Catholic philosophy anthology my background history vs. topics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Plantinga’s objection to Anselm “Greater than,” when comparing an actual being to a merely possible being (e.g., comparing my sister Carol with Supergirl ), is ambiguous . Existence sense : Carol is greater than Supergirl because Carol exists. Here existence beats non- existence. Premise 1 assumes this sense. Properties sense : Supergirl is greater than Carol because Supergirl’s imagined properties are greater. Here we compare (real or imagined) properties and ignore existence. Premise 2 assumes this sense.

Faith and Reason Theology builds on St. Thomas Aquinas Philosophy 1224–74 http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Romans+1%3A19-20 Reason = what we can know Faith = what we can know by experience and logic alone. by divine revelation (from the Bible and Christian tradition). From reason, we can know the basic moral truths and the Faith in general is believing existence and nature of God. on another’s testimony. Faith is consistent with reason. Reason leads us to expect revelation. Faith builds on reason. Faith is backed by rational evidence.

For a set of religious beliefs to be rationally acceptable, it must: • have no conclusive objections (including no deep inconsistencies), • have some evidence (which could take various forms, perhaps arguments, instincts, miracles, or “inner illumination”), and • somehow fulfill our search for meaningfulness. (This is Gensler’s suggestion, which develops Aquinas and Augustine.)

“Does Santa Clause exist?” Five Objections Proofs for the Quote Existence Body (untrimmed trimmer, of Santa first giver of presents, etc.) Clause Answer objections To show that there’s a Santa Clause, we’d have to show that there’s a being who …

The “five proofs” of St. Thomas Aquinas 1. First mover Two objections: 2. First cause 1. problem of evil 3. Necessary being 2. unnecessary 4. Greatest being hypothesis 5. World’s designer

Unnecessary hypothesis objection We ought to posit God’s existence if and only if God is part of our best explanation of the empirical world. God isn’t part of our best explanation of the empirical world. (Our best explanation is science, which doesn’t need God.) Á We ought not to posit God’s existence.

1. Some things are in motion (chang- ing in some respect). 2. Whatever is in motion is moved by 1. First something else. mover 3. There is no infinite chain of movers. 4. If these three things are true, then there is a first mover. 5. If there is a first mover, then there is a God. Á There is a God.

Class Exercise 1. List some of the commonly accepted characteristics of God. 2. Write what characteristics we’d have to show a being to have in order to show that there’s a God.

1. Some things are caused to exist. 2. Whatever is caused to exist is 2. First caused by something else. cause 3. There is no infinite chain of causes-and-effects. 4. If these three things are true, then there is a first cause. 5. If there is a first cause, then there is a God. Á There is a God.

Is it wise to argue for the existence of God using this premise: “ Everything has a cause ”?

3. Necessary Being 1. Assume that every being is contingent. 2. Each contingent being at some time fails to exist. Á Every being at some time fails to exist. Á There is some time at which every being fails to exist. 3. If there is some time at which every being fails to exist, then there is nothing now. Á There is nothing now. 4. There is something now. [fact of experience] Á Not every being is contingent. [by RAA] But if not every being is contingent, then there’s a necessary being. And so then there is a God.

But these are invalid Á Everyone is at some time absent from campus. Á There is some time at which everyone is absent from campus. Á Every being at some time fails to exist. Á There is some time at which every being fails to exist. Aquinas’s argument seems to commit the quantifier-shift fallacy: (x)( Æ t)Fxt Á ( Æ t)(x)Fxt

3. Necessary Being (another version) 1. Each contingent being at some time fails to exist. Á If all beings are contingent, then there would have been a time at which there was nothing (since at some time everything would have failed to exist at once). 2. If there was a time at which there was nothing, then there would be nothing now. 3. There is something now. Á Not all beings are contingent. 4. If not all beings are contingent, then there is a neces- sary being. 5. If there is a necessary being, then there is a God. Á There is a God.

Taylor Mackie 1. Every positive contingent fact has an explanation (in Maybe some such facts have � terms of physical laws or a no explanations. free choice). 2. The existence of the world is Why does the world require a � a positive contingent fact. cause, but God doesn’t? If 3. The existence of the world God is a necessary being, can’t have an explanation in why can’t the world be a nec- terms of physical laws. essary being? Á The existence of the world has an explanation in terms of a free choice.

1. Everything that has a quality (like 4. Greatest being hot or good) must have this quality by virtue of something that being has it in the highest degree. 2. Some things have greatness (exist- ence, goodness, other perfections). Á The things that have greatness have it by virtue of a being (God) that has greatness to the highest degree.

