How can we know about God

1. 1 How can we know about God?

2. 2 God is someone who permeates our lives, regardless of whether we believe in Him or not. In this topic, we focus on the concept of God in the Western world, more accurately the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of deity.

3. 3 What is common to the God of Western heritage I just mentioned is that He is understood as a person, or something that has quasi-human attributes. In the Bible, it is told that man is fashioned in the likeness of God.

4. 4 Philosophy studies the concepts of religion intensively. But note that it differs from theology in that the latter studies the whole system and practice of religion. For philosophers of religion, they examine the arguments used by theologians to substantiate their faith.

5. 5 What is God? For those religions which do posit a God, it is generally the case that their Gods have the following features: 1. Omnipotence (All-powerful)? 2. Omniscience (All-knowing)? 3. Omni-benevolence (All-kind)

6. 6 Omnipotence Can a God be less powerful than all-powerful? If you say yes, then are you prepared to call president Obama or superman �God�? If you say no, what are your reasons to insist that a God must be all-powerful? It is also customary to say that God is omnipotent because He creates the world.

7. 7 Are they Omnipotent?

8. 8

9. 9 If you think that there might be two or more very powerful gods, you are thinking quite like the ancient Greeks. It might be the case that they have to contest with each other. To simplify our argument, we assume that there is only one God, if there is any God at all.

10. 10 What are your criteria of omnipotence? Can you think of a test to test some beings for their alleged omnipotence? There is a famous debate question about whether God can create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it. Read my book to see the several standard responses.

11. 11 Omniscience Does omnipotence entail omniscience? What does it add to the status of being divine? If God knows everything, He must know you will do a particular thing at a particular time even before you were born. If so, how can you be responsible for what you do?

12. 12 Prophets are very common in many religions. Prophecy is possible because God knows everything. But even so, you are still responsible for what you have done: God just foresees that you freely do a certain thing. Do you accept this reasoning?

13. 13 Omni-benevolence People need to see their Gods as kind and loving. But why? Maybe the meaning of your earthly life depends on the care of God. That is why Christians call God a personal God. In some ancient Chinese schools of thinking, the cosmos is �God�: it is impersonal and so it is meaningless to expect the cosmos to care for you. Only human beings can care for human beings.

14. 14 But how kind is divinely kind? Is God kind to you by allowing you to study in SPACE? Can we compare God to our parents? But I can�t really see how God would be happy to give you a Nintendo to play in classroom, MTR, etc. So divine kindness must be different from parental kindness in many important respects. At most, we can say that God is kind to expect, and help, you to develop your virtues.

15. 15 Atheists Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of God.

16. 16 Agnostics Agnostics are people who have no idea about whether there is a God or not. They are completely neutral. But they are not necessarily lazy or ignorant people: they have considered evidence from both sides and find both indecisive.

17. 17 Theists Theists are people who believe in the existence of God with a system of reasoning.

18. 18 Pascal�s Wager Maybe you are still too young to be serious about the problem of religion. But you all believe that humans are mortal. The greatest fear of us is the prospect of non-existence, which seems unimaginable. If there is not a God who somehow reassures us that we live meaningfully and that there is a kind of afterlife, what could possibly motivate us to live our life at present?

19. 19 But the problem is that if we are serious about God, we can�t possibly believe in Him just because it makes us feel better. The most important thing is that God actually exists. The French philosopher Pascal, however, asked us to consider the following situation.

20. 20 For Christians, if they believe in God and that there is really a God, then they can enjoy eternal life. The only inconvenience is perhaps the obligation to go to church on Sunday and to follow certain doctrines. But if people choose not to believe in God in order to avoid going to churches and donating their money, etc., and that there is really a God, the price of their laziness is eternal damnation. Pascal thinks that the calculation of the benefits and risks is so obvious that no rational people would choose not to believe in God.

21. 21 Is there any problem with Pascal�s reasoning? If Pascal�s reasoning is at least quite good, how can we account for the fact that at least 3/5 of the population on Earth at present are not Christians? Can we say that these people are stupid? But if they are really stupid, why can they do all sorts of cunning things in real life?

22. 22 Now the problem that we want to discuss is: How does our reasoning to believe in God differ from other things? For example, do you come to believe in God in the same way as you come to believe the existence of a chemical compound, a historical fact, or an irrational number?

23. 23 After the Renaissance, there was the cleft between science and religion. We have just heard about a certain school in HK forbidding the teachers to teach evolution, a Christian organization claiming to have discovered the Noah�s Ark, etc. In the movie Angels and Demons, the discovery of the so-called dark matter is considered by some clergy to be unfavorable to their faith.

24. 24 It seems that rational people more or less believe in science, or to be more exact, that scientific reasoning is rational and neutral. Hence, religious beliefs have to conform to the bounds of science. But this view is quite gross: science can be full of bias and interest. Remember that Tom Cruise is reported to believe in a cult of science.

