lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201 class notes
Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
1/11
What is philosophy?
•Def: foundational questions about the why's of life. * Philosophy is the reasoned
investigation of life's most important foundational beliefs concerning truth,
meaning, and value in order to obtain knowledge and live wisely.
•Philosophy underlies all other disciplines, ex: physics, biology, education,
law, politics, literature, theology, etc.
◦this is not to say that the above cannon influence philosophy
The Three Branches:
•Metaphysics:
◦what exists? what does it mean to exist? How do things exist? Do you
humans have nature and if so, what is it?
•Epistemology:
◦What constitutes knowledge? Can we have knowledge? How do we
distinguish knowledge from mere belief or lucky guess?
• Axiology: Discusses questions of value.
◦Ethics (moral value) good and bad, right and wrong, persons and rules
◦ Aesthetics (values of beauty): good and bad, beautiful and ugly
What is World View?
•Def: beliefs we hold about the basic make up of reality which we use to interpret
our life.
◦EX: phil. is not so much concerned with how to diet but with more
foundational beliefs. note how asking why leads us to more foundational issues
that a person has, perhaps never even thoughts of.
◦note how at the end we are implicitly assuming things about the nature
of persons (metaphysics) and addresses how to determine who is well off
(ethics). These foundational beliefs make up our worldview and determine our
actions and other beliefs.
•worldview, everybody has one
•they are often poorly developed, full of contradictions, inaccuracies
•they need to be evaluated and lined up with reality
◦this does not happen accidentally
How Do We Evaluate Worldview?
•we can base beliefs on authority and rightly doing so will lead to knowledge, truth,
and wisdom
◦what are the limitations of authority though?
‣ three main ones: (1) issues of conflicting authorities (2) places
where there is no authority to consult (3) it externalizes the process of seeing the
truth
•Philosophy ought to serve in both an evaluative and constructive role in
worldview development. Philosophy is, in fact, the main tool to be used in
evaluating, testing, etc. Worldviews.
•Critical to this is the development of reason and logic.
◦john 6:44
‣ if you come to Jesus you are drawn to the Father
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Contrast of Worldview:
Naturalism VS Christianity
Metaphysics:
What is fundamental reality?
the universe, time, matter, space, and energy VS God and His Kingdom
Epistemology:
Can we arrive at Truth?
no, not in the usual sense VS Yes
Ethics:
Who is a good person? Who is well off?
the person trying to further their DNA; the one who survives VS God and those like
him
Philosophy and Worldview:
•How does philosophy relate to your Christian faith?
◦Mk 12:30 "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with your soul
and with all your mind and with all your strength"
◦It defends it
‣ Apologia 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 "contend" epagonizomai
‣ both internal and external application here
◦Explains it
‣ Dallas Willard
The Laws of Logic:
•The law of Identity:
◦a thing is identical to itself and different from other things
•The law of non contradiction:
◦something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense
•The law of excluded middle:
◦either X is true or X is false
•do these fit into a naturalist's framework?
Anatomy of Arguments: General Features
•proposition
◦"statement" or an entity that can take a truth value
◦six features of propositions: not in space- time, not identical to linguistic
entities, not sense-perceptible, may be the object of thought may be in more
than one mind at once, need not be "thought about" in order to exist, and is in
no way a physical entity
•premises and conclusions
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
◦premise= a proposition which works as a building block
◦conclusion= the proposition one is trying to support
◦interference= the regulation between the premise and the conclusion,
the arguments structure
Types of Logic:
•proposition
•premises and conclusion
•deductive
◦certain
•inductive (weak/strong)
◦probable
•abductive
◦interference to the best explanation
◦has a very creative aspect to it
Application:
• the sciences: induction and
abduction
◦math: deductive, e.g. triangles
•other areas of humanities and creative arts
◦anytime you want to "present a case for something" you are making an
argument and it will fit one of the models we discussed
◦anytime you extrapolate data, you are using induction. anytime you are
working off set principles in a system of "rules," you are doing deduction
Informal fallacies:
•formal fallacies have to do with the structure
◦all squares are quadrilaterals
◦all trapezoids are quadrilaterals
◦therefore, all squares are trapezoids
•informal fallacies have to do with content not structure
◦all bridges are made of atoms
◦all atoms are invisible to the naked eye
◦therefore, all bridges are invisible to the naked eye
1)Ad hominem
•attacks the speaker not the argument
•balaam and his donkey
2) amphiboly
•this has to do with ambiguity over the structure of the sentence. that is to say
the wording is ambiguous not particular word itself
3) equivocation
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
•this has to do with ambiguity over a word. That is a word is ambiguous though
the wording is not.
