Philosophy of religion is the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the claims of religion using the tools of philosophy. It draws on a number of distinct areas of philosophy, including epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Maratreanism
is deeply interested in the philosophy of religion, as supplying tools
with which to better understand and to demonstrate its truth.
Philosophy of religion is distinct from but related to theology.
The difference is that theology starts from a position of assuming a
certain religion is true, and then seeks to reason from there.
Philosophy of religion, by contrast, does not assume the truth of any
particular religion, but aims to restrict itself to assumptions which
can be agreed upon by people of any religion or none, and then seeks to
analyse and evaluate religious beliefs from that basis. However, the two
disciplines overlap in the area of natural theology, which refers to
attempts to demonstrate the truth of particular religious doctrines from
a neutral basis.
Some of the major questions addressed by philosophy of religion include:
- Does God (or gods) exist?
- Is the concept of 'God' coherent?
- Are any of the various philosophical arguments which have been proposed to prove the existence of God valid?
- Is a life after death possible? And if so, are there any good reasons to believe there is one?
- Is religious faith valid?
- Can religious doctrines properly be considered basic beliefs, as argued for instance by Alvin Plantinga?
- Is it permissible to believe in religious doctrines on the basis of pragmatic considerations? (Pascal's wager, William James' will to believe)
- Can ethics be defined in terms of God's nature or commands, and are there any logical problems in such a definition?
- Are the specific doctrines of various religions, such as the Christian Trinity, coherent?
God
The term god is used in two different senses:
- in lower case, god, it refers to a deity, most commonly a male
deity specifically, but also sometimes in a way which is inclusive of
female deities (goddesses) or neuter deities also
- in upper case, God, it refers to the one single god believed in by some forms of monotheism
- or, other forms of monotheism would prefer to speak of an ultimate
deity of which the other deities are somehow reflections.
Equivalently to this sense, the female form is Goddess
Maratreanism
believes in the existence of the Goddess Maratrea. Although the central
vessel of Maratreanism prefers to see the divine as female, it does not
object to those who prefer to perceive it as male; thus she is also he,
and Goddess is also God. Indeed, in certain of the auxiliary ecclesia,
the deity is conceived as male rather than female.
"Classical theism" (the main view of traditional
Christianity/Judaism/Islam) believes that the deity has certain
attributes. Maratreanism sees things rather differently:
- omniscience, meaning knowing everything.
Frequently interpreted as having infinite knowledge. Maratreanism
insists that the deity knows only finitely many things, yet nonetheless
knows all that anyone knows and can know, and whatever the deity knows
not is known by none and can be known by none and is not that it might
be known.
- omnipresence, meaning present everywhere.
According to Maratreanism, the fulness of the divine is not by its
nature present anywhere in particular, but it can cause itself to be
present whenever and wherever it wishes. Of course, all minds are of one
essence with the divine, yet a diminutive expression of that essence -
thus, in a sense, the divine is present everywhere - in all minds, in
all their experiences, and in all the patterns in their experiences.
However, in the fullest sense, the divine is present only in itself, and
present to those who are not fully itself only when it so wishes to be.
- omnipotence, meaning all powerful.
Frequently interpreted as having infinite power. Maratreanism insists
that the deity can do only finitely many things, yet nonetheless can do
anything that anyone does and can do, and whatever the deity cannot do
is done by none and can be done by none and is not that it might be
done. To refute arguments such as "Can Maratrea create a rock so heavy
she cannot lift it?" or "Can Maratrea create a square circle", or "I can
do something Maratrea can't do, I can prove this sentence true", let us
specify that we are concerned with distinct real acts which the deity might do, or distinct real powers
that a deity might have, not acts or powers which differ purely
linguistically or indexically, or acts or powers which don't actually
exist.
Monotheism
Monotheism — belief in only one god. Related but distinct are monolatrism — other gods exist, but only mine is worthy of being worshipped; henotheism
— other gods exist, and those gods may be the right god for others to
worship, but my god is the only right god for me to worship; and
kathenotheism — worshipping only one god at a time (on Mondays we
worship the Great Lord Morris, Morris and Morris alone!)
There is a distinction between inclusive monotheism and exclusive monotheism.
Inclusive monotheists believe in one ultimate deity, but they are
willing to accept many different gods as being different names, forms,
aspects, emanantions, representatives, servants, etc., of this one
ultimate deity. Inclusive monotheism is compatible with polytheism;
worship of many different gods is seen as a way of worshipping the one
God indirectly. By contrast, exclusive monotheists believe that all gods
other than their own are false gods, either non-existent, or demons
masquerading as Gods, or so on. The worship of other deities is seen as
sinful. Historically, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have adopted the
exclusive monotheist position; the majority today still are exclusive
monotheists, but some liberal Christians have turned to inclusive
monotheism instead.
