Philosophy of the Human Person Part I

THE DISENCHANTMENT PROBLEM

"The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the disenchantment of the world." ~ Max Weber, "Science as a Vocation" (1918)

Wu-Wei

"action without action" or "effortless action"

A posteriori

"after experience," relying upon sense-experience

Theodicy

"justice of God"; argument for the goodness of God

Bougeois

"of the city" upper middle class

the ontological argument

(a) We have an idea of a greatest being. (b) It is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the understanding (as an idea). (c) If God exists only in the understanding, then God is not the greatest being. (d) Therefore, God exists in reality.

Buddhism

-Be released from suffering, which is a result of ego and desire. -Nontheistic religion of India, growing out of Hinduism (5th century BCE) Examples: You want people to like you. Let that go. You want success and security. Let that go

Belief in the extraordinary

-Belief in god/gods/spirits -Belief in personal spirit: afterlife/past lives/reincarnation -Belief in magic/miracles -Belief in synchronicity/signs

being spiritual involves one or more of these guidelines:

-Commitment to "personal growth" (growth in wisdom) -Pursuit of "a sense of connectedness" (to something beyond you) -Openness to "belief in the extraordinary" (a sense of enchantment)

Sense of connectedness

-Feeling sympathy/empathy/love -Attempting to overcome differences with others & a sense of alienation -Being part of a larger cause than your own -Feeling that one can "psychically" communicate with others/god/spirits/cosmos

Having "rational belief" can come up in at least two ways that we will focus on in this course:

-Having good reasons for your belief -Avoiding contradiction or inconsistency between beliefs

SOCIETY

-Monarchical authority is replaced by an ideal of democratic government -With an emphasis on the value of "autonomy" in belief, values and actions, society accepts and must contend with "pluralism" of beliefs and values

being a secularist involves one or more of these guidelines:

-Rejecting belief in entities typically understood as "supernatural" -Seeking a fully "naturalistic" explanation of the universe -Conforming belief to what can be established through empirical method

what is personal growth

-Understanding yourself -Becoming a better person -Broadening perspective -Finding your path or purpose

In considering whether belief in a Perfect God can be rational, we're considering both problems for rationality

-Whether there are good reasons to believe that a Perfect God exists (Topic: Arguments for God's Existence) -Whether belief that a Perfect God exists contradicts other commonly held beliefs (Topic: Problem of Evil)

SPIRITUALITY

-the individual's connection to the divine becomes more direct, rather than entirely mediated through the church and its priest class -more individuals accept the possibility that no god or gods exist

Tolstoy traces the problem of life meaninglessness primarily to:

-the universe being viewed as "mechanical" cause and effect rather than having inherent purpose, devoid of real gods -technological advance and accumulation of wealth in the middle/upper class (bourgeoisie) allowing for excess leisure time isolated from the world of work

Process of Philosophy

1. Ask questions (usually ones that science can't answer) 2. engage in debate 3. seek greater perspectives philosophy = love of wisdom

What theologies does Mackie consider on the problem of evil? What are Mackie's objections to these arguments?

1. good cannot exists without evil Mackie objects: this sets limits to what God can do, meaning God isn't omnipotent 2. evil is a necessary means to a good Mackie objects: also restricts God's power meaning he cannot be omni potent 3.The universe is much better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil." 4. evil is due to human free will

A priori

: "before experience," not relying upon sense-experience

OLODUMARE

A Creator God Olodumare is depicted shedding tears over the earth for mistakes made in creation

Rowe on the Ontological Argument

DQ: Does God Exist (Anselm) POS: Affirmitive Position Concept of God in Debate: a being which there cannot be a greater being above it

Paley's Teleological Argument

DQ: Does God exist (Does an intelligent designer exist) POS: affirmative ARG: yes, complex things have a creator, a watch vs a rock things with complex multi parts have a crator OBJ: Darwinism- complex fucntional systems (solar system, ecosystem, organisms) can emerge through a long, gradual process of environmental change through non-intended natural selection OBJ: things sometimes go wrong, but seldom work exactly. Paley doesn't argue that the design is perfect but that with natural things we do experience a coordination of parts.

Mackie on the Problem of Evil

DQ: is a perfect God consistent with the existence of evil? POS: negative, it is not consistent Strategy: address and consider theologies and object responses. Find fallacies among theologies . Arg: theodicies are stupid because they limit what god can do, make him not omnipotent

Elements of Debate

Debate Question DQ Position POS Argument ARG Objection OBJ example: DQ: Does God exist? POS: Affirmative ARG: Reality can't come from nothing, but must emerge from a powerful being. OBJ: There is still the problem of what brings God into being.

