Schemes of salvation

Using the article we read in class, and doing a little more research on your own, give a brief description of the scheme of salvation in one of the major world religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.). Your description should include:

1. A description of the human predicament according to that religion: what is the root cause of the fact that our lives are troublesome and often miserable?
2. A description of the solution: what can human beings do to escape from their predicament?
3. A description of the desired end state of the process of salvation (i.e. Nirvana, new heavens and new earth, being in heaven, etc.)

Why does God allow evil?

Think about the various 'defenses' of God put forward by the prisoners at Auschwitz:

1. If the Jewish people are suffering, they must have broken their contract with God.
2. The Holocaust is a purification of the Jewish people, effected through the suffering of good Jews.
3. God has given us free will.

Try to apply these explanations in a broader context, not specific to the Holocaust. Do you find plausible that suffering in the world is punishment for human sin, that it purifies us, or that it is the result of free will? What do you think of the responses to these defenses? Can the amount and degree of evil in this world ever be justified?

The moral argument

Does the moral argument provide evidence for the existence of God? Give at least three reasons why or why not.

Implications of a-moralism

Today in class we were reading an editorial by Joel Marks called "Confessions of an ex-moralist". Based on your careful reading of this article:

1. What was the author's view about the nature of morality before his 'anti-epiphany'?
2. What was the realization that led him to change his view?
3. What is the foundation of the author's new view? What is the fundamental insight at the heart of this new view?
4. Is the author's view of morality satisfactory? Does it successfully account for our everyday moral experience?

Fine-Tuning and the Design Argument

Recall our discussion in class today about the fine-tuning of physical constants. The main idea is that there are certain numbers, called physical constants, which cannot be predicted from physics and which determine the kind of universe we find ourselves in. A list of fundamental constants can be found here. Because they cannot be predicted from physical theory (in other words, they have to be inputed from the outside), and because the range of values of such constants which results in a life-permitting universe is very very small, the odds of a life-permitting universe such as ours arising by chance is very small.

Because of this, some philosophers have used fine-tuning as evidence for the existence of God in the following way: recall that we recognize an object as an artifact if its parts are accurately adjusted to each other and constitute means toward the fulfillment of a certain purpose (they are means to an end). Physical constants are 'parts' of the world-machine and seem to exhibit accurate adjustment to each other (it is not enough for one constant to be tuned within the life-permitting range, all the other constants have to be tuned to that range at the same time) and exhibit means-ends functionality (the constants have the values they do IN ORDER to produce life). Since artifacts are products of intelligent agency, and if the Universe is an artifact, then it too must be the product of intelligent agency.

A summary of the fine-tuning argument can be found here.

What do you think of this argument? Is fine-tuning evidence for the existence of God? Think of at least two potential objections to this argument (you should read chapter 12 in our textbook as well).

Why study philosophy?

Here is the link to the reading we did in class today. I highly encourage all of you to read some more of Bill Vallicella's writing, as it really is top-notch (although some of it is very technical). After re-reading the piece, answer the following prompt:

-According to Vallicella, what is the point of studying philosophy, and why does he argue that such study should not be justified in pragmatic terms? Do you agree with him?

Understanding the design argument

In our reading from David Hume's Dialogues today, the speaker listed two characteristics of the world-machine which suggest a resemblance to human artifacts:

-the accurate adjustment of the parts of the world-machine to each other
-the 'curious' adapting of means to ends among those parts

Think of at least three different examples of everyday human artifacts (objects intentionally designed and produced by human beings) and explain how they exhibit these two characteristics. For example, we can see in the mechanical wristwatch the accurate adjustment of parts to each other when we notice that all the little cogs, springs and wheels are positioned so that they all fit perfectly in the space within the casings, without any of the little parts protruding or inhibiting the movement of the other parts. And all the little components are intentionally positioned in such a way so that when the parts move, that movement is regular enough to measure intervals of time, which is the watch's purpose (adapting of means to ends).

Here are some further links to explore:

-Design Arguments for the Existence of God

-Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part II (Here you can read the full dialogue from which the paragraph we read in class was extracted, as well as some of the initial criticisms the other speakers level at this argument)