Philosophy of Religion Lecture 1 Intro The Argument

  • Slides: 125
Download presentation
Philosophy of Religion Lecture 1: Intro & The Argument from Design Dan Weijers PHIL

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 1: Intro & The Argument from Design Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

What We’re NOT Asking • Theological questions: – Usually presuppose that God exists •

What We’re NOT Asking • Theological questions: – Usually presuppose that God exists • Descriptive Questions: – What political and social structures influenced the rise of Scientology

The Main Question • For the next 6 lectures, we are trying to answer

The Main Question • For the next 6 lectures, we are trying to answer the question: • Is there a good justification for believing in the existence of God (or for not believing)?

Basic Vocab(ulary) • Theist – believes there is a God • Atheist – believes

Basic Vocab(ulary) • Theist – believes there is a God • Atheist – believes there is no God • Agnostic – Isn’t sure if God exists – Perhaps hasn’t even thought about it

You are Not Alone • Participants: 172 students in PHIL 104 (2008) Theists Atheists

You are Not Alone • Participants: 172 students in PHIL 104 (2008) Theists Atheists Agnostics 52 42 78 30% 25% 45%

Advanced Vocab(ulary) • Main Question: Is there a good justification for believing in the

Advanced Vocab(ulary) • Main Question: Is there a good justification for believing in the existence of God? • Existence • God • Justification

Justification • To say that one is justified in believing something is just to

Justification • To say that one is justified in believing something is just to say that I have good reason to believe it • Theoretical reasons • Practical reasons

Some Arguments to Avoid • Faith – We want justification • Religious experience –

Some Arguments to Avoid • Faith – We want justification • Religious experience – E. g. the magically fat finger • Religions are made up – Irrelevant • Science proves there’s no God – No it doesn’t

William Paley (1743 -1805) • Watches appear to be designed, so they probably have

William Paley (1743 -1805) • Watches appear to be designed, so they probably have a designer • The same goes for natural things • God probably exists because he probably designed natural things

How did the watch come to be? • It’s so complex • All of

How did the watch come to be? • It’s so complex • All of it’s complex parts seem to serve minor functions that allow the whole watch to do something useful • It appears designed

The Appearance of Design An object appears to be designed if: 1. It is

The Appearance of Design An object appears to be designed if: 1. It is structurally complex, 2. It has a purpose or function, and 3. It has the purpose it does in virtue of its structural complexity. • Watches really do appear to be designed!

Paley’s Argument - Watches (P 1) Watches appear to have been designed. (P 2)

Paley’s Argument - Watches (P 1) Watches appear to have been designed. (P 2) The best explanation for this appearance of design is that watches have been designed. (P 3) Inference to the Best Explanation: If an hypothesis H is the best explanation of an observation O, then it is rational to believe that H is true. (C) Therefore, one should believe that watchmakers exist.

The Best Explanation? • A good theory should: – Minimize the entities it requires

The Best Explanation? • A good theory should: – Minimize the entities it requires – Be consistent with the evidence – Make reliable predictions – Minimise the unexplained coincidences – Be simple and elegant

What is the Best Explanation for Watches? • The Knight Watchman’s dog spews watches

What is the Best Explanation for Watches? • The Knight Watchman’s dog spews watches all over the place and watch-sellers find them and sell them • Have you ever met a watchmaker?

Watchmakers Exist • Even if we have never met one, Paley thinks we do

Watchmakers Exist • Even if we have never met one, Paley thinks we do and should believe in watchmakers because of watches • Because watches really do appear to have been designed… • Which gives us good reason to think that they have been designed

Paley’s Argument - Watches (P 1) Watches appear to have been designed. (P 2)

Paley’s Argument - Watches (P 1) Watches appear to have been designed. (P 2) The best explanation for this appearance of design is that watches have been designed. (P 3) Inference to the Best Explanation: If an hypothesis H is the best explanation of an observation O, then it is rational to believe that H is true. (C) Therefore, one should believe that watchmakers exist.

Paley’s Argument - Nature (P 1) Many natural things appear to have been designed

Paley’s Argument - Nature (P 1) Many natural things appear to have been designed (P 2) The best explanation for this appearance of design is that many natural things have been designed (P 3) Inference to the Best Explanation (P 4) Therefore, one should believe that a designer of natural things exists (P 5) God is the designer of natural things (C) Therefore, one should believe that God exists

Next Time • More on the argument from design, including the fine-tuning argument •

Next Time • More on the argument from design, including the fine-tuning argument • Read: – A scientific Argument for the Existence of God: The Fine-Tuning Design Argument by Collins

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 2: More on the Argument from Design Dan Weijers PHIL

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 2: More on the Argument from Design Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Today • Recap of Paley’s argument • Are eyes designed? – Science: “no” •

