Date post: | 18-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Spiritual |
Upload: | jkninstitute |
View: | 59 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Philosophy
of Religion
AN INTRODUCTORY
COURSE ON
PERSPECTIVES OF
WESTERN
AND ISLAMIC
PHILOSOPHY
AGENDA
•Initiate session 10:20
•About the lectures10:20 – 10:30
•Existence of God10:30 – 11:45
•Break11:45 – 12:00
•Problem of Evil12:00 – 13:45
•Questions and answers13:45 – 14:00
LECTURE SERIES
A total of nine lectures are anticipated to be delivered on a monthly basis over
a period of nine consecutive months
Each of the lectures shall provide a rudimentary understanding of various
philosophical concepts
Please refer to the provided handbook for further details and supplementary
readings
Sessions Date and Time Subject Matter Western
Perspectives
Islamic
Perspectives
1 of 9
24th August 2014
10:15 – 13:.00
JKN
Introduction to philosophy
What is philosophy?
Why study philosophy?
Meaning and definition
2 of 9
21st September 2014
10:15 – 13:.00
JKN
What can we know? Knowledge
[Epistemology 1/2]
What is knowing?
What is knowledge?
Belief, truth and evidence
The sources and concepts of knowledge,
reason and experience
3 of 9
19th October 2014
10:15 – 13:.00
JKN
What is the world like?
Perceiving the World
[Epistemology 2/2]
Realism
Idealism
Our knowledge of the physical world
4 of 9
23rd November 2014
10:15 – 13:.00
JKN
The way the world works
Scientific Knowledge
[Philosophy of Science]
Laws of nature
Explanation
Theories
Possibility
The problem of induction
5 of 9
21st December 2014
10:15 – 13:.00
JKN
What is and what must be?
Freedom and Necessity
[Metaphysics]
Causality
Determinism and freedom
6 of 9
18th January 2015
10:15 – 13:.00
JKN
What am I?
Mind and Body
[Philosophy of Mind]
The physical and the mental,
The relationship between the physical and the mental,
Materialism
7 & 8 of 9
19th April 2015
10:15am – 14:00
JKN
The Existence of God?
[Philosophy of Religion 1/2]
Ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of
God
The concept of God
The Problem of Evil
[Philosophy of Religion 2/2]
The concept of evil
How do we square an Omnipotent and Benevolent God with evil?
9 of 9
24th May 2015
10:15 – 13:.00
JKN
The is and the ought
[Problems in Ethics]
Meta-ethics
Theories of goodness
Theories of conduct
THE OBJECTIVE
The primary aim and overall objective, among other subsidiary
benefits, is to assist in familiarising and acquainting its recipients with the conceptual [and intellectual]
perils, predominantly encountered by religion in todays society, which are propelled by [or in the name of]
philosophy.
A branch of philosophy dealing with the
meaning, nature, and philosophical
implications of religious beliefs and claims of religious
practices.
The attempts to understand the
concepts involved in religious belief:
existence, necessity, fate, creation, sin,
justice, mercy, redemption, God.
It is concerned to analyse the special
roles played, and the special problems
raised, by the characteristic concepts
and doctrines of religion within a whole structure and economy
of human thought.
An examination of the meaning and justification of religious
claims.
Explores philosophical issues that arise from reflection on the
nature and truth of religious belief and the meaning of
religious practices.
WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF
RELIGION?
Topics concerning the Philosophy of
Religion have been discussed by all the major philosophers
up to the 19th
century.
They did not recognise a field
called Philosophy of Religion and did not think of themselves
as writing in any such field.
Plato did not think of himself of doing
Philosophy of Religion in the Phaedo.
Aristotle did not think he was doing
Philosophy of Religion in his argument for a
first mover.
Medieval Philosophers did not
distinguish Philosophy of
Religion from other branches of
Philosophy either.
The distinction they thought important was the difference between revealed
theology and natural theology, which was
Philosophy.
The Emergence of Philosophy of
Religion was in the 18th and 19th
century.
HISTORY OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF
RELIGION
Philosophical arguments for and against belief in a Creator of the cosmos.
