Philosophy of Religion Final: 2nd half of semester

At its root, then, for Zagzebski, it is a problem of..

self-trust. - We must trust our emotion of admiration.

Mavrodes has suggested that the two P's are indeed connected, but we should forget this and assign...

the claims P's as logically independent.

What is expanded theism?

the view that O exists conjoined with certain other significant religious claims, like the trinity, original sin, God taking on human form and dying for our sins - He says these claims of expanded theism are not simply deducible from "O".

What is one of these attempted solutions to make freedom and foreknowledge work?

It is not necessary the foreseen must happen, but it is necessary that what is destined to happen must be foreseen.

What is the "Incompatibility Thesis"?

The claim that it's not possible that both - God has foreknowledge of all human actions & - Some human actions are free

What does Dembski coin this criterion?

The complexity-specification criterion. - When intelligent agents act they leave behind a specified complexity, their trademark or signature. It uses this.

What is Mavrodes issue with this logic?

The first P assigned generates, arithmetically, all the other values. This then determines the way the comparison goes, and this seems to be rationally unsatisfactory. "Fishy"

How do our childhood fears contribute towards our desire for religion?

The helplessness we feel as children forces us to cling to a father figure, and then this becomes God and lasts into adulthood.

What is CHN, Christ's Human Nature?

The individual human nature (body plus soul) that the Son (S) assumed.

What does Hume say a miracle is a violation of?

The laws of nature. [ Recall, Aquinas did not say miracles had to always violate nature.. ]

What is the final "eschatological" aspect of Hick's Iranaean type of theodicy?

The person-making process, leading eventually to perfect human community, is not completed on this earth, and "We die before we are fully born".

What does a blending of the two worlds from thesis 6 result in?

The possibility of Multiple Actual-World Incarnations: S assumes both CHN and HN4. - Could this occur? When might this take place? Why? For whom?

Therefore, how does the Edwardian view of Determinism dissolve?

The proposition, (17) God knew 80 years ago that Paul will mow in 1999 is not a hard fact about the past; it entails (18) Paul will mow his lawn in 1999

What does Haught claim is the real issue evolution poses to religion?

The real issue is that evolution may ruin the idea that God is self-giving love, because the universe must possess an autonomy if it were created by a self-giving love.

Then, Philosophy responds, arguing that...

The solution to the problem lies in a proper understanding of divine eternity.

What is the heresy Nestorianism?

The statement that CHN not a distinct person from the Son.

"Darwin, Design, and Divine Providence" Haught

haught argues that evolutionary naturalists such as Dennett and intelligent design theorists such as Dembski share a common mistaken assumption.

Thesis 3:

it's possible that there be an individual distinct from CHN that was both assumable and assumed.

Normally, one can rely on their personal perception, unless...

new evidence comes to light. Now, need to conditionalize based on this evidence. - Well, not exactly this simple..

The emotion of admiration leads to...

The belief "I desire to imitate what I admire".

Why does Haught say that proponents of ID often critique evolutionary theory?

- Claim it is a naturalist belief system and not science at all - Permeated with "materialist metaphysics" - "By its very nature, science is obliged to leave out any appeal to the supernatural, so explanations will be naturalistic and purely physicalist".

"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand: Plantinga on the Self-defeat of Evolutionary Naturalism" O'Connor

- Critiques Plantinga's argument against naturalism -Draws an analogy between theist's response to the problem of evil and naturalist's responses to Plantinga's argument.

"Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions" by Rahner What does he argue?

- Defends a form of Christian inclusivism: Jesus Christ is the only true path towards salvation, but followers of other religions can attain salvation Christ provides.

"Signs of Intelligence" Dembski

- He considers the distinctions between necessity, blind contingency (chance), and directed contingency (design).

"How Naturalism Implies Skepticism" Plantinga

- He presents a somewhat simplified version of the argument that atheistic naturalism implies a through going form of skepticism; this, atheistic naturalism is a theory such that if it were true, one ought not to believe it.

What type of argument was just presented above?

Hypothetical Syllogism [ If a then b If b then c Therefore, If a, then c ]

An example of one of these past tense propositions?

(8) Columbus sails the ocean blue is true in 1492. - Whose index is prior to present time. - Accidentally necessary if true; they are accidentally necessary because they become necessary, when they become true.

Which of these readings does Boethius seem to be defending?

- Wide Scope: No longer a hypothetical syllogism and not even a valid form of argument, even though this is what he thought would have been more plausible. - Narrow Scope: Valid, a hypothetical syllogism, but not plausible. AKA, neither!

How does human consciousness relate us to religion, as opposed to say the senses?

- "A sensuous object exists apart from man, but the religious object exists within him- it is indeed an inner, intimate object. Therefore it forsakes him as little as his self-consciousness or conscience." - "As man thinks, as is his understanding of things, so is his God".

What defines a belief as an illusion, for Freud?

- "An illusion can either be true or false; what defines a belief as an illusion is imply that wish fulfillment is primarily one of its primary motives".

What does it mean when Plantinga says that some propositions (about the past) are necessary "per accidens"?

Accidentally Necessary. - Because it was contingent that they be necessary and because they were not always necessary.

"Origin of Religion" David Hume (1757)

- "Hume's goal is to offer a non-supernatural explanation of the origin of religious belief." - "He contends that religious belief does not arise from reason but from emotions such as fear and ignorance." - "These emotions first gave rise to polytheistic religion and monotheism is a later development"

"The Separation of the Body from the Soul" Plato

- A dialogue set against the background of Socrate's last day in prison before his death - Socrates and Simmias discuss the nature of death; Socrates says the body and its desires prevents the soul from attaining pure knowledge during its life.

What does Haught then say science reveals to us?

Evidence of design- he does not feel science need be directly related to atheism or theology.

What does Aquinas say about God being the "prime agent"?

- All things inferior to him serve as his instruments - We are moved by Him - Therefore, it is not contrary to nature for created things to be moved in any way whatsoever

"Self-Trust and the Diversity of Religions" Linda Zagzebski

- Argues that awareness of disagreement does not automatically raise an epistemic problem - Rather, it is the awareness that epistemically admirable people disagree with us that raises the problem, bc admiration involves viewing someone as worth imitating.

"Atheism and Evolution" by Dennett

- Argues that evolutionary biology supports atheism, not by providing that God can't or doesn't exist, but by showing that we lack any good or positive reason for thinking God does exist.

"Do We Survive Death" Russell

- Argues that it is highly unlikely the psychological continuity survives the death of the body. - Defends Locke's view that personal identity is a stream of consciousness

"Religious and Near-Death Experience in Relation to Belief in a Future Life" Badham

- Argues that religious experiences and near-death experiences provide experiential support for belief in an afterlife

What does Hume believe gives authority to human testimony?

