Phil 110 Intro to Philosophy Heter Lecture One: What is Reason? [1]. Philosophy Philosophy is a difficult subject to define.

The word Philosophy means love of wisdom and it has been passed down to us from ncient !reece. In this course we study "estern Philosophy# which includes the systems of thou$ht ori$inatin$ in ancient !reece and %ome &from about 'th century ()*+# and movin$ throu$h medieval and modern *urope. "e will also study some merican philosophers. (ut how do we define Philosophy, I thin- of Philosophy as the attempt to $rasp life.s bi$ issues intellectually. [2] Relativism. lthou$h sometimes it doesn.t seem li-e it# there are ri$ht and wron$ answers in Philosophy. I am not a relativist. %elativists believe that every person has his own version of truth# and every person.s version of truth is e/ually valid. How would a relativist reply to a person who says water boils at ten de$rees 0ahrenheit, 1r who says that the earth is only 2#000 years old, (oth of these opinions are false# and they can be proven to be false. (ut the relativist is in the unfortunate position of sayin$ that everyone.s opinions are true# but only for the person that believes in them, (ut that won.t woreither. It can.t be true for me that the earth is 2#000 years old. The earth is around '.3 billion years old. This fact is objectively verifiable. It can be tested usin$ the scientific method of observation and repetition. "hile I am not a relativist# I admit that many of the /uestions we philosophers study have no simple ri$ht or wron$ answer. The first topic for this semester is whether !od e4ists. I can honestly say that I do not -now whether !od e4ists. nd I can assert with relative certainty that nobody -nows whether !od e4ists. This position5-nown as $nosticism5seems to me to be the most rational position available. However# my purpose in havin$ students read and study ar$uments for the e4istence of !od is not to convert them to my personal opinions. I have absolutely no interest in that. %ather# I want students to learn how to ma-e educated and informed ar$uments. 6o now we.re bac- to s/uare one7 "hat is the ri$ht answer to the /uestion 8oes !od e4ist, The ri$ht answer# for the purposes of this course# is any 1

answer that is defended well usin$ evidence and proper reasonin$. &In this course you will learn what I mean by proper reasonin$.+ Intelli$ent people can end up on either side of the debate. 6o there is a ri$ht answer in Philosophy# but in a /ualified sense. !ettin$ the proper answer in a Philosophy means providin$ $ood ar$uments for one.s conclusions. Here.s an analo$y. Ima$ine a math test where you are as-ed to show your wor-. 9our teacher $ives you partial credit for applyin$ the ri$ht method# even if you $et the wron$ final answer. Philosophy is all about showin$ your wor-. It re/uires applyin$ the proper methods. nd unli-e math# there is no settled answer about the ri$ht conclusion. :early all of the /uestions we study admit of multiple correct answers. 9et there is a proper method that you must follow to reach your conclusions. This method $oes by the name of reason# rationality# ar$umentation or lo$ic. [3] Reason. Philosophy is based on the ideal of reason. In the *uropean *nli$htenment of the 12th and 1;th centuries# Philosophers li-e the 0renchman %ene 8escartes be$an constructin$ theories based on %eason. 8escartes contrasted reason with custom and superstition. %eason is different from custom# because a person mi$ht believe what he has been tau$ht as a youn$ man without ever thin-in$ for himself. To $ive a specific e4ample# thin- about the ori$in of Protestantism. Protestantism be$an when a !erman priest named <artin =uther went to the door of the )atholic )hurch in 1312 and nailed to it a list of complaints about )atholicism &)atholic simply means orthodo4# or traditional+. =uther.s main complaint was that the )hurch did not trust avera$e people to -now and understand the (ible and the word of !od. =uther believed that each person should have a personal relationship with !od# unmediated by the priests or the pope. This idea is so commonplace to us now that it is hard to ima$ine how radical it was in the 1>th century. =uther.s idea was that the individual person has the intelli$ence to thin- for himself# and to decide for himself what the (ible says. This idea defines the core of the *nli$htenment. It.s motto could be Thin- for yourself. In other words# don.t believe somethin$ just because your pastor has told you it is true. The principle can be e4tended across the board to different -inds of authority fi$ures# not just reli$ious authorities7 jud$es# aristocrats# the wealthy# the previous $eneration. In sum# do not trust custom? trust only your own mind and your own thin-in$. The way we can define %eason is by contrast with superstition and the supernatural. "e can define superstition as a belief in an irrational connection between thin$s. "e.re all familiar with superstitious practices7 spit over your shoulder to avoid bad luc-# don.t brea- a mirror or wal- under 2

