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

Catholic philosophy anthology my background history vs. topics

What has What has At Athe hens t ns to do with do with Je Jeru rusalem? m?

Course requirements

• Readings
• Mini-reports
• One paper
• Three oral exams
• Attendance

Where you sit now will be your assigned seat!

Catholic philosophy” could mean (1) philosophy based

• n premises of the Catholic faith, (2) philosophy written

by Catholics, or (3) Thomism. The initial problem of Catholic philosophy was how to combine Christianity (FAITH – especially from the Old and New Testaments) with Greek Philosophy (REASON – especially as found in Plato and Aristotle). What has Athens to What has Athens to do with Jer do with Jerusalem? salem?

Plato Aristotle Early Christian Philosophers Old Testament New Testament

What has Athens to What has Athens to do with Jer do with Jerusalem? salem?

Patristic Era: Centuries 1-6 AD

From the twelve apostles, through persecutions and heresies, to become the state religion of the Roman Empire.

• Plato, Platonisms, and Stoicism
• Apologists: Aristides, Justin, Felix, Tertullian
• Systematizers: Irenaeus, Clement, Origen
• Theologians using philosophical ideas: Gregory of Nyssa
• The big name: Augustine
• Late figures: Pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius

Irenaeus

Why is there evil in a world created by a perfect God?

The “traditional” explanation of evil

(a) God is all-good and all-powerful. (b) God created a world with perfect free creatures, Adam and Eve. Be- fore creaturely sin, the world had no suffering, death, or disease. All evil comes from the abuse of free will – either as a punishment or as a natural consequence. (c) God permits evil because he could eliminate it only by taking away

• ur free will (and thus our capacity

for moral goodness), which would result in a less-good world. Objections: science morality psychology text

Irenaeus’s explanation of evil (Hick)

(a) God is all-good and all-powerful. (b) God created a world of imperfect, weak free beings who, by strug- gling against evil, can grow in spir- itual maturity toward greater faith and love – which will reach perfec- tion only in the afterlife. (c) God permits evil because it is re- quired for the significance of the human epic. Our life is like the way

• f the cross leading to

the resurrection.

Clement of Alexandria

• God prepared the world for Christ

both by the Old Testament and by Greek philosophy.

• The Greek philosophers stole many

ideas from the Old Testament.

Objections to religion can be: (1) UNFAIR (e.g., distortions), (2) USEFUL WARNINGS (where believers need to be more careful), or (3) GENUINE

ISSUES (where a longer response is needed).

Atheists often object that (3a) a good God wouldn’t create a world with evil, (3b) the world can be explained without God, and (3c) religion is a big negative force in the world.

Gensler’s three central ideas of Christianity:

• 1. Love God.
• 2. Love your neighbor (+ GR).
• 3. Jesus is Lord.

Plotinus (father of Neoplatonism)

All of reality flows (emanates) from THE ONE through lower levels of being down to matter:

THE ONE

• …
• SOUL
• MATTER

Finite beings who possess the power of understanding, if they know that God exists, know that he is the most adequate object of their love, and that the deepest desire of every such being, whether they acknowl- edge it or not, is to be at one with God.

From Alasdair MacIntyre’s God, Philosophy, Universities

But what do I love when I love you? Not the beauty of body, not the brightness of light so friendly to the eyes, not the sweet melodies of songs, not the fragrance of flowers, not manna and honey; not limbs for bodily embraces. It is not these I love when I love my God. And yet, when I love him, I do love a kind of light, melody, fragrance, food, embrace; for he is a light, a melody, a fragrance, a food, an embracement in my inner self – where that light shines into my soul which no place can contain, where that voice sounds which time does not sweep away, where that fragrance breathes which no wind scatters, where that flavor is relished which eating does not diminish, where that embrace is felt which is not severed by fulfillment of

• desire. This is what I love when I love my God.

Augustine

Speaking about God

Via negativa: Saying what God isn’t. Via analogia: Saying what God is like. Via eminentia: Saying that God has a quality supremely. Gregory of Nyssa: We can more literally speak of how God relates to us (like “God is greater than us” and “God created us”) than of what God is like in himself. Charles Hartshorne: We can more literally speak of God (like “God is good”) than we can speak of humans (like “Sean is good” – which needs qualifications).

Why is there evil in a world created by a perfect God?

• All MORAL EVIL is an abuse of free will; but it’s

better that we have free will than that we be robots.

• All PHYSICAL EVIL:

(Augustine) (Irenaeus) is a consequence

• f sin or a punish-

ment for sin. is a consequence of sin or sets the stage for the great struggle against evil.

Augustine’s God’s Providence

Objection Response

If God had a plan for my life, then my life wouldn’t be a mess. My life is a mess. Á God has no plan for my life. If God designed my body well, then (even more so) he has a plan for my life. God designed my body well. Á God has a plan for my life.

Christian Thinkers Oral 1

• Prepare well, through Augustine. Review readings and

class notes, and practice answering the questions. You can bring a one page “cheat sheet.”