Experience! The same experience that assures us of the laws of nature.

"Miracles" by Aquinas

"Aquinas discusses the nature of miracles and distinguishes several kinds or ranks of miracles" " Created things are incapable of producing any effects by themselves; only through God can we exist" "Nothing God does can then be described as contrary to nature, although it may be beyond or different from the usual order of nature" .

"Friendly Atheism, Skeptical Theism, and the Problem of Evil" by Rowe

"Argues that the kinds and quantity of evil in the world provide powerful evidence against God's existence." "A good God may have reasons for allowing some evil, but not pointless or gratuitous evil" "Since our world contains pointless evil, for Rowe, it is likely that God does not exist."

What are some statements about the past, but also equivalently about the future, that are not necessary per accidens- not yet, at any rate?

"Eighty years ago, the proposition 'Paul will mow his lawn' in 2020 was true.". - Something like this is a soft fact about the past; a hard fact would be, "Paul mowed in 1980".

When speaking of God's knowledge, for Pike, "God knows X" entails..

"God believes X", which entails that "X is true".

"The Essence of Religion in General" by Ludwig Feuerbach (1841) - NOT talked about in class!

"He argues that God is simply a projection of human nature".

"The Future of an Illusion" Sigmund Freud

"He argues that religious ideas are illusions".

"Soul Making Theodicy" by Hick

"He finds traditional Free Will Defenses unsatisfactory, and develops an alternative response to the problem of evil" "According to Hick's Irenaean Theodicy, God created humanity in a state of immaturity; we are created in God's image, but only through a process of growth will we be fully transformed into God's likeness" "The suffering and evil in this world are a necessary part of this transformation process".

How does Plato (through Socrates) describe the body?

"Our physical body is just a contaminated distraction to the soul of a true philosopher; we cannot attain truth with it". - Wisdom, then, is only attainable in death and not in life.

What are the 5 assertions that we laid out on our handout to once again spell out this second argument for the incompatibility thesis? [ In terms of God's knowing that S will do A ]

(1) God knows that S will do A (2) Go knew that S will do A (3) It's necessary (fixed) that God knew that S will do A (4) God knew that S will do A entails S will do A (5) It's necessary (fixed) that S will do A.

Therefore, what type of claim does 1.) include? But, what is 1.) also, due to its format?

(1) Involves a *modal claim*, that x necessarily is the case. But, (1) is also a *conditional claim*; an "if, then" form of proposition. - (1), therefore, it both a modal and a conditional claim

How does Plantinga offer a very simplified version of Pike's argument for incompatibilism?

(1*) God believes that S will do A. (2*) God believed that S will do A. (3*) It's necessary (fixed) that God believed that S will do A. (4*) God believed that S will do A entails S will do A. (5*) It's necessary (fixed) that S will do A. [ Plantinga says Pike's is also an argument from the fixedness of the past ]

What is the premise that each of the arguments for logical and theological determinism from the necessity of the past uses?

(16) If p is about the past, then p is necessary.

What are the different ways that Aquinas points out, for Plantinga to utilize, that (1) can be interpreted, in terms of expressing the necessity of the consequence versus the necessity of the consequent?

(1a) expresses the necessity of the consequence. "Necessarily, if God knows in advance that S will do A, then S will do A." [ Augustine agrees this is true, but irrelevant to his argument ] (1b) Expression of the necessity of the consequent: "If God knows in advance that S will do A, then it is necessary that S will do A". [ What the argument requires, but seems flatly false. There is no reason to endorse this, according to Plantinga ]

What are the first and second stages of human's development, according to Hick?

- Homo sapiens first, being created in the "image" of God; early humans are not the Adam and Eve of Augustinian theology, but a life of savage violence, a hostile environment, primitive; people were spiritually and morally immature creatures - Second stage is the intelligent, ethical, and religious animal bring brought through one's own free response into the divine "likeness".

"Of Miracles" by Hume What is his argument, and what is it not?

- Hume does not argue that miracles are impossible nor that they do not occur - Argues that we cannot rationally believe one has occurred on the basis of testimony

What positions that you brought with you to the class have you found yourself reaffirming?

- I do not believe in miracles, or near-death experiences. I think the similarities between near-death experiences are due to people's expectations of the common tropes they hear occur during them, and an our of body experience is a psychological phenomenon similar to sleep apnea. Miracles, then, though we do not have individual experience with them, defy the laws of nature and still seem highly unlikely to me.

How could Plantinga argue with O'Connor?

- It is hard to imagine that evolution would have come up with a system where people have radically incoherent or inconsistent beliefs. - From the naturalist perspective, our design plan (form nature, or evolution) does not have a module aimed at truth; only survival.

What are the 2 elements of specification patterns / For a pattern to count as specification, what must it be?

- Must be suitably independent of the event it describes, and - must have detachability; given an event, and a patten describing it, would we be able to construct the pattern if we had no knowledge of which event occurred?

"David Hume and the Probability of Miracles" Mavrodes

- Offers a critique of Humes' argument against belief in miracles

How does Hick's response to the problem of evil compare to Plantinga's Free Will Defense?

- Plantinga's was just a defense, but this is a theodicy; he is claiming to believe it is true. - Hick's accounts for natural evils, like cancers, earthquakes, etc. - Hick's relies on the existence of the afterlife, where we will gain God's full likeness; Plantinga's only relies on the existence of free will.

How does Rowe feel about these objections raised by Skeptical Theism?

- Rowe admits that this does indeed lower his confidence in his argument - However, he brings in another concept called the Good Parent Analogy.

What is the Good Parent Analogy? Does Rowe agree that it explains seemingly pointless evils?

- The Good Parent Analogy is the analogy that God, "our father", is like a parent to us and has our best interest at heart. Like a parent who forces their child to undergo painful shots at the doctor's office, we as children do not see the good behind it. - BUT, argues Rowe, loving parents try to explain and alleviate the pain, comforting their children. God does not do this, for Rowe; why would a loving God leave us alone in our suffering?

"Personal Identity and Consciousness" Locke

- The continued identity of a person depends not upon the sameness of any material or immaterial substance, but upon sameness of consciousness. - Since the same consciousness can be transferred from one substance to another, personal immortality does not require the continued existence of any particular substance.

How does Feuerbach view the object of the human man in his essay?

- The object and content of the Christian Religion are altogether human - The object of man is nothing else than his objective being himself.

Ibn Rushd / Averros "The Future Life"

- This Spanish Muslim discusses 3 popular conceptions of the afterlife in Islamic thought

How does Zagzabski say we should respond to this?

- We could indeed admire the belief system of a Hindu without adopting the system of belief ourselves. OR - We could convert, change our religion, allowing admiration to outweigh traditions or past beliefs.