Arguments for the existence of God
Philosophers have proposed many arguments for the existence of God over the centuries and millennia. Maratreanism generally does not try to prove the existence of Maratrea
using any of the above arguments. It does not consider them to be
particularly convincing, or to represent a particularly useful approach.
- cosmological argument: the argument that the universe
needs a cause, which we call God. The universe is argued to be the kind
of entity which is not sufficient to explain its own existence, some
external explanation is necessary. Historically, the major objection has
been the idea of an infinite regress of causes (in a beginningless
universe), obviating the need for any first cause. Thus, most variants
of this argument involve attacking the rationality of the idea of an
infinite regress of causes, and proposing the idea of a first uncaused
cause (God) as superior. Variants include:
- the argument in fieri - an in fieri cause, causes
something to come into existence, to begin existing, but which after its
commencement can continue to exist independently of that cause. Thus, a
builder is needed to build a house, but once built the house will stand
without the builder's intervention. So, God is argued to be necessary
to explain the beginning of the universe's existence (creation), but
after that initial creation the universe can sustain itself in
existence.
- the argument in esse - an in esse cause, causes
something to remain in existence, to be existing, without the continue
presence of which that thing would cease to exist. A fire requires the
continued presence of air and fuel, the withdrawal of which will cause
the fire to cease. So, God is argued to be necessary to explain the
sustaining of the universe in existence. Whereas in fieri causation is generally temporal (the cause comes before the effect), in esse causation is atemporal (the cause and the effect are simultaneous). It is argued that, even if an infinite regress of in fieri causes is coherent, an infinite regress of in esse causes is not.
- the argument from contingency draws a distinction between necessary beings (beings which must exist due to their very nature) and contingent
beings (beings which might or might not exist). It is argued that the
universe is a contingent being - it could have been other than it is, or
it might not have existed at all. Contingent beings cannot explain
their own existence, only necessary beings can do that. Thus, it order
to explain the existence of the universe, there must exist a necessary
being which created it (God).
- the kalam argument originates in mediaeval Islamic theology, but in modern times has been popularised in Christian circles (especially by William Lane Craig).
It is based on the principle that whatever begins to exist must have a
cause. The universe began to exist, so it must have a cause external to
itself (God); whereas God does not need a cause, since God never began
to exist.
- teleological argument (or argument from design):
unlike the cosmological argument, which seeks to prove the existence of
God based on the bare fact of the universe's existence, the teleological
argument points to certain perceived features of reality - the
intricate balance of biological systems, the precisely tuned nature of
the laws of physics - to point to the existence of a designer (God).
- some of the earliest versions of this argument focused on evidence of design in biological systems. William Paley
compared the eye to a watch - we believe a watch must have an
intelligent designer, due to its complexity and precise arrangement of
parts necessary for it to function; yet the same traits exist in
biological systems, to an even greater extent - thus biological systems
must have a designer also. The widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution lead to a reduction in this variant of the argument for a while, although it has more recently been revived by the Intelligent Design movement as an alternative to evolutionary theory
- a more recent version is the argument from the fine tuning,
which points to the very precise values various constants in the laws
of physics have; if they had even slightly different values, life would
be impossible. It is argued that such precisely tuned values could not
have been explained by chance, and there must have been an intelligent
designer (God) who chose them in such a way so as to make life possible
- ontological argument: this argument bases itself on the concept of God
itself. It argues that the concept of God includes the idea of God's
existence in such a way that from mere consideration of that concept we
can rationally conclude that God must exist. The most famous variant is
that of Anselm,
who argued that God is defined as the most perfect being imaginable;
but an existent God would be more perfect than a non-existent God, thus
to be true to his own definition, God must exist. Descartes'
variant does not refer to perfection, but argues that since the concept
of God clearly contains the idea of necessary existence, it follows
that God must possess necessary existence, and thus must exist. Kurt Gödel attempted to base an ontological argument on modal logic; others have followed in his footsteps (such as Alvin Plantinga), although their arguments differ in details
- moral argument: the existence of God is necessary for
morality to be possible. We ought to believe in whatever is necessary
for morality. Hence, we ought to believe in God. If we ought to believe
in something, it must be true. Hence God must exist.
- argument from religious experience: many people, whether
mystics or ordinary religious believers, have claimed to have
experienced God directly in religious experience. This is sufficient
evidence to believe in the existence of God, just as the visual
experience of a tree is sufficient evidence to believe in the existence
of that tree.
- argument from degree: for every property that exists in
varying degrees, there must exist an object which has that property in
the greatest possible degree. Hence there must exist a being which
possesses every property in the maximal possible degree, which is God.
