An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 7 (Religion and Science)

[Rough Draft - comments welcome]

Rea and Murray begin by discussing three views on science and religion.  The inevitable conflict view maintains that scientific and religious claims are at odds, perhaps even down to the core.  Supporters of this view often define science and religion problematically.  For instance, when one claims that science alone can deliver justified beliefs about the natural world, they are making a claim about the natural world that is either unjustified or self-refuting.  Religion is likewise ill-defined as the claim that justified beliefs about the natural world come from divine revelation.

The independence view maintains that science and religion operate in two separate domains.  These two domains might be characterized as the natural and supernatural, or else sense experiences and religious experiences.  But what are we to make of the Christian who claims that Jesus healed a blind man?  This seems to be a religious claim about the natural world.

The potential conflict view simply examines the conflict on a case-by-case basis.  What are the religious believer's options when they balance conflicting evidence?

i. Reject their religion
ii. Reject their interpretation of the religious data
iii. Reject the evidence of their senses
iv. Reject their interpretation of the sense data

Rea and Murray don't think there is a straightforward rule for which of these options applies in a given case.  They continue to discuss some important cases of religion-science conflict.

Science and the Credibility of Miracles
Hume famously argued that justified beliefs about miracles were impossible.  But what are miracles?  Hume says, "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

The balance of evidence argument
Since Hume defines laws via repeated sensory experience, he argues that, when confronted with a miraculous experience or claim, a person should never accept them as valid.  The reason is that, by definition, the person has better evidence for the law (repeated experience) than he does for an isolated miraculous experience (or claim).  And of course, rational people should attune their beliefs in accordance with the weight of the evidence.

But is it true that an isolated person experience or testimonial claim is always outweighed repeated past experience?  It seems not.  Even the most well-confirmed scientific theories are subject to refutation by new evidence.  And this can happen after years of confirmation by repeatable experiments. [1]

The Wrong Laws Argument
This argument is very similar to the previous one, accept that it doesn't claim the person to reject miracles, instead it concludes that the person might be mistaken about the laws of nature.  In other words, which is more likely: that I'm mistaken about the laws of nature, or that the laws of nature have been transgressed?

The Purely Anomalous Event Argument
Ockham's razor dicates positing no more explanatory entities than necessary.  Hume thinks it follows that we would be better to just say the supposed miraculous event is uncaused than caused by a supernatural agent.  Of course, imagine standing on the banks of the Red Sea and watching these events unfold (in light of your prior knowledge about Moses and his claims).  It seems wrong to say that you should accept the parting of the Rea Sea as simply uncaused.

Humean-style arguments for the impossibility of miracles
Hume defines a law of nature as a true universal generalization, in other words, a statement about the way things always happen.  So if it were shown that a "miracle" occurred, all this would do is invalidate the law of nature.  It wouldn't serve to show that a miracle had "broken" the law, only served to invalidate it.  Thus, miracles--when defined as transgressions of the laws of nature--are impossible.  Rea and Murray simply respond by giving a better definition for a miracle: "an event (ultimately) caused by God that cannot be accounted for by the natural powers of natural substances alone."


1 See Alan Hajek's paper entitled, "Are miracles chimerical?"

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 6 Part 2 (Arguments from Evil)

[Rough Draft - comments welcome]

The Evidential Argument part 2: "The Distribution Argument"
Rather than focusing on particular instances of evil, this argument hinges on the distribution of evil; specifically, it claims that the distribution of evil we find is better explained by a non-theistic hypothesis (one in which the universe is indifferent towards humans). [1]

Unlike direct arguments, this argument doesn't provide a quick route to supposing the truth of atheism.  Observing some particular phenomena and concluding that it is better explained by one competing hypothesis over others seems insufficient to confirm that hypothesis.  It is unclear how this argument should be weighted alongside other theistic and atheistic arguments.

The Argument from Hiddenness
An excerpt from Neitzsche summarizes the problem cited against theism.

"A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention – could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? Would he not be a cruel god if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? – But perhaps he I a god of goodness notwithstanding – and merely could express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? So much the worse! For then he was perhaps also in error as to that which he calls his “truth”, and is himself not so far from being the “poor deluded devil”! Must he not then endure almost the torments of Hell to have to see his creature suffer so, and go on suffering even more through all eternity, for the sake of knowledge of him, and not be able to help and counsel them, except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?"

Rea and Murray then move onto John Schellenberg's argument, which I'll briefly construct as follows (bracketing concerns over the necessity that God is perfectly loving):

1 If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable non-belief does not occur.
2 Reasonable non-belief does occur.
3 No perfectly loving God exists.

The second is very plausible.  Reasonable non-belief refers to people who have reflected on the arguments for God's existence an remained unconvinced.  The first premise seems plausible as well, since a loving God would want to ensure the possibility that humans enter into a relationship with him.  One necessary condition for this to happen is that those humans must believe that God exists.  So God must make his existence known to humans in a way escapable only by irrational means.

Rea and Murray think we should append an important qualification to the first premise: that there may be some reasonable non-belief permitted (in the world) as long as God has morally sufficient reasons.  And thus, the second premise is modified:

2' Reasonable non-belief does not occur unless there is a morally sufficient reason.

