The Philosophy of Religion

Introduction to the Topic.  

Ultimately it is our experience that shapes our religious beliefs, whether they be revelatory or impacted upon as we gain knowledge: so it is that experience is the great teacher. But within the modern intellectual landscape, the distinction arises between being "religious" and "spiritual" as a modern-day shift in how individuals construct meaning.

The philosophy of religion acts to critique the structural components of organized faith as against the individual's experience-driven nature of spirituality. The answer as to whether a person can be spiritual but not religious is a qualified "yes," since spirituality can function as a personalized ethical way of life that exists independently of formal, dogmatic structures.

The philosophy of religion does not just study "religion" as for instance within the confines of a monolithic entity; it also examines the spiritual experience—let us say the "inward turn". Philosophy offers a systematic framework to consider spiritual insights, ensuring they are not just "private anxiety," but a structured engagement with the "Real" – that is associated with a GOD or Creator Spirit(s) or the like.  

Similarly the epistemology of religion is interested in how a person can know or have justification for their spiritual beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs come from an organized church or personal experience.

The Philosophy of Religion – Introduction

This series of notes explores the Philosophy of Religion by first focusing in Part 1 on those religious experiences before considering the arguments that rationally attempt to establish GOD’S existence in more detail in Part 2 under the framework of epistemology – the accumulated knowledge as it relates to the philosophy of religion.

Introduction- Part 1  

The philosophy of religion has grappled with this question: Does belief in a GOD as a higher power derive from our abstract reasoning, or is it rooted in the human experience? 

From the dawn of civilization to modernity it is our direct experience that has served us well as the great teacher to underpin a belief in God or Gods. These experiences, which can be mystical, ecstatic, or scientific all share the "noetic" (Note 7) quality described by William James. "Noetic" quality according to American philosopher and psychologist William James (1902 work –‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’) refers to a defining characteristic of mystical states where they are experienced not just as feelings, but as states of knowledge or insight. 

James argued that these experiences provide direct, profound, and often inexpressible insights into truths that are otherwise unavailable to the "discursive intellect" (Note 1) or rational, analytical thinking. In other words they often convey an insight into the nature of reality much more convincing than any logical argument.

We have mostly heard the saying it wasn't a ‘Damascus Moment’ for us as analogous to the experience and life changing event of St Paul on the road to Damascus where he was temporarily blinded to interpret that experience as a divine command to cease his persecution of Christians. So we, or indeed you, may not have had any Damascus-like momentous experiences but nevertheless there will be past experiences you may wish to share with the group that subsequently shaped your life and thoughts. Such is the nature of us as human beings who like to ‘yarn’, tell stories about ourselves and how defining events and profound experiences subsequently shaped our lives.

Ancient Beginnings and the Cosmic Order

In the ancient world astronomy and theology was almost non-existent. Early astronomers, often acting as priests, presided over those stories as was the case of the biblical account in the Old Testament (OT) – (Note  8) in the story of Adam and Eve.

One author, of which there can be little doubt, was an ancient astronomer, combined with the philosophical and priestly collaborative authors in respect to the Genesis texts. Such conclusions can be deduced from the distinctive different style of writing and context.   

Those astronomers did not just chart the stars for agriculture but rather saw the cosmos as a direct manifestation of the divine. The movements of planets for those ancients were understood as the behaviour of GODS and the stellar events as direct, lived revelations of divine will. (Note 2 ) The First

Nations peoples drew pictures of solar eclipses on the walls which have been recently discovered and the stars provided the guiding highways to seasonal harvests from the sea and in understanding migratory eel framing that underpinned their existence. In the Christian tradition the wise man followed the stars to the birth of Christ. 

So that for these early watchers of the majestic cosmos of the night sky provided an imaginative experience to confirm in their mind’s confirmation of a governing intelligence – an intelligent Designer. (Note 6)

Later on as Copernicus and Kepler moved towards a heliocentric model (i.e. A model which saw the earth and other planets circling the sun), their discovery led them to believe in a more harmonious “divine" design ( Note 6 ) of the universe. A heliocentric model is an astronomical system in which the Sun is assumed to be at or near the centre of the solar system, with the Earth and other planets revolving around it. This model replaced the long-accepted geocentric model, which incorrectly placed the Earth at the centre of the universe.

Whilst a heliocentric view turned out also to be technically flawed and inaccurate in several key ways it marked an important stepping stone in thinking that paved the way to an even greater transformative experience that was to come given Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity revelation. (Note 3).

There are, of course, other religious traditions in which experience plays a key role.

Hinduism: The Primacy of Direct Experience

Nowhere can we find a more emphatic role to that of experience as the primary teacher than in the Hindu tradition. Hinduism is often described as an experiential religion, as it posits the seeing of the deity and anubhava (direct, personal experiences of God) are prioritized over dogma or blind faith. Vedic rishis (seers) describe such experiences as encountering a "light of lights" or a "divine sweet honey" that transform their understanding of one's understanding of our existence.

The Upanishads emphasize brahman (ultimate reality) not just as a philosophical concept but as a state of consciousness to be realized within oneself. The Hindu emphasis on bhakti (devotion) and samadhi (meditative absorption) demonstrates that the divine is to be felt directly, and this personal experience acts as the ultimate validation of God's existence. Their influence has extended into the modern era. 

Mystics and the Inner Landscape
Hence Mystics across all traditions—from Sufi poets to Christian contemplative saints—provide an intense demonstration of experience as a teacher. Mysticism involves an experience, where the boundary between the self and the Divine seems to dissolve. These experiences therefore are described as "ineffable" ( Note 5 ) meaning they cannot be fully communicated in words, as remarked by Wittgenstein as ‘beyond the ceiling imposed by language’ yet they leave the individual with an unwavering certainty about the reality of the divine.

These can occur through intense meditation or prayer or demonstrated unexpectedly at any time which led people to believe that the divine can be accessed inwardly beyond the phenomenal world (as for St. Paul on the road to Damascus). 

Scientific Discovery as Revelation
In the modern era, the "experience of discovery" invites both a functional and religious experience. Johannes Kepler described "unutterable rapture" upon his discovery of the mathematical harmony governing planetary motion, seeing it as a direct glimpse into the mind of GOD. Similarly, Albert Einstein spoke of a "cosmic religious feeling" in his emotional state as a consequence of the awe-inspiring harmony of nature, analogous to the experience of a mystic or a person in love.

And so it is for many pioneering scientists, the experience of uncovering nature's laws was a deeply spiritual revelatory experience, reinforcing a belief in an underlying intelligence as in GOD. 

Conclusion: Experience as the Great Teacher

Hence one can say with some confidence that religious experiences have been, and remain, the great teacher in the philosophy of religion. It bridges the gap between the finite human mind and the infinite to provide more convincing direct evidence over rationalist dogma. Whether that be the ancient priest witnessing the heliacal rising of a star, the yogi experiencing samadhi or a mystic feeling union with GOD , or the modern scientist overwhelmed by the elegance of a formula or the Cosmos - the human experience is the bedrock of faith from antiquity to modernity. 

Our perception of reality is in turn the process of the mind's interpretation of the profound, unmediated, and transformative power of experience.

But before concluding there is a further point which has the potential to conflate the issue relating to experience and reason. Scottish Philosopher

David Hume argued, for example, that our knowledge is delivered through our experiences. And there is a sense in which all human activity relies on our experiences and making sense of them.

So a troubling question is whether rationality is actually a subset of experience itself. In a nutshell note that in everyday existence David Hume dispensed with the idea of a self by proposing human beings are a continuing entity of unfolding perceptions made up of memories- a bundle or collection of different perceptions.   

But how would one even know that if that's all there is to human beings? How would you determine what one perception is as distinct from another? 

Seeing Ourselves- Raymond Tallis  

Professor Raymond Tallis as a defender of the concept of the self, positions  himself against what he terms "autocides"—thinkers, often in the empiricist or neuro philosophical traditions, who argue that the self is an illusion. Tallis finds Hume’s argument unconvincing not because he rejects empiricism entirely, but because he believes Hume looks for the self in the wrong place, employs flawed logic, and ignores the foundational, experiential reality of being a conscious subject.