Today • Recap of Paley’s argument • Are eyes designed? – Science: “no” • The fine-tuning variant of the design argument – The chances of a universe evolving that supports intelligent life is tiny – So, God probably finetuned/designed the universe

Recap • Paley argues that the existence of watches (which have the appearance of

Recap • Paley argues that the existence of watches (which have the appearance of design) give us reason to believe in purposeful watchmakers • And the same goes for many natural things • God, designs and makes natural things

Are Natural Objects Designed? • Some certainly appear to be so 1. The eye

Are Natural Objects Designed? • Some certainly appear to be so 1. The eye is structurally complex, 2. It has a purpose or function, and 3. It has the purpose it does in virtue of its structural complexity.

Eye Example of the Argument (P 1) Eyes appear to have been designed (P

Eye Example of the Argument (P 1) Eyes appear to have been designed (P 2) The best explanation for this appearance of design is that eyes have been designed (P 3) Inference to the Best Explanation (P 4) Therefore, one should believe that a designer of eyes exists (P 5) God is the designer of natural things (including eyes) (C) Therefore, one should believe that God exists

What is the Best Explanation for this Appearance? • Eyes do appear to be

What is the Best Explanation for this Appearance? • Eyes do appear to be designed (P 1) • Is the best explanation for this that eyes have been designed? (P 2) • Theories are better if they…?

Evolution by Natural Selection • • Darwin: natural objects will evolve to bear the

Evolution by Natural Selection • • Darwin: natural objects will evolve to bear the marks of design if the following four conditions are met: There is random variation among the object’s inherited traits and those traits help the object to compete

But the Eye? Really!? ! • "To suppose that the eye, with all its

But the Eye? Really!? ! • "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances… could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. " Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species • The eye gave him a “cold shudder”

Yes, It Could Have Evolved! • Reason tells me, that despite it being hard

Yes, It Could Have Evolved! • Reason tells me, that despite it being hard to imagine, many subtle random changes exposed to the pressure of selection over time can lead to the evolution of a perfect and complex eye from a simple and imperfect one. Furthermore, there exist examples of the steps along the way. Paraphrase of Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species • From the same page!!

Dawkins on How to Climb Mount Improbable • How can we get to (explain)

Dawkins on How to Climb Mount Improbable • How can we get to (explain) the eye on top of Mount Improbable? • To get to the eye in one leap is impossible • But, if we take lots of slow steps, then Climbing Mount Improbable Doesn’t seem that hard

 • Lightsensitive cells • Information sent to brain • Pin-hole camera and Lens

• Lightsensitive cells • Information sent to brain • Pin-hole camera and Lens for focusing • Etc

Eye Example of the Argument (P 1) Eyes appear to have been designed (P

Eye Example of the Argument (P 1) Eyes appear to have been designed (P 2) The best explanation for this appearance of design is that eyes have been designed (P 3) Inference to the Best Explanation (P 4) Therefore, one should believe that a designer of eyes exists (P 5) God is the designer of natural things (including eyes) (C) Therefore, one should believe that God exists

Paley’s Argument - Nature (P 1) Many natural things appear to have been designed

Paley’s Argument - Nature (P 1) Many natural things appear to have been designed (P 2) The best explanation for this appearance of design is that many natural things have been designed (P 3) Inference to the Best Explanation (P 4) Therefore, one should believe that a designer of natural things exists (P 5) God is the designer of natural things (C) Therefore, one should believe that God exists

Halfway Summary • Evolution is a very good explanation for eyes • It makes

Halfway Summary • Evolution is a very good explanation for eyes • It makes great predictions

The Fine-Tuning Argument (P 1) The universe appears to have been designed (P 2)

The Fine-Tuning Argument (P 1) The universe appears to have been designed (P 2) The best explanation for this appearance of design is that the universe has been designed (P 3) Inference to the Best Explanation (P 4) Therefore, one should believe that a designer of the universe exists (P 5) God is the designer of the universe (C) Therefore, one should believe that God exists

Does the Universe Appear to be Designed 2? • • If any of the

Does the Universe Appear to be Designed 2? • • If any of the many ‘laws’ of physics had been slightly different, then the universe could not sustain intelligent life If any the conditions around the big bang were slightly changed then this fairly stable universe would not have occurred

Does the Universe Appear to be Designed 3? 1. The universe is structurally complex,

Does the Universe Appear to be Designed 3? 1. The universe is structurally complex, 2. It has a purpose or function (supporting intelligent life), and 3. It has the purpose or function it does in virtue of its structural complexity. • So P 1 seems correct – the universe appears to be designed

Best Explanation for the Universe’s Appearance of Design? • God made it • The

Best Explanation for the Universe’s Appearance of Design? • God made it • The universe can support life as we know it by chance • There are heaps of universes coming into existence all of the time, many fail, many don’t harbour life, but some are bound to in the end

Intergalactic Lotto • The odds of winning intergalactic lotto are 999 billion to 1

Intergalactic Lotto • The odds of winning intergalactic lotto are 999 billion to 1 • Everyone is automatically enrolled • You win intergalactic lotto • Did chance or divine creation cause your win?

