About Philosophy 9^th ed., Chapter 8
Philosophy of Religion

Kierkegaard's Encounter With Faith

Kierkegaard's life

perhaps his overbearing father & strict religious upbringing
explain, somewhat, the overwrought intensity of K's thought

Kierkegaard and the dread of death

existential dread: overwhelming sense of

the overriding certainty of my own impending death
the infinity of the universe
how meaningless my own brief life is by comparison

the element of religious hope: complicates the issue

a hope my life might be not so brief -- in fact that it might be eternal
the horrible thought: it's no less meaningless for that!

the element of faith

not just belief that the proposition "God exists" is true
it's wholehearted trust in the Lord & his promise of salvation

the meaning of God's promise: a meaningful eternal life of eternal beatitude

The problem of faith: to achieve such wholehearted belief
The enemies of religious faith

Established Christianity

so engaged with outward forms of faith the inner spirit is missed

the words ring hollow
the ritual is inauthentic

"it's just as hard to become a Christian when one has been born a Christian" as it is "to jump up in the air and land exactly on the spot from which one began" (355)
"[E]very misunderstanding of Christianity may at once be recognized by its transforming it into a doctrine, transferring it to the sphere of the intellectual." (364)

Middle-class society

complacency of the bourgeois

doctors, lawyers, professors, merchants
& their comfortable lives
& their smug self-satisfied attitudes

religious attitudes all about piety & respectability
incapable of mustering the passion required for a genuine leap of faith

Hegelian philosophy with its

overweening claim or aspiration to be

a totally rational and objective system
explaining absolutely everything'

its smug self-satisfied conclusion

Western European civilization is God's chosen one
the one true progressive one: others are stagnant or regressive

The Marxian contrast

Like Marx, Kierkegaard saw a justifying ideology or the spiritually bankrupt bourgeois establishment in

established religion

for the poor working stiff

"the opiate of the people" (Marx & Engels)
"You'll get pie in the sky when you die" (leftist protest song).

for the well off: assurance that their good fortune is well-deserved

Hegelian philosophy: which viewed the existing order as the crown of creation

Kierkegaard's call

not for outward revolution, like Marx

"Workers of the world to unite!" (Marx & Engels)
Unite to overthrow of the Capitalist system & the rule of the bourgeois

but for inward revolution

for so-called "Christians"
"to pay to eternal life as much attention as they regularly gave to a daily profit"

Kierkegaard's philosophy of religion

main tenets

the subjectivity of truth
the leap of faith

truth

correspondence theory (standard)

a statement (or thought) is true if it corresponds to the objects it purports to describe
truth is objective -- it depends on how the thought is related to its object

how it is related to the subject -- whether the subject believes it wholeheartedly, half-heartedly, or not at all -- is irrelevant
what's objectively true is true even if no one believes it -- e.g., the earth revolves around the sun

Kierkegaard's subjective theory

a (religious) belief's truth depends on the subject's relation to it (rather than its relation to its object)
it's true if believed "passionately, unconditionally, absolutely without inner reservation or doubt"
it's not what it says (whether its accurate) but how it's held (whether it's passionate & unreserved) that makes it true

the leap of faith: required for true Christian belief

tenets of Christian belief are not only not provable
they're unbelievably absurd

especially, the mystery of incarnation
how can God be the eternal Father while being Jesus in time

creo quia absurdum: I believe because it's absurd

Can We Prove That God Exists?

Argument: a set of statements offered in support of another statement

supporting statements are called premises
statements supported are conclusions

An argument is sound or cogent if and only if
1. the premises are all true
2. the conclusion actually follows from their being true
  - deductively sound: if the truth of the premises guarantees the conclusion
  - inductively strong: if the truth of the premises makes the conclusion likely but not certain
The proofs and religiosity
- naive way of looking at it
  - believers will welcome & support the proofs
  - disbelievers will reject them
- why naive: fideist believers (of whom K is an extreme example)
  - believe salvation is "by faith alone"
  - Who needs faith if you have proof?
  - fideist believers do not welcome these proofs: they reject them

The Argument From Design

Paley's argument from design

the analogical structure of the argument

Premise: A is like B in respects P, Q, & R.
Premise: A has property S.
Conclusion: Probably, B has property S.

two forms of the analogy

between the parts of creation and the products of intelligent (human) design
between the whole of creation (the universe) and the products of intelligent human design

The argument from the parts:

Premise: An eye is like a watch in being an effective assemblage of parts to achieve a purpose -- seeing in case of the eye, keeping time in the case of the watch.
Premise: A watch is a product of intelligent design (ours).
Conclusion: Probably an eye is a product of intelligent design (God's).

The argument from the whole:

Premise: The universe is like a watch in being an effective assemblage of parts to achieve a purpose.
Premise A watch is a product of intelligent design.
Conclusion: Probably the universe is a product of intelligent design (God's).

