The Rationality of Religious Belief What reasons are there to believe that God or some supernatural force exists? The existence and order of the universe Miracles The very definition of God Meaningfulness in our lives

If Religious Belief is Unjustified, then Why Do People Believe in God? (1844-1900) (1818-83) Karl Marx: religion is our “opium” for dealing with socio-political alienation. God is the abstract idealization of humanity Friedrich Nietzsche: God once was a fixed point of reference, but now not even science or truth is absolute. The death of God forces us to take responsibility for our lives and values

The Teleological Argument: Argument from Design/Purpose William Paley (1743-1805) The order and intricacy of things in the universe make sense only if an ordering and purposive mind is their cause Analogy: watch . . universe watchmaker . . universe-maker

Criticisms of the Teleological Argument: David Hume (1711-76) Even the claim that the universe exhibits order is doubtful; it is a human imposition We cannot use analogy in drawing inferences about the universe: we do not experience universes or know that intelligent beings produce them. It all could simply be due to chance Even if we argue analogously, we cannot conclude that its creator is one, wise, good, or still existing

Criticism of the Design Argument: Charles Darwin (1809-82) Things in nature exhibit order, but that is not the result of design or purpose Natural selection: things appear orderly because random variations produce adaptive individuals Objection (Fine Tuning Argument): intelligent design accounts for minute beneficial variations Reply: random variations are adapted in ways that subsequently become advantageous

Is Religion Reasonable? Faith Seeking Understanding The ontological argument The cosmological argument The teleological argument (from design)

The Ontological Argument St. Anselm (1033-1109) P1: “God” means the greatest conceivable being P2a: A being that exists in one’s mind and in reality (outside of one’s mind) is greater than one that exists only in one’s mind P2b: A necessarily existing being is greater than a merely possible being Therefore, God must exist in reality

Objections to Anselm’s Argument Gaunilo: imagining anything as perfect does not make it exist. Reply: the non-existence of everything other than God is conceivable Aquinas: if there is a greatest conceivable being, he exists; but we cannot simply assume his existence based on our meaning of “God.” Reply: what else could we mean? Kant: A concept of God + a concept of his existing may be greater than a concept of God alone; but these are only concepts, not claims about existence outside our concepts. Reply: why can’t we discuss such external existence?

The Cosmological Argument: St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) The universe, like all things in it, is contingent (i.e., depends on something else as the cause of its existence); otherwise, it is unintelligible If there is no essential cause of the universe (that is, if the causal sequence is infinite), then nothing would be happening or be intelligible here and now. But things do exist here and now, so God exists here and now

Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument No being (including God) exists necessarily If God is eternal, why not the universe too? Fallacy of composition: parts  whole Why should we think that everything has a cause or reason for its existence? Besides, the argument does not prove that God is anything other than a cause of things who might not care at all about his creation

Is Belief in God Reasonable? Faith Seeking Understanding A posteriori arguments (based on experience): The teleological argument (from design) The cosmological argument A priori argument (independent of experience): The ontological argument

The Cosmological Argument: St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) Like all things in it, the universe is contingent (it depends on something else for its existence); otherwise, its existence is unintelligible If there is no cause of the universe right now (that is, if its cause is infinitely remote), then nothing would exist right now. But things do exist here and now, so God exists here and now

Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument No being (including God) exists necessarily If God is eternal, why not the universe too? Fallacy of composition: parts  whole Why think everything has a cause or reason? Besides, the argument does not prove that God is anything other than a cause of things who might not care at all about his creation

The Ontological Argument: St. Anselm (1033-1109) P1: “God” means the greatest conceivable being P2a: A being that exists in one’s mind and in reality (outside of one’s mind) is greater than one that exists only in one’s mind P2b: A necessarily existing being is greater than a merely possible being Therefore, God must exist in reality

Objections to Anselm’s Argument Gaunilo: imagining anything as perfect does not make it exist Reply: the non-existence of everything other than God is conceivable Immanuel Kant: to say that God exists does not say anything about God: his existence is not one of his properties. To deny that God exists does not address what he is, only that he is Reply: the (non)-existence of some things (e.g., unicorns) is part of their definition Kant (1724-1804)