How can truth and belief be connected both in the example of an intimate friend as in the example of God's divine foreknowledge, according to Pike?

- When truth is only factually connected with belief, as in Smith's knowledge, one can have the power to do something that would make the belief false. - But, then truth is analytically connected to belief, as in God's belief, no one can have the power to do something which would render the belief false.

What 3 things does Dembski say we must establish when inferring design?

1. Contingency 2. Complexity 3. Specification [ Uses an example of intelligent alien life in Contact and their numerical signal ]

What are the 4 claims Hume makes as to why testimony is never strong enough to prove a miracle?

1. In all history, no miracle is attested by enough educated men of integrity; not a great enough number of reliable witnesses. 2. Human nature is drawn to surprise and wonder; we get agreeable emotion from telling and hearing miracle stories 3. Most reports come from the ignorant; either underdeveloped parts of the world, or from our gullible ancestors. 4. Miracle claims are tied to many religions, and these reports in effect discredit one another.

What is the second traditional argument that Plantinga says is more powerful? [ This is an argument FOR the Incompatibility Thesis, in the spirit of Edwards ]

1. In things which are past, their past existence is now necessary 2. Divine foreknowledge of free agents is a thing which already has, and long ago had existence; now, its existence is necessary 3. Things that are connected with other things that are necessary, are themselves necessary 4. The events of divine foreknowledge are then necessary events

What are the three assumptions of Pike's argument:

1. Knowledge entails both belief and truth. 2. Omniscience is essential to divinity; any being who lacks omniscience would not rank as divine. 3. God knows everything from eternity.

Once Pike has made his argument, whose 3 points concerning divine omniscience does he condemn?

1. Leibniz 2. Luis de Molina 3. Frederich Schleiermacher

For a materialist, a belief has what 2 very different sorts of properties:

1. NP (neuro-physiological properties): Electrochemical events involving neurons and synapses, rates of firing 2. Content: The proposition associated with the belief. AKA, "Cleveland is a beautiful city".

What are the 2 kinds of necessity Boethius lays out?

1. Simple Necessity: The fact that it is necessary that all men are mortal. 2. Conditional Necessity: If you know a man is walking, it is necessary he is walking. - In the same way, if God sees something as present, it is necessary for it to happen, even though it has no necessity in its own nature. They happen of free will as present events.

What two intuitions does Plantinga say that this second argument appeals to, or that undergird the argument?

1. The past is fixed, unalterable, outside anyone's control 2. Whatever is "necessarily connected" with what is necessary in some sense, is itself necessary in that sense; If A is necessary and A entails B, then B is necessary.

Anytime we hear testimony, for Hume, we must assess it by comparing 2 probabilities:

1. The probability of what the testifier asserts 2. The probability that the testifier is either lying, or is mistaken - Since miracles are exceedingly improbable, it will always be equally or more probably that the testifier is lying or mistaken than that the miracle actually occurred.

For Dembski, patterns thus divide into 2 types:

1. Those that in the presence of complexity warrant a design inference; specification. 2. Those that, despite the presence of complexity, do not warrant a design inference; fabrication.

What are the 2 alternatives that Pike offers to the conundrum below: Last Saturday afternoon, Jones mowed his lawn. God exists and is essentially omniscient, and knew 80 years ago that Jones would mow his lawn. However, at this time, it must not have been possible for Jones to refrain from mowing his lawn, for it would have brought it about that God held a false belief 80 years earlier. God cannot hold false beliefs, though, so therefore it was not possible Jones refrained.

1. We may try to describing it as the power to do something that brings it about that God believed otherwise than he did 80 years ago; "It was within Jones' power at T2 to do something which would have brought about that God held a false belief at T1" 2. "It was within Jones' power at T2 to do something which would have brought about that God did not hold the belief he held at T1". - Both of these must be rejected, according to Pike.

List the 3 assertions that make up Boetius's initial argument that God's foreseeing of an event, x, renders it an un-free action.

1.) If God foresees that x will happen, then x must happen. 2.) If x must happen, then x isn't a free action Therefore, 3.) If God foresees that x will happen, then x isn't a free action.

Lay out the 3 assertions of Rowe's argument.

1.) Probably, there are pointless evils. 2.) If God exists, there are no pointless evils. Therefore, 3.) Probably, God does not exist.

What then arises from this idea that God's middle knowledge allowed him to know Jesus would never sin, and therefore he became incarnate in him?

6 other Theses we must consider,

What does Plantinga argue that Naturalism leads to?

A "Hume-like" skepticism; a skepticism where you are left simply unsure of what to believe. - Forces you to ask questions like Where am I? What am I? Whose anger must I dread? Who has influence on me?

What is the argument, as laid out in terms of "A, B, C and D"?

A = God existed at T1 B = God believed at T1 that Jones would do X at T2. C = It was within Jones' power at T2 to refrain from doing X D = Jones does (dod) X at T2

What example does Rowe open his argument with, displaying pointless evil?

A fawn being horribly burned and suffering for 5 days stuck in a fire caused by lightning. Rowe asks why God would allow something like this to happen?

What exactly is Plantinga talking about when he mentions "naturalism"?

A naturalist is someone who thinks there is no such person as God or anything mush like God. Naturalism, thus, entails atheism. The converse does not hold- Dennett would be a naturalist, to Plantinga. - He says you may call it "atheism plus". It goes the extra mile for him.

What is the second thesis for pluralism?

A non-Christian religion can be lawful, without denying the error contained in it. - This must be true if God truly seeks salvation for all men. - Assumes that there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-Christian religions - Whether or not an individual takes up an attitude of acceptance or refusal to God, he is able to offer him salvation.

Why were humans not created as morally perfect beings, even at a distance from the presence of God, according to Hick?

A perfectly free being, though formally free to sin, would in fact never do so. - This person, in a morally frictionless environment with no stress or temptation, would have nothing to throw them off their path. - For Hick, virtues that have been formed within the agent as a hard won deposit of his own right decisions in situations of challenge are more valuable than virtues created within him, ready made

O'Connor argues that a naturalist who, in spite of Plantinga's argument, continues to believe in the reliability of her faculties is in a position similar to...

A theist who, in spite of the problematic evidence of evil, continues to believe in God's existence.

What is Hume's "Wise Man Principle"?

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. - Since we do not witness miracles ourselves, we simply believe in testimonies; no direct evidence.

What is a "wonder", according to Aquinas, and how is it different than a true miracle?

A wonder is relative; one man may know its cause, like the eclipse of the sun, while another who is ignorant of astronomy may think its a wonder. A miracle is absolutely hidden; they happen by divine power, beyond the order commonly observed in nature.

Then, how does Rowe use this to render the likelihood of heaven or hell, mary and Jesus, as being undercut?