25. 25 The reason why traditional religion faces so many challenges from science is that there are many historical facts claimed to be integral to that religion. So, it seems that if there is evidence that the facts are in fact make-up stuff, the creditability of that religion is lowered.

26. 26 But again that is a misunderstanding. Is it not possible that the wrong �facts� are wronged by the prophets and the religious people who pass them on? And, how can one tell the difference between a metaphor and a fact in a religious scripture?

27. 27 So, in the end, what is the point of proving the existence of the Noah�s Ark from the perspective of the Christians? In other words, is their �success� a success of faith or success of science? And, are they willing to concede failure? If not, why should they go about to talk science with scientists? Isn�t faith something that transcends evidence?

28. 28 Possible types of evidence 1. Reassurance by your priest, parents, friends, etc. 2. Scientific evidence 3. Sentimental evidence 4. Biblical evidence 5. Miracles 6. Direct revelation 7. No evidence is needed

29. 29 In the main, philosophy of religion does not deal with the bits and pieces of so-called scientific or historical evidence for a particular religion. As said, the focus is on the fundamental concepts.

30. 30 Besides the three essential attributes of God, other important concepts in religion are sin, redemption, evil, creation, etc. One of the most famous problems is the problem of evil.

31. 31 The Problem of Evil If God is all-powerful and all-kind, He should have eliminated most, if not all, evils in the world. But it is obvious that there have been loads of horrendous evils at all times. Therefore, God is either not all-powerful or not all-kind.

32. 32 It is not at all easy to defuse the problem. First, probably no theist would be willing to tune down the attributes of God as either �quite powerful� or �quite kind�. Second, only some very tricky arguments can claim that the evils that we know of are in fact an illusion. The most popular way is to explain the occurrence of evils in light of God�s kindness.

33. 33 The theist�s response to the problem of evil can be a defence or a theodicy. A defence is just a way to explain the compatibility between evils and God. On the other hand, a theodicy is given as the most probable explanation of why God allows evils to happen.

34. 34 Free Will Defence It says that God creates human beings as free but not as puppets. The logical consequence of being free is to be free to do evils. To reduce evils is thus to reduce human freedom. God thinks that unfree human beings in a world without evils is worse than free human beings in a world with evils.

35. 35 Rebuttal 1. Could God have the power to ensure that we can always freely choose to do good? 2. Even if evils are somehow necessary for our being free, could God have at least eliminated some of them, such as the unknown non-moral evils? 3. Can there be choices in an evil-less world such as the Garden of Eden?

36. 36 Soul-making Defence Evils are necessary for human beings to learn to better themselves. Without the evilness of exam, you won�t become a Nobel Prize winner.

37. 37 Rebuttal 1. Someone just die in evil happenings without a chance to better themselves. 2. One might not learn the morals of the sufferings. 3. There are more humane ways to teach people.

38. 38 Divine Plan Defence God�s wisdom far exceeds ours. So it is illogical to accuse God of allowing excessive evils: if we know God�s plan, those evils are no longer excessive but necessary. There is an afterlife for all believers. So the sufferings on Earth are nothing comparing to eternal happiness.

39. 39 Rebuttal 1. Plans essentially unknowable to human beings are not plans for human beings. 2. Even if there is an afterlife, the gravity of the sufferings on Earth is genuine. To downplay them is callous.

40. 40 Predictability Defence If God only chooses to eliminate evils, unimaginable confusion will occur. What if God chooses to turn sharp knives into butter whenever they are used to stab people? What if people always float when falling from heights? Can the people in that kind of world live a normal life? Can life be possible if no physical laws are there to allow us to predict what will happen?

41. 41 Rebuttal They are just dramatizing the situation. Aren�t human beings capable of eliminating a lot of fatal diseases by themselves? If so, why can�t God eliminate a significant proportion of those things? People don�t ask for changing knives to butter and such miracles. In any case, miracles do happen according to theists. So what�s wrong with performing them more frequently?

42. 42 Theology and Falsification This is the only reading for this topic. This extract is historically quite important: it started the subsequent serious debates in the English-speaking world about the rational basis of beliefs in God. We should learn how the philosophers put forth their arguments and reply others� challenges clearly. In good philosophical writings, there are no obscure wordings and prolix quotation.

43. 43 Flew opens the discussion by inviting us to a parable: can we make sense of the difference between an essentially undetectable gardener and an imaginary gardener? He thinks that the practice of religious people is to construe God to be an essentially undetectable gardener.

44. 44 Our world is like the garden: full of beauty and wonders that could be the work of a powerful and benevolent being. But the creator is something that cannot be caught by us apart from the handiwork that He leaves us with. So, it is futile to seek scientific evidence for and against God.

