Progressive Adventism

Notes for the University Student Forum Sabbath School class of the Loma Linda University Church that I’ll be leading the discussion for, along with Andrew Roquiz (1st med student at LLU), later this morning.  It comes from my lecture notes for “Introduction to Philosophy” and “Doctrinal Studies” classes at Pacific Union College.

1. Existence of God: Theistic Arguments
   1. Ontological argument: deductive; a priori (begins with an assumption and then proceeds to prove that assumption)
      1. Ontos = being/existence
      2. Anselm of Canterbury (11^th C): “If we could conceive of a Perfect God who does not exist, then we could conceive of someone greater than God himself which is impossible. Therefore God exists.”
      3. Rene Descartes (17^th C)
         1. God, by definition, is that being that is absolutely perfect.
         2. It is more perfect to exist than not to exist.
         3. Thus, to conceive of God (a being that is absolutely perfect), it is necessarily to conceive him as existing (because to conceive of God as not existing is self-canceling).
         4. Thus, to say “God does not exist” is to contradict oneself.
         5. Thus, the sentence “God exists” is necessarily true.
      4. David Hume’s response (18^th C)
         1. It’s always illegitimate to move from a pure definition to a statement of fact about reality.
         2. Definitions are only about the relation between meanings and as such are purely representations of logic and of linguistic conventions.
         3. Statements of fact are always based on observation.
      5. Immanuel Kant’s response (18^th C)
         1. Being is not a real predicate.
         2. Illustrations of “the guessing game” & the “imagine the rose”
         3. Thus, “God exists” doesn’t say anything.
      6. Conclusion: Ontological proof, as an exclusively a priori argument, is completely based on thought. It doesn’t require any experience or observation. As such, it may convince one of its logical consistency, but will not necessarily produce faith.

   2. Cosmological argument: inductive; a posteriori
      1. Cosmos = world
      2. Based on the fact the world/universe exists
      3. Thomas Aquinas (13^th C)
         1. Since something cannot come from nothing, there must be an original cause (or “efficient cause”) for the world’s existence
         2. Borrowed from Aristotle’s “first cause”
         3. Summary
            1. Every event in the observable world is caused by some event prior to itself.
            2. Either the series of causes is infinite, or it goes back to a 1^st cause, which is itself uncaused.
            3. But an infinite series of causes is impossible.
            4. Thus, a first cause exists outside the observable world; this 1^st cause is God.
      4. David Hume’s response (18^th C)
         1. Cause-effect for everything cannot be proven.
         2. “Beginning” is arbitrarily caused by the human mind.
         3. Infinite series of causes is possible. // mathematics
         4. Even if (1) to (3) were true, it doesn’t prove the existence of “God.”
   3. Teleological argument: inductive; a posteriori
      1. Telos = end; goal
      2. Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause; The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; thus, the universe has an intelligent and free cause.
      3. Aquinas
         1. Things that lack intelligence act always (or nearly always) for an end so as to obtain the best result.
         2. That these things that lack intelligence can move toward an end shows that they are directed/programmed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence
         3. Thus, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; this being is God.
      4. Hume’s response
         1. Bad analogy!
            1. “Watch-watchmaker // world-God” is faulty.
            2. We know watches came from watchmakers, because we have seen the watchmaker. (Empirical relation)
            3. But not so with the world and God.
            4. Any analogy we make has to be shown empirically.
            5. Since the world is an organic entity, maybe God = “superturnip”
         2. Order: a human invention
            1. Order is in the eye of the beholder
            2. The human mind imposes order on the chaos of nature, then infers a divine orderer to account for it.
      5. Charles Darwin’s response (19^th C.)
         1. There’s a difference between the concept of design and order.
         2. Whatever that is designed must have been designed by somebody.
         3. But not everything that has order was designed. (Ex: gravel beach)
            1. Ospreys don’t have excellent vision in order to fish, but they fish because they have excellent vision.
            2. The moth doesn’t have spots to avoid enemies, but it avoids enemies because ….
         4. Many phenomena can be explained naturalistically (w/o involving a master designer.)
         5. Causal response to teleological argument
   4. Anthropological argument: inductive; a posteriori
      1. Anthropos = man/human being
      2. Humanity bears an image that is divine–image of God (which is spiritual).
      3. Human beings are not simply biological being, but moral beings with a conscience, intellect, emotion and will.
      4. A blind force could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a creator.
   5. Moral argument: extension of the anthropological argument (C. S. Lewis)
      1. Human beings have an awareness of right and wrong, a sense of morality, that is unique from all other creatures on earth.
      2. This sense could only have come from a higher being–God.
   6. Pragmatic argument of William James (19^th C.)
      1. A claim is meaningful only if believing it would make a practical difference in your life. (Ex: Jupiter has four moons.)
      2. Only meaningful sentences can be either true or false.
      3. True ideas are those that help us to get into satisfactory relations with other parts of our experience.
      4. The issue of God’s existence is one that the intellect by itself definitely cannot resolve.
      5. The only way the issue may be entertained is on the question of meaningfulness–”Does believing it make a practical difference in my life?”
      6. Ultimately a subjective/relative theory–hinges on the difference in behavior/experience resulting from belief in the proposition.
      7. But because believing in the existence of God works (satisfactory relations with the rest of life), the claim is true.
   7. Mystical argument
      1. Pascal - “reasons of the heart”
      2. Supernatural experiences that are non-rational
      3. Deeply personal and subjective
   8. Existentialist argument: Soren Kierkegaard (19^th C.)
      1. Loathed all attempts to demonstrate God’s being (”woe unto all those unfaithful stewards who sat down and wrote false proofs.”)
      2. Religious belief needs to be just that–belief…something that’s not knowledge, and cannot be knowledge, even “the category of the absurd.”
      3. “Knowledge” has to be objective. But for religious claims there are only subjective/personal criteria. Requires “leap of faith.”
      4. Illus: Abraham & Isaac
         1. Abraham is either a murderer or an insane man.
         2. How can we respect him as the father of the faithful?
         3. Abraham believes that Isaac will die, but will not die.
         4. The story is rationally unintelligible!
      5. Faith: a paradox which is capable of transforming a murder into a holy act well-pleasing to God. Abraham acted by virtue of the absurd, and became the father of faith. He had “divine madness.”
      6. God’s command is authorized by Abraham’s decision to interpret it thus.
      7. Ultimately, the individual is the source of all authority and is totally responsible for all his decisions and actions.
      8. Truly religious conception of life is ultimately incompatible with a social conception of life.

