Euthyphro Question

Euthyphro question:
(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by
God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good
because they are willed by God.
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then
they are morally good independent of Gods will.
Platos Worry:
Is An Act Right Because God Allows It, Or Does God Allow It Because It
Is Right?
If Former, Then:
Arbitrariness: Torturing Innocent Children Could Be Good
Gods Own Goodness Is Uninteresting
If Latter, Then:
Morality Is Not Based Upon Gods Commands
Note: Does Not Really Undermine Gods Power
Analogy With Omniscience
Atheistic moral realism:
Atheistic morality not an abstraction
Requires people and societies
Divine command theory:
Central Claim: An Act Is Right If And Only If God Permits It; An Act Is Morally
Wrong Iff God Forbids It.
Platos Worry:
Is Right?
If Former, Then:
If Latter, Then:
Analogy With Omniscience
Gods goodness uninteresting

Divine command theory:
Central Claim: An Act Is Right If And Only If God Permits It; An Act Is Morally
Wrong Iff God Forbids It.
Platos Worry:
Is Right?
If Former, Then:
Collective guilt:
Kantian moral criterion for revelation:
Natural Law Theory
Laws Of Nature Prescribe How One Ought To Behave
Example: Homosexuality
Problems For Natural Law Theory
Confusing Oughts with Iss
Based Upon Outdated Theory Of Nature
Final causes no longer part of our worldview
Appeal To Moral Reason
Pragmatic vs. Epistemic reasons for belief
Central Idea:
Belief in God is supported not by epistemic considerations but by

practical considerations
2 sorts of justifications for believing in God
Support for the proposition God Exists
Support for the state of believing that God Exists
Two Pragmatic Accounts:
Blas Pascal
William James
Expected utility
Pascals Wager (Or, You Bet Your Afterlife)
Background: Decision Matrices
Calculating Expected Utilities (EU) of Bets
Multiply probability of outcome times the payoff to determine

the particular value of a result
Add the particular values of all results to determine overall

expected utility of a bet
Illustration: 2 possible gambles
Roll The Die vs. Coin Toss
Infinite pay-offs
Understanding Pascals argument
Critical Point: Low probability of Gods existence is washed out by infinities in

pay-off box.
(.00000 . . .1 X +infinity) + something finite = EU: +infinity!
(.99999 . . .9 X infinity) + something finite = EU: infinity!
Upshot: It is sensible to believe (or try to believe) in God, even if

probability is low.
Lack of control over belief objection

Criticisms of Pascals Argument
Beliefs Are Not Under Our Control
Rational agents are led to beliefs by evidence, arguments, etc.
Reply: (James, Lycan/Schlesinger) Seems we can live our lives in a way

to make our minds more fertile ground for certain beliefs
Many Gods Objection

What about anti-religious Gods who reward atheism and punish

theism??!!
Note: Low probability is washed out here too!
Under determination Problem

Replying To The Many Gods Objection (Lycan & Schlesinger)
Reply # 2: This is an underdetermination problem
Like in science, go with the most simple hypothesis.
Most perfect being hypothesis is simplest
Worry: Is the most perfect being the simplest?
Worry: Would the most perfect being require worship?
Why wouldnt an anti-religious God count as

perfect?
SImplicilty principle
Worry: Would the most perfect being require worship?

perfect?
Passional natures
James Defense of Non-Rational Believing
Reasons vs. Passions
Reasons: Intellectual factors (evidence, arguments, insights, etc.)
Passions: Everything else that might motivate beliefs (desires, hopes,

feelings, etc.)
Key Point: sometimes reasons are insufficient for deciding between two
options.
James Claim: It is perfectly acceptable to let passions guide ones belief

formation when the issue cant be decided by reasons and it is a genuine
option.
Genuine option
Reasons: Intellectual factors (evidence, arguments, insights, etc.)
Passions: Everything else that might motivate beliefs (desires, hopes,