a ladder# beware of 0riday the 1@th# and so on. There is no lo$ical connection here. The notion of the supernatural is closely related7 a supernatural power by definition is beyond scientific e4planation. <iracles are supernatural phenomena. <ost of you -now the story of <oses from the 1ld Testament. !od comes to <oses and tells him to lead the Aewish people out of *$ypt where they are enslaved by the Pharaoh. To prove to the Pharaoh that he has !od on his side <oses is $iven the ma$ical power of turnin$ a staff into a sna-e and water into blood. B8o any of you -now how the Pharaoh reacts,C 6cientifically we can say that water cannot be turned into blood. 6omebody who believes this can happen believes in the supernatural. %eason is opposed to the supernatural. (ut what does it mean to $ive a rational# scientific e4planation of somethin$, "e must be able to observe the event or phenomenon. o &It cannot be witnesses only by a few people# or a select -ind of people? any normal person must be able to witness the thin$ in /uestion.+ "e must be able to repeat the same results over and over. That is# the occurrence has to be re$ular or lawDli-e. o &Ima$ine a small boy throwin$ a baseball throu$h a window# shatterin$ it to pieces. :ow ima$ine that he does it a$ain and a$ain# to different windows# claimin$ that Ehe has no idea what is $oin$ to happen to the window.. This body is clearly failin$ to understand physical reality. Physical reality is re$ular? it has laws. The boy has a supernatural view of the world.+ 0inally# our e4planations have to fit to$ether as a coherent system. That is# our observations of one -ind of event# need to fit with our observations of other -inds of events. [4] Reason an Reli!ion <ost of us approach the /uestion of !od.s e4istence from the perspective of reli$ion and faith rather than reason. However# in a Philosophy course we approach !od as a topic in the field of <etaphysics. <etaphysics is the study of reality. 6o# the /uestion is whether !od is real. =et.s approach the /uestion of !od.s reality by thin-in$ about how to prove somethin$ e4ists. 1ne method would be usin$ the five senses &si$ht# touch# taste# smell or hearin$+. If I as-ed you whether or not there were maple trees in Pennsylvania you could answer yes for the simple reason that you have seen maple trees in Pennsylvania. (ut can we say the same thin$ for the e4istence of !od, <ost reli$ious traditions treat !od as an immaterial object# if so# there can be no direct proof of the e4istence of !od usin$ the five senses. This method of provin$ !od.s e4istence is not li-ely to wor-. &1f course# we may want to introduce a more e4plicit definition of what we

mean by !od# but for the moment we can assume that the concept of !od refers to a supreme bein$ who is nonDphysical.+ different approach to !od.s e4istence would be to treat !od as a pure concept or idea# rather than a physical bein$. This method of proof may be counter intuitive to modern readers# but it has been very popular historically# datin$ at least to the 11th )entury .8. 0or 0riday you will be readin$ the ar$ument of the theolo$ian 6t. nselm. If !od is nonDphysical5a pure idea5 then we do not need to use our five senses to prove !od.s e4istence. ll we re/uire is a lo$ical deduction show that !od can &or perhaps must+ e4ist. ["]. #r!uments The common thread in both methods described above is reason. "hether Philosophers use the senses or pure lo$ic# they rely on some form of evidence to support their conclusions. proof of !od.s e4istence must ta-e the form of an ar$ument. =et me $ive a definition of an ar$ument. n ar$ument is a structured line of thin-in$ containin$ at least one premise and one conclusion. premise is a statement of support. that.s bein$ proven. n e4ample of an Premise 17 Premise F7 )onclusion7 survive. conclusion is the statement

ar$ument7 ll trees need carbon dio4ide to survive. maple is a type of tree. Therefore# a maple tree needs carbon dio4ide to