Best Explanation for the Universe’s Appearance of Design? • God-centered explanation postulates one more

Best Explanation for the Universe’s Appearance of Design? • God-centered explanation postulates one more entity • The one-universe explanation involves lots of poorly explained coincidences • The many-universes explanation posits more entities

Next Time • The argument from evil • Read: – ‘Rebellion’ by Dostoevsky &

Next Time • The argument from evil • Read: – ‘Rebellion’ by Dostoevsky & – ‘Evil and Omnipotence’ by Mackie

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 3: The Argument from Evil Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 3: The Argument from Evil Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Today • Terminology – Evil – God • Dostoevsky – Concluding that even if

Today • Terminology – Evil – God • Dostoevsky – Concluding that even if there is a reason for the evil, it’s probably not good enough • Mackie – Evil and God are logically incompatible

What is Evil? • All things equal, a state of affairs is evil if

What is Evil? • All things equal, a state of affairs is evil if it involves the suffering of an innocent • The more suffering of innocents in any situation, the more evil it is • There can be other types of evil

Varieties of Evil • We can distinguish between the following kinds of evil: •

Varieties of Evil • We can distinguish between the following kinds of evil: • Natural evil v. human evil • Necessary evil v. unnecessary evil • Mild evil v. horrendous evil

What is God? • God is, by definition, omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient • An

What is God? • God is, by definition, omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient • An individual x is omnibenevolent if and only if it is perfectly loving • (all good/perfectly good) • An individual x is omnipotent if and only if it can do anything • (all powerful) • An individual x is omniscient if and only if it knows everything • (all knowing)

The Argument from Evil (P 1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and

The Argument from Evil (P 1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. [By Definition] (P 2) An omnibenevolent being would prevent any unnecessary evil if she could and knew how. (P 3) An omnipotent being could prevent all unnecessary evil. (P 4) An omniscient being would know all about unnecessary evils and how to prevent them. (P 5) Therefore, if God exists, there is no unnecessary evil. [From (P 1), (P 2), (P 3) & (P 4)] (P 6) But there is unnecessary evil. [Evidential Premise] (C) Therefore, God does not exist. [From 5 & 6]

P 6) Dostoevsky’s Examples of Unnecessary Horrendous Evil • A 5 -y. o. girl

P 6) Dostoevsky’s Examples of Unnecessary Horrendous Evil • A 5 -y. o. girl is mistreated by her parents, beaten, forced to eat her own excrement etc. • A young boy is ripped apart by hounds in front of his mother • A soldier cuts an unborn baby out of it’s mother’s womb, throws it in the air and catches it with his bayonet

Is that Suffering Unnecessary? • Ivan discusses a few reasons why it might be

Is that Suffering Unnecessary? • Ivan discusses a few reasons why it might be considered necessary, but rejects them: 1. We need evil to understand good 2. Humans allowed evil by choosing free will 3. All humans must suffer for the mistakes of our ancestors 4. God has a plan which makes this suffering necessary for us all to share harmony in the end

We All Must Suffer for the Mistakes of our Ancestors • Adam needn’t have

We All Must Suffer for the Mistakes of our Ancestors • Adam needn’t have eaten the apple, but he did – This made him guilty, and – Us guilty too, since we are of him • Ivan: Our real-world sense of justice does not allow guilt to be inherited – Why does God allow it? – It doesn’t make sense to us

Mackie on Evil • Thinks the argument from evil shows that most forms of

Mackie on Evil • Thinks the argument from evil shows that most forms of theism are internally inconsistent • Theists believe all of these 3: – God is all-powerful – God is all-good – There is evil in the world • But no more than 2 of these could be true at any one time

Mackie Considers Responses • He finds that all of them don’t fully work •

Mackie Considers Responses • He finds that all of them don’t fully work • They generally alter the definitions of the important terms

Evil is an Illusion • There is no evil, just the illusion of evil

Evil is an Illusion • There is no evil, just the illusion of evil because… – E. g. – Change is required for evil and nothing actually ever changes – All of our worldly perceptions are illusory • This illusion sure seems mean (evil) though!

