Watches and Worldmakers

Let's start with a little story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmlABIuz0MY

How plausible is this story?  What makes it plausible or implausible?  This is the question that William Paley famously asks us to consider.

Paley offers the example of an individual going for a walk and potentially stumbling across two things (1) a watch, or (2) a stone.

(2) Suppose you are walking along a path and stumble across a stone.  What questions would this raise?  Would you be especially troubled or curious to find a stone across your path?  Would it be difficult to explain how that stone came to be where it is and what it is?

(1) Now, suppose instead of stumbling across a stone you stumble across a watch.  Ask yourself the same questions.  Would the existence of a watch in your path have as easy an explanation as a stone?

Paley argues no.  Instead, to explain the existence of a watch in all its complexity and 'design' requires us to posit the existence of a watchmaker.  While a stone might be easily explained, a watch is not so easily explained because of all it's parts and the way they fit perfectly together.

The main question Paley is asking is one about design (or his word, contrivance).  Can something designed exist without a designer?  Can we identify a designer for every instance of design (maybe we can identify a designer of this object, but what designed that.  Who designed the watchmaker?).  Just as a watch has design and purpose, so it appears does everything in the universe and perhaps the universe itself.  But this just raises the question of where that purpose comes from.

In the recommended reading, Davies suggests there are two different ways to understand divine. The first says the universe displays design in the sense of purpose. The second argument is that it (being the universe) displays design in the sense of regularity. Paley’s example of finding the stone and watch is the example of the universe displaying design as a purpose since the universe resembles a watch and must therefore be accounted for in terms of intelligent and purposive agency. Davies suggests perhaps the idea of regularity might be a better route to go.  What are the differences in each view and what are the advantages of each?  We will see that William Lane Craig incorporates aspects of each as he develops his own argument for God's existence for next class.

But there is a long tradition (going back to our good friend David Hume and even before) that this line of reasoning is faulty: Another idea about the design argument.   Ultimately, there are several important questions to ask to understand and evaluate this claim:

 Why is the explanation of a watch in this situation different than that of a stone?

Why is this called a teological argument?  What does that mean?

Does Paley give the best (or only) explanation for the existence of design/contrivance and complexity?  What other competing explanations are available?  Which explanation is best and why?

How do we begin to assess whether Paley's argument works?

How many of you have heard of Intelligent Design?  Is Paley's argument just a version of Intelligent Design? Why or Why not?

John Hick "Vale of Soul-Making"

 

John Hick: "The Vale of Soul-Making" 

 Throughout John Hick’s life, he explored different religions and found that people need to be better understanding of other religions, and that no religion is the “right” religion. He believed no matter what religion you are, salvation is the work of God. Hick questioned why God allows evil to happen in the world, and since it does happen, God can be indescribable, and not defined as an infinite person, but as an ultimate reality.

There are two stages that come with the development of the world. The first stage is that of coming into this world. The second stage is that we must work our whole lives to become children of God, and made to be in his likeness. Hick believes we need to build character, and this comes with some natural evil and moral evils. Natural evils are the kind of evils that do not result from free human choice (ex: disasters, birth defects). The moral evils are the evils that are seen in newspapers and on the news channel (ex: murder, kidnapping ect.).

Hick believes God creates people who he wants to be friends with. He wants people with the right kind of character. In order to build this character, it would take moral evil as well as natural evil. Being forgivable and loving are desired traits God wants us to have, and in order to achieve this we need hardship, and that hardship may include evil. But how can we be forgiving if there is no wrong to forgive?  God wants to allow humans to develop themselves because virtues that have been formed as a result of the person overcoming temptation and hardship is more valuable than if Man were created ready-made, without any effort of any sort. This is why Hick believes if humans were not given freewill by God, then their decisions and choices would be a result of determinism and would make humans more like robots.

