discussion module 2
MODULE 2 DISCUSSION
A
STUDENT RESPONSES (pick only 2 to reply to)
NOAH
Between these two arguments, I would have to say that I consider the Cosmological to be more plausible, if only because the Teleological argument comes across as total nonsense to me. The idea behind the Cosmological argument is not fundamentally flawed, yes if reality and existence is not infinite then surely it has a beginning, and it is a possibility that beginning was rooted in a divine force. However, the premise of the Teleological Argument (TA going forward), is in my opinion absolutely fundamentally flawed. The TA is specifically arguing for an intelligent designer, not just a divine force, and I do not see these things as mutually inclusive. In a pre-scientific age you could be forgiven for subscribing to the "watch is to watchmaker as life is to an intelligent designer" idea, but in the modern era I would call it willful ignorance to do so.
LUCY
William Craig is a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God that offers a slightly altered account of the traditional cosmological argument that challenges the notion of an infinite Universe in the absence of God (Craig, p. 161). It suggests that the assumption that the Universe is infinite in both its expansion and timeline is incorrect and intends to supplement God as a causal agent of what would otherwise be an illogical premise for existence. This argument has interesting commentary but does not address what I find to be integral in this kind of philosophical discussion, which is the possibility of this lack of compression being a flaw in human logic that limits the conceptualization of possibilities. I find that overall, this argument is very stark and frankly unsatisfying as it concludes that since it’s only logical that the Universe is contingent, God, the greatest and most necessary supernatural being, must exist otherwise nothing else could. This might temporarily subside the issue of the Universes beginning, but it certainly doesn’t solve it, and instead passes on the same questions to the problem of God. This could be refuted because if God doesn’t apply to the same rules as the natural world, then he is apparently absolved from the same harsh analysis he put the natural world through. I don’t find this counter argument sufficient if its purpose is to redirect the course of investigation, in other words, it’s a cop out. As opposed to a solution, it assumes resolution to a problem too big to solve therefore it must be something otherworldly and unexplainable (therefore unquestionable) for its very nature is too great for us to understand. This seems to be a very clear example of God as an easy input for any problem in which an obvious answer escapes us, so this argument does not strike me in the slightest as plausible.
The Anthropic Theological argument as proposed by Robin Collins is an addition to the original teleological argument that suggests that the probability of life, specifically human life is incredibly low and too complex to not be purposeful (Collins, p. 195). Collin’s Anthropic argument does not find nature fully capable of fine tuning itself and therefore it would require God’s assistance through intelligent design, which gives him a reason to prefer theism over naturalism (Collins, p. 195). Both this version of the argument and the original neglects the reality that the statistic (un)likelihood of these events does not invalidate the reality of nature’s intricacies, nor does it warrant investigation based on a conspiracy. The anthropic argument takes it one step further, which is one step too far in my opinion, by assuming that the inevitability of human life was the crux of all existence, as it is a given condition of the Universe and not something that just happened due to specific and highly stressful circumstances. Therefore, humanity did not arise because it was compatible with nature, but instead nature was made to be compatible for humanity. The human centricity runs deep with this one, and I think this argument wants desperately for there to be a greater reason for human existence and assigns this reason as the will of God. It implies that because God willed us into existence, its allowance of our observations as humans must be of a greater purpose. The paradoxical implication that humans were made aware just to observe the reality they were created to observe is incredibly messy. The world happening to be currently advantageous for humans does not mean it is innately purposeful, but it doesn’t stop us from seeing it this way. This, to me, is not any more convincing than the Kalam cosmological argument as it just misconstrues the nature of the world that does not operate in such a consciously advantageous manner, for people none the less.
Sources:
Peterson, Michael, et al. Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2014. Print.
MAYA
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is, at its roots, easy to understand. It attempts to explain the existence of the Universe in a very logical fashion. The argument goes as follows. Firstly, one cannot create something out of nothing. Secondly, the universe exists. Thus, something or someone must have created it. This leads to either one of two conclusions: something akin to the Big Bang, or the existence of a higher power with the ability to create life.
B
STUDENT RESPONSES (pick only 2 to reply to)
NOAH
A properly basic belief is a belief which is not held in relation to any other beliefs and which does not need to be justified by any other held beliefs. I do not think the idea of a properly basic belief is justified at all really, and I don't think that the belief in a higher power could be categorized as properly basic. Our concepts of religion and the supernatural did not spring out of nowhere, it all comes from some question that needs to be answered or some event that was witnessed. It is all predicated on something, therefore I would not say that belief in a divine power is "independent of other beliefs".
