Philosophy Final

if there really IS knowledge, what is the SOURCE?

- direct source of knowledge - Experience; Sense Experience - Reason -- Basic Logic Principles - Intuition (for example, knowing when to laugh at a joke... how did you know it was funny?) - indirect source of knowledge - Testimony (source of majority of our "knowledge") - Revelation (spiritual)

moral absolutism

- moral absolutism: there are NO exceptions, under NO circumstances whatsoever - linked to legalism -- issue of principles versus rules - rules are meant to serve the principles; but when the rules advance up to the level of principles = legalism - ex.) country with scarce water may have rules of limiting showers to 2 minutes - the rule serves the practices of uphold the principle of: don't waste scarce resources - this rule would not apply in another nation with plenty of water - when you elevate this rule to the level of principle by practicing the rule in place with abundant rules = legalism

cumulative case argument

- use "inference to the best explanation" - identify features of reality that people already accept - indicating that God is the best explanation for that feature of reality a. the universe exists (cosmological argument) b. there is order in the universe (teleological argument) c. there is moral truth (moral argument) d. rationality (logic/math -- argument for reason

There is a reason why God allows evil

-most powerful objection to christianity is evil -if god is all powerful why doesn't he prevent evil -moral evil - why does an allpowerful god let this happen -non-moral evil - why has an all-good and all-powerful god created a world in which there is suffering and pain? Quick Review of Problem from Evil: God is all powerful God is all good Evil Exists All three of these cannot be true at the same time An attempt to save God from the problem of evil is known as a theodicy. A negative theodicy takes evil which has already occurred and attempts to justify it. In a sense erasing or explaining the evil away by ascribing it to some other source then God. The free will defense is the most commonly used to argue against the problem from evil. There are two major descriptions of the state of humanity and that use free will as the explanation of Evil. Negative theodicy is based on the first one. Which was first put forth by Augustine in the early fifth century. It depicts man as being born perfect in a perfect world created by a perfect creator. In this scenario evil is attributed to our free will and the choices we have made. We screwed up the world. Evil that exists in the world is a result of our bad choices and is entirely caused by us. The major problem with this is that it is unable to successfully account for natural evil. The second is the one argued by John Hick. Humanity did not fall but was created imperfectly but with the tools to become perfect. There is a process of becoming that requires some evil to overcome. Evil is explained as a necessary hurdle to transforming into a fully developed moral agent. Without evil to give us problems we would stay imperfect and never use our potential. Hick is not willing to sacrifice either God's omnibenevolence or her omnipotence. He argues that the Bible is full of evil and disaster and the like. Christianity, he argues, is not a religion which takes place in a perfect world; evil is a necessary part of the religion. "Christianity, however, has never supposed that God's purpose in the creation of the world was to construct a paradise whose inhabitants would experience a maximum of pleasure and a minimum of pain. The world is seen, instead as a place of "soul-making' in which free beings, grappling with the tasks and challenges of their existence in a common environment, may become 'children of God' and 'heirs of eternal life.'"(124a) There are those, such as BC Johnson, who argue that God could have created a person with free will who always chooses a good choice. God could simply eliminate all evil causing choices and we would still have free will but there would be no evil. Hick thinks that this strikes at the very heart of humanity and that being a person by definition requires us to have freedom to choose any choice, a limited set of choices wouldn't be freedom at all. So, therefore, in order for us to actually be becoming moral agents with free will it is necessary for evil to exist and there is no need for God to apologize for it. Without the tests we would be unfulfilled shells. His proof? Imagine the world and humanity if we had no evil and everything was provided for us. "There would be no need to work, since no harm could result from avoiding work; there would be no call to be concerned for others in time of need or danger, for in such a world there could be no real needs or dangers...The laws of nature would have to be extremely flexible: sometimes gravity would operate, sometimes not; sometimes an object would be hard and solid, sometimes soft. There could be no sciences, for there would be no enduring world structure to investigate. In eliminating the problems and hardships of an objective environment, with its own laws, life would become like a dream in which, delightfully but aimlessly, we would float and drift at ease...Courage and fortitude would have no point in an environment in which there is, by definition, no danger of difficulty. Generosity, kindness, the agape aspect of love, prudence, unselfishness, and all other ethical notions which presuppose life in a stable environment, could not even be formed. Consequently, such a world, however well it might promote pleasure, would be very ill adapted for the development of the moral qualities of human personality. In relation to this purpose it would be the worst of all possible worlds."(124a-b) Discussion Question: Would you want to live in this fluffy cloud land without any evil and where everything was provided to you or would you rather strive, suffer, and live in an evil world? B.C. Johnson's response: God creates moral urgency which requires evil. This is not an omnibenevolent creature.

Something is true if

1. correspondence theory: if it corresponds to reality -- if it fits the world - believe that there is a greater reality that is independent to our beliefs 2. coherence theory: if it fits/coheres with the other things we believe - although there may be logical coherence; doesn't necessarily mean its true 3. pragmatic theory: it if works - evidence that it may be tru

Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

Hard Determinism

Hard Determinism • Determinism is true • No free will • No MK • Med/mech • Not option for Christian WV

Indeterminism

Indeterminism • No, determinism is false • Yes FW • Yes MR • Moral model • Yes is option for Christian WV

Libertarianism

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.

