Sorry about the late post on chp 5

In this chapter the author sets out to not prove man was created by god, but to merely disprove the notion that the universe came into existence from nothing. He did a very good job explaining his facts. I sat for around an hour throwing ideas back and forth in my head trying to grasp this idea and put it into play in regards to the ideas set forth in the bible.

            When I try to relate what I read to what I know and understand. I could not help but think of the question; what came first the chicken or the egg? This relates to the idea of infinity because the argument could go on forever either way. However, at some point one had to exist or be “created” first. This is the basic argument of the chapter; that the universe at some point had to be created because something cannot merely form from nothing. The universes could not have always existed because then you could not add or take from it.

            This is directly tied to the idea of where and when did we come into existence. I came to the conclusion that the point of this chapter doesn’t impede on the ideas of evolution but instead on only the existence of the universe. This chapter does not relate the idea of creation to the earth or even humans.  When I finally came to grips with this idea I only had more questions. Does this mean that the creation in his image only applies to the universe? With the idea that the universe was created and ever expanding, or the oscillating theory; are we only a mere step in the process?

            Did this mean that god created a scenario that would play out and have purpose? This mirrors or impart is connected to the teleological argument. In short the universe had to have a creator. This once again raises the question did god only create the universe? Which would mean we are merely a byproduct, or was his plan for us to be created by the creation of the universe.

            This like all other discussions we have tended to answer one question but in turn open up more. The problem with this is that we are left with more questions than answers and are back to square one. Granted if what the author has proved that the universe was created by a personal being, we are still left with the questions I have stated before. I hope that the ideas I have presented about our beginnings are not upsetting to anyone’s beliefs but I think it is a reasonable question. 

Humanity's Gain from Unbelief

Religion is always changing. Over time, religion is modified and practiced by people and something new in religion is always discovered. Bradlaugh says that new discovery in religion destroys part of the belief and that the religion will become outgrown and ultimatily rejected. Bradlaugh also believes that this will lead to man's happiness and well-being.
Bradlaugh asks the question, 'What is Christianity?' and says that is is gathered from the Old and New Testaments. Sometimes, the Old Testament has been called barbaric and wants it removed from Christianity.
Progress of the world are due to Christianity and many servents of humanity have been Christians. Christianity also had a part in stopping slavery.
Bradlaugh claims that 'the teaching of Christ' has been changing over the years and that "the conscience of the Christian is in quantity and quality made fitter for human progress by the ever-increasing additions of knowledge of these later and more heretical days." Religion changes so that it is more adapt to humanity.

God is not Great?

Bertrand Russell joins a veritable 'tradition' of philosophers, scientists, and others who consistently make the claim that if we were to way the benefits of religion and religious belief on a scale, it would tip very heavily in the negative direction.  This tradition, which is not new (he mentions Lucretius, a Roman philosopher and there are those in both Eastern and Western traditions who railed against religious 'superstition') has taken center stage in contemporary debates between religious apologists and the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hutchens, Sam Harris, and Bill Mahr, just to name a few.

Take for instance Christopher Hutchens and his book God is not Great.  In his book, Hutchens argues that "There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking".

Like Hutchens, Russell particularly attacks the relationship between religious belief and sexual morality/repression.  Unlike Hutchens, Russell focuses considerable time and space analyzing the emotional undertones of religious belief and religious faith, something that we will discuss in greater detail with Sartre and Braudlaugh.  Is Russell right that religion has a negative impact on our emotional lives and on our views of sexuality?

What about Russell's claim, which he shares with Lucretius, that religion is like a disease?  Why does he compare it to a disease?  Is he right?  What criteria do you think Russell is using to evaluate religion?

Obligation in a God and Godless World

This has been posted on behalf of Zeke Stevenson.