According to expanded theism, the goods for the sake of which O permits vast amounts of human and animal suffering will be realized only at the end of the world, or in some state of being quite unknown to us - It is likely these goods would be beyond our understanding, according to skeptical theism - Rowe does not agree that O's mere existence means the Bible is guaranteed to be true.

What does Mavrodes argue about Hume's essay?

Although Hume's epistemic principles concerning testimony may sound intuitively plausible, they are at odds with the way we actually treat testimonial evidence in everyday life. - Hume's argument, for Mavrodes, fails to demonstrate that it is never rational to believe in miracles on the basis of testimony.

What type of premise is (2.), or what type of argument does it make the overall argument? "If x must happen, then x isn't a free action"?

An Enthymeme: An argument where a premise is unstated but implicit.

What does Rowe let the capital letter "O" stand in for?

An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being - Standard theism is then any view that O exists.

"Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action" by Pike (1965).

Argues that "Boethius was right in thinking that there is a selection from among the various doctrines and principles clustering about the notions of knowledge, omniscience, and God which, when brought together, demand the conclusion that if God exists, no human action is voluntary".

At death, the soul does what?

At death the soul is freed from the body, a state that is not to be feared, says Socrates, since it is what all true philosophers strive for.

What is this first traditional argument that Plantinga says is clearly fallacious? It comes from Augustine...

Augustine's argument that (1) If God knows in advance that S will do A, the it must be the case that S will do A (2) if it must be the case that S will do A, then it is not within the power of S to refrain from doing A. (3) If it is not within the power of A to refrain from doing A, then S is not free with respect to A. Therefore, (4) If God knows in advance that S will do A, then S is not free with respect to A.

How do we make these assignments? Does Mavrodes agree that this method of assigning "P" values is satisfactory?

Based upon our own individual prior experience. No, because what experience had Hume, or most of us, had with the miraculous?

How does Flint reconcile the question "How can CHN both incapable of sinning due to his identity as the son of God, and capable of sinning due to the free nature of his actions?

Because God's middle knowledge allowed him to know that Jesus, placed in his situations, would never sin. Therefore, he became incarnate in him.

Why does Boethius say prayer and hope are removed from life if there is divine foreknowledge of all human action?

Because in vain is reward offered to the good and punishment to the bad, if they are not deserved by any free and willed movement of the mind. Then it is hopeless to hope or pray for anything, if an inflexible bond binds all that can be wished for.

Why did Darwin's "strange inversion of reasoning" piss off some people in 1868, according to Dennett?

Because it replaced ideas of people like Hume by proving that the concentrated intelligence of an anthropomorphic agent emerges as just one of the products of mindless, mechanistic processes. It yields breathtakingly brilliant designs that never had a designer, other than natural selection itself.

Why did nobody wonder about the salvation of people in other religions in the past, according to Rahner?

Because pluralism of religion was regarded as foreign, very far removed, and peripheral, nobody wondered about its existence.

Why does Aquinas say of God: Who doth great wonderful works alone.

Because when any finite power works the proper effect to which it is determined, it may surprise those who do not understand its operation, but the power of every creature is limited, unlike God. Only he can perform miracles.

Which form of Dualism is Plato endorsing here?

It is not clear.

What other new positions have you found yourself endorsing? [Fine-Tuning Argument; Teleological]

Being a pre-medical student, I have a science and factually based mind. I accept theories such as evolution and natural selection as fact within the scientific community; however, perhaps my favorite argument within the class is the fine-tuning argument. Though nature has since set out on its own path, did God not have to set the original constants in place to even allow for matter, for gravity, etc? The odds seem just too small to me that this would occur randomly, and none of the potential answers seem reliable enough. This was a new stance, then, in leading me towards the idea of a divine creator.

Emotions lead to...

Beliefs, which lead to Actions [ E.g. would be the emotion of fear leading to the belief "I should escape", and then Run ] - The Belief portion is often not about how things are, but how things should be.

"God's Timeless Knowing" Boethius

Boethius was a Roman Philosopher from 475-526 BC. Wrote this during his time in prison "Written in the form of a dialogue between himself and the personification of philosophy".

What method of proving the existence of God does Dennett admit was reasonable before the time of Darwin and his theory of evolution?

By means of his effects"; in other words, like Paley's example of finding a watch and leading to the idea that it has a maker, so likewise, our world has an intelligent maker.

According to Hume, men are much more often brought to their knees in prayer by ______ than by ________.

By melancholy, then by agreeable passion.

What is the first thesis Rahner offers, the first response that could be given to Pluralism?

Christianity as the absolute religion. - Intended for all men - Cannot recognize any other religion beside itself as of equal right

"If A is necessary (fixed) and A entails B, then B is necessary (fixed)." This kind of necessity is....

Closed under entailment.

What probabilities, P, did Hume say to compare when assessing a miracle's truth?

Compare the P of.. - Whether the miracle really occurred, M & - ~T, that the testimony given was not true.

Supervenience

Content properties supervene on NP properties. They are based on them, or parasite of them. Therefore the properties do not have to be material themselves.

What are the 2 ways of interpreting premise 2.) Omniscience is essential to divinity; any being who lacks omniscience would not rank as divine

Could be (a.) Necessarily, if X is God, X is omniscient. (AKA to be God one has to be omniscient). (b.) If X is God, then X is essentially omniscient (In every possible world). [ b is the one that works for Pike's argument ]

Could a Materialist Christian justify belief in an afterlife?

Could say when we die, God takes the real body and saves it for the Resurrection; the corpses we see are not then really these people.

What could be a controversial aspect of specification?

Couldn't we always make up more and more complex rules for a word scramble to eventually spell out a logical sentence? This does not mean that an intelligent being placed it there or intended it to be interpreted this way; where do the rules come in?

Why is it not this simple, according to the prime example used by O'Connor?

Despite uncertainty over the problem of evil, theists choose to continue with their faith. Is this not similar to the idea of naturalism? We are made to simply accept some things. - A naturalist, then, could say they take it as an unquestioned framework principle.

How could a Boethian Bystander object to this Edwardian argument, according to Plantinga?

Edwards argument involves divine foreknowledge, the idea of God's having known at some time in the past that Paul will mow his lawn. Boethius holds that God is instead eternal, so everything is present for him and atemporal (Plantinga does not agree with this Boethius view, BUT says

Specification

Ensures the object exhibits the type of pattern characteristic of intelligence. - What IS a suitable pattern of intelligence? - A Caesar cipher, or a word unscramble, appears to lack a pattern, but then it is given after the fact; this is a suitable pattern for inferring design.

