofs, Teleological emphasis
(Originally written March 5, 2007 in Book 13)
It seems implausible that all religious people have been deceived completely. The existence of a Transcendent God is more plausible than a completely skeptical outlook on life.
"It seems much more likely that such self-analyzing and self-critical men as Augustine, Blaise Pascal and Kierkegaard were not totally deceived than that total skepticism is right. Unless it is true that no person in the history of the world has ever really been truly critical of his religious experience, then it follows that the reality of God has been critically established from human experience" (76).
Part 2: God & Reason
5 The Function of Theistic Proofs
Most theists are not satisfied with proving God's existence on experience alone. They went to establish rational proofs.
The Modern attitude toward proofs for God
Since the time of Plato, philosophers have offered proofs for the existence of God.
There are four basic categories of theistic proofs:
1) Teleological - argument from telos (design or purpose)
2) Cosmological (aetiological) arguments from causation
3) Ontological - argument from onto (being)
4) Moral - argument from morality
Peter Koëstenbaum stated that theistic proofs are "logically invalid, epistemologically defective and axiologically misplaced" (80).
Proofs are Psychologically Unconvincing
Rational proofs are generally unpersuasive to non-believers.
Some argue that the mystical theology, not rational theology is the draw for religion. William James thought this was so because human needs are deeper than the rational.
"Psychological persuasion precedes rational demonstration" (81).
Proofs are logically invalid
If God does not appear in any of the premises he cannot appear in the conclusion because a conclusion cannot be broader than the premises.
Also, if God appears in the premises than the argument begs the question.
Proofs are Epistemologically Defective
This argument holds that even if God exists we cannot rationally know that he exists.
Kant held that we can only know the thing as it appears to us and not the thing in and of itself.
Proofs are ontologically inadequate
This argues that what is rationally inescapable may not be real. We may be able to devise a rational argument for there existence of God, but that does not mean God exists.
The inescapability of a rational argument is based on the principle of non-contradiction but the principle of non-contradiction, while being rationally inescapable has not been proven to be necessarily true.
Proofs are Axiologically Misplaced
The proof for the existence of God should not be the prime importance of one's religious experience.
Relating to the Modern Attitude Toward Proofs
Modern criticism are of value to theists today, but should not warrant a retreat to fideism.
Proof or Persuasion?
If people are never persuaded by proof then there is not intellectual integrity in the world.
While a rational proof may not play as crucial a role as Rene Descartes held it to, it does not follow that it plays no role at all. Even if if were true that people always believed in God apart from evidence, it does not follow that they believed against the evidence.
A proof for God, if it is successful, leads only to the belief that there is a God, not necessarily a belief in that God.
Disbelief does not always indicate disbelief.
Why do some great minds reject theistic proofs?
1) Some atheists accept no kinds of proof.
2) Some do not allow the types of arguments for God that they allow elsewhere.
3) Some choose not to commit themselves to God despite the evidence.
A lack of persuasion by a theistic proof is not necessarily a fault of that proof, it is a result of a personal choice.
Proofs and logical validity
A formal invalidity of a single proof does not mean all proofs are invalid.
Even if no one has stated a formally valid proof yet, it does not follow that one won't ever be stated.
Logical validity is not purely objective.
Not all rationally acceptable demonstration need to be valid deductions.
Are all Theistic Proofs Epistemologically Defective?
Kant's objections are rested on the unfounded assumption that all true knowledge is modeled after the empirical/mathematical knowledge of Newtonian science.
Kant's consistent agnosticism is not livable because it is self-defeating.
The dichotomy between phenomena and noumena is an unfounded assumption.
Each argument or theistic proof must be examined on its own grounds. One cannot reject all theistic proofs a priori.
Is the Rationally Inescapable Real?
Admitting that theistic proofs are rationally inescapable would be a triumph for theism. Because if theism is rational than atheism is irrational.
People believe that reality is rational and to deny that a rational argument is valid, but not real is to state that a reality is not rational.
To deny that rational is real is to deny that logic or reason has any place in reality.
To state that logic does not apply to reality is self-defeating.
Are proofs Axiologically Misplaced?
Proofs can play a practical and a critical role.
Theoretical proofs should not be used to replace immediate help for immediate needs, but immediate needs should not eliminate theoretical proofs altogether.
6. Theological and Moral Arguments
4 Kinds of attempts to prove the existence of God:
1) Teleological
2) Moral
3) Ontological
4) Cosmological
Teleological Proofs and Problems
The teleological argument in a nutshell is this: the apparent design of the universe is evidence of an intelligent architect
Paley's Watchmaker
William Paley (1743-1805), the archdeacon of Carlisle, gave one of the most popular forms of the teleological argument: Paley argued that if one were to come across a watch in an empty field one would rightly conclude that it had a maker because of its design. The world is even more complexly designed; thus, there must be a world maker.
Cleanthes' Greater Machine Maker
In Hume's 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' the theist Clenches offers this teleological argument:
1) All design implies a designer
2) Great design implies a great designer
3) There is great design in the world (like that of a great machine)
4) Therefore, there must be a great Designer of the world
Cleanthes' argument extends beyond Paley's in four ways:
1) He uses other illustrations of design (human eye, male-flame relation, a book, and a voice from Heaven)
2) Makes it clear that the teleological argument is an argument from analogy and that like effects have like causes
3) Denies that chance could cause a voice from heaven
4) Insists that irregularities in nature do not detract from the argument
Mill's objection to the Watchmaker's Argument
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) objected to Paley's argument and then posited one he considered better.
Mill weakened Paley's argument but did not destroy it.
He argued that Paley's argument is built on an analogy. He stated that analogy is weak when there are dissimilarities. Also there is a significant difference between a watch and the world. Thus, Paley's argument is weak.
Mill built his argument on his "method of agreement".
Mill's argument:
1) There is an amazing concurrence of many diverse elements in a human eye.
2) It is impossible that random selection brought this concurrence.
3) The method of agreement argues for a common cause of the eye.
4) The cause was a final (purposing) cause, not an efficient (producing) cause
Mill admitted that if evolution were true, then this argument would be weak.
Hackett's rejoinder on Analogy
Stuart C. Hackett argues:
1) All composites that involve the relation of complex means so as to produce a significant result are composites of whose cause purposive intelligence is an indispensable aspect.
2) The space-time universe is a composite in which complex means are so heated as to produce significant results.
3) Therefore, the space-time universe is a composite of whose cause purposive intelligence is an indispensable aspect.
Alvin Plantinga, while not a proponent of the teleological argument points out that criticism of analogy principles is not as strong as it appears to be.
Russell's Evolutionary Disproof
Bertrand Russell offered a disproof of the teleological argument from evolution:
1) The adaptation of means to end in the world is either the result of evolution or else the result of design.
2) This adaptation is the result of evolution.
3) Therefore, this adaptation is not the result of design.
Russell's argument does not disprove the teleological argument. It (at best) forces a modification because:
1) There is no logical reason why adaptation cannot be the result of both evolution and design.
2) Natural selection has not been shown to fully account for all adaptation.
Hume's Skeptical Alternatives to Teleology
Hume stated that if the world were designed that the design would be either:
1) Different from human designs
2) Finite, since the effect is fine
3) Imperfect, because there are imperfection in nature
4) Multiple
5) Male and female because males and females generate this way
6) Anthropomorphic
Or that there is no design
1) The apparent order in the world arose via chance
Alvin Plantinga agrees with Hume's criticism of the teleological argument stating that there may exist a "smidgin of evidence" for design, but that one ought not infer designer from a minute amount of evidence.
Since the time of Hume a teleological theist must show that both the teleological argument woks and that disproofs of teleological arguments are wrong. (It must show that God exists and that the world did not arise from chance).
Taylor's Anticipatory Design
A.E. Taylor hoped to account for evolutionary and chance alternatives with his argument. His argument states:
1. Nature reveals an anticipatory order; it plans for its own preservation.
2. Nature's advanced planning cannot be accounted for by physical laws alone.
3. Mind or intelligence is the only known condition that can remove these improbabilities against life emerging despite these improbabilities.
4. The mind or intelligence that explains anticipatory adaptations cannot be explained as a result of evolution.
5. Darwinian natural selection cannot explain the advance planning evident in nature.
Clark: Design and Thermodynamics
R.E.D. Clark argues against chance by using the second law of thermodynamics
1. Whatever had a beginning had a beginner
2. The Universe had a beginning (as evidenced by the second law of thermodynamics)
3. Therefore, the universe had a beginner who is intelligent and moral.
Intelligence and morality imply personality, thus the Beginner must be personal.
The New Teleological argument:
1) The Universe resulted from either design or chance
2) It is highly improbable it resulted from chance
3) Therefore, it is highly probable it resulted from design.
A loophole in the Argument Against Chance
There is an immensely small probability that the universe happened solely by chance. But, this is an a priori notion. In actual fact, which is a posteriori, it may have occurred by chance despite the remoteness of that chance.
Julian Huxley, a defender of evolution estimated that the odds against evolution were 3 million zeros (15 pages of zeros) to one. Huxley argued that natural selection was the process of overcoming these odds.
Tennant: Filling in the Loophole of chance
One argument against the teleological argument is that the design in the knowable universe may be only temporary and fragmentary.
F.R. Tennant admits that this is a possibility, but only a highly improbable one.
Tennant states that:
1) Mere possibilities of the unknown or unknowable world cannot be used to refute the probabilities within the knowable world
2) There is no evidence to support that the thesis that the knowable world is a lie to the unknowable world
3) The knowable universe is interwoven and interdependent with the unknown universe
4) Thermodynamics shows complexity; random development to be unlikely
5) Chance rearranging of matter cannot explain mind or intelligence
6) The qualitative greatness of human values outweighs the quantitative immensity of the unknowable world
Kant: Ontological defects in the Teleological Argument
Kant rather than offering a disproof for God or completely disregarding the teleological argument, insisted that it was inconclusive.