There is obviously a stron$ lo$ical flow from statements 1 and F# to the conclusion# statement @. This is a stron$ ar$ument. [$]. %aith v. Reason s I mention above# most people approach the /uestion of !od.s e4istence as a matter of reli$ious faith# not as a matter of rational ar$umentation. "hat.s the difference, %eli$ious faith does not re/uire ar$umentation and does not re/uire evidence. In fact# when an individual says I have faith that !od e4ists# he is statin$ the opposite of I have proof that !od e4ists. 0aith and proof are opposites. "hereas proof re/uires that I provide an ar$ument &a set of premises justifyin$ my belief in !od+# faith does not re/uire an ar$ument &I need not justify my belief in !od+. I do not propose to e4amine the merits or the deficiencies of faith in this course. Instead# I mean to point out the difference between faith and 4

reason. ll the philosophers we study use reason and not faith. 6t. Thomas /uinas and "illiam Paley were both devout )hristians and no doubt they used faith to supplement their ar$umentation for !od.s e4istence. However# in a Philosophy course we are solely concerned with the merits of their ar$uments. [&]. 'erms There are several terms that are useful to -now when discussin$ !od.s e4istence. $nostic7 believes that there is no proof for &or a$ainst+ the e4istence of !od. theist7 believes that !od does not e4ist. Theist7 believes that !od does e4ist. 8eist7 believes that !od e4ists. !od created the world# but does not have an on$oin$ relationship with the world. [(]. 'he )oncept o* +o There are probably as many concepts of !od as there are human ima$inations. However# we are limitin$ ourselves to a discussion of the most common conception of !od amon$ "estern <onotheists. &<onotheism is the view that there is just one !od. It is opposed to Polytheism.+ ccordin$ to "estern <onotheists &esp. )hristians+ !od is a perfect bein$ who created and controls the universe. 6t. Thomas /uinas &1FF3D2'+ was a medieval )atholic mon-. He attempted to use reason to prove the e4istence of !od. Interestin$ly# /uinas tried to combine two very different concepts of !od. 0rom the ancient !reephilosopher ristotle &@;'D@FF ()+ he borrowed the idea that !od is an unmoved mover# or the ultimate physical force that causes the universe. However# as a )hristian# /uinas also believe in an anthropomorphic &humanDli-e+ notion of !od. There are three main /ualities associated with the )hristian# anthropomorphic conception of !od7 0irst# !od is allD-nowin$ &omniscient+. There is nothin$ outside of !od.s -nowled$e. 6econd# !od is allD$ood &omniDbenevolent+. !od is pure $ood and does not contain evil. !od wishes for the universe to be pure $ood without evil.

Third# !od is allDpowerful &omnipotent+. !od is powerful enou$h to create and sustain the universe. 0or !od# nothin$ is impossible. [,]. -ummary Philosophy is the attempt to $rapple with life.s bi$ issues intellectually# usin$ reason. %eason is different from custom and superstition. The *uropean *nli$htenment# be$innin$ in the 1Gth century ).*. emphasiHed %eason. 6cientific %eason re/uires observation# repetition and systematiHation. The philosophical approach to !od.s e4istence differs from the reli$ious approach. Philosophers use ar$uments to attempt to prove !od.s e4istence. r$uments re/uire evidence and justification. 0aith does not re/uire evidence and justification. ccordin$ to the )hristian tradition# !od is allD$ood# allDpowerful and allD-nowin$.