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