He stated that we cannot move from experience of design to the idea of an absolutely perfect and necessary being.
The teleological argument does not provide evidence for a creator, but indicates an architect.
The argument yields the highest cause, but is not a sufficient basis for religion. The sap from the highest actual cause indicated by experience to the highest possible cause demanded by pure reason is an unjustifiable ontological leap.
Ducasse: Cosmological Problems in the Teleological Argument
C.J. Ducasse claims that the teleological argument suffers from a number of defects:
1) It does not prove a perfect creator (evil, waste and disease show a lack of purpose)
2) Designers can be inferior to what they design
3) The teleological argument has the same defects the cosmological argument was:
-If the world needs a designer, then so does that designer (ad infinitum)
-If everything is caused, there can be no first cause
Ducasse offers this in replace of the teleological argument:
1) The most economical explanation is probably the correct one
2) The world is more economically explained by a purposeless craving within man than by some intelligence beyond the world
3) Therefore, it is more probable that the world is the result of purposeless craving than of intelligent design
This argument is lacking in several ways:
1) The principle of economy may not be appropriately applied to the cause of the universe
2) Assuming that the best cause will come from within the universe, but not from beyond it begs the question
3) How is a purposeless craving a more economical explanation than that of a God?
4) How can a purposeless craving result in purposeful activity?
The teleological argument is not definitive as it stands, but it does:
1) Make it probable (not certain) that some kind of intelligence is behind the design of the world (chance is possible, but not probable)
2) Favor the unity of this cause
3) Not demand that the cause be absolutely perfect
4) Does not ipso facto explain the presence of evil and disorder in the world?
5) Is dependent on the cosmological and moral arguments to establish these other aspects of a theistic God
6) Is really a causal argument from effect to cause, only it argues from the intelligence nature of the effect to an intelligent one.
The teleological argument depends on the cosmological argument in that it borrows the principle of causality.
It seems implausible that all religious people have been deceived completely. The existence of a Transcendent God is more plausible than a completely skeptical outlook on life.
"It seems much more likely that such self-analyzing and self-critical men as Augustine, Blaise Pascal and Kierkegaard were not totally deceived than that total skepticism is right. Unless it is true that no person in the history of the world has ever really been truly critical of his religious experience, then it follows that the reality of God has been critically established from human experience" (76).
Part 2: God & Reason
5 The Function of Theistic Proofs
Most theists are not satisfied with proving God's existence on experience alone. They went to establish rational proofs.
The Modern attitude toward proofs for God
Since the time of Plato, philosophers have offered proofs for the existence of God.
There are four basic categories of theistic proofs:
1) Teleological - argument from telos (design or purpose)
2) Cosmological (aetiological) arguments from causation
3) Ontological - argument from onto (being)
4) Moral - argument from morality
Peter Koëstenbaum stated that theistic proofs are "logically invalid, epistemologically defective and axiologically misplaced" (80).
Proofs are Psychologically Unconvincing
Rational proofs are generally unpersuasive to non-believers.
Some argue that the mystical theology, not rational theology is the draw for religion. William James thought this was so because human needs are deeper than the rational.
"Psychological persuasion precedes rational demonstration" (81).
Proofs are logically invalid
If God does not appear in any of the premises he cannot appear in the conclusion because a conclusion cannot be broader than the premises.
Also, if God appears in the premises than the argument begs the question.
Proofs are Epistemologically Defective
This argument holds that even if God exists we cannot rationally know that he exists.
Kant held that we can only know the thing as it appears to us and not the thing in and of itself.
Proofs are ontologically inadequate
This argues that what is rationally inescapable may not be real. We may be able to devise a rational argument for there existence of God, but that does not mean God exists.
The inescapability of a rational argument is based on the principle of non-contradiction but the principle of non-contradiction, while being rationally inescapable has not been proven to be necessarily true.
Proofs are Axiologically Misplaced
The proof for the existence of God should not be the prime importance of one's religious experience.
Relating to the Modern Attitude Toward Proofs
Modern criticism are of value to theists today, but should not warrant a retreat to fideism.
Proof or Persuasion?
If people are never persuaded by proof then there is not intellectual integrity in the world.
While a rational proof may not play as crucial a role as Rene Descartes held it to, it does not follow that it plays no role at all. Even if if were true that people always believed in God apart from evidence, it does not follow that they believed against the evidence.
A proof for God, if it is successful, leads only to the belief that there is a God, not necessarily a belief in that God.
Disbelief does not always indicate disbelief.
Why do some great minds reject theistic proofs?
1) Some atheists accept no kinds of proof.
2) Some do not allow the types of arguments for God that they allow elsewhere.
3) Some choose not to commit themselves to God despite the evidence.
A lack of persuasion by a theistic proof is not necessarily a fault of that proof, it is a result of a personal choice.
Proofs and logical validity
A formal invalidity of a single proof does not mean all proofs are invalid.
Even if no one has stated a formally valid proof yet, it does not follow that one won't ever be stated.
Logical validity is not purely objective.
Not all rationally acceptable demonstration need to be valid deductions.
Are all Theistic Proofs Epistemologically Defective?
Kant's objections are rested on the unfounded assumption that all true knowledge is modeled after the empirical/mathematical knowledge of Newtonian science.
Kant's consistent agnosticism is not livable because it is self-defeating.
The dichotomy between phenomena and noumena is an unfounded assumption.
Each argument or theistic proof must be examined on its own grounds. One cannot reject all theistic proofs a priori.
Is the Rationally Inescapable Real?
Admitting that theistic proofs are rationally inescapable would be a triumph for theism. Because if theism is rational than atheism is irrational.
People believe that reality is rational and to deny that a rational argument is valid, but not real is to state that a reality is not rational.
To deny that rational is real is to deny that logic or reason has any place in reality.
To state that logic does not apply to reality is self-defeating.
Are proofs Axiologically Misplaced?
Proofs can play a practical and a critical role.
Theoretical proofs should not be used to replace immediate help for immediate needs, but immediate needs should not eliminate theoretical proofs altogether.
6. Theological and Moral Arguments
4 Kinds of attempts to prove the existence of God:
1) Teleological
2) Moral
3) Ontological
4) Cosmological
Teleological Proofs and Problems
The teleological argument in a nutshell is this: the apparent design of the universe is evidence of an intelligent architect
Paley's Watchmaker
William Paley (1743-1805), the archdeacon of Carlisle, gave one of the most popular forms of the teleological argument: Paley argued that if one were to come across a watch in an empty field one would rightly conclude that it had a maker because of its design. The world is even more complexly designed; thus, there must be a world maker.
Cleanthes' Greater Machine Maker
In Hume's 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' the theist Clenches offers this teleological argument:
1) All design implies a designer
2) Great design implies a great designer
3) There is great design in the world (like that of a great machine)
4) Therefore, there must be a great Designer of the world
Cleanthes' argument extends beyond Paley's in four ways:
1) He uses other illustrations of design (human eye, male-flame relation, a book, and a voice from Heaven)
2) Makes it clear that the teleological argument is an argument from analogy and that like effects have like causes
3) Denies that chance could cause a voice from heaven
4) Insists that irregularities in nature do not detract from the argument
Mill's objection to the Watchmaker's Argument
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) objected to Paley's argument and then posited one he considered better.
Mill weakened Paley's argument but did not destroy it.
He argued that Paley's argument is built on an analogy. He stated that analogy is weak when there are dissimilarities. Also there is a significant difference between a watch and the world. Thus, Paley's argument is weak.
Mill built his argument on his "method of agreement".
Mill's argument:
1) There is an amazing concurrence of many diverse elements in a human eye.
2) It is impossible that random selection brought this concurrence.
3) The method of agreement argues for a common cause of the eye.
4) The cause was a final (purposing) cause, not an efficient (producing) cause
Mill admitted that if evolution were true, then this argument would be weak.
Hackett's rejoinder on Analogy
Stuart C. Hackett argues:
1) All composites that involve the relation of complex means so as to produce a significant result are composites of whose cause purposive intelligence is an indispensable aspect.
2) The space-time universe is a composite in which complex means are so heated as to produce significant results.
3) Therefore, the space-time universe is a composite of whose cause purposive intelligence is an indispensable aspect.
Alvin Plantinga, while not a proponent of the teleological argument points out that criticism of analogy principles is not as strong as it appears to be.
Russell's Evolutionary Disproof
Bertrand Russell offered a disproof of the teleological argument from evolution:
1) The adaptation of means to end in the world is either the result of evolution or else the result of design.
2) This adaptation is the result of evolution.
3) Therefore, this adaptation is not the result of design.
Russell's argument does not disprove the teleological argument. It (at best) forces a modification because:
1) There is no logical reason why adaptation cannot be the result of both evolution and design.
2) Natural selection has not been shown to fully account for all adaptation.
Hume's Skeptical Alternatives to Teleology
Hume stated that if the world were designed that the design would be either:
1) Different from human designs
2) Finite, since the effect is fine
3) Imperfect, because there are imperfection in nature
4) Multiple
5) Male and female because males and females generate this way
6) Anthropomorphic
Or that there is no design
1) The apparent order in the world arose via chance
Alvin Plantinga agrees with Hume's criticism of the teleological argument stating that there may exist a "smidgin of evidence" for design, but that one ought not infer designer from a minute amount of evidence.