The Problem of the "Perceiver"

Hume’s famous argument, presented in A Treatise of Human Nature, states: “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other... I can never catch myself at any time without a perception.”

Tallis argues that this formulation contains a fundamental logical contradiction. He points out that Hume’s own argument depends on the existence of an "I" that conducts the investigation.

The Observer Needed: To "stumble" upon a perception and to "catch" oneself requires an active observer (a subject) who is distinct from the perceptions (the objects) being observed.

Pragmatic Contradiction: If the self is only a bundle of perceptions, there is no entity left to hold that bundle together. A "bundle" of perceptions implies a "bundler"—a subject of experience—or it would merely be a chaotic, disconnected stream of sensations rather than a personal experience.

Searching in the Wrong Place

Tallis argues that Hume’s failure to find the self is a result of looking for the self as if it were just another "percept" or "object" inside the mind.

Subject vs. Object: The self is not a thing to be found among perceptions; it is the subject that has the perceptions.

Presupposition of Self: The "I" is not a fleeting perception but is instead presupposed in all perception. The very act of experiencing a "cold" or a "pleasure" as my experience means the self is already present.

The "Bundle" Requires a Container

Tallis dismisses the metaphor of a "bundle" as insufficient to explain the cohesion of human experience.

The Unity of Consciousness: A collection of perceptions (a bundle) does not inherently create a unified, temporal, and biographical person.

The Active Agent: Tallis advocates for a view where the self is a "first-person being"—a conscious human agent that is not just a container for perceptions, but an active participant, a "point of departure" engaged with the world.

The Neglect of Embodied Being

For Tallis, Hume’s focus on purely mental "perceptions" misses the vital role of the embodied self. He argues that the self is not just a mental stream but is anchored in the "material body".

The "I am" Principle: Tallis posits that the self is established by "self-appropriation," where the individual identifies with their own body, a feeling of "That I am this".

Intentionality: The self is defined by its intentional engagement with the world—its "My Space" as constructed by memories, projects, and relationships, which provide a continuity that a mere bundle of sensations cannot.

Conclusion

Raymond Tallis’s critique of David Hume is essentially a defence of the "I" against the "bundle" of impressions. He argues that Hume’s sceptical conclusion is a result of looking for the self in the wrong place—treating the subject as just another object—and that his argument is pragmatically self-defeating. For Tallis, the self is a necessary, albeit complex, foundational reality of human existence, not a "fictional" illusion to be discarded.

There is no paradox to worry about as posited by Hume as his philosophy is deeply flawed.   

Discussion Question

What has been your experience that shaped your belief or otherwise in a GOD? 

---

The Forbidden Fruit: A Dialogue with Ourselves

The story of Adam, Eve, the snake, and the forbidden fruit is one of the most influential narratives in Western consciousness. 

Given a modern interpretation it is understood the writers in Genesis indicate different perspectives : a writer who was an astrologer; a philosopher who introduced possibly an older narrative and a Priestley author ensuring the correct conclusion was indicated

So that the realisation slowly sunk in we're free agents able to make moral choices. 

The priestly view was of a serpent who acts as a tempter and creature of cunning persuasion of "forbidden knowledge"—a trickster entity possessing "sleepless eyes" that represent secret knowledge, as opposed to divine wisdom. The snake's communication breaks the initial innocent, instinctual, and silent communication between humans and their environment, introducing verbal, rational, and, ultimately, deceptive language.

Hence while traditionally interpreted as a cautionary tale regarding disobedience and the stain of origins of sin, an analysis of ancient contexts and alternative interpretations suggests that humanity may have spent two millennia of fixated on a narrow, self-referential interpretation of this tale, missing a deeper, ecological, and relational meaning.

Guilt and the Rise of Free Will

One might say the story highlights a crucial transition regarding guilt and free will. By eating the fruit, Adam and Eve move from a state of naivety to an adult existence with moral agency—such an experience often characterised as the "fall" of man, but also, in heretical Gnostic traditions, a necessary awakening.

The immediate consequence is not only punishment but the sudden onset of self-consciousness, shame, and guilt. As a result, humans became, in a sense, defined by their guilt, forever trying to "fix" their relationship with GOD through obedience, rather than understanding that they had gained the power to distinguish good from evil.

The Missing Conversation: Humans, Animals, and Plants

Hence one might assert the possibility that humanity has missed the wider meaning by focusing on human-only communication. 

However, if we move the focus of the story towards a breakdown of all relationships: with GOD, with each other, and with the environment (the ground and the animals). GOD’s command then is not just a test of obedience; it was a revelation on how we are to exist within the created world. The snake is a part of that creation—part of the "animals of the field". This type of thinking mirrors that of First Nations ideas of the importance of the land and its inhabitants and our relationship meaning the land owns us and not the reverse. 

By focusing for 2000 years on human sin, guilt, and salvation, humanity has indeed missed a crucial "conversation" with the living world. The "forbidden fruit" can be seen as a symbol of humanity choosing to view the natural world solely as a resource to be used (a consumerist, "my-appetite"/”my apple” perspective), rather than a community of living things to be spoken to and listened to.

A modern-day interpretation by Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson interprets the story of Adam and Eve not as a historical event, but as an archetypal, psychological, and evolutionary narrative that marks the precise moment humans gained self-consciousness and, consequently, free will. His interpretation of how this story traces the reality of free will includes the following key points:

The Fall as Awakening (Emergence of Consciousness): Peterson argues that Adam and Eve in Eden represent innocent, naive children, or even pre-human creatures. Eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge represents the emergence of self-consciousness—the moment humans realized they were naked, vulnerable, mortal, and capable of distinguishing between good and evil.

The Responsibility of Choice: Once self-conscious, humans are no longer just acting on instinct; they are aware of the future, aware of consequences, and therefore, must make choices. This emergence of consciousness "forces" the reality of free will upon us, as we are now aware of the "transforming horizon of the future".

The Necessity of Free Will: Peterson suggests that while Eden represents a life without responsibility, the "fall" into free will is necessary for maturity. To be a fully developed, responsible "image-bearer of God" requires the ability to choose, rather than simply existing in a state of naive obedience.

The Burden of Choice and Blame: With the birth of free will, humans become responsible for their actions. Peterson notes that Adam and Eve’s reaction to this new state—hiding and blaming others—illustrates the human tendency to shirk the burden of this new responsibility.

Creating Order from Chaos: In his view, human consciousness allows us to use language and free choice to impose order upon a chaotic world. 

In essence, Peterson interprets the story as a description of how humans separated themselves from the animal kingdom by becoming aware of their own weakness and gaining the capacity—and the burden—to make moral choices.

The Future Conversation: Towards a New Relationship

It is essential to consider that under a necessity for free will and for taking responsibility for our actions as humans that we are both driven by and limited also, by our experiences. We are, too, limited by how we interpret what we see, read, think, feel and hear. It becomes our duty and responsibility to think not just of the experience – but also how we interpret it. This offers the space for interpreting experiences as indicating a God – or interpreting them differently. However, if there are miracles, noetic personal experiences, if we interpret intelligent design in the order of things there is no argument for each of us about how we have experienced God. An alternative interpretation is also possible.

So, let’s just explore one further interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.

If we were to re-interpret this "conversation" as one of living with animals and plants, it would require a radical shift in human consciousness:

What would we say? Instead of ordering the world, we would ask, "What do you need? How do we exist together?" It would be a dialogue of stewardship, not dominion.

How would we communicate? This would involve moving beyond human-centric language to an understanding of ecological systems, listening to the needs of the land, and interpreting the "language" of biodiversity. We would shift from treating animals and plants as products to treating them as neighbours in existence. Humans would act as guardians of the garden, acknowledging that our "goodness" is tied directly to the health of the non-human world, thus reflecting a more holistic understanding of the word of God.

Conclusion

The questions regarding a "missing conversation" with the environment are highly relevant. While the story of Adam and Eve has been used to justify human superiority, it is ultimately a story of disrupted relationships. Humanity has been caught in a cycle of self-imposed guilt, fixated on its own moral status, and in doing so, has neglected the urgent, essential, and, the most important conversation: how to live in harmony with the living creatures and plants that share our earthly home.