God’s Plan Requires the Evil • We cannot fathom God’s infinite goodness, power and

God’s Plan Requires the Evil • We cannot fathom God’s infinite goodness, power and intellect – All apparent evils are necessary for the ultimate good - being united in harmony – So apparent evils are really just part of the overall good • But apparent evils are actually a bit evil – If we can imagine a way to bring about the great good without evil, then an all-powerful being could do it

Good cannot Exist without Evil • But, God is omnipotent, so he can make

Good cannot Exist without Evil • But, God is omnipotent, so he can make good exist without evil • Omnipotence = being able to do anything that is logically possible • Good is logically possible without evil (unlike relative terms e. g. bigger/smaller)

We Cannot Appreciate Good without Evil • Our perceiving suffering in the world creates

We Cannot Appreciate Good without Evil • Our perceiving suffering in the world creates a juxtaposition with the goods we see, making them much better – The net result is more goodness overall • Surely there is enough evil in our history and imaginations to juxtapose the goods we see? • Only a tiny amount of non-horrendous suffering is needed for this and we see more than that

Some Evil is Needed for Expression of Virtues • The whole world is better

Some Evil is Needed for Expression of Virtues • The whole world is better if there is evil because it allows for heroism, compassion, benevolence etc. • But evil also allows vices of cruelty, malevolence, callousness, cowardice etc • There doesn’t seem to be a net gain here • And why let innocents like children be the target of vices?

Evil is Due to Freewill 1 • Is it better on the whole to

Evil is Due to Freewill 1 • Is it better on the whole to have freewill? – How much evil can we bear for freewill? – Is there more or less evil than that? • ‘Free’ choices are constrained already – Why do we not have the freewill to choose from just the neutral and good options? – Imagine if we never thought of the possibility of doing evil – If God is all-powerful, then he either controls our choices or they are random – If we really have full freewill, then God is not all-powerful

Evil is Due to Freewill 2 • If we really have full freewill, then

Evil is Due to Freewill 2 • If we really have full freewill, then God is not all-powerful – God could prevent willful acts of human evil but refrains from doing so… • But why would he do this? – because freedom to carry out evil deeds outweighs the evil consequences? • But this is not justice as we know it!

The Paradox of Omnipotence • Can an omnipotent God create rules that restrict itself?

The Paradox of Omnipotence • Can an omnipotent God create rules that restrict itself? • Can God make a rock so heavy that it is un-liftable? …YES – Can God lift that rock? …YES – Contradiction • Can God make people with complete freedom of choice? …YES – Can God control those people? …YES – Contradiction

What about Natural Evil? • Natural evil is not caused by freewill – Is

What about Natural Evil? • Natural evil is not caused by freewill – Is there another reason why natural evils are necessary? • Consistent laws of nature required to allow freewill to operate properly – Couldn’t consistent laws of nature prevent all natural suffering? – E. g. natural force-fields for babies

Next Time • More on the argument from evil • Read: – ‘The Problem

Next Time • More on the argument from evil • Read: – ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’ by Rowe & – ‘God, Evil, and Suffering’ by Howard. Snyder

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 4: More on the Argument from Evil Dan Weijers PHIL

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 4: More on the Argument from Evil Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Today • Rowe – Evil and God are not logically incompatible, – But evil

Today • Rowe – Evil and God are not logically incompatible, – But evil provides a good reason to be a friendly atheist • Howard-Snyder – There are reasons why evil might be necessary, some of which we can’t even imagine – Do these reasons (taken together) justify the huge amount of evil in the world? – We cannot be sure that they do not – We should not even say it is likely that they do not

Rowe • Just because we can’t see why an evil might be necessary does

Rowe • Just because we can’t see why an evil might be necessary does not mean that it cannot be necessary • Therefore, the Argument from Evil does not logically prove that an allknowing, -powerful and -good God does not exist • But, not knowing a good reason for why evil is necessary does give us a reason to be atheists

Varieties of Atheism • Unfriendly Atheism: – Theists are wrong • Indifferent Atheism: –

Varieties of Atheism • Unfriendly Atheism: – Theists are wrong • Indifferent Atheism: – I’m agnostic about whether theism is justifiable • Friendly Atheism: – Some theists’ belief in God is rationally justified

Friendly Atheism • Is Friendly Atheism inconsistent? • Argument from Evil vs. Fine-Tuning Design

Friendly Atheism • Is Friendly Atheism inconsistent? • Argument from Evil vs. Fine-Tuning Design Argument • + religious experience (theist only) • = not obviously inconsistent

Recap - The Argument from Evil (P 1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent,