Comparative treatments of the Divine.
Accounts of the meaning of religious language
and faith.
The ethical implications od religious
commitments.
The relation between faith, reason, experience
and tradition.
Concepts of the miraculous, the afterlife,
the sacred revelation, mysticism, prayer,
salvation, and other religious concerns.
WHAT DOES THE PHILOSOPHY OF
RELIGION INCLUDE OR DEAL WITH?
TWO PROMINENT DISCUSSIONS IN
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
CLASSICAL
ARGUMENTS
FOR THE
EXISTENCE
OF GOD
Theologians in the Western
tradition have characterised
“the concept of God” in a variety of different ways,
such as:
Just the concept of ultimate reality
The source and ground for all else
The concept of a maximally perfect
being
The one and only being worthy of
worship
Whatever being happens to be
revealed in one’s favoured sacred text
as the supreme ruler of all
THE CONCEPT OF GOD
Ontological Argument
Cosmological Argument
Teleological Argument
THEISTIC ARGUMENTS
The question of
whether or not
there is good
evidence for the
existence of God,
and what that
evidence might
be can be
demonstrated in
the following
arguments.
In a nut shell, it claims that if one truly understands the concept of God and what it is for God to be perfect, one must acknowledge that He
exists, for a truly perfect being could not lack existence and still be
perfect.
The attempt to prove, simply from an examination of the concept of God, that being to which that concept
would apply must in fact exist.
These are a priori arguments which aim to
demonstrate the existence of God from the mere
concept of God or from the mere fact that we can think
about God.
It is a bold attempt to deduce the existence of God from the concept of
God: we understand God to be a perfect being, something that which nothing greater can be conceived.
A line of argument which appears to appeal to no contingent fact at all,
but only to an analysis of the concept of God. The argument is that this
concept is necessarily instantiated.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
‘ONTOLOGICAL’ ARGUMENT?
[P1]
God is the greatest possible being.
[P2]
The greatest possible being possesses every perfection that would make a being great.
[P3]
Existence is a perfection that would make a being great.
[P4]
God possesses existence.
[P5]
Anything that possesses existence
exists.
[C]
Thus God exists.
WHAT IS THE ONTOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT?
[P1]
The Lost Island is the greatest possible island.
[P2]
The greatest possible island is an island which
possesses every perfection that would make an island great.
[P3]
Existence is a perfection that would make an
island better.
[P4]
The Lost Island possesses existence.
[P5]
Anything that possesses existence exists.
[C]
The Lost Island exists.
GAUNILO’S OBJECTION
Kant’s objection is aimed at two
premises:
[P3] in both arguments
One, may object to the
idea that existence is a great-making
property of beings or islands.
Second, may object to the
idea that existence is a great-making
property of beings or islands.
On Kant’s view, when we attributeor ascribe properties to a thing, we presuppose the existence of that
thing.
Existence is not itself a property; rather, it is a precondition for having
properties – something that is implicitly assumed when we
start ascribing properties.
Thus, the ontological argument assumes something that is false.
KANT’S FIRST OBJECTION
The Modal Ontological Argument
[1] If it is possible for God to exist, then necessarily, God exists.
[2] It is possible for God to exist.
[c] Therefore: Necessarily, God exists.
The Modal Atheistic Argument
[1] If it is possible for God to exist, then necessarily, God exists.
[2a] It is possible that God does not exist.
[C from 2a] Therefore: It is not the case that necessarily, God exists.
[C] Therefore: It is not possible for God to exist.
KANT’S SECOND OBJECTION
These arguments are not based on the analysis of God’s essential nature, but on the nature of the
cosmos or universe.
The key premises of various cosmological
arguments are statements of obvious facts of a general sort
about the world.
A line of theistic arguments appealing to
the very general contingent facts, e.g. the
existence of caused things. There must be
some sufficient explanation for these
contingent facts.
Argument from some pervasive feature of the world, for instance the fact that there is motion or
change in the material universe, to the existence of a first cause,
usually identified with God.
