Final Flashcards by Amy Fannin

Religion and Science

Define Fundamentalism

Stephen Gould

Fundamentalists take the words and stories of the Bible to be literally true

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religion and Science

What is NOMA?

Stephen Gould

Nonoverlapping magisterium - there can not be a conflict between religion and science because the two domains do not actually overlap

“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise…”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religion and Science

What is a “joint border”?

Stephen Gould

When complex interactions occur between religion and science

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religion and Science

What does Gould say about the Papal doctrine?

Stephen Gould

“NOMA permits—indeed enjoins—the prospect of respectful discourse, of constant input from both magisterial toward the common goal of wisdom.” (PR, 544)

1) Not many scientists believe it.
2) It fills him with dismay as someone who has great respect for religion.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religion and Science

What was Dawkin’s first objection?

Richard Dawkins

Morality and Religion

Religion is not an authority on morality.
Rather, biblical texts are not consistently moral. They include all sorts of atrocities.
We pick and choose which bits of Scripture to follow and quietly ignore the rest.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religion and Science

What was Dawkin’s second objection?

Richard Dawkins

Anti-evolutionary Intrusion

The injection of the soul into the evolutionary tree at some unknown point is anti-evolutionary.
It militates against the continuity of humans and the rest of nature that science teaches us exists.
It does this to prop up Catholic morals, which are speciesist to the core.
Dawkins points out that Catholic faith teaches that it is okay to kill adult animals, but abortion and euthanasia are not okay. Dawkins’ implication is that there is no principled distinction here, just the unscientific injection of a soul.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religion and Science

What was Dawkin’s third objection?

Richard Dawkins

A Different Universe

Dawkins argues that existence claims are scientific claims. The claim that the soul existence thus breaks through the supposed boundary.
Similar claims include the Virgin Birth, Resurrection of Jesus, survival of the soul after death, etc.
These are not claims about value, but about fact

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religion and Science

What does Alvin Plantinga claim is incompatible with Christian theism?

Alvin Plantinga

The claim that evolution is unguided

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Moral Evil

Hume

Evil that is the result of moral agency.

Ex: Genocide, torture, murder, religious intolerance.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Natural Evil

Hume

Evil that is the result of nature.

Ex: Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, diseases, viruses,
death, volcanoes, miscarriages, predation.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Is God’s goodness like ours?

Hume

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Demea’s Theodicy: Greater Good

Hume

Demea argues that we must accept the overwhelming distribution of suffering in life as an empirical fact.

The evils we experience are rectified in: 1) Some other part of the world, and 2) In the afterlife

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Cleanthes’ Reply to Demea’s Theodicy

Hume

Mere Conjecture Won’t Save Faith

These types of defenses may lead us to believe that God’s existence may possibly be reconciled with evil.
However, we don’t have reason to believe that these hypotheses are true.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Cleanthes’ Reply to Philo Problem of Evil

Hume

Exaggeration of Suffering

In order to properly defend God’s existence, we must attack the account of the distribution of evil given by Demea and Philo.
The account of the distribution of suffering is an exaggeration.
Rather, happiness is more common than misery

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Philo’s First Reply

Hume

Frequency vs. Intensity

Even if we grant that the initial account of suffering is an exaggeration, there is still a problem.
Pain, even if less often than pleasure, is more intense.
This means that the disvalue of pain can still outweigh the value of pleasure, happiness, etc.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Problem of Evil

Philo’s Second Reply

Hume

Denying Obvious Truth Leads to Skepticism

According to Philo, Cleanthes is making the mistake of
minimizing the suffering in the world.
This is a mistake because our common human experience militates against this maneuver.
Cleanthes is asking us to doubt obvious experience, which would seem to imply skepticism if generally followed.

Problem of Evil

Philo’s Third Reply

Hume

Uncertainty (like Demea)

Cleanthes takes it to be crucial for his defense of God’s existence that there is more happiness than suffering.
But, Philo argues, Cleanthes can’t really know this.
In this sense, it is like Cleanthes’ response to Demea.
Cleanthes has posited a merely possible defense that we don’t have reason to believe (indeed, we should reject it in Philo’s view).

Problem of Evil

Philo’s Fourth Reply

Hume

We Still Have A Problem!