feelings, etc.)
Key Point: sometimes reasons are insufficient for deciding between two
options.
James Claim: It is perfectly acceptable to let passions guide ones belief

formation when the issue cant be decided by reasons and it is a genuine
option.
Forced option
James Conception of a Genuine Option
Three Factors:
1. Living Option
Both possibilities are real and have some appeal
2. Forced Option
Cannot avoid taking a stance
3. Momentous Option
Decision is profound and important; not trivial
Living option
Three Factors:
1. Living Option
2. Forced Option
3. Momentous Option
Problem of Evil
Theodicy And The Problem Of Evil
The Argument Against Western Theism: Reason To Doubt That A Christian

God Exists
1. Christianity Assumes God Is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Perfectly Good, And Loves

Us
2. Massive Evil Exists
Moral Evil (Suffering Caused By Us)
Natural Evil (Suffering Caused By Nature)
Logical vs. Evidential inconsistency

The Argument Against Theism (cont.)
3. God And Evil Are Inconsistent
Unpacking The Premise
God Would Know About Suffering (Omniscient)
God Could Have Prevented Suffering (Omnipotent)
God Would Want To Prevent Suffering (Loving, Perfectly

Good)
What Sort Of Inconsistency?
Strong: Logical Inconsistency (Problematic)
Weak: Evidential Inconsistency
4. Therefore, Either God Or Evil Doesnt Exist

Theodicy
Making Sense Of Suffering
Moral evil:
Massive Evil Exists
Counterpart theory
Counterpart Theory:
Just As Tallness Cant Exist Without Shortness, Happiness

Cannot Exist Without Suffering
Non-intrinsic, Mutually Defined Properties
Happiness Requires God Allow Suffering
Natural Evil
Summum bonum
Evil as privation
Skeptical theism
G.E. Moore Shift
Free Will Defense
Theodicy (cont.): Free Will Defense
Free Will Defense:
1. Not Possible For Humans To Be Free And Incapable Of Doing Moral Evil
2. A World In Which We Are Free Is Better Than One In Which We Are Restricted
3. God Creates The Best Possible World
4. Therefore, God Created A World In Which People Sometimes Do Moral Evil
Virtue defense
Theodicy (cont.): Virtue Defense
Virtue Defense:
Certain Virtues Like Sympathy, Compassion, Forgiveness

All Require Suffering; God Wanted Virtues, So Suffering
Must be Permitted
Rebuttals:
These Virtues Are Not Good In Themselves; Only Good

Because They Allow Us To Cope With Suffering
Wrong To Allow Suffering So People Can Exhibit

Compassion
Chemotherapy Analogy
Virtues Counter-Balanced By Vices
Parent analogy
Parent Analogy:
Suffering Is For Reasons We Dont Comprehend
Note: Doesnt Explain Suffering; Just Suggests How

Suffering May Be Consistent With Gods Existence
Rebuttals:
Bad Analogy; Parents Arent Omnipotent
Double Standards
If Good Events Reflect Gods Nature, Then Why

Dont Bad Events?
Chemotherapy analogy
Virtue Defense:

Must be Permitted
Rebuttals:


Compassion
Morally significant freedom

Free Will Defense
What About Natural Evil?
Reply: We Freely Choose Not To Avoid Dangers
Reply: (Plantinga) The free will of Satan
Challenge (1): We Already Live With Some Restrictions, But Still

Consider Ourselves Free
Reply: What Sort Of Freedom Matters? Answer: Moral

Freedom
Challenge (2): Why Not Sacrifice Some Freedom For Less Suffering?
Giving Up Some Contracausal Freedom Would Remove

Suffering But Still Give Us Compatibilist Freedom
Look At Our Normal Views Of Justice
Contra-causal freedom
Free Will Defense
What is Meant by Free?
Contracausal Freedom
Fixed background conditions, more than one possibility
Neither determined nor random
Swinburne: requires competing desires and

temptations
Proponents of FWD Assume Contracausal Notion
Compatibilist freedom
Free Will Defense
Compatibilist Freedom
Doing what one wants
Compatible with Determinism
Freedoms value vs. its cost

