Lecture 16: The Existence of God

1. Lecture 16: The Existence of God

2. In Today’s Lecture we will: Read and discuss Nietzsche’s ‘Parable of the Madman’ Begin our investigation into the Philosophy of Religion Explore a number of preliminary perspectives on Religion Investigate and discuss the Cosmological argument for God’s existence Today’s Lecture

3. Topic 4: Philosophy of Religion

4. Rules for discussing philosophy: No Ad Hominem (personal attacks) Try to remain open-minded and look at both sides of the arguments No passing judgements on a person for their beliefs Remember! if there is a disagreement there is room for healthy debate Listen and keep discussions relevant, respectful and friendly Be respectful! Rules

5. Q: Why should we be interested in discussing religion philosophically? • How would Nietzsche’s Madman answer this question? (Handout) • Does the Madman think God’s existence is important? • Who is the Madman’s message aimed towards? • What are the implications of God’s death? • Who does God’s death effect? • What is the overall point of the Madman’s speech? • What kind of arguments/observations does the Madman make? (are they based on reason or myth?) Pre-Discussion

6. Key Questions in the Philosophy of Religion: Key Questions • Are there any good reasons for believing in God’s existence or nonexistence? • What kind of God exists or does not exist? • What are the implications of Gods existence or nonexistence for humans? • Can we reconcile the concept of God with evil in the world? • What is the nature of religious belief? • How does philosophical knowledge of God relate to divine revelation? • What is the relationship, if any, between faith and reason? • What is the relationship between religion, science and philosophy? • What are the special features of religious language?

7. Putting the ‘Philosophy’ into the Philosophy of Religion Does God exist? How should we investigate such a claim? Philosophy of Religion Revealed Theology Natural Theology Knowledge of God through special revelation Knowledge of God through the natural intellect The Bible Mystical Experience The Church Moses The Holy Spirit Rationalism “The view that affirms reason, with its interest in evidence, examination, and evaluation, as authoritative in all matters of belief and conduct”(Miller, Ed L. Questions that Matter, 2009. p.10)

8. Can we know God rationally? Two Perspectives Natural theology does not exist as an entity capable of becoming a separate subject within what I consider to be real theology – not even for the sake of being rejected. If one occupies oneself with real theology one can pass by so-called natural theology only as one would pass by an abyss into which it is inadvisable to step if one does not want to fall. All one can do is turn one’s back upon it as upon the great temptation and source of error, by having nothing to do with it -Karl Barth- “No!” in Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology (Eugene, OR:Wipf and Stock, 2002) p. 75. “No!” in Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology (Eugene, OR:Wipf and Stock, 2002) p. 75.

9. Can we know God rationally? Two Perspectives As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect.[...]the Kurt Wise story* is just plain pathetic - pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life's happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible. Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out science, evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes. -Richard Dawkins- The God Delusion, pp.284-285 * When faced with the choice between Evolution or Scripture, Kurt Wise chose creationism. By Dawkin’s portrayal this makes Wise a fundamentalist.

10. The Cosmological Argument

11. Version 1 The Cosmological Argument Here is the world, or space and time. It could not be the cause of itself. It could not come from nothing. It could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects Therefore, it must be caused by something outside space and time, something uncaused and ultimate

12. Version 2 The Cosmological Argument Every event in the observable world is caused by some event prior to it. Either (a) the series of causes is infinite, or (b) the series of causes goes back to a first cause, which is itself uncaused. But an infinite series of events is impossible Therefore, A first cause exists outside the observable world; this first cause is God.

13. All Versions The Cosmological Argument All contingent (or caused) being depends for its existence on some uncaused being. The cosmos is a contingent being. Therefore, the cosmos depends for its existence on some uncaused being.

14. Key Features of the Cosmological argument: • Argues that the universe must have a beginning outside of itself • Begins with an a posterioriobservation • Uses a process of elimination to find the only possible explanation for this observation • Begins with a contingent fact and results in a logically necessary truth • Argument is based entirely on logic and reason Cosmological Argument

15. Key Features of the Cosmological argument (continued) • Argues that the universe must have a beginning outside of itself • Version 1 argues: • The universe may be infinite, and every moment of existence depends on an ultimate cause; God. • Version 2 argues: • The universe is not infinite, therefore it must have a beginning outside of itself: which must be God Cosmological Argument

16. St. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments (textbook, pp.252-255) The argument from motion The nature of ‘efficient cause’ Possibility and necessity Gradation Governance of the world Cosmological Argument

17. Version 1 Version 2 Cosmological Argument Here is the world, or space and time. It could not be the cause of itself. It could not come from nothing. It could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects Therefore, it must be caused by something outside space and time, something uncaused and ultimate Every event in the observable world is caused by some event prior to it. Either (a) the series of causes is infinite, or (b) the series of causes goes back to a first cause, which is itself uncaused. But an infinite series of events is impossible Therefore, A first cause exists outside the observable world; this first cause is God. All contingent (or caused) being depends for its existence on some uncaused being. The cosmos is a contingent being. Therefore, the cosmos depends for its existence on some uncaused being.

18. Criticisms • Hume: Is there any need for a beginning of a series of causes? • It cannot be proved a priori that every event has a cause • Suggests that the concepts of beginning, middle, end may be entirely human • We can always imagine an earlier event • See Hume, David. Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (New York: Hafner, 1960) Cosmological Argument