Swineburne

Dq: belief that omnipotent and omni benevolent God is consistent with evil (suffering) POS: affirmative, it is consistent ARG: humans have to be born depraved/sinful (inclination to do both good and bad) and have to choose between these things is at greater good than between being with only the desire ti do good, because of this choice, is a genuine responsibility for one another God is not responsible for our bad stuff, Freewill theodicy ARG2: world would only sufferign caused by people, then there wouldn't be enough suffering to exercise free will

Buddhist virtue ethic

Eightfold path, emphasis on meditation

Taoism/Daoism

Flow with the way of nature, which will never be rationally understood. -nontheistic relgion of China -the way that can be named is not the eternal way EXAMPLES Notice if you're trying to go up a downward escalator. Be in tune with momentum shifts between opposites (e.g., activity, passivity).

Anselm's Ontological Argument

General form- given content of our idea of God (that God is supreme, greatest, perfect, influence, etc) that God must exist a. we have an idea of greatest being b. it is greater to exist in reality than to exists on in understanding/as an idea c. if God exists only in the understanding, then God isn't the understanding conclusion, therefore God must exists in reality ??????

SECULAR VIRTUE ETHICS

Overcome bad habits to be a better person and live well Examples: -Overcoming resentment and practicing forgiveness. -Taking care of yourself: healthy eating, rest, self-forgiveness

Mackie "The Problem of Evil" (long)

