HUMA 1160 9.0 THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND HUMAN ...
HUMA 1160 9.0 THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING THIRD TEST MONDAY February 25, 2013 Students are permitted to bring a lined sheet of paper containing 8 lines (in normal handwriting) for each question (=24 lines in total). Question 1. is worth a total of 40 marks; question 2. is worth 60 marks. Question 3. is an optional bonus question, which if done satisfactorily, will raise your final mark on this test by a half grade (e.g. from C to C+; B+ to A). 1. Describe and assess the three views of religious language discussed in class Intro This answer will argue that none of these views suceed in showing that religious language is meaningful. 1. anthropomorphism: language about God is lateral and inevitable 2. mysticism: language abt god either not be used or used fregunately/ frequently? 3. analogy: language abt god should be used both in terms of similarities and difference Criticism 1 P1 God has desires P2 Desires can be had only for something one lacks P3 However God is infinite and so he lacks nothing Conclusion: Therefore the anthro. either has to deny that God has desires that God is infinite Criticism 2(God not planned for himself, but what God has created) P1 God has plans P2 Plans are needed only for something which is dependent P3 However God is omnipotent and so does not depend on anything Conclusion: Therefore the anthro. either has to deny that God has a plan or that God is omnipotent Criticism 3 P1 God wills, desires, plans, thinks etc P2 Willing, desiring, planning, thinking etc. all happen in time P3 However God is eternal and so does not do anything in time Conclusion: Therefore the anthro. either has to deny that God has these mental activities or that God is eternal
Planning is nothing about god himself, he will desires plans and thinks about his creations
Cant will doubt or plan unless you have a MIND…. Criticism 4 (more general version of crit 3) P1 God has a mind P2 All mental activity happens in time P3 However God is eternal and so has no mental activity in time Conclusion: Therefore the anthro. either has to deny that God has any mental activity or that God has a mind.
_____________________________________________________________ Dialectically, nothing meaningful can be said about God, assuming that religious language is eternal and unmoral, in which case the proper behaviour in terms of religious language is silence. This is the position of extreme mysticism. P1 Extreme mysticism says that religious language is meaningless P2 The proper behaviour is silence P3 However, atheist and skeptics hold the same position, even though they unline the extreme mystic, don’t believe in God Conclusion: Therefore the view of religious language endorsed my extreme mysticism is untenable. There view of religious language is that it shouldn’t be used at all ___________________________________________________________ Dialectically, this takes us to another view of mysticism according to which religious language must be used and understood figuratively and equivocally P1 Modern mysticism Maintains that religious language is figurative and equivocal P2 Figurative and equivocal language allows for meaningful P3 However all fig, language must be reducible to literal language if the former is to be meaningful Conclusion: Therefore, modern mysticism is subject to the same criticisms as anthropomorphism
Some truth to this (above) but not the whole truth Ex. You are the apple to my eye How are you suppose to articulate in literal language of wht God is
Dialectically, this takes us to another view of religious language which is analogy. According to the position, religious language is abt both similarities and differences between God and ppl. P1 Analogy maintains that religious language is about both the dim and diff between god and ppl P2 The terms of comparison and contrast between God and people P3 However the conditions of verifiability, according to which meaningful language is such diff the user can specify under what empirical conditions his or her claims are true or false (Flew) something that cannot be done in the case of religious language since the one of the relata (God) cannot be observed Conclusion: Therefore, analogy fails as a view of religious language. Furthermore, since these are the only view of religious language meaningful discourse about God is impossible. 2. In Parts 10 and 11 of David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Cleanthes and Philo (and to a lesser extent, Demea) explore three hypotheses about the designer of the world: (i) that the designer is infinitely powerful and benevolent; (ii) that the designer is finitely perfect and benevolent; and (iii) that there is a primordial force or forces for good, and a primordial force or forces for evil (Manichaeanism). Cleanthes: (i) Introduces a hypothesis in part 10, suggesting “IF God has infinite power and is benevolent, THEN God should create the BOAPW.” Initially, Cleanthes saw the designer of the world as infinitude. In part 10, divine benevolence is based on God’s power, in order to have the BOAPW God must be infinitely benevolent. The world is designed to God’s vision, the way the world is designed is in accurately and totally in accordance to God’s plan. Since the world is not the best of all possible worlds, it is clear that God is finite; there is evil in the world and if it was the best of all possible worlds God would prevent evil with his INFINITE power, Cleanthes maintains that God is benevolent. He does not care the designer of the world is not infinitude, therefore the only truth that works for Cleanthes is F+T (God does not infinite power, but is benevolent). Cleanthes gives up on the claim of God being infinite, and refers to God as finite and perfect (~I.B). Cleanthes suggests that God designed the world as best he can, therefore the world is in accordance to God’s nature and he is never an underachiever, but rather always perfect. Cleanthes presents a new question, what kind of world would we expect from this God? Cleanthes says since God is finite and perfect, there are limits as he cannot do all that he can do.