Its premises are that all the natural things are dependent for
their existence on something else; the totality of dependent beings must then itself depend upon a
non-dependent, or necessary existent, being, which is God.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
‘COSMOLOGICAL’ ARGUMENT?
[P1]
Every being is either dependent or self-explaining.
[P2]
Not every being can be dependent.
[C] Therefore: at least one self-explaining being exists (a being which in turn explains the existence of dependent beings).
A dependent being is one that depends for existence on something
else – a being, in other words, whose existence stands in need of
some explanation.
A self-explaining being, on the other hand, is one that does not depend for its existence on something else – a being which somehow explains
its own existence and whose existence therefore does not require
any (further) explanation.
WHAT IS THE COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT? [VERSION 1]
[P1]
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its coming to exist.
[P2]
The universe began to exist.
[C]
Therefore: the universe has a cause of its coming to exist.
Another version of the Cosmological Argument, which
finds its roots in medieval Islamic Philosophy, has been recently defended by William
Lane Craig.
Rather than arguing for the existence of contingent or dependent
things to a cause, this argument contends that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, must
be caused to exist.
WHAT IS THE COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT? [VERSION 2]
There are three particular difficulties
David Hume suggests that what we call ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ may simply
be our way of reporting what is just a statistical
correlation.
If God is a cause, then He is a cause of a very different kind from anything in my
experience, and I may properly be asked on what
evidence can I posit a cause of a type
outside my experience, or,
indeed, any earthly experience.
If He is a cause of no known type – not
chemical, physical or biological – then we have no analogous
process for understanding that of which we speak.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE FIRST
CAUSE
Also called the argument from design, an argument
seeking to derive the existence of God from the teleological order of the word, resting on analogy with the relation between an intelligent craftsman
and human artefacts.
They start with observations, especially of
regularities in the operations of nature and of the adaption of means
to ends; infer that this order must be a product of
design; and take this to establish the existence of a supernatural intelligent being, usually identified
with God.
The argument that the world (meaning the
entire universe) sufficiently resembles a machine or a work of art or architecture, for it to be reasonable for us to posit a designer whole intellect is responsible
for its order and complexity.
A world-based argument appealing to special features, whose aspects of
the world which appear to be designed and purposive, analogous
to human design.
The starting point of teleological arguments is the phenomenon of goal-
directedness in nature.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
‘TELEOLOGICAL’ ARGUMENT?
Analogy Argument
[P1]
The universe is like a machine.
[P2]
Machines are typically caused by designers.
[C]
Therefore: the universe is likely caused by a designer.
Fine-Tuning Argument
[P1]
The universe exhibits fine-tuning of a sort that makes it suitable for life.
[P2]
The existence of fine-tuning is probable under theism.
[P3]
The existence of fine-tuning is highly improbable under atheism.
[C] Therefore: fine-tuning provides strong evidence in favour of theism over atheism.
WHAT IS THE TELEOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT?
Hume’s three objections
Aptness of Analogy:
Our choice of analogy of the world shapes the
outcomes of the outcomes.
The Epicurean Thesis:
Any world is bound to fit together up to a point in order to continue – any
significant existence requires a degree of stability and mutual
adaptation. The question arises whether
such a stable order could randomly arise.
Hume suggests one way by reference to the ancient Epicurean
Thesis.
Argument from Effect to Cause:
We cannot go from an effect to a cause greater than that
needed to produce the cause.
HUME’S OBJECTIONS TO THE
DESIGN ARGUMENT
What is the ‘Moral’
Argument?
Many arguments for God’s
existence invoke morality.
The argument that our capacity for moral thought
requires a divine explanation.
A transcendental argument in the
sense that it endeavours to
show the existence of God
is a necessary condition for
morality.
THE MORAL ARGUMENT
[P1] Rationally, perfect value ought to be rewarded by perfect happiness;
[P2] The combination of perfect happiness and perfect goodness is the highest good;
[P3] Clearly, this is not achieved in this life. Good things happen to bad people and catastrophes to the virtuous;
[C] Therefore, because the highest good ought to be achieved, it can be achieved.
