Philosophy exam 1 notes - Google Docs.pdf
Transcript
Willam Rowe’s cosmological argument: Class Notes on Cosmological Arguments A priori This type of argument is based on the meaning of terms and pure logic, and is independent of experience. A priori arguments are often used to describe reasoning that goes from general to spec...
Willam Rowe’s cosmological argument: Class Notes on Cosmological Arguments A priori This type of argument is based on the meaning of terms and pure logic, and is independent of experience. A priori arguments are often used to describe reasoning that goes from general to specific, or from causes to effects. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori. A posteriori This type of argument is based on experience of the world and empirical facts, such as evidence from the five senses. A posteriori arguments are sometimes called inductive arguments because they follow the same form of reasoning as science. For example, the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori. Notes on A Posteriori, A Priori, and the Cosmological Argument A Posteriori vs. A Priori Arguments - A Posteriori: Based on experience (e.g., Cosmological and Teleological Arguments). - A Priori: Based on reason alone (e.g., Ontological Argument). Three Major Arguments for God's Existence 1. Cosmological Argument (A Posteriori): Starts with facts about the world (e.g., causation). 2. Teleological Argument (A Posteriori): Begins with the observed order and design in the world. 3. **Ontological Argument** (A Priori): Based on the concept of God without empirical evidence. The Cosmological Argument - Origins: - Greek Philosophy: Plato and Aristotle initiated the concept. - Aquinas: Developed three forms: Change, Causation, and Contingency. - 18th Century: Expanded by philosophers like Leibniz, with critiques from Hume. - Aquinas’ Three Forms: 1. Change: Everything in motion must have an unmoved mover. 2. Causation: Everything caused must have an uncaused first cause. 3. Contingency: Contingent beings require a necessary being for their existence. - Objection: Aquinas' arguments may not directly prove the existence of a theistic God. - Response: The argument first proves a special being (e.g., uncaused cause) and then argues this being has the attributes of God. 18th Century Developments - Clarke's Argument: Expanded the Cosmological Argument in "A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God." - Hume's Critique: Raised objections that led many to reject the argument. - Key Concepts: 1. Dependent Being: Exists due to something else. 2. Self-Existent Being: Exists by its own nature. - Argument Structure: - Premise 1: Every being is either dependent or self-existent. - Premise 2: Not all beings can be dependent. - Conclusion: A self-existent being exists. Deductive Validity & Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) - Deductive Validity: If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. - PSR: Every fact must have an explanation. - Application to the Argument: - PSR(a) supports the first premise that all beings are dependent or self-existent. - Justifying the second premise, which rejects an infinite regress of dependent beings, is essential. Criticisms of the Second Premise - Objections: 1. **Collection Fallacy:** Mistaking the collection of dependent beings as needing an external cause. 2. **Causal Inference Error:** Misinterpreting that because parts are caused, the whole is caused. 3. **Sufficient Explanation:** Arguing that explaining each member of the series is enough to explain the whole. - **Proponent's Response:** Distinguishes between explaining individual members and the entire series. The series itself requires an independent explanation. - **Debate on PSR:** Critics challenge PSR, suggesting some facts might exist without explanation. Proponents defend PSR as either an intuitive truth or a necessary basis for rational inquiry. ### Conclusion The Cosmological Argument’s second premise—that not every being can be dependent—faces significant challenges. The debate hinges on the validity of PSR and whether it's necessary to explain the existence of all beings or if some facts might simply exist without explanation. Richard Taylor - Metaphysics 1. God as Creator and the Concept of a Beginningless World M ain Idea:The concept of God as a creator doesn'tconflict with the idea of an eternal or beginningless world. Analogy:Just as the sun is the first cause of daylightand moonlight (regardless of whether these have a beginning or not), God is considered the first cause of the world. Implication:The world's age, whether finite or infinite,does not explain its existence; the focus is on its dependency on a creator. 2. Nature of the World: Order vs. Chaos E xistence:The existence of the world is viewed ascontingent, not necessary. Significance of Order:Beyond mere existence, theworld exhibits order, harmony, and complexity, suggesting a purposeful design. Human Perception:Humans often overlook this orderdue to familiarity, but it's evident in both the vast cosmos and the intricate functioning of living organisms. 