Problem of evil proves belief in God irrational (not just non-rational) a. When problems are found with proofs for God's existence, believers can claim that God is known in some other, non-rational way b. Problem of evil puts them in a much worse position c. They must now be prepared to believe not just what cannot be proven, but what can be disproved from other beliefs they hold. 2. Problem of evil (can't hold all 5) a. God is wholly good b. God is omnipotent c. Evil exists d. A good thing always eliminates (or opposes) evil as much as it can e. No limits to what an omnipotent thing can do i. No logical? or causal? limits? 3. Solve problem by a. Rejecting (a) or (b) b. Rejecting (c)--existence of evil i. It's an illusion (as whole world is), evil only belongs to this world; evil is merely a privation of good; evil in a positive sense-that would opposed good-does not exist; disorder is harmony not understood; partial evil is universal good c. Rejecting d: Good is not opposed to the kind of evil that exists d. Rejecting e: There are limits to what an omnipotent thing can do FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 4. "Good cannot exist w/o evil" or "Evil is necessary as a counterpart to good" a. Good could not exist w/o evil if good and evil relative counter parts such as "great and small" or bigger than and smaller than? i. If something is bigger than something else then there has to be something smaller than something else too ii. But then good and evil are not opposed; good does not try to eliminate evil as much as it can, but instead requires it iii. On this account, by good we mean something like "better" (and by evil "worse") iv. But this is peculiar; not what we mean when we say God is good (better) or that murder is evil (worse)....better b. Mackie rejects claim that any quality must have a real opposite i. E.g., redness can occur only if non-redness can ii. But everything could be red (and nothing non-red) iii. True we wouldn't notice it, or even have a word for it iv. So God could have made everything good, though if he did we would not notice it. c. Even if every quality must have a real opposite, this provides no solution to problem of evil, unless one is willing to say, there is just enough evil to serve as a counterpart to good i. If for red to exist some non-red must, a tiny spec would be enough ii. And the same if for good to exist some evil must also exist (1) Presumably a small dose would be sufficient. d. Mackie reply: To say good can't exist w/o evil limits God's power i. Sets limits to what God can do: He cannot create good w/o creating evil ii. So either God is not omnipotent or there are some limits to what an omnipotent thing can do e. Counter-reply i. Omnipotent does not mean the power to do the logically impossible (and the claim is that good is logically impossible w/o evil) ii. Difference between logical and physical/causal impossible f. This assumes that logic is independent of God. i. If logic were created by God (e.g., logic is the way in which God arbitrarily chooses to think), then God could have made good independent of evil, by creating different laws of logic. 5. Evil is necessary as a means to good a. This involves a severe restriction on God's power and so involves rejecting God's omnipotence b. It is a causal law that can't get a certain end w/o a certain means c. So if God had to introduce evil as a means to good, he must be subject to some causal laws d. And this conflicts with ordinary theistic view of omnipotence i. God is not bound by causal laws ii. For example, he can perform miracles (turn water into wine, or walk on water) e. Most theists think God created causal laws 6. The universe is better with some evil in it than it would be if there were no evil a. Evil may contribute to goodness of whole in which found i. Like in aesthetics, contrast heightens beauty (e.g., discord in music somehow adds to beauty of whole work) ii. Progressive universe with a gradual overcoming of evil by good is really a better world than a world with static eternal unchallenged supremacy of good (1) This seems quite plausible b. Examples i. Existence of pain and disease make possible sympathy, benevolence, heroism, and struggle to overcome these evils c. 1st order evil: pain and disease d. 1st order good: pleasure and health e. 2nd order good i. Heightened happiness by contrast with misery ii. Sympathy with suffering iii. Heroism in face of danger f. 2nd order good not possible with out first order evil g. 2nd order good more important than first order good or evil h. So the universe is better in virtue of having 1st order evils i. This is the best of all logically possible worlds because it includes the important second order goods, even though real evils (1st order evils of pain and disease) exist i. In the end, theodicy would seem to have to argue that this is the best of all possible worlds (a difficult task) j. Mackie reply: Thinks that existence of 2nd order evil is the weakness in this argument i. 2nd order evils: Malevolence, cruelty, callousness, cowardice ii. 2nd order evils are worse than 1st order evils iii. God would especially want and try to get rid of them iv. But 2nd order evil exists k. Might one argue that 2nd order goods far outweigh 2nd order evils in importance and so this is still the best of all possible worlds? i. What reason might be given for this idea? 7. Evil is due to human free will (not God) a. (Much) Evil is not due to God, but to human free will b. 2nd order evil (e.g., cruelty, maliciousness) is not justified, but it is the responsibility of humans and not of God c. Combine this with above solution to 1st order evil (pain), which is necessary to 2nd order goods (sympathy, struggle against evil) d. It is better that men should act freely and sometimes do bad things than they be innocent automata and act rightly in a wholly determined way. i. 2nd order evils like cruelty are logically necessary accompaniments of freedom 8. Mackie's response: God should have created people who always freely choose the good a. If God can make people who freely choose to act well on some occasions, there is nothing logically impossible about him making people who freely choose the good on all occasions b. God was not faced with choice of making innocent automata or beings whose free actions would sometimes create evil c. He had the better option of making beings who freely always act right. d. That he did not do this shows he can't be both fully good and fully powerful e. Possible Reply: Making of wrong choices is logically necessary for freedom i. Is this true? Only the possibility of making such choices would seem to be required f. Mackie: This assumes freedom is randomness; that free choices do not follow from people's characters i. Must take a view of freedom as randomness or indeterminacy (including with choosing good and evil acts) ii. Assuming that men's acts can be free only if not determined by their characters iii. For if God made men as they are, but did not determine their wrong choices, this can only be because the wrong choices are not determined by men as they are (not determined by their characters) g. But freedom as random action not determined by nature of the person acting can't be of such great value as to justify the evil that results h. Mackie ignores (or rejects) a third conception of freedom which is neither randomness, not determined by one's character but "ultimate origination" 9. Mackie: If God can control people's free wills, then why doesn't he refrain from controlling their wills when they act rightly and control them when they will badly? a. Is a wrong free act not really evil, because the freedom is a value that outweighs is wrongness? i. We would not say this about Dostoevsky cases... b. Theists claim that sin is really evil, not that the freedom involved makes it an overall good!

Common themes among religions

Promotion of good character Methods of overcoming ego Sense of connection to something greater Use of meditative practice and ritual