---

Questions

·       Is it true to say the snake communicated?  Provisional answer. Yes , it is the central agent of communication in the story.

·       Does it tell us humans are full of guilt?  Provisional answer. Yes, the immediate aftermath is hiding, shame, and guilt.

·       Does it tell us we have free will?  Provision Answer: Yes, it represents the move from innocent obedience to self-determined (but flawed) action.

·       Has the key element been missed?  Provisional Answer: Yes, the "wider meaning" (ecological, interconnected) has often been neglected for the "human-only" (spiritual, individual) meaning.

·       What if it's about a conversation with nature? This is a valid, modern, and necessary eco-theological interpretation: that's an alternative interpretation of the story in the absence of the fall. 

·       Each of our experiences are the centre-piece of a ‘will to believe’ (cf. James) or ‘not to believe’ (cf. Dawkins). This introductory session has supported you to make the case for your beliefs. Take these as a baseline over the coming sessions to ask yourself whether the plethora of philosophical arguments presented sway or change your current belief(s) in any way.

Glossary of terms

 1.    Discursive thinking  - is a logical, analytical, and step-by-step cognitive process that uses language and reasoning to move from premise to conclusion. Unlike intuitive or holistic thinking, it is structured yet often digressive, exploring multiple facets of a subject to build understanding

2.   Divine Command theory – a meta-ethical theory proposing that moral goodness is determined entirely by God’s commands or will. Under this view, actions are morally right if God commands them and wrong if He forbids them. It grounds objective morality in divine authority rather than human convention. 

3.   General theory of relativity – Einstein’s modern, geometric theory of gravitation that describes gravity not as a force, but as a curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. It refined Newton’s laws, explaining that massive objects warp the fabric of space, dictating the motion of objects and the path of light. 

4.   Gnostic – Gnostics, like other Christians, find salvation through the messages of Jesus, Gnostics seek salvation not from sin but from “the ignorance of which sin is a consequence

5.   Ineffable – too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words

6.   Intelligent design – intelligent design (ID) is the argument that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected processes like natural selection. The intelligent cause is taken by some to mean God

7.   Noetic – relating to mental activity or the intellect – a ‘state of knowledge or insight’ ( James)

8.   Old Testament -  The first part of the Christian Bible, comprising thirty-nine books and corresponding approximately to the Hebrew Bible. Most of the books were written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, between about 1200 and 100 BC. They comprise the chief texts of the law, history, prophecy, and wisdom literature of the ancient people of Israel.

9.     Original sin – Original sin is a central Christian doctrine stating that all human beings are born into a state stained with sinfulness, inheriting a broken nature and guilt from the fall of Adam and Eve. It signifies the loss of original holiness and the introduction of a tendency toward sin (concupiscence), suffering, and death, which necessitates the need for salvation through Jesus Christ.

11. Will to believe –

“The Will to Believe,” proposed by William James in 1896, argues that it is rational to adopt beliefs without sufficient objective evidence when facing a “genuine option”— i.e. a choice that is live, forced, and momentous. It justifies faith in situations where waiting for proof is impractical, such as religious faith or personal confidence.

End of Part 1 

Religious Epistemology – Part 2

The contents have drawn heavily upon: Jackson, R. The God of Philosophy: an introduction to the philosophy of religion. Sutton, Surrey: TPM publishing. 

Jackson provides an ideal study guide to answer questions such as : Do we need GOD to explain the origins of the universe? Can there be morality without a divine source of goodness? How can GOD exist when there is so much evil and suffering in the world? and many more. 

https://www.amazon.com.au/God-Philosophy-Roy-Jackson/dp/0953761118

Is there a GOD ? If not, then what?

“You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you.”  C.S. Lewis

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” Carl Sagan

Since covering the experiential aspect of Religion in Part 1, we can now evaluate how accumulated knowledge shaped the ongoing beliefs as in the thematic of Religious Epistemology.  

Epistemology is the study of knowledge comprising 2 categories. (1) What is knowledge and its extent? (2) And how do we know what we claim we know?

Fideism can be defined as the view that religious truth is ascertainable by faith alone and that faith is separate from and superior to reason. The debates on the existence of GOD often fall into one or other of these categorical systems.

Religious Epistemology

Belief in GOD has been assumed in virtually every culture throughout human history. The issue of the reasonableness or rationality of a belief in GOD typically arises when a religion is confronted with religious competitors or given the rise in more modern times of atheism or agnosticism.

The intention of this session is to ask about the strengths and weaknesses for arguments relating to the existence of God(s), the historical contexts within which they arose and the significance of the arguments to each age.

You will find that in relation to GOD we are not looking for ‘proof’ – we all really know that there is no actual proof. The philosophy therefore does not seek an ultimate proof but rather to understand the historical and theological traditions which are much more detailed and varied than can be covered fully. Necessarily, though, the philosophical arguments should prompt us to ask ‘how coherent’, is the argument? Is the argument ‘credible’, ‘convincing’ and a ‘strong defence’ of the proposition that there is indeed a GOD.

For this class the religious traditions leading to each of the arguments for or against the existence of GOD are to a greater extent ‘set aside’. The question is less about ‘religious orthodoxy’ than about arguments for the existence in GOD, though some arguments for GOD do rest in religious literature.

In the West, belief in GOD was assumed in the dominant Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions where GOD in the so-called Abrahamic tradition.

This tradition assumed an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good and all-loving Creator of the universe. What we aim to discern is the reasonableness of belief in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God, the nature of reason, the claim that a belief in GOD is rational or not and to ascertain whether or not a groundless belief in GOD (or philosophical fideism) has merit.  

So firstly, let’s just ponder the basic question: Is belief in GOD rational?  On an evidentiary basis one side says “No” whilst Theists (i .e . Believers ) say “Yes”, based mostly on the religious experiences we talked about in Part 1.  So what side of the divide do you sit and let’s see if you gain more empathy on the alternative following this discussion.  

In the first Place:

Belief in GOD has been assumed in virtually every culture throughout human history. The issue of the reasonableness or rationality of a belief in GOD typically arises when a religion is confronted with religious competitors or given the rise in more modern times of atheism or agnosticism.

Christendom does not mark the beginning of formal beliefs in GOD. Before the coming of Christ many ancient communities believed in GOD(s)^[i].

It is not without relevance that the ancient GOD’s were linked to key elements of nature on which each society relied, upon the fertility of the communities and upon maintaining order through religious observance and sacrifice. Religion played a key role in establishing the orderly grounds for human flourishing and was the carrier of hope. This was so much the case that where the GODs were observed angry (e.g. when there was drought or an eclipse)  additional sacrifices were made to pacify the GOD’s anger and to bring order back to human existence.

For those of you who are interested there is a super article by Peter Winch entitled ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’. In it he shows how the belief in witchcraft and the use of a chicken (to whom poison is administered) as an oracle, keeps the society functioning in an orderly manner, despite the challenges of a tribe living on the edge of subsistence. He shows why the ‘oracle never errs’ – the oracle is always right in identifying a witch and once identified the life of the community goes on after a forfeit has been paid by the guilty party. His conclusion was that this order was needed for the group to survive. So, if the oracle seemed wrong, there are always ways to explain this – the oracle was possessed, there was further witchcraft and so on.

The central point is that, by taking key things as a given and worshipping them – sun, rain, the Nile, witchcraft and so forth, it was possible to ensure orderly behaviour and survival of the community through religious observance in understanding GOD’s will. It is, therefore, not surprising that many GODs of the ancient era were those linked to the stars, seasons, to rain and crops and to fertility as covered in our previous session. Winch observes that the belief in a GOD is the tautological premise of each belief system – the GOD’s bless us for our order, observance and behaviour, they answer us when we pray and, where they do not answer us – it is GOD ’s will. GOD is, tautologically, always the Oracle that Never Errs.

We know little else about the philosophy relating to arguments for the existence of GOD from these ancient periods as it has not been handed down and, indeed, may not have existed in any systematic written form. It was sufficient enough to relate a drought, let’s say’ to the anger of the rain God’ and to offer prayer and sacrifices to that God to put things right.

