Phil Exam 1

Deductive Resoning

a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true -if all premisies are true, you are aboslutley certain to end up with a true claim/conclusion.

Inductive Logic

a type of reasoning in which general principles are inferred from specific experiences Any other type of reasoning. Can still look at evidence and the conclusion. Always some gap. Probability, Statistics (we do more inductive resoning) Go from particiular to general, Unobserved to observed Ex: 90% of all doctors are rich, Jane is a doctor, Jane is rich

The Problem of Evil

If God exists, God is a supreme being possessing all (positive?) attributes to an infinite degree E.g., God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (aka all-PKG: powerful, knowledgeable, and good 3 O's) If an entity is omnibenevolent, then that entity would not allow injustice to occur if that entity knew about it and could prevent it We'll use 'injustice' to refer to any undeserved or unnecessary suffering (broad understanding of 'evil'). The world, which is God's creation, is full of injustice By 1 & 4 - God does not exist

Is it a valid argument

an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion

Ontological Argument

arguments developed 'from the armchair' (i.e., using reason only, with no empirical claims). They are supposed to work by showing that, from the very nature of certain of our concepts and the rules of reason, denying the existence of God leads to a contradiction. Thus it follow with necessity that God exists (Anselm, Descartes) -This argument begins w a concept/idea - god is an absolute powerful being -Evidence is not based on experience, its ideas in our heads -Truths of reason are thought to be necessarily true -they do not depend on specific facts about different ways the world might turn out -The truths of arithmetic are supposed to be necessary in this way (deductive)

Cosmological Argument

arguments that start from certain basic facts about reality (e.g., that there is a universe, the nature of causality) to the existence of God as the necessary creator of reality (Aquinas's first 4 ways) -Depends on basic observation , contingent beings exists -Begins w an observation about the world/reality universe, then proceeds to reason towards the absolute reason god necessarily exist -says no infinite regress

Teleological Argument

arguments that use the order (e.g., design, harmony, function, etc) of the universe to argue that God exists, as the 'designer' or 'fine-tuner' of the universe (Aquinas' fifth way, Paley, contemporary discussions of intelligent design) The basic idea behind both arguments is that the most probable explanation of the order, purpose- driven behavior, etc we observe in the world is that the world is a product of an intelligent designer -It does seem ludicrous to think that sheer randomness could deliver the world we find ourselves in, whatever shortcomings we might think it has -Inferences to the best explanation are "abductive" Note the "most probable" and "best explanation" - in order for this argument to have any merit, two things are required: -(1) We've identified all the relevant hypotheses -(2) We've correctly gauged the probabilities of those hypotheses

Limitations to Aquinas's Second Way

Similar problems as the first argument -Why is an infinite regress impossible? -Suppose there was a first cause (changer, mover, etc). Why think it must be God? -Why think that there is just one "prime mover" or "first cause" -Again, regarding the infinite regress, if an infinite future is possible (which does seem to be a central part of some religious beliefs), then why isn't an infinite past possible?

Cosomological vs. Teleological

- Cosomological arguments are true if premises are true (deductive) -Teleological arguments are whats most probable

Aquinas

-Aquinas offers five proofs of God's existence -The first four are cosmological arguments, with the third often taken to be THE cosmological argument -His fifth way argument is a form of teleological argument -A question to ask about all these arguments is that, even if they are sound, whether the God described in the conclusion is the God that those offering or accepting the argument are interested in

Aquinas's First Way (Cosmological) Begins with an observation

-Begins with 1. Things change or move (moving in the world around us excluding animals, ex: boulder, asteriod) 2. It is impossible for a thing that changes or moves to cause its own change or movement 3. (By 1 & 2) For everything that changes or moves, there is something that brings about its changing or moving 4. An infinite regress of 'changers' ('movers') is not allowed; i.e., there must be a first mover 5. (By 3& 4)There must be an unmoved mover, which we call God

Anselm's Ontological Argument (arm chair)

1.We have in our mind a concept of God as a supreme being, of which no greater being can be conveied -All powerful, all knowing, all good 2. (By 1) God at least exists in out mind 3. (By 2) Either God exists in the mind alone or in the mind and extra-mentally 4. If God existed in the mind alone, then we could conceive of a being which was greater than God 5. (By 1 & 4) God does not exist in our mind alone 6. (By 3& 5 ) God necessarily exists extra-mentally As an independent being

Aquinas's Third Way

1. Contingent things exist. 2. Every contingent thing began to exist at some time or other. 3.Assume that everything is contingent. -Nothing is necessary 4. (by 2 & 3) There must have been a time at which nothing existed. 5. A contingent thing can exist only if it has been brought into existence by something else. 6. (by 4 & 5) Then nothing would exist now. 7. (by 1 & 6) It is not the case that everything is contingent; i.e., there is at least one necessary being. 8. There is no infinite regress of necessary beings whose necessity is caused by another necessary being. 9. (by 7 & 8) There is an independent necessary being, which we call God