Since the time of Hume a teleological theist must show that both the teleological argument woks and that disproofs of teleological arguments are wrong. (It must show that God exists and that the world did not arise from chance).
Taylor's Anticipatory Design
A.E. Taylor hoped to account for evolutionary and chance alternatives with his argument. His argument states:
1. Nature reveals an anticipatory order; it plans for its own preservation.
2. Nature's advanced planning cannot be accounted for by physical laws alone.
3. Mind or intelligence is the only known condition that can remove these improbabilities against life emerging despite these improbabilities.
4. The mind or intelligence that explains anticipatory adaptations cannot be explained as a result of evolution.
5. Darwinian natural selection cannot explain the advance planning evident in nature.
Clark: Design and Thermodynamics
R.E.D. Clark argues against chance by using the second law of thermodynamics
1. Whatever had a beginning had a beginner
2. The Universe had a beginning (as evidenced by the second law of thermodynamics)
3. Therefore, the universe had a beginner who is intelligent and moral.
Intelligence and morality imply personality, thus the Beginner must be personal.
The New Teleological argument:
1) The Universe resulted from either design or chance
2) It is highly improbable it resulted from chance
3) Therefore, it is highly probable it resulted from design.
A loophole in the Argument Against Chance
There is an immensely small probability that the universe happened solely by chance. But, this is an a priori notion. In actual fact, which is a posteriori, it may have occurred by chance despite the remoteness of that chance.
Julian Huxley, a defender of evolution estimated that the odds against evolution were 3 million zeros (15 pages of zeros) to one. Huxley argued that natural selection was the process of overcoming these odds.
Tennant: Filling in the Loophole of chance
One argument against the teleological argument is that the design in the knowable universe may be only temporary and fragmentary.
F.R. Tennant admits that this is a possibility, but only a highly improbable one.
Tennant states that:
1) Mere possibilities of the unknown or unknowable world cannot be used to refute the probabilities within the knowable world
2) There is no evidence to support that the thesis that the knowable world is a lie to the unknowable world
3) The knowable universe is interwoven and interdependent with the unknown universe
4) Thermodynamics shows complexity; random development to be unlikely
5) Chance rearranging of matter cannot explain mind or intelligence
6) The qualitative greatness of human values outweighs the quantitative immensity of the unknowable world
Kant: Ontological defects in the Teleological Argument
Kant rather than offering a disproof for God or completely disregarding the teleological argument, insisted that it was inconclusive.
He stated that we cannot move from experience of design to the idea of an absolutely perfect and necessary being.
The teleological argument does not provide evidence for a creator, but indicates an architect.
The argument yields the highest cause, but is not a sufficient basis for religion. The sap from the highest actual cause indicated by experience to the highest possible cause demanded by pure reason is an unjustifiable ontological leap.
Ducasse: Cosmological Problems in the Teleological Argument
C.J. Ducasse claims that the teleological argument suffers from a number of defects:
1) It does not prove a perfect creator (evil, waste and disease show a lack of purpose)
2) Designers can be inferior to what they design
3) The teleological argument has the same defects the cosmological argument was:
-If the world needs a designer, then so does that designer (ad infinitum)
-If everything is caused, there can be no first cause
Ducasse offers this in replace of the teleological argument:
1) The most economical explanation is probably the correct one
2) The world is more economically explained by a purposeless craving within man than by some intelligence beyond the world
3) Therefore, it is more probable that the world is the result of purposeless craving than of intelligent design
This argument is lacking in several ways:
1) The principle of economy may not be appropriately applied to the cause of the universe
2) Assuming that the best cause will come from within the universe, but not from beyond it begs the question
3) How is a purposeless craving a more economical explanation than that of a God?
4) How can a purposeless craving result in purposeful activity?
The teleological argument is not definitive as it stands, but it does:
1) Make it probable (not certain) that some kind of intelligence is behind the design of the world (chance is possible, but not probable)
2) Favor the unity of this cause
3) Not demand that the cause be absolutely perfect
4) Does not ipso facto explain the presence of evil and disorder in the world?
5) Is dependent on the cosmological and moral arguments to establish these other aspects of a theistic God
6) Is really a causal argument from effect to cause, only it argues from the intelligence nature of the effect to an intelligent one.
The teleological argument depends on the cosmological argument in that it borrows the principle of causality.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 5 (A)
(Originally written February 1, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Chapter 5 - Revelation and Faith
It is impossible to establish the existence or non-existence of God via rational arguments proceeding from universally accepted premises.
Chris Linehan - An atheist can never convince a believer that God does not exist if he/she has truly felt God's touch/. But, a believer can never convince an atheist that God exists if he/she has naturalized all of his or her experience. God shows Himself to men and men must then interpret what they have seen.
Philosophy recognizes two ways in which human beings can come to know what may be known:
1) Experience (empiricism)
2) Reasoning (rationalism)
God must be known by experience. "If God exists, God is not an idea but a reality outside us; in order to be known to men and women, God must become manifest in some way within their experience" (Hick, 58).
Chris Linehan: I believe that God can be known solely by experience, but I think He can be known via reasoning. God is a logical necessity; thus, all we need to know is logic and necessity to know God.
The Bible takes God's existence for granted. There are no attempts to prove His existence.
The Biblical writers saw God as an experience reality, not an inferred entity.
God's disclosure of Himself to man is "revelation". Man's response to revelation is "faith".
The Propositional view of Revelation and Faith
Roman Catholicism and conservative Protestantism (as well as the Medieval conception) represent the propositional view of revelation. Revelation in this view is a body of truths expressed in statements and propositions. "Revelation is the imparting to people of divinely authenticated truths" (Hick, 60). Faith under this scheme is a person's obedient acceptance to these truths.
Natural theology and revealed theology have accompanied the propositional view of revelation and faith for centuries.
Natural theology is the sum of all theological truths that can be ascertained by humans without divine assistance. Revealed theology is the sum of truths that can be comprehended only with the assistance of the Divine.
Voluntarist Theories of Faith
Blaise Pascal and William James treat faith as the acceptance of certain beliefs by a deliberate act of will. Both Pascal and James saw it better to believe than not believe because it is so much worse to not believe in something that is true than believe in something that turns out to be false.
F.R. Tennant states that faith always involves risk, but it is via risk that human knowledge is increased.
Tillich's conception of Faith as ultimate concern
Paul Tillich taught, "Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned".
God is the object of man's ultimate concern and our attitude in participating with God is our ultimate concern.
Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Chapter 5 - Revelation and Faith
It is impossible to establish the existence or non-existence of God via rational arguments proceeding from universally accepted premises.
Chris Linehan - An atheist can never convince a believer that God does not exist if he/she has truly felt God's touch/. But, a believer can never convince an atheist that God exists if he/she has naturalized all of his or her experience. God shows Himself to men and men must then interpret what they have seen.
Philosophy recognizes two ways in which human beings can come to know what may be known:
1) Experience (empiricism)
2) Reasoning (rationalism)
God must be known by experience. "If God exists, God is not an idea but a reality outside us; in order to be known to men and women, God must become manifest in some way within their experience" (Hick, 58).
Chris Linehan: I believe that God can be known solely by experience, but I think He can be known via reasoning. God is a logical necessity; thus, all we need to know is logic and necessity to know God.
The Bible takes God's existence for granted. There are no attempts to prove His existence.
The Biblical writers saw God as an experience reality, not an inferred entity.
God's disclosure of Himself to man is "revelation". Man's response to revelation is "faith".
The Propositional view of Revelation and Faith
Roman Catholicism and conservative Protestantism (as well as the Medieval conception) represent the propositional view of revelation. Revelation in this view is a body of truths expressed in statements and propositions. "Revelation is the imparting to people of divinely authenticated truths" (Hick, 60). Faith under this scheme is a person's obedient acceptance to these truths.
Natural theology and revealed theology have accompanied the propositional view of revelation and faith for centuries.
Natural theology is the sum of all theological truths that can be ascertained by humans without divine assistance. Revealed theology is the sum of truths that can be comprehended only with the assistance of the Divine.
Voluntarist Theories of Faith
Blaise Pascal and William James treat faith as the acceptance of certain beliefs by a deliberate act of will. Both Pascal and James saw it better to believe than not believe because it is so much worse to not believe in something that is true than believe in something that turns out to be false.
F.R. Tennant states that faith always involves risk, but it is via risk that human knowledge is increased.
Tillich's conception of Faith as ultimate concern
Paul Tillich taught, "Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned".
God is the object of man's ultimate concern and our attitude in participating with God is our ultimate concern.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Virtues of the Mind - Ch. 3
(Originally written December 3, 2006 in Book 12)
Virtues of the Mind
Linda Zagzebski
3. Intellectual and Moral Virtues
3.1 Aristotle's distinction between intellectual and moral virtues
The human cognitive and feeling processes are regarded as distinct and relatively autonomous by Western Philosophers.
Many Western Philosophers have aimed for what Michael Stocker calls a "purified view of the intellect" despite Philosophers like Hume and James showing the connection between feelings/emotions and cognition.
Few philosophers have openly denied Aristotle's division of feelings and cognition.
Spinoza was an exception, he connected the passions and virtue via the ideas of God. No one have unified intellectual and moral virtue like Spinoza.
David Hume insisted that the difference between moral and intellectual virtues was merely verbal. But, Hume's notion of virtue was broader than most other philosophers.
Zagzebski holds that Aristotle's distinction between virtues and other capacities is an important one; but, his division of moral and intellectual virtue is not an important one.
Aristotle divides intellectual virtues into two classes:
1) Art (techne) - theoretical knowledge
2) Practical wisdom (phronesis) - practical knowledge
Aristotle links the two different types of virtues to the two parts of the soul.