Recap - The Argument from Evil (P 1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. [By Definition] (P 2) An omnibenevolent being would prevent any unnecessary evil if she could and knew how. (P 3) An omnipotent being could prevent all unnecessary evil. (P 4) An omniscient being would know all about unnecessary evils and how to prevent them. (P 5) Therefore, if God exists, there is no unnecessary evil. [From (P 1), (P 2), (P 3) & (P 4)] (P 6) But there is unnecessary evil. [Evidential Premise] (C) Therefore, God does not exist. [From 5 & 6]

Howard-Snyder • Not all of the article will be covered • He discusses some

Howard-Snyder • Not all of the article will be covered • He discusses some theodicies (explanations of why evil is necessary/likely) • But, he thinks theists don’t really need them because the argument from evil contains a bad noseeum inference

Evil and Suffering • “the history of our planet is… stuffed with undeserved, horrific

Evil and Suffering • “the history of our planet is… stuffed with undeserved, horrific evil and suffering” • Intentional human evil – A child dies from abuse by its parents every 6 hours in the US • Unintentional human evil – On a boiling hot day, a Kentucky professor left his child in the back of his car all day • Natural evil – Children and animals suffer because of famine, disease and natural disasters

Two Problems • The practical problem of evil – Assumes God exists – Observing

Two Problems • The practical problem of evil – Assumes God exists – Observing evil may cause a theist to despair or rebel against God – Like ‘Ivan’: “put God on trial for negligence and gross incompetence” • The theoretical problem of evil – Does not assume that God exists – Is evil evidence that we should not be theists? – “Philosophical twaddle” is his focus

Why Does God Permit Evil? • Why do so many innocents suffer? – And

Why Does God Permit Evil? • Why do so many innocents suffer? – And why do they suffer so much? • When asked like this, an assumption is hidden • The questioner assumes that: – If we cannot give a good reason for why God permits this suffering, then there is no good reason – This assumption is wrong

Is God only Semi-Potent? • Theists might say that God is not all-powerful •

Is God only Semi-Potent? • Theists might say that God is not all-powerful • Problem: – How can a being be powerful and knowledgeable to create and sustain the universe but not be powerful enough to prevent evil? – Is there something special about evil that makes him powerless to stop it?

Why the Evil, God? • “If there was some greater good that could not

Why the Evil, God? • “If there was some greater good that could not possibly occur unless evil were permitted, it might well figure in God’s reason to permit evil. ” • Theodicies: – Attempts to explain why God permits evil

Counterpart Theodicy • Good requires evil to exist and vice versa • New solution:

Counterpart Theodicy • Good requires evil to exist and vice versa • New solution: But God is omnibenevolent – Just before God created the universe, only he existed – God is all-good (no evil) – Therefore, good can exist without evil

What about Natural Evil? • The free choices of nonhuman people (e. g. Satan

What about Natural Evil? • The free choices of nonhuman people (e. g. Satan & his demons) causes all natural evils • But, science can better explain natural evils than Satan and demons can – This will not convince any atheists

“The Reason” • There are reasons why evil might be necessary – Let’s call

“The Reason” • There are reasons why evil might be necessary – Let’s call of them together “The Reason” • “would The Reason justify God in permitting so much evil rather than a lot less? ” – E. g. same but no dementia or Ebola virus or genocide – The Reason does not justify so much evil

The Argument from Amount 1) There is no reason that would justify God in

The Argument from Amount 1) There is no reason that would justify God in permitting so much evil rather than a lot less 2) If God exists, then there must be such a reason C) So, God does not exist • 2 is usually conceded… but is 1 true?

Noseeum Inferences • I can’t see it • So, it’s probably not there •

Noseeum Inferences • I can’t see it • So, it’s probably not there • Good noseeum inferences – Looking for milk in the fridge • Bad noseeum inferences – Looking for slugs in the garden • Is it reasonable to believe that we are very likely to see (comprehend) the thing in question?

Noseeum ‘The Reason’ • So far as we can tell, there is no reason

Noseeum ‘The Reason’ • So far as we can tell, there is no reason for God to permit so much evil • Therefore, there probably is no reason for God to permit so much evil • Is this a reasonable inference to make? – Are we likely to see (comprehend) The Reason if there is one?

Tricky Noseeum Baby Pigeons • Have you ever seen a baby pigeon? No •

Tricky Noseeum Baby Pigeons • Have you ever seen a baby pigeon? No • Are we likely to ‘see’ baby pigeons if they exist? Yes • Therefore, baby pigeons probably don’t exist • Moral of the story: we all over-estimate what we can ‘see’

Chances of Comprehending The Reason • There are several reasons to doubt that we

Chances of Comprehending The Reason • There are several reasons to doubt that we could understand it • We have finite intellect – We’re unable to understand infinite goods • There are probably lots of goods we are yet to discover – We’re limited by evolution in this • The Reason is probably too complex for us to understand – Great goods are often complex e. g. wine