Aquinas's 5th way

1. Non-conscious things act in a uniform way and tend toward what is best Ex: animals thriving in their habitat 2. (by 1) Non-conscious things achieve their ends not by chance, but on purpose More possible that its on purpose and not by chance (more likely) 3. Things that achieve their ends on purpose must be directed by intelligence and consciousness, either internally or externally Something must be guiding them 4. (by 2 & 3) Non-conscious things are directed by an external intelligence 5. There must exist an intelligence capable of directing the massive number of non-conscious things in nature toward their ends 6. (by 4 & 5) God, as the intelligence that directs non-conscious nature, exists Could all of this have happened by chance? Or is it more plausable that a designer set things up to behave a certian way Humans wouldnt be capable to build a universe, it must be something smarter and more powerful

Is it a sound argument

A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true

Aquinas's Five Ways

Aquinas ways on proving the existence of God, inductive reasoning. (What reason can do apart from special revelation.) They are: Motion, Cause, Contingency, Degrees of Perfection, Design.

Aquinas's Second Way

Begins with 1. Every event has a distinct, direct cause which temporally precedes it 2. (By 1) No event can be its own cause 3. An infinite regress of causes is not allowed; i.e., there must be a first cause 4. (by 2 & 3) There must be an uncaused cause, which we call God

There are four situations and their payoff

Choice: Believe in God, live a moral life; Outcome: God exists; Payoff: Infinite happiness Choice: Don't believe in God, lead a pleasure-seeking life; Outcome: God exists; Payoff: Infinite punishment Choice: Believe in God, live a moral life; Outcome: God doesn't exist; Payoff: Finite suffering (or finite happiness) Choice: Don't believe in God, lead a pleasure-seeking life; Outcome: God doesn't exist; Payoff: Finite happines Rational thing would be to believe in your best interests In that case, whether God exists or doesn't exist, the believers have it better; i.e., their payoff is higher than that of the non-believers

Evolutionary theory

Common ancestor, variation and fitness, natural selection, new species, well suited organisms are perefectly fit to their environment but they are not, they are flawed

Three evolution positions were identified by

Elliot Sober

5 Gaunilo's Parody

Gaunilo's Parody (critic of anselm) 1. We have in our mind a concept of a perfect island ("P-island"), of which no greater island can be conceived 2. (By 1) P-island at least exists in our mind 3. (By 2) Either P-island exists in the mind alone, or in the mind and extra-mentally 4. If P-island existed in the mind alone, then we could conceive of an island which was greater than P-island 5. (By 1 & 4) P-island does not exist in our mind alone. 6. (By 3 & 5) P-island necessarily exists extra-mentally; i.e., as an independent thing -Independent of our lives... bizzard conclusion

Creationism

God set mindless evolution in process, but also intervenes in that process, in order to produce results that mindless evolution itself cannot produce -is incompatible with our best science in a variety of fields God intervenes, not just mindless

Theistic evolutionism

God set the mindless evolutionary process in motion, and that process itself is sufficient to account for the forms of life we find God

Limitations to Aquinas's Third Way

Leibniz's cosmological argument trades on the same basic ideas as Aquinas's Third Way -Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason has it that every fact has an explanation (nothing occurs "brutely"), one that is genuinely capable of accounting for the fact in question -Contingency is the property of being possible but not necessary -Some contingent things are actual (really exist), others are not -Things that are necessary must exist (be how they are,etc) -This argument avoids some of the problems of the first two ways -The move from (3) to (4) is suspicious, though -It does not follow from the fact that each particular thing does not exist at some time or other, that there is some one time at which everything does not exist -From the fact that everyone takes his or her first breath at some time or other, it does not follow that there is some single time at which all people take their first breath together Also, why can't a contingent thing be eternal? Why believe premise (2)? -You and I are contingent things that came into being at some time and will cease to exist at some other time.But why couldn't there be some contingent thing that has always existed and always will -Aquinas's first three arguments turn on issues related to the nature of time that, for all I know, are not consistent with what physics tells us (or will one day tell us) about timeI.e., whatever persuasive force the arguments may have could very well be due to intuitions we have about time, intuitions that (like so many others we have) are flawed

natural selection

Natural selection works when the members of a population of organisms Vary in the degrees of fitness that they inherit from their parents can transfer from generations -This requires a mechanism for parents to pass along traits to their offspring Fitness has to do with a creature's ability to survive and successfully reproduce To be fit you need to reproduce, not just fitness but by making fertile offspring -Fitness is in important ways dependent on the specific nature of one's environment, as well as basic physical principles There must be differences amongst the members of the population in their heritable traits that affect their fitness Ex: monkeys that are colorblind and monkeys arnt Monkeys that can see better can the fruit better This is a fitness advantage Ex: birds that have stronger beaks This is a fitness advantage In fact, claiming that new species can come about challenges a thesis very dear to some creationists -the fixity of species

Pascal's strategy

Pascal's argument differs from the other types we've just noted, in that he aims to show only that the most rational thing for us to do is to believe that God exists -we are in no position to evaluate, we are limited beings, we just cant answer this Issue here, great consequence -Pascal's thinks we cannot avoid having to take a stand on believing whether God exists -the wager says that we are justified in believing that God exists ,although we will not have certainty of God's existence

