1. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

2. TERMINOLOGY THEIST: ONE WHO BELIEVES IN GOD’S EXISTENCE ATHEIST: ONE WHO DENIES THAT GOD EXISTS AGNOSTIC: ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT WE CANNOT KNOW IF GOD EXISTS (WE CAN NEITHER PROVE NOR DISPROVE GOD’S EXISTENCE)

3. THE TRADITIONAL WESTERN CONCEPTION OF GOD TRADITIONALLY GOD HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS: OMNIPOTENT: ALL-POWERFUL OMNISCIENT: ALL-KNOWING OMNIPRESENT: EVERYWHERE AT ONCE TRANSCENDENT: THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE WHO IS SEPARATE FROM THAT WHICH WAS CREATED

4. NON-TRADITIONAL CONCEPTIONS OF GOD WITHIN DIFFERENT CULTURES, ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINTS FROM THE TRADITIONAL HAVE INCLUDED: POLYTHEISM: THE VIEW THAT THERE ARE MANY GODS (AS EXPRESSED IN GREEK AND NORSE RELIGIONS) ANTHROPOMORPHISM: THE VIEW THAT GOD OR THE GODS ARE MORE OR LESS HUMAN IN CHARACTER AS EXPRESSED IN THE GREEK AND NORSE TRADITIONS AS WELL AS THE OLD TESTAMENT PANTHEISM: THE VIEW THAT GOD AND THE UNIVERSE OR NATURE ARE ONE AND THE SAME AS SUGGESTED IN CERTAIN EASTERN RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES

5. ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AN ARGUMENT FROM THE BEING AND NATURE OF GOD AS DEVELOPED BY ST. ANSELM: YOU HAVE IN YOUR MIND AN IDEA OF GOD. THIS IDEA IS THE IDEA OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE BEING. IF GOD EXISTS IN THE MIND ALONE, HOWEVER, AND NOT IN REALITY, THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE GOD. FOR I COULD THEN CONCEIVE OF A GREATER BEING, ONE THAT EXISTED BOTH IN THE MIND AND REALITY. GOD, THEREFORE, TO BE GOD, MUST EXIST BOTH IN THE MIND AND IN REALITY. THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS.

6. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (CONTINUED) A SECOND VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT WAS LATER DEVELOPED BY RENE DESCARTES: MY CONCEPTION OF GOD IS SUCH THAT HE HAS EVERY SORT OF PERFECTION. EXISTENCE IS A PERFECTION. THEREFORE, GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS.

7. CRITICISM OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE FOLLOWING CRITICISM WAS DEVELOPED BY IMMANUEL KANT WHO, WHILE BELIEVING IN GOD, CLAIMED THAT GOD’S EXISTENCE WAS A MATTER OF FAITH, NOT REASON: THE STATEMENT “GOD EXISTS” SEEMS THAT IT IS STATING THAT THE ATTRIBUTE OF “EXISTENCE” BELONGS TO GOD LIKE THE STATEMENT “THE CAT IS BLACK” ATTRIBUTES THE QUALITY OF BLACKNESS TO A CAT. HOWEVER, EXISTENCE IS NOT REALLY AN ATTRIBUTE OR PREDICATE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT TELL US ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT. EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF GOD, BUT AN ASSUMPTION MADE ABOUT THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. IT THEREFORE CANNOT PROVE GOD’S EXISTENCE BY ASSUMING THAT GOD MUST HAVE EXISTENCE.

8. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ALSO CALLED THE ARGUMENT FROM FIRST CAUSE, IT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE MIDDLE AGES BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS WHO BASED IT ON THE COSMOLOGY (STUDY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE) OF THE GREEK PHILOSOPHER, ARISTOTLE

9. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS WAS CAUSED TO COME INTO EXISTENCE BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF. THAT CAUSE WAS ITSELF CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE, AS WAS THE PREVIOUS CAUSE, AND SO ON BACK. YET AS WE TRACE THIS SERIES OF CAUSES BACKWARDS, WE MUST EVENTUALLY COME TO A FIRST CAUSE. FOR IF THERE WERE NO FIRST CAUSE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING TO START THE CHAIN OF CAUSES TO BEGIN WITH, AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING IN EXISTENCE TODAY. BY DEFINITION, A FIRST CAUSE IS ITSELF UNCAUSED. WE HAVE ONLY ONE CONCEPT THAT MATCHES OUR IDEA OF A FIRST CAUSE, ITSELF NOT CAUSED BY ANYTHING. THAT CONCEPT IS THE IDEA OF GOD. THEREFORE, GOD MUST EXIST SINCE THERE ARE THINGS IN EXISTENCE TODAY.

10. CRITICISM OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT SOME MAINTAIN THAT THE ARGUMENT USES CIRCULAR REASONING. A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT IS ONE THAT ASSUMES IN ITS PREMISES WHAT IS TO BE PROVEN. IN THIS ARGUMENT, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THERE MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE (GOD). YET IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS EXISTED FOR ALL ETERNITY AND THAT THERE WAS NO BEGINNING AND ALL CAUSAL ACTIVITY GOES ON AND WILL GO ON FOREVER.

11. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK WORD “TELE” MEANING “GOAL,” “END,” OR “PURPOSE,” IT IS ALSO CALLED THE “ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN.” THE VERSION PRESENTED NEXT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE PHILOSOPHER WILLIAM PALEY IN THE 19 TH CENTURY AND TRIES TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THROUGH THE EVIDENT DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE

12. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE STRANDED ON AN ISLAND AT A YOUNG AGE, SOMEHOW MANAGING TO SURVIVE, BUT KNOWING NOTHING OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION. ONE DAY, WHILE WALKING ALONG THE SHORE OF THE ISLAND, YOU COME UPON A WATCH. YOU PICK IT UP OUT OF CURIOSITY, NOT KNOWING WHAT IT IS, BUT FASCINATED BECAUSE YOU HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT BEFORE.

13. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED EVEN THOUGH YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT A WATCH IS AND EVEN IF THE WATCH WAS NOT WORKING, IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO YOU THAT THIS OBJECT DID NOT APPEAR IN THE WORLD ACCIDENTLY. THE SHAPE WOULD BE TOO REGULAR, THE MINUTE PARTS WHICH FIT TOGETHER SO PERFECTLY WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DESIGNED BY SOME INTELLIGENCE. NOR WOULD IT MATTER IF YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE WATCH OR IF IT DIDN’T WORK: THE EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN WOULD STILL BE APPARENT.

14. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED ALL OF THE DESIGN EVIDENT IN THE WATCH IS ALSO EVIDENT IN THE UNIVERSE AROUND US. IS IT AN ACCIDENT THAT BEES, FOR INSTANCE, MUST GO TO FLOWERS FOR THE FOOD THEY NEED TO SURVIVE? AND DOES IT JUST HAPPEN THAT THE LEGS OF BEES ARE STICKY AND THUS PICK UP THE POLLEN FROM FLOWERS? DOES IT JUST HAPPEN THAT BEES MUST GO TO MORE THAN ONE FLOWER TO GATHER ENOUGH FOOD? AND IS IT JUST BY CHANCE THAT BEES IN THIS WAY DROP THE POLLEN ONTO THE NEXT FLOWER, ALLOWING THE PLANT TO REPRODUCE?

15. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED EVERYTHING IN NATURE, FROM THE INTRICATE DESIGN AND COMPLEXITY OF THE HUMAN BODY TO THE POLLINATION OF PLANTS EXHIBITS DELIBERATE DESIGN, MUCH LIKE THE WATCH. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WHATEVER INTELLIGENCE DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE WAS OF FAR GREATER CAPACITY THAN THE HUMAN MIND. THIS WE CALL GOD. THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS.

16. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISM THE FOLLOWING CRITICISM OF THE ARGUMENT COMES FROM THE SCOTTISH SKEPTIC, DAVID HUME. AS AN EMPIRICIST, HUME DEMANDS EVIDENCE BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW THROUGH THE OBSERVATION OF OUR SENSES. HIS CRITICISM IS THREEFOLD:

17. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISM THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IS NOT PERFECT: BABIES HAVE BEEN BORN MALFORMED. EVENTS SUCH AS FLOODS, PLAGUES, AND EARTHQUAKES HAVE KILLED MILLIONS. HOW COULD AN ALL-KNOWING, PERFECT GOD CREATE A WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PERFECT DESIGN? DESIGN IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. IF THE WORLD SEEMS TO EXHIBIT A DESIGN, IT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE DESIGN IN THINGS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THEM. MUCH LIKE PEOPLE IMAGINE THE STARS IN THE SKY TO FORM CONSTELLATIONS, SO THEY “SEE” DESIGN IN THE WORLD AROUND THEM. THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF GOD’S HAVING MADE AND DESIGNED THE WORLD. I CAN DEDUCE THAT A BUILDER MADE A HOUSE BECAUSE THE BUILDING OF HOUSES HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE WORLD. NO ONE WAS AROUND TO OBSERVE THE CREATION, HOWEVER, THEREFORE WE CANNOT DEDUCE THAT IT WAS GOD’S CREATION.

18. PASCAL’S WAGER BLAISE PASCAL WAS A 17 TH CENTURY FRENCH MATHEMATICIAN AND PHILOSOPHER WHO WOULD BE GREATLY ADMIRED BY LATER PHILOSOPHERS WHO WE WILL STUDY SUCH AS WILLIAM JAMES. HIS ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE TAKES THE FORM OF A BET:

19. PASCAL’S WAGER LET US MAKE A BET. I WILL BET THAT GOD EXISTS, YOU WILL BE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. WHEN WE DIE, WE WILL FIND OUT WHO WINS THE BET. LET’S SAY THAT YOU WIN THE BET: GOD DOES NOT EXIST. WHAT HAVE YOU WON? NOTHING, FOR YOU WILL BE IN THE SAME SITUATION AS I: SIX FEET UNDER THE GROUND. AND I HAVE LOST NOTHING FOR I AM IN THE SAME SITUATION AS YOU. BUT SUPPOSE I WIN THE BET. IN THIS CASE, I HAVE WON EVERYTHING, FOR MY BET HAS GUARANTEED ME ETERNAL LIFE. YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE BECOME ETERNALLY DAMNED BECAUSE OF YOUR ATHEISM. THEREFORE, THE CORRECT WAY TO BET IS OBVIOUS. TO BET THAT GOD EXISTS MEANS NOTHING BAD IF YOU ARE WRONG AND EVERYTHING GOOD IF YOU ARE RIGHT. BUT TO BET THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST, MEANS NOTHING GOOD IF YOU ARE RIGHT AND EVERYTHING BAD IF YOU ARE WRONG.

20. PASCAL’S WAGER CRITICISM SOME QUESTION WHETHER THIS IS ACTUALLY A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT OR SIMPLY A KIND OF EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL. IT SEEMS TO THREATEN ONE WHO REFUSES TO BELIEVE IN GOD RATHER THAN TO ACTUALLY PROVE GOD’S EXISTENCE. NOTICE THAT THE ARGUMENT LOSES ITS PERSUASIVENESS IF THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION’S CONCEPTION OF GOD IS NOT THE CASE (THERE IS NO HEAVEN OR HELL).