5. World’s designer (physics version) 1. The universe is orderly (like a watch). 2. We’ve examined a large and var- ied group of orderly things. 3. Most orderly things we’ve exam- ined have intelligent designers. Á Probably the universe too has an intelligent designer (God).

5. World’s designer (biology version) 1. It’s reasonable to accept the best explanation for empirical facts. 2. The existence of plants and animals (whose structure seems to exhibit purposefulness) is an empirical fact. 3. The best explanation for the existence of plants and animals is that they were caused by an intelligent being (the alternative is that they came to be by chance). Á It’s reasonable to accept that plants and animals were caused by an intelligent being (God).

“Natural Law” = the objective principles of right and wrong that are somehow built into us and can be known by natural reason. • Law = an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by one who has care of the community, and promulgated. • God’s eternal law includes physical laws, natural (moral) laws, and divine (revealed) laws. • Human laws are created by human societies to apply natural (moral) laws to particular circumstances.

An opposing view to natural law is cultural relativism : “good” means “socially approved.” • Morality is a product of culture. • Cultures differ widely about morality. • There’s no clear way to resolve moral differences.

Natural law’s basic principles are self-evident. • Definition: “good” = what all things SEEK ( or OUGHT TO SEEK or WOULD RATIONALLY SEEK ). • First precept: Do good and avoid evil ( or we ought to seek good [what we ought to seek] and we ought to avoid evil [what we ought to avoid] ). • Human goods include what is good for all organ- isms (like self-preservation & food), for animals (like reproduction & raising children), and for rational animals (like knowledge & sociability).

On Gensler natural law, our duties depend on our God-given nature – as rational , biological , and spiritual . As rational beings , we ought, as far as practically possible in our decision making, to be vividly aware of the relevant facts and be consistent. Here’s a golden rule KITA application: K Know: “How would my action affect others?” I Imagine: “What would it be like to have this done to me in the same situation?” T Test for consistency: “Am I willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?” A Act toward others only as you’re willing to be treated in the same situation.

As biological beings , we have further duties; these apply moral rationality to our human nature . Compared with squirrels, humans are poorly adapted to nature. Our survival depends on reason: being intelligent and cooperative (GR). Squirrel Boucher Human nature requires four key goods: possessions, speech, family, and life. So four key norms are recognized across the globe: against stealing, lying, adultery, and killing.

As spiritual beings called to eternal life with God, we ought to love God with our entire being. • Religion gives a context for morality. So GR is part of God’s plan for us to grow in personhood toward our eternal fulfillment in him. • Loving God includes obeying God (who is supremely wise and loving), and this covers all our other duties as well. Wrongdoing is a personal affront to God. • For believers, morality is part of loving God. That’s the biggest difference that theism makes to morality.

Divine Command Theories 1. “Good” means “desired by God.” 2. “Good” means “desired by a wise and loving God.” 3. The property of goodness is identical to the prop- erty of being desired by a wise and loving God. Issues a. How can atheists make moral judgments? b. Is kindness good because God desires it? Or does God desire it because it’s already good? (Socrates) c. If God desired that we hate each other, would that make it good that we hate each other?

Man was created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul. The other things on the face of the earth were created for man’s sake, and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the end for which he was created. Consequently, man ought to make use of them just so far as they help him to attain his end; he ought to withdraw himself from them just so far as they hinder him. It is therefore necessary that we should make ourselves indifferent to all created things, in all that is left to the liberty of our free will and is not forbidden, so that we do not for our part wish for health rather than sickness, for wealth rather than poverty, for honor rather than dishonor, for a long life rather than a short one, and so in all other things, desiring and choosing only that which leads us more directly to the end for which we were created. St. Ignatius of Loyola

Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? (Paul Gauguin, 1897)

Where do we come from? A loving and good God created us through a long evolutionary process. / We came into existence through evolution, and behind this process there’s no great mind or underlying moral purposes. What are we? We are God’s creatures made in his image and likeness, with rational, biological, and spiritual dimensions. / We are an advanced primate species. Where are we going? Our ultimate destiny is eternal life with God, and we prepare for this by leading lives of wisdom and love. / When I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. What is our ultimate purpose? We were created to love God and neighbor, in this life and the next. / Human beings as such have no purpose, although individuals can have their own purposes for their lives.

“Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers.” (Marco Rubio, 10 Nov 2015, Republican Debate) Fact-checkers http://a.msn.com/r/2/CCexk0?ocid=News comparing philosophy majors (with no degree beyond B.A.) and welders say: Starting salary After 10 years Welders $38,728 $44,498 Phil majors $42,200 $85,000

I think it proper to remain here for some time in the contemplation of God himself – that I may ponder at leisure his marvelous attributes – and behold, admire, and adore the beauty of this light so unspeakably great, as far, at least, as the strength of my mind, which is to some degree dazzled by the sight, will permit. For just as we learn by faith that the supreme felicity of another life consists in the contemplation of the Divine majesty alone, so even now we learn from experience that a like meditation, though incomparably less perfect, is the source of the highest satisfaction of which we are susceptible in this life. . . . René Descartes

• Prepare well, Boethius through Leo. Review readings and class notes, and practice answering the questions. Christian You can bring a one page “cheat sheet.” • Your exam is ten minutes long, in my office: Crown Thinkers Center 469. Come on time. I’ll keep the schedule on my Oral 2 office door. • I’ll start with a lead-in question from ones I’ll give you (e.g., “Tell me about Aquinas’s fifth way”). I’ll later break in with further questions. • I sometimes like to ask which of the authors or views you most liked (or disliked), and why. • I evaluate by clarity, detail, accuracy, and personal ap- propriation (but not by whether you agree with me). I expect much more for an “A” than for a “C.” I’ll e-mail grades.

Oral 2 Lead-in Questions • Boethius • Aquinas on natural law • Anselm • Ockham • Aquinas on faith and reason • Loyola • Aquinas’s objections to belief • Galileo in God • Descartes • Aquinas’s first & second ways • Leo • Aquinas’s third way • Aquinas’s fifth way

Religion in the 19 th and early 20 th century • Catholic thinkers tend toward a ghetto isolation – which ends abruptly with Vatican II (1962–65). • The common people mostly remain believers. For many decades, about 94% of Americans have believed in God. • Mainstream intellectuals become overwhelmingly non- believers. Patrick Glynn’s God: The Evidence sees this loss of faith as largely the result of science – and as mod- erating greatly in recent decades (since about 1970). Copernicus Freud Darwin 1473–1543 1856–1939 1809–1882

Questions to ask those who use science (e.g., physics, neurobiology, astronomy, biology, evolution, etc.) to dismiss religion or ethics: 1. Is your science claimed to explain everything (instead of just one aspect of reality )? 2. What exactly is your argument – and does it assume non-scientific premises? 3. Could believers incorporate your scientific explanation into a wider religious view?

Traditional view: the sun Copernican view: the earth revolves around the earth revolves around the sun The Copernican view, besides seeming to clash with the Bible, seemed to demote the importance of humans in the universe.

1. Religion is an illusion (from wishful thinking and the emotional need for a father figure); but we have no right to believe without strong evidence. 2. Religion is a neurosis (a harmful mental disorder). 3. Science is the only path to knowl- Sigmund Freud edge; we have no right to believe (1856–1939) anything on the basis of our feelings.

Darwin: Humans evolved from lower species. Evolution seemed to show that: • the Bible (and Christianity) are false, • humans are an accident in a meaningless universe, and • God isn’t needed to explain our origin.

How respond to the idea that evolution can explain our origin without God? 1. Take the Bible literally and deny evolution. 2. Base belief in God on something else (e.g., religious ex- periences, feelings, or instincts; or ontological, moral, or pragmatic arguments). 3. Argue that evolution+God better explains our origin than evolution+atheism (fine-tuning argument, how the first life forms arose, how sophisticated human intelli- gence evolved from struggling for jungle survival, and whether our thinking mechanisms reliably lead to truth).

Mainstream philosophy too, from the early 19 th century until very recently, was dominated by non-believers. • Figures like Jean-Paul Sartre (continental) and Bertrand Russell (analytic) are typical in their opposition to religion and belief in God. • Logical positivism declared that what couldn’t be tested by empirical (scientific) methods was nonsensical. • This has changed greatly since about 1970, with the demise of logical positivism and the rise of Alvin Plantinga and the Society of Christian Philosophers.

When your grandparents were in college vs. today Catholics and Protestants see each other as enemies / … cooperate and emphasize similarities Philosophy at Catholic schools is Thomistic (and Descartes is for- bidden) / … is pluralistic (and Descartes is required reading) Almost all mainstream scientists and philosophers are nonbelievers (e.g. only 1.1% of psychologists believe in God) / … a sizeable minority are believers (e.g. 40% of psychologists believe in God) Religion is seen by intellectuals as a neurosis / … as a major con- tribution to a happy & healthy life (many studies confirm this) The universe is thought to be eternal / … to have started about 13.7 billion years ago (the “big bang” theory) Atheists are confident they can explain the origin of life / … have a difficult time explaining the improbable combination of physi- cal constants that makes life’s evolution possible

20th-Century Catholic Philosophy • Thomism (scholastic philosophy) dominated at first. Philosophy, at Loyola for example, was predominantly taught from this perspective. • The turbulent 60s changed things, with Vatican II (1962–1965) leading the way. • Catholic philosophy today is pluralistic, with most following the dominant analytic and continental traditions. We’ll take two women, three Jesuits, and three big names.