In Mavrodes article, “Religion and the Queerness of Morality,” he uses the theory of Bertrand Russell that describes a world that is Godless. In which men occur as accidental atomic collections and exist only until the point of death as a basis for claiming that secular morality is an inadequate method for providing reasons for people to be moral.  He calls this world the Russellian world where there are Russellian benefits such as; a long and content life that is filled with sexual pleasure and a good reputation amongst peers. However these “Russellian” benefits exist outside the Russellian world. At the same time this world created by Russell does not have spiritual benefits, aka heaven and the life after death theory.  Therefore in this world that Russellian created the only benefits and losses are of those that Russell also created.  Mavrodes then identifies that Russell makes it quite clear that some moral obligations are consistent with the real world and would end with a bad moral result, such as paying off a debt. Further Mavrodes states that since there is no afterlife and no higher judgment that there is no real incentive to be moral. Mavrodes brings up several arguments that come across him. He states that one is, that it would be in everyone’s best interest for everybody, including oneself, to be moral. However in a Russellian world it is only the best interest to be moral if everyone else is also being genuinely moral. It would be ideal if everyone in the world was to act morally, however that is not, and will never be the case. And although your efforts of being moral may be great, you cannot control the actions of others through the hardest of efforts.

Many argue that secular morality does not work, and that with it there cannot be real morals with no God (higher judgment) to “enforce” these laws. The say that secular morality is based on negative motivation and negative motivation will not get people to follow rules. Mavrodes argues that religious morality is also based on negative motivation, a different light is just shined down in it, giving it a different, brighter glow.  Mavrodes argues that if secular morality runs on negative motivation so does religious morality. In the sense that Christians, or people of religious morality follow there morals in fear that they will be condemned by their God, that they will be cast into hell for eternity, they fear that the will be damned, or forced into undesirable conditions of purgatory before making the cut into heaven.  Mavrodes point is that it could be argued that secular ethics are replacing religious ethics in most people’s everyday life. Although many people may say that their ethical and moral behaviors stem from a religious background, Mavrodes states that his is not the case, and those principles stem from another place entirely. Most commonly from egoism, whereas the decisions made by an individual are made because they will provide results that are best for the individual making the decisions… 

"The Five Ways" - Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas is trying to prove the existence of God in five ways. In Robinson's book, it talks about the First and Third articles. The First Article considers the question of whether God's existence is self-evident, meaning that the Five Ways are not necessary. The Third Article is the question of whether God exists, using the Five Ways as proof.
In the First Article, Aquinas says that “God exists” is self-evident in itself, but not to us, and thus requires demonstration and says that the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in everyone.
In the Third Article, Aquinas's Five Ways to prove God's existence:
1. The Way of Motion: In the world, something things are in motion.
2. The Way of Causation: The nature of efficient cause.
3. The Way of Contingency: Possibility and necessity
4. The Way of Goodness: The gradation to be found in things.
5. The Way of Design: The governance of the world.

In the recommedned reading, "Cosmological Argument" - Brian Davies, the Cosmological Argument is saying that the existence of the universe is strong evidence for the existence that there is a God who created it.

Teleological Argument

The teleological argument compares how things were made in nature to the things built by man. Since the things built by man require a creator, then the things in nature must require a creator as well. Paley gives an example of the teleological argument through the watch example. The example is of him walking and stumbling across a stone, and then being asked how the stone came to be there. Paley said, “I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever...” Paley then goes on to say that if he had found a watch on the ground and asked how the watch happened to be in that place? Paley says that he would not have to think about it how it got there but that the “watch might have always been there.” Now you might question why the answers are different for the stone and watch. Paley’s idea as I understand it is that the watch has a purpose-it is made from small parts and therefor the creator or designer made the watch to serve a purpose. Whereas the stone is not made from smaller parts and therefore does not have a designer or creator.

The main question Paley is asking is whether the object was designed or not? He uses contrivance and contriver as proof of design, but no designer. Paley says there must be a designer for the universe based on the watch example and how things are made with a purpose. The strength for this argument is that most can agree with this idea. It is believed in religion that we are made in God’s image so for us to have a purpose in life makes sense. It also makes sense that God created the things in nature to have a purpose because otherwise, why would God put useless things on this earth. Are there weaknesses to this idea? It depends on the person because that person would either believe there is a creator or there is no creator. If there is no creator, then where did the things in nature come from?