• Your exam is ten minutes long, in my office: Crown

Center 469 (make sure you know where this is). Come

• n time. I’ll keep the schedule on my office door.
• I’ll start with a lead-in question from ones I’ll give you

(e.g., “Tell me about Irenaeus and the problem of evil”). 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 1 Lead-in Questions

• Catholic philosophy (definition and family resemblances)
• Philosophical issues raised by the bible or Christianity
• Plato-or-Aristotle (and how his views fit into Christianity)
• Tertullian versus Justin-or-Aristides on faith & reason
• Irenaeus and the problem of evil
• The Felix debate (pagan versus Christian)
• Origen (including whether to take the bible literally)
• Augustine’s Confessions
• Augustine’s Christian Doctrine
• Augustine’s Freedom and Evil
• Augustine’s Divine Providence

God knew that I’d do it. If God knew that I’d do it, then it was necessary that I’d do it. If it was necessary that I’d do it, then I wasn’t free. Á I wasn’t free.

See Gensler’s Introduction to Logic (Routledge 2017), page 247.

If we see John walking, then it’s necessary that John walks.

Conditional Necessity È(A Ä B) Simple Necessity (A Ä ÈB) This is necessary: if we see John walking then John is walking. If we see John walking, then John’s walking is inherently necessary.

If you’re a bachelor, then it’s necessary that you’re unmarried.

Conditional Necessity È(A Ä B) Simple Necessity (A Ä ÈB) This is necessary: if you’re a bachelor then you’re unmarried. If you’re a bachelor, then you’re inherently unmarriable.

If God knew that I’d do it, then it was necessary that I’d do it.

Conditional Necessity È(A Ä B) Simple Necessity (A Ä ÈB) This is necessary: if God knew that I’d do it then I’d do it. If God knew that I’d do it, then my doing it is inherently necessary.

The Middle Ages: Centuries 7-14

Three faith traditions are important: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish.

• Early middle ages (600-1100): not much happening

with Christian thinkers.

• High middle ages (1100-1300): the great faith-reason

synthesis, especially in St. Thomas Aquinas.

• Late middle ages (1300-1400): increasing skepticism

about the faith-reason synthesis (as in Ockham).

There must be a God, because

cosmological argument

• the world’s existence requires

an explanation teleological argument

• the world’s order requires a

designer

• ntological

argument

• the idea of a supremely perfect

being requires existence moral argument

• our moral duties require a

source

If I were God, I’d give humans (a) conclusive (b) strong (c) weak (d) no evidence for my existence.

Which is Anselm’s notion of God?

(a) The greatest being. (b) The greatest being conceivable by humans. (c) The greatest possible being (who may be perhaps even greater than the greatest being conceivable by humans). (d) A being than which no greater can be conceived.

• St. Anselm’s

Ontological Argument

• 1. If God exists in the understanding and not in

reality, then there can be conceived a being greater than God (namely, a similar being that also exists in reality).

• 2. “There can be conceived a being greater than

God” is false (since “God” is defined as “a being than which no greater can be conceived”).

• 3. God exists in the understanding.

Á God exists in reality.

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

• St. Thomas Aquinas

1224–74 Theology

builds on

Philosophy

Reason = what we can know by experience and logic alone. From reason, we can know the basic moral truths and the existence and nature of God. Faith = what we can know by divine revelation (from the Bible and Christian tradition). Faith in general is believing

• n another’s testimony.

Faith is consistent with reason. Faith builds on reason. Reason leads us to expect revelation. 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.)

Five Proofs for the Existence

• f Santa

Clause “Does Santa Clause exist?” Objections Quote Body (untrimmed trimmer, first giver of presents, etc.) 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

Two objections:

• 1. problem of evil
• 2. unnecessary

hypothesis

• 1. First mover
• 2. First cause
• 3. Necessary being
• 4. Greatest being
• 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. First

mover

• 1. Some things are in motion (chang-

ing in some respect).

• 2. Whatever is in motion is moved by

something else.

• 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.

• 2. First

cause

• 1. Some things are caused to exist.
• 2. Whatever is caused to exist is

caused by something else.

• 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)(Æt)Fxt Á (Æt)(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 terms of physical laws or a free choice).

• 2. The existence of the world is

a positive contingent fact.

• 3. The existence of the world

can’t have an explanation in terms of physical laws. Á The existence of the world has an explanation in terms

• f a free choice.
• Maybe some such facts have

no explanations. Why does the world require a cause, but God doesn’t? If God is a necessary being, why can’t the world be a nec- essary being?

• 4. Greatest

being

• 1. Everything that has a quality (like

being hot or good) must have this quality by virtue of something that 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

• ught 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

• ur decision making, to be vividly aware of the relevant facts

and be consistent. Here’s a golden rule KITA application: K I T A Know: “How would my action affect others?” Imagine: “What would it be like to have this done to me in the same situation?” Test for consistency: “Am I willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?” 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.

