Ryan Holstay Philosophy 102 Assignment #4 1. Natural Theology; Natural Theology vs.

Revealed Theology and their

Methodologies Natural Theology is the study of God through natural intellect without any outside input. (Miller, 248). This means that the arguments for or against Gods existence are those arguments that are based upon our reasoning, observations and experiences without taking into account any ideas or information gained from spiritual or religious texts and readings. Revealed Theology is the study or knowledge of God through spiritual or religious experiences and through religious texts and readings. (Miller, 248). Miller differentiates the two by explaining that Natural Theology is the outreach of people to God, while Revealed Theology is the outreach of God to people. (Miller, 248). Miller also explains that Natural Theology refers to arguments regarding the existence of God or knowledge of some of Gods attributes, while Revealed Theology delivers a knowledge that bears on human salvation or the idea that God reaches out to us for a reason. (Miller, 248). 2. Belief in God and Thomas Aquinas View Some Philosophers argue that the belief in God is properly basic, which means that it is just accepted without any additional evidence. (Miller,
1

250). This belief is based upon the idea that within our minds and absent any outside influence, there exists the idea of God, which some argue, may have been placed in our minds by God himself. I believe that Thomas Aquinas would agree with this theory because Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae presents five ways that we can know that God just exists based upon theories of some ultimate cause of everything that has since come to exist in the world. (Miller, 256). Thomas Aquinas believes that God is such ultimate cause or ultimate being upon which the entire world is contingent. (Miller, 246-257). I think it could probably be argued, however, that Aquinas would not agree with this theory, because the laws and rules of motion, efficient cause, and the spectrum of more vs. less upon which he relies could all be said to constitute an outside influence or additional evidence. 3. Three of the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas Thomas Aquinas set forth Five Ways or proofs for the existence of God in Summa Theologiae. One of these proofs evidences Gods initial existence through the argument of Motion. Thomas Aquinas first begins by explaining that we can be certain that specific objects in the world around us are in motion. He next differentiates between the objects that are actually in motion versus the objects that have the potential to be in motion, using the example of fire and wood, with the fire, as the mover, having the actual heat and the wood, as the thing being moved, having the potential to become hot after contact with the fire. (Miller, 252). Aquinas explains that there must exist some first
2

mover in the chain of causality, and argues that this first mover is God. (Miller, 252). Another way that Aquinas sets out to prove the existence of God is through the argument of efficient cause. (Miller, 253). Aquinas argues that similarly to the proof set out above, in tracing back through the causes of certain effects, there must exist one first cause, because there exists no thing that is the efficient cause of itself. (Miller, 253). Therefore, Aquinas explains, there must exist some ultimate first cause which starts the whole chain of causes and effects. Aquinas concludes that this argument for some first cause is evidence of the proof of the existence of God. (Miller, 253). Another proof that Aquinas sets forth to demonstrate the existence of God is based upon the occurrence and scale of more versus less of something. (Miller, 254). Aquinas explains that the words more and less are a description of the existence of something in its maximum versus in its minimum. (Miller, 254). Aquinas once again uses the example of fire, and indicates that a hot fire is only hot in its comparison to the hottest or greatest fire, and that a fire becomes hotter the closer it moves on the scale to the hottest, or the best fire. He argues that the hottest fire is the greatest fire, and therefore, there must exist something that causes the hottest fire to be the closest to perfection. (Miller, 254). These proofs all seem to relate back to a chain of causality or existence in which God is the first existing link. In the argument of motion, Aquinas
3