•no cat has eight tails. A cat has one more tail than no tail. therefore a cat has nine
tails
4) appeal to authority
•wrongful appeal to authority
5) appeal to ignorance
•no one has proved aliens exist, so they do not exist
6) bifurcation
•false dilemma
7) begging the question
•often conceals or leaves out key principles
•circular reasoning
8) Genetic Fallacy
•the source of an argument makes it invalid
•"you believe in God because life would be unbearable for you if you didn't"
9) appeal to pity
•the failing student fallacy
10)fallacy of composition or division
•arguing from part to whole or whole to part
11) slippery slope
exaggerates likelihood of one event given
another Know what philosophy and worldview
is!!!
Deduction: Symbols and Terms
•negation:
•Either/or: v
•condtional, if, then:
•and
•therfore:
•logically equivalent to: :
•if and only if
truth: applies to premises and
conclusions valid: applies to the
structure
sound: true premises AND valid structure
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
•modus ponens: If not P then Q, therefore Q
•Modus tollens: If P then Q, Q P
•Formal Fallacies: Mistakes in the structure
◦denying the antercedent if P then Q, therefore not Q
◦ Affirming the consequent if P then Q, Q, therefore P
‣ John 6:44 "no one can come to me unless the father draws them
to me
‣ if they come to Jesus then the father drew them
◦ Affirming an Alternate
prelude to philosophy
book 2/1
Arguing about Religion
The role of evidence and argumentation
•romans 1 and 12, Isaiah, 1 Peter 3:15..
•It's fundamentally a spiritual problem
◦We cannot partition individuals into little isolated sections
◦Think about how body, mind, and spirit work regarding anxiety
•Some people need a friend, some need a hug, ad some a good argument
◦can moral failures deter people from the gospel?
Methods:
•Collaborative case
◦Not leaky buckets
•Each argument does not, and need not, get us every attribute of God
•Main Arguments
◦cosmological
‣ Key thinkers
• Aristotle, Aquinas, William Lane Craig
‣ Key concepts
• All things that would have not existed or started to
exist need an external cause for their existence
◦does not hold "all things that exist have an external
cause of thier
existenc
e"
existenc
e
◦ Aristotle vs Newton
‣ Two Versions: both have to do with contingency
•Kalam: the universe began to exist
◦1) All things which began to exist have a cause for their
2)The universe began to exist
3)Therefore, the Universe has a cause
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
their
existence
◦Denial of P1 leads to the loss of science and absurdity
‣ evidence of P2
‣ Scientific
‣ philosophical
•Cosmological: The universe could not have existed
◦1)All things that could have not existed but do, need a
cause for
◦2)The universe could not have existed
◦3) The universe has a cause for its existence
◦Does not hold that the universe had a belonging
‣ Think of a chain hanging down from a ceiling
‣ Does not matter how long its from the ceiling
‣ Something capable of holding itself and being
that which
holds the chain must exist
◦teleological
‣ An argument from an observation of intentionality
•Key thinkers
◦William Paley and Robin Collins
•Key concepts
◦Odds: Coin toss: 1/2, two coin tosses: 1/4, random
number: 1/10, two digit number 1/100 = 1/10^2
◦surprise hypothesis
•Our universe is surprising
◦the fine- tuning of the universe in terms of its initial
conditions is
due to law, chance, or design
◦it isn't due to law or chance
◦therefore, it's due to design
•The laws are not necessitated
•what are the odds?