3. Purposefulness in Living Organisms S eemingly Purposeful Design:Living organisms appearto be purposefully constructed, with anatomy and abilities perfectly suited to their modes of life (e.g., the hawk). Darwinian Perspective:Modern biology often explainsthis apparent purposefulness as an illusion, a result of evolutionary processes rather than deliberate design. 4. Argument from Design C ommon Argument:The complexity and order of the world,especially in living beings, are often used to argue for the existence of a supernatural designer. Example:If stones on a hillside spell out a message,one would naturally assume they were purposefully arranged, not the result of random natural processes. 5. Chance and Evidence R ationality of Belief:It would be irrational to believeboth that something is evidence of a particular truth (like the stones spelling a message) and that it could be the result of chance. Application to Senses:Our senses are complex andseemingly purposeful, but if they arose purely from non-purposeful natural forces, their reliability as guides to truth would be questionable. 6. Senses as Reliable Guides T rust in Senses:Despite their possible non-purposefulorigins, we trust our senses to reveal truths about the world, independent of their structure or origins. Philosophical Implication:The reliability of oursenses is assumed, but if they originated purely by chance, their ability to guide us to truth beyond themselves is debatable. 7. Conclusion P urpose and Truth:If our cognitive faculties havea purely natural origin without any purpose, they may not be reliable guides to truth. However, we continue to rely on them, assuming they reveal truths about the world beyond their mere existence. Main Argument Watch vs. Stone: ○ If you find a stone, you might think it has always been there, but if you find a watch, you'd think someone made it because it's clearly designed for a purpose (e.g., telling time). ○ T he watch has complex parts that work together for a specific function, which suggests it was created by an intelligent designer. Supporting Points 1. Lack of Knowledge Doesn't Dismiss Design: ○ Even if you've never seen a watch being made or don't know how it works, you would still conclude that someone designed it because it’s too intricate to have come about by chance. 2. Imperfections Don't Disprove Design: ○ If the watch sometimes doesn’t work properly, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed. Imperfections don’t invalidate the evidence of design. 3. Unknown Parts Don't Disprove Design: ○ Not understanding the function of every part of the watch doesn’t mean it wasn't designed. Complexity often leads to some aspects being harder to understand. 4. Order and Design Aren't by Chance: ○ Suggesting the watch came together by chance or by some natural principle of order doesn’t make sense because design and purpose are evident. 5. Laws of Nature Need a Designer: ○ The idea that natural laws alone could create a watch (or anything similarly complex) is flawed because laws themselves require an agent to act upon them. 6. Ignorance Doesn’t Undermine the Argument: ○ Even if you don’t know everything about the watch, what you do know is enough to reasonably conclude it was designed. Further Illustration Self-Reproducing Watch: ○ If the watch could produce another watch, it would only strengthen the argument for a designer, showing even greater skill in the design. ○ The process of one watch creating another doesn’t eliminate the need for an original designer; it actually supports the idea of intentional design even more. Application to Nature The Eye and Natural Objects: ○ The same logic applies to natural objects like the eye, animals, and plants. Their complex and purposeful design points to an intelligent creator, even if there are imperfections. his reading presents the classic "watchmaker analogy," arguing that just as a watch’s T complexity implies a designer, so too does the complexity of the natural world. Richard Dawkins: Critique of Religion and the Argument from Design I. Introduction: Criticism of Religion M any harmful actions have been done in the name of God (e.g., violence, oppression, controlling people's lives). The argument: Believing in God has caused a lot of suffering and wasted time, and there's no good reason to believe God exists. II. Why People Believe in God: The Argument from Design M any people believe in God because the world looks so complex and well-designed. Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy: Just like a watch needs a watchmaker, complex things like the human eye must have been designed by God. III. Evolution Offers a Different Explanation Theory of Evolution (Darwin and Wallace): ○ Evolution by natural selection explains how life became complex without needing a designer. Statistical Improbability: ○ Things that look designed are unlikely to form by chance, but evolution happens in small steps over time, making it possible. IV. Misunderstandings About Evolution Partial Organs Can Still Work: ○ Misconception: An incomplete eye or wing is useless. ○ Reality: Even partial eyes or wings provide some advantage (e.g., cataract patients can still see a little; gliding animals use partial wings). V. Evidence for Evolution F ossils and genetic data strongly support evolution. No fossils have been found that contradict the theory of evolution. Common Ancestor: All living things are related throughevolution, sharing a common ancestor. VI. The Argument from Design is Outdated E volution shows that life’s complexity can develop without a designer, making the need for God unnecessary. VII. Other Reasons People Believe in God Some believe in God because of personal experiences or feelings. C ritique: These beliefs can be unreliable, especially since different people have different, conflicting beliefs. VIII. The Origin of Life and the Universe W hile evolution explains how life developed, it doesn’t explain how the universe or life began. Scientific Explanation: Simple physical and chemicalprocesses could explain the start of the universe without needing God. IX. Conclusion B elieving in God to explain the complexity of life is no longer necessary, as science and evolution provide better, simpler answers. Michael Behe: 1. Introduction to Evolutionary Theory D arwin's Theory of Evolution: Introduced inThe Originof Speciesand accepted by most biologists shortly after publication. Creationism vs. Evolution: Darwin’s theory replacedthe idea of species being created by a supernatural being. Evolution's Success: Explained biological phenomenalike homologous structures, rudimentary organs, species abundance, and extinction better than other theories. 2. Evolution vs. Other Scientific Theories H istorical Parallel: Like Newton’s theory of gravity,Darwin’s theory was successful but had limitations. Replacement by New Theories: Just as Einstein’s theoryof relativity improved upon Newton’s ideas, discoveries in modern science have challenged some aspects of Darwin’s theory. 3. Darwin's Challenge: The Complexity of the Eye T he Eye’s Complexity: In the 19th century, the eyewas known to be highly complex, and Darwin acknowledged this challenge. Darwin’s Argument: He suggested that the eye couldhave evolved from simpler forms found in other animals. Unanswered Questions: Darwin didn’t explain how theeye’s mechanism actually worked, leaving some aspects of biology as "black boxes" (unknowns). 4. Modern Science Reveals Complexity B iochemical Advances: By the late 20th century, sciencehad uncovered the molecular details behind biological processes, like vision. Proteins as Molecular Machines: Proteins, which arechains of amino acids, perform specific tasks in the body (e.g., rhodopsin in the eye). Molecular Vision Process: When light hits the retina,it triggers a series of chemical reactions, ultimately creating a nerve signal sent to the brain. 5. The Concept of Irreducible Complexity Irreducible Complexity: Systems that cannot functionif any part is missing, like a mousetrap, are considered irreducibly complex. Biological Examples: Many biological systems, likevision and protein transport, are thought to be irreducibly complex. Challenge to Evolution: Irreducibly complex systemspose a challenge to Darwin’s idea of gradual evolution since they require all parts to function. 6. Closing Thoughts on Design and Evolution T he Design Argument: Some scientists argue that thecomplexity of life suggests an intelligent design rather than random evolutionary processes. Historical Perspective: Just as the Big Bang theorywas initially resisted but later accepted, the idea of design in biology might gain wider acceptance based on scientific evidence. A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God Class Notes on "The Evidence of Fine-tuning" 1. The Martian Biosphere Example ○ Imagine finding a perfectly designed biosphere on Mars. We'd conclude it was intelligently designed, not a product of chance. ○ This example mirrors how the universe is "fine-tuned" to support life, which suggests an intelligent designer behind it. 2. Fine-tuning in the Universe ○ The universe appears perfectly balanced for life. For example, physical laws and constants seem set "just right" for life to be possible. ○ Without this fine-tuning, life as we know it would be impossible (e.g., liquid water, carbon molecules, etc.). ○ This is called "cosmic fine-tuning" and has been discussed by scientists and philosophers, with many seeing it as evidence for the existence of God. 3. Examples of Fine-tuning ○ B ig Bang Explosion Strength: If it were even slightly different, stars wouldn't form, and life wouldn't exist. ○ Strong Nuclear Force: If this force were just 5% strongeror weaker, life would be impossible. ○ Gravity: If gravity were altered by even a tiny fraction,life-sustaining stars wouldn't exist. ○ Proton-Neutron Mass: A small difference in their masseswould mean life couldn’t form. ○ Electromagnetic Force: Slight changes here would preventlife. 