            Hick discussed that we don’t have adequate reason to believe Mackie’s first premise, that stated “if a being is perfectly good, than he prevents evil as much as he is able”. Hicks believes we shouldn’t assume this because for all we know this world is a realm of soul-making. He believes that God does not want to create perfect human beings, because then we could not be made into his likeness. It takes natural and moral evils to develop us into the beings we are intended to be because without these hardships, we could not grow stronger. The scenes from the Pursuit of Happiness help us see how the evils of hardship and struggle can make you a stronger person in the end if you try to overcome the struggles. The consequences that Will Smith faces are supposed to bring them down, but they do just the opposite for him. 

Pursuit of Happines- bathroom scene

 Pursuit of Happniess- inspirational ending

Do you think all religions can relate to Hick’s argument that we are put here on earth to be made in God’s likeness?

How can we know the truth to a situation: do we accept the consequences, or are we supposed to fight against it in order to attain our necessary virtues to be Christ-like? 

The Free Will Defense by Alvin Plantinga

The Free Will Defense by Alvin Plantinga (1977)

-                 -  Aaron Potter

Plantinga goes into great depth explaining the logic behind his free will claim. He introduces the terms, among many others, “actual states of affairs” and other “possible worlds.” Actual states of affairs are the events that actually occur in the real world; events that make up the actual world. These said events are causal of God giving actuality free will. Actuality obtains (existence), because free will causes it. This is where Plantinga then applies the concept of other possible worlds. “The basic idea is that a possible world is a way things could have been; it is a state of affairs of some kind,” (349). The usage of other possible worlds is an attempt to explain that though God is omniscient and omnipotent, He cannot “… eliminate every evil state of affairs,” (349-354?) because in other possible worlds we seek to eliminate the possibility of evil. However, when we do so, we eliminate the option of their being a choice to do either good or evil.

Plantinga puts it like so: “… [S]adly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good,” (347).

Consider this example: I offer Jeffery $20 to do my math homework and Jeffery is free to either deny or accept my proposition. However, the actual state of affair in this scenario turns out to be that Jeffery actually does accept my offer and proceeds to do my math homework. We could consider this an “evil,” so in an attempt to make sense of this evil we propose another world in which Jeffery always does what is right. In this world, it is possible that Jeffery always does what is “right,” but up until the point in which he denies my $20 this “possible world” becomes impossible. It eliminated the evil, yes, but it also eliminated Jeffery’s free will of which is a direct violation that the actual world exists in the first place. I.e. the actual state of affair in which Jeffery accept my $20 in the real world do not become actualized and therefore is considered impossible.

Two things need to be noted after considering this example:

            1)      The “evil” that we are referring to here is what Plantinga distinguishes as a moral evil. This is different from natural evil. Thus, the primary focus of Plantinga’s argument is concerned with moral evil.

            2)      The bulk of Plantinga’s free will argument comes forward when he says God created “… the heavens and the earth and all that they contain. But He has not created states of affairs,” (351). With this in mind, it brings to light that your actions resulting from your free will are unknown to God up until the point in which you do said action. [Give lunch example!]

Another relevant point to consider is Plantinga’s distinction between the Free Will Theodicy and the Free Will Defense. Leibniz’s "Best of all possible worlds" presents a theodicy that attempts to explain that out of all of the possible worlds that God could have created that the “real” one is the best one possible. Plantinga argues against this as well with the Free Will Defense by saying that it isn’t that God could have created other “better” possible world, but that this is the world God had to create if creation were to have free will, and it is because of the existence of evil that this is so.

Some other significant term definitions:

Explicit Contradiction – “Paul is a good tennis player, and it’s false that Paul is a good tennis player,” (339).

Implicit Contradiction – “George is older than Paul; Paul is older than Nick; George is not older than Nick,” (339).

Formal Contradiction – “If all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal; All men are mortal; Socrates is not mortal,” (339).

Transworld Depravity – Jeffery!

