Philosophy of religion1

1,707 views

Published on

Philosophy of Religion

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,707
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
70
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Philosophy of religion1

  1. 1. Philosophy of Religion Introduction to Philosophy PHIL200
  2. 2. Is the Belief n God Rationally Justified <ul><li>Can We Reach God by reason </li></ul><ul><li>Two types of knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a priori and a posteriori </li></ul></ul><ul><li>a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Cosmological Argument ( a posteriori) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Ontological Argument ( a priori ) </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Aristotle and Plato <ul><li>Aristotle, thoroughly analyzed Plato's doctrines and formulated replacements of his own. </li></ul><ul><li>Plato had located ultimate reality in Ideas or eternal forms, knowable only through reflection and reason. </li></ul><ul><li>Aristotle saw ultimate reality in physical objects, knowable through experience. </li></ul>
  4. 4. A priori Knowledge <ul><li>Knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence. </li></ul><ul><li>For Example, if I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples. This is knowledge gained deductively. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I did not actually need to get the three other apples and place them with the first two to see that I have five. To this extent, the term A Priori is valid. </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. A Posteriori Knowledge <ul><li>An a priori proposition is one that is knowable a priori and an a priori argument is one the premises of which are a priori propositions. </li></ul><ul><li>An a posteriori proposition is knowable a posteriori, while an a posteriori argument is one the premises of which are a posteriori propositions. </li></ul><ul><li>An argument is regarded as a posteriori if it is comprised of a combination of a priori and a posteriori premises. </li></ul><ul><li>The a priori/a posteriori distinction has also been applied to concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>An a priori concept is one that can be acquired independently of experience, which may – but need not – involve its being innate, while the acquisition of an a posteriori concept requires experience. </li></ul>
  6. 6. The Cosmological Argument <ul><li>The Deductive Argument from Contingency </li></ul><ul><li>The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A contingent being exists. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Aristotle's theory of Causation - The Four Causes <ul><li>In the Posterior Analytics , Aristotle places the following condition on proper knowledge: </li></ul><ul><li>We think we have knowledge of a thing only when we have grasped its cause. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Aristotle's theory of Causation - The Four Causes <ul><li>Material: The substance which underlies the object </li></ul><ul><li>Formal: The shape or form which the substance takes </li></ul><ul><li>Final: The purpose or function of the object </li></ul><ul><li>Efficient: The motion or action which brought about the effect </li></ul>
  9. 9. Argument from Motion (First Mover) - <ul><li>P1. There is Motion in the universe. </li></ul><ul><li>P2. Everything which is in motion must be moved by something else. </li></ul><ul><li>P2.1 The change from potential to actual motion can only occur in things potentially in motion. </li></ul><ul><li>P2.2 Only Actual things change potential motion to actual motion. </li></ul><ul><li>P2.3 It is impossible to be both potentially and actually in motion at any given time. </li></ul><ul><li>P2.C Since, every change from potential to actual motion is caused by something already in motion, nothing causes itself to move (P2). </li></ul><ul><li>P3. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. </li></ul><ul><li>C. Therefore, there must be a First Mover; and, the First Mover is God. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Argument from Causation ( First Cause )- <ul><li>P1. Every effect has an efficient cause. </li></ul><ul><li>P2. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself. P3. There cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. </li></ul><ul><li>C. Therefore, there must be a first Cause; and, the first cause is God. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Argument from Contingency ( Argument From Necessity ) <ul><li>P1. Some things exist contingently. </li></ul><ul><li>P2. All contingent things did not exist at one time. </li></ul><ul><li>P3. If everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed. </li></ul><ul><li>P4. If there were a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist now. </li></ul><ul><li>P5. But, something does exist now. </li></ul><ul><li>C1. Therefore, there must be at least one thing which exists necessarily. </li></ul><ul><li>P6. All necessary entities either do or do not have an efficient cause. </li></ul><ul><li>P6.1 There cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. C2. Therefore, there must be some necessary entity which is the First Cause of necessity in all other things; and, this necessary entity is God. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Argument from Excellence <ul><li>P1. Things in the universe are greater or lesser in regard to their properties. </li></ul><ul><li>P2. Superlative judgments depend upon comparing the imperfect with the perfect. </li></ul><ul><li>P2.1 There must exist something perfect in order to make comparisons. </li></ul><ul><li>P3. There must be a perfect being in order to judge different levels of being. </li></ul><ul><li>P4. Anything of the greatest quality must be the cause of things with lesser quality. </li></ul><ul><li>C. Therefore, there must exist some greatest being which is the cause of all lesser beings. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Argument from Harmony <ul><li>P1. Material objects seem to work toward some end. P2. If there is an end toward which things work, they do not operate by chance. </li></ul><ul><li>P3. Anything which works toward an end must either guide itself or be guided by something else. </li></ul><ul><li>P4. It is impossible for a material object to guide itself. </li></ul><ul><li>C. Therefore, there must be some intelligence which guides material objects to their ends; that intelligence is God. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Kalam Cosmological Argument <ul><li>The kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. It was revived in the West by William Lane Craig. </li></ul><ul><li>The kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the universe to the existence of God. </li></ul><ul><li>The argument claims: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The existence of the universe, stands in need of explanation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The only adequate explanation, is that it was created by God. </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. William Lane Craig <ul><li>The Kalam cosmological argument shows that the universe began to exist. </li></ul><ul><li>Anything that begins to exist must have a cause that brings it into being. </li></ul>
  16. 16. The Kalam Cosmological Argument <ul><li>The difference between the kalam cosmological argument and other forms of cosmological argument is that kalam rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It is precisely because the universe has a beginning in time that its existence stands in need of explanation. </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. The Kalam Cosmological Argument <ul><li>This argument has the following logical structure: </li></ul><ul><li>P1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. </li></ul><ul><li>P2. The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: C1. The universe has a cause of its existence. C2. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. </li></ul>
  18. 18. The Kalam Cosmological Argument <ul><li>The first premise: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In order to infer from this that the universe has a cause of its existence. The kalam cosmological argument must prove that the past is finite. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modern science, they say, has established that the universe began with the Big Bang. </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Discussion <ul><li>Evaluate Thomas Aquinas, Argument from Causation, Edwards Critique and Lane’s Defense. </li></ul><ul><li>What is the main critic Edwards has about the argument and how does Lane responds. </li></ul>

×