- argument from miracles: There exists reliable
testimonies of miracles (such as in the Bible). Thus, we can conclude
these miracles occurred. The most reasonable explanation of the occurrence of these miracles is that God exists to cause them. Hence, we
can conclude that God exists.
- argument from beauty: the experience of beauty leads
inevitably to the conclusion that beauty somehow transcends material
existence. Atheistic materialism cannot explain this experience, other
than to reject it as fallacious. Theism can explain this experience, in
that beauty is an aspect of God, and the beauties of this world are
imperfect reflections of the perfect divine beauty. Hence the experience
of beauty supports belief in God rather than atheism.
- argument from consciousness: Human consciousness cannot
be fully explained by scientific materialism. The existence of God can
more fully explain human conscious. Thus, from the existence of human
consciousness, we should conclude that God exists, as the best
explanation of its existence.
- argument from reason: Atheistic materialism cannot
justify the validity of reason; yet atheistic materialism depends on
reason for its own justification, thus atheistic materialism is
self-defeating. But if God exists, then the validity of reason is
justified. Thus belief in God is rationally preferable to atheistic
materialism.
- argument from desire: whatever we desire, there exists
some object which can fulfill that desire. Yet there exist desires in
human beings which cannot be fulfilled by anything in this material
universe. Thus, there must exist something beyond this material universe
that can fulfill those desires, and that something is God.
- Christological argument: the life and person of Jesus
Christ constitutes proof of the existence of God, as God's
self-revelation to humanity. Different variants of this aspect point to
different aspects of Jesus' life and person for their justification: his
great wisdom, his claims to divinity, his proof of those claims through
his miracles, especially his resurrection.
- argument from love: Many who have experienced love agree
that there is something about it which is inherently non-material.
Materialist atheism cannot explain this experience except by declaring
it to be non-veridical. Theism can explain this experience, since God is
immaterial, love is a major attribute of God, and non-divine love is an
imperfect reflection of the perfection of divine love. Hence, we should
believe in God as the best explanation for our own experience of love.
- trademark argument: due to Descartes, the only reasonable explanation for the idea of God is that God exists to cause us to have this idea.
- transcendental argument: Knowledge, science, reason and
morality are only possible if God exists. Thus, to deny God's existence
is self-defeating and self-contradictory, since in denying his existence
you are making use of those faculties which can only exist due to his
existence. Thus, God must exist. Well-known proponents of this argument
include Immanuel Kant and Cornelius Van Til.
- pragmatic argument: we will be happier and live better
and more fulfilling lives in we believe in God, therefore we ought to
believe in God. Related to this is Pascal's wager
- if God exists and we don't believe in him, we may be punished
eternally, whereas if he exists and we believe in him, we may be
eternally rewarded. Since the payoff for believing in him when he exists
in infinite, and the downside for not believing in him when he exists
is also infinite, we ought to believe in God - if our belief is wrong
and he does not exist, we have not lost much (at the most, we might have
avoided certain pleasures in life out of the belief that they offended
God).
Argument from design
Argument from design - a proposed argument for the existence of God.
One particular variant of it is the argument from the fine-tuning
of physical constants. This argument fails for the following reasons:
- It bifurcates the laws of physics into constants and the equations
into which those constants are placed. It asks us to consider what
would happen were the constants changed but the equations stayed the
same. But what if we permitted the equations to change also? Then we
must admit we have no idea. Even if it is clear that the current
equations with different constants cannot produce life, completely
different equations (and constants) might still be life-producing. We do
not know enough about mathematical physics to say, and may well never.
This bifurcation of the laws of physics into constants and equations is
more likely an artifact of the human mind's attempt to understand the
cosmos than a fundamental property of reality itself
- The argument wants us to conclude that it is highly unlikely
that a life-producing set of physical constants could be arrived at by
chance. But, how do we ascribe probabilities to sets of possible
physical constants? Are they all supposed to be equally likely? Or are
some more likely than others? Given these constants are real numbers,
and therefore there are infinitely many possible values of them, how
does one pick an element at random from an infinite set? What is the
probability of picking one such element? And it gets even worse if we
reject the bifurcation of the laws of physics into constants and
equations -- what is the probability of a particular equation being part
of the laws of physics? To speak of probabilities here seems to be just
abusing the concept of probability in a situation in which it is
meaningless.
Now, if we assume some kind of multiverse theory, then speaking of
probabilities of physical constants having certain values, or of certain
equations being part of the laws of physics, might have some meaning --
we could look to the distribution of those constant values or laws in
different universes across the multiverse to define their probability.
But, supporters of the argument from fine-tuning cannot turn to these
considerations to make their argument coherent, since if there is such a
multiverse then there is no need for the God they are seeking to prove
either.
|