-              -     This is the scenario that Plantinga gives us in which Jeffery “suffers” in every possible world in that he only does what is supposedly right. This act of doing what is right includes what is morally significant for him, but at the same time Jeffery is supposedly free to do said moral action. This actuality, however, is inclusive to Jeffery’s either doing said act or refraining from doing said act. Thus, given that Jeffery is free to do or not to do what is “right,” there will be worlds in which there is “evil” hence the case in which he accept my $20 to do my homework (moral evil).

Discussion Question:

Does Plantinga’s argument appeal more to the Theistic Personalism or Classical Theism?

Jeffery's Picture

Limited Power or Limited Love: Mackie's problem of Evil

Like Ivan in Dostoyevsky's "Rebellion", Mackie wants to look at the problem of evil and its implications for our understanding of God and religious belief.  While Dostoyevsky focuses on the moral issue (returning ticket and not accepting a universe/God that allows children suffering), Mackie wants to focus on the logical issue of how the existence of evil can fit with our notion of an all-powerful (omni-potent) and wholly good (all-loving, merciful, etc) God.  So, Mackie's challenge is the following:  Given the existence of evil, is belief in the Classical or Traditional or Orthodox understanding of God rational?

Now, Mackie acknowledges that 'rational' here can mean a couple different things.
rational1=  to believe in anything, we need proof or some 'public' demonstration or justificaiton of that belief (think Clifford here).
rational2= But we can also understand rational to mean having good or some strong reasons, even subjective or experiential reasons for something.

Mackie wants to suggest that there are many people (like Otto and James) who argue that religious belief is not rational1 but could be rational2 or still susceptible to a proof, but a non-rational or irrational proof for God's existence based on feeling or experience (direct experience of God, or maybe miracles).

Mackie's critique is supposed to challenge both rational1 and rational2.  Because Mackie wants to argue that their is a logical contradiction between our concept of God and the existence of evil.  While this contradiction is not immediately apparent, it becomes noticeable when we 'unpack' or explain what we mean by 'omnipotence' and being 'wholly good'.  Once we explain these notions, evil and the God of Western Monotheism are logically incompatible.  

Now Mackie admits there are ways to meet this challenge.  The easiest is just to simply say that religion is NOT rational.  But here, Mackie points to what I have called rational2 to show that to go this route would require a radical rejection of rationality and logic.  We would have to say not only that proving or believing in God is not necessarily rational (and could be based on other reasons/means like direct experience) but instead that God himself or the concept of God doesn't really make sense or isn't logical.  Mackie suggests this wholesale rejection of reason and logic is too big a bullet to bite.

Dostoyevsky "Rebellion"

Ivan and Alyosha are talking about the problem with evil. Ivan started out talking about how he doesn’t understand how someone could love their neighbor. He gave an example about John the Merciful that took in a hungry beggar and breathed into his mouth which was “putrid and loathsome from awful disease.” Ivan called his action “self-laceration”, laceration means to tear roughly and or mangle, because of him doing so much for a sick poor man who chances are will never repay him. This is an example of mankind not being able to do something kind

Ivan goes on to talk to Alyosha about how loving someone Christ-like is a miracle that earth can’t experience. Christ was God and we are not therefore we can’t love like Him. We love at a distance. He also goes on to talk about how children are the innocent victims of their fathers and mothers. They, children, are capable of love and being loved unlike adults. Adults continue to eat from the apple of “good and evil” still to this day. Adults know what’s right and wrong but will still just to do wrong. They are unworthy of love. Children suffer because of their fathers sins. Ivan gives an example of how children are special; the prisoner who murdered whole families (including children) then became fascinated by them and even befriends one. Ivan continues about the sins/crimes the Turks and Circassians who would cut unborn babies out of the mothers’ stomach and toss it around in front of the mother. Turks would also surround a mother holding a baby, make the baby laugh and then shoot it. Ivan is trying to prove to Alyosha that men are full of evil and will hurt even the most innocent of people. They are unworthy of love because of their actions.