◦probability of the universe being life permitting given a
few of the initial conditions of the universe
•it's either law, chance, or design
◦ontological
‣ an argument using concepts of possibility and necessity
‣ key thinkers:
• Alvin Plantinga and Anselm
‣ Key considerations:
•possibility and necessity do not vary... ever
•different possibilities (contingencies) may exist in different
worlds but whether or not they are possible does not vary.
•That wish is necessary exists in all possible worlds
◦moral
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
◦problem of pain (an argument against the existence of God)
Kalam:
1)All things which began to exist have a cause for their existence
2)The universe began to exist
3)Therefore, the Universe has a cause
•Denial of P1 leads to the loss of science and absurdity
•evidence of P2
◦Scientific
◦philosophical
2/3
Two Rival World views
•Classical Theism
◦Loving, perfectly good, all-powerful,Being who created all there is and us
in His image or a reason and purpose
•Naturalistic
◦the idea or belief that only natural forces operate the world, nothing exists
beyond the natural world
Four Moral Features:
•Moral Facts
◦values
‣ naturalists can explain instrumental goodness pretty well, but
what bout intrinsic moral goodness
‣ Instrumental goods: goods we value because they help us achieve
other ends
‣ Intrinsic goods: valuable in and of themselves
◦duty
‣ naturalists can explain our feelings of obligations pretty well, but
what about
actual
obligations.
◦ freedo
m
‣ naturalists can explain freedom if they define it as doing what we
want to do, but what about the free will needed for moral responsibility? theists can
affirm it
‣ determinism: entails that all that occurs couldn't have been
otherwise
◦human dignity, equality, and rights
‣ Naturalists often wish to affirm they believe such things, but the
question is whether they can explain such things, whereas theists have ready and
compelling explanation.
•Moral Knowledge
◦Naturalism is beset with a challenge from evolutionary moral
psychology, which accounts for moral beliefs without making appeal to their
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
truth
•Moral transformation
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
◦We are often understood as saying "atheists can't be moral," and now that
you mention it: non of us can be perfectly moral and free without God's help.
◦we have an obligation to be perfect but can't be
•Convergence of virtue and happiness
◦morality tells us we can look out for ourselves, and that we also should
look out for others, and sometimes this leads to significant conflicts
Best explanation:
Classical theism and orthodox Christianity can best account for moral facts,
knowledge, transformation, and the convergence of happiness and holiness, virtue
and joy simply bettre than naturalism is able to
The Problem of Evil:
•throughout history the major affirmative argument against the existence of God
has been that of the existence of evil.
•The answer to the argument can be in the form of either a defense or theodicy
◦Defense: no logical incompatibility between God and evil
◦theodicy: God has a morally sufficient reason for each act of evil, the
justification of God in the face of evil
Types of evil
•moral evil: evil that occurs as the result, either directly or indirectly, of the choice of
moral agent
•Natural evil: suffering that occurs because of some natural event not in the
control of a moral agent
Logical argument form evil:
Problem:
•The existence of both God and evil is logically
incompatible, You cannot have both because they
contradict each other and contradictions cannot be, If
the following four statements make up a set that
describes reality, then you have a logical
contradiction and the set must be wrong:
◦God exists
◦God is omnipotent
◦God is omni-benevolent
◦ Evil exists
•Since it is obvious that evil exists, then there must
not be a God
•the privation argument: while it is true that God created everything, evil is not
a thing. It is a lack of perfection, or privation of perfection, in things.
• Analogy: hot/cold, sound/silence,
darkness/light Solution:
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
•It is important to note that all one must do to answer the logical arguments is to
show that the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically
incompatible. We don't have to show they both actually exist, just that it is possible
to have both actually exist, just that it is possible to have both God and evil, Hence
we offer here a defense for the existence of both God and evil.
•Does "omnipotent" really mean God is "able to do absolutely anything"?
That is not the classical meaning of the term
•Does "omni-≈benevolent" really include the "desire to eliminate all evil"? what if
the only way to achieve the greatest good would be to allow for the possibility of
some evil to exist?