Contingency

Ensures the object in question is not the result of an automatic and therefore unintelligent process that had no choice in its production. - Had no determining cause; cannot be reduced to any underlying physical necessity. - Examples he gives are the position of Scrabble pieces on a board, the config. of ink on a sheet of paper

Complexity

Ensures the object is not so simple it can be readily explained by chance - Must embody a suitable pattern

How is an illusion different than simply an error, for Freud?

Errors are simply mistakes Illusions are derived from human wishes.

What does Boethius (as Philosophy) say about eternity and how it relates to God?

Eternity is the complete, simultaneous, and perfect possession of everlasting life. - Things existing in time exist in the present and progress from the past to the future - God, for Boethius, is eternal. He embraces all the infinite recesses of past and future and views them in his immediacy, as though they are happening in the present

What does Zegzebski respond?

Even if we cannot, others around us must be trusted. The opinions of others influenced by perception, reason and science, have influenced us in forming our own opinions. - If we trust our physical faculties, why not trust in our emotions? Says Zagzebski

What is the reflexive skepticism that Hume even says to suffer from?

Even once he sees through nature's distractions, he is still unsure about these posed questions - A true naturalist, says Plantinga, has a defeator for each of his beliefs, and is sure of his philosophical conviction.

Does Pike seem to endorse the idea that God is atemporal or that God is everlasting?

Everlasting! Always has, does and will exist; God is a temporal bring, but unlimited temporarily.

Is the wide scope version true in every possible world, or just some?

Every possible world. For example, if God foresees ND beating Navy, then ND would have to beat Navy in every possible world

How does Freud answer the question, "well then, if the skeptic admits that assertions of religion cannot be refuted by reason, why should I not believe in them, since they have tradition, agreement of mankind, and all the consolation they offer on their side?"

Freud says why not? Just as nobody can be forced to believe, nobody can be forced not to believe. But they are ignorant in doing so.

What defines a hard fact about the past?

Genuineness and Strictness - Cannot tell us something about what will happen in 2020.

What Plantinga, in summary, has argued, then, is that Ockham's Way Out...

Gives us the means of seeing that neither Edwards' nor Pike's argument is successful. - Edwards' fails because God's having known a proposition is not a hard fact about the past - Pikes fails because if God is essentially omniscient, then the facts about what God believed are not hard facts about the past.

"Life after Death: Molinism and Incarnation" by Thomas Flint What is it's goal?

Goal is to use the concept of middle knowledge, or Molinism, to defend the possibility of multiple incarnations.

How do followers of other religions then receive Christ's salvation, according to Rahner?

God is at work in and through the non-Christian religions and their sincere followers have experience divine grace because they are "anonymous Christians" who have not been brought to explicit self-awareness of the fact.

Choose any event E, says Pike, that occurred at time T2. For any time T1 prior to T2...

God knew at time T1 that E would occur at T2. - Pike works with the assumption that God has known everything from eternity,

What does it mean to state that x "must happen"?

Has to happen, or x necessarily happens.

Reduction

Having the content it does is reducible to having the NP properties that it does. It is nothing more, or different, than NP; the propositions themselves are then physical things.

"On Ockham's Way Out" by Plantinga: Part 1

He presents 2 traditional arguments for the incompatibility of divine fore knowledge with human freedom.

What concrete example of a miracle does Mavrodes finally offer, after initially opening with the example of "Henry" rising from the dead?

He refers to Jesus Christ rising from the dead, J. - Our own personal experience may not be enough to confirm or disconfirm this miracle.

But then, the ID proponent may ask Dennett, "those standing laws themselves require an explanation, do they not?"

He says only a theory with the logical shape of Darwin's could explain how designed things came to exist. Any other explanation would be an infinite regress. Who created God, then?

How does Dennett answer, "How did it evolution get started? Don't we need God to kindle the process by miraculously assembling the first self-replicating thing?"

He says that there is intense passion over finding the origin of life, but the details are not yet settled. SO many possibilities are not yet excluded. - The conviction that it must have taken a miracle has "lost whatever plausibility it ever had".

Does Hick believe his good-making theodicy is plausible, as well as possible? - A principle threat of its plausibility is the sheer amount and intensity of both moral and natural evil..

Hick says the Theistic POV is that intellectually one may be able to see, but emotionally not expected to feel; we must trust in God even in the midst of deep suffering, for in the end we shall participate in the glorious Kingdom - Concerning the intensity of natural evil, he says our judgments are relative, and if God took away the very most forms of evil we would just assume the next tier down were the very worst.

"The Possibility of Immortality" Descartes What does he argue about the soul?

His soul (or mind) is is absolutely distinct from the body, because the only thing we can be sure of is "I exist", or that I am a thinking thing.

What issue does Boethius see with this solution?

How would God foresee things to happen if they are uncertain? Isn't God supposed to be omniscient?

What does Badham claim led to a human belief in the afterlife?

Humans experiences. The experience of a direct encounter between God and the individual soul is the prime foundation for belief in the afterlife.

Why does God allow for the non-moral evil of pain and suffering, according to Hick?

Humans most grow and develop through the exercise of freedom in this religiously ambiguous world, and in a static situation demanding no exertion of choices, we would not develop from immaturity or be challenged. - "A world in which there is no injury, or pain or suffering, is one in which there is no distinction between right and wrong action and no action would be morally wrong, bc no action could have harmful consequences, and likewise no action would be morally good".

What does Hume say would need to bring about a miracle, also disagreeing with Aquinas?

Hume says a miracle need be brought about either by a divine power, or by some invisible spirit. [ Recall Aquinas said only divine God can bring it about ]

How have your views on the philosophical issues related to religious belief been affected by the material we've discussed this semester?

I cannot deny that I entered this class as an agnostic young person and still left on the last day agnostic. That being said, and perhaps expected, I learned a great deal about how the notion of God can be reconciled with the topics that make me doubt his existence the most: The problem of evil, as well as the power of science.

Take this argument: "One can just as easily make the case that atheistic beliefs are illusions. We humans have a number of related deep desires: to be superior to others; to have no boss telling us what to do or what to think; to act as we wish with impunity. Atheism satisfies all of these desires. It puts us (so far as we can tell) at the top of the universe, inferior to no species in knowledge or in power; it allows us to make up our own minds on moral or intellectual matters, with no overbearing divinity "revealing" things to us; it frees us from the fear that we will eventually have to answer to a heavenly judge for our actions (or inaction). Atheism, then, is no less an illusion than is theism. And so the Freudian notion of illusion is ultimately of no help in deciding whether or not to believe in God." Do you agree? Why?

I do not agree because .. - There are plenty (if not the majority) of "faithful theists" who endorse the idea of Libertarianism and still believe we have 'no boss telling us what to do', or controlling our actions. - Those who are atheists and argue against the existence of God do not necessarily argue Human's at the top of the spiritual "food chain". What about those who worship nature, and see spiritual goodness in the world around them, believing it deserves our utmost respect? - Can't those who do not believe in God still believe in Karma, that our actions will still be judged with good or bad energy?