The thinking part of the soul commands and the feelings part obeys.
Pascal saw being full of faults as being an evil, but it was worse to be full of faults and unwilling to recognize it.
Self-love weakens the love of truth and leads to self-deception, hypocrisy and other intellectual vices.
"Feelings are involved in intellectual virtues, and intellectual virtues are involved in handling feelings" (Zagzebski, 148).
In addition to distinguishing intellectual virtues from moral ones on the ground that intellectual virtues regulate feelings (an inadequate argument), Aristotle distinguishes them on the basis of how they are acquired.
He holds that intellectual virtues can be taught, whereas moral virtues can only be acquired by practice and training.
Zagzebski holds that both intellectual and moral virtues are learned in stages.
Young people do not possess virtues or vices. We do not start with vice and work up to a virtue.
William James held that it is bad to be too doubtful and too uncritical in holding a belief. He held that the virtue lies in the mean between the two.
Intellectual akrasia (weakness) is higher than a vice. It exists when one knows the good, but does not intellectually actualize it.
Above akrasia is intellectual self-control. This is not a virtue, but it is knowing the bad and not doing it.
Intellectual and moral states (higher to lower)
1) Virtue
2) Self-Control
3) Akrasia
4) Vice
Zagzebski hold that the distinction between moral and intellectual virtues is a real one. She argues that because a person can possess intellectual virtues but no moral virtues (and vice-versa) the distinction is real and not linguistic as Hume and Spinoza held.
Both intellectual and moral virtues are acquired in the same fashion. They both require training and imitation.
Both involve feelings and require one to act virtuously. Both have the states virtue, self-control, akrasia and vice.
3.2 Some connections between intellectual and moral virtues
Zagzebski argues that no-one has offered adequate reason to think moral and intellectual virtues differ any more than one moral virtue differs from another.
The two types of virtue are similar in their natures, similarly acquired and are intimately connected in their operation.
There are logical and causal connections between moral and intellectual virtues.
Moral virtues logically entail some intellectual virtues.
Moral vices can causally inhibit the acquisition of intellectual virtues.
Intellectual failures can be caused by moral failures.
Some virtues have both an intellectual and moral form (i.e. trust and autonomy)
Francis Bacon and John Locke associate intellectual failings with the passions and moral vices.
Francis Bacon states that human understanding is infused by desire and emotion.
Bacon states that there are four types of error in belief formation (he calls the errors 'idols')
1) Idols of the tribe: "The human understanding is like an uneven mirror that cannot truly reflect the rays from objects, but distorts and corrupts the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it (aphorism 41)" (Zagzebski, 164).
2) Idols of the cave: these come from every individual's particularisms, from education, habits and chance
3) Idols of the marketplace: language dictates reason, when reason ought to dictate language. Sometimes language can make philosophy sophistical and inactive.
4) Idols of the theater: errors of this sort come from the fashions of the day. These trends in theology and philosophy can be used to make theory better than truth
Locke's explanation of error comes from his classification of types of men:
1) Those who do not think independently
2) Those who use passion instead of reason as a substitute
3) Those who follow reason, but only seek one source for information and tat source corroborates their opinions
Virtues of the Mind
Linda Zagzebski
3. Intellectual and Moral Virtues
3.1 Aristotle's distinction between intellectual and moral virtues
The human cognitive and feeling processes are regarded as distinct and relatively autonomous by Western Philosophers.
Many Western Philosophers have aimed for what Michael Stocker calls a "purified view of the intellect" despite Philosophers like Hume and James showing the connection between feelings/emotions and cognition.
Few philosophers have openly denied Aristotle's division of feelings and cognition.
Spinoza was an exception, he connected the passions and virtue via the ideas of God. No one have unified intellectual and moral virtue like Spinoza.
David Hume insisted that the difference between moral and intellectual virtues was merely verbal. But, Hume's notion of virtue was broader than most other philosophers.
Zagzebski holds that Aristotle's distinction between virtues and other capacities is an important one; but, his division of moral and intellectual virtue is not an important one.
Aristotle divides intellectual virtues into two classes:
1) Art (techne) - theoretical knowledge
2) Practical wisdom (phronesis) - practical knowledge
Aristotle links the two different types of virtues to the two parts of the soul.
The thinking part of the soul commands and the feelings part obeys.
Pascal saw being full of faults as being an evil, but it was worse to be full of faults and unwilling to recognize it.
Self-love weakens the love of truth and leads to self-deception, hypocrisy and other intellectual vices.
"Feelings are involved in intellectual virtues, and intellectual virtues are involved in handling feelings" (Zagzebski, 148).
In addition to distinguishing intellectual virtues from moral ones on the ground that intellectual virtues regulate feelings (an inadequate argument), Aristotle distinguishes them on the basis of how they are acquired.
He holds that intellectual virtues can be taught, whereas moral virtues can only be acquired by practice and training.
Zagzebski holds that both intellectual and moral virtues are learned in stages.
Young people do not possess virtues or vices. We do not start with vice and work up to a virtue.
William James held that it is bad to be too doubtful and too uncritical in holding a belief. He held that the virtue lies in the mean between the two.
Intellectual akrasia (weakness) is higher than a vice. It exists when one knows the good, but does not intellectually actualize it.
Above akrasia is intellectual self-control. This is not a virtue, but it is knowing the bad and not doing it.
Intellectual and moral states (higher to lower)
1) Virtue
2) Self-Control
3) Akrasia
4) Vice
Zagzebski hold that the distinction between moral and intellectual virtues is a real one. She argues that because a person can possess intellectual virtues but no moral virtues (and vice-versa) the distinction is real and not linguistic as Hume and Spinoza held.
Both intellectual and moral virtues are acquired in the same fashion. They both require training and imitation.
Both involve feelings and require one to act virtuously. Both have the states virtue, self-control, akrasia and vice.
3.2 Some connections between intellectual and moral virtues
Zagzebski argues that no-one has offered adequate reason to think moral and intellectual virtues differ any more than one moral virtue differs from another.
The two types of virtue are similar in their natures, similarly acquired and are intimately connected in their operation.
There are logical and causal connections between moral and intellectual virtues.
Moral virtues logically entail some intellectual virtues.
Moral vices can causally inhibit the acquisition of intellectual virtues.
Intellectual failures can be caused by moral failures.
Some virtues have both an intellectual and moral form (i.e. trust and autonomy)
Francis Bacon and John Locke associate intellectual failings with the passions and moral vices.
Francis Bacon states that human understanding is infused by desire and emotion.
Bacon states that there are four types of error in belief formation (he calls the errors 'idols')
1) Idols of the tribe: "The human understanding is like an uneven mirror that cannot truly reflect the rays from objects, but distorts and corrupts the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it (aphorism 41)" (Zagzebski, 164).
2) Idols of the cave: these come from every individual's particularisms, from education, habits and chance
3) Idols of the marketplace: language dictates reason, when reason ought to dictate language. Sometimes language can make philosophy sophistical and inactive.
4) Idols of the theater: errors of this sort come from the fashions of the day. These trends in theology and philosophy can be used to make theory better than truth
Locke's explanation of error comes from his classification of types of men:
1) Those who do not think independently
2) Those who use passion instead of reason as a substitute
3) Those who follow reason, but only seek one source for information and tat source corroborates their opinions
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Virtues of the Mind - 2.1-5
(Originally written November 26, 2006 in Book 8)
Virtues of the Mind
Linda Zagzebski
2.1
Internists often try to relativize epistemic justification. A justification in internalism is one that justifies an individual's belief
2.2 The neglect of understanding and wisdom
Arguments against contemporary epistemology have shown that it is favorable to adapting a virtue epistemology.
Some philosophers have complained that contemporary epistemology is insufficiently attentive to the social aspects of cognitive activity.
Virtue is more adaptable to social context than reliabilist positions like reliable belief-forming mechanism (Goldman) or belief forming faculty (Sosa).
Aristotle understand the acquisition of virtue as fundamentally social.
Jonathon Kvanvig objects to the focus on one belief in one person in epistemology. If it is impossible to abstract a single belief from a core of beliefs, a belief-based epistemological theory appears less attractive.
Contemporary epistemology is concerned with amassing the most propositional knowledge as possible.
In post-Aristotelian ancient philosophy and modern philosophy certitude has been favored over wisdom. Wisdom was the focus of Plato, Aristotle, the Middle Age philosophies by the latter two, Spinoza and Locke.
Propositional knowledge was secondary to wisdom and understanding in Greek philosophy. Plato (according to Julius Moravcsik) sees propositional knowledge as a derivative of the process of understanding.
Moravcsik maintains that the increasing complexity of modern social and scientific theories has created a need to return to the concept of understanding in epistemology.
Gai Fine holds that Plato's focus on understanding in his epistemology leads to a less atomistic approach in epistemology.
Understanding ought to be a major point in epistemology. It has been ignored for too long
A belief-based epistemology is incapable of explaining the nature of understanding involving the comprehension of structures of reality, rather than its propositional structure.
Wisdom, like understanding has been neglected in modern epistemology.
Wisdom is tough to define, but whatever it is, it is qualitatively different than the accumulation of propositional knowledge.
Wisdom is not a property of propositional beliefs or a matter of relations between propositional beliefs.
Wisdom is concerned with grasping reality as a whole.
3. More reasons to try a virtue approach: the relations between believing and feeling
The advantages of virtue-based epistemology have been shown from:
1) Ethics and corresponding epistemic theories
2) Problems within epistemology
Now, 3) Philosophy of mind
"The treatment of belief as a psychic state independent of non-cognitive states is happily nearing its demise" (Zagzebski, 51).