Rowe on OA extra

Rowe begins his article with a detailed explication of Anselm's Ontological Argument, making explicit the key inferences that form its base. Next, Rowe provides an account of several important criticisms of the argument and points out why those criticisms are inconclusive. The first of these is Gaunilo's argument (see previous selection) that Anselm's reasoning can be used to "prove" the existence of an island than which none greater can be thought. If we imagine such an island but suppose that it does not exist outside the mind, and since such an island would be greater were it to exist, we can think of an island greater than the island than which none greater can be thought. Clearly there is no such island, so the inference must be faulty. Rowe points out, however, that Gaunilo's reasoning is not precisely parallel to Anselm's. Specifically, Anselm only argues that there is some being than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought; he did not argue that there must be a being of every sort than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. Thus, Anselm's argument only implies that there is some being (not necessarily an island at all) greater than Gaunilo's island. Rowe next examines Kant's objection to the Ontological Argument, that existence is not a quality that makes something great(er) because existence is not quality in the proper sense at all. When we ascribe a quality like size or color to a thing (e.g., "that rock is large, or gray") we seem to presuppose that that thing exists. But if existence were a quality in the same way as color or size, to assert "tigers exist" would be redundant; ascribing existence to tigers is unnecessary because ascribing anything to tigers presupposes existence. Thus, ascription about size and color is very different from ascription about existence. On this line of reasoning, claims about existence are really claims about concepts; "tigers exist,� says something about the concept of tiger, namely that that concept picks something out in the real world. The third criticism of the Ontological Argument that Rowe considers concerns whether or not the being-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought is a possible object. Compare, for example, the infinite series of positive integers. For any integer in this series, there is a larger integer; thus, the integer-than-which-non-larger-can-be-thought is not possible. Perhaps the same is true of the being-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought. Rowe ends the article by articulating a fourth criticism of Anselm's argument. This criticism involves whether Anselm smuggles too much into his argument by defining God the way he does, claiming that existence is a quality that makes a thing greater, and asserting that God is a possible object. In fact Anselm's claim that God (defined as a being-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought) is possible depends upon the assumption that there in fact exists some thing that is perfect. But this is precisely what he had set out to prove. To see why, consider a 'magican' to be an existing magician, and 'magico' to be a non-existing magician. Clearly, no non-existing magician (e.g., Merlin) can be a magican, and no existing magician (e.g., David Copperfield). Now suppose that no magicians actually exist. Because (a) possible magicians include only existing and non-existing magicians, (b) non-existing magicians are precluded by definition from being magicans, and (c) no magicians exist, it follows that there is no possible object that counts as a magican. However, if we were to simply assume that magicians were possible, it would follow that magicans exist. This is the structure of Anselm's argument. His concept of God, and assumption that existence is a quality, serve to make existence part of the definition of God. Thus, the premise that God is possible grants too much; namely that God exists just because existence follows from granting the possible existence of any entity with existence as part of its definition.

Swineburne "Why God Allows Evil" (long)

Swinburne defends the view that the existence of evil in the world is consistent with the existence of an omnipotent, perfectly good God. Not only are they consistent, he argues, but the amount of good in the world requires the possibility of substantial evil. He begins his argument by distinguishing moral evil (which comes from humans acting in morally bad ways) from natural evil (pain and suffering that comes from anything other than human action with predictable outcome), both of which are necessary for the world's good. To understand why moral evil is necessary, Swinburne asks us to consider what sorts of goods a generous god would give to humans. In addition to pleasure and contentment, he suggests that such a god would "give us great responsibility for ourselves, each other, and the world, and thus a share in his own creative activity of determining what sort of world it is to be.� This kind of responsibility requires that humans have free will, for we are not responsible for our actions absent the freedom to choose other actions. Moreover, it is incompatible with God's intervention when humans commit bad acts. That is, to have genuine responsibility for something, one must have the opportunity to harm that thing as well as benefit it. Further, he argues that humans must have some inherent inclination to act badly in order for us to have a real choice between doing good and doing evil. If we only had an inclination to act rightly, then doing so would be a foregone conclusion. Thus, in order to make the choice between good actions and evil actions meaningful, Swinburne argues that God would have made humans inclined to act wrongly in order to facilitate the responsibility necessary for a good life. Swinburne accounts for the presence of natural evil in much the same way. On his account natural, evil provides opportunity for humans to have the complex responsibility necessary for good lives. It does so in two ways. First, the natural processes that result in evil allow humans to either exploit them to harm others (a moral evil) or fight them to do good. For example, humans can learn about diseases to help spread disease or fight it. Second, the existence of natural evils gives humans the opportunity to act in morally significant ways. Pain, for example, allows one to thrive in the face of adversity or to help others in need. It therefore increases the breadth of human responsibility and contributes to quality of life available. Thus, according to Swinburne, both moral and natural evil bear upon human responsibility, which is itself necessary for human good. Since an omnipotent and benevolent god would provide the best possible life for humans, Swinburne believes that such a good would allow for evil.