      
      
      

2. Existence of God: Atheistic Arguments
   1. God’s omniscience is incompatible with the freedom he gave his creatures.
      1. If he’s omniscient, he knows the future.
      2. If he knows what humans will do in the future, then they must do what he knows they will do (or else God is wrong).
      3. If he doesn’t know what they will do, then he’s not omniscient.
      4. If he’s not omniscient, he’s not God.
   2. God defined as omnipotent is illogical.
      1. Nothing can be defined as omnipotent because the concept of omnipotence is incoherent.
      2. Can God create a rock that is too large for him to move?
      3. If not, he’s not omnipotent.
      4. If he can, he’s not omnipotent.
   3. God’s omnibenevolence is incompatible with his creation of the devil and of eternal punishment.
      1. If God is all-good, how can he let loose such a potent evil force like Satan to tempt weak creatures as humans are and then punish with eternal damnation?
   4. God’s omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnicreativity are not compatible with the presence of evil in the world.
      1. There is evil in the world–natural disasters, disease, crime, starvation, etc.
      2. If God didn’t create them, then he’s not the creator of the universe.
      3. If he couldn’t prevent them, then he’s not all-powerful.
      4. If he didn’t foresee them, he’s not all-knowing.
      5. If he willfully created them, he’s not all-good.
   5. Medieval realities
      1. Reality of suffering
      2. Is pain and suffering part of God’s plan? Are they “proofs” of God’s existence?
      3. What if this is all there is? What if there is no God?
      4. “When Zeus is toppled, chaos succeeds him, and whirlwind rules.” — Aristophanes
      5. “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” — Dostoyevski
      6. End of the medieval era; Beginning of the modern/secular era
   6. Ludwig Feuerbach (19^th C.): The Essence of Christianity (1841)
      1. Religious beliefs are basically the result of confusion about human potentiality; This confusion and the resulting beliefs prevent any serious solution of human problems.
      2. Theory in a nutshell
         1. The human being is fundamentally good and as a species has certain legitimate aspirations that have been present more or less from the beginning of the race.
         2. These aspirations are the will to achieve love, truth, beauty, happiness, wisdom, purity, and strength (among others).
         3. Every human community has aspired–consciously or unconsciously–to achieve and express these values.
         4. But life is hard and these ideals are rarely realized and recede through the clouds in the sky.
         5. Then suddenly the clouds opened up and the same ideals returned in a new and powerful form–God.
         6. When those ideals returned in the form of religion, it crushed humanity.
         7. A truly human (socialist) society will achieve those ideals–once it realizes that they had alienated their subjective essence, objectifying it in a foreign, artificial being called “God.”
         8. Then, create the new “religion of man.”
   7. Karl Marx (19^th C.)
      1. Feuerbach correctly sees that religion is a form of alienation but falsely believes that the solution to the problem is the critique of religion.
      2. Religion is not the cause of the problem, but the symptom! It’s an inverted projection of social problems. “The opium” that allows you to forget the ills of life.
      3. The disease is the world’s social organization.
      4. When the tyranny and exploitation of society disappears, religion will naturally become obsolete.
   8. Sigmund Freud (19th-20th C.) - The Future of an Illusion
      1. The human mind preserves all of its earlier stages alongside its final form.
         1. Ontogenetically: history of the individual
         2. Phylogenetically: history of the human race
      2. Religious need comes from the infant’s helplessness and the longing for the father aroused by it.
         1. Infant is born feeling omnipotent, but quickly discovers vulnerability and dependency.
         2. This produces fear and resentment.
         3. Recognition of protector -> father
         4. The accompanying feelings of fear, need, love, resentment remain.
         5. As adults, we cope by remolding reality to procure a certainty of happiness and protection against suffering.
         6. Such remolding is delusional, and religion is one such way.
      3. Religion is “patently infantile, so foreign to reality.”
      4. Religion is for weaklings who need delusion to survive harsh realities.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am and is filed under Main. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.