1. Reason/Rationality

In Philosophy reason is both a fallible human tool and a very important aspect underpinning the quest for truth or in grasping reality. In addition, rationality is more a matter of how one believes than what one believes. For example, it was rational for most people twenty centuries ago to believe that the earth is flat based on what you could observe. Furthermore, rationality is both person and situation specific: what is rational for one individual at a particular socio-historical time and place might be entirely irrational at a different time. Hence rationality of religious belief is best discussed abstractly, independent of any particular believer. The appropriate question in this context then is, “Is belief in GOD rational for this person at that time and place?”

This opens up a Pandora’s box as to disputes on whether or not we have intellectual duties to acquire true beliefs and avoid false beliefs, or to believe only on the basis of evidence or rational arguments and so forth. Others think that we have intellectual duties because, by and large, beliefs are not something we freely choose and so the list goes on.  To overcome these obstacles to belief a move was made principally by Thomas Aquinas and those that followed on to anchor rationality to what was considered matters of timeless and non-person indexed propositional evidence that provide a logical conclusion

Since the time of the Enlightenment, reason has assumed a huge role to validly draw inferences: rationality is often a matter of assembling available and empirical and or propositional evidence to assess its deductive or inductive support for other beliefs; although some beliefs may be accepted without inference.  

Like much of Western philosophy, which will be the focus of this session, much of the philosophical thinking started in ancient Greece, to which we now turn.

The Ancient Greeks.

As discussed in many previous classes, the early pre-Christian Greek philosophers Aristotle, Plato and Socrates sought to counterpoint the mythical with rational argument.

It must be remembered in these ancient Greek times that there were multiple Gods, the central 12 of whom lived on Mount Olympus.

Worshippers believed in multiple and diverse deities and these often differed between city states. City-state cults, hero worship and purification rituals were designed to avoid miasma (spiritual pollution). By offering prayers, through celebrations, offerings at temples and sacrifice, believers could seek favour from the GOD’s ^[1].

It should be noted that polytheism continued after the birth of Christ and in ancient Rome too. Many of the GOD’s of Greece had Roman counterparts (see footnote above).

So what were the early philosophers’ rational arguments as an alternative to this position?

Socrates (who wrote nothing down, and whose thoughts were recorded by Plato) had a concern with morality and he believed in ‘absolute standards’. This position differed from Sophists at the time. Such a Sophist, Protagoras argued that “man is the measure of all things” – that humankind established what was right and wrong. In this way morality was relative to the individual. So, for example, he may have supported slavery as being moral, as it was at the time.

Key Point  – If we believe slavery is wrong given our modern ‘enlightened’ views – so we’re effectively saying ‘there is a good morality’ and a ‘bad morality’. Once we say this, we are effectively saying there is a standard of morality – it is not relative.

Socrates believed in these moral standards and moral truths. He saw his role as to argue with people in the street (men ) to subject their beliefs to philosophical scrutiny. As we have seen previously, when Athens was defeated by Sparta, the scapegoat was Socrates – a man who openly questioned a belief in the GOD’s. We have also considered some elements of ‘The Apology’ written at this time and in which Socrates defended his philosophical approach and offered a rebuttal to support his arguments against mysticism. So what was Socrates arguing in relation to God?

In The Republic Plato gives the ‘analogy’ of a cave. Socrates is the main character. Behind prisoners shackled in a cave and facing a wall, is a fire. As objects pass behind them the shadows are cast onto the wall they are viewing. Socrates tells a released prisoner to walk out towards the fire – the fire is dazzling and people are strange. The prisoner walks further, out of the cave and into the open. It takes time to adjust to sunlight and, over time, he experiences an ‘awakening’ – there is a beautiful and varied world not limited to shadows in a cave.

The prisoner also then realises all things he knew in the cave are an illusion. Would the prisoners in the cave believe him? Plato argues they would think he’d gone mad.

Key Point – There is a greater, better, truer world, we often cannot see. At another level, the search for truth must involve our philosophical reasoning and questioning of what is! This is Plato’s Theory of Forms. The Forms represent truth and reality. They cannot be attained by the senses, but through philosophical reasoning. The Forms are innate and contained in our very souls.

Humans can live life in the shadows or to exercise our powers of reason to achieve awareness and understanding of eternal good. Plato saw the evils of the body – pleasures and desires – as getting in the way of the eternal soul and Enlightenment. Socrates and Plato were known to the early Christians over 400 years later and were often considered ‘Christians before Christ’.

Aristotle’s criticism of ‘The Forms’.

Aristotle was a student of Plato but argued it was impossible for anything to have a Form, something so unchangeable, universal and eternal. For him, morals are a changeable thing, relative to time and place.

Aristotle’s view of GOD rests in a different argument.

In considering what is ‘being’.  He argues:

·       The whole world is made up of stuff or matter

·       How does stuff and matter turn into things e.g. trees, humans?

·       What gives things their ‘being’?

·       All beings have a potentiality and an actuality – an egg becomes a bird, an acorn becomes an Oak. Things are therefore in motion across time and we move to a final point ‘Telos’ or purpose.

·       How then did inert matter start the process of ‘becoming’ in the first place?

·       The prime mover must be incorporeal, indivisible, timeless, changeless, perfect and eternal

·       This GOD of Aristotle argues has self-consciousness. The GOD has put things in motion and contemplates ‘the essence of things’ – ‘himself’.

 

Key Point – GOD for Aristotle is the prime mover that gives all humans their being. GOD  – the Prime Mover - gives motion across time so things turn from actuality to potentiality. (This links nicely, as we shall see with the later argument of Aquinas).

*

Historically the Romans viewed religions like Christianity as threatening social cohesion—as dangerous and this led to periodic persecution. During this period of early Christendom there remained a majority polytheism with a melding of GODS from Greek and Etruscan cultures (conquered by Rome). Religion was seen as a pax decorum (Peace of the Gods) where ritual, prayer and sacrifice insured divine favour and prosperity. Often state officials and civic functionaries acted as priests and there was no known central book of faith.

It must be noted that both Plato’s and Aristotle’s writings were known to later philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas and we shall be re-visiting the arguments made above will shortly as they were taken up by others.

You will note the historical gap between the writings of the Greek philosophers and St. Augustine (430 a.d), and those of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). For Augustine faith guides reason and the following centuries maintained this position, focusing on preserving existing knowledge rather than producing new philosophical arguments. That period is often referred to as the ‘Dark Ages’. The majority of the work in the Dark Ages came from monasteries (rather than learned institutions) and from the study of scripture.

There were also translations, of Aristotle and the Persian, Avicenna (980-1037) who synthesized Aristotelian with Platonic ideas within Islamic theology.

But until St. Thomas Aquinas, the church feared Aristotelian arguments, believing they might criticise religious thinking. Indeed a ban was placed on rational texts at the University of Paris (1210-1231) as being in conflict with Christian theology. Aquinas offered a bridge between Aristotle and theology and opened the door to new philosophical thinking.

So, to the rational arguments subsequent.

The Cosmological Argument

The Persian thinkers were perhaps the first to propose a cosmological (causal) argument. The works of Al-Kindi c. 870 and al-Ghazali 1059-11, are the key sources of the Kalam cosmological argument.

Main Point – The Kalam Cosmological Argument: i.  Actual infinity is not possible  ii.  Therefore, if you trace the series of causes for the existence of the universe back in time this cannot go on for infinity. iii.  The universe must have begun at a certain moment in time  iv.  This moment in time is the cause of the universe v.  The cause of the universe is GOD. 

Thomas Aquinas was an Italian from the Catholic order of the Dominicans. His work covered theology and philosophy and is referred to as Thomism (after Thomas). His two major works in the medieval period were Summa Theologica (Disputed questions on truth, 1256-1259) and Summa Contra Gentiles (On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, 1259-1265).  In the latter text he considers the work of Aristotle amongst other ideas.

The Summa Theologica considers the Five Ways, three of which fit into the Cosmological argument for the existence of God. These are presented below:

 

Main Point

The first three ways are presented here. The fourth way is a moral argument and the fifth a teleological argument, (both of which will be considered shortly).

First Way

•        In the world some things are in motion

•        For something to move, it must be moved by something else

•        Movement cannot go on for infinity

•        Therefore, there must be a first mover (God).