What positions (new for you) have you found yourself endorsing? [Evil as necessary].

I never thought I would endorse the stance that God has a good reason for bringing about evil in our world. However, Hick's person-making theodicy made sense to me in many ways; if the world was morally frictionless, there would be no way for us to grow and learn as human beings and overcome challenge, which I often think brings people together. - I remain unconvinced that the pure scope of evils, like the Holocaust, or child mutation and rape, are necessary to free will or to person-making, but nevertheless perhaps they are correct in stating these as relative evils.

What is Materialism in terms of the afterlife?

Identity follows the body, or a part of the body. - Belief in an afterlife seems not to agree with materialism. - Russell seems to be a materialist

What is Dualism?

Identity follows the soul. There are different types of this, though; compare Plato and Descartes.

According to a materialist who embraces supervenience, for any possible world W and any structures S and S*...

If S has the same NP properties in W as S* has in W, then S has the same content in W as S* has in W.

What is the issue with Schleiermacher's comment on divine foreknowledge?

If an intimate friend has foreknowledge of another's actions, it does not endanger the other person's freedom; similarly you would not compel the man to sin, though you knew ahead of time he was going to sin. - Pike says one cannot compare an intimate friend having of another's actions as the same thing as God.

Why does Hume argue that polytheism arose first?

If humans set aside the design of nature and examine human life, we are led to endorse several deities.

In narrow scope...

If in a single possible world God foresees ND beats Navy, that must be the case in that individual world.

What is an example Mavrodes gives showing that in our everyday life we believe testimony all the time, even if what they claim is highly unlikely?

If we read in a newspaper article that somebody played a very unlikely hand in a game of bridge, we do not question this testimony, we accept it.

Conclusion of Plantinga's argument ?

If you believe N and see P(R/N) is low, you are involved in a bottomless human skepticism. You have a universal defeator for whatever you find yourself believing.

What does Dennett have to say about William Dembski's design inference argument from 2005?

Instead of trying to test the idea in action of intelligent tinkering in the causal ancestry of phenomena, he settles for the observation that the ID perspective "encourages biologists to investigate whether systems that at first appear functionless might in fact have a function" - Dennett says no neo-Harwinian would disagree with this strategy

What is a person is then to change the course of their proposed course of action?

It is not possible to evade Providence, for God knows you were going to change the course of your proposed action; though you act freely, you cannot escape the sight of an eye present to watch. - Divine foreknowledge is not changed as a result of your rearrangement, b/c with one glance God anticipates your change.

How does Plantinga compare the changeability of the past and the future?

It is obvious we cannot change the past, but can we truly change the future? In order to do so, Paul must: perform some action A at a time t before 9:20, such that prior to t it is true that Paul will walk out at 9:20, but after t (after he performs A), false that he will. - Paul, nor God, can do something like this.

Finally, if Jones refrains from performing X at T2, then...

It was within Jones' power at T2 to do something which would have brought it about that God did not exist at T1.

Thesis 4:

It's possible that CHN exists as an independent, unassumed suppositum.

Thesis 2:

It's possible that CHN was neither assumed, nor assumable. - Though he was in the actual world, what about in another possible world where the S did not assume CHN?

What does Dembski argue the significance of this work is?

Lies in metaphysics. - Intelligent design, if we look for it, exists in the world as a whole - We can recognize a divine designer, if we search.

Mavrodes agrees this seems initially reasonable, UNTIL one realizes that...

M and T are not logically independent propositions. - "T" includes the claim that M took place.

What other fields could the enlightenment worry apply to?

Medicine, politics, morality...

What are some common traits of near death experiences?

Meeting dead relatives, seeing a bright light, an out of body experience.

What ultimately is the form of Pike's argument?

Modus Tollens!

What is the issue with Molina's counterargument?

Molina says that God' can have foreknowledge of things that will happen "through the freedom of the will". - Pike above has already proved that this is not possible, and that Jones did not have the choice to freely refrain from mowing his lawn at T2

Therefore, what probability would Plantinga assign to the likelihood of R, reliable cognitive faculties, and N, naturalism/materialism?

N is a defeator for the claim that our cognitive faculties are R. P(R/N) is LOW, according to Plantinga. OR- is P(R/N) inscrutable, rather than low? How would we then tell the probability? We can't tell the P: it is inscrutable.

In short, what does O'Connor's argument say?

Naturalists are justified in ignoring Plantinga's argument.

Does Plantinga believe that nature itself can save us from this Humean skepticism?

Nature is kind to us and helps us forget all of the concerns that come along with Hume-like skepticism - BUT, Plantinga argues, the dangers are still there in the back of our mind. We are not fully cured.

Thesis 1:

Necessarily, being assumable is a contingent feature of any assumable, individual human nature.

Thesis 6:

Necessarily, every human nature is then possibly assumed. - In Wa, S assumed CHN, but in W3, S assumed HN4.

According to Dembski, in the first line of his writing, Intelligent Design examines the distinction between 3 modes of explanation:

Necessity, Chance, and Design

Does Plantinga agree with this Boethian view of God?

No, he says it is incoherent, but even if one were to believe it was coherent Edwards' argument could be restated to make it work.

Is conversion always an option for all believers?

No; Admiration for an Olympic swimmer does not just allow us to become one. Zegzebski does seem to think that even if I cannot change my conviction, we not do not view people of different religions the same way.

Does Naturalism alone lead to Skepticism, for Plantinga?

No; Materialism does as well, the clai that human beings are material objects with no immaterial parts. No immaterial soul, or mind, or self. A person is then just her soul. - A belief, to a materialist, if just an event in your nervous system; perhaps 2 neurons with different properties synapsing on one another.

Is Pike's goal then to prove that determinism is true, or that God does not exist?

No; Pike just wants to concentrate attention on the implications of a certain set of assumptions. - Wants to fill in the holes he feels Boethius failed in completing.

Therefore, can Jones action be counted as a free action?

No; as a general remark, then, if God exists and is essentially omniscient, then no human action is voluntary.

Does Russell say it is impossible that this series of experiences connected by memory and by certain similarities of habit can be exhibited in a new set of consequences?

No; but it is easy for Russell to see that it is very unlikely. - The brain is dissolved at death, and memory probably dissolves, too. - Both the hereditary and acquired parts of a personality are bound up with the characteristics of certain bodily structures.

Sect #2: Says..

The afterlife is spiritual. Bodily image is just what we use to speak about it, because it is what we can understand.

Is Freud intending to directly address the question of the truth of religious beliefs?