Squirrel Boucher

Compared with squirrels, humans are poorly adapted to nature. Our survival depends on reason: being intelligent and cooperative (GR). 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
• f God’s plan for us to grow in personhood toward
• ur 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

• ur 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

Christian Thinkers Oral 2

• Prepare well, Boethius through Leo. Review readings

and class notes, and practice answering the questions. You can bring a one page “cheat sheet.”

• Your exam is ten minutes long, in my office: Crown

Center 469. Come on time. I’ll keep the schedule on my

• ffice 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
• Anselm
• Aquinas on faith and reason
• Aquinas’s objections to belief

in God

• Aquinas’s first & second ways
• Aquinas’s third way
• Aquinas’s fifth way
• Aquinas on natural law
• Ockham
• Loyola
• Galileo
• Descartes
• Leo

Religion in the 19th and early 20th 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 1473–1543 Freud 1856–1939 Darwin 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 revolves around the earth Copernican view: 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.

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)

• 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-

edge; we have no right to believe 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 19th 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

John Rawls (simplified)

Treat others only in ways that you’d support if you were informed 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 soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for your-

• self. (Baha'u'lláh, Gleanings)

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. (Mahabharata 5:1517)

Buddhism:

Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find

• hurtful. (Udana-

Varga 5.18) Confucianism: One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct... loving kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. (Confucius, Analects 15.23)

Taoism: Regard your

neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien, 213-218) Sikhism: I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all. (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 1299) Christianity: In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets. (Jesus, Matthew 7:12) Unitarianism: We affirm and pro- mote respect for the interdependent web

• f all existence of

which we are a part. (Unitarian principle) Native Spirituality: We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive. (Chief Dan George) Islam: Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself. (The Prophet Muhammad, Hadith) Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neigh-

• bor. This is the whole Torah; all

the rest is commentary. (Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a) Jainism: One should treat all creatures in the world as

• ne would like to be treated.

(Mahavira, Sutrakritanga) Zoroastrianism: Do not do unto others what- ever is injurious to yourself. (Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29)

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 golden rule

Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.

Gensler’s GR formula

Don’t combine these.

• I do A to another.
• I’m unwilling that if I were

in the same situation then A be done to me.

Literal GR If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X.

This can lead to absurdities in two ways:

different situations flawed desires If you want your doctor to remove your appendix, then remove your doc- tor’s appendix. If you want

• thers to hurt you

[suppose you do], then hurt them.

In the same situation

• I do A to another.
• I’m unwilling that if I were in the same

situation then A be done to me.

• Don’t

combine these. 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 I T A Know: “How would my action affect others?” Imagine: “What would it be like to have this done to me in the same situation?” Test for consistency: “Am I willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?” 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.
• I’m unwilling that if I were in the same

situation then A be done to me.

• Don’t

combine these. 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.
• I’m unwilling that if I were in the same

situation then A be done to me.

• Don’t

combine these.

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 Grandpa eat apart  conscientious You believe it would be all right for you to make Grandpa eat apart        impartial You’re willing that you be made to eat apart in the same situation  conscientious You believe it would be all right for you to be made to eat apart 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

• r 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 Plato Aristotle What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Faith OT 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.

The renaissance to nineteenth century was less

• glorious. Faith turned against reason, as the Church

persecuted or censured important and loyal Catholics, including Galileo (who started modern science), Loyola (who started the Jesuits), Descartes (who started modern philosophy), and Pascal (who helped start probability theory). Reason then turned against faith, as many intellectuals saw the universe as eternal and uncreated, life as produced by purposeless evolutionary forces, and religion as a harmful neurosis. At the end of the period, Pope Leo XIII called upon Catholics to turn to Thomism, which came to dominate until Vatican II.

The twentieth century and beyond was a time of great activity for Catholic thinkers. We read two women (Edith Stein and Sidney Callahan), three Jesuits (Frederick Copleston, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Harry Gensler), and three figures that show the openness and pluralism since Vatican II (Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Rescher, and John Paul II). Science now portrays a world more congenial to religion, where the universe had a beginning in time, the emergence of life was made possible by an incredibly fine tuning of basic physical constants, and religion has been shown to have big psychological benefits.

HARRYHIKER trail map

(various paths to God) Reasoning

(P Ä Q), P Á Q

Mystical encounter

    

Instinct

f f f f f

Existential search

α-Ω α-Ω α-Ω

Historical revelation Other / combinations ? ? ? ? ?

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation

• f truth; and God has placed in

the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

Christian Thinkers Oral 3

• Prepare loss of faith in the 19th century, Stein, Callahan,

Copleston, golden rule, Kalam, fine tuning, Plantinga, Rescher, and John Paul II. Review readings & classes, and practice answering the questions. You can bring a one page “cheat sheet.”

• Your exam is ten minutes long, in my office. Come on time.

I’ll keep the schedule on my office door.

• I’ll start with a question from ones I’ll give you (e.g., “Tell

me about the fine tuning”). 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 appro-

priation (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 3 Lead-in Questions

I’ll begin by having you tell me about one of these:

The loss of faith in the 19th century Stein Callahan Copleston Golden rule Kalam Fine tuning Plantinga Rescher John Paul II