Two criticisms of the argument

Wolff's criticism

even if cogent the argument only proves there is some intelligent artificer
not that that intelligent designer is an infinitely powerful, infinitely wise God
discussion

the universe, being finite, it seems only finite (though admittedly very great) power & wisdom would be necessary to create it
though to create it from nothing, I grant you, would require power & wisdom very very great indeed
notice that much less power & wisdom (presumably) are required for creating an eye

eyes are a more limited even imperfect creations -- they malfunction
far less than infinite power & wisdom would seem necessary to make an eye

Hume's criticism

lampooned the argument from the parts:

its defenders, Hume said, think it testifies to the power and wisdom of God that he has given us noses to hold up our glasses
the argument from evil the flip side of the design argument
the standard response to the argument from evil -- go holistic

seeming flaws in the design of the whole
are really virtues in the big picture

it's good that our eyes malfunction
it makes us exercise our minds to invent glasses

the argument from whole depends on a forced (insupportable) analogy

how is the whole universe like a watch?
not clear what its purpose might be

Just to be?
What kind of purpose is that?

if some inscrutable divine purpose is served

this is not observable
it's a matter of faith -- believers think they see it, nonbelievers not

The Cosmological Argument

The a posteriori character of the argument

a posteriori means "from after" -- it follows from facts we can experience

it's truth or falsity depends on matters of (possibly observable) fact
e.g., the premises in the design argument
argues from assumptions (or observations) about how the world is

we are arguing to the existence of God as the cause that best explains the consequence that the world

is a certain way:

well designed, as in the argument from design
or in motion, as in Aquinas' 1st way

or is at all: in the case of Aquinas' 3rd way

Aquinas: Two sources of belief about God

Revelation:

for which our only evidence is the testimony of the Bible and the saints
is required to know truths requisite for salvation

that Christ is our savior
that the Catholic Church as Christ's enduring representative on earth
is the only door to salvation

this is revealed theology -- it can only be known through (faith in) revelation

Reason:

which all human beings share -- it's our nature
suffices for knowledge that God exists -- it's provable on the basis of

reason
plus observation

this is natural theology.

The cosmological argument

first three of Aquinas' five ways
2nd way: from the order of efficient causes

Premise 1: Everything has an efficient cause (as we observe)

a things efficient cause is something that precede it and makes it be
example 1: my parents procreative acts were the efficient causes of my being; their parents of theirs, etc.
example 2: an auto accident was the efficient cause of Princess Di's death.

Premise 2: The order of efficient causes cannot go on forever.

if my parents hadn't already been caused to exist (if all the preceding sequence of causes had not been completed)
then I couldn't exist
but if the preceding series goes back forever the sequence cannot be completed

an infinite sequence can't be run through
however long you count you'll never get to infinity

Conclusion: A first efficient cause of everything exists, "to which everyone gives the name of God."

A Humean Objection

The order of efficient causes could go on forever
If the universe itself is eternal

then each preceding event explains the following
and the whole sequence requires no further explanation
easiest to see if you envisage a cyclical universe

The Ontological Argument

The a priori -- "from before" -- character of the argument

not from what comes after -- his creation
but from what comes "before" -- his very nature
God, by nature is a being who must exist

God has necessary existence
as opposed to the merely contingent existence of things or creation

The nature & plan of the argument

conceptual truths or tautologies: true in virtue of the meaning of the terms or thoughts employed in stating or thinking them

bachelors are unmarried
triangles have three sides

contrast empirical truths or contingencies: true in virtue of facts above and beyond the meaning of the words or thoughts employed

most bachelors are unhappy
some triangles are on the chalkboard

the ontological argument purports to show that "God exists" is a conceptual truth

The argument (St. Anselm)

Premise: The concept of God is the concept of "a being than which no greater can be conceived" (378)
Premise: A being that exists is greater than a being that doesn't.
Conclusion: God exists.
Exegesis: If God were conceived not to exist, then a greater being could be conceived (just like God but existing); but that's a contradiction (God by definition is the greatest); so, necessarily, God exists.

The argument (Descartes)

God means most perfect being.
If God didn't exist, God wouldn't be perfect.
:. God exists.
Example I: By parity of reasoning with the following

Bachelor means unmarried adult male.
If a bachelor weren't single, then he would be married.
:. Bachelors are single.

Example 2:

Triangle means closed three-sided figure.
If a figure didn't have interior angles of 180° it wouldn't be closed & three-sided.
:. Triangles have interior angles of 180°

Kant's refutation

perfections or virtues are characteristics or properties of things, e.g.,

wisdom
power
love

the features that make up the concept of a thing are likewise properties, e.g.,

unmarried
adult
male

but existence is not a property -- not "a proper predicate" Kant says
therefore being is not a perfection that can enter into the concept of a thing
comparison

first conceive of bachelors as existing (as nowadays) and then as not (before there were humans on the planet)
to do either is to deploy the very same concept: unmarried-adult-male
existence adds nothing to the concept

to think of bachelors existing is to think of the concept being exemplified
to think of no bachelors existing is to think of the very same concept being unexemplified

The Problem of Evil

Preliminaries: Bad things

natural evils: death, disease, pain, etc.
moral evils: spite, envy, hate, etc.

Epicurus' version

Premise: If God is all powerful, then he could prevent evil.
Premise: If God is all good then he would prevent evil if he could.
Premise: Evil exists.
Conclusion: There is no all good, all powerful God.

Leibniz's Theodicy: the second premise is false.

Many good things would not exist if their were no bad things

natural evils

If there were no danger, courage would be impossible.
If there were no difficulties there would be no achievements.

moral evils

If not for sin there couldn't be free will. {Isn't possibility of sinning all that's required?}
If not for sin there couldn't be salvation. {Isn't it better not to sin in the first place?}

So a world with some bad things can be better than a world without bad things, if it has enough compensating goods.
God, being perfectly good, creates the best of all possible worlds . . . which contains some evils.