Stephen Stich argues that the concept of belief is a useless figment of folk psychology.
Psychic states conventionally assigned to epistemologists are not that distinct from psychic states assigned to ethicists.
Many philosophers tend to think of the influence of feeling as an embarrassment, a defect, that needs to be eliminated.
William James held feelings in high regards, stating that belief is more allied to the emotions than anything else.
James defined belief as "the sense of reality". Hume defined belief as to believe is to have a vivid impression.
Without going as fas as James or Hume we can find supporting evidence that vividness of conception is causally connected with belief.
Belief comes in degrees. Belief is closely connected with states like wanting, hoping and expecting.
Wanting and hoping are emotive states, whereas belief and expecting are usually not considered emotive. But, are the emotive states truly distinguishable from cognitive states?
Emotion is either a component of belief or has a direct causal relationship with belief.
It is a widely held false notion that a belief influenced by desire makes it a belief acquired independent of facts.
If beliefs and emotions are intimately connected then we should be motivated to search for connections between moral and intellectual values.
4. An objection to modeling evaluation in epistemology on ethics: the dispute over the voluntariness of belief
The widespread assumption that human actions are voluntary, whereas cognitive activity is involuntary could completely undermine the connection of theoretical ethics and normative epistemology.
Believing is thought to be involuntary and this is the strongest argument against evaluating beliefs like moral evaluation.
Beliefs often seem to be the outcome of instinctive processes.
If beliefs are involuntary, then it is inappropriate to evaluate them from a moral standpoint.
It is wrong to blame a person for a belief if it is involuntary.
4.1 The irrelevance of the objection to virtue theory
Since belief is not the focal point of virtue epistemology, the voluntary or involuntary nature of a belief is less important than a person's disposition to virtue or vice.
The question is then: are our intellectual virtues and vices as voluntary as our moral virtues and vices?
Intellectual courage, perseverance, honesty and sincerity appear to be voluntary. But perceptiveness, insight and ability to form theories appear to be less voluntary and based on natural ability.
But, the intellectual virtues based on natural ability are at least as voluntary to the moral virtues of generosity or the vice of envy.
4.2 The voluntariness of belief
The difference between acts and beliefs is less great than what is thought.
Hume is one of the strongest adherents of involuntary belief. James and Descartes are voluntary belief supporters.
The Cartesian position is that the Will, not the intellect assists in one's belief.
Pascal held that the will is one of the chief organs in belief.
Modern cognitive voluntarism theories come from Murray Clarke, Christopher Hookway, Jonathon Cohen and Lorraine Code.
Zagzebski hold that beliefs are like acts in that they arrange themselves on a continuum of degrees of voluntariness.
Perceptual beliefs which are on the low end of the scale of voluntariness should not be used as paradigm cases for human rationality and justification any more than sneezing or scratching an itch should be used as paradigm cases for moral evaluation
4.3 Moral and Epistemic Luck
Sometimes we blame or praise a person more than is deserved because of moral luck or moral unluckiness.
The Kantian attempt to ground moral evaluation in something free of luck is problematic.
Moral luck is relevant to virtue-based epistemology in two ways:
1. It makes the attempt to model epistemology after ethics easier
2. The rejection of the Kantian position that our moral status is completely within our control takes away one of the motivations for wanting the Kantian theory in the first place
A virtue-based epistemology, because it focuses on inner traits, does not have to pay much attention to moral luck.
Even though few, if any, beliefs are objects of direct choice, they are as voluntary as many acts or omissions of acts for which we are responsible.
5. Conclusion to Part I: Why center epistemology on the virtues?
Be open-minded to see the outcome!
Virtues of the Mind
Linda Zagzebski
2.1
Internists often try to relativize epistemic justification. A justification in internalism is one that justifies an individual's belief
2.2 The neglect of understanding and wisdom
Arguments against contemporary epistemology have shown that it is favorable to adapting a virtue epistemology.
Some philosophers have complained that contemporary epistemology is insufficiently attentive to the social aspects of cognitive activity.
Virtue is more adaptable to social context than reliabilist positions like reliable belief-forming mechanism (Goldman) or belief forming faculty (Sosa).
Aristotle understand the acquisition of virtue as fundamentally social.
Jonathon Kvanvig objects to the focus on one belief in one person in epistemology. If it is impossible to abstract a single belief from a core of beliefs, a belief-based epistemological theory appears less attractive.
Contemporary epistemology is concerned with amassing the most propositional knowledge as possible.
In post-Aristotelian ancient philosophy and modern philosophy certitude has been favored over wisdom. Wisdom was the focus of Plato, Aristotle, the Middle Age philosophies by the latter two, Spinoza and Locke.
Propositional knowledge was secondary to wisdom and understanding in Greek philosophy. Plato (according to Julius Moravcsik) sees propositional knowledge as a derivative of the process of understanding.
Moravcsik maintains that the increasing complexity of modern social and scientific theories has created a need to return to the concept of understanding in epistemology.
Gai Fine holds that Plato's focus on understanding in his epistemology leads to a less atomistic approach in epistemology.
Understanding ought to be a major point in epistemology. It has been ignored for too long
A belief-based epistemology is incapable of explaining the nature of understanding involving the comprehension of structures of reality, rather than its propositional structure.
Wisdom, like understanding has been neglected in modern epistemology.
Wisdom is tough to define, but whatever it is, it is qualitatively different than the accumulation of propositional knowledge.
Wisdom is not a property of propositional beliefs or a matter of relations between propositional beliefs.
Wisdom is concerned with grasping reality as a whole.
3. More reasons to try a virtue approach: the relations between believing and feeling
The advantages of virtue-based epistemology have been shown from:
1) Ethics and corresponding epistemic theories
2) Problems within epistemology
Now, 3) Philosophy of mind
"The treatment of belief as a psychic state independent of non-cognitive states is happily nearing its demise" (Zagzebski, 51).
Stephen Stich argues that the concept of belief is a useless figment of folk psychology.
Psychic states conventionally assigned to epistemologists are not that distinct from psychic states assigned to ethicists.
Many philosophers tend to think of the influence of feeling as an embarrassment, a defect, that needs to be eliminated.
William James held feelings in high regards, stating that belief is more allied to the emotions than anything else.
James defined belief as "the sense of reality". Hume defined belief as to believe is to have a vivid impression.
Without going as fas as James or Hume we can find supporting evidence that vividness of conception is causally connected with belief.
Belief comes in degrees. Belief is closely connected with states like wanting, hoping and expecting.
Wanting and hoping are emotive states, whereas belief and expecting are usually not considered emotive. But, are the emotive states truly distinguishable from cognitive states?
Emotion is either a component of belief or has a direct causal relationship with belief.
It is a widely held false notion that a belief influenced by desire makes it a belief acquired independent of facts.
If beliefs and emotions are intimately connected then we should be motivated to search for connections between moral and intellectual values.
4. An objection to modeling evaluation in epistemology on ethics: the dispute over the voluntariness of belief
The widespread assumption that human actions are voluntary, whereas cognitive activity is involuntary could completely undermine the connection of theoretical ethics and normative epistemology.
Believing is thought to be involuntary and this is the strongest argument against evaluating beliefs like moral evaluation.
Beliefs often seem to be the outcome of instinctive processes.
If beliefs are involuntary, then it is inappropriate to evaluate them from a moral standpoint.
It is wrong to blame a person for a belief if it is involuntary.
4.1 The irrelevance of the objection to virtue theory
Since belief is not the focal point of virtue epistemology, the voluntary or involuntary nature of a belief is less important than a person's disposition to virtue or vice.
The question is then: are our intellectual virtues and vices as voluntary as our moral virtues and vices?
Intellectual courage, perseverance, honesty and sincerity appear to be voluntary. But perceptiveness, insight and ability to form theories appear to be less voluntary and based on natural ability.
But, the intellectual virtues based on natural ability are at least as voluntary to the moral virtues of generosity or the vice of envy.
4.2 The voluntariness of belief
The difference between acts and beliefs is less great than what is thought.
Hume is one of the strongest adherents of involuntary belief. James and Descartes are voluntary belief supporters.
The Cartesian position is that the Will, not the intellect assists in one's belief.
Pascal held that the will is one of the chief organs in belief.
Modern cognitive voluntarism theories come from Murray Clarke, Christopher Hookway, Jonathon Cohen and Lorraine Code.
Zagzebski hold that beliefs are like acts in that they arrange themselves on a continuum of degrees of voluntariness.
Perceptual beliefs which are on the low end of the scale of voluntariness should not be used as paradigm cases for human rationality and justification any more than sneezing or scratching an itch should be used as paradigm cases for moral evaluation
4.3 Moral and Epistemic Luck
Sometimes we blame or praise a person more than is deserved because of moral luck or moral unluckiness.
The Kantian attempt to ground moral evaluation in something free of luck is problematic.
Moral luck is relevant to virtue-based epistemology in two ways:
1. It makes the attempt to model epistemology after ethics easier
2. The rejection of the Kantian position that our moral status is completely within our control takes away one of the motivations for wanting the Kantian theory in the first place
A virtue-based epistemology, because it focuses on inner traits, does not have to pay much attention to moral luck.
Even though few, if any, beliefs are objects of direct choice, they are as voluntary as many acts or omissions of acts for which we are responsible.
5. Conclusion to Part I: Why center epistemology on the virtues?
Be open-minded to see the outcome!
Monday, February 6, 2006
Leviathan Ch. 17, 18, 21
(Originally written February 6, 2006 in Book 21)
Human liberation (Bruno) or alienation (Pascal) in the face of an infinite and indifferent universe.
Pascal gave a, "oh my God, please save me" existentialist point of view on being alienated in the universe.