In recommended reading, Davies states two arguments about the divine design. The first says the universe displays design in the sense of purpose. The second argument is that it (being the universe) displays design in the sense of regularity. Paley’s example of finding the stone and watch is the example of the universe displaying design as a purpose. Davies goes on to suggest that Paley says “the universe resembles a watch and must therefore be accounted for in terms of intelligent and purposive agency.” I agree with Paley’s idea that we are created with a purpose as the watch, was designed for a purpose to tell time.

 Another idea about the design argument. The article explains that the teleological argument is wrong and that we were designed from science such as through natural selection. What do you think about article, are we contraptions? I believe this article makes sense in some ways, but I believe there is a creator who designed the universe.

Miracles

I would like to start off with Hume’s perspective on Miracles.  Hume starts off by defining what a miracle is; he says that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. This means that events such as people dying and fires are found agreeable to nature, and in order for them to be a miracle a violation is required to prevent them and make them not agreeable to nature, Hume uses the example of a dead man coming back to life. The whole second paragraph Hume explains his view more strongly he says that the probability that a person’s testimony of a miracle being wrong outweighs the probability of that person testimony of a miracle being right.

 Swinburne on the other hand I feel believes that miracles are more likely to happen than Hume does.  Swinburne talks about what he thinks miracles would be, and they are things; such as Levitations, Resurrection from the dead in full health of a man whose heart has not been beating for twenty four hours, water turning into wine without the assistance of chemicals, and then a man getting better from polio in a minute. In Swinburne’s piece he also talks about Hume’s perspective. He starts off with a scenario, if there were two hundred people to have witnessed the same event which was a non-repeatable event, and that these people would be willing to prove that the event did not occur if there were grounds to do so. He next asks the question does the combined evidence prove that the event in fact did happen. Swinburne tells us that Hume’s answer would be no, which would be getting to the point that Hume’s standards of evidence are too high.

 I believe that Swinburne is trying to show us that he himself believes more in miracles than Hume does. It seems to me that Hume doses not believe in miracles at all. Swinburne examples of miraculous events are pretty close to what the Bible says a miracle is. To me this also shows that Swinburne is more of a believer.

Is free will responsible for the evil that occurs in the world?  Most theists would say yes to this question.  It can be argued that because God gave humans the ability to make the wrong choice or the right one, it follows that evil can be the direct effect of poor decision making.  God could have made a world in which the creatures he created would only do the right thing all the time but most would agree that we would be no better off than robots in this kind of environment and that a world of free agents is better than this kind of scenario.  God also could have made a world in which the decisions we made only had a minimal effect on the whole of humanity or what Robert Swinburne refers to as a “toy world”.  Free will can be directly traced to evil then but also to the good that can be found in it.  Aquinas believed that God is the cause of everything good, bad, or indifferent and that it does not affect his omnipotence in the slightest because God is not good by human standards of morality but good in the sense of all that is good directly flows from him and all that is desirable can be found in him.  There is no easy explanation for the evil that exists in the world but even a good parent can be seen as an example of letting their child go through some hardships to learn valuable life lessons.  If the child learns from the hardship not to make the same mistake they will be better equipped for adulthood; does it follow then that God allows for us to make wrong choices with the hopes and expectations that we will learn from them but that some never learn from the mistakes and so the problems get compounded?  This type of reasoning doesn’t explain away things like hurricanes and volcanos, but to this Aquinas believes that God only works within the boundaries of nature and that this also is not reflective on the goodness of God.