Free Will Defense: Rebuttals And Replies

Counterfactual of freedom
Plantingas Free Will Defense
Counterfactuals of Freedom
If it is true that a person will do X in situation Y,

God cannot actualize the world in which he doesnt
Key Idea: We have a hand in actualizing possible

worlds
The possibility of Transworld Depravity
Actualizing possible worlds



worlds
Transworld depravity


worlds
Soul-making theodicy
Hicks Soul-Making Theodicy
Core Idea: Development is more important than final state, and we

are in an early stage.
Two ways to view soul-making:
Personal development
This cant account for much of the suffering
Development of humanity itself
Analogies
Personal growth
Pets in a cage
Hicks slippery slope

2nd order evil
Divine evil
Lewiss Version: Divine Evil
Background
The Orthodox View Of Western Theism
Damnation awaits people for:
Sins of various sorts
Insubordination (not worshipping God)
Punishment is extreme in 2 ways:
Temporally lasts for eternity
Degree amount of pain is unimaginable
Note: Embraced by most western theisms and supported

textually
Orthodox theism
Lewiss Version: Divine Evil
Background
The Orthodox View Of Western Theism
Damnation awaits people for:
Sins of various sorts
Insubordination (not worshipping God)
Punishment is extreme in 2 ways:
Temporally lasts for eternity
Degree amount of pain is unimaginable
Note: Embraced by most western theisms and supported

textually
Softening damnation
Responding to Lewiss Argument
Softening damnation
Repentance possible
Problem: Coerced subornation is not admirable
Universalism in Christianity: All are saved through Christs

death (no punishment)
Lewis: Why would the death of Jesus be needed?
No distinguishing the faithful from everyone else
Non-existence for unbelievers
Violates scripture
Still seems excessive
Universalism
Responding to Lewiss Argument
Softening damnation
Repentance possible
Problem: Coerced subornation is not admirable
Universalism in Christianity: All are saved through Christs

death (no punishment)
Lewis: Why would the death of Jesus be needed?
No distinguishing the faithful from everyone else
Non-existence for unbelievers
Violates scripture
Still seems excessive
Alive the benevolent agnostic

Lewiss Divine Evil (cont.)
Defending the second premise
Suffering of those in hell far exceeds any they could have

inflicted
Insubordination is not a horrible offense
Alice the benevolent agnostic
Divine evils contagiousness

Libertarian principle
Audi and Weithman on Separation of Church and State
1. Libertarian Principle: State permits practice of religion within
limits
Required for freedom
Equalitarian principle
1. Equalitarian Principle: State may not prefer one religion over

another
Required for avoiding unfair discrimination
Neutrality principle
1. Neutrality Principle: State may not prefer religiosity over nonreligiosity
Required for true religious liberty and equality
Example: prayer in public school
Principle of secular motivation

Audis Extension of Principles to Individual Conduct
Principle of Secular Motivation:
One should not advocate or support law or public policy that

restricts human conduct unless one not only has and can offer,
but is also motivated by, adequate secular reason for this
advocacy or support.
Accompanying Principle of Secular Resolution
Public matters should be decided on secular

grounds
Note: Very Strong Principle
Stronger than Principle of Secular Rationale
Principle of secular rationale
Non-motivating reasons
Weithmans Response
Principle of secular motivation too strong
Illustration: Person opposing abortion on non-motivational but

strong and reasonable secular grounds
Not trying to manipulate unfairly
Not reflecting a lack of respect
Not simply being prudential; embrace the need for

secular justification
Respecting principles and ideals of public discourse
Audis resolution to conflict between two competing

values (religious morality and democratic ideals) is unfair
to religious commitments
Maximal scope to act on ones religious convictions
Ramseys definition of bigotry
Revised Definition: Holding evaluative beliefs or other attitudes that