Logical Connection Questions

Logical Connection Questions - for example, "Is faith a form of knowledge?" a. "Yes" = we can KNOW through faith i. religious rationalism: we CAN know (either with logical certainty OR high probability) that God exists ii. anti-religious rationalism: we can know... that God does NOT exist b. "No" = more geared towards scientific evidence, concrete proof i. religious fideism ("faith-ism"): choose to live as if we know that God exists ii. religious skepticism ("anti-faith"): faith is NOT a form of knowledge; choose to live as if we know God does NOT exist

Medic/mechanical model

Medic/mechanical model • Determinism is the philosophical planes there are conditions such that, given them nothing else could happen.

Moral Objectivism

Moral Objectivism: universal (applies to everybody) - Moral universalism vs. Moral absolutism (generally synonymous; but there are key differences)

Moral realism

Moral Realism (there is moral truth) vs. Moral Non-Realism (no moral truth) - Moral Realism branches out: Moral Relativism & Moral Objectivism - Moral Relativism branches out: individual (subjective) & group (cultural relativism)

Moral model

Moral model • Looks at humans as one that can be praised, blamed

Moral responsibility

Moral responsibility • Free will

Nonrational FW

Nonrational FW • Epicurean FW

Rational FW

Rational FW • Soft det compatibilist (FW) • Indet. Libertarian (FW)

Who is Russell? (epist.)

Russell is an atheist who also sides with cognitive realism Theories of Truth: What makes something true? What does it mean to say that something is true?

Soft Determinism

Soft Determinism • Even if def. is false, our choices are determined • Yes FW • Yes MK • Moral model • Yes is option for Christian WV

Epistemology

Theme: Philosophy as a tool for worldview construction and worldview defense. - 3 branches: ethics, epistemology, metaphysics - epistemology is the philosophy on knowledge and belie

The ethics of belief

Thesis: It is immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation. The "shipowner" illustration: Version 1: a shipowner who rents out his ship to others sincerely believes that the ship is seaworthy without sufficient evidence - indeed, against the evidence -- and acts on that belief, and the belief turns out to be false. The result is that everyone aboard his boat drowned. We consider the shipowner to be blameworthy -he had no right to believe it, since his evidence didn't support it Version 2: -same as before, except that the belief turns out to be true: -still blameworthy -the rightness or wrongness of holding a belief doesn't depend on its truth or falsity, but on how one came to believe it. -but in this case, he came to believe it without good evidence, and this is what makes his believing immoral The "persecution" illustration: Version 1: -a group of citizens come to sincerely believe without sufficient evidence (unsubstantiated rumors) that a religious group in their certain country illicitly indoctrinated children with certain unpopular religious beliefs (denial of original sin and eternal punishment). -The citizens act on that belief and persecute the religious group, but the belief turns out to be false -a commission was formed to look into the allegations -the evidence discovered clearly showed that the religious group was innocent of the charge -the group of persecutors could've easily discovered this if they had looked into it, but they chose not to -blameworthy -the rest of the citizens came to see the persecutors as unreasonable and untrustworthy Version 2: -same as before, except that in this case the belief turns out to be true: -still blameworthy The underlying point: it is wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence. Objection: The illustrations don't show this. Rather, what they show is that it's wrong to act on a belief for which one has insufficient evidence. Reply: it is impossible to compartmentalize beliefs so that they don't affect one's actions - or at least so that they don't affect others in some way or other -Once you believe something, your ability is diminished to fairly evaluate evidence that has the potential to undermine that belief. -Each new belief influences one's total system of beliefs to some extent, and one's actions are based on this system of beliefs -Beliefs are not private, but are public property, and serve as the basis of human action. -From the beginning of human history until now, human beings have collectively generated a huge network of beliefs about the world -These are constantly added to, either by careful investigation and testing, or by irresponsible acceptance -They are transmitted to others and handed down from generation to generation -The human community bases their actions and lives on this network of beliefs -Thus, communicating an unjustified belief results in it being added it to the publicly held network of beliefs, in which case it can have potentially harmful effects on others if they act on it Every belief must be based on sufficient evidence -No belief exists for the good of any particular individual alone, but for the sake of the public good -they all contribute to the common network of beliefs -thus, they all contribute to binding humans together and directing their cooperative actions -But if so, then every belief, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can have an impact on the lives of others Every person has this duty to believe only upon sufficient evidence -Every person has the power to either diminish or strengthen harmful superstitions in the home, among friends, or at work by what they say -But if so, then each person is morally responsible for the beliefs that form the basis of what they say to others The case for the immorality of unjustified belief 1) unjustified beliefs can harm others due to their content: -Beliefs determine our ability to predict, control, and navigate our way in the world -when they are true, they enhance our ability to do these things -when they are false, they diminish our ability to do these things -Beliefs have two features that give them the power to potentially shape the behavior and character of the whole human race -beliefs have the power to alter human behavior and character, individually and collectively -Once a belief resides in one person, it can be transmitted to others through communication and thereby affect their behavior and character -Thus, beliefs - the public network of beliefs - have a huge impact on the lives of human beings -Given this picture of the nature and power of beliefs, and thus their impact on human lives, it is easy to appreciate why it is important to form beliefs responsibly 2) Consistently believing upon insufficient evidence harms people by making them credulous -Your credulity is harmful to others -It can lead to a return to "savagery" (think of the Jim Jones case, the Heaven's Gate case, the Fox News case, etc.) -Your credulity is harmful to yourself -If you don't care about truth, then you're vulnerable to those who are willing to lie to you in order to manipulate you Application: morally irresponsible religious belief Objection: most people don't have time to inquire into the evidence regarding their religious beliefs. Reply: "then he should have no time to believe".