•If this were true, then if would not be true that an all good God would want to
achieve the greatest good and this might involve the possibility of the
existence of some evil
•therefore, it is not true that "omni-benevolent" necessarily means the "desire to
eliminate evil"
Free will argument:
•in order for man to perform morally good acts, he must freely do so, because of
free will, we can have relations of love, trust, and faithfulness with God and with
other human beings. All of these are goods which can only be achieved with free
will
•However, when one allows free will, one has to allow that men may freely
choose not to do good.
Law of nature theodicy: the existence of a law-like orderly universe is necessary in
order for humans to exist and operate in it.
The physical laws that govern the universe are good and without them there would
be no probability to guide us: no ability to predict what would happen when we act
However, these same physical laws cause suffering as well as good, the same
water refreshes us can drown us, the same nerves that give pleasure can give pain
therefore, in order to have the good of regular laws, it means the possibility of
harmful effects from these laws
Law of Nature Theodicy: 2 questions
Can't God suspend these laws when they are going to cause evil?
•if God did so in a widespread manner, then the very regularity of the laws that
we depend on would mean nothing and it is their regularity that makes them such
a good.
Couldn't God have made a world with different laws that wouldn't cause evil?
•there is no evidence that a different system wouldn't have its own set of
problems. Since all natural laws are capable of harmful as well as beneficial
results, all laws would have to be changed. it is unclear what any such system
would be significantly different from what we now have and there is no evidence
that any system would be any better.
The purpose of suffering: while we do not always know the purpose for suffering in
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
the world, that does not mean there is no purpose. It just may be that we do not
know what it is. We do not know what it is. We do know that some suffering does
fulfill some goods that would probably not
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
come about without suffering. Some of these are: - to warm of greater suffering, to
keep us from self-destruction, to help defeat evil
Atheists and the Problem of the good
•if there is no God there is no absolute right or wrong, good and evil are
just subjective expresses of our feelings
•Now it is acknowledged by almost all philosophers that evil is understood as the
negation of good. If there is no good, there cannot be evil.
•The atheist has acknowledged that there is no universal good, therefore where do
they get the idea of evil from? How can he use the problem of evil if good and evil
do not exist?
knowledge:
justification + truth + belief = knowledge
Skepticism: is the view that genuine knowledge is probably not possible
rationalism: is the view of knowledge ultimately comes form reason rather than
experience empiricism: is the view that all knowledge comes from experience
rational empiricism: the view that the mind provides a framework of ideas that
makes it possible
...
Scientism:
•strong version: a belief is rational or true only if it is scientific one
•weak version: some beliefs outside of science can be rational or true, even
without support from science, however, "every other intellectual activity is
inferior to science"
◦science is virtually limitless
◦science should be applied to other methods
◦science can illuminate other fields but the converse is now true
◦where does the evaluation of science itself fit in?
First order discipline:
•Science
◦is the law of gravity an inverse square law?
◦what is a covalent bond?
◦What happens when housing taxes
lower? Second order discipline:
•philosophy
◦metaphysics
◦axiology
◦epistemology
Scientism: its many
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
problems
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
•"All forms of confirmation and disconfirmation are empirical"
•Contradictory results from empirical investigations
◦experiments on the brain
•ethics
◦moral facts, transformation
•absurdities
◦false beliefs and true beliefs differ by... material? locations?
2/24
Monism:
• All substances are of the same type: immaterial or Material
◦immaterial = idealism: George Berkley
◦let us grant that minds exist
‣ tell me what you have experienced outside of your mind
◦Material = materialism
‣ "science" concerns matter
‣ physics and Chemistry cover it all
•track record and constant expansion
•brain minds
•
Indiscernibility of
Identicals
•If a and b are identical then what is true of B and what is true of B is true of A
•This is true of modal properties as well
◦this is used in court, if the defendant could not possibly have been at
location X, worn shirt Y, etc., then the Defendant cannot be a killer
• ALL properties that A has B has and vice versa
MENTAL PROPERTIES:
•Model: it's possible I have a different body
•self-presenting
•private access
◦textbook: not about how others can "read" you or know things about you
•Incorrigible
•Subjective nature
◦deaf neurologist or blind Physicist
◦primary and secondary qualities
•First person VS third person
•The big one: Intentionality
◦"Absolutes" or "ofness", thoughts are about things, naturalism,
paintings, beauty, popsicle sticks
◦This is fundamentally different from casual events or anything in "science" or
"nature"
◦without this we seem to lose logic, knowledge, and all evidence. These are
necessary though for us to have any reasons for accepting any positions
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Dualism:
•two different types of substances exist
◦material stuff exists AND immaterial stuff exists
◦Mind AND Brains
◦the main problem: Interaction
‣ if we can eliminate one we eliminate the interaction problem and
we have a
simpler theory
•the main problem confronting the dualist is that of interaction
◦how can two radically different substances interact with each other?