The Argument from Evil (P 1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and

The Argument from Evil (P 1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. [By Definition] (P 2) An omnibenevolent being would prevent any unnecessary evil if she could and knew how. (P 3) An omnipotent being could prevent all unnecessary evil. (P 4) An omniscient being would know all about unnecessary evils and how to prevent them. (P 5) Therefore, if God exists, there is no unnecessary evil. [From (P 1), (P 2), (P 3) & (P 4)] (P 6) But there is unnecessary evil. [Evidential Premise] (C) Therefore, God does not exist. [From 5 & 6]

Is there Unnecessary Evil? • And how sure can we be? • Does our

Is there Unnecessary Evil? • And how sure can we be? • Does our inability to see a good reason for so much evil justify belief that there isn’t one? • Where is the burden of proof here? – Definitely on anyone trying to convert someone else either way • We can imagine a world with lots of goods, and without so much evil… – but what of the greater goods that we don’t know about? – That depends… are there any?

Next Time • Pascal’s Wager • Read: – ‘The Wager’ by Pascal

Next Time • Pascal’s Wager • Read: – ‘The Wager’ by Pascal

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 5: Pascal’s Wager Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 5: Pascal’s Wager Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Today • Decision Theory primer • Blaise Pascal, 16231662 • Pascal’s Wager • Practical

Today • Decision Theory primer • Blaise Pascal, 16231662 • Pascal’s Wager • Practical reason for being a theist • Because of heaven and hell, the expected utility of belief in god outweighs disbelief

Primer on Decision Theory • We are practically rational to the extent that we

Primer on Decision Theory • We are practically rational to the extent that we do what’s in our best interests. • Utility is a measure of our happiness or preference satisfaction. • Decision Theory: we do what’s in our best interests when (and only when) we perform actions that maximize our expected utility

Decision Theory tries to be Precise • In order to determine which action maximizes

Decision Theory tries to be Precise • In order to determine which action maximizes expected utility, we need to set up a consequence matrix, which includes: – – all relevant choices available to the agent (in the left column) all relevant possible outcomes after the agent has acted (in the top row) the probability of each outcome-choice pair (in parentheses next to the utility values) the utility of each outcome-choice pair (in each of the remaining empty boxes)

‘The One’ • So, you have met ‘the one’ in your PHIL 104 lecture

‘The One’ • So, you have met ‘the one’ in your PHIL 104 lecture • You are agonizingly in love with him/her • What should you do? ?

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask All them

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask All them relevant possible Don’t ask outcomes them after the action You don’t You get All relevant get to go out choices out with available with to–the agent them – (“no”) (“yes”)

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t ask them You don’t get to go out with them – (“no”) [0. 8] [0. 99] You get to go out with them – (“yes”) [0. 2] [0. 01] How likely are outcomes given the decision? Must add up to 1 going across

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t ask them You don’t get to go out with them – (“no”) [0. 8]*-20 You get to go out with them – (“yes”) [0. 2]*50 [0. 99]*-10 [0. 01]*75 What is the utility (benefit to you) of the outcome given the decision?

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t ask them You don’t get to go out with them – (“no”) [0. 8]*-20 = -16 You get to go out with them – (“yes”) [0. 2]*50 = 10 [0. 99]*-10 [0. 01]*75 = -9. 9 = 0. 75 Calculate the expected utility for each choice/out come pair

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t ask them You don’t You get Expected Calculate the get to go out Utility expected out with utility with for choice themeach – them – (“no”) (“yes”) [0. 8]*-20 [0. 2]*50 -16 + 10 = -16 = 10 [0. 99]*-10 [0. 01]*75 -9. 9 + 0. 75 = -9. 9 = 0. 75

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t ask them You don’t You get Calculate the get to go out expected out with utility with for choice themeach – them – (“no”) (“yes”) [0. 8]*-20 [0. 2]*50 = -16 = 10 Expected Utility -16 + 10 = -6 [0. 99]*-10 [0. 01]*75 -9. 9 + 0. 75 = -9. 9 = 0. 75 = -9. 15

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t

A Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t ask them You don’t You get Compare the get to go out expected out with utility with for choice themeach – them – (“no”) (“yes”) [0. 8]*-20 [0. 2]*50 = -16 = 10 Expected Utility -16 + 10 = -6 [0. 99]*-10 [0. 01]*75 -9. 9 + 0. 75 = -9. 9 = 0. 75 = -9. 15

Decision Theory Helps Us… • … To see how dire our lovestruck position is

Decision Theory Helps Us… • … To see how dire our lovestruck position is – Neither of the two options available to us will produce positive utility! • The best choice is to ask though – It minimises our disutility (suffering) • But, maybe we should make the decision in a couple of days…