This move mimics the evidential arguments move from evil to gratuitous evil.  So now we appear to be left with gratuitous reasonable non-belief.  This modified premise doesn't appear as threatening to theism as the original formulation.  Rea and Murray think that this modified premise can be evaded via skeptical theism, since the justification for it will likely involve a noseum inference (no reason is apparent, therefore there is no reason).  Schellenberg has defended the contention that this noseum inference is valid, and not subject to any kind of skeptical theistic evasion (that we shouldn't expect to detect these reasons in every case).  Though Rea and Murray are clearly unconvinced by this, they move on to discuss potential theodicies that might apply if skeptical theism evasions are inadequate. [2]

Theodicies focused on the goods of free choice of soul-making
Natural order theodicies maintain that certain conditions, such as the predictable regularities of the physical world, are required in order for God to achieve the good of having morally free creatures who exercise their freedom.  Likewise, this theodicy discussed here adds another condition: that humans should have "real incentives" for exercising their freedom.  In other words, if God was apparent in a way that precluded rational disbelief, humans might be coerced in a way that precludes morally significant freedom.  In response to this argument, some note that religious believers are still capable of doing good and bad despite their (alleged) high degree of belief that God exists.

Theodicies focused on the good of filial knowledge
Paul Moser claims that God's hiddenness is necessary so that we can come to know him in the proper way. [3]  In addition to acquiring basic propositional knowledge, Moser thinks that we must cultivate a filial knowledge--that is, "humbly, faithfully, and lovingly standing in a relationship to God as our righteously gracious Father." [4]  This kind of knowledge of God can only come by approaching him in a manner much differently than one approaches a philosophical question.  As Hebrews 11:6 says, "Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him."  Of course, a serious objection to this is that there appears to be a number of people who have made earnest efforts to seek God and have come up empty handed.  Moser maintains that if there are such cases, we can presume that God is waiting for his "appointed time" to bestow filial knowledge.

[1] Paul Draper has offered an argument of this kind in an online article entitled, "Natural Selection and the Problem of Evil."  Alvin Plantinga responds with "Objections to Draper's Argument from Evil."  Finally, Draper gets the last word in his article, "On the Plausability of Naturalism and the Seriousness of the Argument from Evil."
[2] Some other details about this argument are noteworthy, since it is a hot topic right now:

First, Ted Poston and Trent Dougherty have argued that distinctions between types of belief (de re/de dicto) create problems for Schellenberg's formulation.  Schellenberg's reply is available, but unfortunately not for free.  
Second, the Infidels library has another good remark/reply/closing remarks series of articles between John Schellenberg and Jeffrey Jordan.  
Third, Stephen Maitzen has given a unique spin to this argument in his article, "Divine Hiddenness and the Demographics of Theism."  Jason Marsh argued that Molinistic assumptions about what worlds God can create defeat this argument in his article,"Do the demographics of theistic belief disconfirm theism? A reply to Maitzen." (not available for free)  Maitzen gets in a last word in the article,"Does Molinism explain the demographics of theism?"  Stephen Maitzen has also defended his thesis (in brief, blog fashion) against objections by Randal Rauser and Mike Almeida.  

[3]See the Prosblogion reading group series that discusses Paul Moser's book, The Elusive God.
[4] Moser, "Divine Hiddenness Does Not Justify Atheism," in M. Peterson and R. VanArragon (eds.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion (2004), p. 49.

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 6 Part 1 (Arguments from evil)

[Rough Draft - comments welcome]

The logical argument
An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent would be aware of, able to prevent, and willing to prevent all evil. Thus, the existence of any evil presents a problem for theists. Rea and Murray quickly dispense with attempts to deny premise 2 (evil exists) or else deny God's absolute goodness.  They move on to denials of this premise: "a wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of every evil [they can]." They point out that some evils might be a necessary precondition for securing outweighing goods. Now we've honed in on the gratuitous evil rendition of this argument.

6.9 If there were a God, there would be no gratuitous evils (GEs).
6.10 There is at least one GE.
6.11 Therefore: there is no God.

A question about the premise 6.10 that will likely be pursued later, what exactly is our epistemic situation with respect to identifying gratuitous evil? The atheist might argue for premise 6.10 in at least two ways. First, he might argue that no outweighing good could possibly justify some evil (for instance, a child being cruelly beaten).  Second, he might argue that some evil could not possibly be necessary to obtain an outweighing good. Rea and Murray argue that it is logically impossible for God to creature free creatures that conform to his will, and thus it is possible that a universe with free creatures has some evil.  Furthermore, some theists argue that a universe with free creatures results in more overall goods.[2] Rea and Murray don't find the support for premise 6.10 to be compelling; however, we haven't yet covered William Rowe's noseum inference, which aims to establish premise 6.10 probabilistically.

The Direct Evidential Argument
This argument is like the one above except that the second premise here asserts GE as likely or probable.  Thus, while the theist can show it possible that God has a good reason for GE, this argument requires him to show that it is probable that God has a reason for GE.