Taylor on the Meaning of Life

Taylor begins by observing that it is partially due to the fact that it is difficult in the first place to even understand what it means to question whether life has meaning that the question is so difficult to answer. He proposes, then, to come at the question by a more circuitous route. His strategy is to describe what it would be like for life to be meaningless, and then compare that picture of meaninglessness to the actual state of affairs. In the end, Taylor argues that there is a strong sense in which all life is precisely like the paradigmatic meaningless life that he envisions. However, there is another sense, indeed a more worthwhile sense of meaning which Taylor argues our lives are infused with. Taylor asks us to recall the famous myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was condemned to roll a large boulder up a hill, only to have that boulder roll back down the hill, forcing Sisyphus to repeat the task without end. Despite all his toiling, his existence amounted to nothing more than endlessly repeating the same task which itself contributed to no greater goal or purpose. This, Taylor suggests, is the very image of meaninglessness. Taylor is careful to identify exactly which features of Sisyphus� plight account for the lack of meaning, and which are irrelevant. Importantly, Taylor argues that the facts that Sisyphus� task is both difficult and endless are irrelevant to its meaninglessness. Even if the stone that Sisyphus brought to the top of the hill were very light, and the hill not very tall or steep, Taylor maintains that this would not detract from the lack of meaning. What explains the meaninglessness of Sisyphus� life is that all of his work amounts to nothing at all; and this will be so whether it is easy, and whether it at some time came to an end. One way that Sisyphus� life could have meaning, Taylor suggests, is if something came of his struggles; if, for example, the stones that he rolled were used to create something. A separate way in which meaning might be made manifest in his life is if Sisyphus enjoyed rolling the stone up the hill, and not only enjoyed it, but could imagine nothing else more enjoyable. What Taylor points out, though, is that even given this last modification, Sisyphus� life has not thereby acquired meaning of the first kind; there is still no point to his rolling the stones, still nothing gained � he simply enjoys doing it. Taylor argues that all life as we know it is importantly like Sisyphus� life. Whether viewed from a very wide scope, or at the level of a single individual, life is nothing but the succession of struggles and attempts that ultimately culminate in nothing; the only thing that endures is the repetition of the cycle. There is no �end point� toward which the struggles are directed that could confer meaning. In this way, Taylor thinks, our lives our meaningless. However, he suggests that this is not even the most important way in which our lives could have meaning. Like the imagined Sisyphus who enjoys rolling stones, we are able to project meaning onto our own lives through embracing our struggles, even if they accomplish nothing lasting and fulfilling.

Cosmological Argument

There are at most two kinds of beings: Dependent beings: beings that depend on something else for their existence Independent beings: beings that do not depend on something else for their existence The Cosmological Argument -We experience dependent beings -Dependent beings cannot bring themselves into existence -There must be an independent being that brought the series of dependent beings into existence (= God) cosmos = universe

Brown Metaphysics of Nature

This chapter focuses on Native Americans' belief about nature. It shows that Native Americans do not dichotomize human and animal, natural and supernatural. Typical Western distinctions between animism and animatism are not necessarily present in the Native American experience, since all forms and aspects of creation are experienced as living and animate. Even "inanimate"rocks are thought to be mysteriously possessed with life. But this experience of the sacred does not exclude a unitary, all-inclusive concept that refers to both a Supreme Being and to all gods, spirits, or powers of creation. The roots of relatedness, Lakota metaphysics, animal beings as teachers, and the cyclical relationships that Native American traditions sustain with nature are discussed.

Leo Tolstoy "My Confession" (long)

Using an old story to illustrate his thoughts, Tolstoy relates the story of a traveler. As he ventures through forests and farmlands, the traveler attracts the attention of a terrible beast who chases him. The traveler, fearful and exhausted, jumps into a well to hide, only to discover another beast -- a dragon -- sitting at the bottom of the well. He can move neither up or down, his life dangles hopelessly between two negative forces. Difficult Questions The traveler struggles to survive, holding onto a twig that is growing through the cracks in the well walls. Yet even that twig is not dependable for providing support. Two mice -- one black and one white -- nibble on the twig, making death a likely outcome of this adventure and making the traveler wonder, "What will become of my life? Why are we here?" Tolstoy questions his own motivations and suggests that coping with life's trials is impossible. Finding Faith The traveler also discovers that something that once gave him tremedous pleasure failed to provide any happiness. Within that well, a drip of honey made its way to the traveler, and he tasted it. But instead of finding joy, he felt nothing. The treat of the dragon below robbed him of any chance of joy. Tolstoy found his direction in faith, and says "In faith alone could we find the meaning and possibility of life...." What's It All About? Tolstoy concluded that "The meaning of life is to be found in the fact that God has a purpose for us," and "The meaning of this life is a matter of its being preparation for the next life." Tolstoy was know for showing the hardships of people, and exposing the cruelty of man against man. His extreme positions regarding morality transcend time and place, making him an inspiration for the great minds of our time. In his mid-life, Tolstoy -- author of "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" -- lost sight of his own accomplishments and, like all men, searched for answers.