•the brain interacts with the mind
◦Dualism would seem to imply that casual interactions are a one way street
Some proposed solutions:
•descartes
•occasionalism
•preestablishes
•general note
◦causation itself is very tricky to nail down: Hume and Bertrand Russel
Hylomorphism:
•We do not live in two worlds (materialism and immaterialism) we live in one
complex one
•you do not have shapeless matter, you do not have formless stuff. Yet
these forms are properties and immaterial. So all matter is "permeated"
with immaterial stuff (forms)
•forms account for the unity and endurance of substances
•the soul (mind) is the form of man. It is simple, it has no separate parts, it is the sat
of faculties
◦living thing= man, Dead thing= corpse
•geometrical properties do not get you a functional bridge
•"we do not with to be unclothed" the one who has fashioned us for this very
purpose is God
Free Will:
three views:
•determinism
•compatibalism
•free will
•Fatalism: the classical view concerns "events" but not "will"
•epitectus and the
stoks Preliminaries:
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
•the principle of Universal Causation (PUC): (1) Every event has a cause and (2)
every cause is an event
•The views on Free Will break up into two major types
◦PUC is compatible with free will
◦PUC is incompatible with free will
•What is at stake in the discussion
◦Our intuitions and beliefs about the universe as a whole
◦Our beliefs about who we are especially...
◦Our own MORALITY
Determinism:
•Principle of Universal Causation
•Free will: the ability to do otherwise in some situations
◦does not Exist
◦Materialism Determinism
◦Theological Determinism
• Arguments against free will/ for determinism
◦Matter, God, Randomness, experiential evidence
◦Events happen- they exist
◦all events
Meta- Ethics:
•Moral Objectivism
◦Morality is (1) independent of the will, opinions, beliefs, or determinations,
of individuals and societies (absolute) and (2) has factual content (cognitivist).
•Moral non-objectivism
◦Emotivism: morality is non-factual and expressive
Relativism:
•"whatever a culture believes determines whether something is right or wrong"
◦denies moral absolutes
•the argument for relativism
◦the foundation for tolerance
◦the diversity thesis: Moral beliefs vary according to culture
‣ conclusion: morality varies according to culture
‣ if moral beliefs vary according to culture then morality itself varies
according to
culture
•other problems:
◦no reason to be tolerant
◦moral progress impossible
◦minority always wrong
◦moral praise blame impossible
◦slip into objectivism
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Emotivism:
-Logical Positivism
•Vertification Criterion for for meaningfulness: if a statement is meaningful it is
either known analytically (it is true by definition) or it is verifiable by one of the
five sentences
•ethical statements do not fall into either of these categories
•therefore, ethical statements merely express one's emotions
•problems
◦judgements in absence of emotion and across a range of emotions
◦relativistic problems repeat (moral reformers, minorities, and progress)
◦logical relations: in general and between ethical statements
Nihilism: a much more reasonable theory
•life is meaningless and valueless
•no right, no wrong
•no good, no bad
•Stephen Crane
•Nietzche
•Moorean shift
Absolutism need no to be that problematic:
•weak vs. strong: Dependency thesis
◦all or some moral issues vary?
