Download
1 / 52
E N D
RMPS Homework • Higher class! Here are the next set of slides to be working on. The first is the homework task which I already set. After this, read through the cosmological and teleological arguments. These notes are very detailed, so also use the pages from HJ Richards which gives you a brief overview. Then attempt the two additional tasks (slides 40 and 52). Hope to see you on Monday!
Homework Task! • Read HJ Richards’ Philosophy of Religion, pp41-43 • On what do Christians rely on to understand the world? (4KU) • What has revelation taught Christians about God? (4KU) • What is ‘Tradition’? (2KU)
Cosmological Argument • Cosmology is from the Greek word cosmos, meaning universe or world • The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argumentfor the existence of God • Critics include David Hume, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell • Advocates include Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides and Frederick Copleston
Cosmological Argument • Cosmology has its roots in Ancient Greek Aristotelian philosophy • Most famous version comes from Thomas Aquinas • Cosmology aims to prove God’s existence by using the world around us • This is a posteriori argument (not a priori)
St Thomas Aquinas • Thomas Aquinas is one of the Catholic Church’s most influential theologians • Much of his theology is still in use in Catholicism • He was a Dominican friar, living in the 13th century (1225-1274) • Magnum opus: Summa theologica
Quinqueviae (Five ways) Cosmology covers the first three of Aquinas’ five ways
Prima via (First Way) A reductio ad absurdum argument takes a claim to be true and then reduces it to absurdity in order to demonstrate that it cannot be true
Aquinas’ Aristotle affection • Aristotle believed that there was an unmoved mover that caused all movement in the world with the intention of moving to perfection • Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotle, and his definition of God is a lot like a rebranded unmoved mover.
Potentia and actus (Potential and act) • Understanding Aquinas’ idea of potential and act, inherited partly from Aristotle, is crucial in understanding the first and second ways • The potential of wood is to give light and heat • Something has to happen (move) to make the wood give light and heat • When this happens the wood acts to its potential
What’s the difference? • Potential and act are essentially opposing states... Block of wood Burning wood
What’s the difference? • Wood can burn, but can’t possess the potential to burn and be burning at the same time • It’s a logical impossibility • When the wood is burning (has been moved to burn), it is a realisation (or an actualisation) of the wood’s potential to burn
Aristotle’s legacy once again • Using Aristotle’s views again, Aquinas argues that the efficient cause is the agent which brings something about • ExampleThe Academy has commissioned a statue of me to be built at the entrance, because I’m so great. In this case, the person chiselling away at the marble, and the act of chiselling itself, is the efficient cause because it causes the statue. Without the chiselling, there’d be no statue.
The efficient cause is in actus So, from that we can infer that the efficient cause is in a state of actuality (in actus) as it needs to be so in order to cause For Aquinas, God becomes the efficient cause
Infinite regression What’s wrong with infinite regression, rejected by Aquinas in his secundum via? According to Aquinas, we need a being that is in actus to cause But, in order to make sense of our existence he says we need something that is actus purus (pure act) – something which is only actuality and has never been potentiality
This creates problems • By rejecting infinite regression, Aquinas’ argument is may be flawed... • His conclusions so far state that there is a first cause/mover, but the premises state everything must have a cause • Who’s to say that the first cause/mover that Aquinas talks of still exists today?My father’s granddad and grandma are dead, but my father’s parents and my father are still here. Is God dead?
David Hume Scottish philosopher 18th century, during the enlightenment Empiricist (knowledge via senses) and deist (belief in a creator G/d, that’s no longer involved with us) Hume asked...
Must every event have a cause? For Hume, it’s not an a posteriori truth The only way we can know that every event has a cause is if we verify it using our experience We have no experience of the beginning of the universe, so this can’t happen Moreover, the beginning of the universe is hardly comparable to other causes...
Space and time are part of the universe Everything in our world is created in time Universe created without time, since time is part of the universe NOT COMPARABLE
Frederick Copleston Where Aquinas leaves off, Frederick Copleston picks up... He clarifies Aquinas’ argument... Aquinas isn’t talking about a horizontal series of causes:
Frederick Copleston continued But instead of a vertical hierarchy of causes...
Frederick Copleston continued What’s the difference? Any of the causes in the linear sequence (the horizontal causes) may be removed and may still work independently of each other In the hierarchy, each cause depends on the cause above However, there are different types of cause...
Cause in fieri and in esse in fieri in esse Children can exist separately of their parents But, their parents are required for their cause Activity of the pen cannot exist separately of the hand writing The hand is required for both the cause and to sustain the cause
God in esse • God is cause in esse • Why do you think this is important?
Contingency and necessity • Something that is necessary relies on itself alone for existence • Something that is contingent requires other factors for its existence • ExampleHumans are contingent because we rely on oxygen to keep us alive; take away oxygen and we die.God, on the other hand, is necessary because God doesn’t need oxygen to survive, God has his (its) own reason for existence.