what kind of god is proven in the ontological argument

a perfect god ontos= being

what is the premise/starting point in the teleological argument

a posteriori

what premise/argument starting point is the cosmological argument

a posterriori

what is the premise/starting point of the ontological argument

a priori

Two kinds of premises (starting points for the argument)

a priori, a posteriori

creature beings

all animals/insects

omnibenevolent

all good

omniscient

all knowing

mitakuye oyasub

all my relations

omnipotent

all powerful

Position

an individual response to the debate question Examples: "Yes, God exists" (Affirmative Position) "No, God does not exist" (Negative Position)

what does buddha mean?

awakened one

Bougeois vs Working Class

b:: life without faith, life filled with idleness and amusement, neg. attitude towards pain and suffering, death viewed with terror and despair, w: life with faith, hard working, convention that suffering is good, submission to joyous death

Native American Spirituality entails

belief in spirits in all things, horizontal relatedness of all things, cycled metamorphoses of rebirth with goal of honoring past and future generations

what does nirvana mean

blown out, like a candle

sky nation

clouds, sky, rain, thunder, sky stuff in general

what is a belief defined as

complete sentence that you are committed to

what god is proven for cosmological argument

creator, first mover cosmos = universe

how does taylor say that life meaning can be restored

desire account meaningful when you can match desire with task at hand

what causes suffering according to Buddhists

ego clinging

how does tolstoy say that life meaning can be restored

faith and purpose account. life is meaningful when you have faith in a larger purpose

what does virtue mean

good character trait

rational belief

good reasons for a belief

rational action

good reasons for an action

what is a good character trait

having good habits

what does it mean to be "rational"

having good reasons

two leggeds

humans

what kind of god is proven in teleological argument

intelligent designer telos = goal, pupose

KNOWLEDGE

knowledge about the world is not trusted to church/state authority but established through peer reviewed empirical method and journalism the universe is viewed as "mechanical" rather than having inherent purpose

How did the "big picture" of human life change in the transition from Medieval to Modern perspectives?

knowledge, spirituality, society

how does tolstoy see meaninglessness

life is meaningless when viewed as a Bougeiousie in modern society. faith and working and stuff

what is having good character

living a good life

what kind of evil is addressed when: "evil is due to human free will"

moral evil

Two Kinds of Evil

natural and human/moral

what kind of evil is addressed when: "good cannot exist without evil"

natural and moral

what kind of evil is addressed when:"the universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil"

natural and moral

what kind of evil is addressed when: "evil is a necessary as a means to good"

natural and moral evil

what does modern mean

new, contemporary, revolutionary, technological, formalistic But more fundamentally: those revolutionary ideas that: (i) challenged the thousand year old authority of Medieval church and state (ii) guided centuries of technological and sociopolitical change in the West

what does secular mean

not of religion

what is a perfect god

omnipotent, omnicient, omnibenevolent

Argumnet

one or more complete sentences presented to support a particular position Examples: "Reality can't come from nothing, but must emerge from a powerful being" "If God exists, there would be less suffering"

Objection

one or more sentences presented to undermine an argument Examples: "We cannot understand God's wisdom in allowing suffering." "There is still the problem of what brings God into being."

subterrarnians

people underground that take people down to protect them and then let them back up when safe

Western Spirituality entails

perfect God human souls, world consists mainly in corrupted spiritless matter, vertical relatedness to things, belief in judgement metamorphoses (heaven and hell).

how does taylor see meaninglessness

repetitious activity that doesn't amount to anything

stone people

rocks

star nation

stars, beings from stars

human/moral evil

suffering that occurs because of human actions

natural evil

suffering that occurs because of natural events

ancestors

the departed

Debate Question

the question being asked Ex: Does God exist?`

standing people

trees

all religions have...

virtue ethics at their center

Great Mystery/ Great Spirit

wakan tankan, categories of relation

what does tao mean

way or path

Lao Tzu

wise master attributed authorship of the Tao Te Ching around 6th century BCE

can virtue ethics be practiced without a religion

yes, ie ancient greeks and romans, and contemporary atheists