Reply One: Moorean Shift
Rea and Murray discuss how a theist might reply by G.E. Moore's reply to skepticism.  Moore famously argued against skeptical threat arguments by showing the premise being denied (via the skeptic) was more plausibly true, and thus a refutation of skepticism and not the other way around.  Here is my own rendition:

Skeptical Argument
If God exists, no GE exists
Probably, GE exists
Therefore: Probably, God does not exist

Moorean Shift
If God exists, no GE exists

Probably, God exists

Therefore: Probably, there is no GE

This looks to me to be just another example of the old adage that one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens.  One argument asserts If P then Q.  P, therefore Q.  The Moorean shift asserts If P then Q.  Not-Q, therefore not-P.  Whether or not the Moorean Shift succeeds depends on which premise is more plausible: Probably, GE exists....or probably, God exists?  So now the theist can refer to his arsenal or arguments in favor of God's existence, and if they form a stronger case than whatever case can be made for gratuitous evil, it seems we have defeated the argument.

Because of this, this seems to me to be an argument that atheism is reasonable, rather than an argument that theism is false.  One needs to reject (or at least provisionally put aside) all the other arguments for God's existence in order for this to have any purchase.  I recall William Rowe beginning an essay[3] by saying something to this effect, so perhaps I'm not too far off.  In addition, the atheist needs some good reasons to think that there is GE.  William Rowe argues this way:

P1. If there were a reason were E1, we would probably conceive of it
P2. We can't conceive of a reason for E1
C.  Therefore, there probably isn't a reason for E1.  (Thus, probably GE exists.)

E1 is some particularly cruel evil (such as a deer experiencing a painful death in a forest fire) that is representative of similar evils that we can't see any good reason for.[4]  This argument is seductive because in common experience we assume that "If ya can't see it, it probably ain't there."  But in what situations is this kind of inference appropriate versus not?  Rea and Murray give a us this criteria:

1. You must be looking in the right place.  For instance, you can't conclude that there is no milk in the fridge because you don't see any in the pantry. How might this play into the current discussion? Perhaps the atheist is only looking for a present reason that would justify some evil, but in fact the explanation lies in some complex group of contingent facts that brought about a future good, prevent a future evil, resulted from some past good, or resulted from avoiding some past evil.

2. If the thing were actually there, you would be able to see it.  For instance, you can't conclude that there are no germs on a needle because you don't see any there.

Reply Two: Skeptical Theism
Some philosophers adopt the position of "skeptical theism" and argue that we are not complying with #2 above.  We simply aren't in a position to see all the reasons for evil, and thus the fact that we don't see a reason for E1 doesn't justify an inference to the conclusion that there probably isn't one.[5]  Firstly, the skeptical theist might say we don't know the full range of goods which God might be trying to achieve.  Second, there is good reason to doubt that "we would have any idea what role particular evils might play in bringing about those goods."

How does Rowe respond to skeptical theism?  First, he claims that the skeptical theist is in a position that forces him to be skeptical about gratuitous evils even in a different world that contains much more evil than ours.  Second, he argues that a noconceivum argument is stronger than a noseeum argument.  In other words, it isn't just that we can't find any actual reasons, it is that every possible reason brought forth (even remotely possible reasons) seems to be inadequate.  Why?  Because, as discussed before, the evil in question must be necessary to bring about some greater good or prevent some greater evil.  Nothing we can even imagine fits this case for E1.

Reply Three: Theodicies
Perhaps the theist can offer some good reasons why God permits various evils.  One such reason is that evil results from divine punishment for human wrongdoing--and all the better if punishment secures an outweighing good.  Unfortunately, it looks as if God could have brought about such outweighing goods (e.g., rehabilitation, deterrence, societal protection) in other non-punitive ways.  Rea and Murray briefly consider the thesis that divine punishment is retributive (God is penalizes us for doing something wrong), and conclude that this might be necessary for securing the good of a "globally just universe."

Free Will
The free will theodicy aims at explaining why moral evil, which results from the actions of free creatures, is permitted by God.  Moral evil might arise as a consequence of a free choice, or it could simply be the case that a choice itself is evil.  Rea and Murray are unconvinced that we could have one without the other, and reject notions that God could have put us in a virtual playpen where our evil choices would have no actual effect (imagine running over a mailbox and it magically popping back into place).  Thus, if it is good for humans to have significant moral freedom, it appears inevitable that some moral evil exists.

Natural Law
The natural law theodicy focuses on the conditions that must be in place for human freedom to exist in the first place.  One such requirement for freedom is that "the environment around us be governed by regular, orderly laws of nature."  Without knowing that a particular action will bring about a particular response, one simply wouldn't know how to intend to do such an action. You might wish to split wood, but you would have no consistent background knowledge (in a chaotic world) such as, "When I swing an axe and strike the wood, it will usually split."  But unfortunately, the same laws of nature that permit an axe to split wood also permit an avalanche to engulf a village.

1. Human choices are a good which God would want to actualize in creating the world
2. In order to actualize human choices, the world must exhibit natural order
3. Natural order also results in natural evil
4. Therefore, natural evils are permitted by God because God desires that humans have choices

But are all natural evils necessary, and could God have yielded slightly less natural evil with slightly different natural laws (and still preserve human freedom)?  Unfortunately, knowledge of this sort would require an extraordinarily detailed account of how different laws (and the resulting events produced) might create a different overall outcome.