4. Fine-tuning Analogy ○ Imagine life is like a radio with dials that need to be set perfectly. If even one dial is off, life wouldn’t exist. ○ Or, think of throwing a dart at a tiny target in a galaxy-sized dartboard – hitting the target by chance seems impossible. 5. Is Fine-tuning Proof of God? ○ Fine-tuning strongly supports the idea of a designer (like God), but doesn't prove it beyond doubt. ○ Premise 1: Fine-tuning isn’t improbable if God existssince He would likely create life. ○ Premise 2: Fine-tuning seems extremely improbableunder an atheistic single-universe view. ○ Conclusion: The existence of fine-tuning gives strongevidence for a designer, though it doesn’t conclusively prove theism. 6. Atheistic Objections ○ Some atheists suggest that fine-tuning could be explained by a "many-universe" hypothesis, where many universes exist, and we just happen to be in the one that supports life. ○ Nonetheless, many argue that the fine-tuning we observe is better explained by intelligent design than by chance. 7. Conclusion ○ While fine-tuning alone doesn't prove God's existence, it gives strong support to the idea of a designer when compared to the idea that the universe formed by random chance. Objections to the Core Version of the Fine-Tuning Argument (Simplified) Objection 1: More Fundamental Law Objection S ome argue that a deeper, unknown law could determine the constants of physics. This law would explain why the values are life-permitting and not surprising. However, this only shifts the question one step back: why does this fundamental law exist? It’s like explaining a rock pattern spelling "Welcome" by saying an earthquake caused it, which just moves the improbability elsewhere. Objection 2: Other Forms of Life Objection C ritics suggest other types of life might exist with different physical constants. The argument doesn't assume life has to be like us, but life needs stable, organized complexity. For example, if the strong nuclear force were slightly different, no atoms but hydrogen would exist, which can't support complex life. Objection 3: Anthropic Principle Objection S ome say the universe must allow life because we're here to observe it. The response is that our existence is extremely unlikely under atheism but expected under theism. The analogy: if a firing squad misses you, it's not just luck; you'd assume there's a reason they didn’t intend to kill you. Objection 4: The "Who Designed God?" Objection A theists argue that if the universe is complex and needs a designer, then God must also need one. The response is that not all complexity needs an explanation, and even if God is complex, theism still explains fine-tuning better than atheism. Example: If a biosphere existed on Mars, we’d still conclude it was designed by something more complex, like aliens. The Many-Universes Hypothesis T his hypothesis suggests an infinite number of universes, with ours being just one where conditions happen to allow life. Two models: 1. Vacuum fluctuation models: Universes spontaneouslyform in a larger "superspace" like soap bubbles. 2. Oscillating Big Bang models: Universes collapse andre-form in endless cycles, with new physical constants each time. Reasons for Rejecting the Many-Universes Hypothesis 1. L ack of Evidence: We should prefer hypotheses supportedby independent evidence. We have experience of minds designing things, but no evidence for multiple universes. 2. The Universe Generator Problem: The many-universesgenerator itself would need fine-tuning, so this doesn’t solve the design problem. 3. Improbable Initial Conditions: The high degree of initial order in our universe (low entropy) is unlikely to happen by chance, even with many universes. Most universes would have small patches of order, not the widespread order we observe. Conclusion T he many-universes hypothesis has major drawbacks compared to theism. Adopting this hypothesis makes atheism less plausible than before. Ivan’s Doubt About Loving Others:Ivan struggles withthe idea of truly loving people, especially when we get close to them and see their flaws. He believes that only from a distance can people be loved in an idealized way, but real love, like the kind Christ showed, is impossible for flawed humans. The Problem of Evil:Ivan talks about horrific actsof cruelty, especially against children, and questions how these can exist if people are supposed to love one another. He sees humans as capable of deliberate and artistic cruelty, worse than animals. Innocence of Children:Ivan finds it especially unfairthat innocent children suffer. Unlike adults, who understand good and evil, children don’t deserve pain, and this makes the problem of evil more troubling to him. Hypocrisy and Society's Response to Suffering:Ivancriticizes society for being hypocritical when it comes to suffering, like celebrating a criminal’s conversion before execution or justifying domestic abuse. He believes society often makes cruelty seem acceptable. Critique of Religion and Morality:Ivan doubts