Module 4 Discussion Philosophy

Question A

Lucy:

Ruse explores both metaphysical naturalism, which supposes that supernatural forces are non-existent, and also methodological naturalism, that empirical evidence can only prove natural events, since supernatural occurrences, regardless if they exist, cannot be confirmed, in contrast to theism. Metaphysical and methodological naturalism both operate according to do not require an alternate supernatural explanation (although methodical naturalism doesn’t dismiss the possibility of one, despite the odds being weighed in naturalism’s favor). He believes that naturalism can explain phenomena without the necessity for divine design. He emphasizes that religion is of human origin, therefore has a natural explanation. He goes as far to say that purely religious/supernatural explanations for an event can’t be trusted, because even if it did in fact occur, it was due to natural causes, and therefore believing it because of the religious explanation is unreasonable because the belief is formed under false pretenses. On the problem of evil, he suggests that the possibility of hell does not balance out the needless torture of children on Earth and does not offer the true harmony that theism promises God will bestow. I agree that this makes metaphysical naturalism obligatory as no alternative explanation will morally justify such atrocities. I find his arguments overall more compelling, especially because he distinguishes that we can only ascertain natural explanations regardless of the validity of supernatural occurrences, and should therefore always seek a natural explanation.

In contrast, I disagree with Peterson's arguments that both theism and naturalism can be accepted, but overall theism can provide a better explanation for events than naturalism. He explains away that the problem of evil is solved due to the free will of man from God. He does not reject evolution but fails to see how it suffices explaining the current state of world, contesting that religion and naturalism should not be in so competition with each other but that answers from both sides should be valued. He suggests particularly that evolution explains the human biology while religion explains the origin of belief in God and the relationship, we have with him. He claims these two are complementary perspectives, but I don’t see how science cannot also, if not more sufficiently provide an explanation of religion as it is of the same biological human origin as any other characteristics? I found Peterson’s argument that aspects of nature are much better explained by God than naturalism alone to be very reductive. To be fair, he does believe that God and naturalism are not entirely mutually exclusive but does not address any of the contradictions that might arise from two drastically different explanations. I think his understanding of naturalism is flawed as he thinks it is insufficient and ‘strained’ in its attempt to be all encompassing, failing to recognize the inherent complexity that allows such variety to exist. Since it appears that a supernatural explanation alleviates the need for a complex solution, Peterson is mistaken by assuming that the convenience of God offers a better explanation than naturalism and scientific evidence.

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

Lucy:

As for Price's Survival Hypothesis, he does go into detail of how a disembodied consciousness could survive death, and while I find some of the concepts he introduces to be important for consideration, but cohesively I don’t agree with this hypothesis. Obviously, he addresses that the biggest objection to this hypothesis is the fact that the brain dies with the body and can no longer function or react to sensory information. He proposes instead that the composite of memories and sensory experiences over a person’s life is disembodied and transcends a bodily death, and so this afterlife is not an extension but a sort of subconscious submersion in memory. He compares it to a dream state, which uses only information know to the person dreaming in a non-linear and often unintelligible fashion. He consistently asserts that he has evidence for this hypothesis but does not exactly make it clear what he is referring to and what this evidence is. It is difficult for me to follow his hypothesis that doesn’t employ scientific exploration for scientific concepts, but instead a purely conceptual basis for this hypothesis that directly goes against brain death. I can’t imagine that there is much basis for a hypothesis of disembodied memories that assumedly create a visual, olfactory, tactile and auditory sensory experience with no functioning brain to remember them. I do believe that consciousness is not well understood, so these hypotheticals are important to considerations of the limitations of consciousness, but we also must accept that we cannot reason our way into a solution for such a complex problem. I also think that Price does not explain telepathic communication enough between these individual disembodied memory worlds, and it would contradict his point of this being a survival of conscious memories, and not a continuation of life; being able to interact with other memories would not make sense in this case, as new information wouldn’t be able to be conceived if there is no processing system intact. I ultimately see this as an argument for memories having their own consciousness independent of the person who has experienced the memories, but I have a difficult time conceiving of this hypothesis of survival occurring without a functioning sensory processing system, although it is very interesting to think about. Obviously, Price does not entirely believe it either, but tries to make it more intelligible, with I believe he partially does, but to me it is not succinct.

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

Alana:

I do think John Hicks did successfully defend what he thinks resurrection is to him. When thinking about resurrection I think about people who have died for a few minutes then came back to life or people who died and were reborn as someone else. I feel there could be different ways and meanings when it comes to the resurrection. The soul will be the same but placed into a different body. When it comes to people who died for a couple of minutes they will see and hear things while they are dead. Mostly, it can be dead family and friends, different gods (could depend on what they believe in), angels, or just darkness. When he mentioned the "Replica" theory I believe it is real. As I stated before when someone dies they will be born as someone else, sometimes there might be a chance they look the same or are different but personalities and mindsets are the same. When thinking about that theory I think of birthmarks. Some people say birthmarks are from our past life. There has been some evidence where someone has died then someone else in a different family has the same birthmark as that previous person who passed away. It is very interesting when thinking about it.

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.