But a more formidable objection asks if some natural evils (which result from the natural order) could be prevented without impacting human freedom at all, for instance, kidney stones.  "The only answer avaiable to the theist is that natural evils serve as necessary conditions for a variety of good ends, and that some of them are just unknown."

Soul Making Theodicies
Perhaps evil could be necessary for a different sort of good than just free choice.  One such candidate is the good of moral and spiritual growth, particularly of the kind that one couldn't experience in a perfect world.  For instance, we could not be courageous unless there were real dangers to be confronted.

[1] See the clear and concise introduction to these arguments by Bill Vallicella.
[2] For a more details exposition of the Free Will Defense, see Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil (1977).
[3] Peterson, Contemporary Issues in the Philosophy of Religion, Ch 1.
[4] Stephen Wykstra has labeled the general inference from "I can' see an x" to "There probably is no x" the noseum inference.  "The Human Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering:" On Avoiding the Evils of 'Appearance'." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1984), pp. 73-94.
[5] A well-written blog series on (and against) skeptical theism is available at Philosophical Disquisitions

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 5 Part 3 (Design arguments)

The analogy argument
Rea and Murray don't mention the origin of this argument, but Hume summarizes it well through the words of Cleanthes.

Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed. (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Oxford World's Classics Ed., p.45)

Rea and Murray reconstruct a basic argument and then proceed to a more advanced version:

5.34 The universe is like a machine.
5.35 Machines are typically caused by designers.
5.36 Therefore: the universe is likely caused by a designer.

More advanced version:

5.37 There is some property P such that (a) some natural object N (or perhaps the cosmos as a whole) has P, (b) many artifacts (watches, for example) have P, and (c) artifacts that have P do so because they are products of design.
5.38 Things that are alike generally have causes or explanations that are alike as well.
5.39 Therefore: it is reasonable to conclude that N has P because it is likewise the product of design.

Analogy arguments are weak because they either define "machine-ness" in a way that begs the question or else have trouble substantiating the claim that all instances of such machine-ness imply a designer.

Inference to the best explanation
"In drawing this conclusion you make an inference to the best among a number of possible available explanations. Arguments of this sort work only when there are no competing explanations." Under this criterion, Rea and Murray do not find biological design arguments very compelling. Evolutionary theory is a competing explanation that explains apparent design by reference to "workings of an algorithmic natural process, namely, variation and natural selection."

However, the contemporary debate has shifted from biological design to cosmological design. As cosmologist and atheist Fred Hoyle remarks, "A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology [to create suitable conditions for life]..."[1] Rea and Murray reconstruct the cosmic fine-tuning argument as follows:

5.40 The universe exhibits fine-tuning of a sort that makes it suitable for life.
5.41 The existence of fine-tuning is probable under theism.
5.42 The existence of fine-tuning is highly improbable under atheism.
5.43 Therefore: fine-tuning provides strong evidence in favor of theism over atheism.

Some examples of fine-tuning are listed: the rate of cosmic expansion after the Big Bang, the strength of the nuclear strong force, and the electromagnetic force (particularly its delicate balance with the strong force).

Some objections can be raised against premise 5.42. An example is given that attempts to show that it isn't highly improbable that the configuration of constants and forces is fine-tuned for life as opposed to some other life prohibiting configuration. We are told to imagine a dial with ten numbers on it, each taking on a value between zero and nine. For life to be possible, all ten dials must have the value 5; the odds of this are one in 10 billion. But what about any other random configuration of values on the dials? The probability is still one in 10 billion, and thus life permitting values are no less probable (indeed, equally as likely) than any other set of values.

Rea and Murray give a counterexample (William Lane Craig has used it before as well). Suppose a friendly poker game is disrupted after one of the players draws royal flushes for ten straight hands. To his friends' dismay, John insists that the sequence of hands he drew was no less probable than any other sequence of hands. Why does John's response fail to satisfy his companions? Because there are only a few hands that beat all others, and his friends want to know "why he drew an improbable and special series of hands." In other words, though the probability of drawing the same hand ten times is equi-probable with drawing any other series of hands, the probability of drawing an unbeatable hand (as opposed to a garbage hand) ten times is not. Likewise, the probability of the constants and forces having life permitting values is not equi-probable with a life prohibiting series of constants and forces.

A formidable objection to premise 5.42, the multi-verse objection, asserts that a finely tuned universe is improbable on atheism only if there is a single universe. Perhaps there are many universes with varying natural laws, and so it isn't so unlikely that one of them is life permitting. Unfortunately there isn't a any empirical evidence for this claim. Secondly, it isn't clear (in these speculative multi-verse theories) that the other universes would take on different constants and forces. Thirdly, whatever the mechanism for generating universes is, that mechanism itself would have to be fine-tuned; indeed, a universe-making machine might require a higher-level of fine-tuning than modern physics can presently appreciate.

[1] Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science (November 1981), p. 12.

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 5 Part 2 (Cosmological arguments)

Cosmological Arguments
Dependence version 1:

5.27 Every being* is either dependent or self-explaining.
5.28 Not every being can be dependent.
5.29 Therefore, at least one self-explaining being exists (a being which in turn explains the existence of the dependent beings).

*Both objects and events count as "beings" here. A dependent being is one that refers to another being for its existence.