Sidney Cornelia Callahan Pro-choice arguments: • Moral right over one’s body • Moral right to choose for oneself • The contingent value of fetal life • Moral right to social equality

Treat others only in ways that John Rawls you’d support if you were informed (simplified) and clear-headed but didn’t know your place in the situation. Golden rule (Gensler) Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation. (To consistently approve of an abortion, you must now approve of the idea of your mother having had an abortion when pregnant with you in an imagined identical situation.)

Baha’i Faith: Lay not on any Hinduism: This Buddhism: Confucianism: One word soul a load that you would not is the sum of duty: Treat not others which sums up the basis of all wish to be laid upon you, and good conduct... loving kindness. do not do to others in ways that desire not for anyone the things what would cause you yourself Do not do to others what you you would not desire for your- pain if done to you. would find do not want done to yourself. self. (Baha'u'lláh, Gleanings) (Confucius, Analects 15.23) (Mahabharata hurtful. (Udana- 5:1517) Varga 5.18) Islam: Not one of you truly Taoism: Regard your believes until you wish for others neighbor’s gain as your own what you wish for yourself. (The gain, and your neighbor’s loss Prophet Muhammad, Hadith) as your own loss. (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien, 213-218) Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neigh- Sikhism: I am a stranger bor. This is the whole Torah; all to no one; and no one is a the rest is commentary. (Hillel, stranger to me. Indeed, I am Talmud, Shabbat 31a) a friend to all. (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 1299) Jainism: One should treat all creatures in the world as Christianity: In everything, one would like to be treated. Native Unitarianism : do to others as you would (Mahavira, Sutrakritanga) Spirituality: We We affirm and pro- have them do to you; for this are as much mote respect for the is the law and the prophets. alive as we keep interdependent web Zoroastrianism: Do (Jesus, Matthew 7:12) the earth alive. of all existence of not do unto others what- which we are a part. ever is injurious to yourself. (Chief Dan George) (Unitarian principle) Based on Paul McKenna’s poster (Scarboro Missions), (Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29) posted with his permission at harrycola.com/poster

The golden rule (GR), “Treat others as you want to be treated,” is common to most religions and cultures of the world. The old man and his grandson (The wooden bowl) Switching places: Imagine your action being done to you.

the Gensler’s GR formula golden rule � Don’t combine these. � � • I do A to another. Treat others only as you consent to • I’m unwilling that if I were being treated in in the same situation then the same situation. A be done to me.

If you want X to do A Literal to you, then do A to X. GR This can lead to absurdities in two ways: different situations flawed desires If you want your doctor If you want to remove your appendix, others to hurt you then remove your doc- [suppose you do], tor’s appendix. then hurt them.

In the same situation • I do A to another. Don’t � combine • I’m unwilling that if I were in the same � these. situation then A be done to me. Am I willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me? Talking to your hard-of-hearing father, removing your doctor’s appendix, a broccoli-hating waiter.

The literal GR fallacy assumes that everyone has the same likes, dislikes, and needs that we have. The foolish GR monkey, wanting to be taken from the flood waters himself, took the fish from the flood waters. Kita, the wise GR monkey, knew how fish and monkeys differ. She wasn’t willing that if she were in the fish’s situation then she be taken from the water. So she left the fish in the water.

Using GR wisely (KITA) K Know: “How would my action affect others?” I Imagine: “What would it be like to have this done to me in the same situation?” T Test for consistency: “Am I willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?” A Act toward others only as you’re willing to be treated in the same situation.

“So always treat others as you want to be treated, for this sums up the Law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12) and “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31). Many Christian thinkers over the ages have seen GR as somehow central to the moral law that is “written on the human heart” (Romans 2:15).

Willing that if • I do A to another. Don’t � combine • I’m unwilling that if I were in the same � these. situation then A be done to me. Am I willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me? A nurse giving a shot to a baby, a judge sentencing a dangerous criminal to jail.

The soft GR fallacy assumes that we should always do what the other person wants. Baby squirrel Willy wants to put his fingers into electrical outlets. Does GR let us stop him? The doormat GR fallacy assumes that we should ignore our own interests. Frazzled Frannie thinks GR makes us never say no, even to unreasonable requests. (But hey, you’re willing that if you asked this then others say no to you.)