Kony 2012

Thought that after the discussions we've had the past few classes this would be an interesting video for anyone to check out if they were interested. Speaks a great deal about evil and our responsibility for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

"The Value of Soul Making" from Evil and the Good of Love

Social/Cultural Evolution

Hick makes the argument that the phenomena of evil comes from the process of developing a human soul which is what happens through out our lives in our efforts to become more like God. He states that this is a necessary part of life and that evil is a necessary byproduct of this journey, but that this journey is the result of us as a human population having rational thought and the idea of a God to follow and is not the result of an evolutionary phenomena. Until this point I actually agreed with Hick, but being a biology major I found it difficult to discredit an evolutionary theory without examining it further.

The evolutionary theory I believe applies to this reading the best is that of cultural/social evolution. This theory describes how societies and cultures change over time, our human population has gone through more drastic change over time than I believe can be explained without the help of an evolutionary theory. It is important to note that sociocultural evolution is not the same as cultural development, development involves the integration of differentiations and increases in overall complexity of the society itself. This contrasts with sociocultural evolution because evolution implies this; the process by which structural reorganization is affected through time, eventually producing a form or structure which is qualitatively different from the ancestral form. This can be easily seen in the contrast of the hunter gatherer lifestyle of the caveman to the relatively easy and carefree life comparatively we live as humans today. All pathways of evolution are based on the presence of variation in a population and the presence of evil is most easily explained as the essential variation that drives the process and makes it work.

It has been argued that the development of God himself is a product of the sociocultural evolution of the human race, and I think this is a good place to start class discussion on this reading itself; it is a fairly widely accepted fact that the structures and the way of life we live today as humans is vastly different from what it was at the beginning of the human race, but is God, the driving life force behind every being also just a product of a similar kind of evolutionary pathway? If yes, then the presence of God is a natural phenomena that has been allowed by nature, from a scientific perspective, how could this have benefited humans enough in order to be selected for?

Fallacies

Description of Fallacies

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Evil and Omnipotence

J.L. Mackie states the problem like this "If God is omnipotent (all powerful) and wholly good than why does evil exist?  The four arguments he cites are 1) Good cannot exist without evil. 2) Evil is necessary as a means to good. 3) The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil. and finally 4) Evil is due to human freewill.  There are several problems to each argument as Mackie sees it.  Mainly that each argument somehow either questions God's power or his goodness, ie.., if humans can see that evil is a problem why couldn't God see it?  Or if Evil was necessary did there need to be so much of it?  Or in the case of human freewill could God have just made us with freewill when we were about to do something bad?  Mackie only brings this questions to the readers attention he never asserts a final position on any of them, he leaves that up to the reader.  I did find this interesting analogy about a man who creates a robot with the capacity to learn and make decisions.  He also makes it with abilities like the ability to kick, with the hopes that the robot would kick balls back to little children in the playground, or maybe kick grenades out of harms way for soldiers.  The robot however develops a penchant for kicking puppies, it goes out of its way to hunt down the cutest and fluffiest puppies just to kick them.  Maybe God did not design us for doing evil but we just acquired a taste for it.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Rebellion

First off in this piece Dostoyevsky's character, Ivan, gives us an idea of the types of evil that exist in this world through examples of neglected and tortured children, the satisfaction parents get through torturing their children, and the abuse of animals. Through these examples Dostoyevsky brings the question to mind of what justifies this cruelty.

For example, a little boy hurt of the General's hound while the boy was playing. Then the General, in turn, stripped the boy of his clothes, sent him running, and released his hounds to kill him. Is that justified? Perhaps the child would have grown up to be a sinner. (A serial killer) By his death, would the world be saved of future evil? Does that make the General's decision to kill him right?

For something to be justified by the consequences associated with it, the good that comes out of it must justify the bad. Therefore, acts of evil cannot be justified by the positive outcomes at the sake of the negative consequences.

The siginificance of the title, "Rebellion", in this piece comes when Alyosha suggests that Ivan forgot that there is a God and who he was. A God who can forgive those who feel guilt for the killing of a child. Ivan argues with her by suggesting God would not allow a crime such as the torture and suffering of a child. Ivan accepts that God's judgement is good, bet he does not accept the world that God has created. He explains how he feels when talks about how he would rather kill himself than live in this world of evil.