New demand for metaphysical inquiry came out of the Scientific Revolution. "Were all our religious beliefs just mere vain attempts of explaining particulars of the universe we were not capable of scientifically comprehending?"
Hobbes: British Philosopher (1583-1679) who branched into every field of philosophy.
Key features of his philosophy:
1) Systematic
2) Materialistic or naturalistic with a lip service to God
3) Determinist
4) Atomist (universe made of atoms)
5) Empiricist
6) Moral subjectivist
7) Social Contract Theorist
Leviathan (Hobbes' greatest work)
- Serves as an apologetic for monarchy
- Accused of pandering to the powers that be
Leviathan is political philosophy without purpose to:
- Rationally defend political authority
- Representative theory of Government
- Social Contract
- Bourgeois political theory
Ch. 13
- All people are equal
- Equality brings diffidence (timidity, shyness)
- Equal ability leads to equality of hope in attaining our ends. Since we desire the same things we become enemies
- Enmity results in a condition of war
Man's state of nature is:
1) Equality of man
2) Equality brings diffidence
3) Condition of War
Hobbes: Leviathan Ch. 17
The laws of nature generally entail justice, equity, modesty, mercy and doing uno others as we want done to us.
These laws are contrary to our natural passions and would be consistently broken if there was no terror inspiring institution to punish those who break these laws and those who break their covenants.
Without a government man is right to disregard the laws of nature in view of his self preservation.
Without this government families lived by honor alone and this was honor in stealing from other families as long as the thieves left the other men their lives and their "instruments of husbandry". Cities are large families and will war with one another to serve themselves.
Man cannot work as bases for the betterment of the society for a number of reasons:
1. Men are continually in competition for honor and dignity which causes envy, hatred and finally war.
2) Man's joy consist with comparing himself to another and his interests of the common good differ from that of his own personal ones
3) Men think themselves wiser than all others and therefore best to govern the public and causes civil war
4) Men are capable of words which leads to the diminishing of the apparent greatness of good and evil which troubles the peace
5) Man, when he is at ease, attempts to spread his version of wisdom and causes a clash with other men at ease, which leads to war
6) Man's agreement with each other is not natural; it comes by covenant.
The way to erect an institution to keep man from being in perpetual war is to confer all their power on one man or on a body of men that reduces all of men's will into will.
The commonwealth is this forgoing of one's will to the common will.
By way of terror of punishment, the commonwealth can enforce the will of men to be in peace.
The commonwealth is sovereign and all the people are subject to that commonwealth.
Sovereignty is gained three ways:
1) Naturally by passing it along through generations
2) Through subduing of war
3) The election of man to be, or the men to be the governing class of the commonwealth.
Chapter 18: Of the rights of sovereigns by institution
The people institute the sovereignty of this type of commonwealth they are subjected by their voting (whether or not they voted for the winner is of no consequence)
Rebellion is unjust because the sovereign has the right to impose will.
The sovereign does not make covenants, men make covenants with other men to make him sovereign. Rebellion is breaking covenant with those other subject to the sovereign.
Rebels have to deal with those loyal to the sovereign. When one rebels against the sovereign he is no longer protected and any man who is not rebellious is just in destroying the rebel.
The sovereign cannot be accused of injustice by the subject because he has the authority of sovereignty and therefore acts on behalf of the subjects. (Sovereigns can sin though).
The sovereign cannot be punished.
The goal of the sovereign is peace and defense of the subjects, therefore the sovereign has the right to any man's necessary to reach this goal.
The sovereign must govern opinions because opinions precede actions. Warlike opinions must be squashed before they become warlike actions.
The sovereign must institute laws to stop men from having the right to possess all things, which causes war.
The sovereign is the judge of all controversies or law to ensure peace.
The sovereign has the right to make war and peace with other sovereignties, in light of the peace and defense of his subjects.
The sovereign is to appoint who he chooses as counselors, ministers, magistrates, generals and other officials (also to depose them).
The sovereign bestows rights and honor on whose he sees fit and punishes whom he deems necessary.
Chapter 21 Of liberty of subjects
Liberty is the absence of opposition
A freeman is someone who is free to do his will
Fear does not impose liberty, a man choose to do something out of fear because he has the liberty to do it.
All man's will is derived from God's will. Anything a man does on his own will comes from the liberty of God for man to do it.
Laws cannot protect liberty, only "swords in the hands" of those who make laws can protect liberty.
"Every subject is the author of every act the sovereign doth" (Pojman, 562). The sovereign cannot do any injustice to the subject because then the subject would be doing it to himself, which would break a natural law.
Every commonwealth has an absolute liberty to do as it pleases
A subject has the liberty to disobey a sovereign when:
1) The Sovereign commands the subject to harm himself
2) To abstain from confessing a crime whoosh would cause himself harm
Avoidance of battle is not injustice, it is cowardice.
No subject has the liberty to defend another subject from the sovereign.
A man has the librety attempt to escape from imprisonment.
Human liberation (Bruno) or alienation (Pascal) in the face of an infinite and indifferent universe.
Pascal gave a, "oh my God, please save me" existentialist point of view on being alienated in the universe.
New demand for metaphysical inquiry came out of the Scientific Revolution. "Were all our religious beliefs just mere vain attempts of explaining particulars of the universe we were not capable of scientifically comprehending?"
Hobbes: British Philosopher (1583-1679) who branched into every field of philosophy.
Key features of his philosophy:
1) Systematic
2) Materialistic or naturalistic with a lip service to God
3) Determinist
4) Atomist (universe made of atoms)
5) Empiricist
6) Moral subjectivist
7) Social Contract Theorist
Leviathan (Hobbes' greatest work)
- Serves as an apologetic for monarchy
- Accused of pandering to the powers that be
Leviathan is political philosophy without purpose to:
- Rationally defend political authority
- Representative theory of Government
- Social Contract
- Bourgeois political theory
Ch. 13
- All people are equal
- Equality brings diffidence (timidity, shyness)
- Equal ability leads to equality of hope in attaining our ends. Since we desire the same things we become enemies
- Enmity results in a condition of war
Man's state of nature is:
1) Equality of man
2) Equality brings diffidence
3) Condition of War
Hobbes: Leviathan Ch. 17
The laws of nature generally entail justice, equity, modesty, mercy and doing uno others as we want done to us.
These laws are contrary to our natural passions and would be consistently broken if there was no terror inspiring institution to punish those who break these laws and those who break their covenants.
Without a government man is right to disregard the laws of nature in view of his self preservation.
Without this government families lived by honor alone and this was honor in stealing from other families as long as the thieves left the other men their lives and their "instruments of husbandry". Cities are large families and will war with one another to serve themselves.
Man cannot work as bases for the betterment of the society for a number of reasons:
1. Men are continually in competition for honor and dignity which causes envy, hatred and finally war.
2) Man's joy consist with comparing himself to another and his interests of the common good differ from that of his own personal ones
3) Men think themselves wiser than all others and therefore best to govern the public and causes civil war
4) Men are capable of words which leads to the diminishing of the apparent greatness of good and evil which troubles the peace
5) Man, when he is at ease, attempts to spread his version of wisdom and causes a clash with other men at ease, which leads to war
6) Man's agreement with each other is not natural; it comes by covenant.
The way to erect an institution to keep man from being in perpetual war is to confer all their power on one man or on a body of men that reduces all of men's will into will.
The commonwealth is this forgoing of one's will to the common will.
By way of terror of punishment, the commonwealth can enforce the will of men to be in peace.
The commonwealth is sovereign and all the people are subject to that commonwealth.
Sovereignty is gained three ways:
1) Naturally by passing it along through generations
2) Through subduing of war
3) The election of man to be, or the men to be the governing class of the commonwealth.
Chapter 18: Of the rights of sovereigns by institution
The people institute the sovereignty of this type of commonwealth they are subjected by their voting (whether or not they voted for the winner is of no consequence)
Rebellion is unjust because the sovereign has the right to impose will.
The sovereign does not make covenants, men make covenants with other men to make him sovereign. Rebellion is breaking covenant with those other subject to the sovereign.
Rebels have to deal with those loyal to the sovereign. When one rebels against the sovereign he is no longer protected and any man who is not rebellious is just in destroying the rebel.
The sovereign cannot be accused of injustice by the subject because he has the authority of sovereignty and therefore acts on behalf of the subjects. (Sovereigns can sin though).
The sovereign cannot be punished.
The goal of the sovereign is peace and defense of the subjects, therefore the sovereign has the right to any man's necessary to reach this goal.
The sovereign must govern opinions because opinions precede actions. Warlike opinions must be squashed before they become warlike actions.
The sovereign must institute laws to stop men from having the right to possess all things, which causes war.
The sovereign is the judge of all controversies or law to ensure peace.
The sovereign has the right to make war and peace with other sovereignties, in light of the peace and defense of his subjects.
The sovereign is to appoint who he chooses as counselors, ministers, magistrates, generals and other officials (also to depose them).
The sovereign bestows rights and honor on whose he sees fit and punishes whom he deems necessary.
Chapter 21 Of liberty of subjects
Liberty is the absence of opposition
A freeman is someone who is free to do his will
Fear does not impose liberty, a man choose to do something out of fear because he has the liberty to do it.
All man's will is derived from God's will. Anything a man does on his own will comes from the liberty of God for man to do it.
Laws cannot protect liberty, only "swords in the hands" of those who make laws can protect liberty.
"Every subject is the author of every act the sovereign doth" (Pojman, 562). The sovereign cannot do any injustice to the subject because then the subject would be doing it to himself, which would break a natural law.