The Old Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them

The Old Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them Don’t ask them You don’t get to go out with them – (“no”) [0. 8]*-20 = -16 You get to go out with them – (“yes”) [0. 2]*50 = 10 Expected Utility -16 + 10 -6 [0. 99]*-10 [0. 01]*75 -9. 9 + 0. 75 = -9. 9 = 0. 75 = -9. 15 =

A New Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them

A New Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ to go out with you Ask them + pimped out Don’t ask them + pimped out You don’t get to go out with them – (“no”) [0. 5]*-20 = -10 You get to go out with them – (“yes”) [0. 5]*50 = 25 Expected Utility -10 + 25 15 [0. 95]*-10 [0. 05]*75 -9. 5 + 3. 75 = -9. 5 = 3. 75 = -5. 75 =

The Whole Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ (“no”) (“yes”) Expected Utility Ask them [0.

The Whole Consequence Matrix Getting ‘the one’ (“no”) (“yes”) Expected Utility Ask them [0. 8]*-20 = -16 [0. 99]*-10 = -9. 9 [0. 2]*50 = 10 [0. 01]*75 = 0. 75 -16 + 10 = -6 -9. 9 + 0. 75 = -9. 15 [0. 5]*-20 = -10 [0. 5]*50 = 25 -10 + 25 15 Don’t ask them Ask them + pimped Don’t ask + pimped [0. 95]*-10 [0. 05]*75 -9. 5 + 3. 75 = -9. 5 = 3. 75 = -5. 75 =

Wrong Question • Pascal thinks that ‘what is God? ’ and ‘does God exist?

Wrong Question • Pascal thinks that ‘what is God? ’ and ‘does God exist? ’ are the wrong questions – These questions involve the infinite and so are beyond us • He thinks we should ask ‘should we believe in God or not? ’ – Theoretical reasons are inconclusive, but – We have practical reasons to believe

Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? God doesn’t exist Believe [0.

Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? God doesn’t exist Believe [0. 5]*∞ [0. 5]*10 Don’t believe [0. 5]*10 Expected Utility

Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? God doesn’t exist Expected Utility

Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? God doesn’t exist Expected Utility Believe [0. 5]*∞ =∞ [0. 5]*10 =5 ∞+5 =∞ Don’t believe [0. 5]*10 =5 [0. 5]*10 = 5 + 5 5 = 10

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? God doesn’t

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? God doesn’t exist Expected Utility Believe [p]*∞ [1 -p]*-10 =? Don’t believe [p]*-∞ [1 -p]*10 =?

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? (p≠ 0)

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? (p≠ 0) God doesn’t exist Expected Utility Believe [p]*∞ [1 -p]*-10 = ∞ Don’t believe [p]*-∞ [1 -p]*10 = -∞

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I believe in God? God Exists (p≠ 0)

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I believe in God? God Exists (p≠ 0) God doesn’t exist Believe [0. 01]*∞ [0. 99]*-10 Don’t believe [0. 01]*-∞ [0. 99]*10 Expected Utility

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I believe in God? God Exists (p≠ 0)

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I believe in God? God Exists (p≠ 0) God doesn’t exist Expected Utility Believe [0. 01]*∞ =∞ [0. 99]*-10 = ∞-9. 9 =∞ Don’t believe [0. 01]*-∞ [0. 99]*10 = -∞ =9. 9 = -∞+9. 9 = -∞

The Upshot? • If the standard Pascalian setup of the wager is correct, then

The Upshot? • If the standard Pascalian setup of the wager is correct, then we have a good (practical) reason to believe in God Should I believe in God? God Exists (p≠ 0) God doesn’t exist Expected Utility Believe [p]*∞ [1 -p]*-10 = ∞ Don’t believe [p]*-∞ [1 -p]*10 = -∞

I Can’t Make Myself Believe in God! 1. I can’t force myself to believe

I Can’t Make Myself Believe in God! 1. I can’t force myself to believe in God! • Pascal: you should learn from those who have converted to theism 2. Even if I could, then God wouldn’t appreciate my only believing in him for my own best interests! • • Perhaps God doesn’t mind as long as you believe It may start like this, but turn into belief regardless of your interests

Non-Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should God Exists I believe in God? Believe [0.