Sigmund Freud

The Psychological Origins of Religion


It should first be noted that in order to understand the readings from Freud, a basic foundation of his principles should be available.


First, Freudian psychology focuses a great deal on the relationships of individuals between themselves and their mothers, fathers, siblings etc. From these relationships, Freud created what he called the basic foundations of the human person, what eventually became to be known as: id, ego, and superego.


Id: undifferentiated, unsocialized core of personality that contains the basic psychic energy and motivations
Ego: personality aspect that develops to deal with the real world. 
Superego: personality structure that develops to internalize societal rules and goal-seeking behavior toward socially acceptable pursuits.


With his theory Freudian psychoanalytical theory then developed into psychosexual development within five stages. 1) oral stage, 2) anal stage, 3) phallic stage, 4) latency period, and 5) genital stage. Each of these stages, if properly navigated according to Freud lead to appropriate development and conduct of an individual; if not, they would find themselves stuck and have manifestations of the stages present in daily life (i.e. chewing pins, gum, anal retentive attitudes)


As it relates to the reading, Freud refers to the laws of the totem and how they pertain to the rules against killing, eating, etc., and then attempts to connect it to the father and what he deemed as the Oedipus complex. Apart of the phallic stage, the Oedipus complex refers to the rivalries young boys have with their fathers for the love and attention of their mothers (established in the oral stage). So how does this apply to religion, faith, God, and everything else we've covered thus far? Though I cannot entirely understand Freud's writings, to me he is trying to establish that religion and more so a relationship with God is an establishment of guilt from feelings against earthly fathers and a representation of trying to balance that guilt with awe and respect. He seems to suggest that we are jealous of our fathers, and even more so jealous of the fatherly God we cannot explain.


The readings go on to further touch upon the stages of development as the correspond to turning away from religion, and the establishment of the ego as it pertains to religion. In terms of the stages of development, it is during the phallic stage that attitudes and motives of jealousy are the most evident; once passed, an individual becomes more attuned with his or her ego which allows them to move past their jealously of fathers and male figures in general. In the case of the readings, the point at which the Oedipus complex ends and the gradual turning from religion occurs is Freud's "neurosis of humanity." The final points of  Freud's readings are surrounded by where and when the sense of the ego originates. Freud argues that an individuals sense of ego does not initially come from an external world,  that we learn to associate the ego with the outside world. He also comments that the ego-feeling is oceanic and it is comparable to a limitlessness and a bond with the universe. He finalizes his argument that religion is simply a return to infantile helplessness; that we cannot understand and that leaves us looking for the relationship and bond of awe or respect for a caregiver or God; the defense the ego uses as protection from an external threat.

What to make of Friedrich Nietzsche

As Timothy Robinson points out in his introduction to this chapter, Nietzsche makes some very vexing points, but provides very little argument to support them. This makes the meaning of his ideas ambiguous and calls for broader examination.

It seems clear that Nietzsche means to suggest that religion is nothing more than a mere tool to help the weak exert control over the powerful. This takes a purely psychological view and presupposes that God does not exist. What are we to make of this? Does he have the wrong idea? If he is right and there is no God, is a search for greater morality really so bad, and does it necessarily mean that the weak are only trying to gain a moral high-ground and a righteous superiority to allow them to debase and overthrow the powerful? The weak may be guilty only of attempting to find meaning in a life that they ultimately have little or no control over, searching for means to rise above the resentment that is caused by their poverty in comparison to the wealth of the powerful. If he is wrong and God does exist, then he is obviously neglecting, among many things, the pursuit of purity of the soul, boundless peace, and everlasting life.