Even if suffering isn’t as much of a problem as the initial account given, God’s existence has not been successfully defended.
This is because we shouldn’t expect evil to exist given the existence of God.
Why does suffering exist at all if an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists?

Problem of Evil

Philo’s Fifth Reply

Hume

Cause & Effect Again

Inferring God’s existence from this world is not a hopeful undertaking.
1) The world is mixed with good and evil. A purely good being can’t be inferred as the cause of this effect.
2) Even if there was only good, it would be finite. The infinite can’t be inferred from the finite.

Problem of Evil

Mackie argues that there is a ——– between the following three claims, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists.” (PR, 330)

Mackie

logical inconsistency

Problem of Evil

One can solve the logical problem of evil by giving up one of the propositions:

Mackie

God is not wholly good.
God is not omnipotent.
Evil does not exist.
Good is not opposed to the kind of evil that exists.
There are limits to omnipotence.

Problem of Evil

Theistic Responses

Mackie

“Good Cannot Exist Without Evil”
“Evil is Necessary as a Means to Good”
“The Universe Is Better with Some Evil in It Than it Could Be If There Were No Evil”
Orders of Good & Evil: First, Second, Third
“Evil Is Due to Human Free Will”

Problem of Evil

The Paradox of Omnipotence for Free Will

Mackie

Can an omnipotent being create things which he can’t control (or bind himself)?
Yes: Then there are some things God can’t do, such as create a free being that he can’t control.
No: Then, since God can’t do this, there are some things God can’t do.
Either way, it seems that God is not omnipotent.

Religion and Science

Does the claim that evolution is driven by random mutations not provide a point of inconsistency with Christian theism?

Plantinga thinks —-

Alvin Plantinga

that it doesn’t. Quoting Elliot Sober, “There is no physical mechanism (either inside organisms or outside them) that detects which mutations would be beneficial and causes
those mutations to occur.” (PR, 576)

# Religion and Science When it is said that evolutionary theory is inconsistent with humans and other beings having been designed by God, this assumes ------- | Alvin Plantinga

Naturalism - there is no God

# Religion and Science Naturalistic Worldview: | Alvin Plantinga

A kind of quasi-religious myth * “It offers a way of interpreting ourselves to ourselves, a way of understanding our origin and significance at the deep level of religion. It tells us where we come from, what our prospects are, what our place in the universe is, whether there is life after death, and the like.” (PR, 577)

# Religion and Science Is There Conflict Between Science and Religion? (Plantinga) | Alvin Plantinga

Yes, there is indeed a conflict between science and religion... between evolutionary theory and the naturalistic religion But, theism is compatible with science, according to Plantinga.

# Religion and Science The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism | Alvin Plantinga

1. P(R/N&E) is low. 2. One who accepts N&E and also sees that 1 is true has a defeater for R. 3. This defeater can’t be defeated 4. One who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any belief she takes to be produced by her cognitive faculties, including N&E Therefore 5. **N&E is self-defeating and can’t rationally be accepted**

# Religion and Science Replies to The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism | Alvin Plantinga

1) It does seem plausible that natural selection is connected to some truths. 2) If our cognitive faculties are at least reliable in part, then it is plausible that they can be refined over time. A) In experiences of individuals. B) Collectively through cultural evolution. 3) This is especially relevant if it can be shown that the kinds of faculties present in point 1) provide a basis for more sophisticated abilities, such as mathematical or scientific reasoning

# Problem of Evil Why would God's goodness not be like ours according to Hume's? | Hume

“His power, we allow, is infinite; whatever he wills is executed; but neither man nor any other animal is happy, therefore, he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite; he is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end; but the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity; therefore, it is not established for that purpose...**In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men**?” (PR, 320)

# Problem of Evil Why would it be a problem that God's goodness is not like ours according to C. S. Lewis? | Hume

“...if God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our 'black' may be His 'white', we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say 'God is good', while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say **'God is we know not what'.** And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) 'good' we shall obey, if at all, only through fear - and should be equally ready to obey omnipotent Fiend.” (The Problem of Pain, pp. 28-29)

# Problem of Evil The Paradox of Omnipotence for Determinism | Mackie

* Can an omnipotent being **originally** create things which he can’t **subsequently** control? * **Yes**: Then there are some things God can’t do (subsequently control). * **No**: Then, since God can’t do this, there are some things God can’t do. * Either way, it seems that God is not omnipotent.