Discuss as fully as you can Cleanthes’ defense of each position, and Philo’s critique of each position. This answer will discuss Cleanthes position God’s benevolence and power in parts 10 & 11 of Humes Dialogues. Overall it will argue, Cleanthes positions are a reduction ad absurdum. Cleanthes position on God’s benevolence and power in Part 10 is (IB. IP) However, (IB. IP)> BPW. BPW is one in which there is no natural evil but only natural good. à so no hurricanes Cleanthes, Philo and Demea all agree that a) natural evil is real and b) there is natural evil in the world in which case ~(BPW) Therefore by modus tollens, ~ (IB.IP) (end of part 10). There are four conditions under which the truth functional [truth function consists of parts] (IB.IP) has a truth value. Because the conclusion of part 10 is ~(IB.IP). Cleanthes cannot opt from 1 instead he selects 3, b.c. this nest represents cleathes understanding of God’s nature given the fact that option 1 has been precluded by virtue of the conclusion of part 10. So Philo challenges the view that (IB.FP) with “four circumstances” which are supposed to challenge the view that (IB.FP) > BWP According to this world, there is some natural good but also some natural evil. According to Philo, however, this world is not even BWP b.c. God could have created a better world than he did, consistenct with hi (IB.FP). Thus ~ (IB.FP) · Cleanthes continues to insist that God is IB Cleanthes argument now becomes the following: IB> ~ (IPV~IP) IB (Modus Ponens) ~ (IPV ~ IP) The final step in showing the reduction ad absurdum of Cleanthes position can be diagrammed as follows: P1 IB>~(IPv~IP) P2 (IPv~IP) C ~IB Now were saying hes neither ib or ip the truth function ib.ip ~ ip (part 10) ~ib (part 11) this is the position going forward in part 11 PUT STUFF ABT EVIL IN PART 10 à c. believs god doesn’t cause evil or prevent evil, if u ask what cause of evil is it is simply natural. …. Bonus Question 3. Discuss fully Antony Flew’s concerns that religious language, when spoken by believers, may be meaningless. Also, discuss fully how Flew holds that believers can establish that statements they make about God can be rendered meaningful.
Planning is nothing about god himself, he will desires plans and thinks about his creations
Cant will doubt or plan unless you have a MIND…. Criticism 4 (more general version of crit 3) P1 God has a mind P2 All mental activity happens in time P3 However God is eternal and so has no mental activity in time Conclusion: Therefore the anthro. either has to deny that God has any mental activity or that God has a mind.