Infinite Regress and the Principle of Sufficient Reason
The infinite regress objection (IRO) aims at premise 5.28.  While a finite chain of dependent beings could require a self-explaining being, an infinite chain of dependent beings wouldn't require such a being.  One reply to IRO leverages Big Bang cosmology to show that current theories support a finite universe.  Another reply to IRO invokes the Principle of Sufficient Reason:

PSR There must be a sufficient cause, reason, or explanation for the existence of every thing and for every positive fact

Thus, even given an infinite chain of dependent beings: some remaining facts lack explanation.  For starters, the fact that there is something rather than nothing.  Also, the fact that there exists a certain infinite collection of things.  Defenders of IRO have replied that these facts are indeed explained by an infinite regress.  An example is given in which someone has fifteen dollars--ten dollars in one pocket that he got from the ATM and five dollars in the other pocket that he received from someone in repayment of a loan.  Now, what if we asked this fellow to explain why he has fifteen dollars, why does he have some money rather than none at all?  The idea is that once this person explains where his five and ten dollars came from (individually), there isn't any further explanation required (for the fifteen dollars).  I recall Plantinga providing a slightly different example in God, Freedom and Evil.  A mother has three sons that are sent off to war and they all die during the call of duty.  There are individual explanations for why each son died, but there may not be an joint explanation for why all three of them died.

Do these examples show that the infinite regress objection satisfies PSR?  Not if one accepts the external explanations principle: "A set of dependent beings is explained 'with no explanatory remainder' when each member of the set has an explanation and at least one member of the set is explained by appeal to something outside the set of dependent beings to be explained."  In the case of the fifteen dollars, there was an appeal to something outside the set (the ATM and the loan re-payer).  In the infinite regress objection, this isn't true, and thus the objection fails to satisfy the PSR.

A serious objection to PSR, raised by Leibniz himself, is that the grand totality of all other facts (the SUPERFACT) requires an explanation.  But what exactly would count as an explanation for something like a SUPERFACT?  Whatever the explanation, it couldn't be a necessary truth; else, the SUPERFACT would obtain in all possible worlds and thus only the actual world would be possible.  What if the SUPERFACT's explanation is not necessary?  Rea and Murray only leave us with the vague notion that "only very special propositions are true in just one world...truths that are true in only one world are hard to think of."  They conclude that we should reject PSR.

Dependence version 2:
We might try to replace PSR with a weaker principle, such as there can be no independent contingent thing.  Thus the new argument can be construed as follows:

5.30 Every being is either dependent or necessary.
5.28 Not every being can be dependent.
5.29 Therefore: at least one necessary being exists (a being which dependent beings at least partially depend for their existence).

This version is still susceptible to the IRO.  Finally, Rea and Murray consider it "no easy task" to argue that the universe as a whole is itself a contingent thing.

The kalam version
William Lane Craig's recent work on this version of the argument has attracted attention from philosophers, cosmologists, and physicists.

5.31 Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its coming into existence
5.32 The universe began to exist
5.33 Therefore: the universe has a cause for its coming to exist.

 The first premise seems obvious, but in fact has fostered lively debate.  The second premise is justified both on a priori and a posteriori grounds.  As to the latter, the best cosmological theories (the Big Bang) all posit a universe that began to exist.  As to the former, some philosophers have argued that an actually infinite series of past moments is impossible.

This argument describes the cause-to-universe relationship in an interesting way, because it posits that the cause exists simultaneously with the effect and not prior to the effect as we would normally expect.  This is important because some object to this argument on the grounds that a timeless cause is incoherent.[1]   The best illustration of this (not in the book but from Craig himself in a lecture I heard one) is that of a bowling ball and a pincushion.  The bowling ball causes the pincushion to be indented in a certain fashion.  Now, imagine that the bowling ball and the pin cushion have forever been in this position.  It would not be the case that one event was causing a succeeding event.  Likewise, "Craig argues that God's causing the universe to come to be could be simultaneous with its coming to be."  He also concludes that this timeless cause needs to have some kind of personal agency, namely the ability to bring about effects "at will."  So, Craig thinks this argument gets us to a timeless quasi-personal being that caused the universe to come into existence.  There are numerous objections to this argument that delve deeply into theories of time, causal explanation, infinity, and more.

[1] Quentin Smith has devoted much attention to this topic.  Check out his article on Infidels, "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe" (1988).

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 5 Part 1 (Ontological arguments)

Religious experience might justify belief in the absence of propositional evidence and undercutting defeaters; however, not all persons have religious experiences.  In addition, some religious experiences may be defeated, or else propositional evidence (the problem of evil, divine hiddenness) outweighs experience.  Therefore, regardless of a reformed epistemology, good theistic arguments are indispensable.

Ontological Arguments
Anselm's starting point is that God is the being than which none greater can be conceived.  The argument goes as follows:

1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. God exists in the understanding.
3. To exist in reality is better than merely to exist in understanding.
4. Thus, if God exists merely in the understanding, then we can conceive of something greater than God, namely a being just like God, but who also exists.
5. But it is impossible to conceive of a being that is greater than the greatest conceivable being.
6. Thus it is impossible that God exists merely in the understanding.
7. Thus God exists in reality as well as in the understanding.
8. Thus God exists.