thatany religious or moral system can explain the unfair suffering of the innocent. This conversation opens up a larger critique of faith, morality, and the existence of God. Alyosha’s Hopeful View:Alyosha, a novice monk, acknowledgesthe difficulty of loving others but believes it’s possible. He sees hope in Christ-like love and believes humans are capable of it, even with their flaws. Philosophical Points: T he Problem of Evil:How can a good, all-powerfulGod allow evil and suffering? Human Nature:Ivan is cynical, thinking humans can’ttruly love others, while Alyosha believes in humanity’s potential for love. Moral Responsibility:Ivan highlights the unfairnessof innocent suffering, especially with children, raising questions about justice and punishment. In short, Ivan sees a bleak world full of suffering and doubts love is possible, while Alyosha holds onto hope and believes in the power of love. C ontext: Ivan Karamazov discusses the problem of evilwith his brother Alyosha, focusing on the suffering of innocent children. S tory 1: Ivan recounts the story of a five-year-old girl abused by her own mother—beaten, smeared with excrement, and neglected—highlighting the senseless cruelty inflicted on her. Story 2: Ivan tells of a serf boy who, after accidentallyinjuring a general's dog, is torn apart by the general's hounds as punishment, all in front of his mother. The general goes unpunished. Ivan's Argument: ○ He uses these examples to argue that no future harmony or divine justice can justify the suffering of innocents. ○ Ivan questions the necessity of such suffering for humanity to know good and evil. Rejection of Divine Plan: ○ Ivan rejects the idea that this suffering could be part of a larger divine plan, even if it results in future peace and harmony. ○ He specifically rejects the idea of children suffering to enrich the "soil" of future harmony. Refusal to Forgive: Ivan insists that neither thechildren nor their mothers can forgive their oppressors, as the suffering of the children is unforgivable. Renouncing Harmony: ○ Ivan refuses to accept any form of harmony or justice that requires the suffering of even one innocent child. ○ He states that he would rather live with unavenged suffering than accept such a price for harmony. "Returning the Ticket": ○ Ivan metaphorically "returns his ticket" to this world, rejecting God not out of disbelief, but because he cannot accept a world where innocent suffering exists. Alyosha’s Reaction: ○ Alyosha is deeply disturbed by Ivan’s argument and acknowledges that this position is a form of rebellion, though he remains conflicted. his passage emphasizes Ivan’s philosophical and emotional struggle with the existence of evil T and suffering in a world governed by a supposedly just and loving God. Molto and Nagasawa Introduction T he problem of animal suffering is increasingly discussed in philosophy of religion. Key texts include: ○ Michael J. Murray'sNature Red in Tooth and Claw(2008):Offers various theistic responses to animal suffering. ○ T rent Dougherty'sThe Problem of Animal Pain(2014): Argues that animals can have morally significant spiritual development through suffering. ○ Christopher Southgate'sThe Groaning of Creation(2008):Suggests that evolution and its associated suffering are necessary for the beauty and diversity of creation. ○ Nicola Hoggard Creegan'sAnimal Suffering and theProblem of Evil(2013): Uses biblical analogy to support a similar view to Southgate's. The Problem of Evil W illiam Rowe’s ‘Bambi’ Case (1979): Provides an exampleto argue the problem of animal suffering: ○ A fawn suffers and dies in a forest fire, which seems pointless with no apparent greater good or worse evil connected to it. ○ This case is used to argue that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God existed, such gratuitous suffering should not occur. Theodicies 1. Free-Will Theodicy ○ Claims that free will is a great good, even if it leads to evil, because humans need to have the capacity to choose between good and evil. ○ This does not explain animal suffering as animals lack free will. 2. Soul-Making Theodicy ○ Suggests that suffering is necessary for developing virtues like perseverance and bravery. ○ This is harder to apply to animals as they may not develop virtues in the same way as humans. ○ However, it could be argued that animal suffering helps humans develop virtues such as empathy. New Defense Against the Problem of Animal Suffering T he focus is on arguing that cases like the ‘Bambi’ case do not provide conclusive evidence against classical theism. Skeptical Response: Question the assumption that unseenanimal suffering actually occurs. ○ René Descartes’ View: Historically argued that animalsdo not have the mental life to suffer, though this view is largely out of favor today. ○ Moorean Shift: Suggests flipping the evidential argument: If there is a God, then perhaps animals do not suffer when unseen. Propose that God might intervene to prevent unseen animal suffering. Discussion Points P robability and