Philosophy of Religion Preliminaries
Fundamental Questions in Philosophical Theology:
Be able to articulate the three central positions (theist, agnostic, atheist) by appeal to what each of them believes with respect to the following claims.
(A) God exists.
(B) God doesn't exist.
If someone doesn't believe that God exists, is that person an atheist? Why or Why not?
Preliminary Arguments for the Existence of God:
The Argument from Natural Energy
1. The tides go in and out, the wind blows, volcanoes erupt.
2. If the tides go in and out, the wind blows, volcanoes erupt, then there is a great source of energy in the universe.
3. If there is a great source of energy in the universe, then God exists.
4. Therefore, God exists. [1,2,3 MMP]
The Argument from Love
1. Many people love and many people are loved.
2. If many people love and many people are loved, then love exists.
3. If love exists, then God exists.
4. Therefore, God exists. [1,2,3 MMP]
- Be able to PEE each of these arguments.
- Be able to provide robust rationales for premise (3) in each of these arguments.
- Note that there are three possible interpretations of these arguments. According to the first interpretation: theists, agnostics, and atheists all believe the argument to be sound. But if there isn't tension between the views, then it becomes obvious that this first interpretation of the argument isn't relevant to our pursuit of answers to the fundamental questions of philosophical theology. The second interpretation commits the fallacy of equivocation by assigning an interpretation to the word 'God' in premise (3) that is different from the interpretation assigned to the word 'God' in the conclusion. The second interpretation, thus, renders the arguments invalid and unworthy of our attention. Agnostics and atheists reject the non-trivial, non-equivocating, third interpretation as unsound. Which premise do they reject? Why?
Eliminating Equivocation: Articulating the Western Conception of God:
D1: x is God =df. x is the supreme being.
D2: x is supreme =df. x has all perfections.
Some Alleged Perfections
D3: x is omnipotent =df. x can bring about any state of affairs
that is metaphysically possible.
D4: x is omniscient =df. x knows everything that is true.
D5: x is omnibenevolent =df. x always prefers the better to
the worse.
D6: x is a necessary existent =df. necessarily, for any time,
t, x exists at t.
G: x is God iff x is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, necessarily existent, creative, and perhaps incorporeal being.
An Argument based upon Pascal’s Wager
1. Everyone has good reason to believe in God.
2. If everyone has good reason to believe in God, then God exists.
3. Therefore, God exists. [1,2 MP]
Rat. 1: Each person can either believe in God or not. Deciding whether or not
to believe in God is like making a bet, and so each person should consider the
odds. Those who do not believe in God will either “win a little”
if they’re right (more time to party on earth, less time in church) or
“lose big” (infinite pain in hell). But those who do believe in
God will either “lose a little” if they’re wrong (less time
partying on earth, more time engaging in potentially boring religious practices)
or “win big” if they’re right (infinite happiness in Heaven).
With odds like this, everyone has a good reason to believe in God.
Rat. 2: If everyone has a good reason to believe in god, then we all have a
strong indication that God exists—that’s what a good reason to believe
in God is. And if we all have a strong indication that God exists, then God
exists.
Is this argument valid?
S has good reasons1 to believe p =df. S will be better off if s/he believes p.
S has good reasons2 to believe p =df. S has a conclusive argument that shows that p is true.
In this section of the course, we're looking for good reasons2 to believe that God exists. Nothing about Pascal's Wager suggests that we have any good reasons2 to believe in the existence of God.