One popular objection to this argument is that other greatest conceivable things could be plugged into this argument.  For example, the Lost Island is the greatest conceivable island and thus exists.  But not so fast, how would an island be the greatest of its kind?  How many miles of beach would it have, potentially infinite?  Certain types of perfection do not have an instrinsic maximal value, and thus not just any old greatest conceivable thing can be plugged into this argument.  But this objection might cut both ways, since some of God's alleged great-making properties don't seem to admit of instrinsic maxima (eg., perfectly loving).  In other words, some intrinsic great-making properties may be problematic for this argument.

But is existence a property at all, much less a great-making property?  Kant answered in the negative.  To ascribe properties to something presupposes its existence.[1]  Murray and Rea point out that Kant is assuming that a precondition (for ascribing other properties) can't itself be a property.   "Taking up space" is a precondition for having the property of "being red", but "taking up space" is also itself a property.  Likewise with existence, except that existence the precondition for all properties (or so Kant argues).  Perhaps it is, but this still doesn't show that existence can't be a property.  On the other hand, Rea and Murray don't give any arguments in favor of predicating existence either (my guess is this gets deep under the hood of language).  So, I'm not sure about Kant's objection.

Some maintain that the ontological argument begs the question.  The first premise would need to be modified to be conditional. "[5.1**] For anything to count as God, that thing would have to be the greatest conceivable being."  But now the conclusion only says "Thus anything that counts as God would have to exist."

Recent work in the area of philosophy known as modal logic has produced a new rendition of this argument.  Modal logic deals with claims/inferences that are about/from possibility and necessity.   Rea and Murray define a possible world as "a comprehensive description of the way the universe might be...the maximally comprehensive description of our universe is the actual world."  Next, they define a necessary being and necessary property possession.  A necessary being is one that would exist in all possible worlds.  A being possesses a property necessarily if it has that property in all possible worlds.  For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger is 6 feet tall ascribes a property to Arnold, but Arnold could be 5 feet tall in some possible world.  On the other hand, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a person ascribes a property to Arnold that holds in all possible worlds.  Hmm, but what about Kant's objection?  Arnold can only hold a necessary property in the worlds that he exists in, right?  Consider the proposition Arnold is an existent.  Is existence a property or not?  Not sure what Plantinga says on this issue, but here is the modal argument:

5.20 God is the greatest possible being
5.21 The greatest possible being is one that possesses all perfections necessarily
5.22 Necessary existence is a perfection
5.23 It is possible that the greatest possible being exists
5.24 If it is possible that the greatest possible being exists, then that being exists necessarily
5.25 God exists necessarily
5.26 God exists

Premise 5.23 is susceptible to refutation.  For instance, some philosophical theologians think that the concept of a greatest possible being entails a contradiction.  Thus, it is not possible that the greatest possible being exists.  In other words, if a perfect being is shown to be conceptually impossible, this argument fails.  A more modest critic might just insist that we withhold judgement on this argument until we have resolved all the apparent contradictions in philosophical theology.  But a powerful rebuttal can be given to both critics here.  Since premise 5.23 asserts the possibility that the greatest possible being exists, then the response to conceptual impossibility is to adjust our concept accordingly to be in line with what is possible. Does omnipotence and impeccability entail a contradiction?  No problem, just adjust the concept.  The point here is that some philosophical concepts are hard to pin down and declare impossible.  The concept of the greatest possible being, by its very nature, is damn near impossible to deem impossible.

But someone can still object that necessary existence is impossible.  After all, the being must exist (or possess existence?) in all possible worlds for this argument to work.  Rea and Murray don't think that any convincing arguments have been offered in this direction.  A few references would have been nice.  But regardless, it looks like "its possible until shown impossible" isn't exactly a compelling reason to accept 5.23 either.  But, compelling reasons are hard to come by in these types of arguments (or so it seems to me at least).

[1] Alvin Plantinga, in God, Freedom and Evil (1977), proceeds meticulously through the details of Kant's objections in a section entitled "The Irrelevance of Kant's Objection."

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 4 (Faith and rationality)

The nature of faith
Rea and Murray categorize faith as a species of belief, i.e., a "cognitive stance towards a proposition."  They consider four definitions of faith: as believing in something "[1]in the absence of proof...[2]in the absence of supporting evidence...[3]in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence...[4]that we do not know to be true."

Reflection on these definitions shows that each falls short of capturing the whole picture.  Apropos [2], what constitutes evidence?  Philosophers are interested in propositional evidence, that is, evidence that can be the object of belief.  But not all knowledge enjoys propositional support, for instance, skeptical hypotheses such as whether or not we are brains in a vat.  A precise distinction between knowledge and faith proves difficult to draw.  Murray and Rea offer their account of faith as follows:

"We therefore tentatively propose the following as our positive account of faith: to say that a person S has faith in proposition p is to say that S believes p despite the fact that (a) there are alternatives to p that are compatible with whatever evidence supports S's belief that p, and b) there is genuine and somewhat weighty evidence in favor of one or more of those alternatives.  Of course, the phrase, 'genuine and somewhat weighty evidence' is hopelessly imprecise; but in our view, the imprecision does not diminish the value of this account as at least a viable first pass at a positive account of faith."

