Philosophy Mid Term

According to B.C. Johnson, why will it not do for the theist to claim that evil exists as a necessary contrast to good so we can have knowledge of what good is?

"It will not do to claim that evil exists as a necessary contrast to good so that we might know what good is. A very small amount of evil, such as a toothache, would allow that. It is not necessary to destroy innocent human beings." B.C. Johnson Basically, we could learn there is good from smaller evils then letting babies die It seems clear we have the capacity to know goodness without knowing evil (Adam and Eve) Test ? B.C. Johnson argues taht it makes no sense to say we should face evil and disasters on our own, because.... A. taken to it's logical end, we should eliminate all aid we're dependent on for help (ambulances and hospitals example)

According to St. John of the Cross, why does God removes his felt presence from us?

***Ask if this is sufficient*** So that we would come to know in a deeper sense, that apart from God, we can do nothing Dark nights of the soul, a type of divine hiddenness, is a loving, although difficult, process God uses to grow us into more mature disciples.

What is the correspondence theory of truth as discussed in class?

**ask if this is enough** A proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to reality; what it asserts to be the case is the case. "The door is open." The door being open would be the truth maker. If the door is not open, the statement is false.

What is Paul Moser's understanding of the filial knowledge of God? What does it require and include?

...

What is the difference between global skepticism and local skepticism?

...

What is the Reverse Moral Argument?

1. If God does not exist, then objective values do not exist. 2. Evil exists. 3. Therefore, objective values exist. 4. Therefore, God exists.

What are Willard's worldview questions?

1. What is reality? 2. Who is well off, blessed? 3. Who is a genuinely good person? 4. How do you become a genuinely good person?

What is Hick's understanding of Evil?

2 Types. Moral and Non Moral: 1.Moral Evil Moral Evil: evil committed by a person. Moral evil is a necessary result of finite persons acting freely. God chose to create finite persons, and the "possibility of wrongdoing or sin is logically inseparable from the creation of finite persons." 2.Nonmoral Evil Nonmoral Evil: natural consequences and natural disasters. Nonmoral evil is in the world to allow humans the opportunity to improve morally, to become more like Jesus. The purpose of nonmoral evil, then, is "soul-making." Given this purpose, an environment without nonmoral evil "would be the worst of all possible worlds."

In B.C. Johnson's paper, he survey's a series of "possible replies" or theodicy a theist might offer to explain 'why' God allows evil to take place. Explain three (3) of these possible replies/theodicy. After each theodicy, explain why Johnson rejects it. Then explain to what you think of Johnson's criticisms? Do you find them satisfying? Why or Why not?

3 Theodicies of Johnson: (Baby burning in building) 1) Baby is going heaven so it's ok Can't say that it's okay because baby is going to heaven. It was either necessary for the baby to suffer or not. If it wasn't necessary, it's wrong. If it was necessary, it doesn't explain why it was in order for the baby to go to heaven, and we are still left without an excuse for God's inaction. Response: Heaven is not meant to be an answer for why evil exists, but instead to offer a reason that good will triumph over evil. Evil exists so that we can understand what goodness is 2) It will not do to say evil exists so that we can know good. This is because a very small amount of evil (a toothache) could give us the proper contrast to know good which is far short of letting a baby burn. Response: This is a popular theodicy and Johnson seems correct in objecting to it. It seems we can know good without knowing evil. (Garden of eden) God is not actually all powerful 3) Claiming that God is not all powerful - this doesn't work because how can there be a God who created the universe but yet can't do the same thing as the fire department (rescue a baby from a burning building) He should at least be able to do what a man (his supposed creation) can do. Response: Johnson seems correct here

Objectivists about truth hold....

B. What's true, about the world depends on the way the world actually is

How does Collin's Scientific Argument for the Existence of God go? Make sure to explain why he thinks the premises are true (hint: use of examples is always good). Now explain two of David Hume's objections to the design argument, and the replies to those objections I shared in class

Collin's points to the universe's fine tuning as evidence of God's existence. He cites the existence of about 30 independent basic constants that have no further scientific explanation: 1) The balance of strong and weak nuclear forces 2) The precise distance from the Earth to the sun 3) The force of gravity 4) The charge of an Electron 5) The rest mass of a proton If any one of the 30 factors would have been the slightest bit off from where they are, life would cease to exist in our universe. Collins believes the Premises of his argument because of the prime principle of confirmation which states: Simply put, the principle says that whenever we are considering two competing hypothesis, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability (or is the least improbable)." Premise 1: The existence of fine tuning is not improbable under theism since God is an all good being, and it is good for intelligent, conscious beings to exist, it is not surprising or improbable that God would create a world that could support intelligent life. Premise 2: The existence of fine tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis: The existence of fine-tuning under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis is analogous to cases of highly improbably random instances of fine-tuning (the dart board, mars habitat, firing squad). Two of Humes objections 1) Even if the design argument works, it doesn't prove monotheism. Just like a great # of men make complex things (Ships/artifacts/etc.) Hume asks "wouldn't it be more probable that a great # of Gods came together to create the universe? Response: This objection admits defeat of atheism. Also, on the basis of simplicity, we should assume one God over many. 2) This world may have been a faulty product of an inexperienced deity Response: This objection admits the defeat of atheism. Also, there are other ways to show the character of God as expressed in scripture.

What's the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument?

Deductive Argument - Provides logically conclusive support for the conclusion, if the premises are all true Inductive Argument - Provides probable support for the conclusion

What are the three philosophical aspects of faith discussed in class?