No; he explicitly acknowledges that he does not acknowledge this. - Nevertheless, he clearly takes the thesis that they are illusions to undermine their support - He suggests it would be quite odd if things turned out to be precisely the way we would wish them to be.

Does Feuerbach believe that man is aware that our self-consciousness is the same thing as our consciousness of God?

No; it is precisely the absence of such an awareness that is responsible for the peculiar nature of religion. - Man transposes his essential bring outside himself before he finds it within himself

Does Thesis 1 mean that just any HN can be assumed?

No; only in worlds where that HN is assumable, and therefore remains sinless.

Does Haught think the world's religions have begun to accept this potential response #2?

No; sadly, most of them are very late in responding to or accepting Darwinism.

What does Russell argue believe in immortality is born from?

Not from reason, but from emotions such as the fear of death and admiration of human excellence.

Finally, why does Hume argue that the masses who practice theism do so?

Often not due to reason or a process of due argument, but rather by irrational notions and by their superstitious arguments.

"Proper Functionalism" that O'Connor adopts from Plantinga?

On which "a belief has warrant, for a person, if it is produced by her cognitive faculties functioning properly in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth". - AKA only our cognitive faculties need be working; we wouldn't need to argue it is likely so.

What was excluded from Aristotle's four causes that led to the removal of design from scientific thought?

Only the material and the efficient cause of objects were considered, removing the formal and final causes; Dembski does not advocate a return to Aristotle's theory of causation, but he says it did help exclude design in history.

What is a Law of Nature?

Our experience as humans uniformly backs up this law. - Therefore, a miracle would go against all of our experience.

Can Molinism help explain this conundrum?

Perhaps Molinism could state that God was aware if the universe were created, it would freely undergo evolution and possess autonomy, as if it were "created by a self-giving love".

"On Ockham's Way Out" Plantinga: Part 2

Plantinga explains and partly endorses Ockham's response to the 2nd argument

"On Ockham's Way Out" Plantinga: Part 4

Plantinga offers an account of accidental necessity according to which propositions about the past are accidentally necessary if and only if they are strictly about the past.

"On Ockham's Way Out" Plantinga: Part 3

Plantinga points out some startling implications of Ockham's way out

How are Hume's comments at the beginning and the end of his work concerning the teleological argument and affirming the divine origin and consistency of the Christin religion to be taken?

Probably intended to be understood ironically. He does not actually endorse the teleological view that the world appears executed as one big plan, by one God; "one design prevails through the whole, and this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author". All sarcasm, rendering this ridiculous.

What does O'Connor allow "R" and "EN" to represent?

R = the thesis that our basic cognitive faculties are mostly reliable EN = human beings and their cognitive arose by means of entirely natural processes of the kind posited by evolutionary bio

What are the 2 main possibilities for materialists as to how the Content of a belief is connected to its NP?

Reduction or Supervenience

How does the Son, S, differ from CHN?

S = Person, Divine, Omniscient, Uncreated, Immaterial CHN = None of the above

What does Pike say that Leibniz did wrong in analyzing the problem of divine foreknowledge?

Says that something being necessary means it is absolutely necessary, that is, its contrary is impossible. God's foreseeing of something only makes it a hypothetical necessity. - Pike says he is confused, for he is only using necessary as the opposite of voluntary, not meaning to say it is absolutely necessary Jones mows his lawn.

What does the first sect argue? How does this sect apply to Christianity?

Says the afterlife is identical to life here on Earth, only differing in temporality; It is eternal, while we are of limited duration here on earth. - Most common sect for Christians; in scripture we recite our bodies and souls will rise to Heaven.

The theological response 1 to mediating ID and evolutionary bio?

Science and religion are fully distinct. They should be kept completely apart; we won't wind up with ugly disputes if we keep them separate.

What is the other response, theological response 2, to allowing both ID and science to exist?

Science indeed influences our theological outlook and can even enrich it; specifically, Darwinism can do this. - They are both oriented towards reality in different ways, so he says response 1 is too willing to let science and religion go their separate ways.

What does Freud believe to be the only road today which can lead us to unanswered questions?

Scientific work is the only road, for Freud.

How is the diagram of the area of self-trust arranged?

Self trust consists of our beliefs, our emotions and our traditions (that we grew up with). - Emotions lead to admiration for believers in other religions, as well as an inclination to imitate them. - However, there is then dissonance between this inclination to imitate these believers, and our own personal beliefs and traditions.

What is Mersenne's objection to Descartes?

She says you "did not even argue the soul as being immortal!" - Why think the soul will continue after the body?

How does Rahner open his essay by defining Open Catholicism?

Signifies the fact that the Catholic Church is opposed by historical forces which she herself cannot disregard as if they were purely "worldly" and a matter of indifference; they have significance for her. Also the task of becoming related to these forces, in order to understand their existence.

Skeptical Theism: Lay out their response to Rowe's argument.

Skeptical Theists may disagree with "1.) Probably, there are pointless evils". - Would respond that there is some greater good connected to this seemingly pointless evil, but it is too complicated for human minds to know. - We may never see this good, or the chain leading to it.

A miracle of the third rank...

Something done by God which is usually done by the operation of nature, but is done in this case without the working of natural principles - When one is cured of fever - When it rains without any working of the elements.

Who does Dennett sound like when he is talking about the big bang, about the conditions that permitted the formations of galaxies and stars, and the speed of light taking on the precise value it does, and the force of gravity being 1% more or less than it is?

Sounds similar to the Teleological argument offered by Collins, in his "fine tuning argument". - Dennett seems to agree that this does not mean ID is correct. What about other black-hole universes in which the constants were incorrect? - "Semi-Darwinian perspective" is that matter is finite, so haven't every potential formation or position have been tried infinite times until our constants arose?

Where have one of the most persistent criticisms against Rowe's new evidential problem of evil come from?

Stephen Wykstra and other "skeptical theists", who argue that we simply are not in an appropriate epistemic position to determine whether there truly are any pointless evils.

Do most materialists embrace weak or the strong supervenience?

Strong! The content cannot vary from world to world.

Therefore, if T entails M, but M does not entail T...

T must be less probable than M, according to Hume.

What is The Metaphysical Presupposition (TMP) that Christians hold?

TMP = In becoming incarnate, the Son united to himself (assumed) a complete individual human nature (human being).

What is this common mistaken assumption of Dembski and Dennett?

That evolution and divine providence are incompatible. - Haught contends that evolutionary biology does not commit one to a materialistic, anti-supernatural metaphysic, and it can be reconciled with divine providence.

What else does Dennett end by suggesting?

That evolutionary social science can also explain why theistic belief has been so widespread.

What does Dembski contend has been a mistake, since the 19th century?

That the notion of design has been largely repudiated in science. He develops instead a criterion for detecting design.