Reliabilism and Evidentialism
The evidentialist maintains that the justificatory status of religious belief x depends on the strength of the arguments produced for x.  The reliabilist maintains that a belief can be rationally held if (a) they are produced by reliable, cognitive faculties and (b) the believer has no overriding reason to doubt the belief's rationality.  (Rea and Murray side with reliabilism.) Neither camp would deem beliefs rational in the absence of any evidence whatsoever; however, reliabilists disagrees with evidentialists over whether one needs proposition evidence--as opposed to other kinds, such as experiential evidence.  "Experiential evidence comes in varying degrees and can be defeated by other evidence."  For instance, the fact that a great many people throughout history have claimed to have an awareness of God might confer experiential evidence on belief in God--more so than, say, the belief in the Great Pumpkin.

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 3

The first two chapters have broadly examined theistic belief, but Murray and Rea will now discuss the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  Can they be established philosophically, apart from scripture?[1]  A brief discussion of  heresies proceeds into some philosophical critique of the orthodox (officially recognized) doctrines. Orthodox practitioners may disagree with this conclusion :

"So if it turns out that Christian doctrine as interpreted by those creeds and councils is incoherent, then, at the very least, large segments of Christendom will be forced to revise their religious views and also, perhaps, to revise their views about the authority and reliability of the relevant creeds and councils." (emphasis original)

The Trinity

Monotheism holds that there is one God.  Unitarianism holds that God is one person, and Trinitarianism holds that God is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  Three heresies regarding this doctrine are as follows:

1. Modalism - Denying the distinction of three persons.  God manifests himself in different ways like Superman and Clark Kent
2. Polytheism - Denying the oneness of God
3. Subordinationism -  Denying the divinity of all three persons.  Christ is not fully divine, or the Holy Spirit is not fully divine.  

The authors critically examine some analogies to see if they partially/fully illuminate the orthodox view.

A Treatise on Probability, Ch 4

In this chapter, Keynes critiques the Principle of Indifference (abbreviated P.I.) which is his own name for what Bernoulli called ‘The Principle of Non-Sufficient Reason.’ The principle states that when several alternatives are possible—and yet there is no information whatsoever to prefer one over another—each alternative should be given equal probabilities. Suppose you are picking up a friend at the airport and don’t know which gate they will arrive at. What is the probability of arrival at gate A versus not-A? The P.I. calls for assigning P(A) a value of 1/2, or more generally 1/n where n is the number of known alternatives. Unfortunately, this principle quickly leads to paradoxes, which Keynes demonstrates in this chapter.  His goal is not to demolish the P.I., but instead refine it.

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 2

Intro

Given how often we deliberate over tough choices and decisions, it seems intuitive that the future is not settled.  The proposal that God is omniscient (knows all past, present, and future facts) leaves one to puzzle not only whether omniscience is possible, but whether human free will and omniscience are compossible.  At first glance, divine foreknowledge of future events seems to imply that those events could not have been otherwise.

Rea and Murray don't reject open theism right off the bat:

"Surely, then, it was true yesterday that you would today be reading a book. Suppose someone had said yesterday, 'You will read a book tomorrow.' Given that you are reading a book, what they would have said certainly wouldn't have been false.  And it is hard to take seriously the idea that their statement might have been neither true nor false.  So it would have been true."

An Intro to the Philosophy of Religion, Ch. 1

This textbook normally costs over 50$, but the Kindle edition is only 15$.  I might as well notate my way through it.

Murray and Rea begin by narrowing their scope to Western monotheistic religious traditions, which aligns with their primary goal "to provide a properly representative introduction to the field of philosophy of religion as it has developed in English-speaking countries over the past fifty years..."

The first three chapters discuss the attributes of God.  An important distinction is drawn between "God" as a proper name and "God" as a title (i.e., referring to the "President of the United States" instead of "Ronald Reagan").  Philosophical theologians are more interested in the latter.  "On the other hand, if and when 'God' is used as a title, we can learn quite a lot about what God is or would be like simply by unpacking our concept of the role associated with the term 'God.'"

A Treatise on Probability, Chapter 3

Must all probabilities be expressed as quantities?
All this talk about ‘degrees of belief’ might lead one to wonder how to measure such degrees (assuming they can be measured). Are they counted or weighed? Keynes begins by surveying a few other opinions on the matter. One opinion is that a numerical comparison of two probabilities is possible, though in practice it it may be impossible.  Much like counting the number of cells in the human body…we assume that there is such a number even though we don't know it. Some things are weighed and others are counted, but this is merely a limitation on our knowledge.

Scruton, the death of philosophy, and some musing

I won't be blogging all my notes on this book, but the first chapter was too good to resist. No sooner had I gotten past the third page of A Short History of Modern Philosophy, than I encountered a provocative statement. "The nature of philosophy can be grasped through two contrasts: with science on the one hand, and with theology on the other." (emphasis mine)

Scruton goes on to describe how the scientific endeavor gives rise to questions, some of which are beyond it's ken. Consider a question of the form, 'Why did event x happen?' Scientists fire up their machinery and go to work answering it: "Event x happened because of preceding event y and condition z." But then the question arises, 'Why did event y happen?' and so forth.