are (usually) negative and directed toward members of a group of
persons where the property used for grouping fails to provide
proper support for the negative evaluation
Captures the core difference between appropriate and

inappropriate intolerance
Racism vs. anti-racism
local support for negative attitudes of believers
Key Point: These difficulties are with religious bigotry itself, not my
analysis of bigotry
Principle of Local Support : If it is thought that there is

something wrong with believing proposition P, and if religious
doctrine (or outlook) R includes (or entails) proposition P, then
even if the initial assessment of P or of Rs inclusion of P is
fundamentally unjustified, any ensuing animus toward
believers of R on the basis of the inference that they believe P
should not count as bigotry.
Supporting the principle:
Assessment of believers is a natural extension of

assessment of beliefs
Assessment of beliefs should be encouraged
The Issue of Religious Pluralism

Religious Pluralism
The Pluralist Position (Hick)
We lack direct access to God, and hence religious differences

reflect different ways of knowing the divine realm
Differences in time and place give rise to different valid

interpretations
Parable of the blind men and the elephant
Because most people acquire their religious views through an

accident of when and where they are born, they are not
acquired in manner that justifies exclusivism
Essay.
1.
The Argument From Objective Morality
Craigs Central Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore, God exists
Defending the 1st premise:

1. Atheism makes humans mere animals
2. Morality in abstraction makes no sense
3. Even if moral values existed, there would be no obligation to
follow them
4. Unlikely we would evolve to discover moral values
Challenging the First Premise
Nothing about evolution or naturalism prevents humans from being

moral agents
Atheistic morality not an abstraction
Distinguishing source of moral beliefs from ground of objective

moral values
Requires people and societies
Ignores various non-theistic moral theories
Utilitarianism, virtue ethics, social contract, etc.
Obeyance of God just as irreducible as doing what is morally right
Appeals to rewards and punishments cant justify moral values
2.
Andersons Inversion of the Moralistic Argument
If a doctrine implies that atrocities are permissible, then that

doctrine ought to be rejected.
Principle share by William Lane Craig
Scripture-based theism (not atheism) implies that atrocities are

permissible.
Inversion of Craigs claim
Therefore, scripture-based theism ought to be rejected
Making Sense of Biblical Injustice
Contextualizing the commands: 2 ways:
Acts are not wrong when commanded by God
Problem: Double standard and begging the question
Mis-interpretation of Gods will
How do we know which commands are legitimate?
Cherry-picking passages
Unreliability undermines the whole source
3. Making Sense of Biblical Injustice

Central Claim: An Act Is Right If And Only If God Permits It; An Act Is
Morally Wrong Iff God Forbids It.
Platos Worry:
2. Is An Act Right Because God Allows It, Or Does God Allow It
Because It Is Right?
3. If Former, Then:
4. If Latter, Then:
1. Analogy With Omniscience
4.
Pragmatic Justifications For Believing in God
Central Idea:
Belief in God is supported not by epistemic considerations but

by practical considerations
2 sorts of justifications for believing in God
Support for the proposition God Exists
Support for the state of believing that God Exists
Pascals Wager (Or, You Bet Your Afterlife)
Background: Decision Matrices
Calculating Expected Utilities (EU) of Bets
Multiply probability of outcome times the payoff to

determine the particular value of a result
Add the particular values of all results to determine

overall expected utility of a bet
Illustration: 2 possible gambles
Roll The Die vs. Coin Toss
What Should We Believe?
-- The Decision Matrix:
Understanding Pascals Argument
Critical Point: Low probability of Gods existence is washed out by

infinities in pay-off box.
(.00000 . . .1 X +infinity) + something finite = EU: +infinity!
(.99999 . . .9 X infinity) + something finite = EU: infinity!
Upshot: It is sensible to believe (or try to believe) in God, even

if probability is low.
Beliefs Are Not Under Our Control
Rational agents are led to beliefs by evidence, arguments, etc.
Reply: (James, Lycan/Schlesinger) Seems we can live our lives

in a way to make our minds more fertile ground for certain
beliefs
The Many Gods Objection
What about anti-religious Gods who reward atheism and

punish theism??!!
Note: Low probability is washed out here too!
Reply # 1: Probability of traditional God is much higher
EUs are equal, so added factors (e.g., historical support)

should count.
Worry: Would the most perfect being require

worship?