Nietzsche also makes the striking claim that “God is dead” and that we are responsible for his murder. What exactly does he mean? Is he alluding to the idea that we are replacing God with science and looking for answers in the observable world and abandoning the teachings of divine creation? Why not say that God provided us with science to give us yet another path to discover and become closer to Him? Is he implying that religion as a vehicle of control is responsible, virtually killing God before He had the chance to be in the first place? His view on religion as a tool has problems already discussed and does not fundamentally prove the destruction of God. Perhaps he means that Priests, through the hate he so adamantly believes they bear, have corrupted and destroyed God, but that, again, appeals to his view that religion is simply an apparatus of supremacy. It is very apparent that God is alive and well and we see the evidence of such every day. While there are still many misguided individuals that do terrible things and claim to do so in name of God, there are countless more that do great things in God’s name as well. This proves that God, at the very least as an idea, is not dead. If, however, Nietzsche is right and God is dead, is it really the promising situation that he declares it to be? He states that the death of God is not a frightening and dark thing, but a good thing. Something that allows a new beginning and chance to see things in ways we never have before. While that may be true, if we accept that God is dead then we must certainly see things differently, is it really better? God provides solace and insight to many and there is no precedent that proves that the absence of God would be an improvement to their lives. Conversely, there may be much to gain by removing the constraints of God from our thought, as Nietzsche suggests.Without God, we may be able to achieve the moral autonomy proposed by Rachels, which is something that I believe Nietzsche would hold in high regard.

The Possibility of Perception

Brian Davies raises a number of logical or conceptual objections to the idea of perceiving or experiencing God.  Now, some people might wonder, why all this logical analysis of whether we can perceive God or not, don't we just know (isn't the proof in the pudding?  But that is just the question we are trying to answer).  Sometimes, conceptual and logical analysis allows us to rule "in" some things and rule "out" some things even before we get to the empirical data.  And in the case of God, we often don't have empirical or 'raw' data to appeal to...so logic, metaphysics and conceptual analysis are the only real tools we have....its why philosophy of religion often seems 'abstract' to people.

So Davies wants to know, Can God be an object of experience?  If we experience things as 'objects', as things that might be experienceable, doesn't that require that the thing be a thing?  Is God a thing or object to be experienced?  In addition, how do we 'experience' something that is not physical or material, or without sensory content?  These are just a few of the issues that Davies tries to wade through.  Notice, testimony does not get us very far, because then we are just relying and trusting others.  Which is fine for a lot of knowledge, but then we have to ask the question: "Is this testimony reliable rather than "Is this an experience of God?

There are additional, more substantive worries about knowledge from experience, especially knowledge of God.  These break down into 3 types of worries:

(1)    Experience often deceptive. 

(2) People who claim to see God influenced by social or psychological factors rather than really seeing God 

(3) Hume= any proclaimed experience of God must be “rejected at the outset (3a) because there are no agreed tests for verifying”…..”(3b) because some people report an experience of an absence of God, and (3c) because there is no uniformity of testimony….” (122)

Davies spends considerable time and analyzes each of these objections, eventually arguing for a  hesitant yes to the possibility of experiencing God, although he thinks there are likely better ways (we will get to these in about a month).  This brings up a point he makes at the beginning of the piece on two different ways we reach the "Truth" or gain knowledge, direct and indirect.  The first requires experiential evidence, i.e we have to have direct experience of something.  This is where "experiencing" God fits in.  However, even if this fails, there is still the possibility of indirect proofs for God's existence based on well-formed and reasonable inference.  This is how other famous arguments like the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, and the Design argumet work...and we will spend some time on these later.
So, what lead's Davies to conclude that experience of God is at least plausible?  First, he thinks we can overcome and address the worries raised above.  In particular, he thinks that Hume's criticisms (3a-c) are overblown, and that we do have some uniformity of testimony, especially among Christian belief.  Still, we must overcome another objection.  If we claim to 'experience' God, can we 'recognize' that it is God?  This is a question that leads us back to our initial conversation about who or what God is, and how we might know what/who that being is.  Thus, questions on the nature of God are never fully divorced from questions concerning his existence....and as we will see with Aquinas, this makes sense if Aquinas is right that God's nature is existence.

Theresa, James, and Religious Experience: Take 1

One of the most famous sculptures by Gian Lorenzo Bernini sits in the Cornaro Chapel in Santa Maria del Vittorio in Rome. It is entitled The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa, seen here. http://www2.2space.net/images/upl_newsImage/1241203211.jpg

What is this sculpture trying to portray? How does it connect to belief in God?

Saint Theresa became famous as one of the leading mystical figures in the history of the Catholic Church, alongside Saint John of the Cross, Meister Exhart (who was controversially tried but died before verdict by the local Inquisition), and most recently Pope John Paul II and Thomas Merton. Theresa thought, through her experiences, that she could offer criteria and a deeper understanding of the nature of God, prayer and our relationship through a re-counting of her way to God. Theresa offered a model of (mystical) prayer that proceeded along 4 levels. The first "mental prayer" involved contemplation or concentration and involved a withdrawal or removal of the soul from the everyday world. The second "prayer of quiet" involves a complete renunciation of the human desiring and willing sphere to God. "The devotion of union" is a state of prayer that involves supernatural grace, and goes beyond human comprehension to reach a level of "ecstatic union" with the Divine. The final and highest stage, "the devotion of ecstasy or rapture" is a purely passive state, where we reside in the Divine Presence and all connection with the sensory or body is gone. These 4 levels, according to Theresa, help us reach closer to God and know his nature and will. Similarly, all of these figures are held up as exemplars of those who communed with God in a deeply personal sense. So through mystical experience, we might get a better idea of who or what God is.

They also lend suggestive evidence to the idea that the best proof of anything is through sensory experience. Just as I can prove the existence of my hand by seeing it, feeling it, and well using it, so too can we experience God by an experience of the Divine.

These famous religious mystics are not alone in the claim that they experience God. Many everyday believers claim to have 'experienced' God. But what does it mean to experience God? Is the everyday believer's relationship with God an 'experience' of God? Is an 'experience' of God limited to God speaking through the burning bush to Moses, or walking with Abraham, or speaking to the prophets? What about the experience of religious mystics?

The 'experience' of God also raises all sorts of questions about religious pluralism (which itself is not an easy thing to define...see http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_plur1.htm ). Do mystics from different religious traditions experience the same Divine Presence? What do we say about differing accounts of God in this experience? While "experience of God" is the most direct and straightforward 'proof' for God's existence, it is far from easy.

William James attempts to answer some (or many) of these questions. Just as he does in our earlier reading, James tries to make philosophical and psychological sense of mystical and religious experience. James himself had very interesting ideas on the details and ways to achieve mystical experience, and even allowed and encouraged the use of certain drugs to achieve mystical states. Again, we see James' Counsel of Courage (vs. Clifford's Counsel of Caution) in action. Is this a good thing? What else does James have to add in "the Reality of the Unseen"? What James means by the Unseen and his focus in this piece is not always clear, and will be something (else) to consider in our discussion.

A defense of Faith without proof

In light of Pascal's 'failure' for a pragmatic proof to God's existence, the theist still is confronted by Clifford's challenge: Give me some evidence, some proof, or your belief is not only irrational, its blameworthy. Or, if Clifford's challenge is too strong, Flew's milder version is just as damaging to the theist: If you don't have reasons on your side, then the proper response is to remain at the starting point of the debate, negative atheism.

Either way, without some argument, the theist is left in a tough place. But James reminds us, and shifts the debate, that as humans we are not just knowledge seeking-beings, we are also "passional" one's as well.

What does James mean by "passional being"? This requires considerable unpacking and its not always clear from the text we read. But James, a philosopher and psychologist, had much to say about the passions or emotions, see here for one example> http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/emotion.htm

For James, as humans, we are not solely guided by 'cognitive' aspects of our being but also 'passional' ones, our emotions, feelings, desires. Moreover, sometimes we have to simply choose, or let the 'will' guide our action in one direction? Why, because those situations are indeterminate, neither option is definitive over the other. James suggests that maybe religion is one such 'genuine option' and thus, we are not only forced, but rationally required to choose.