•tolerance:
◦act vs judgement
Normative Ethical Theories:
•attempts to develop a system to tell us what is right and wrong
◦Good (positive moral values)
◦Right (good and obligation to do it)
◦bad (negative moral value)
◦wrong (bad and obligation to not to do it)
•Must fit moral facts to be consistent and workable
Consequentialism:
•the main theory: Utilitarianism
◦an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the greatest happiness for
the greatest number of people
◦happiness is what everyone is after and is defined as the experience of
pleasure and avoidance of pain
◦this actually represented a drastic shit in emphasis. looking at morality
"externally" and focusing on conduct
•Jeremy Bentham
◦hedonic calculus
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
◦purely quantitative
•John Stuart Mills
◦introduced qualitative notions "better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied"
Problems:
•"unworkable"
•morality necessarily involves internal factors
•the only thing of intrinsic value is utility
◦extrinsic value: has value because it leads to something else. intrinsic
value: has valie in and of itself
◦what of persons? what of truth?
•tyranny of the majority
•Naturalistic Fallacy
◦confusion over what people do with what they ought to do
◦"All people seek pleasure" should they though? in what ways?
•Can you avoid becoming Peter Singer?
Deontology:
•deon Green obligation
•certain actions are right (good and obligation) certain ones are wrong (bad and
obligation)
•"rule based"
•Immanuel kant
•Righteousness has an intrinsic value, unlike utilitarianism where it is only
instrumental or extrinsic
◦the same is true for persons
•Natural Law Theory
Kantian Deontology:
•the only good thing without qualification is a good will
•a good will is that which desires to do what is right for its own sake.
◦acting out of duty vs acting in accordance with duty
◦minimized the role of emotions here. the will to be guided by reason not
desire
◦Kant is far more careful and often one gets the wrong impressionn by
looking at only sections of his work
•the categorical imperative: "act according to that maxim by which you can, at the
same time, ill that it should be universal law
•Purely rationalistic
◦nobody should ever murder vs some people should sometimes help the
homeless
◦categorical and hypothetical imperatives
problems:
•these are more issues that we need to be alerted to
•absolute duties:
◦prima facie duties (graded absolutism)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
◦the place of character
•Overly rational?
◦Kant: we start with a definition of rationality and then deduce from
that definition morality itself.
◦why can't we all come to different conclusions? Because we share in
rationality and
dignity
◦where do these rules come from?
Virtue Ethics:
•edudiamonia (good spirit)
•teleological
• Aristotle
•virtue = a disposition to choose according to the mean, relative to us
◦disposition: a certain quality of the will, readiness to choose or to act in a
given way
◦Mean: the proper balance between two extremes
◦Relative: to us as individuals, our circumstances, the issues at hand
•our knowledge of these virtues and how to balance them, comes from exemplars
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
WV:
main world view
areas definition
what they are (theist/naturalist)
Philosophy:
foundation
al
meaning
value
3 branches
philosophy underlies all other disciplines
logic:
foundational
issues
proposition
the laws and rules of logic
hard to fit into a naturalist ontology
immaterial truth
material eternity
Existence of God:
FOR:
teleological: change, intentionality - someone set it us this way
(BEST) Cosmological: began, must be caused
Ontological: idk
Moral Argument: moral values, transformation... naturalism has a problem with
explaining the existence of those things. they are universally binding and true,
some things are true apart from experience. outside of the natural realm, but do fit
w the theistic view
AGAINST
Problem of Evil: logical and evidential
L: impossible that God exists and evil exists, they can't both exist
E: naturalist, God and evil can exist, but the existence of evil counts against God,
why would He allow evil and isn't he responsible for that?
in response: only have to show that it is possible for both to exist
Knowledge:
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
define and connect to appropriate world view
experience (sensory experience, compatible withe naturalism not theism).
Empiricism - naturalists
rationalism: theism not
naturalism -
rational empiricism: blend of the two, Kant argued.. only compatible with
theism, mind is pre-loaded with framework to develop. God has made us
with a purpose.
Metaphysics:
mind body
problem dualism
free-will
Monism and dualism:
all material things are permiated with immaterial things
Meta-ethics:
define and expand upon
Ethics:
REALLY EXPAND ON - worth the most points
