Module 4 Discussion Philosophy

Question A

Noah:

Question A: What challenges, according to Michael Ruse, does naturalism pose for religion? In what ways does Michael Peterson respond to such challenges in defense of theism? Whose arguments do you find most compelling, and why?

Ruse essentially puts forward the idea that many of the key arguments for religion can be refuted by a naturalist perspective. Natural Selection as a concept gives us an explanation for the existence of and variety therein of the life on our planet, and it gives us an explanation for our sense of morality; both of which are things many people would attribute to God. Ruse specifically mentions Occam's Razor, which is more or less the idea that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the true explanation. Therefore, if we have natural, observable explanations for these phenomena, then we should assume that a naturalist explanation is the correct one. Ruse also presents metaphysical naturalism as an answer to the Problem of Evil, essentially saying that evil and suffering are best explained by the non-existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

Petersons first challenge to the naturalist viewpoint is a cosmological one. He asserts that an atheistic, naturalist perspective can not reconcile the simple existence of the universe with itself. The Big Bang in and of itself is not a sufficient enough answer, there must be a supernatural force that the Big Bang is contingent upon. Peterson also seems to generally disagree with the idea that the Problem of Evil supports the metaphysical naturalist worldview, stating that it is his belief that there is an inherent fallacy in the assumption that God would not allow evil to exist in the world. I think it is very important to note that alongside these claims, Peterson makes it very clear that he believes neither or these belief systems, the naturalistic or the theistic, are able to single-handedly create a comprehensive worldview.

Having said that, I would say that Peterson creates the more compelling argument, as I do believe the debate between atheistic and theistic explanations of the world are really quite reductive. I generally agree with most of the naturalistic points of view, however I do agree with the notion that it is just as likely as not that there is a supernatural explanation for the overall existence of the universe, if not for the relatively minute and mundane existence of our small planet. I am more inclined to find overlap and compatibility between the opposed ideologies, as they feel very unsatisfactory to me as individuals.

Question B

Noah:

Question B: Is H. H. Price's account of the Survival Hypothesis intelligible? Why or why not?

Price's interpretation of the survival hypothesis is absolutely intelligible. I can certainly conceive of the various possible "afterlives" which he describes, it isn't something which is incomprehensible, regardless of your personal feelings on religion and so on. Price describes an afterlife in which you have sensory experiences relating to your memories and your desires, not at all unlike the dreams we experience so regularly. With that in mind I think anyone who has the ability to dream has the ability to conceive of an afterlife. As well, I do absolutely agree with the fundamental premise that Price was getting at in this essay, namely that our memories and desires are not reliant on our brain to exist. Logically and scientifically we know that our brain is the source of all of our conscious experience, but I think when the metaphysical comes into play we can accept our ignorance on the matter and make assumptions that we otherwise wouldn't in the physical world.

Question C

Tracie:

Do you think John Hick has successfully defended the possibility of a resurrection? Why or why not?

I think that John Hick does defend his theory on resurrection. For the most part, he talks about the replica theory. In some form, there is going to be another you somewhere else, which must be identical, in another world. Not in the physical world, but more of the spirit realm. I think that he defends his theory well because the three stages that he has about replica makes sense. However, they may be confusion because how can there be a replica of that person that died last week? Well according to Hick, there can be a replica of that person that died last week; it may seem that it might be the same person, but, that person is in another world in the same form of that person that died. A good example would be Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came back three days after He died. He resurrected in the same form as he died in, but now it is His spirit that carries us along the way. I think that his three stages sternly defend his theory about resurrection.

Sometimes it is hard to understand but the more that you read about resurrection, I can strongly stand by Hick defending the possibility of resurrection. And we go back to God just like we discussed in the last modules, God makes miracles happen, and the resurrection would be one of them. I do think that there is life after death, just now in the form that you died in.