believes that the first link in the chain, God, is the first mover. In the argument of efficient cause, Aquinas explains that God is the first link in the chain is the one who puts all causes into effect in order to bring about the chain of cause and effect. In the argument based on the continuum of more and less, Aquinas explains that God is the beginning link in the existence of perfection that starts the chain of the most down through the least. Miller notes that all of Aquinas Five Ways are based upon a posteriori knowledge, or knowledge that comes from an experience, and is therefore, dependent upon the experience. (Miller, 232, 255). Miller also notes that all of these theories center on the idea that from nothing, nothing comes. (Miller, 255). In my opinion, this is consistent with Thomas Aquinas epistemology because Aquinas believes that God is the ultimate cause or ultimate being in the hierarchy upon which the entire world is contingent. (Miller, 246-257). 4. The Reasoning of the Kalam Cosmological Argument; Why it is not used by Thomas Aquinas The reasoning of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is similar to that of the thinking of Thomas Aquinas in that this argument is also based upon the central idea of an ultimate cause as the first link in the long chain of causes and effects that make up our world, however, the difference between the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the arguments of Thomas Aquinas is the idea that the ultimate cause stretches back in time, and not upwards through a hierarchy. (Miller, 256-257). This form of thinking is known as thinking in a temporal series, or one that stretches infinitely backward in time. In this
4

form of thinking, God is the ultimate cause not at the top of the chain, as Aquinas believed, but at the beginning of the chain. This idea centers around a distinct beginning of the world, based upon the rational idea that the world has to have an age, or a date of existence, because it cannot have existed for an infinite number of years, because the word infinite it itself has no beginning nor no end. (Miller, 257). Therefore, there must exist an ultimate cause at the beginning, (God), that resulted in the beginning of our world, or its birth. Aquinas does not use this reasoning in his ways to prove Gods existence because Aquinas believed that it didnt really matter how long the world existed, what was important was how it existed in the first place. Aquinas further believed that God, as the ultimate cause, was transcendent or outside space and time. (Miller, 257). 5. Teleological Proof and Tennants Solution A teleological proof is an argument that is based on the purpose of the universe. This type of proof suggests that everything in the universe was designed with some ultimate purpose in mind, and that each and every piece and part that makes up an object, while having its own specific design and purpose, works together to achieve the ultimate purpose of that particular object. The example used in the text is that of Paleys Watch Analogy; however a different example might be that of a cellular phone. The main purpose of a cellular phone is centered on communication. There are many different features of todays cell phones that achieve this
5

purpose; calling, text messaging, picture messaging, emailing, and posting through different social media sites. A cell phone is made up of many different parts, including the screen on which we view information, the keyboard/number pad through which we input information, the camera function that takes the photographs, the internal memory that saves the photographs and information that we input, and the mechanism by which the cell phone transmits our information and communications, to name a few. Each function of the cell phone was designed to achieve a specific purpose; for example, the camera to take the picture, but the ultimate design and purpose of the cell phone is to be able to share that picture with others. The teleological argument reasons that a design such as a watch or a cell phone must have been built by an intelligent being who knew that each and every part, when put together, would work together to accomplish the specific purpose of the item that they were building. Therefore, the teleological proof argues that the universe must have been designed by an intelligent being; God. One of the problems that evolution brings to this type of proof is the contradictory nature of the theory of evolution in comparison with the teleological proof. The theory of evolution suggests that the universe and all that it contains was not fashioned by one ultimate being at one time, but came about as a result of a series of progressions and adaptations of the universe and the things contained within it. Tenant suggested that there was a happy

medium between the theory of evolution and the teleological proof, in that man and other objects in the universe were created through a series of progressive evolution, but that in viewing and analyzing the world as a whole, there is evidence of God as the ultimate being was responsible for the design as a whole. (Miller, 266-268, 274). I think that Tennants solution attempts to draw a happy medium between the two theories as best as he can. I think that his reasoning seems to be sound both scientifically and in terms of religious theory. Scientifically, I think that his explanation of man as a child of nature who is constantly evolving and adapting to Mother Natures different changes and circumstances makes sense and is supported by physical evidence; for example, the way that people and plants and animals living in different climates naturally adjust in order to survive in that climate. I also believe in terms of religious theory this argument makes sense because although the human or plant or animal has the ability to adapt and does adapt to survive in its surroundings, I believe that the means by which this is able to occur may be based on some greater scheme or design demonstrating the existence of God. 6. Humes Problems Concerning Proofs for Gods Existence that Rely on Causality; Kants Criticism Humes criticism of the proofs for Gods existence centers upon what we can actually know about causality by sense experience. Hume argues that our idea and understanding of causality is based upon our experiences, and as we
7

