rheswm & chred reason & belief - is faith wrong? · 08/01/2015 · b...
TRANSCRIPT
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & BeliefIs faith wrong?
Dr. Clea F. Rees
Canolfan Addysg Gydol Oes Centre for Lifelong LearningPrifysgol Caerdydd Cardiff University
Y Gwanwyn/Spring 2015
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Outline
Outline
Terminology
Argumentation
Evaluation
Arguments for God’s Existence
Teleological Arguments
The Problem of Evil
Santa’s Flight
‘For the Love of Reason’
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Terminology
Terminology
Question 2:
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Argumentation
Argumentation
Questions 1 & 3:
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Evaluation
Evaluation
Question 4:
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Arguments for God’s Existence
Arguments for God’s Existence
I Ontological argumentsArguments based on reason alone e.g. the very idea of God
necessitates God’s existence.
I Cosmological arguments
I Teleological arguments i.e. Arguments from designArguments based on experience (as well as reason) which
deduce the existence of a creator or designer from specific
features of the observed world.
I Moral arguments
I Pragmatic arguments
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
A Simple Argument from Design1. The universe has certain features F (e.g. the human eye,
wings for flight, the values of physical constants).
2. A watch has features G which are relevantly similar to F .
3. The best explanation for G is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the watch.
——
4. The best explanation for F is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the universe. (1, 2 & 3)
5. No designer could create something with F unless omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, omniscient, eternal and immutable.
6. A being is God iff the being is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
omniscient, eternal and immutable.
——
7. God exists. (1, 4, 5 & 6)
AnalogyArgument by Analogy
X(maybe)
??
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
A Simple Argument from Design1. The universe has certain features F (e.g. the human eye,
wings for flight, the values of physical constants).
2. A watch has features G which are relevantly similar to F .
3. The best explanation for G is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the watch.
——
4. The best explanation for F is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the universe. (1, 2 & 3)
5. No designer could create something with F unless omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, omniscient, eternal and immutable.
6. A being is God iff the being is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
omniscient, eternal and immutable.
——
7. God exists. (1, 4, 5 & 6)
Analogy
Argument by Analogy
X(maybe)
??
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
A Simple Argument from Design1. The universe has certain features F (e.g. the human eye,
wings for flight, the values of physical constants).
2. A watch has features G which are relevantly similar to F .
3. The best explanation for G is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the watch.
——
4. The best explanation for F is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the universe. (1, 2 & 3)
5. No designer could create something with F unless omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, omniscient, eternal and immutable.
6. A being is God iff the being is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
omniscient, eternal and immutable.
——
7. God exists. (1, 4, 5 & 6)
Analogy
Argument by Analogy
X(maybe)
??
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
A Simple Argument from Design1. The universe has certain features F (e.g. each of various
physical constants lying within the range required for life).
2. A watch has features G which are relevantly similar to F .
3. The best explanation for G is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the watch.
——
4. The best explanation for F is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the universe. (1, 2 & 3)
5. No designer could create something with F unless omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, omniscient, eternal and immutable.
6. A being is God iff the being is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
omniscient, eternal and immutable.
——
7. God exists. (1, 4, 5 & 6)
AnalogyArgument by Analogy
X(maybe)
??
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
Objection: Alternative Explanations
I Hume objected to teleological arguments for two reasons:
1. The universe, he thought, might have grown organically.2. The features of the universe which are supposed to constitute
evidence of a designer establish at most the existence of animperfect one.
I Evolution offers a more sophisticated version of (1).
I These two objections work by offering alternativeexplanations for the features F of the universe.
i.e. They argue that there is a better explanation for F .
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
‘Fine-Tuning’ Arguments
How compelling a teleological argument is depends on the
availability of alternative explanations for the features F to which
it appeals as evidence of design.
Scientific understanding, especially the theory of evolution, have
tended to undermine traditional arguments from design.
I If we can explain the existence of complex organisms as the
result of natural selection, we don’t need God to explain their
existence.
So the way in which living things seem adapted to their
environments no longer requires a designer.
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
‘Fine-Tuning’ Arguments‘Fine-tuning’ arguments present a greater challenge1.
I It has long been appreciated that the possibility of lifedepends on certain conditions being met.
e.g. The existence of planets with water.
I More recently, scientists have established that conditions mustfall within an extremely narrow range.
I A number of physical constants must be very close to theiractual values.
I The probability of all of those constants being within therequired ranges just by chance is vanishingly small.
I Conditions for planets occurring by chance: 1 in 10124
(Penrose).I Chance of critical enzymes emerging: 1 in 1040000 (Hoyle)
I So the chance of a universe with the possibility of life is
‘utterly outrageously tiny’ (Ratzsch).1Details and statistics based on Ratzsch 2014.
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
Teleological Arguments
A Simple Argument from Design1. The universe has certain features F (e.g. each of various
physical constants lying within the range required for life).
2. A watch has features G which are relevantly similar to F .
3. The best explanation for G is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the watch.
——
4. The best explanation for F is the (past or present) existence
of an intelligent designer of the universe. (1, 2 & 3)
5. No designer could create something with F unless omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, omniscient, eternal and immutable.
6. A being is God iff the being is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
omniscient, eternal and immutable.
——
7. God exists. (1, 4, 5 & 6)
AnalogyArgument by Analogy
X(maybe)
??
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
The Problem of Evil
The Problem of Evil
1. There is evil in the world.
2. An omnibenevolent being would desire to prevent evil.
3. An omniscient being would know of the existence of evil.
4. An omnipotent being would be able to prevent evil.
5. One who knows evil exists, desires to prevent evil and is able
to prevent evil, will prevent evil.
——
6. There is no omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent
being. (From 1–5.)
Question 6:
I Are philosophers who believe in God just kidding themselves?
Image Credit: Wild Retina, Santa Sleigh in Night Sky
Question 5:
I Is Antony committed to the claim that we should tell our
children the truth about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
I Should we?
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
‘For the Love of Reason’
‘For the Love of Reason’
Image credit:Philosophers Against Irrationality! in London,
10th November, 2010. Photograph posted 12th November.
Question 7:
I Can a life lived ‘for the love of reason’ be meaningful?
b
Rheswm & Chred — Reason & Belief
References
References
Antony, Louise M. (2007). ‘For the Love of Reason’. In Philosophers WithoutGods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life. Ed., with an introd., by
Louise M. Antony. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Chap. 4, 41–58.
Philosophers Against Irrationality! (2010). 12th Nov. 2010. url:
http://phil.dept.shef.ac.uk/news/?m=201011 (visited on 15/01/2015).
Photograph taken 10th November, 2010, London.
Ratzsch, Del (2014). Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence. In StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Fall 2014. Stanford,
California: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language
and Information, Stanford University. url: http:
//plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/teleological-arguments/.
Santa Sleigh in Night Sky. Wild Retina. url:
http://www.science-centrum.ph/the-science-of-santas-sleigh-2/.