Ivan then told a story about a man named Richard who was a murder and sentenced to death, and when he got in prison he converted. His last day he said was the happiest day of his life because he is going to the Lord because he found grace.  Richard’s story is national. Ivan’s point to this story is that the Brothers in today’s society wouldn’t have wanted him to die because Richard found grace and converted, even though he committed a crime.

Ivan chose children because they are innocent little ones who do not understand why the world is so cruel. A child wouldn’t understand why God isn’t protecting him or her. We know right from wrong and do nothing about it while the children do not. “Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them”  Men weren’t happy with what they had, they wanted more, and in doing so they got cruel. They are the reason why the world is the way it is today and Ivan rebels against that. He will not be part of that society who destroys innocence.

 

-What do you think Christ meant when He said “love your neighbors”? Could you? Or is Ivan right in saying we are not capable of loving except for at a distance?

-Do you think using children was a good example of the innocent having to suffer for man’s sin?

 

 

 

Sigmund Freud: The Future of an Illusion, Civilization and Its Discontents

The Psychological Origins of Religion

“In past times religious ideas, in spite of their incontrovertible lack of authentation, have exercised the strongest possible influence on mankind.” Freud would conclude that this idea, in part, is due to totemism, and his ideas of the external influence on the internal ego. By doing so, Freud is attempting to validate the feeling on experiences, or a feeling of being “one with the universe”, and disproving God.
Totemism is defined as belief in kinship with or a mystical relationship between a group or an individual and a totem.

A totem is a class of objects which a group holds to be holy. By doing so, the group holds a superstitious respect, believing to have a “spiritual connection” with this object. This object extends anything, from animals, to people, from plants, to inanimate things. Freud concluded that this Totem could be ones father. He came to this conclusion considering a cannibalistic group of young men who killed their father and then consumed him; Freud describes this act as both a common act and a festival. This act provoked an “irresistible emotional reaction with momentous consequences.” This father became the image of God, and in his death he became more powerful as the sons remembered him differently. The sons originally hated their father, but once he was gone, they remembered the good things about him. They respected him only after they had killed him, and since they only remembered the good, it made the act of killing their father wrong, which resulted in the classic term “Thou Shalt not kill”.

He then goes on to say that children must go through a state of neurosis, or developmental changes. He explains that children start out with their natural primal instincts and then have to be taught, and have their minds molded, to act more civilized as they grow older, in order to become functional in today’s society. All children possess the Id ego, and this ego seeks only pleasure, and is highly impulsive. This ego has no way to distinguish the internal world from the external. As the child ages and gains higher cognitive abilities, it is able to distinguish between the external and internal, making progressive steps towards reality. The ego’s biggest threat is the external world, and so the ego takes steps to protect itself from the external. This strive for protection and perfection narrows the ego, however the sense of what the ego was is still present in the individual.

Freud shared his writings with a friend of his whom, after reading them, claimed that although his writings were correct, he was missing an aspect of religion: the sense of unity with the universe. Frued’s friend, although not affiliated with any religion, was religious in that he experienced this sense of infinite power, this feeling being with him at all times.

            The combination of the totemism of the primitive father who was killed and became the idea of “god” and this sense of limitless power, guides one to an idea such as God. Freud then defines God as an illusion, a construct of development of the human species, defining the unconscious feelings and actions as being God and in the actuality, God is simply the result of the Ego making sense of the world.

Id – a part of a person's unconscious mind that relates to basic needs and desires

Ego – a part of the mind that senses and adapts to the real world

Superego – a part of a person's mind that relates to attitudes about what is right and wrong and to feelings of guilt

Freud's views on religion concerning the Id, Ego, and Superego

• Freud is basically saying indirectly that religion is a learned and developed thought process (through growing awareness with Id, Ego, and Superego). Do you agree with Freud that your faith and religion is learned and developed over time, or do you believe that you were born with a natural sense of God that cannot be taught?
• Looking back at Freud's friend, do you believe that you can not be religious, but still have this sense of infinite power and unity with the universe with you at all times, as his friend claims to experience?