Second Way

•        In the world, events occur

•        Every event (effect) has a cause

•        It is impossible for a series of causes to be infinite

•        Therefore, there must be a first cause (God)

Third Way

•        In this world there are contingent beings/things (i.e.  Something that logically could never have been)

•        If we accept that time is infinite, there must have been a point when there was nothing

•        If there was once nothing, there would be nothing now (ex nihilo nihil fit – of nothing, nothing comes)

•        Therefore there must be something that is necessary (must be the case)

•        Every necessary thing is either caused by another, or is not

•        But as the second way has shown, causes cannot go on for infinity

•        Therefore there must be a necessary being that is the cause of itself and not dependent upon any other

•        This we call God.

Please note in the Third Way argument that God must be omnipotent. This concept has been maintained pretty much to modern times. However, some (recent) theological writing takes some issue with this as we shall see later. In the new arguments God confers free will over people and sees them as children making their own decisions. We shall come to that later.

 

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of the cosmological argument just presented? From this argument, ‘If not God, then what?’

 So what are the key criticisms of the cosmological argument?

1.   Clearly if GOD exists, the key question is who created GOD?

2.   Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) asks about the principle of ‘Sufficient Reason’, i.e. a reason for its existence and truth^[2]. He asks whether indeed everything has a single truth and cause. For example, each person has a mother and father and so on and so forth. The cause is how we conceptualise and understand. But, he asks, why do we need to ask if ‘all humans together’ have a cause? Is that not an improper and irrelevant application of a conceptual scheme (causes)? Similar arguments are made by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. He argues it is ridiculous” to trace such ‘causes’ beyond human experience (as do Kant, 1724-1804; and John Stuart Milll,1806-1873). The point almost necessarily leads us to the conclusion that (a) we cannot define the cause and (b) that the cause (alongside GOD and religion) is a mere manufacture of a human argument without evidence.

3.   Richard Swinburne (1934-) picks up on the argument above and suggests humans simply come up with the simplest argument (Occam’s Razor) – he proposes the argument of the theist is as strong as that of the atheist as a result.

4.   Modern physics since Einstein has pressed the argument further and we shall reach that discussion right at the end of our sessions. However, it is worth noting the contents of the cosmological argument now, in preparation for that part of our discussion.

 The Teleological Argument

This argument is also known as the “design’ argument or the ‘Intelligent Design’ argument.

In contradistinction to the Cosmological argument the teleological argument involves the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

Long before Christianity thinkers who drove Christian, Jewish and Muslim and other religions used this approach. Cicero (106-43BCE), for example, felt wonder at the earth and heavens considering that there must be an intelligent maker of such order and beauty and we considered this in some depth in our previous class. This is the basis of the teleological argument (telos- Greek for ‘purpose’ or ‘aim’). And in his Fifth Way Aquinas argues the universe shows evidence of moving to some specific end.

Perhaps the most famous of the teleological arguments was put forward by William Paley (1743-1805) in his Natural Theology.

 

Key Point – The Teleological argument:

1.       The universe is orderly

2.       Order is the result of design

3.       Design presupposes intelligence (intelligent design)

4.       As the universe is also complex in design, there must be a complex intelligence which designed it

5.       Therefore, the superior intelligence is God

 

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of the teleological argument just presented? Also ‘If not God, then what?’

The above argument has the form of a syllogism. In which things naturally follow on from the premise.

Criticisms

Is the universe really orderly?  

David Hume argues there is huge disorder across the universe there is pain, illness, destruction for example. Reality can be cruel and disordered – this raises the point of whether there is any good attached to it. Is the car maker creating order – and can we say the order is good?

Is order the result of intelligent design?

Have you witnessed the universe being designed – as you have a house or a car? It is not empirically verifiable that the universe has been created and designed. And if something like a calculator seems complex, what of that object when set against the modern computer? In other words, does the universe show infinite complexity. Indeed, can there be an infinite complexity? We have nothing to compare against the complexity of the universe.

The problem of evolution:

Darwin’s work – and the later writings on God by Richard Dawkins establish a credible critique to intelligent design. After all no living thing stays the same – it is not created and designed in a single form. Looking at the ‘utility’ of evolutionary change Dawkins asks ‘If there is only one creator who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the gazelle, what is He playing at? Is He a sadist who enjoys spectator sports? (Dawkins, The River out of Eden).

Tennant (Philosophical Theology, 1930) rebuts this argument suggesting evolution is part of GOD’s plan – it is an inconceivable coincidence that we are in a world that supports life and in a world in which there is an ozone layer that protects us, or that evolution creates an environment to support life?  Evolution must be part of GOD ’s plan!

Using the syllogism first introduced by Aristotle evidentialist objections can be summarised as follows:

(1) Premise 1 :  Belief in GOD is rational only if there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

(2) Premise 2: There is not sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

(3) Conclusion: Therefore, belief in GOD is irrational.

The evidentialist objection is not offered as a disproof of the existence of God—that is, the conclusion is not “GOD does not exist.” Rather the conclusion is, even if GOD were to exist, it would not be reasonable to believe in GOD. According to the evidentialist objection, rational belief in GOD hinges on the success of theistic arguments. Prominent evidentialist objectors include David Hume, W. K. Clifford, J. L. Mackie, Bertrand Russell and Michael Scriven.

The Ontological Argument

This argument is based on complex logic and it is hard to get hold of. It is most associated with St. Anselm (c. 1033–1109) an Italian priest who was to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. His main books were the Monologion (Soliloquy, 1077) and the Proslogian (Discourse, 1077). His argument is ontological, i.e. based on existence itself.

The ontological argument for GOD is an ‘analytic’ argument i.e. it is based in logic such as in All bachelors are single’. It is not a ‘synthetic’ argument i.e. one that is based on observation. The argument also relies upon what is necessary, i.e. what must exist as opposed to contingent which could exist but does not have to.

Key point – The ontological argument

 

1.           Either GOD exists, or he does not

2.           If GOD  exists, GOD ‘s  existence must be necessary (it MUST be true and cannot be false)

3.           If GOD does not exist, then his existence is logically impossible

4.           GOD is not a logically impossible thing

5.           Therefore GOD ’s existence is necessary

6.           Therefore GOD exists.

 

In other words, since we can conceive of an omnipotent being, and since any GOD cannot be contingent (i.e. that S/He may not have existed, or a non-existent contingent such as a unicorn) or an illogical thing (such as an all-powerful GOD who is not all-powerful), then God must exist as a necessary being – GOD therefore exists. 

Many have argued that this is mere ‘semantics’ (playing with logic and words). Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that if one dismisses the idea of a triangle and something with three sides then there is no contradiction. Norman Malcom (1911- ) also asks whether the link between statement 1 and 2 is a problem – If we do not believe in GOD (Either GOD exists/ or he does not) then nothing that follows is relevant.

Summary statement:

There are good logical reasons for the existence of GOD.  There are equally strong arguments against. Often then, the decision to believe must be based upon faith. And as shown below, there are a number of arguments which are about reason, but also about faith.

2. Faith and Reason

We have seen how Thomas Aquinas builds logical arguments for a belief in God. Underlying each of his ‘ways’ is that certain truths are beyond human conception (infinity, ultimate cause and so forth). For Aquinas, this is why ‘faith’ is so important (regardless of our level of intelligence). He asserts that “Divine things” such as those we do not understand, give us “unshakeable certitude in Divine truth” through our faith.

Faith, then, is a vital element in our belief in the existence of GOD.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) a French Mathematician believed faith came from the heart. However, he also argued for a pragmatic choice of faith over disbelief, to propose what is termed a prudential (care and forethought) reason rather than an evidential reason. His famous wager can be summarised as shown in the box below:

Key Point

	Belief in GOD	Non-belief in GOD
GOD does exist	Eternal Bliss	Eternal suffering
GOD does not exist	A degree of inconvenience in this life	A degree of pleasure in just this life

In this view, were I to be a gambling person I would clearly choose faith and belief!

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of Pascal’s argument?