In this, James has some parallels with Pascal. Unlike Pascal, James explains why we really only have two options (like Pascal).

So what do we think? Is James right? Do we only have two options, theism or atheism? What reasons does James to give for this. What about his claims to our 'passional nature'? Is James on to something, and if so what? Does the research below support James' view, go against it, or is it irrelevant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/17/faith-body-prayer?newsfeed=true

Clifford and Belief

Clifford asks us to look at the big picture about our beliefs before then addressing the issue of religious belief. Specifically, Clifford argues that we have an "ethics" of belief, or in other words, that we should believe some things and should not believe other things. Why? Because beliefs matter. What we do with our beliefs have significant and potentially disastrous consequences.

To see this, Clifford offers two different stories, each with two variations (the shipowner and the 'persecution' story). The general moral Clifford develops is what he calls the Evidentialist Principle- never believe on insufficient evidence. Notice, what Clifford is getting at here is that "believing' requires "reasons". In other words, our default position is nonbelief (or being neutral). To believe anything, we have to have some reason or motivation to believe that, and the reason must be something involve "sufficient evidence."

If we apply this to religious belief, Clifford thinks that we have to radically rethink our religious commitments. This is because he thinks that we never have sufficient evidence for religious belief and thus we have a duty not to believe.

Clifford offers some powerful examples, but his evidentialist principle and his claim to "ethics" of belief raises a number of question/issues.
First, is he right that we should never believe on insufficient evidence? We will see that a future reading (the James piece) questions this claim for a number of reasons. But secondly, how many of our beliefs in general are based on sufficient evidence? I believe that India has a billion people (or more). But I have never counted them, nor have I even been to India. To be precise, I cannot even guarantee that India exists, let alone has 1 or 1 billion people. A lot of our everyday 'knowledge' comes from the testimony of others. Does this make it "unusable".
Another issue with Clifford's position is in figuring out what type of 'duty' we have in terms of our beliefs? Is it a moral duty? Do we have a moral duty always to believe what is true and only what is true? Why? Some people might claim that sometimes the truth gets in the way of doing the 'right' thing? Or, what about when our 'duty' to know the truth gets in the way of doing other morally required things? Do I take a trip to India to prove it exists and has a billion people or do I use that money to donate to the poor?
If Clifford is not thinking of a moral duty, maybe he is thinking of an epistemic duty. Maybe, one of our 'roles' or aspects as knowledge seeking beings is that, in the sphere of knowing, we should always be cautious to avoid falsehood. But here, we might question whether this is the best way to go about seeking new knowledge.
Nevertheless, Clifford seems to be right about a few things. (1) Beliefs matter. Beliefs can affect action and conduct. So if we have bad beliefs, they can lead to horrible things. Think about the Crusades, the Witch Trials, maybe even the Patriot Act. (2) It seems like we need some criteria for good/bad beliefs. If a friend believes that the world is flat....we generally question their sanity, let alone their judgment. I once had a friend who was utterly convinced that all leather came from crocodiles. Despite 7 of us at dinner arguing otherwise, he would not believe us. What do we do in these situations? (3) How do we figure out the quality of religious beliefs?

Finally, one easy way to counter Clifford's whole argument is simply to 'pony up' and give the evidence. We will explore this route in a few weeks.

Welcome

Welcome to PH 350, Philosophy of Religion.

This is the blog to accompany our 8am Class. This is the first time I have used a blog in class, so this will be a learning experience for all of us.

While I have not used blogs in courses before, I have been a part of courses who have so I have a vision for what we are going to do with this site and this course that I think all of you will like a a lot more compared to many 'traditional' teaching methods. In addition, one nice thing about this blog is that we can stay up to date very easily with recent developments in the field and in the public sphere.

Stay tuned, in a few weeks we will be using this blog in a much more interactive fashion. In the meantime, feel free to post comments and look for a few posts from me on topics from the first few classes.