Limitations to Aquinas's First Way

Premise 2 (and hence premise 3) seems false. Not everything that changes is changed by some other, external, thing -For example: Radioactive decay is random, and there is no causal explanation (in terms of the effects of some external thing or event) for why decay occurs at one time rather than another -According to Newton's physics, objects remain in uniform motion (or at rest) unless they are acted on by a force - the motion (/rest) does not need a "supporting cause" but this science was not around at this time Premise 4: Why is an infinite regress impossible? -If there were an infinite regress, it's not as though things would go unexplained; every change that occurs would be explained by another one, going back infinitely -Also, if we can't have an infinite change of causes going backwards, by parity of reason it seems that we couldn't go forward infinitely, either -However, an infinite future (eternity) seems to be part of the overall package that Aquinas wants to sell us.Such an infinite future would seem to include an infinite chain of causes

Infinite Regress

The idea that there is no first cause in the infinite line of causes extending into the past; causes are infinitely dependent on dependent causes.

Atheistic evolutionism

The mindless evolutionary process is sufficient to account for the forms of life we find, and it was not started by God no God

Limitations to Anselm's argument

The problem with Anselm's argument is that it misunderstands the intentional nature of our thoughts and concepts. How we represent things in our minds does not determine how things really are Being conceived of as such-and-such or believed to be so does not guarantee things are a certain way - we can misconceive, have empty concepts, false beliefs, etc All Anselm's argument can prove is that if God exists - i.e., if something really answers to the concept of God at work in the argument - God does so necessarily. It can't tell us that God does, in fact,exist Gaunilo's parody trades on this

Russell on Cosmological Argument

There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed

Limitations of Anselm's Ontological Argument (arm chair)

Therefore, our concept of God entails that God must exist independently of our concept of God

Representation

Things/ People are not "in our head" physically, it is a represnetation of them our thoughts and experiences represent things but can lack the reality of things Often illusuions Photos do not hve people in it, but representations of them Theres the thing, and then an idea about it

Limitations to Aquinas's 5th way

This is a variant of the teleological argument, further developed in different forms by William Paley and Cleanthes (in David Hume's Dialogues concerning natural religion) -Versions of this argument date back at least to the Ancient Greeks One problem right off the bat is with the move to a singular intelligence in (4) -If each non-conscious thing that acts for an end is directed by something with intelligence, it does not follow that there is a single intelligence that directs all non-conscious things toward their ends Aquinas's Fifth Way •Also, what does it mean to say that non-conscious things tend toward what is best? Best on what scale? Judged by whom? •Even if we take non-conscious things to have ends, evolutionary theory gives us a good way of thinking about how non-conscious things like plants, virii, and bacteria can act for their own ends without being guided by an external intelligence -Even if evolutionary theory is false, its mere coherence is enough to give us an alternative to what is claimed to necessarily be so in premise (3); note the 'must' in (3)

Decsions under uncertainity/ ignorance

Unstable not useful, no estimates

Paley's Watch

What best explains the existence of this watch and the fact that it is put together in such a way that it so well serves the ends of measuring time -Well, the best explanation is that some quite intelligent entity - at least as smart as a human - designed the object and fit its intricate nature to the purpose of measuring time. -Certainly, it is implausible to suppose that a random process could have produced such a complex object that is so well-suited to measuring time The whole of nature is full of complexity, of a much higher degree than that of a watch. Moreover, organisms are extremely well-suited to their environments (survival, reproduction, etc), even more so than are watches to time- keeping. What best explains the staggering complexity and proper adaptation found in nature? It is even more implausible to suppose that a random process could have produced the wondrous characteristics found in nature than it is to suppose that such a process could produce a watch.Moreover, the sort of intelligence that produced the characteristics of nature must be far beyond that of the sort of intelligence required to produce a watch. Thus, there exists an Extremely Intelligent designer (maker, etc) of the world

Decisons under risk

You know the probabilities we are able to assign probabilities to the possible outcomes to come up with expected utilities for each choice Ex: money instead of utilites Ex: 7% chance of losing $1500 That is done by multiplying the utility (i.e., the value assigned by the agent) of the result of a choice given a certain state of the world by the probability that that state obtains, and adding together the products for all the possible results associated with that choice

Darwins theory

natural selection -All current forms of life are related (common ancestors between humans and phytoplankton) Sexual selection- Sexually reproducing species. Darwin also though that sexual selection Two main pieces of evidence are routinely cited in support of the claims that all life is related and that all current forms of life evolved from common ancestors They share the same genetic coding scheme to build the same amino acids, out of which the different kinds of organisms are built This shared feature looks to be a miraculous coincidence - something radically improbable - if different forms of life evolved separately; i.e., do not share a common ancestor -We would instead expect them to use different genetic codes Darwin himself was troubled withhow evolution could explain the wondrous nature of the human eye

our best science is ---- on whether there is a God

neutral

contingency

possible not necessary ex: eating a whole tub of ice cream

Scientists opinion on evolution

scientists don't claim that evolution theory is certain -Rather, it's what is best supported by the best evidence we have on hand -John Tukey: Certainty is an illusion throughout the sciences -Much the same could be said about everyday life