perfect?
5. William James and the Will to Believe

Background: Clifford and the ethics of belief
Moral duty to believe rationally or suspend judgment
James partial agreement with Cliffords Claim:
Belief formation has a moral dimension
One should not ignore evidence or other reason when

deciding what to believe
Reasons: Intellectual factors (evidence, arguments, insights,

etc.)
Passions: Everything else that might motivate beliefs (desires,

hopes, feelings, etc.)
Key Point: sometimes reasons are insufficient for deciding

between two options.
James Claim: It is perfectly acceptable to let passions guide ones

belief formation when the issue cant be decided by reasons and it is
a genuine option.
Three Factors:
1. Living Option
2. Forced Option
3. Momentous Option
James Central Thesis
For some, deciding to believe in God cannot be determined by

intellectual factors and is a genuine option. Thus, it is OK to believe
in God because of passions, not reasons.
Theist: risks error for a great good
Agnostic: risks loss of a great good for avoiding error
Atheist: risks a great good for a good chance at truth
Cliffords mistake: fearing error and claiming

everyone has a duty to choose the second option
Is this fair?
6.Theodicy And The Problem Of Evil
The Argument Against Western Theism: Reason To Doubt That A

Christian God Exists
1. Christianity Assumes God Is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Perfectly Good,

And Loves Us
2. Massive Evil Exists
The Argument Against Theism (cont.)

3. God And Evil Are Inconsistent
Unpacking The Premise
God Would Know About Suffering (Omniscient)
God Could Have Prevented Suffering (Omnipotent)
God Would Want To Prevent Suffering (Loving,

Perfectly Good)
What Sort Of Inconsistency?
Strong: Logical Inconsistency (Problematic)
Weak: Evidential Inconsistency
4. Therefore, Either God Or Evil Doesnt Exist

5. The Existence Of Evil Is Indisputable
Suffering Of Both Forms Clearly Exists
6. Therefore, The God Of Christianity Does Not Exist
Note: Like The Teleological Argument For God, The Argument Is

Based On The Nature Of The World.
Theodicy (cont.): Virtue Defense
Virtue Defense:

Must be Permitted
Rebuttals:


Compassion
7. Theodicy (cont.): Free Will Defense
Free Will Defense:
1. Not Possible For Humans To Be Free And Incapable Of Doing Moral Evil
2. A World In Which We Are Free Is Better Than One In Which We Are
Restricted
3. God Creates The Best Possible World
4. Therefore, God Created A World In Which People Sometimes Do Moral
Evil
What is Meant by Free?
Contracausal Freedom
Fixed background conditions, more than one possibility
Neither determined nor random
Swinburne: requires competing desires and

temptations
Compatibilist Freedom
Doing what one wants
Compatible with Determinism
Proponents of FWD Assume Contracausal Notion

Free Will Defense: Rebuttals And Replies
What About Natural Evil?
Reply: We Freely Choose Not To Avoid Dangers
Reply: (Plantinga) The free will of Satan
Challenge (1): We Already Live With Some Restrictions, But Still

Consider Ourselves Free
Reply: What Sort Of Freedom Matters? Answer: Moral

Freedom

Challenge Validity Of Argument
Capacity To Do Moral Evil Neednt Lead To Actual Moral Evil
A World Where All People Freely Choose Not To Harm

Others Is Better Than Actual World
Note: God Could Use Foreknowledge To Know What

People Will Freely Do In A Possible World
Response Plantinga And Possible World Metaphysics
Denying Leibnizs claim about what God can do
Goal: Demonstrate evil is compatible with the existence of a theistic