KANT’S MORAL ARGUMENT
If it is not achievable in this life, it must be achievable in the next;
If the highest good exists in the next life, there must be someone to provide it,
This someone is obviously God.
KANT’S MORAL ARGUMENT
CONTINUED
Three objections to Kant’s argument
Much debate has been concentrated on the
assumption that oughtimplies can.
If the highest good does indeed exist, why should it need God to
provide it?
Behind Kant’s whole approach seems to be the assumption that
the universe is somehow fair. But,
why should it be? Life may just be unfair and all we can do is to try to make the best of
things.
AGAINST KANT’S MORAL
ARGUMENT
For every argument you’ve
presented in support of God’s
existence, you have offered a
counter argument . . .
This guy’s off his
rails . . .
Where does that leave us?
WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU
GETTING AT?
•Suffers from a lack of cogency
•No one is likely to accept its most crucial premise who is not already committed to its conclusion
The Ontological Argument:
•Suffer from the “gap problem”
•Both arguments rely, in some sense, on the Ontological Argument
The Cosmological and The
Teleological Argument:
LIMITATIONS OF THE ARGUMENTS
DISCUSSED SO FAR
“The arguments for the existence of God have stood for hundreds of years with the waves of unbelieving criticism breaking against them, never totally discrediting
them in the ears of the faithful, but on the whole slowly and surely washing out the mortar from between their joints. If you
have a God already whom you believe in, these arguments confirm you. If you are
atheistic, they fail to set you right.”[William James, Lecture 18 of his Varieties of Religious Experience]
RELIGIOUS BELIEF WITHOUT
EVIDENCE
The Sin of Onto-Theology
[1] It treats God primarily as an explanatory posit, so that God’s reason for existence has become possible for
human reason to provide ultimate explanations.
[2] Theorising about God in a way that presupposes that reason is a reliable tool for arriving at clear knowledge of God, so that reasoning about God can ultimately
remove divine mystery.
It is why some have stated;
• “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
Kant
• “I have found it necessary to deny theory in order to make room for practice.”
Heidegger
BUT WHY . . . ?
We shall
reinit iate in
approximately
15 minutes
IT’S
BREAK
TIME
“Can one prove the non-existenceof something?”
You could show the non-existence of
something by showing that the thing described is
impossible.
You could show the non-existence of
something by showing that
certain signs are absent which would
be present if the thing in question actually did exist.
You could argue for the non-existence of something through
an appeal to the lack of evidence for the existence of the thing in question.
ANTI-THEISTIC ARGUMENT
ONE OF THE
MOST
POPULAR
ANTI-
THEISTIC
ARGUMENTS
There is evil in the world: bad things happen to people, and people do bad things.
These two are usually called physical (or natural) evil and
moral evil, respectively.
The problem of reconciling the imperfect world with the
goodness of God.
The problem of evil is commonly seen as a problem of how the
existence of God can be reconciled with the pain, suffering, and moral evil
which we know to be.
The chief question regarding the problem of evil is
whether or not the extent and severity of the world’s suffering undermines the
rational credibility of theism.
WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FROM
EVIL?
A
PERSISTING
PROBLEM
FROM
ANTIQUIT Y!
The Logical Problem of Evil
If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something
about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally
perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it.
And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering. These facts
about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist
claim that there exists a perfectly good God.
The Evidential Problem of Evil
Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that,
once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if
not highly unlikely, that the world was created and
is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.
TYPES OF THE PROBLEM
STEPHEN FRY ON THE MATTER
[P1] If God were all-powerful, He would be able to abolish evil.
[P2] If God were all-loving, then He would wish to abolish evil.
[P3] But evil exists.
[C] Therefore, God is not all-powerful, or not all-loving, or both.
THE ARGUMENT
What do you mean by ‘Theodicy’?
It is the part of theology that focuses on the reconciliation of the
existence of God, as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, perfectly good and loving absolute being, with the existence of evil in the
world.
Explanation of how God’s perfect goodness, justice, wisdom, power and other
perfections are compatible with other
perfections are compatible with the
existence of evil in this world: that is, a theory which purports to solve
the problem of evil.