Simplicity: Adding properties (like God intervening) makes a theory less simple, but this does not necessarily make it less probable. Comparison to Atheism: The argument does not conclusivelyshow that the existence of a God who prevents unseen animal suffering is less likely than atheism. Conclusion: The proposal that God prevents unseensuffering might still be a coherent and compatible explanation within theism. Key Takeaways T he problem of animal suffering remains a challenging issue for classical theism. Various theodicies offer partial explanations but may not fully address the problem. New defenses, like the Moorean shift, provide alternative ways to understand and counter the problem of animal suffering. NAGASAWA 6.1 Introduction M ain Argument:The problem of evil is a strong argumentagainst theism, but it also challenges atheism. The problem of systemic evil, a version of the problem of evil, affects both theism and atheism. This version of the problem is more challenging for atheism than for theism. Structure of the Chapter: ○ 6.2:Introduction to the problem of systemic evil. ○ 6.3:Discussion on existential optimism. ○ 6.4:Combining existential optimism with the problemof systemic evil to develop a new problem. ○ 6.5:The problem’s impact on atheism compared to theism. ○ 6.6:Conclusion. 6.2 The Problem of Systemic Evil for Theists N atural Selection and Cruelty:Nature’s process involvessevere competition, suffering, and death, raising a challenge for theism. The biological system is seen as fundamentally cruel and thus incompatible with an omnipotent, morally perfect God. Darwin’s Perspective: ○ Darwin was troubled by nature’s cruelty, such as parasitic wasps feeding on living hosts. ○ Darwin compared nature to a cruel survival game where organisms suffer and die. Philosophers’ Views: ○ Holmes Rolston III:Points out the numerous evilsin nature (e.g., predation, suffering). ○ R ichard Dawkins:Describes nature as harsh and expresses a desire to change it. Systemic Evil:This term refers to the cruelty embeddedin the entire biological system, rather than just specific events. It’s a stronger challenge to theism than standard problems of evil because it targets the whole system. 6.3 Existential Optimism D efinition:Existential optimism is the belief thatthe world is overall good and that we should be grateful for our existence. Theistic Perspective: ○ Genesis:Describes creation as “very good.” ○ Theists often express gratitude to God and see life as a gift. Atheist Perspective: ○ David Benatar:Argues that existence is a harm andsuggests that non-existence is preferable. ○ Paul Kurtz & Richard Dawkins:Despite not believingin God, they express gratitude for life and the wonders of the universe. ○ Greta Christina:Feels a sense of gratitude for thegood things in her life, including her existence. Conclusion:Existential optimism is held by both theistsand atheists. It’s a positive view of life and existence that does not necessarily involve belief in a deity. Existential Problem of Systemic Evil 1. What's the Problem? ○ Existential Optimism:Believing that life is generallygood and we should be happy to be alive. ○ Systemic Evil:The fact that our existence relieson a system (like evolution) that causes a lot of pain and suffering for many creatures. ○ The problem is that it's hard to stay optimistic about life when you know that it comes at such a high cost. 2. Comparison to Apology Paradox: ○ Apology Paradox:Feeling sorry for benefiting frompast wrongs (like historical injustices) while still being glad you're alive. ○ The existential problem is deeper because it deals with a fundamental, ongoing system of suffering, not just specific historical events. Disadvantage of Atheism 1. Limits of Atheism: ○ Atheism:Belief that there’s nothing beyond the physicalworld. ○ Since atheism doesn’t include ideas like an afterlife or a higher power, it struggles more with the problem of systemic evil because it can't offer a broader perspective. 2. Theistic Advantages: ○ Theism:Belief in a higher power or an afterlife. ○ Theists can argue that even if our world has a lot of suffering, there could be a higher purpose or an afterlife that makes it all worthwhile. ○ They have more tools to address the problem because they believe in things beyond just the physical world. Conclusion T he essay suggests that while both atheists and theists face challenges with understanding the suffering in the world, theists might be in a better position to handle these challenges because they believe in more than just the material world. This could make theism a more appealing option for addressing the problem of systemic evil. Molto and Nagasawa Introduction T he problem of animal suffering is increasingly discussed in philosophy of religion. Key texts include: ○ Michael J. Murray'sNature Red in Tooth and Claw(2008):Offers various theistic responses to animal suffering. ○ Trent Dougherty'sThe Problem of Animal Pain(2014):Argues that animals can have morally significant spiritual development through