Non-Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should God Exists I believe in God? Believe [0. 01]*9999 = 99. 99 God doesn’t exist Expected Utility [0. 99]*-10 = 99. 99 -9. 9 = 90. 09 Don’t [0. 01]*-9999 [0. 99]*10 believe = -99. 99 =9. 9 =-99. 99+9. 9 = -90. 09

Next Time • More on Pascal’s Wager • Read: – ‘You Bet Your Life:

Next Time • More on Pascal’s Wager • Read: – ‘You Bet Your Life: Pascal’s Wager Defended’ by Lycan & Schlesinger

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 6: More Pascalian Wagering Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Philosophy of Religion Lecture 6: More Pascalian Wagering Dan Weijers PHIL 104 -2011

Today • Recap of Pascal • Lycan & Schlesinger • How to deal with

Today • Recap of Pascal • Lycan & Schlesinger • How to deal with the two main objections – Martyrdom – Many Gods

Wrong Question • Pascal thinks we should ask ‘should we believe in God or

Wrong Question • Pascal thinks we should ask ‘should we believe in God or not? ’ – Theoretical reasons are inconclusive, but – We have practical reasons to believe

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? (p≠ 0)

Standard Presentation of Pascal’s Wager Should I God believe in Exists God? (p≠ 0) God doesn’t exist Expected Utility Believe [p]*∞ [1 -p]*-10 = ∞ Don’t believe [p]*-∞ [1 -p]*10 = -∞

Serious Objection 1: Martyrdom • • If you believe in God, you might have

Serious Objection 1: Martyrdom • • If you believe in God, you might have to submit to torture and death in a religious purge! It’s worth it for heaven (infinite utility)

Serious Objection 2: Many Gods • • The standard presentation misses out some relevant

Serious Objection 2: Many Gods • • The standard presentation misses out some relevant choices and outcomes: all of the other potential Gods What about Zeus, Thor and the rest?

2 Gods What should I believe? God 1 exists God 2 exists Both Gods

2 Gods What should I believe? God 1 exists God 2 exists Both Gods exist No God(s) Expected exist(s) Utility Believe in God 1 ∞ -∞ 0 -10 or 0? Believe God 2 -∞ ∞ 0 -10 or 0? Believe in both -∞ -∞ 0 -10 -∞ Don’t believe in any -∞ -∞ -∞ 10 -∞

3 Gods What God 1 God 2 should I exists believe? God 3 exists

3 Gods What God 1 God 2 should I exists believe? God 3 exists All Gods exist No Expected God(s) Utility exist(s) Believe in God 1 ∞ -∞ -10 -∞? Believe in God 2 -∞ ∞ -∞ -∞ -10 -∞? Believe in God 3 -∞ -∞ -10 -∞? Believe in all -∞ -∞ -∞ 0 -30 -∞ Don’t believe in any -∞ -∞ 10 -∞

3 Gods, No Hell What God 1 God 2 should I exists believe? God

3 Gods, No Hell What God 1 God 2 should I exists believe? God 3 exists All Gods exist No Expected God(s) Utility exist(s) Believe in God 1 ∞ -10 ∞ Believe in God 2 -10 ∞ Believe in God 3 -10 ∞ ∞ -10 ∞ Believe in all ∞ ∞ -30 ∞ Don’t believe in any 10 10 10

First Answer to Many Gods • All the possible gods are not equiprobable •

First Answer to Many Gods • All the possible gods are not equiprobable • Gods of major religions have some weak positive evidence – Historical, religious experience etc. – Wisdom of the masses?

3 Gods, No Hell What God 1 God 2 should I exists believe? God

3 Gods, No Hell What God 1 God 2 should I exists believe? God 3 exists All Gods exist No Expected God(s) Utility exist(s) Believe in God 1 ∞ -10 ∞ Believe in God 2 -10 ∞ Believe in God 3 -10 ∞ ∞ -10 ∞ Believe in all ∞ ∞ -30 ∞ Don’t believe in any 10 10 10

2 nd Answer to Many Gods • If all Gods are equiprobable, then choose

2 nd Answer to Many Gods • If all Gods are equiprobable, then choose the simplest • The Christian God is “absolutely perfect” • Other Gods have more complicated descriptions – Zeus takes naps – Thor is proud, naive. . . perhaps even stupid

God & Weird God What should I believe? God 1 exists Weird God exists

God & Weird God What should I believe? God 1 exists Weird God exists Both Gods exist No God(s) Expected exist(s) Utility Believe in God 1 ∞ -∞ 0 -10 or 0? Believe Weird God -∞ ∞ 0 -10 or 0? Believe in both -∞ 0 0 -10 -∞ Don’t believe in any -∞ ∞ 0 10 10 or 0?

Other Responses • Weird God • A God like the Christian God, but not

Other Responses • Weird God • A God like the Christian God, but not all-good, seems more likely given the argument from evil • We can’t understand infinity so we cannot make a rational decision about believing in God • Pre-determining God (be a hedonist? )

Next Time • New Lecturer: Simon Keller • What things are valuable? • Can

Next Time • New Lecturer: Simon Keller • What things are valuable? • Can morality be derived from rationality? • And, what does it mean to be a good person?