Degree of belief : Beliefs come in degrees 1-100 percent, not as either-or, presence and absence. Confidence in & that : Confidence in is directed toward an object or person. Confidence that is directed toward an alleged truth. Changing beliefs : Beliefs change indirectly rather than directly.

What is the classic understanding of what knowledge is?

Justified, True, Belief

Whats the difference between moral and natural evil?

Moral Evil: evil committed by a person. Moral evil is a necessary result of finite persons acting freely. God chose to create finite persons, and the "possibility of wrongdoing or sin is logically inseparable from the creation of finite persons." ****Is Nonmoral Evil the same as natural evil?***** Natural Evil:natural consequences and natural disasters. Nonmoral evil is in the world to allow humans the opportunity to improve morally, to become more like Jesus. The purpose of nonmoral evil, then, is "soul-making." Given this purpose, an environment without nonmoral evil "would be the worst of all possible worlds."

Is there such a thing as "your truth" and "my truth"? Why or Why not?

My Words: No. Truth is not relative. Regardless of what you or I believe, it does not change the fact of if it is true or not. For example, say I believe that 2+2 is equal to 5. Despite me believing as hard as I can that this is true, I can not simply claim "this is my truth" and have it be a valid statement. The fact remains that 2+2 is NOT 5, no matter how many people choose to believe otherwise.

What is a good reply to the "Who or what designed God?" objection to the design argument?

OBJECTIONS Postulating the existence of God does not solve the problem of design, bet merely transfers it up one level. Because the designer of an artifact is more complex than the artifact it designs the designer must have a designer. Reply: Collins' version of the argument requires only that the fine- tuning be more probable under theism than under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. This reply does not undermine theism. Example: The Mars Biosphere -

What is the evidential response to the problem of evil as discussed in class?

Problem Of Evil = "Given evil in the world, it isn't likely God exists" "Likely with respect to what evidence?" Is the amount of evil in the world the only relevant evidence regarding the existence of God? If we take into account the full scope of the evidence, the existence of God becomes very probable. A Christian could actually admit that the problem of evil, taken in isolation, does make God's existence improbable. However, when the total evidence is considered, the scales are at least even or tip in favor of Christianity.

What is the difference between propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance?

Propositional knowledge is knowledge I gain by facts about something/someone Knowledge by acquaintance is knowledge I gain from experience with something/someone. Spending time with them.

What is the difference between Rationalism and Empiricism?

Rationalism: all truth can be know by the mind itself by inquiring within (Descartes) Empiricism: Sense perception is the only way to knowledge (Locke, Hume)

What kind of knowledge does Moser think God wants us to have of him?

Short Answer: Knowledge by Acquaintance as opposed to Propositional Knowledge As compassionate, God is not satisfied by our merely knowing that God exists. Such mere propositional knowledge falls short of what God values by way of redemption: namely, that all people freely choose to be transformed by God from self-serving to self-giving, loving servants of the God of morally serious love.

What is Clifford's ship-owner case supposed to show about how we ought to form beliefs?

Slide Words: Clifford contends that believing involves ethical principles, so we violate our moral duty if we obtain beliefs where the evidence is insufficient. My Words: That we are not the only ones effected by our beliefs, so that it is irresponsible to not carefully consider what we believe and come to the most rational conclusion for those beliefs

What is the difference between strong rationalism, fideism, and critical rationalism about religious belief?

Strong Rationalism: 1. Religious belief-systems can and must be rationally criticized and evaluated. 2. In order for a religious belief-system to be properly and rationally accepted, it must be possible to prove that the belief-system is true Rationalism 1.Religious belief-systems can and must be rationally criticized and evaluated. 2.Conclusive proof of such a system is impossible, although it is possible to know what religious belief-system is true. Fideism 1. Religious belief-systems are not subject to rational criticism and evaluation. 2. Conclusive proof of such a system is impossible, and it is impossible to rationally know what religious belief- system is true.

What is the CORNEA response to the problem of evil?

The point behind CORNEA is that you are entitled to infer that "There is no x" from the fact that "So far as I can tell, there is no x" only if it is reasonable for you to believe that if there were an x, it is likely that you would perceive (or find, grasp, comprehend, conceive) it. My Words of Above: It's only logical that you are allowed to say "There is no God" from the fact that "So far as I can tell, there is no good reason for evil" only if it's reasonable to believe that if there were a good reason God allows evil, that you would most likely perceive/comprehend that reason. (Which you can't assume to in this case) According to Wykstra, there is no discernible difference between a world where there is a reason for God allowing evil to exist and a world where there is no reason for God to permit evil. The atheist must furnish some credible indication of knowing what world they are in. This project is, as of yet, quite underdeveloped.

Why would Clifford find Pascal's Wager an irresponsible way to believe in God?

The point of Pascal's wager is to not prove that God exists, but that belief in God is a rational act. By completely disregarding a need for looking at evidence, and simply making a rationally intelligent "wager", Clifford would find Pascal to be morally irresponsible in the way he has come to his beliefs.

What is the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?

Valid Argument - Proper logical form providing conclusive support for the conclusion Sound Argument - is valid and has all true premises

According to paul moser, filial knowledge of God

What is filial? - Knowledge by relationship/acquaintance D. all of the following Requires propositonal knowledge about God Includes being reconciled to God requires entrusting ourselves to the love of God

What is the difference between a prior and a posteriori knowledge?

a posteriori : Knowledge from the senses. a priori : Knowledge apart from the senses.

For Collins argument

don't have to know details of arguments: Just knowing "strong and weak nuclear forces" Just understand what a cosmological constant is is enough, professor more cares about what Collins wants to do with those arguments.