Truth Question

Truth Question: Is there any knowledge? Does anybody know anything? a. "yes" = philosophical dogmatist b. "no" = philosophical skeptics

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill, is an essay written to provide support for the value of utilitarianism as a moral theory, and to respond to misconceptions about it. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in one's higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser pleasures. Furthermore, Mill argues that people's achievement of goals and ends, such as virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. Mill argues that utilitarianism coincides with "natural" sentiments that originate from humans' social nature. Therefore, if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally binding. Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never desire anything but happiness. He supports this claim by showing that all the other objects of people's desire are either means to happiness, or included in the definition of happiness. Mill explains at length that the sentiment of justice is actually based on utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness. The theory of utilitarianism has been criticized for many reasons. Critics hold that it does not provide adequate protection for individual rights, that not everything can be measured by the same standard, and that happiness is more complex than reflected by the theory. Mill's essay represents his attempt to respond to these criticisms, and thereby to provide a more complex and nuanced moral theory. Mill's argument comprises five chapters. His first chapter serves as an introduction to the essay. In his second chapter, Mill discusses the definition of utilitarianism, and presents some misconceptions about the theory. The third chapter is a discussion about the ultimate sanctions (or rewards) that utilitarianism can offer. The fourth chapter discusses methods of proving the validity of utilitarianism. In his fifth chapter, Mill writes about the connection between justice and utility, and argues that happiness is the foundation of justice.

Meaning questions

What is knowledge?

cognitive realism

a. some form of the correspondence theory of truth b. believe that some things exist independently of what anybody thinks about them (mind-independent world)

free will

any request such that if God answered it, it would have an impact on someone else's future free choice - "Lord, my friend Joe needs a job!" - someone has to choose to hire Joe - "Lord, let some relief supplies make it to the people there." - some people will have to make free choices to prepare and send food

fatalism vs. fake (counterfeit) fatalism

fatalism vs. fake (counterfeit) fatalism - fake (counterfeit) fatalism - idle (lazy) argument: is something is fated to happen to you, it will happen to you no matter what you do between now and then - therefore, you might as well be lazy, sit back and do nothing - if something is fated to happen to you, why does it matter what you do? - you cannot make an impact on the world - first problem: it encourages a passive and irresponsible life - second (deadly) problem: incoherent, makes logically impossible things possible - incoherent, therefore it cannot be true - Example: Bill who is single now, fated to get divorced in 50 years -- but he cannot get divorced without getting married - Example: Susy has no children, fated that at 30 years she will be a grandmother -- but must first have her own children - it's a misunderstanding of the real fatalism real fatalism 1. Appeal to God a. God's power b. God's knowledge 2. Appeal to Logic - principle of the excluded middle - it is fated for you to make an impact upon the world - what you do does make a difference - you must live an active and responsible life

fatalism

fatalism: the philosophical idea that the future is like the past - the future is already set in every detail just like the past is set in every detail already

libertarian objection

libertarian objection: God will not guarantee reconciliation (not taking the Bible seriously)

local fatalism

local fatalism: recognition that sometimes in life there are situations where there's no way to stop a certain outcome

moral universalism

moral universalism: morality applied because it is given by God; but there could be exceptions

proof

proof -- ideal proof a. logically good proof - premises all accept as true which guarantee the truth of the conclusion (valid deductive argument with true premises) b. psychologically good proof - actually convince people - less than ideal proof - (high) probability argument

soft det. objection

soft det. objection: God is determining how circumstances play out; manipulating and making them puppets

St. Anselm and the Ontological Argument

• Stands out because it argues for the existence of the idea of God himself • Traditional interpretation - 1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (TWNGCBC) 2. Everyone understands these words in being TWNGCBC 3. Whatever is understood exists in the understanding 4. Therefore in being TWNGCBC (i.e. God) exists in the understanding 5. It is greater to exist in reality, than to not exist (or it is greater to exist both in the understanding and in reality) 6. Therefore if god exists only in the understanding he would not be as great as he could be (i.e. he would not be a being TWNGCBD) 7. But God is a being TWNGCBC from premise one 8. Therefore God does not exist only in the understanding 9. Therefore God exists in reality • Objection o Existence is not a predicate o Predicate - quality, property, attribute o The table is brown Two solutions to problems Christians cant accept and that someone rejects or something (ask) • God is limited/finite • Evil is not really real Free Will Defense - can do whatever we want Soul Building Defense - God never intended this world to be ideal; place for trial