Every commonwealth has an absolute liberty to do as it pleases
A subject has the liberty to disobey a sovereign when:
1) The Sovereign commands the subject to harm himself
2) To abstain from confessing a crime whoosh would cause himself harm
Avoidance of battle is not injustice, it is cowardice.
No subject has the liberty to defend another subject from the sovereign.
A man has the librety attempt to escape from imprisonment.
A quiz & some notes on General/Special Revelation
(Originally written February 6, 2006 in Book 23)
Quiz Questions: True or False
Faith and Knowledge are mutually exclusive
-False
The moral sense that tells us when others have wronged us is
-Judicial sentiment
A posteriori arguments argue for the existence of God on what basis?
-Facts observed by the human senses
Thomas Aquinas' version of the argument from designs is called the
-Teleological argument
JFK and C.S. Lewis died on the same day.
Quiz 2
What has Athens to do with Jerusalem is an anti-philosophical polemic by
-Tertullian
Calvin believed that faith in Christ
-included doubt but never results in the ultimate falling away from faith
Who believed the 'first principles' of all truth not through reason, but through the heart?
-Blaise Pascal
Implication of General Revelation
Accountability before God
Romans 2:14-16 (conscience)
Romans 2:1 (judicial sentiment)
Holy Scripture
One aspect of Special revelation
Special revealing: God's self disclosure. "Truth as encounter"
Such encounter does not exclude information (propositional truth)
Quiz Questions: True or False
Faith and Knowledge are mutually exclusive
-False
The moral sense that tells us when others have wronged us is
-Judicial sentiment
A posteriori arguments argue for the existence of God on what basis?
-Facts observed by the human senses
Thomas Aquinas' version of the argument from designs is called the
-Teleological argument
JFK and C.S. Lewis died on the same day.
Quiz 2
What has Athens to do with Jerusalem is an anti-philosophical polemic by
-Tertullian
Calvin believed that faith in Christ
-included doubt but never results in the ultimate falling away from faith
Who believed the 'first principles' of all truth not through reason, but through the heart?
-Blaise Pascal
Implication of General Revelation
Accountability before God
Romans 2:14-16 (conscience)
Romans 2:1 (judicial sentiment)
Holy Scripture
One aspect of Special revelation
Special revealing: God's self disclosure. "Truth as encounter"
Such encounter does not exclude information (propositional truth)
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Christianity & Philosophy, Proofs and nature of faith
(Originally written February 1, 2006)
The Christian Theology Reader
Clement of Alexandria on Philosophy and Theology
Clement argues that God gave the Greeks philosophy in order to prepare them for the coming of the Lord. He parallel this with God giving the Jews the law.
Philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness before the incarnation.
Post-incarnation philosophy assists people who come to faith by way of demonstration. It is a preparation for true religion.
Clement states all good things come from God. Some come directly (like Jews receiving the law from God through Moses) and some come indirectly (the Greek's philosophy).
"Philosophy, acted as a custodian to bring Greeks to Christ, just as the law brought the Hebrews" (6).
Philosophy is not antiquated or made obsolete by Christ's coming. It is a way for some people (lovers of truth) to come to the Lord.
Clement views Christ as both the perfection and fulfillment of the Old Testament and of philosophy.
Biblical parallels Galatians 3:23-24. The Greek word Paul uses for "custodian" is the same word Clement uses to describe philosophy for the Greeks.
Tertullian on the Relation of Philosophy and Heresy
Tertullian was avidly opposed to the fusion of philosophy and theology.
He held that philosophy had a pagan outlook on life.
He contacted the differences between Athens and Jerusalem, symbolic of the differences between pagan philosophy and God's revelation of the Christian faith.
He held that Christian minds were completely on a different wave length than their pagan counterparts.
Philosophy provides worldly wisdom by "boldly asserting itself to be the interpreter of the divine nature and dispensation" (7)
Heretics and philosophers often accept or deny similar viewpoints, i.e. Marcion came from the Stoics.
Tertullian holds that it is necessary to seek God in the simplicity of the heart. Philosophy completes it too much.
There is no need for curiosity after discovering Jesus Christ.
After believing in Christ "there is nothing else which we are obliged to believe"
Tertullian uses historical evidence to connect heresies and philosophy. He felt this was enough to justify the exclusion of philosophy from theology.
Since Philosophy has, at its core, values which are contrary to Christian principles, the fusion of the two would lead to the erosion of Christian integrity.
Augustine on Philosophy and Theology
Augustine advocates using all of the good philosophy in theology and disregarding the bad. He parallels this with the Hebrews casting of the burdens of the Egypt, but taking its treasures with them.
What the Plutonists have said which is true should be claimed by Christians for their own use because the Plutonists posses it illegally.
"Pagan learning is not entirely made up of sales teaching and superstitions. It contains also some excellent teachings, well suited to be used by truth, and excellent moral values"
Philosophy can neither be totally rejected or uncritically accepted.
Augustine points to person who were raised pagans, converted, then brought some of their values (now spun through truth) into the church and made a great impact.
Anselm of Canterbury's proof for the existence of God
God is "that than which no greater thing can be thought". Knowing this definition of God, Anselm states that without God the idea of God would still exist. Then (since God does not exist) the greatest thing that can be thought of is the idea of God. This contradicts the definition of God, therefore, it cannot be true. Since it is not true, the only option we have left is that God exists.
This argument is often referred to as the "ontological argument". (Ontological philosophy refers to the branch of philosophy dealing with being)
This is not a purely logical argument, nor was it intended to be. It is more of a statement of how obvious it was to himself that God exists and the implications that that entails.
The important part of this theory to remember is that the idea of something is inferior to the reality of that something.
Thomas Aquinas on Proofs for the existence of God
Aquinas postulated 5 "proofs" for the existence of God.
The term "proofs" cannot be taken in the strictest sense of the word here. It instead demonstrates the consistency of Christian theology with what is known of the world.
Aquinas' work "the Totality of Theology is" widely regarded as the greatest work of medieval theology (17)
The first argument for the existence of God, is the argument from change.
"Everything that is in the process of being changed is changed by something else" (18).
It is impossible for something to be the cause of change and be changing itself.
There must be a first cause to effect change. The first cause of change must be God.
The second argument for the existence of God is based on the nature of an efficient cause.
There is a sequence of efficient causes in the observable world, but nothing is the cause of itself. This would require something to exist prior to itself, which is impossible.
If there were no first cause there would be no effect. We can see that then are causes and effects, therefore there must have been an initial cause. This initial cause is God.
The third argument for the existence of God is the nature of possibility and necessity.
"If nothing ever existed, it would have been impossible for anything to begin to exist" (19).
Since we exist and we see other things that exist, there could never have been a point in time that nothing existed because then nothing would have begun to exist.
All things that exist must, by necessity, have been brought into existence by something. Therefore something must exist free of necessity to begin the existence of all other things (directly or indirectly). This existence free of necessity of being brought into existence is God.
The fourth argument for the existence of God is from the gradation that occurs in things.
Things are known to be more or less because they approximate in varying degrees to that which is greatest.
There must be something that is greatest, truest, best and noblest. This is God.
The fifth argument for the existence of God is based on the governance of things.
Because things, like natural bodies, work towards a goal without any knowledge of that goal with amazing precision and accuracy makes it obvious that they achieve this goal by design and not chance.
There is no way things without knowledge can reach goals consistently without a designer. Therefore, there is an intelligent being who designed all natural things to reach their goals. This being is God.
God's existence is proven 5 ways:
1) The world is in motion. Something had to start that motion: God
2) The world is full of causes and effects. There must have been a first cause: God
3) Things exist in this world that we are not necessary (humans are one of them). The fact that humans exist means something exist that is necessary to bring what is our necessary into existence: God
4) Values, truth, and morals must come from an ultimate source of values, truth and morality: God.
5) The world shows obvious traits of intelligent design. There must have been an intelligent designer: God.
Martin Luther on the theology of the Cross
Luther draws a distinction between theologians of glory who seek God apart from Jesus Christ and theologians of the cross who know that God is revealed through Jesus Christ.
John Calvin on the Nature of faith
Calvin establishes a direct relation between faith and the merciful promises of God.
Faith is a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us, which is founded upon the truth of the gracious promise of God in Christ.
Faith should be certain and secure but doubt and anxiety are natural.
Calvin states believers have a "perpetual struggle with their own lack of faith, and are far from possessing a peaceful conscience, never interrupted by any disturbance" (26).
Faith is not believing God exists, it is trusting in the promise of a benevolent God.
Blaise Pascal on Proofs for the Existence of God
Pascal places an emphasis on the heart, rather than reason, in the knowledge of God. He also stresses the limitations of reason.
Knowledge of God comes through the heart. Reason vainly attempts to discredit that knowledge. The inability to prove this knowledge of God does not affirm the uncertainty of this knowledge; it demonstrates the weakness of our reason.
Reason must recognize there are many things which it cannot comprehend.
The metaphysical proofs for God have little impact on men because their reason is incapable comprehending them.
Knowledge of God must be accompanied by the acknowledgement of our depravity and of acceptance of Christ as the redeemer to be effective.
John Calvin on the Natural knowledge of God
A full knowledge of God can only be achieved through Scripture, but a partial knowledge of God is possible apart from scripture which makes it impossible for humans to plead ignorance at the judgment.
God's existence can be recognized by all mankind. They are condemned by not worshipping God to light of their awareness.
A sense of divinity is "inscribed in the hearts of all people" (98).
A faith for all seasons
Ch. 1 our knowledge of God
Faith and Knowledge
If faith has nothing to do with knowledge, then theology (study of interactions between man and God) is reduced to anthropology (a study of man's interaction with man).