God
Strategy: Show it is possible God cannot actualize possible worlds

with no evil
What is a possible world?
Gods limitations: God cannot actualize certain worlds
Example: Worlds lacking His existence
Worry: How can God be part of something He

actualizes?


worlds
8. Hicks Soul-Making Theodicy
Core Idea: Development is more important than final state, and we

are in an early stage.
Two ways to view soul-making:
Personal development
This cant account for much of the suffering
Development of humanity itself
Analogies
Personal growth
Pets in a cage
Virtues of the Soul-Making Theodicy
Doesnt make our attempts to reduce evil misguided.
Explains apparently pointless suffering
On humanity level
Doesnt undermine Gods omnipotence
Has some degree of empirical support
The world does seem to be a better place
Problems For Soul-Making Theodicy
False dichotomy between no moral growth and extreme suffering
God could promote moral growth without so much suffering
Analogies break down
Suffering of past individuals seems unhelpful
Can humanity develop like a person?
More like a negligent teacher
9. Audi and Weithman on Separation of Church and State
Audi: Three Strands to Separation Doctrine

1. Libertarian Principle: State permits practice of religion within
limits
Required for freedom
2. Equalitarian Principle: State may not prefer one religion over

another
Required for avoiding unfair discrimination
3. Neutrality Principle: State may not prefer religiosity over nonreligiosity
Required for true religious liberty and equality
Example: prayer in public school
Audis Extension of Principles to Churches
Institutional Political Neutrality Principle
Churches should abstain from supporting candidates and

public policies
Threat to neutrality and equality principles
Should is based on what is appropriate in a free and

democratic society
Problem: How do we demarcate political advocacy from moral

teaching?
War, abortion, environmentalism, etc. are both moral and

political
Audis Extension of Principles to Individual Conduct
Principle of Secular Motivation:
One should not advocate or support law or public policy that

restricts human conduct unless one not only has and can offer,
but is also motivated by, adequate secular reason for this
advocacy or support.
Accompanying Principle of Secular Resolution
Public matters should be decided on secular

grounds
Weithmans Response
Principle of secular motivation too strong
Illustration: Person opposing abortion on non-motivational but

strong and reasonable secular grounds
Not trying to manipulate unfairly
Not simply being prudential; embrace the need for

secular justification
Not reflecting a lack of respect
Respecting principles and ideals of public discourse
Audis resolution to conflict between two competing

values (religious morality and democratic ideals) is unfair
to religious commitments
Maximal scope to act on ones religious convictions
10. Revising The Definitions: 2 Big Shifts
First Shift:
Ignore the degree of conviction and instead focus upon

justification for the attitude
Difference between proper and improper intolerance is

the justification for the belief
Bigotry is an attitude that is not properly

justified/warranted/supported
What about truthfulness?
Accidentally correct attitudes still qualify as bigotry
Bizarre false attitudes would not
Second Shift:
Limit possible targets of bigotry to people, exclude viewpoints
5 reasons:
Moral obligations are to people, not ideas
Common sentiments about attacks on political,

philosophical, scientific theories
We can harm people by unfairly attacking ideas,

but it does not follow we have moral duties to ideas
We shouldnt confuse our moral and intellectual duties
We shouldnt make everyone a bigot
Intolerance of ideas is not like intolerance of people
The case of Joe and Mo
We should promote a significant gap between admirable

and deplorable behavior
What About Religious Views?
All 5 reasons apply to religious beliefs with same force
Same lack of moral duty regarding religious doctrines
Same distinction between intellectual duties and moral duties
Same concern about making everyone a bigot
Same distinction exists between intolerance of doctrines and

believers
A new Joe and Mo
Value of critical thinking is not diminished in the case of

religious doctrines
Constructing A Better Account Of Bigotry
Revised Definition: Holding evaluative beliefs or other attitudes that

are (usually) negative and directed toward members of a group of
persons where the property used for grouping fails to provide
proper support for the negative evaluation
Captures the core difference between appropriate and