Don’t combine these • I do A to another. Don’t � combine • I’m unwilling that if I were in the same � these. situation then A be done to me. Electra wants others to give her electrical shocks (thinking these are pleasant). So the literal GR tells her to shock others (a bad action). (1) Our GR doesn’t tell her to shock others; it forbids a combination but doesn’t say specifically what to do. (2) To lead reliably to right action, our GR needs to combine with knowledge and imagination. Electra has her facts wrong. (3) We need to use reason against her flawed desires.

The easy GR fallacy assumes that GR gives an infallible test of right and wrong that takes only seconds to apply. Rich owns a coal mine and pays his workers $1 a day, which he thinks (wrongly) they can live well on. He thinks his 10-second application of GR justifies his pay scale. He needs to apply KITA, which can take much time. The too-simple-or-too-complex GR fallacy assumes that GR is either so simple that our kindergarten GR is enough for adult decisions or so complex that only a philosopher can understand it.

If you’re conscientious and impartial, then you won’t make Grandpa eat apart unless you’re willing that you be made to eat apart in the same situation. You make You believe it would  Grandpa be all right for you to conscientious eat apart make Grandpa eat apart    impartial       You’re willing You believe it would that you be made  be all right for you to to eat apart in the conscientious be made to eat apart same situation in the same situation

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” So: There’s a God and the world had a beginning. Classical atheism There’s no God, and the world had no beginning.

Kalam argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The world began to exist. 3. Hence, the world has a cause. 4. If the world has a cause, then a personal being caused the world. 5. Hence, a personal being (God) caused the world.

Big-bang atheism There’s no God, but the world had a beginning. The world just popped into existence, without any cause, about 14 billion years ago.

Fine Tuning The basic physical constants are precisely in the narrow range of what is required for life to be possible. Design explanation The basic physical constants were caused by an intelligent being who intended to produce life.

Fine-tuning argument 1. We ought to accept the best explanation for the world’s fine tuning. 2. The best explanation for the world’s fine tuning is that the world was created by an intelligent being intending to cre- ate life (this is better than the chance and parallel-worlds explanations). 3. Hence, we ought to accept that the world was created by an intelligent being (God) intending to create life.

Big-gamble big-bang atheism There’s no God, the world about 14 billion years ago just popped into existence without a cause, and the basic physical laws and constants just happened (in a zillion-to-one coincidence) to be in the narrow range which would make life possible.

Parallel-worlds big-bang atheism There’s no God. But there are an infinity of parallel worlds. Each popped into existence without a cause, and each is governed by a different set of basic physical laws and constants. Our world happens to be one of the very few that produced life.

Parallel worlds: Sheldon Cooper of the Big Bang Theory

A perfect God would create (a) the best of all possible worlds. (b) a hedonistic paradise. (c) a world of great enjoyment, knowledge, and love – without suffering, ignorance, or hatred. (d) a world where free beings can struggle mean- ingfully and lovingly against evil. (e) a world like (d) that leads to a world like (c).

Three questions about evil 1. Does God want us to be happy? If he does, and he can make us happy, then why are most peo- ple so miserable? 2. Why doesn’t God let us freely choose between good and evil – and then block the bad conse- quences of our wrong choices? 3. Why did God make my mother suffer so much from rheumatoid arthritis? Did God want my mother to have this disease?

For man and woman who have forgot- ten or censored their fundamental “whys” and the burning desire of their hearts, talking to them about God ends up being something abstract or esoteric or a push toward a devotion that has no effect on their lives. You cannot start a conversation of God without first blowing away the ashes suffocating the burning embers of the fundamental whys. (“For Man,” 2003, pp. 80–81.)

Reason What has Faith Athens to Plato do with OT Aristotle Jerusalem? NT In the patristic era , Christian thinkers used reason to defend Christianity against pagan attack (Aristides and Felix), to understand Christianity (Irenaeus, Origen, and Boethius), and as a stepping stone to becoming a Christian (Justin and Augustine ). But Tertullian suggested that Christians avoid reason, since it leads to error and heresy.

The middle ages brought great activity for Catholic philosophers. Anselm, with his “I believe in order that I may understand” motto, thought of God as a being than which none greater can be conceived and argued that it is self-contradictory to deny his existence. Aquinas constructed the great faith-reason synthesis: our natural knowledge of God (known through five ways) and morality (the natural law) is raised to a higher level through divine revelation. But later thinkers, like Ockham, grew skeptical about reason’s claims.