A lot of modern Christian theology is based on the assumption that faith has nothing to do with knowledge. This makes God impossible to know. We can only know about our experiences with God.
This theologies based on the Enlightenment which states that man is the ultimate measure of everything.
The rationalists came out of the Enlightenment. They believed that knowledge could only come from empirical or scientific evidence. However, God is above any empiricism or scientific method.
"Faith finds its basis in non rational elements of human experience" (2). This is a modern view of faith. A historic view of faith believes it is a part of knowledge.
Augustine says that you first have to believe in God, then knowledge of God will follow.
Faith also looks to the future. Hebrews 11:1 states, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen"
While knowledge of God comes directly through Scripture, it can also come indirectly through creation.
General revelation is what God has revealed to all humanity through creation.
Special revelation is what God has revealed to a limited number of people through redemptive history: Scripture and Jesus Christ.
Knowledge of God through General Revelation
All men in all times know God to some extent even if they don't have access to the Bible.
There are two types of General revelation
1) Outward general revelation is reality around that points us to God
2) Inward general revelation is reality within our moral and spirituality that points us to God
Creation reveals the power of God and His divine nature
Conscience dictates our morality. It is included in inward general revelation.
The Christian Theology Reader
Clement of Alexandria on Philosophy and Theology
Clement argues that God gave the Greeks philosophy in order to prepare them for the coming of the Lord. He parallel this with God giving the Jews the law.
Philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness before the incarnation.
Post-incarnation philosophy assists people who come to faith by way of demonstration. It is a preparation for true religion.
Clement states all good things come from God. Some come directly (like Jews receiving the law from God through Moses) and some come indirectly (the Greek's philosophy).
"Philosophy, acted as a custodian to bring Greeks to Christ, just as the law brought the Hebrews" (6).
Philosophy is not antiquated or made obsolete by Christ's coming. It is a way for some people (lovers of truth) to come to the Lord.
Clement views Christ as both the perfection and fulfillment of the Old Testament and of philosophy.
Biblical parallels Galatians 3:23-24. The Greek word Paul uses for "custodian" is the same word Clement uses to describe philosophy for the Greeks.
Tertullian on the Relation of Philosophy and Heresy
Tertullian was avidly opposed to the fusion of philosophy and theology.
He held that philosophy had a pagan outlook on life.
He contacted the differences between Athens and Jerusalem, symbolic of the differences between pagan philosophy and God's revelation of the Christian faith.
He held that Christian minds were completely on a different wave length than their pagan counterparts.
Philosophy provides worldly wisdom by "boldly asserting itself to be the interpreter of the divine nature and dispensation" (7)
Heretics and philosophers often accept or deny similar viewpoints, i.e. Marcion came from the Stoics.
Tertullian holds that it is necessary to seek God in the simplicity of the heart. Philosophy completes it too much.
There is no need for curiosity after discovering Jesus Christ.
After believing in Christ "there is nothing else which we are obliged to believe"
Tertullian uses historical evidence to connect heresies and philosophy. He felt this was enough to justify the exclusion of philosophy from theology.
Since Philosophy has, at its core, values which are contrary to Christian principles, the fusion of the two would lead to the erosion of Christian integrity.
Augustine on Philosophy and Theology
Augustine advocates using all of the good philosophy in theology and disregarding the bad. He parallels this with the Hebrews casting of the burdens of the Egypt, but taking its treasures with them.
What the Plutonists have said which is true should be claimed by Christians for their own use because the Plutonists posses it illegally.
"Pagan learning is not entirely made up of sales teaching and superstitions. It contains also some excellent teachings, well suited to be used by truth, and excellent moral values"
Philosophy can neither be totally rejected or uncritically accepted.
Augustine points to person who were raised pagans, converted, then brought some of their values (now spun through truth) into the church and made a great impact.
Anselm of Canterbury's proof for the existence of God
God is "that than which no greater thing can be thought". Knowing this definition of God, Anselm states that without God the idea of God would still exist. Then (since God does not exist) the greatest thing that can be thought of is the idea of God. This contradicts the definition of God, therefore, it cannot be true. Since it is not true, the only option we have left is that God exists.
This argument is often referred to as the "ontological argument". (Ontological philosophy refers to the branch of philosophy dealing with being)
This is not a purely logical argument, nor was it intended to be. It is more of a statement of how obvious it was to himself that God exists and the implications that that entails.
The important part of this theory to remember is that the idea of something is inferior to the reality of that something.
Thomas Aquinas on Proofs for the existence of God
Aquinas postulated 5 "proofs" for the existence of God.
The term "proofs" cannot be taken in the strictest sense of the word here. It instead demonstrates the consistency of Christian theology with what is known of the world.
Aquinas' work "the Totality of Theology is" widely regarded as the greatest work of medieval theology (17)
The first argument for the existence of God, is the argument from change.
"Everything that is in the process of being changed is changed by something else" (18).
It is impossible for something to be the cause of change and be changing itself.
There must be a first cause to effect change. The first cause of change must be God.
The second argument for the existence of God is based on the nature of an efficient cause.
There is a sequence of efficient causes in the observable world, but nothing is the cause of itself. This would require something to exist prior to itself, which is impossible.
If there were no first cause there would be no effect. We can see that then are causes and effects, therefore there must have been an initial cause. This initial cause is God.
The third argument for the existence of God is the nature of possibility and necessity.
"If nothing ever existed, it would have been impossible for anything to begin to exist" (19).
Since we exist and we see other things that exist, there could never have been a point in time that nothing existed because then nothing would have begun to exist.
All things that exist must, by necessity, have been brought into existence by something. Therefore something must exist free of necessity to begin the existence of all other things (directly or indirectly). This existence free of necessity of being brought into existence is God.
The fourth argument for the existence of God is from the gradation that occurs in things.
Things are known to be more or less because they approximate in varying degrees to that which is greatest.
There must be something that is greatest, truest, best and noblest. This is God.
The fifth argument for the existence of God is based on the governance of things.
Because things, like natural bodies, work towards a goal without any knowledge of that goal with amazing precision and accuracy makes it obvious that they achieve this goal by design and not chance.
There is no way things without knowledge can reach goals consistently without a designer. Therefore, there is an intelligent being who designed all natural things to reach their goals. This being is God.
God's existence is proven 5 ways:
1) The world is in motion. Something had to start that motion: God
2) The world is full of causes and effects. There must have been a first cause: God
3) Things exist in this world that we are not necessary (humans are one of them). The fact that humans exist means something exist that is necessary to bring what is our necessary into existence: God
4) Values, truth, and morals must come from an ultimate source of values, truth and morality: God.
5) The world shows obvious traits of intelligent design. There must have been an intelligent designer: God.
Martin Luther on the theology of the Cross
Luther draws a distinction between theologians of glory who seek God apart from Jesus Christ and theologians of the cross who know that God is revealed through Jesus Christ.
John Calvin on the Nature of faith
Calvin establishes a direct relation between faith and the merciful promises of God.
Faith is a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us, which is founded upon the truth of the gracious promise of God in Christ.
Faith should be certain and secure but doubt and anxiety are natural.
Calvin states believers have a "perpetual struggle with their own lack of faith, and are far from possessing a peaceful conscience, never interrupted by any disturbance" (26).
Faith is not believing God exists, it is trusting in the promise of a benevolent God.
Blaise Pascal on Proofs for the Existence of God
Pascal places an emphasis on the heart, rather than reason, in the knowledge of God. He also stresses the limitations of reason.
Knowledge of God comes through the heart. Reason vainly attempts to discredit that knowledge. The inability to prove this knowledge of God does not affirm the uncertainty of this knowledge; it demonstrates the weakness of our reason.
Reason must recognize there are many things which it cannot comprehend.
The metaphysical proofs for God have little impact on men because their reason is incapable comprehending them.
Knowledge of God must be accompanied by the acknowledgement of our depravity and of acceptance of Christ as the redeemer to be effective.
John Calvin on the Natural knowledge of God
A full knowledge of God can only be achieved through Scripture, but a partial knowledge of God is possible apart from scripture which makes it impossible for humans to plead ignorance at the judgment.
God's existence can be recognized by all mankind. They are condemned by not worshipping God to light of their awareness.
A sense of divinity is "inscribed in the hearts of all people" (98).
A faith for all seasons
Ch. 1 our knowledge of God
Faith and Knowledge
If faith has nothing to do with knowledge, then theology (study of interactions between man and God) is reduced to anthropology (a study of man's interaction with man).
A lot of modern Christian theology is based on the assumption that faith has nothing to do with knowledge. This makes God impossible to know. We can only know about our experiences with God.
This theologies based on the Enlightenment which states that man is the ultimate measure of everything.
The rationalists came out of the Enlightenment. They believed that knowledge could only come from empirical or scientific evidence. However, God is above any empiricism or scientific method.
"Faith finds its basis in non rational elements of human experience" (2). This is a modern view of faith. A historic view of faith believes it is a part of knowledge.
Augustine says that you first have to believe in God, then knowledge of God will follow.
Faith also looks to the future. Hebrews 11:1 states, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen"
While knowledge of God comes directly through Scripture, it can also come indirectly through creation.
General revelation is what God has revealed to all humanity through creation.
Special revelation is what God has revealed to a limited number of people through redemptive history: Scripture and Jesus Christ.
Knowledge of God through General Revelation
All men in all times know God to some extent even if they don't have access to the Bible.
There are two types of General revelation
1) Outward general revelation is reality around that points us to God
2) Inward general revelation is reality within our moral and spirituality that points us to God
Creation reveals the power of God and His divine nature
Conscience dictates our morality. It is included in inward general revelation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)