William James (1842-1910) in The Will to Believe, argues It is not a prudential decision based on a wager as implied by Pascal. Rather, faith brings us ‘immediate benefit’ in this life. Faith should be considered as if it is what he terms a ‘genuine option’. To be so the option being chosen, i.e. Faith (in this discussion), must meet certain criteria. Faith must be

a)   must be live ( e.g. I am offered the chance to live on a desert island)

b)   It must be momentous – taking the option changes our lives

c)    Must be forced – you must simply choose whether you believe in God or not

d)   Must not be decidable on intellectual grounds

‘Our passionate nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide on an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds’ (William James The Will to Believe).

For James, having faith delivers good things in life – to disbelieve is therefore to lose out on something special.

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of James’ idea of faith?

However, there remain significant arguments, particularly during the Enlightenment for the need for evidence – the evidentialist requirement is grounded in reason and argues that  if a belief cannot survive the scrutiny of reason, it is irrational. Kant’s charge is clear: “Dare to use your own reason.” Hobbes would ask: “If one prophet deceives another, what certainty is there of knowing the will of GOD by any other way than that of reason?” The Enlightenment elevation of reason would ultimately come to reject rational religious belief.

For example ‘logical positivism’^[3] came to a different conclusion in relation to faith. Their philosophy, like that of David Hume was empiricist, rejected the certainty of metaphysical concepts. The positivists adopted the verification principle – if a statement cannot be tested through sensory observation or logical deduction, it is meaningless. GOD and morality cannot be verified by observation and should therefore be dismissed. Although this group also accepted analytic (logically true statements (Tautologies of definitions such as 1+1 =2 or “all bachelors are single”) they rejected the ontological argument (presented earlier) since the language makes a proposition that cannot be tested. We cannot test the idea that there is an all-powerful God.

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of the position of the logical positivists?

Indeed, the logical positivists had a bit of a problem with this, since ‘verifiability’ is itself a metaphysical concept. Further if one is to test something and you define what is being tested for, how can you define it before the fact? You cannot know it until after the test.

We have seen above the importance of placing faith and reason together. Kierkegaard (1813-1855) also argues the need for faith but does so beyond reason. For him faith gives meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. He points out that over the generations what is considered truths to humans have changed and so ‘reason’ is always open to criticism. He points out the paradoxes of faith, that in Christian traditions GOD is also the son of GOD and spirit or that God who is spaceless and timeless can be ’made flesh’.  We need, he posits, to go beyond rationality to find meaning: ‘The thing to understand myself, to see what GOD really wishes me to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find an idea for which I can live and die’, (Kierkegaard, Journals).

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of Kierkegaard’s position on faith?

Kierkegaard would argue it is NOT blind faith, but one given meaning through human needs. Others contend this is simply blind faith with no substantiation beyond human prejudice and emotion. This leaves us back at the position of providing evidence for our faith and beliefs.

Reformed epistemologists' contention is that belief begins with trust (not suspicion, as the evidentialist apparently claims). Beliefs are, in their terms, innocent until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. In order to grasp reality, we must use and trust our cognitive faculties or capacities. But we also know that we get things wrong.

According to Reformed epistemology, evidence may not be required for belief in GOD to be rational. But, given the problem of error, it should nonetheless continue to play an important role in the life of the believer, Fides quaerens intellectum [Faith seeking understanding].

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of Reformed epistemology?

However, there have been criticisms of Reformed Epistemology. First, the problem of pluralism and conflicting beliefs suggests diverse and contradictory religions and there is no way Reformed epistemology can justify one over the other. The other is termed the Great Pumpkin (after Charlie Brown) in that we might propose any manner of ridiculous things in which we believe which are simply non-sensical. The approach is seen by many to be a ‘negative’ apology – too weak and not providing any positive reasons for GOD. And, of course, we are led back to conflicts with science and its findings.

However, the biggest criticism is that Reformed epistemology is ‘groundless’ believing. With their emphasis on reason, very few philosophers aspire to fideism (i.e. that religious faith is contrary to reason and faith alone is the ultimate criterion of truth). Nonetheless, some major thinkers have denied that reason plays any significant role in the life of the religious believer. Tertullian’s rhetorical question, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?”, is meant to elicit the view that faith (the Jerusalem of Jesus) has little or nothing to do with reason (the Athens of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle). Tertullian would go on to say, “I believe because it’s absurd.” Pascal (1623-1662), Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and followers of Wittgenstein (late 20th C.) have all been accused of fideism (which is the philosophical equivalent of calling a US citizen a “commie”.

3. The Moral argument for GOD

We have touched upon the notion of good and morals throughout this handout. It should not be surprising that we implicitly think that God must be good!!

In his Fourth Way Aquinas argues that ‘There must be something which is to all being the cause of their being, goodness and every other perfection; and this we call God’ (Summa Theologica). Aquinas relies on Plato’s theory of forms – i.e. that we can conceive of less good and less noble and less selfish etc. This allows us to be aware of, and to pursue, the highest good, i.e. GOD.

Cardinal John Hume (1801-1890) argues that our conscience is sufficient evidence for the existence of GOD, ‘If, as is the case, we feel real responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies that there is One to whom we are responsible, before whom we are ashamed, whose Claim upon us we fear (J.H. Newman A Grammar of Assent).

But where do these moral codes we follow come from?

a)   They are embedded in us by GOD as a universal set of rules (Plato Divine Command theory in Euthyphro)

b)   Kant (the highest good) – because we maintain certain moral values against others, we can infer that there is a GOD.

c)    The non-religious argument – our morals do not come from GOD at all, but from situation, environment and experience.

In Divine Command Theory

·       An action is morally right if and only if GOD commands it – i.e. it is Divine Authority

Class question: Can you think of criticisms of Divine Command Theory?

Consider your own moral beliefs for instance. You might say that you don’t need a judge to tell what is right or wrong. But consider the fact that none of our beliefs are entirely self-evident, that is evident to the senses, or incorrigible. Now suppose your moral belief is philosophically out of fashion these days. Would you be irrational if the majority of contemporary philosophers disagreed with you? Perhaps you’d be irrational if moral beliefs contrary to yours could be established on the basis of widely known arguments from premises that are self-evident, evident to the senses, or incorrigible?

But there may be no such arguments in the history of moral theory. Moral beliefs are not well-justified on the basis of argument or evidence in the classical foundationalist sense (or probably in any sense of being “well-justified”).

So, the fact that the majority of contemporary philosophers reject your moral beliefs (or belief in GOD for that matter) may have little or no bearing on the rationality of your beliefs. The sociological digression and moral analogy suggest that the philosophical emphasis on argument, certainty, and consensus for rationality might be misguided.

The criticisms of Divine Command can be summarised as follows:

·       How on earth do we know when the act is Divine? The scriptures do not cover everything.

·       What if we were commanded to do something horrific such as keep a slave (which was OK in ancient Greece) – If GOD can command something horrific there is a certain arbitrariness to GOD .

·       Is an action morally good because God commands it or does GOD  Command it if it is naturally good?

·       Isn’t good simply another metaphysical concept operationalised according to the normative rules of the day? (see Winch’s argument on Understanding a Primitive Society in relation to this point).

4. The problem of Evil

Arguments for the existence of GOD have been established to address the problem of the existence of ‘evil’. Evils maybe man-made moral issues – the holocaust, Pol Pot, Rwanda. They may also be natural – bushfires, earthquakes and so forth.

How can such evil sit with the idea of a good and caring God who is creator of all things?

The argument against is:

Key Point for not believing in God

1.   Evil exists

2.   GOD  is omnipotent

3.   GOD is omnibenevolent

4.   GOD is Omniscient

5.   GOD causes evil to exist

The counter-argument presents various rejoinders:

Key point for belief in God:

1.   Evil exists

2.   GOD is omnipotent

3.   GOD is omnibenevolent

4.   GOD is Omniscient

5.   GOD is not the source of evil

The key thing that has therefore to be explained is how God is not the source of evil. Many arguments have been made in this respect. The philosophical attempt to explain the existence of evil in a God-created, good world is termed a ‘theodicy’

The free will defence:

The Augustinian (St. Augustine) theodicy says that humans were created in a perfect loving world in harmony with GOD.  However, when Adam is tempted and takes the forbidden apple humankind is then given ‘free will’ as we found in our last session. It is humans who choose to commit evil and such evil does not therefore come from GOD.