suffering. ○ Christopher Southgate'sThe Groaning of Creation(2008):Suggests that evolution and its associated suffering are necessary for the beauty and diversity of creation. ○ Nicola Hoggard Creegan'sAnimal Suffering and theProblem of Evil(2013): Uses biblical analogy to support a similar view to Southgate's. The Problem of Evil W illiam Rowe’s ‘Bambi’ Case (1979): Provides an exampleto argue the problem of animal suffering: ○ A fawn suffers and dies in a forest fire, which seems pointless with no apparent greater good or worse evil connected to it. ○ This case is used to argue that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God existed, such gratuitous suffering should not occur. Theodicies 1. Free-Will Theodicy ○ Claims that free will is a great good, even if it leads to evil, because humans need to have the capacity to choose between good and evil. This does not explain animal suffering as animals lack free will. ○ 2. Soul-Making Theodicy ○ Suggests that suffering is necessary for developing virtues like perseverance and bravery. ○ This is harder to apply to animals as they may not develop virtues in the same way as humans. ○ However, it could be argued that animal suffering helps humans develop virtues such as empathy. New Defense Against the Problem of Animal Suffering T he focus is on arguing that cases like the ‘Bambi’ case do not provide conclusive evidence against classical theism. Skeptical Response: Question the assumption that unseenanimal suffering actually occurs. ○ René Descartes’ View: Historically argued that animalsdo not have the mental life to suffer, though this view is largely out of favor today. ○ Moorean Shift: Suggests flipping the evidential argument: If there is a God, then perhaps animals do not suffer when unseen. Propose that God might intervene to prevent unseen animal suffering. Discussion Points P robability and Simplicity: Adding properties (likeGod intervening) makes a theory less simple, but this does not necessarily make it less probable. Comparison to Atheism: The argument does not conclusivelyshow that the existence of a God who prevents unseen animal suffering is less likely than atheism. Conclusion: The proposal that God prevents unseensuffering might still be a coherent and compatible explanation within theism. Key Takeaways T he problem of animal suffering remains a challenging issue for classical theism. Various theodicies offer partial explanations but may not fully address the problem. New defenses, like the Moorean shift, provide alternative ways to understand and counter the problem of animal suffering. NAGASAWA 6.1 Introduction M ain Argument:The problem of evil is a strong argumentagainst theism, but it also challenges atheism. The problem of systemic evil, a version of the problem of evil, affects both theism and atheism. This version of the problem is more challenging for atheism than for theism. Structure of the Chapter: ○ 6.2:Introduction to the problem of systemic evil. ○ 6.3:Discussion on existential optimism. ○ 6.4:Combining existential optimism with the problemof systemic evil to develop a new problem. ○ 6.5:The problem’s impact on atheism compared to theism. ○ 6.6:Conclusion. 6.2 The Problem of Systemic Evil for Theists N atural Selection and Cruelty:Nature’s process involvessevere competition, suffering, and death, raising a challenge for theism. The biological system is seen as fundamentally cruel and thus incompatible with an omnipotent, morally perfect God. Darwin’s Perspective: ○ Darwin was troubled by nature’s cruelty, such as parasitic wasps feeding on living hosts. ○ Darwin compared nature to a cruel survival game where organisms suffer and die. Philosophers’ Views: ○ Holmes Rolston III:Points out the numerous evilsin nature (e.g., predation, suffering). ○ Richard Dawkins:Describes nature as harsh and expressesa desire to change it. Systemic Evil:This term refers to the cruelty embeddedin the entire biological system, rather than just specific events. It’s a stronger challenge to theism than standard problems of evil because it targets the whole system. 6.3 Existential Optimism D efinition:Existential optimism is the belief thatthe world is overall good and that we should be grateful for our existence. Theistic Perspective: ○ Genesis:Describes creation as “very good.” ○ Theists often express gratitude to God and see life as a gift. Atheist Perspective: ○ David Benatar:Argues that existence is a harm andsuggests that non-existence is preferable. ○ Paul Kurtz & Richard Dawkins:Despite not believingin God, they express gratitude for life and the wonders of the universe. ○ Greta Christina:Feels a sense of gratitude for thegood things in her life, including her existence. Conclusion:Existential optimism is held by both theistsand atheists. It’s a positive view of life and existence that does not necessarily involve belief in a deity. Existential Problem of Systemic Evil 1. What's the Problem? ○ Existential Optimism:Believing that life is generallygood and we should be happy to be alive. ○ Systemic Evil:The fact that our existence relieson a system (like evolution) that causes a lot of pain and suffering for many creatures. ○ The problem is that it's hard to stay optimistic about life when you know that it comes at such a high cost. 2. Comparison to Apology Paradox: ○ Apology Paradox:Feeling sorry for benefiting frompast wrongs (like historical injustices) while still being glad you're alive. ○ The existential problem is deeper because it deals with a fundamental, ongoing system of suffering, not just specific historical events. Disadvantage of Atheism 1. Limits of Atheism: ○ Atheism:Belief that there’s nothing beyond the physicalworld. ○ Since atheism doesn’t include ideas like an afterlife or a higher power, it struggles more with the problem of systemic evil because it can't offer a broader perspective. 2. Theistic Advantages: ○ Theism:Belief in a higher power or an afterlife. ○ Theists can argue that even if our world has a lot of suffering, there could be a higher purpose or an afterlife that makes it all worthwhile. ○ They have more tools to address the problem because they believe in things beyond just the physical world. Conclusion T he essay suggests that while both atheists and theists face challenges with understanding the suffering in the world, theists might be in a better position to handle these challenges because they believe in more than just the material world. This could make theism a more appealing option for addressing the problem of systemic evil. lass Notes on the Story of the Shipowner and the Importance of Belief C Based on Evidence I. The Shipowner's Story: Overview 1. The Situation: ○ A shipowner is about to send an old, worn ship on a voyage. ○ He hasdoubtsabout the ship's seaworthiness due topast repairs and its age. ○ D espite these doubts, he convinces himself that the ship is safe because of its successful voyages in the past. 2. Rationalization: ○ He trusts that the ship will make it through the voyage like it has before. ○ He believes inProvidence(a higher power protectingthe emigrants on the ship). ○ He suppresses his doubts, convinces himself of the ship's safety, and dismisses concerns aboutbuildersandcontractors. . Outcome: 3 ○ The ship sinks, and many die. ○ The shipowner collects theinsurance money. II. Moral Judgment on the Shipowner: 1. Guilt: ○ A lthough the shipownersincerelybelieved the shipwas seaworthy, he isguilty of the deaths. ○ His belief was based onsuppressed doubts, notcarefulinvestigation. ○ Even if his conviction was strong, he deliberately convinced himself despite the evidence. 2. Responsibility: ○ The shipowner did not have a right to hold that belief without a properbasis. ○ His guilt remains, whether or not the ship survived the voyage. If it had survived, he would just havenot been found out, but still wouldbe morally wrong. III. Another Example: The False Accusers 1. Scenario: ○ Inhabitants of an island falsely accuse religious groups of harming children based oninsufficient evidence. ○ A Commission investigates and proves the accused are innocent, but the accusers still heldstrong beliefswithout good evidence. 2. Moral Judgment: ○ Even though the accusers weresincere, they had noright to their beliefs based oninsufficient evidence. ○ Their actions were driven byprejudice and passion,nottruth. ○ If the accused had been guilty, it still wouldn’t excuse the accusers' failure to base their belief onproper investigation. IV. Belief and Action: 1. Separation of Belief and Action: ○ Some argue it's not wrong tobelievesomething, butit is wrong to act on that belief without sufficientinvestigation. ○ Example: The shipowner might have believed the ship was safe but still had a dutyto investigate. ○ S imilarly, the accusers should haveinvestigated thoroughlybefore attacking reputations. 2. Counterargument: ○ Belief and action are deeply connected. ○ A belief not founded on proper inquiry affects our actions and decisions. ○ Every belief influences future actions, even if notimmediately visible. V. The Social Impact of Belief: 1. Belief as a Social Responsibility: ○ Beliefs are not just personal; they affectsociety. ○ Our beliefs shape the world and impact future generations. ○ Therefore, we must take extreme care to ensure our beliefs are based on evidenceandtruth. 2. The Harm of False Belief: ○ False or careless beliefs can lead towrong actions. ○ Habitual credulity (believing without sufficient evidence) weakens society’sability to inquireand find truth. ○ A credulous person fosters an environment offalsehoodand encourages deceit. VI. Conclusion: The Duty to Question Belief 1. Moral Duty: ○ It is wrong to believe anything based oninsufficientevidence. ○ We all have a duty toquestion our beliefsand ensurethey are founded on truth. 2. Consequences of Careless Belief: ○ Careless beliefweakens self-controland promotescredulity. ○ It affects not just the individual but thesocietyaround them. 3. Final Thought: ○ If someone does not have time to investigate properly, they should not hold a belief at all.
