Analysis of Theistic Arguments & Anthropomorphism in Dialogues on Natural Religion, Slides of Philosophy

Download Analysis of Theistic Arguments & Anthropomorphism in Dialogues on Natural Religion and more Slides Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part III • Demea proffers the following replies to Cleanthes. • (1) Cleanthes’ argument assumes a strong resemblance between the Divine and human. This is suspicious on at least two grounds. (i) (As even the pagans will admit) the Divine is beyond comprehension or description. (ii) We appear to be showing a partiality to our ourselves in likening the Deity to humanity (rather than something or someone else) (FP, p.63). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part III • (2) An examination of the human mind makes it unlikely that the Divine resembles it in any substantial way. After all, human sentiments aid in our survival and well-being ... something we cannot reasonably say of a Divine Mind. Our mental content, all of which is derived form the senses, often lacks veracity ... something again we cannot reasonably say of a Divine Mind. Our thought, which is all that remains of the human mind, is “fluctuating, uncertain, fleeting, successive and compounded” (FP, p.64) ... again something we cannot reaonsably say of a Divine Mind (FP, pp.63-64). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part IV • Note that Cleanthes rejects the view of Deity assumed in the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments, as Philo points out (FP, p.65). • “You are honouring with the appellation atheist all the sound, orthodox divines, almost, who have treated of this subject; and you will at last be, yourself, found, according to your reckoning, the only sound theist in the world” (FP, p.65). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part IV • Philo now begins a critical assessment of the anthropomorphic view of God proffered by Cleanthes. • Note his aim is to show that “there is no ground to suppose a plan of the world to be formed in the divine mind, consisting of distinct ideas, differently arranged, in the same manner as an architect forms in his head the plan of a house which he intends to execute” (FP, p.65). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part IV • (1) There is no good reason to think that only the material or physical world requires an explanation involving a Cause. If, indeed, we ascribe mind to the Deity we ascribe a mental world as diverse and rich as the physical or material universe. If these effects resemble each other (i.e. if the universe of objects and the Divine ‘universe’ of mental ideas relevantly resemble each other in their complexity and arrangement), then they also resemble each other in having a cause (FP, p.65). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part IV • We could preempt this move, argues Philo, only by cheating on the explanation of the order held to exist in the mind of the Deity. After all, if we have no substantial explanation of such order except that it is the nature of the Divine Mind to be so ordered (i.e. it is by nature rational), why not explain the order of the material or physical universe through an appeal to its own natural tendency to move towards order? (FP, p.66) Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part IV • Cleanthes has two responses for Philo. • (1) Even in common investigations of causes we do not demand that an explanation is complete unless we definitively finish the chain of relevant causes. • (2) Despite the difficulties highlighted by Philo, it is still plain (or self-evident) that the universe was created (FP, p.67). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part IV • Philo’s response to Cleanthes is to grant (1), but with the caveat that no one would view an explanation complete if the explanatory cause is in as much need of explanation as the effect to be first explained. This is the trouble with Cleanthes’ view, according to Philo (FP, p.67). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part V • (2) We need not regard the Deity perfect even in His finite capacities to create and maintain the universe, as we cannot assume this universe to be itself perfect (FP, p.68). • (3) Even if the universe is itself perfect, this does not require a perfect creator, just a good learner of what works and what, in the long or short term, does not (FP, p.69). Thus, we cannot eliminate the possibility that the Deity has created many universes, and that this universe is the result of His (or Her) cumulative learning experience (predicated on His or Her past failures) (FP, p.69). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part V • (4) Once down this road we also cannot rule out the possibility that the creation of the universe was a group effort. Only Perfect Being Theology necessitates monotheism (FP, p.69). • (5) This possibility also raises the possibility that the Deities so involved are by no means perfect. After all, the effort of a group requires less expertise from any one member to successfully coordinate the activities of the whole (FP, p.69). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part V • (6) This, now, only gets worse. We need not, at this point, insist that the relevant Deity or Deities are immortal. Cleanthes, remember, is not interested in worries about infinite regresses, so this worry need not restrain our philosophical sensibilities within this context of conversation (FP, p.69). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part VII • In this Part of the Dialogues you have Philo suggest a competing model of the universe than the model suggested by Cleanthes. • Solely on the grounds of relative ‘fit’, Cleanthes has likened the universe to the artifacts created by human ingenuity or skill. • Philo suggests that Cleanthes method of generating adequate models of the universe from which to infer its ultimate cause cannot exclude, at least in principle, likening the universe to biological organisms, be they fauna or flora (FP, pp.70-71). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part VII • Through this suggestion Philo hopes to raise suspicions about the choices Cleanthes has made along in this argument ... including Cleanthes’ willingness to relax the criteria for what counts as principled argument and what counts as rational or reasonable. Philo does not, himself, take this suggestion seriously (FP, p.71). Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part VII • “This is the topic on which I have all along insisted. I have still asserted, that we have no data to establish any system of cosmogony. Our experience, so imperfect in itself, and so limited both in extent and duration, can afford us no probable conjecture concerning the whole of things. But if we must needs fix on some hypothesis; by what rule, pray, ought we to determine our choice? .... And does not a plant or an animal, which springs from vegetation or generation, bear a stronger resemblance to the world, than does any artificial machine, which arises from reason and design?” (FP, p.71) Docsity.com Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Part VIII • Cleanthes cannot even use the criterion of ‘that which admits of no problems or inconsistencies with experience’ as a way of ruling out antithetical models of the universe. His own model is as liable to fail such a criterion than anything Philo might suggest (FP, p.75). • This, Philo, thinks generates, at best, a stalemate between the anthropomorphite and the Perfect Being Theologian or atheist. Given that there is no principled way, in this context, to decide between the alternatives, it is best, contends Philo, to totally suspend judgment of the matter (FP, pp.75-76). Docsity.com Some comments on the philosophical analysis of religious experience • As I have already said, there is no principled reason to exclude the phenomena of religious experience from philosophical discussion. • I think we can make this claim stronger. If we are not going to beg questions against theism, we need to make room for philosophical analyses of religious experience. Docsity.com Some comments on the philosophical analysis of religious experience • On the other hand, we have no good reason to suspect that religious experience is directly tied to, or immediately gives rise to, a particular theological system of beliefs. • That is to say, despite similarities in the reports of those who experience a presence of the Divine, there is not a corresponding similarity in the doctrinal expressions used to interpret said experiences. What’s more, there are, in many cases, no particular set of doctrinal expressions that best fits the experiences in question. Docsity.com Some comments on the philosophical analysis of religious experience • Given what I have already said about the underdetermination of many, if not most, religious beliefs, perceptual models of religious experience lack prima facie plausibility. Docsity.com Some comments on the philosophical analysis of religious experience • A naturalistic model of religious experience seeks to find an adequate explanation of religious experience that does not require the existence of supernatural or non-natural entities. • We might, for instance, think that a continuing need for a parental figure in certain individuals’ lives inclines some to have experiences that confirm their safety or security in a Power that is both invincible, loving and ever present. • Alternatively, we might think that certain religious experiences help various oppressed or disenfranchised members of society deal with their ongoing encounters with said oppression or disenfranchisement. Docsity.com Some comments on the philosophical analysis of religious experience • One philosophical approach to Natural or Dogmatic Theology is to see it as providing the details of a working hypothesis for interpreting past, and predicting future, religious experience. • The cost of such an approach is the tentative epistemic status accorded the relevant Natural or Dogmatic Theology. I.e. the individual seeking to confirm or disconfirm the relevant religious hypothesis ought to remain open to the possibility that her religious framework is false or, at the very least, deeply flawed. • This makes it very difficult, though not impossible, to integrate a philosophical approach to Natural or Dogmatic Theology into an ongoing devotional practice. Docsity.com