The modern philosopher Alvin Plantinga (1932- ) proposes it is logically impossible for GOD to create a world containing free creatures who are guaranteed never to do evil. A world of free will is more valuable than a world of automata, even though it allows for the risk of moral catastrophe.

As a result all human suffer. even babies, because they come ‘from the loins of Adam’ It is only through the crucifixion that we are saved through GOD ’s mercy.

Criticisms: What criticisms might be levelled at the Augustinian theodicy?

The Augustinian approach does not explain natural evils – such as floods or bushfires. It also does not explain why animals kill each other. As John Stuart Mill argues ‘Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are Nature’s everyday performance’ (J.S. Mill Three Essays on Religion).

The solution presented by Augustine is that this is the work of the devil. But even if this be so, why does GOD allow the devil such mischief?

The Irenaen theodicy (St. Irenaeus c.120-202) suggests (like Hegel later) that human kind was created to pursue goodness in the likeness of GOD in this life ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26) he argues, suggests it is only through life that humans use their intelligence, morality and personality to pursue GOD ’s likeness. Thus humankind has free will to pursue good and earn their salvation.

Class question: What criticisms can be levelled at the Irenaen Theodicy?

First there is an unequal and pointless nature to suffering. Some people suffer without having done wrong. Secondly the misery of suffering is likely to defeat some people rather than lead to growth. Thirdly it simply does not explain the suffering of innocent animals. Fourthly is it possible GOD uses evil as a tool to decide on whether a person come to everlasting life? This seems to contradict the notion of an all-loving creator.

The Weillian argument

Simone Weil (1909-1943), a 20th-century mystic and philosopher, offers a profoundly unique perspective on the problem of evil. She distinguishes between mere suffering and malheur (affliction)—a deep, crushing suffering that annihilates the soul and makes the sufferer feel abandoned by GOD  and man.

Weil rejects easy justifications of GOD . Instead, she posits a "creative absence" or kenosis (emptying). GOD , being infinite, creates a space for the world by withdrawing Himself, leaving a "void." In this void, matter operates by necessity, not by immediate divine intervention, which explains natural disasters.

Humans should show the ethical necessity of unconditional attention to the suffering of others, prioritizing obligations over rights and the spiritual need to be rooted in community. She argued for the abolition of political parties because they created collective passions and suppressed individual thought by spreading lies.

Crucially, Weill finds the answer not in philosophy, but in the Cross a deep belief in a mystical Christianity with intense social activism for good.

Class criticisms: What criticisms can be levelled at the Weillian position?

Weill’s ideas have been criticised as impractical and extreme. Her passions for community itself produces contradictions similar to those she throws at politics. The stance on suffering does not take into account the attempts at modern-day technology to reduce suffering, instead making a blanket criticism of the experience. The mysticism of her belief is a further step removed from a logical connection to GOD. We have to believe not just in God but in the mystic nature of GOD ’s requirement that humans suffer.

Jesuit George Coyne – A theistic Evidentialist

Consider first the claim that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of GOD. This view has been historically rejected by Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke and C. S. Peirce, to name but a few. Are these beliefs nonetheless irrational? For example, suppose that, ignorant of the principle of inertia, Aquinas believed that GOD must be actively involved in the continual motion of the planets. Would he change his mind given advancements in modern science?

He presents one such alternative. He argues a way to understand the interactivity between chance, necessity and fertility in our universe and how what is random is also bound together through the process of fertility.

Coyne’s argument is that GOD and science can go hand in hand. We must move away from the GOD as Dictator, GOD as Designer, or even GOD as Newtonian. To make this argument he suggests that GOD is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Instead GOD has made a dynamic universe. a GOD who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe, who empties himself in Christ the incarnate. Thus God’s revelation of himself in the Book of Scripture would be reflected in our knowledge of the universe, so that, as Galileo was fond of stating, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature speak of the same GOD .

In this way, we can envision GOD  as like a parent observing free-will, GOD  observed humans trying to make sense of the world and of Him. There is no inherent contradiction in this. Both he and science are effectively on a convergent course. But science is a human endeavour and has at any one point in time only got to another staging post in human discovery, but not the ultimate knowledge of man, the earth, universe and GOD.

The universe as we know it today through science is one way to derive an analogical knowledge of GOD. For those who believe modern science does say something to us about GOD, it provides a challenge, an enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about GOD. GOD in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. GOD lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves. Is such thinking adequate to preserve the special character attributed by religious thought to the emergence not only of life but also of spirit, while avoiding a crude creationism?

5. Arguments from Religious Experience

We considered much about religious experience in the last session. But are there criticisms of the link between those experiences and the existence of GOD ?

People who believe on the basis of religious experience do not typically construe their belief in GOD as the basis of an argument but rather believe they have seen or heard God directly and find themselves overwhelmed by belief in GOD.  Religious experience is typically taken as self-authenticating.

Richard Swinburne (1934-) suggests that unless there are particular reasons to the contrary, we should trust that what a person says they have experienced is, in fact, what they have experienced.

In The Existence of GOD he points to experiences in the ‘public’ realm and those in the ‘private’ realm. For some people, the blooming of a flower or that day always comes after each night may be sufficient public evidence that there is a God. These are private experiences. There are also private mystical experiences, such as feeling the incredible presence of God – these mystical experiences are ineffable (difficult to describe). There are also public experiences. Biblical examples may be the turning of water into wine, the feeding of the masses and so forth. Such breaches of nature are referred to as miracles.

Take Saul’s conversion. As he came near Damascus a light flashed in the sky. He fell and heard a voice :Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” when asked the voice said “I am Jesus whom you persecute”. The men with Saul heard to voice but could see no one.

Class question: Now, if yesterday Paula was standing at a bus stop and saw a meteorite flash across the sky which other’s heard but did not see, how might we question Paula?

Swinburne notes that there are two principles ‘testimony’ and ‘credulity’ that need to be met to assure ourselves in the person’s experience. However, this always raises other questions.

In terms of testimony St. Paul, on his journey to Damascus, had some experience which was not shared by all there. In terms of credulity can we rule out that Paul had a fit, was not drunk? Why couldn’t his fellow travellers also see Jesus? Could it all have been a prank…and so forth.

The principles then, can be insufficient for the non-theist.

In short what is reported to be experienced and what is reported to be GOD  in these experiences may always be open to disbelief. Whilst they may indeed indicate the existence of GOD, by the same token, so too may they not.

William James (1842-1910) writes in The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902)   that there are a number of criteria relating to mystical experiences. They are  ‘ineffable’ – cannot be described or written down; ‘noetic’ experience, that delivers new knowledge, insight, enlightenment as well as emotional elements; ‘transient’ – a ‘eureka’ moment that has lasting effect on the person; ‘passive’ who receives a ‘gift’ from GOD through the experience.

In this view, what is important is that it is perceived by the person as a form of gift or union with the Divine. Similarly others argue there are other forms of reality accessed through prayer, or meditation.

Class question - What criticisms are there of arguments for God from Religious experience? If not God then What?

Here are some rejoinders:

·       I accept your experience and interpretation and belief as a result. But I Have not had such experiences and so cannot, with all honesty, simply follow them

·       Why is it that some will only get a vision of Kali if they are Hindu, of Mohammed if they are Muslim and Mary mother of Jesus if they are Catholic…and so forth?

·       Similarly why are visions across the ages limited by the known technology at the time? Why did Paul see a light and not get a message across his computer screen?

The final category Swinburne refers to is simply that you feel the presence of God. Rudolph Otto (1869-1937) describes this as the ‘numinous’ – a feeling of an awesome power around oneself and a sense of the holy. Martin Buber (1878-1965) sees the relationship to GOD in a less drastic and awe-inspiring manner. We can experience a personal relationship with GOD (the I-Thou) relationship. This is not something that is based upon truth and logic.

6. A view from Quantum Physics.

The early cosmological arguments, you may recall, were dependent upon arguments relating to the nature of the cosmos. Since writers like Aquinas posited the cosmological argument our understanding of that cosmos and universe have come a long way.

In modern day thinking our universe was created about 4.5 billion years ago. The whole universe expanded out in a huge explosion (the big Bang) from a small particle no bigger than a pea.