Copleston’s argument in premises Copleston’s argument conforms to Aquinas’ third way...
Tertia via: contingency and necessity Prima pars (first part)
Tertia via: contingency and necessity Secundum pars (Second part)
Note the two parts to this proof Aquinas was writing in the 13th – 14th centuries, where people believed in the existence of Angels The Nine Orders of Angels are necessary, so had he stopped after the first part, it would have been reasonable to accept that an angel could have created the universe
De re and de dicto beings de re de dicto [Obviously there is no visual representation for God] Always been present in reality God Called into reality (by God) Nine Orders of Angels
Locked together • Aquinas’ third way conveniently locks his arguments so far into place, binding them to form a proof... • Nothing can move/cause God • Nothing can move/cause God’s non-existence • Nothing that moves/causes can be accounted for without God
Strengths • Science suggests the universe had a beginning and every beginning must have a cause. • It is logical; nothing we know can cause itself. • Infinity is impossible; everything lives, grows and dies – the universe is not infinite – it had a first cause • There is no other reasonable explanation • The past is not infinite – it had a beginning – beginnings need a creator • Nothing is just there without a reason for it being there • Experience and reason tell us that everything has a cause – if there is no first cause then we are going against all our experience and reasoning • The universe contains beings that depend on others for existence. For dependent beings to exist there must be an independent being to make them exist i.e. God
Weaknesses • The Cosmological Argument(s) do not prove that the first cause is what we would call God, i.e. is the First Cause good? • It changes the rules to accommodate God e.g. if infinity is impossible then how can God be infinite? • People and animals move themselves so why can’t the universe? • Claiming that God is self-creating and eternal is just the same as saying the universe is self creating and eternal. • We are conditioned to see things having causes and beginnings – it is equally possible that things do not have causes and beginnings. • The universe is a brute fact. It is just there. (Russell) • We cannot understand the cause of the universe because it is something we can never experience. Everything is sheer speculation. (Hume)
Cosmological Argument: Task • Aquinas is one of a number of people who have presented the Cosmological Argument. Read more about this on page 14-16 of HJ Richards, Philosophy of Religion (2nd Edition). • What is the cosmological argument? (4KU) • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument? (6AE)
Teleological Argument Teleology is from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purpose The teleological argument is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God Critics include David Hume, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell Advocates include Thomas Aquinas and William Paley
Aquinas’ Fifth Way The teleological argument is part of Aquinas’ five ways, hislast way Looks at the world around us and attempts to use that as evidence for God’s existence This makes it a posteriori, like the cosmological argument The teleological argument is an argument from order and design to God as the explanation for this order and design
Things lacking intelligence • This tree knows when to shed its leaves, but it doesn’t have intelligence like human beings • According to Aquinas, God makes it do this
Design qua purpose and qua regularity Design qua purpose Design qua regularity Things happen in the universe for a reason In a washing machine, all of the parts serve a purpose There is regularity and order in the universe This regularity couldn’t be chance, think about the rotation of the planets etc
William Paley William Paley is probably teleology’s biggest advocate, putting forward a comparison of how the regularity of a watch compares to regularity in the world
Paley’s watch Walking along a beach, he comes across a stone and looks at it with indifference – it’s just a stone He then finds a watch on the beach, stopping to admire its many intricate parts
Moral of the story? • From this he infers that the watch must have a designer • It is so complex that there is no way those parts could have just assembled in the correct order like a stone could just appear on a beach • The same applies to theworld
The watch, as a complex thing, requires an explanation It is best explained in terms of design and a designer who gave it purpose Even if we'd never seen a watch being made, we could still infer its designer Surely the same applies to the universe
Premise breakdown Notice the leap of faith required; from the universe requiring a designer to that designer being God
The return of David Hume You might remember him from his last appearance when he criticised Aquinas’ first and second ways Now he’s back to do the same with the last How is the universe regular?It’s difficult to compare things like a polar bear and a tree
David Hume continued • Why is there just one designer?Could easily be more than that, maybe even a pantheon of gods
David Hume continued TRAINEE • What about a trainee god? • God is all powerful, all knowing and all good – and yet, evil exists • This is the inconsistent triad, the definition of God is incompatible in a world with evil • The inconsistent triad seems to point to an incompetent God
David Hume continued Why use the example of a watch?A watch is a machine, and watches just whirr and do as they’re programmed to do A better example would have been something living
JS Mill joins in JS Mill British philosopher and influential liberal thinker 19th century Helped develop utilitarianism, the idea that the moral worth of an action can be judged on the overall happiness it creates
Look at the animals! Mill agreed with Hume, asking us to look towards the animal kingdom He points out the brutality in which predator hunts prey and how deceptive animals can be; if those animals were human then they’d be taken to court! How can God have created something so savage?