have not experienced Gods creation and design of the world, we do not have a basis to believe that he exists. (Miller, 270). In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume explains that our knowledge of causality is based upon our experiences, experiments and observations of the cause and effects under certain circumstances; if one or more of those circumstances changes, the cause and the effect will change as well. (Miller, 270). Therefore, we cannot always know with certainty what effect will come about unless the circumstances are exactly the same. Hume further argues that allowing the arguments for causality or operations of nature, such as a hair growing or leaf blowing or thought serve as the basis for our arguments toward some intelligent design of the whole is not supported, because we cannot apply the same argument and conclusion or effects from a part to the make-up of the whole, such as the human or the growth of a tree or the make-up of the mind as a rule with confidence. (Miller, 270-271). Hume concludes this section by concluding that because we have no experience to parallel that of the proof of the existence of God, we cannot be certain that this proof stands, as we have no experience in the origin of the world other than that which we have personally observed or experienced. (Miller, 271). Kants criticism of these types of arguments centers on the idea that causality does not apply to God. Kant bases his theory on several arguments, the first of which explains that causality applies only to the world of sense, and

therefore, does not apply to God, and as God is not an object within the world of sense, but merely an intellectual or spiritual concept, the application of causality to proof for the existence of God does not apply. (Miller, 272). Kant also argues that in terms of causality, there must exist a first cause, and as a first cause cannot exist in a series of infinite causes, the extending the reasoning of a first cause to proof for the existence of God is improper. (Miller, 272-273). 7. Basic Reasoning of Ontological Proof; Kant and Others Problems with this Proof; Malcolms Answer to this Proof Ontological proof centers on the idea that God, or more specifically, the idea of God, is that of the greatest, most perfect being possible. This argument reasons that God, or the idea of God must therefore exist, because a being who exists is greater or more perfect than a being who does not exist. (Miller, 279, 281). St. Anselm argued that similar to the existence of an idea of art in ones mind before it is created by the artist and actually exists in reality, God exists in our understanding and that if God exists in our understanding, he therefore exists in reality as well. (Miller, 280). Descartes explained that because he can conceive of the idea of the existence of God as an all perfect being, God must therefore exist. (Miller, 281). Miller explains that both St. Anselm and Descartes both reason that It is impossible to think of God or at least of the greatest being without thinking of him existing. (Miller, 282). Kant and others have criticized this form of proof for the existence of God. Gaunilo, one of St. Anselms fellow monks, reasoned that proof for the
9

existence of something based merely upon the idea of it was unreasonable. (Miller, 283). Kant argued that existence of an object is not a predicate to existence of the idea of the object. (Miller, 284). Malcolm agreed with Kants criticism of St. Anselms idea that God is a greater being if he exists than if he does not. (Miller, 285). Malcolm explained that existence as a predicate is fallacious because it rests on the false doctrine that existence is a perfection. (Miller, 286). Malcolm did, however, distinguish the argument regarding existence as a predicate from the argument regarding necessary existence, or the argument that God is a greater being if he cannot not exist. (Miller, 285, 286). In the argument for necessary existence, Malcolm agreed with St. Anselm that because the idea of God is that of the greatest of all beings, greater than which cannot be conceived, Gods existence is therefore a necessary existence. (Miller, 286). Malcolm reasoned that if the concept of God was one of a limited being, then his existence would not be necessary, however, because that would be self-contradictory to the concept of God as an unlimited being. (Miller, 289 287). I think that of the three arguments and positions discussed above, St. Anselms makes the most sense because his reasoning through both arguments is consistent. I can see why others would criticize his arguments, as they, like other arguments in Philosophy, seem circular to his position on the subject, however, Kants criticisms seem to skate around the central idea of

10

St. Anselms principles, while Malcolms positions drive more to the center, however, I dont believe that Malcoms positions are consistent with each other.

8.