Why Miracles Cannot Justify Religious Belief: David Hume (1711-76) We should proportion our beliefs to what we experience. Testimony of others should be doubted as improbable if witnesses: are few in number, contradict one another, have an interest in persuading us, are either hesitant or zealous, or contradict our normal experience

Hume: Religion Is Based on Faith, not Irrational Belief in Miracles Miracles are violations of laws of nature Belief in miracles requires that we believe it more reasonable to think that the order of the universe has been violated than that we are (pleasantly) mistaken or have been deceived by (well-intentioned) enthusiasts Reports of miracles are more common among the primitive cultures

Religion is our “opium” for dealing with socio-political alienation: Karl Marx (1818-83) God is really the idealization of humanity as alienated, unconscious of itself Such alienation is caused by thinking of humanity and nature as abstractions rather than as products of real activity and labor Real life is not atheistic, for even denying that God exists depends on thinking abstractly

“God is Dead”: Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) God once served as a fixed point of reference, but now nothing—not even science or truth—is absolute People refuse to acknowledge the death of God because it requires that they affirm their responsibility for their lives and values

The Problem of Evil: How Can an All-Good, All-Powerful God Exist and There Still Be Evil in the World? Dostoevsky: God and evil are not reconcilable: evil is real, so is God, and that situation is senseless Suffering (e.g., of children and animals) is never made up and is unforgiveable. It has no purpose or rationale: that is why faith is not rational and does not make sense

Problem of Evil (continued) J. L. Mackie: attempted reconciliations of an all-powerful, all-good God and the existence of evil (“theodicies) fail Reply 1: evil is defined from our perspective Response: this makes evil (& good) unreal Reply 2: evil is needed to highlight the good Response: so evil is ultimately good? And why so much evil? Why can’t God give us such knowledge?

Problem of Evil (continued) Reply 3: evil is necessary to appreciate the good; in addition, it makes us become better moral beings Response: why can’t God produce good without causing evil? Is evil ultimately good, then, as a means? And why so much evil (including natural evils)? What does a dying infant learn through suffering?

Problem of Evil (continued) Reply 4: evil results from free choices Response: why wouldn’t God create a world in which we always freely choose to do good? To say that freedom requires that we sometimes choose evil means that such choices would have to be random Furthermore, if God truly cannot control human choices, then he is not omnipotent

Problem of Evil (continued) Reply 5 (John Hick): experience of evil is part of the process by which we evolve into moral beings Response: the horrific suffering necessary for such moral development is inconsistent with the existence of a loving God

Defenses of God (“Theodicies”): How Can an All-Good, All-Powerful God Exist and There Still Be Evil in the World? Pain is useful as a warning of injury Objection: most pain does not warn and is useless Evil is needed to help us appreciate the good Objection: so evil is ultimately good? And why so much evil? Why can’t God just give us such knowledge?

Problem of Evil (continued) Evil is defined from our perspective Objection: this makes evil (& good) unreal Evil is punishment for our wrong-doing Objection: evil is not tied to moral desert Evil results from misuse of our free will Objections: (a) why couldn’t God create us to choose freely to do good always—like him or the blessed in heaven? (b) What about natural evil? Al Plantinga

Problem of Evil (continued) Experience of evil is part of the process by which we develop into moral beings Objections: the horrific suffering necessary for such moral development is inconsistent with the existence of a loving God. What does a dying infant learn through suffering? And how does moral development justify the suffering of animals?

“The Absolute Paradox”: Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55) Religious belief is not comforted by any knowledge of God. If we could prove his existence, we would not consider him the truly unknown Other. And if we know what it is we hope to prove—that God exists—then we already know that God exists, and any attempted proof is pointless

Kierkegaard: “Absolute Paradox” (continued) To let go of the pursuit of the demonstration of God’s existence is to know his existence as the Absolutely Different. But absolutely different from what? Answer: the being who seeks to know him, a being differentiated from God by sin. The juxtaposition (and thus reconciliation) of God and humanity in Christ constitutes the “equality” of the two

Kierkegaard: “The Absolute Paradox” To know God as unknowable is to know him as truly other, as the limit of what we know. God transcends what we know, and is thus both known and unknown. This is the paradox that calls forth from us faith