A part of theology concerned with
defending the goodness and omnipotence of Godin the face of the
suffering and evil of the world.
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM: A
THEODICY
The Punishment
Theodicy
Natural Consequence
Theodicy
The Free Will Theodicy
The Natural Law Theodicy
Soul-Making Theodicies
VARIOUS THEODICIES
[1] The principle behind
this doctrine is that nothing is good in and of itself, nor by virtue of the class of things to which it belongs, not because of a quality inherent in it. the doctrine concerning what is bad is the same.
[2] Having established
that, for the orthodox, goodness and badness do not derive from a genus or an essential attribute, the meaning of goodness is that for the doing of which the law confers praise, and what is meant by the bad is that for the doing of which the law confers censure.
IMĀM AL-ḤARAMAYN AL-JUWAYNĪ[RA] APPROACH TO THE MATTER
Pains and pleasures do not fall within the power of any being other than God, the Exalted.
Since they happen as an act of God, the Exalted, they are good in respect to Him, whether they occur instantaneously or come
from Him in time, as what is called reward.
In presupposing them to be good, the orthodox have no need to assume the prior
meriting of them, or to expect them to fulfil a commitment for
compensation, or to begin to procure benefit or repulse some
harm that is concomitant to them.
Instead whatever of them should occur is good on part of God, the Exalted, and cannot be held against Him in judging Him. Those who
do not accept the assignment of all matters to God, the Exalted, have become disordered in their opinions.
IMĀM AL-ḤARAMAYN AL-JUWAYNĪ[RA] ON SUFFERING
wa r d o f f s i c k n ess o r f a u l t o r d e fec t o r p ove r t y
o r in ju r y f ro m o n e so a f f l i c ted , a n d i t wo u ld n o t
r em ove h ea l t h o r p e r fec t io n o r wea l t h o r
a d va n t a g e f ro m o n e so f avo u r ed .
B u t i f p eo p le d i r ec ted t h e i r g a z e a n d c o n s id e r ed
s tea d f a s t l y eve r y t h in g t h a t G o d h a s c r ea ted in
h eaven a n d ea r t h , t h ey wo u ld see n e i t h e r
d i sc r ep a n c y n o r r i f t .
E ver y t h in g w h ic h Go d a p p o r t io n s to m a n , su c h
a s su s ten a n c e , l i f e - sp an , p lea su r e a n d p a in ,
c a p a c i t y a n d in c a p a c i ty, b e l i e f a n d d i sb e l ie f ,
o b ed ien c e a n d s in , i s a l l o f i t sh eer ju s t i c e , w i t h
n o in - ju s t i ce in i t ; a n d p u r e r i g h t w i t h n o w ro n g
in i t .
I n d eed , i t i s a c c o r d ing to t h e n ec essa r i l y r i g h t
o r d e r, i n a c c o r d w i t h w h a t m u st b e a n d a s i t
m u st b e a n d in t h e m ea su r e in w h ic h i t m u st b e ;
a n d t h e r e i s n o t in p o ss ib i l i t y a ny t h in g w h a teve r
m o r e exc e l len t , m o r e p e r fec t , a n d m o r e
c o m p lete t h a n i t .
Fo r i f t h e r e wer e a n d H e h a d w i t h h e ld i t , h av in g
p ower to c r ea te i t b u t n o t d e ig n in g to d o so , t h i s
wo u ld b e m ise r l in ess c o n t r a r y to t h e d i v in e
g en ero s i t y a n d in ju s t i c e c o n t r a r y to t h e d i v in e
j u s t i c e . B u t i f H e wer e n o t a b le , i t wo u ld b e
i n c a p a b i l i t y c o n t r a r y to d i v in i t y .