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God; Critical Evaluation The moral arguments for God center upon the idea that there must exist

one main judge who set the standard for moral law and behavior. (Miller, 287). This argument reasons that even though our opinions on what moral law is, we all acknowledge that moral law exists. One of the main principles behind this argument is that since all people acknowledge moral law, and acknowledge that it is absolute, it did not just come about accidentally, it was set forth with some sort of rational basis. (Miller, 289). I believe that this argument works, because the ideas that form moral law had to come from somewhere, and be laid out by someone, as they didnt just come out of thin air and gain the respect and acknowledgment that they are given. While what it means to different individuals and different cultures to act or live morally may differ, I think it is a generally accepted concept that moral law exists. 9. Evil is a Privation of Goodness; Philosophical Problems this View Deals With; Augustines Solution

11

Evil is separated into two different types of evil. There is natural evil, or evil that results from natural causes and moral evil that results from human behavior. (Miller, 307). St. Augustine argued that both natural evil and moral evil both are not things, but moral evil is the non-existence of goodness, while natural evil is the punishment that we receive for our sins. (Miller, 314, 315). One example that he used was by comparing moral evil and goodness to sickness and health. Specifically, St. Augustine explained that when a man or animal becomes ill, they exhibit the absence of health. Similarly, he believed that when man exhibits moral evil, he is exhibiting the absence of goodness. (Miller, 314). Using this reasoning, St. Augustine argued that God is the source of goodness, not the source for the lack thereof. (Miller, 318). One of the philosophical problems that is dealt with by this view is that of theodicy, which deals with our understanding of God as an all powerful all loving God. (Miller, 308). This problem questions if God truly is all powerful and all loving God, how do we justify the existence of evil in the world? (Miller, 308). Specifically, Hume questioned that if God is all powerful, why cant he deal with the problem of evil? (Miller, 309). If he was all powerful, he could if he cant deal with this problem, then he cant be all powerful. (Miller, 310). This addresses the theodicy questions by removing evil from the realm of Gods control, as the existence of evil is now argued to merely be the absence of the goodness that is God.

12

In my opinion, this solution works because it eliminates Gods responsibility for the evils in the world, and puts the responsibilities of goodness or lack thereof back onto the individual. It also answers the question as to if God is truly all loving, then why is there so much evil and/or suffering in the world? The answer then becomes because that evil is based upon the lack of goodness within those individuals, and suffering is the punishment that those individuals are subjected to because of their lack of goodness. 10. The Free Will Defense of the Presence of Moral Evil in the World; Mackies Objections; Plantingas Reply; Who is Right? The Free Will Defense of the Presence of Moral Evil in the World revolves around the idea that while we have an innate sense of what is good and what is evil, we are also given the choice of free will in respect to our actions, and therefore, many evils in the world are based upon the free will of the individuals exercising it. This defense deals with the question, if God is good, why did he give us the ability to make bad decisions and bad choices and act in a manner inconsistent with such goodness? The answer under this defense is that our bad decisions are not Gods fault; we were given both the moral guide and free will, and that evil is the result of our choices through the power of free will without using the moral guide. Mackie objected to this argument, and reasoned that if God was good and all loving, he would have made man in such a way that man would always choose the good, and because man does not always choose the good, God must not then be all powerful or all loving. (Miller, 321).
13

Plantinga argued that if God were to create men who only chose the good, those men would not then be free, as they would not choose to do what is right freely, because God would me making them do what is right. (Miller, 321). Plantinga also explains that God could have removed the sources for all evil, but in doing so, he would have removed the sources for goodness as well. (Miller, 321). I believe that Plantinga is right. I believe this not only because I believe in God, and I believe him to be all powerful and all loving, but also because I believe that as I summarized above, we are given a moral guide, and then placed in situations and circumstances to determine if we will follow that moral guide or go astray. I believe that Plantingas argument supports the idea of self-responsibility, and not pushing the blame for your wrongdoing upon God. I believe that God gives us goodness, and when we ignore that goodness or let it slip away, evil takes over.

14