_____________________________________________________________ Dialectically, nothing meaningful can be said about God, assuming that religious language is eternal and unmoral, in which case the proper behaviour in terms of religious language is silence. This is the position of extreme mysticism. P1 Extreme mysticism says that religious language is meaningless P2 The proper behaviour is silence P3 However, atheist and skeptics hold the same position, even though they unline the extreme mystic, don’t believe in God Conclusion: Therefore the view of religious language endorsed my extreme mysticism is untenable. There view of religious language is that it shouldn’t be used at all ___________________________________________________________ Dialectically, this takes us to another view of mysticism according to which religious language must be used and understood figuratively and equivocally P1 Modern mysticism Maintains that religious language is figurative and equivocal P2 Figurative and equivocal language allows for meaningful P3 However all fig, language must be reducible to literal language if the former is to be meaningful Conclusion: Therefore, modern mysticism is subject to the same criticisms as anthropomorphism
Some truth to this (above) but not the whole truth Ex. You are the apple to my eye How are you suppose to articulate in literal language of wht God is
Dialectically, this takes us to another view of religious language which is analogy. According to the position, religious language is abt both similarities and differences between God and ppl. P1 Analogy maintains that religious language is about both the dim and diff between god and ppl P2 The terms of comparison and contrast between God and people P3 However the conditions of verifiability, according to which meaningful language is such diff the user can specify under what empirical conditions his or her claims are true or false (Flew) something that cannot be done in the case of religious language since the one of the relata (God) cannot be observed Conclusion: Therefore, analogy fails as a view of religious language. Furthermore, since these are the only view of religious language meaningful discourse about God is impossible. 2. In Parts 10 and 11 of David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Cleanthes and Philo (and to a lesser extent, Demea) explore three hypotheses about the designer of the world: (i) that the designer is infinitely powerful and benevolent; (ii) that the designer is finitely perfect and benevolent; and (iii) that there is a primordial force or forces for good, and a primordial force or forces for evil (Manichaeanism). Cleanthes: (i) Introduces a hypothesis in part 10, suggesting “IF God has infinite power and is benevolent, THEN God should create the BOAPW.” Initially, Cleanthes saw the designer of the world as infinitude. In part 10, divine benevolence is based on God’s power, in order to have the BOAPW God must be infinitely benevolent. The world is designed to God’s vision, the way the world is designed is in accurately and totally in accordance to God’s plan. Since the world is not the best of all possible worlds, it is clear that God is finite; there is evil in the world and if it was the best of all possible worlds God would prevent evil with his INFINITE power, Cleanthes maintains that God is benevolent. He does not care the designer of the world is not infinitude, therefore the only truth that works for Cleanthes is F+T (God does not infinite power, but is benevolent). Cleanthes gives up on the claim of God being infinite, and refers to God as finite and perfect (~I.B). Cleanthes suggests that God designed the world as best he can, therefore the world is in accordance to God’s nature and he is never an underachiever, but rather always perfect. Cleanthes presents a new question, what kind of world would we expect from this God? Cleanthes says since God is finite and perfect, there are limits as he cannot do all that he can do.
Discuss as fully as you can Cleanthes’ defense of each position, and Philo’s critique of each position. This answer will discuss Cleanthes position God’s benevolence and power in parts 10 & 11 of Humes Dialogues. Overall it will argue, Cleanthes positions are a reduction ad absurdum. Cleanthes position on God’s benevolence and power in Part 10 is (IB. IP) However, (IB. IP)> BPW. BPW is one in which there is no natural evil but only natural good. à so no hurricanes Cleanthes, Philo and Demea all agree that a) natural evil is real and b) there is natural evil in the world in which case ~(BPW) Therefore by modus tollens, ~ (IB.IP) (end of part 10). There are four conditions under which the truth functional [truth function consists of parts] (IB.IP) has a truth value. Because the conclusion of part 10 is ~(IB.IP). Cleanthes cannot opt from 1 instead he selects 3, b.c. this nest represents cleathes understanding of God’s nature given the fact that option 1 has been precluded by virtue of the conclusion of part 10. So Philo challenges the view that (IB.FP) with “four circumstances” which are supposed to challenge the view that (IB.FP) > BWP According to this world, there is some natural good but also some natural evil. According to Philo, however, this world is not even BWP b.c. God could have created a better world than he did, consistenct with hi (IB.FP). Thus ~ (IB.FP) · Cleanthes continues to insist that God is IB Cleanthes argument now becomes the following: IB> ~ (IPV~IP) IB (Modus Ponens) ~ (IPV ~ IP) The final step in showing the reduction ad absurdum of Cleanthes position can be diagrammed as follows: P1 IB>~(IPv~IP) P2 (IPv~IP) C ~IB Now were saying hes neither ib or ip the truth function ib.ip ~ ip (part 10) ~ib (part 11) this is the position going forward in part 11 PUT STUFF ABT EVIL IN PART 10 à c. believs god doesn’t cause evil or prevent evil, if u ask what cause of evil is it is simply natural. …. Bonus Question 3. Discuss fully Antony Flew’s concerns that religious language, when spoken by believers, may be meaningless. Also, discuss fully how Flew holds that believers can establish that statements they make about God can be rendered meaningful.