45. 45 We can�t have positive evidence�God is beyond our means. But we can�t have negative evidence too. So, against this background, Flew considers religious talks to be void of meaning. In the same way, people usually find Freudian and Marxist theories meaningless: these theories can always be adjusted to accommodate counterevidence.

46. 46 The question Flew gives in the end is: �What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of God?�

47. 47 Hare�s response Next comes the Oxford philosopher�s response. Hare makes it clear that he is not a theist, only that he disagrees with Flew�s analysis. He invites us to see how we usually understand a lunatic, someone who holds grossly bizarre beliefs.

48. 48 The point is why we are justified to regard a lunatic as a lunatic? It is not that the lunatic�s set of beliefs do not stand up to any evidence we have as Flew�s case where a religious person claims to believe in an undetectable God. So, we can�t say that the assertion of the religious people is as void of meaning as that of the lunatic.

49. 49 Rather, we must rest with a difference between types of bliks. �Blik� is a word invented by Hare to mean �unverifiable and unfalsifiable interpretation of one�s experience�. In short, a person cannot exist without bliks. Furthermore, one cannot just subject any blik to the test of meaningfulness by Flew. Very often, we just don�t know how. But that does not mean that we are not rationally entitled to hold onto those bliks.

50. 50 We can now see Hare�s point more clearly: religion is for a great number of rational people a way of life. One just can�t ask them to suspend their way of life until there is a final answer. Perhaps, the quest for a final answer is an illusion.

51. 51 The problem with the non-religious people who try to see the �garden� in a detached way is similar to the doctor who cannot see the lunatic�s heart-felt concern about some conspiracy. That is why they can calmly deny others� bliks as senseless. Try to select one blik of yours: what if someone just tell you that there is really no worth for a prosperous career given that one will die. If you can really be convinced by it, that means you have already adopted another blik: that the worth of something is measured by eternity.

52. 52 If religious people are really committed to their views such that they can live with peace and reassurance, why should other bliks be offered to replace them?

53. 53 Mitchell The third philosopher comes on scene: Basil Mitchell. He also uses a parable to bring out his point. There is a stranger who confides in an underground resistance that he is on his side. Since then, that person sometimes offer help to the partisan and sometimes appears to work for the other side.

54. 54 This parable is meant to alert us to the problem of evil: sometimes we feel and see that God is helping us, and sometimes we see things happened that count against his benevolence. If prayers are not answered, just as the help from the stranger does not come, how should the partisan adjust his trust in the stranger?

55. 55 For Mitchell, there must, of course, be a bottom-line for the partisan to interpret the stranger�s behaviors. He can�t possibly assert that the stranger has good reasons to massacre thousands of the resistance force although he could not explain it to him. Similarly, a theist cannot say that, for example, it is God�s will that thousands of babies are killed by a tyrant, or that the babies deserve the punishment.

56. 56 So Mitchell wants to contrast the attitude of the partisan with that of the insane person with a blik: �The partisan admits that many things may and do count against his belief; whereas Hare�s lunatic who has a blik about dons doesn�t admit that anything counts against his blik�.

57. 57 In addition, the partisan has a personal involvement with the stranger: his first personal commitment to the character of the stranger. In contrast, the lunatic can have no further reasons for his bliks since bliks are not had with reasons.

58. 58 So, there are three possible responses for the religious people, if they resemble the partisan more than the lunatic: 1. They can deny God in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence; otherwise, their faith is intact. 2. Just maintain their faith as given, non-negotiable. 3. Treat expressions such as �God loves men� as vacuous.

59. 59 But as a committed Christian, the first option is out: �Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God�. The most important thing to note is that the third option is the worst: it is both a failure in faith as well as logic.

60. 60 Finally, Flew responds to both philosophers. First, he agrees with Mitchell�s analysis but points out that the analogy of the stranger fails in one important aspect: the stranger can be excused if he disappoints the partisan since he is human whereas God is omnipotent, and so, any lack of explanation of why evils exist must count against our very conception of God.

61. 61 Second, he responds to Hare by saying that if religious beliefs are really bliks, then those religions cannot really exist as they have been. The reason is that there must be content to religious assertions and doctrines. One just can�t say that �You ought because it is God�s will� means exactly the same as �you ought�. Another peril, although not stated by Flew, is that all religions would collapse into one if bliks are contentless.

62. 62 Lastly, Flew reminds us of the famous novel 1984 by George Orwell in which there is the concept of �doublethink�: �the power of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, and accepting both of them�. Do you agree with him that those religious people who at once hold that God is all-loving and that He has good reasons to allow the world to be full of evils a kind of doublethinker?

63. 63 View the debate between Flew and a theist on YouTube: http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=h0dgEjF3ZcM