inappropriate intolerance
Racism vs. anti-racism
How Religious Bigotry Is Still Possible
New Conception: Religious bigotry is a negative attitude

toward individuals or groups of people classified on the basis
of their religious beliefs, where those beliefs provide no
justification for the animus.
Easy Cases:
Type 1 Case: Anti-Religious Bigotry Animus toward

believers that is not properly grounded in what they
believe
Type 2 Case: Anti-Religious Non-Bigotry Animus toward

believers that is properly grounded in what they believe
Many traditional anti-religious slurs
Heavens Gate believers irrationality
Key Point: These difficulties are with religious bigotry itself, not my
analysis of bigotry
Principle of Local Support : If it is thought that there is

something wrong with believing proposition P, and if religious
doctrine (or outlook) R includes (or entails) proposition P, then
even if the initial assessment of P or of Rs inclusion of P is
fundamentally unjustified, any ensuing animus toward
believers of R on the basis of the inference that they believe P
should not count as bigotry.
Supporting the principle:
Assessment of believers is a natural extension of

assessment of beliefs
Assessment of beliefs should be encouraged

Euthyphro Question

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Euthyphro Question

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Euthyphro question:

Arbitrariness: Torturing Innocent Children Could Be Good

Gods Own Goodness Is Uninteresting

Morality Is Not Based Upon Gods Commands

Note: Does Not Really Undermine Gods Power

Analogy With Omniscience

Atheistic moral realism:

Atheistic morality not an abstraction

Requires people and societies

Divine command theory:

Arbitrariness: Torturing Innocent Children Could Be Good

Gods Own Goodness Is Uninteresting

Morality Is Not Based Upon Gods Commands

Note: Does Not Really Undermine Gods Power

Analogy With Omniscience

Gods goodness uninteresting

Arbitrariness: Torturing Innocent Children Could Be Good

Gods Own Goodness Is Uninteresting

Laws Of Nature Prescribe How One Ought To Behave

Problems For Natural Law Theory

Confusing Oughts with Iss

Based Upon Outdated Theory Of Nature

Final causes no longer part of our worldview

Appeal To Moral Reason

Pragmatic vs. Epistemic reasons for belief

Belief in God is supported not by epistemic considerations but by

2 sorts of justifications for believing in God

Support for the proposition God Exists

Support for the state of believing that God Exists

Two Pragmatic Accounts:

Pascals Wager (Or, You Bet Your Afterlife)

Background: Decision Matrices

Calculating Expected Utilities (EU) of Bets

Multiply probability of outcome times the payoff to determine

Add the particular values of all results to determine overall

Illustration: 2 possible gambles

Roll The Die vs. Coin Toss

Critical Point: Low probability of Gods existence is washed out by infinities in

(.00000 . . .1 X +infinity) + something finite = EU: +infinity!

(.99999 . . .9 X infinity) + something finite = EU: infinity!

Upshot: It is sensible to believe (or try to believe) in God, even if

Lack of control over belief objection

Beliefs Are Not Under Our Control

Rational agents are led to beliefs by evidence, arguments, etc.

Reply: (James, Lycan/Schlesinger) Seems we can live our lives in a way

Many Gods Objection

What about anti-religious Gods who reward atheism and punish

Note: Low probability is washed out here too!

Under determination Problem

Reply # 2: This is an underdetermination problem

Like in science, go with the most simple hypothesis.

Most perfect being hypothesis is simplest

Worry: Is the most perfect being the simplest?

Worry: Would the most perfect being require worship?

Why wouldnt an anti-religious God count as

Reply # 2: This is an underdetermination problem

Like in science, go with the most simple hypothesis.

Most perfect being hypothesis is simplest

Worry: Is the most perfect being the simplest?

Worry: Would the most perfect being require worship?

Why wouldnt an anti-religious God count as

Reasons vs. Passions

Reasons: Intellectual factors (evidence, arguments, insights, etc.)

Passions: Everything else that might motivate beliefs (desires, hopes,