The Wager: It is more rational to believe in God than not to believe Fideism The Wager: It is more rational to believe in God than not to believe If God exists and you believe: infinite reward. If God exists Blaise Pascal (1623-62) and you don’t believe: infinite loss If God does not exist and you believe: finite loss; if you do not believe, finite gain 3) Since the 50-50 possibility of getting an infinite reward greatly outweighs any actual finite reward, it is rational to believe in God

William James: Will to Believe Belief in God does not and should not depend on dispassionate reason (1842-1910) (or even “the odds”); instead it must depend on the practical difference it makes in our life We are justified in believing on insufficient evidence when options are genuine (live, forced, momentous). If we don’t risk being wrong, we lose any chance of being right

Knowing God Without Arguments Alvin Plantinga: Belief in God is a foundational belief on which other beliefs are based (b. 1932) Objection: so-called “foundational” beliefs seem to vary from group to group Jay Van Hook (b. 1939)

Volitional Arguments for Belief: Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55) (Religious Existentialism) Religious beliefs are not bits of knowledge; they are acts of unconditioned faith Authentic existence is not simply doing what feels right based on teachings of the church or society (the “aesthetic” life) or following the dictates of reason (the “moral” life), but acting without justification (the “religious” life)

Abraham: The Knight of Faith The religious person acts “by virtue of the absurd,” without justification The religious life is based on a “leap of faith” that is not guaranteed or comforted by any knowledge of what God wants of us Existence is personal: we care about our lives; we should not describe our lives in terms of objective facts but in terms of subjective, non-universalizable truths

Atheism: Our experience of evil argues against the existence of God Reply 1: evil is simply the absence of the good or real: it follows from being imperfect (Augustine) Response: why, then, does God create at all? Reply 2: evil is defined from our perspective Response: this makes evil (& good) unreal Reply 3: evil is necessary to appreciate the good; it allows us to become moral beings Response: why can’t God produce good without causing evil? Is evil then ultimately good? And why so much evil? What does a dying infant learn through suffering? Reply 4: evil results from free choices Response: this doesn’t explain natural evil (e.g., storms)

Agnosticism: We don’t know if God exists Agnosticism: We don’t know if God exists. So why do people believe in God? Freud: religion provides us with the delusion of a father figure who protects us from the anxieties of life Kant: morality requires the coincidence of virtue and happiness, which can be accomplished only by God Marx: religion is our “opium” to com-pensate for socio-political alienation

Volitional Arguments for Religious Belief William James: Our question should not be “is there a God?” but “should I believe in God?” Such belief does not depend on dispassionate reason but on the practical difference it makes in our life We are justified in belief based on insufficient evidence only when options are genuine (forced, momentous, and live) Pascal’s Wager: given the odds and rewards, it is more reasonable to believe Blaise Pascal (1623-62)

Religious Mysticism The experience of the “numinous” (holy) is ineffable (cannot be expressed) though informative (noetic). In a mystical experience, a person is united with an Other in a feeling of bliss in which all sense of personal identity is lost St. Teresa of Avila (1515-82) Objections: How can finite beings experience an infinite God? and how do we know that such experiences are not simply wish fulfillments, illusions, or hallucinations?

Non-Traditional Religious Experience Tillich Kierkegaard Radical Theology: religious life is based on a “leap of faith” (subjective experience), not knowledge of objective facts (Kierkegaard) or an all-knowing being who deprives us of subjectivity and meaning but the be-ing of our ultimate concern (Tillich) Feminist Theology: the power/authority model of a male God should be replaced by either a Goddess of shared power & recog-nition (Daly) or a God with no gender Mary Daly

Eastern Religious Traditions Hinduism: through meditation we learn that reality (Brahman) is one and all individuals are illusory. Enlightenment releases us from the cycle of rebirth regulated by the law of karma (reap what you sow) Buddhism: inner peace (nirvana) and release from suffering are achieved by not craving to satisfy the self (which is a creation of desire) and not being judgmental, greedy, or fearful of losing things Zen Buddhism: reality (the divine) is experienced in learning not to think (e.g., in subject-object or means-ends terms) but to know it not as different