Friedrich Nietzsche; On the Genealogy of Morals, Beyond Good & Evil, and The Gay Science

Along with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche was a prominent figure of the movement of Existentialism in the 19th century. "Become who you are" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche describes a ‘slave-revolt in morality’ that originates from Judaism and Christianity that succeeded in reversing what was meant by being good, beautiful, and beloved by God. The master morality could be equated with Aristotle’s Virtuous man; someone who is independent and self-sufficient. It is constantly "yea-saying" and creates values from examining "good" and "bad." The slave morality is connected to subservience, hatred, weakness, and dependency. The slave morality upholds mediocrity and all things that are ‘good’ are things that do not diminish suffering because suffering and other qualities of the weak are what is considered ‘good.’ It condemns actions of the master-morality by referring to them as ‘evil’ rather than ‘bad,’ the difference being ‘evil’ inspires fear and is derived from hatred. “The slave-revolt in morality begins with resentment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values-the resentment of creatures to whom a genuine reaction, that of deeds, is denied, and who can compensate themselves through imaginary revenge.” (pg.255 trans. Robinson). To Nietzsche, morality is a self-deception since it is from hatred and resentment which stems from their weakness towards the ‘master,’ they hate and resent all those who are strong, healthy, and powerful. These two moralities cannot co-exist because the slave imposes their morality as universal. “Do not kill,” “Do not steal,” and “Do not cheat,” can be classified as ‘prohibitions,’ Judeo-Christian morality is a function to protect the weakest of our society because those are the class of individuals who benefit from them.

       “Then the moral epoch of humanity, one sacrificed to one’s God the strongest instincts one possessed, one’s ‘nature.” (pg.258 Robinson). By ‘sacrificing our nature,’ morality is built on condemning natural behavior. According to Nietzsche, all living things exert will to power, a metaphysical worldview, which is not a drive to constant satisfaction, but a release of expansive energy. Some wills operate to be dominating, exploitative, and reject the weak. The will struggles to exist through competition, for humans it is a way to feel superior among each other. “In other words, the slave wants the unconditioned, he understands only the tyrannical, even in morals, he loves as he hates, with nuance, right down to the depths, that hurts him, that makes him sick-his great concealed suffering rebels against the noble taste that seems to deny suffering.”(pg.257 Robinson). Morality is adapted to the social role and not a universal application; what counts as an appropriate action determines upon which class one is designated. Some wills are accepted to subservient roles and other wills are equated to dominating roles which depends on whether one is weak (subservient) or whether one is strong (dominating). Nietzsche would suggest one needs to look no further than the French Revolution to see the difference in morality between the weak and the strong.

The madman proclaims “I’m looking for God!” only to be ridiculed by the people in the market-place.  “Where is God gone?....We have killed him. You and I..” (pg.259 trans. Timothy A. Robinson). During the time of this writing, God was being replaced by other means, mostly through the use of science, art, politics and ideologies (-isms, Existentialism, Utilitarianism, Marxism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Impressionism, etc.) that considered Him irrelevant or obsolete; they were trying to focus more energy on the world that exists rather than to opiate themselves with other-worlds that may or may not exist. European culture was separating itself from the Christian God which once defined it. Although this separation leaves a void, “In fact, at the news that ‘the old God is dead,’ we philosophers and ‘free spirits’ feel illuminated by a new dawn…perhaps there never was such an ‘open sea,” (pg.260-1, Robinson), it is perhaps an opportunity to discover and create without culture being oppressed by morality which is only an illusion constructed for the weak to consolidate power. 

Kids in the Hall, God is Dead
Ricky Gervais - Hitler and Nietzsche - “It would be inappropriate to make him responsible for misdeeds of men who understood him superficially.”  -  Bertrand Russell, Wisdom of the West.

Leopold and Loeb "Crime of the Century"





So what does this account for Nietzsche view of Religion? Is morality nothing more than a struggle between these two classes of society? Do you think Religion asserts will to power (such as in the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witch trials) as part of its struggle for existence?