This seemingly endless series of events ultimately prompts a different sort of question: 'Why should there be any events at all?' Machinery of a different sort is needed here, and thus is philosophy (though not exhaustively so). It makes sense to me why the average person disdains philosophy, since philosophy operates at the limits of human understanding, and deals with things at the most ultimate and abstract level. Those who say 'philosophy is dead' would do better to say that 'philosophy is stagnant.' Personally, I might accept that it all boils down to Plato and Aristotle, but I don't accept that it doesn't boil or shouldn't be boiled.

A possible future world?
Perhaps philosophy will die with the love of wisdom. When we finally reduce ourselves and the world around us to the real fundamentals. When all the special sciences and their generalized conceptions of things become mere visual aids for the finite mind. When only a computer can hold the true conception of fundamental reality. And yet even then we find that most simple and elegant formulations are only slightly better than quantum mechanics, which was only slightly better than classical mechanics. In an ironic deus ex machina, the universal laws themselves are reduced to mere neural structures in our skulls that happened to correspond with the the external world to whatever degree that we attempted to detect it.   Elegance is a grand illusion, there is no pattern.  The universe played a cruel prank on us: a dance into a dark room. We've no one to thank and no one to curse. That would be quite a world. And yet the pragmatist leans back to stretch, and says "yeah but it still works."  Perhaps metaphysics was the first act in the Theatre of the Absurd, and pragmatism will follow intermission.

A Treatise on Probability, Chapter 2

Summary
We know many things simply by contemplating the objects of direct acquaintance (experience, understanding, and perception). We can can leverage this direct knowledge to arrive at indirect knowledge about other propositions. For example, perhaps we know the proposition “3 horses—red, green, and blue--crossed the finish line” and we wish to know something about the proposition “The red horse crossed the finish line.” What moves must we make to arrive at knowledge about the red horse crossing the finish line? We must know a secondary proposition that expresses the logical relationship between the two propositions. In this case, that proposition would be “p bears probability-relationship .33 with respect to proposition h.” Yet how did we come to know this secondary proposition? By directly perceiving a logical relation: in this case certain axioms of probability. I’m not sure if that example is perfect, but it’s the best I can do.

A Treatise on Probability, Chapter 1

In chapter one, Keynes lays out his terms.  He begins by distinguishing direct knowledge and knowledge attained by argument.  With respect to the latter, what does it mean to say that a proposition is probable?

"The terms certain and probable describe the various degrees of rational belief about a proposition which different amounts of knowledge authorize us to entertain."

So we have two sets of related propositions: for now, let's label them as evidence and conclusion(s).

"Between two sets of propositions, therefore, there exists a relation, in virtue of which, if we know the first, we can attach to the latter some degree of rational belief."

I'm interested to see how Keynes will show that such a relationship exists.  Furthermore, it seems we must know about this relation between evidence and conclusion before we can rationally affirm anything about the probability of the conclusion. 

Questions that come to mind
1. How do we quantify the degree to which evidence confers support on a conclusion? 
2. How do we know this relationship, and how does that knowledge give rise to a degree of rational belief? 
3. Is one's degree of rational belief commensurate with the degree to which evidence confers supports on the conclusion?

Keynes says there is a "purely logical" relationship between the evidence and the conclusion.  So while we may not have certainty about the truth of the conclusion, we may have certainty about the appropriate degree of  belief that one should rationally hold with respect to that conclusion...how provocative!  'Hmm so I'm not sure about x, but I'm perfectly certain about the degree to which I'm not sure about x.'  I couldn't put the book down at this point.

The first chapter drives home the point that the stated probability of a conclusion is relative to the evidence or "corpus of knowledge."  Add or subtract relevant evidence and the probability of the conclusion may change.  But doesn't this imply that rational belief is subjective, since not everyone considers the same evidence when assessing the probability of conclusions?  Not quite.

Subjective Sets of Propositions
Propositions can be given differing probabilities with respect to differing bodies of evidence.  Person A has evidence 'a', and person B has evidence 'b'.  When assessing some proposition p, A and B needn't have the same rational degree of belief in p, since these may be different:
1. The probability of p given a, or P(p/a)
2. The probability of p given b, or P(p/b)

As a second example: ask me tomorrow, and my degree of belief might have changed due to new evidence.  So it's all mushy relativistic psychology stuff right?  Wrong. 

Objective Relations Among Propositions
The evidential content may vary, but the degree to which evidence confers support on the conclusion is "purely logical."  This again raises the issue in question #3.  He has more or less used 'degree of rational belief' and 'degree to which y confers evidence on x' synonomously in the first chapter.  He does mention this towards the end:

"I do not believe that any of [the initial terms and definitions] accurately represent that particular logical relation which we have in our minds when we speak of the probability of an argument."

So perhaps my head scratching is warranted, and things will become clearer as we move along.  For now the overall idea seems clear.  Let x be a conclusion and y be some set of propositions given as premises in a probabalistic argument.  When Keynes says 'x is probable' he means 'x is probable given y', which is longhand for P(x/y).  Thus, when one has knowledge of P(x/y), they can have a rational degree of belief in x.  What I'm not sure of, is if P(x/y) is .75 then is my degree of rational belief in x also .75?  All this talk about having knowledge of P(x/y) raises some epistemic questions, which Keynes will address in chapter 2.