IMĀM AL-GHAZĀLĪ’S THEODICY
. . . [One must ] be l ieve with ut ter cer ta inty in which there is ne i ther weakness nor doubt that i f God had created a l l c reatures with the inte l l igence of the most inte l l igent among them and the knowledge of the most learned among them; and i f He had created for them al l the knowledge the i r souls could sustain and had poured out upon them wisdom of indescr ibable extent ; then, He had g iven each one of them the knowledge , wisdom, and inte l l igence of them al l , and revealed to them the consequences of th ings and taught them the myster ies of the t ranscendent wor ld and acquainted them with the subt let ies of d iv ine favour and the myster ies of f inal punishments , unt i l they were made wel l aware of good and ev i l , benef i t and harm; then, i f He had ordered them to ar range th is wor ld and the t ranscendent wor ld in te rms of the knowledge and wisdom they had rece ived, (even then) the act of ar rangement on the par t of a l l o f them, he lp ing each other and working in concer t , would not make i t necessar y to add to the way in which God has ar ranged creat ion in th is wor ld and the next by (so much as) a gnat ’s wing , nor to subt ract f rom i t (by so much as) a gnat ’s wing ; nor would i t ra ise a speck of dust or lower a speck of dust ; ( the i r ar rangement ) would not
Indeed, a l l pover ty and loss in th is wor ld is a diminut ion in th is wor ld but an increase in the next . Ever y lack in the next wor ld in re lat ion to one indiv idua l is a boon in re lat ion to someone e lse . For i f i t were not for n ight , the value of day would be unknown. Were i t not for i l lness , the heal thy would not enjoy heal th . Were i t not for he l l , the b lessed in paradise would not know the extent of the i r b lessedness . In the same way, the l ives of animals ser ve as ransom for human souls ; and the power to k i l l them which is g iven to humans is no in just ice .
Indeed, g iv ing precedence to the per fect over the imper fect is just ice i tse l f . So too is heaping favours on the inhabitants of paradise by increas ing the punishment of the inhabitants of he l l . The ransom of the fa i th fu l by means of the unfai th fu l is just ice i tse l f .
As long as the imper fect is not created , the per fect wi l l remain unknown. I f beasts had not been created , the d igni ty of man would not be manifest . The per fect and the imper fect are cor re lated . D iv ine generos i t y and wisdom require the s imultaneous creat ion of the per fect and the imper fect . Just as the amputat ion of a gangrenous hand in order to preser ve l i fe is just ice , s ince i t invo lves ransoming
the per fect through the imper fect , so too the matter of the d iscrepancy which ex is ts among people in the i r por t ion in th is wor ld and the next . That is a l l just ice , wi thout any wrong; and r ight in which there is no capr ice .
Now th is is a vast and deep sea with wide shores and tossed by b i l lows. In the extent i t i s comparable to the sea of God’s uni ty. Whole groups of the inept drown in i t wi thout real iz ing that i t is an arcane matter which only the knowing comprehend. Behind th is sea is the myster y of predest inat ion where the many wander in perp lex i t y and which those who have been i l luminated are forb idden to d ivu lge .
The g is t is that good and ev i l are foreordained. What is foreordained comes necessar i ly to be af ter a pr ior act of d iv ine vol i t ion . No one can rebe l against God’s judgment ; no one can appeal His decree and command. Rather, ever y th ing smal l and large is wr i t ten and comes to be in a known and expected measure .
“ What s t r ikes you was not there to miss you; what misses you was not there to s t r ike you.”
IMĀM AL-GHAZĀLĪ’S THEODICY
IMĀM AL-GHAZĀLĪ’S THEODICY
Characteristics of this Islamic Theodicy
First, the actual world, at each instance of its
continuance, is unsurpassably right and just; it has been determined by divine decree, specified by
divine will, and effected by divine
power.
Second, the world is radically contingent: everything within it
could be otherwise. No aspect of the world is
intrinsically necessary.
Third, the very imperfections of the
world – disease, deficiency, vice –contribute to the
surpassing excellence of the world. In the grand scheme of
things, they, too, are most wonderful.
“Reflect! The order of life, it is a subtle, marvellous, unique order, For nothing but death
endears life, And only the fear of tombs adorns it; Were it
not for the misery of painful life, People would not grasp the meaning of happiness. Whomever the scowling of the dark does not terrify,
Does not feel the bliss of the new morning.”
THE GREAT
TUNISIAN
POET ABŪ
AL-QĀSIM
AL-SHĀBBĪ
(1909-1934)
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS