Monday, March 1, 2010
Philosophy of Religion -- Week 4
This week is a continuation of last week's inquiry into proofs, so the same issues are still live: what do you think about the general idea of rationally proving God's existence? Does the design proof appeal to you, and (for this week) is the cosmological proof any kind of advance in thinking? A step backwards? Equally brilliant/bankrupt? Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Karen
ReplyDeleteBoth the cosmological and design arguments are interesting however, I think the design argument makes more sense. For me, it is easier to accept the existence a divine force in the world we live in by perceiving the world around us, rather than resolving that a force must have created the universe, that force is a divine one. Behe’s design argument brings in science, a pretty accepted art by most, and applies it to Darwin’s theories. He takes the eye, and uses Darwin’s own uncertainties regarding its complexness and how it ties into his theory of natural selection and evolution. By taking faults in science and some of the inexplicable natures of it, the argument for a divine being as the force behind these complexities gains a bit more fuel.
Thomas Aquinas’ argument for God, though well supported, seems a bit more narrow minded to me. Aquinas presents five reasons for the existence of God: motion, efficient cause, possibility and necessity, graduation of things, and governance of things. He resolves upon each of these things as having no other fathomable cause rather than God. His first argument is that something had to put things in motion, ultimately, and that ultimate thing had to be God. The next three follow a similar suit to his first argument; such as things having the title of “less” and “more”, all resulting in God’s existence. His fifth argument seems the most strong to me, but it also seems to have a design argument feel to it. He acknowledges that each unintelligent object on the planet is working towards a common end, and “they achieve their end not by chance, but by design”. However, since these things are unintelligent, something has to be guiding them to their end, that thing being God.
I respect both arguments, but as of now the design arguments are most appealing.
Courtney
ReplyDeleteIt seems almost unfair to pick apart Aquinas's Cosmological Proof but it's fascinating to me nonetheless. I'm particularly intrigued by his "fourth" way or the idea that the gradation of things points to God's existence. He says we compare two things with a similar characteristic, their levels of "hotness" for example, based on how well each resembles that thing which is the hottest. I don't think that that is necessary to compare the hotness of the two things in question. One can have a general understanding of heat and how to measure it without any comprehension of what perfect heat would be and without any knowledge that perfect heat is manifested in some real physical entity. You could know which of the two objects is the hottest but that does not point to the existence of ultimate heat.
I also do not understand his jump from the idea that there is such a thing as maximum heat (for example) to the idea that that maximum is what caused all other lesser manifestations of heat. That would be the equivalent of saying the perfect novel created all other novels. It just does not make sense in all the circumstances he would need it to make sense in to hold the weight necessary to point to such a grand conclusion as God.
Nadine
ReplyDeleteAfter completing all of the readings trying to prove the existence of god, I actually still really like Paley’s classical design argument. I think that the format was extremely unique compared to the other arguments, and I really like the concrete comparison of a stone and a watch. While I think Paley makes a very logical argument, it is also a very easy argument to pick apart. How do you know that it was god who “designed” the rock, and therefore the world? One can sit and see a watchmaker create a watch, but one cannot sit and watch someone design the world. Therefore, how do we know that in fact both a watch and stone are both designed? I don’t know that I agree with this objection. I certainly see that the objection logically does make sense, but I also think Paley’s argument is a rational one and should not be dismissed so easily.
I also appreciated Hume’s response to The Classical Design Argument. Once again, I was drawn to the unique format of the three person conversation. This certainly got Hume’s point across, but in an unconventional way. While there is something to be said for the idea that like effects have like causes, I also see Philo’s point. The argument comparing a watch and a rock and saying that like effects have like causes may simply not hold up. Can we really claim these big ideas about creation based on the idea of like effects and like causes? I’m not totally sure. Again, I think the Classical Design Argument is a very valid, logical argument. However, I think Hume’s (Philo’s) questions are just as valid. Ultimately, I am not sure where I stand on this idea and who I agree with, because I am not sure that this is a question that can ever be truly answered.
I'll note (drawing upon Law and Order-style metaphors) that the burden of proof is in many ways on the proof itself. I.e., if we have reasonable doubts about a form of rationally demonstrating the existence of God, then the proof fails to do its job; a proof is not supposed to leave us with doubts. That doesn't mean that proofs can't be reconstructed to respond to doubt-causing objections, and it certainly doesn't mean--if one proof ultimately fails--that God does not exist (even if one proof doesn't work, there might be another way to demonstrate God's existence).
ReplyDeleteBrian James Chepya
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of the essence of religion, I think of faith, something totally devoid of proof and evidence. That is why I identify most with the character Demea, in Hume's A Critique of the Design Argument. "Good God! cried Demea, where are we? Zealous defenders of religion allow that the proofs of a Deity fall short of perfect evidence!" Although Demea is not a central character in the Critique, I find his role to be of up most importance.
While reading Behe's and Collins' extremely scientific proofs for the existence of God, I couldn't help but feel empathy for Demea. It all seems so trite and nonreligious to correspond recent discoveries like the big-bang and CEL and then tie it up with God. I felt like a man who was strange land being chased for his life, and finding relieve in the sight of a church. But upon entering the church doors and screaming "Sanctuary!", I realize that the church is actually a laboratory: a place of evaluation but not salvation.
I agree with Brian. I was reading Behe and Collins yesterday and my science-allergy symptoms sets in -- my brain simply stops processing any of the information. On a serious note, though, I recognise that it is important for contemporary theologians to counter the challenge of science (and vice versa). You can reject science as dangerous to the quest of your ultimate reality (or faith), and claim that "the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go"; or you can show how it actually can be a quasi-religious way of finding God. Science and religion too frequently do not agree, and just like how theologians in the early centuries have to grapple with the use of natural reason, theologians today are almost expected to respond to scientific findings that seemingly disprove the existence of God. If God truly exists, then it should ultimately be possible and necessary to unite religion and science.
ReplyDeleteDue to Kant's thorough refutations of the cosmological, teleological, and the hapless ontological arguments, I cant help this feeling that all proofs for the existence of God are equally bankrupt. After reading most of Kant's first critique, The Critique of Pure Reason, I find myself to be in a agreement with Kant and his assertion that there are definite limitations reason has. And one of these limitations that reason is not justified in extending itself past is experience. For when it does reason will indubitably run into error. Sadly, it seems that due to reasons fixed limitations one may have to submit themselves to fact that when it comes to proving the existences of entities outside of our experience we are incredibly inept and must rely on faith.
ReplyDeleteI happen to appreciate the design proofs the most out of all of the proofs because to me they seem straight forward and to the point. I guess the difficulty with grasping philosophy is the idea that you can ponder for hours over one line and still not fully understand it. The science behind the design proofs are intriguing to me because they offer facts (man determined facts I say) that are straight forward and point towards some sort of "truth". The blackbox is my favorite and goes along with the idea that some things are inexplainable. I think religion and science can work for and work well with one another and people often separate them instead of realize their value to one another.
ReplyDeleteDimitria