MAYA
A properly basic belief is best understood as one that needs no underlying beliefs to be supported and logical, in agreement with the Principle of Credulity. BEcause a belief in God calls for an examination of oneś belief in the existence of the universe and morality/ethicality, it is not a properly basic belief. However, it is easy to discredit the idea of a properly basic belief because nearly everything contains underlying assumptions, especially within the veins of morality, which religion often attempts to guide. It is wrong to murder, because it brings harm to others. The underlying belief in this is that bringing harm to others is also immoral. Thus, any argument in which one attempts to argue in favor of a ``properly basic” belief can be easily torn apart.
LUCY
A belief that is properly basic is one that does not require truth or even a sound argument to warrant it, in other words, it is anti-evidentialist. One could argue that all beliefs regardless of their validity don’t require justification for their existence, and are thus, properly basic. There is no need to rely on proof of Gods existence to believe well and truly of it. This assumes belief in God is innately justified in being, which I both agree and disagree with. Belief in God can be justified, but only in its existence as a belief, but since the origin of belief is still allusive, I cannot reasonably justify it. It only proves that regardless of insufficient evidence people belief in God will persist since it is a personal account. I don’t find it to be warranted, not because the premise of holding such a belief is inherently wrong, but because I don’t think an individual has enough agency over their belief system for them to be rational in accepting theistic beliefs. I also disagree with the sentiment that dismisses any inquiry of the belief on the account that is properly basic. I think the notion that religious belief must be justified is flawed, and regardless of much an argument can misconstrue the inexplicit premises of belief, it doesn't distract from the fact that it is just as unnecessary as it is impossible to justify it.
Source:
Peterson, Michael, et al. Reason & Religious Belief. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Print.
C
STUDENT RESPONSES (pick only 2 to reply to)
TRACIE
The following account that I find most plausible is God as personal, as understood by traditional western theism. One of the reasons why I find this one most plausible is because I do believe in one God, and the only God that does exist in Christianity. I believe this because we can prove that there is a God. If we refer back to the biblical times, He gave up His only Son for our Salvation.
When we talk about supernatural events/miracles, God is the only reason for this happening because we believe and have faith. I know there is controversy about evil being here in this world, but God gave us free will. We all have the right to believe in our own religion. But at the end of the day, Our God is a loving God, and He wants to test us and see where we stand with Him. In my opinion, there is two things that you belong to: the world or God. I find this to be true because everything happening in this world today, The Book of Revelations says it all.
MAYA
If one were to consider God as traditional Western theism does, as an all-knowing and all-loving entity, they create a hypocrisy of sorts. If a God who cares equally for all men, and who was the creator of all, why would he give humanity the ability to create such evil ideas as hate, war and destruction. Thus, this account is incorrect. If Spinoza believes that God witnesses, but does not care, then this excuses the argument presented above. A God that is immoral thus does not care for the morality of his subjects. Process theology presents a view of God as not all powerful, but rather an enduring force that contains the memory of humanity. In this theory, God does not control through force, but rather walks amongst us witnessing and influencing humanity.
To me, Spinozaś argument makes sense. Though process theology is a close second, it does not explain why God would sacrifice his powerful abilities to walk amongst us, taking away from the definition of God as a being of higher power. Spinozaś argument maintains that God is a higher being, but offers up an explanation on why such immoral actions are even within existence, because an all loving God would not create creatures capable of such.
LUCY
I do not believe in God (and therefore don’t find any of these convincing), but I want to entertain the concept of God to consider each of these possibilities and find which one aligns most with my perspective. Due to the seemingly perpetual chaotic state of the world, as well as the tendency for people to interpret positive experiences with religious connotations, I have never found a personal account of God to be plausible or necessary. The account of an opportunistic God in process theology who behaves as a purveyor of free will is also something I do not agree with, as I don’t believe in this model of God nor free will. This is a vague representation of God that is not entirely omnipotent but still supposedly influential, which to be honest doesn’t seem much like a God at all. I find that an impersonal account of God is most appealing to me which is comparable to a force of fate and circumstance but without an agenda, which is akin to the vague representation of God in the cosmological argument as a necessary being, but devoid of all the ideal characteristics of an all-knowing and loving God. This liberates God from anthropomorphism that is often associated with “his” form, and if God is real, that he would be no reflection of the flawed form of humanity, of which he had no intention of creating in this specific way since it is not even conscious of its own influence. Still, this only serves as a placeholder for greater casual forces that are still unknown, and to my belief, only exists conceptually (if that can be considered existence).
NOAH
My answer to this question really hinges on whether or not we are using "plausible" as interchangeable with "true". Because I am not omniscient, I won't claim to know that any supernatural divine power exists in the universe. If it does, my opinion is that it is entirely unlikely that such divinity has any form of persona, or anything even closely approximating what we understand as consciousness. Now if you wanted to argue that consciousness itself is a manifestation of the divine spark as some religions do, that's something I can get on board with- and I would associate that idea more with the personal idea of god, just in a more roundabout way.