Through Einstein’s observations we have become aware that time is relative. The Mass of an object can affect time, making it go more slowly or quicker. Our human observations are therefore relative to our motion through space, bound to the combination of space and time, termed space-time. There is no such thing as time in physics- but only space time: the amalgam of time plus motion.

After discovering this special theory of relativity Einstein incorporated the gravitational field effects which cause ‘warping’ within his general theory of relativity. He found that instead of gravity being a direct force, massive objects like stars bend the space around them, forcing other objects to follow these curves, which we perceive as gravitational attraction.

In short, no matter what these clever humans have discovered, there is always something inexplicable and indefinable. 

The findings troubled Einstein as they contradicted his idea of determinism as in pantheism (that GOD and the universe are one and the same) which suggests God is a controlling entity in everything. In other words in his idea of a deterministic world, GOD does not play dice with the universe.  Everything is predictable.

Modern day science has no answer to this continuing mystery with all sorts of hypotheses suggested as solutions involving string theory and other world dimensions attempting to resolve the mystery. So science is in crisis, just as analytical philosophy and epistemology tend to be discarded as authorities in themselves within postmodernity. But they remain very useful tools to support a more comprehensive narrative process about any topic and more particularly in how to find a more meaningful life in the tradition of the great philosophers. One could argue philosophy, given a humbler approach to embrace the expanded narrative, is even more relevant today and continues to make slow progress. 

Since the universe is subject to unique laws which unfolded miraculously in exact sequences to allow life to form one might conclude after billions of years, we are the product of a creation that leaves us in a state of wonderment.
Many argue there is abundant evidence around us everywhere to indicate that all life and nature itself is simply miraculous. By virtue of the laws of science we can also say we live in the most probable of many possible universes which leads us to reasonably suggest within those predestined routes there only exists causality for freedom of thought or actions or choice. That causality could be argued as an evolved creation gift which gives us the sense of freedom or free will within the determinism arising from constraints of those predetermined laws. 

Einstein himself tried (unsuccessfully) to find a ‘cosmological constant’ to verify his belief in GOD. But he leaves us with this thought.

 ‘A spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.’   

Only a protracted dialogue and continued thought will provide the answers. But we should not close off the dialogue and darken the already murky waters by fearing God will be abandoned if we embrace the best of modern science. 

Class question: At the start we suggested the sessions would address whether the arguments for God are coherent, credible, convincing. To what extent has your understanding and belief changed? Why? If not God, then What?

 

O                           O                           O

Glossary:

Analytic statement: An analytic proposition is a statement that is true by definition or by virtue of its meaning, making it necessarily true without requiring empirical evidence or observation of the world. The predicate is contained within the subject, such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "a triangle has three sides"

Contingent: In philosophy, a contingent statement, event, or being is one that is neither necessary nor impossible—it could have been otherwise. It is a fact that exists or occurs, but depends on external circumstances, meaning it is true in some possible worlds but not in all, contradicting necessity

Divine Command: Divine Command Theory (DCT) is a meta-ethical theory asserting that actions are morally good or evil solely because they are commanded or forbidden by God. It grounds morality in divine authority, making moral obligations objective commands from a supreme being rather than human constructs.

Enlightenment: a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, 

Evidentialism: Evidentialism is an epistemological theory stating that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence a person possesses for it. It argues that one is justified in holding a belief only if their total, currently available evidence supports it. 

Epistemology: The philosophy of knowledge

Miasma: Spiritual pollution

Necessary: In philosophy, "necessary" describes a condition, truth, or being that must exist or hold true, and could not have been otherwise. It represents an inescapable requirement for something else to occur (necessary condition) or a fact that holds true in all possible scenarios (metaphysical/logical necessity).

Occam’s Razor : the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. 

Omnibenevolent: All good

Omnipotent: having unlimited power.

Omnipresent: Present everywhere

Ontology: The philosophyof ‘being’

Oracle: a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity.

Pantheon: All Gods of a people or religious collective

Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Reformed Epistemology: Reformed epistemology is a philosophical view that belief in God is rational and justified without needing arguments or evidence. Championed by Alvin Plantinga, it argues that belief in God is "properly basic"—rational to hold similarly to basic sensory beliefs—serving as a defense against claims that faith is intellectually

Religious Epistemology: the philosophical study of the rationality, justification, and knowledge status of religious beliefs. It examines whether belief in God or other religious tenets requires evidence, or if such beliefs can be justified without it. 

Syncretic: the combining, merging, or bringing together of different, often contradictory, beliefs, philosophies, or cultural practices into a new, unified system

Synthetic proposition: A synthetic proposition is a statement that adds new information to the subject, where the predicate is not contained within the definition of the subject. Unlike analytic statements, which are true by definition, synthetic propositions require empirical evidence, observation, or experience to determine if they are true or false.

Teleology: relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

Theodicy: defence of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil. In Christina traditions this comes largely from the scriptures relating to Adam and Eve.

---

^[1] The various Gods, of whom many of you will have heard, like in previous beliefs, were revered for particular things. For example: Zeus (Jupiter in Rome): King of the Gods, ruler of Mount Olympus, and God of the sky, thunder, and justice; Hera (Juno in Rome): Queen of the Gods, sister and wife of Zeus, Goddess of marriage, women, and childbirth; Poseidon (Neptune in Rome): God of the sea, earthquakes, and horses; brother of Zeus; Demeter (Ceres in Rome): Goddess of agriculture, harvest, and fertility; Athena (Minerva in Rome): Goddess of wisdom, strategic warfare, and handicrafts; Apollo (Apollo): God of the sun, music, poetry, prophecy, and healing; twin brother of Artemis; Artemis (Diana in Rome): Goddess of the hunt, wilderness, wild animals, and the moon; Ares (Mars in Rome): God of war, violence, and bloodshed; Aphrodite (Venus in Rome): Goddess of love, beauty, and desire; Hades (Pluto in Rome): Brother of Zeus and Poseidon, he ruled the Underworld.

^[2] See the debate between Bertrand Russell and F.C Coplestome at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdoVwHesSHk

 

^[3] The Vienna Circle who made up the early logical positivist group included Moritz Schlik, Rudolp Carnep, Otto Neurath and A.J. Ayer. It was active from the beginning of the 20^th century.

---

^[i] The ancient Egyptians, for example, had a polytheistic beliefs with over 2000 Gods, many depicted in hieroglyphs as humans with animal heads. The major Gods were: Ra The Sun God; Amun-Re (the wind and sun God); Tefnut who controlled rain and water; Bes who looked after babies and mothers; Osiris and Isis (who maintained cosmic order; Anubis the God of the Dead,  Sobek, the God of the waterways; Hapi, the God of the Nile

The role of Pharaohs, who were considered Divine Rulers, was to be the link to God and the people. Through worship the pharaoh's duties were to sustain Maat (order) and prevent chaos (Isfet).

Aztec Gods formed a complex, polytheistic pantheon of over 200 deities representing natural forces, daily life, and war, often requiring human sacrifice. Key deities included:  Huitzilopochtli (war/sun),; Quetzalcoatl (wind/knowledge); Tlaloc (rain), and; Tezcatlipoca (night/magic).

These GODS  were often divided into those governing the sky, rain/agriculture, and war. 

Inca religion was also polytheistic, focusing on nature-based deities crucial for agriculture and imperial power, with central figures including: Viracocha (creator); Inti (Sun GOD /ancestor), and; Pachamama (Earth Mother).

Similarly ancient China had a vast syncretic pantheon of between 200 and 2000 Gods from Tao, Confucian and folk traditions. Some key Chinese GODS were: Pangu (盘古): The first being, who separated Yin (Earth) and Yang (Sky) to create the world; Fuxi (伏羲): Inventor of writing, fishing, and trapping; considered a creator of human civilization; Shennong (神农): The "Divine Farmer" who taught agriculture and discovered herbal medicine; Yu Huang (玉皇 - Jade Emperor): The supreme ruler of heaven, earth, and the underworld; Xi Wangmu (西王母 - Queen Mother of the West): Goddess of immortality, longevity, and keeper of the peaches of immortality;Caishen (财神): God of wealth, often prayed to for prosperity; Guan Yu (关羽): A historical general deified as the God of war, loyalty, and righteousness.