How does John Locke's argument make it wasier for a Christian to argue for an aferlife?

The Christian no longer has to balance materialism.

Finally conclusion of Dennett:

The Darwinian perspective does not prove that God could not exist, but only that we have no good reason to think God does exist.

How does Pike understand Boethius's doctrine that "God cannot in anything be mistaken".

The absence of the quality of omniscience no longer makes what we call "God" the actual "God". - Therefore, an omniscient God holds no false beliefs.

The Theory of Final Assumptions

The ultimate end of all human beings who attain salvation is to be assumed by the Son. - We will become united to Him as completely as CHN has always been united to him - We can state this is true due to Scripture, or ask Why Wouldn't the Son assume them? Don't we all naturally seek union with God?

What worry, does Dembski argue, has kept design from entering science proper?

The worry of falsely attributing something to design only to have it overturned later. - He says this is silly, bc there is a rigorous criterion for discriminating intelligent from unintelligent caused objects.

Thesis 5:

There are in the actual world individual human natures distinct from CHN that were assumable.

Sect #2 says...

There is a corporeal difference. We are perishable on Earth, but immortal in the afterlife. - This #3 is the one Rushd seems to agree with; He says the soul is indeed immortal, and the idea of a soul returning to new bodies is not absurd.

Therefore, CHN was assumable if and only if...

There was a lifelong set of freedom-retaining circumstances in which CHN could be placed such that CHN would never sin if placed in those circumstances. [ Known via MK ].

How then does Dembski organize all events that occur?

They are either necessary, or contingent (occur by chance). Those that are contingent are then either blind (chance) or directed (by a superintending intelligence).

Are illusions the same as psychiatric delusions?

They come close, according to Freud; For delusions, we emphasize as essential their being in contradiction with reality. Illusions need not necessary be false- for example, a prince may indeed come marry a young girl, though it is highly unlikely. He does not find it likely a Messiah will come and found a golden age.

How do the second 2 sects differ from the first?

They say the afterlife is different from life here on Earth.

Miracles of the 2nd rank are...

Those in which God does something that nature can do, but not in that sequence / connexion. - An animal living after death - Walking after lameness

For Aquinas, miracles of the highest rank are...

Those in which something is done by God that nature can never do

Why are miracles not against nature, according to Aquinas?

Though something further be impressed upon a thing, making it otherwise than it was before, that is not against nature.

If we do as Mavrodes says and go beyond our experience, talking instead about general human experience... How do we get in touch with this? And how do we trust this human experience?

Through testimony. If we accept testimony as evidence, we must accept all evidence, and cannot cherry pick those claims we want, from only "trusted" people.

What is Ockham's response to (16)?

To deny 16; hard facts about the past are indeed accidentally necessary, but the same cannot be said about soft facts. They cannot be equivalently about the future. - Ockham's claim is then that soft facts about the past are NOT accidentally necessarily

What is a criticism of the theory of final assumptions?

To support this theory, one has to support the outlandish idea that (R): 'any human nature that has the property of being a person has it non-essentially'. - Flint disagrees. He says we can just instead say we cannot exist without either being a person, OR being assumed by a person.

What would the enlightenment worry lead to?

Universal Agnosticism; nobody quite sure what to believe.

How do our ancestors affect our religious beliefs, according to Freud?

We believe in religion because our primal ancestors did, and because we were passed their "proofs", their writings. But, Freud questions, what makes these writings reliable?

Why are we not just born into the direct divine presence of God?

We cannot be directly in his presence because we would have no freedom in relation to God; we would not exist as independent, autonomous persons. - We must be brought into existence, not in the immediate divine presence, to be a person

What are some examples, according to Hume, of how humans are drawn to religion?

We have anxiety over the unknown causes of life and death, health and sickness; these leave us "anxiously expectant", so what Hume calls the "ignorant multitude" form a reason for their happening, and this is religion.

Skeptical Theists: How do they incorporate the existence of this O and the pointless suffering of the fawn?

We have no reason at all to think that were O to exist, things concerning the fawn would strike us any differently; we would still not know the greater good to come out of this pointless suffering.

What does Descartes respond to Mersenne's objection?

We have no reason to believe that just because the body perishes, a substance such as the mind should be annihilated, too. Sufficient for him to then conclude that the mind is immortal.

What is "The Enlightenment Worry", for Zagzebski?

We used to regard other religions as simply foreign, rumored or strange; now, we cannot just dismiss then, We live in a modern, communicative world. Now, we worry, why are our own beliefs any better than these other beliefs?

Weak v. Strong Supervenience

Weak: 2 objects in the same world can't have the same NP properties, but dif. content Strong: 2 objects in any worlds can't have the same NP properties, but different content. [ Content can't vary from world to world ]

How could somebody raise an objection or a controversial aspect to Contingency?

What exactly does he mean by the object in question (say, the pattern of 00010000001), not being determined by a cause? How can we determine if something truly has no cause? - Maybe there are never absences of causation, but simply causes that we cannot or do not understand.

What is an obvious question stemming from the fact that (1) is both a modal and a conditional claim?

Where does the modal operator go, inside or outside the conditional? Wide Scope- "Necessarily, if God foresees x, then x must happen". Narrow scope- "If God foresees x, then necessarily x must happen".

What is all that evolution is concerned with, according to Plantinga?

Whether the content is true or false makes no different; evolution is concerned with the NP properties leading to behavior that is or is not adaptive.

A question posed back to this view of God as eternal? How does he respond to it?

Why then does it apply that all these things scanned by the sight of God become necessary? Seeing things does not make them necessary. - He answers that the same future event is necessary when viewed from divine foreknowledge, and yet seems completely free when considered in itself.

What question must then be raised about the validity of human beliefs, if we trace them like a Naturalist to their NP properties?

Why think we typically produce beliefs that have true content? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable? - Plantinga says naturalists just tend to assume our cognitive faculties are true, and we need to give up this belief in our cognitive faculties.

Zegzebski says we do not have to question our own beliefs just because people have different beliefs, and what bother us is when we admire people with whom we do not agree; e.g., an admirable devoted Jew or Muslim. What question does Foley pose to this?

Why trust in our admirations, or have trust in our self-trust? Why trust our faculties?

How does the reading "God's Timeless Knowing" begin?

With Boethius' statement of the problem of freedom and foreknowledge, and his critiques of several attempted solutions.

Is Descartes a dualist?

Yes; he endorses the #2 version, that we, a person, is the soul, and it can be distinct from the body.

Does Mavrodes believe we have experiences that are indirectly relevant?

Yes; we have had negative experiences. NR = No resurrections R = At least 1 resurrection. - Just because we have had negative experiences, and we have not seen a corpse come back to life, this has nothing to do with R and NR. Our samples are too small.