Faith & Reason Test Study Guide

 

By: Adam C. Parker

Instructor: Dr. David Reiter

Class: Faith and Reason

Test Date: March 7th, 2004

 

Explain And Thoughtfully Evaluate Craig’s 1st argument for “The Universe Had a Beginning.”

  1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
  2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
  3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

 

My evaluation: I find Craig’s argument compelling, as well as difficult to attempt to maneuver or escape.

 

EATE William Lane Craig’s 2nd argument for “The Universe Had a Beginning.”

  1. If there were an infinite number of days prior to today, then today would never arrive.
  2. Today has arrived.
  3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days prior to today.

 

My evaluation: Very similar to the first argument, I think that the argument is valid.  One could attempt to attack the first premise, possibly arguing for a type of circular movement of time (oscillating model?).  However, just because someone could raise an objection does not make an argument invalid.  I personally see no way to penetrate this argument, unless I chose to slip into illogical and silly sophistry.  (Perhaps today has not yet arrived…)

 

Be generally familiar with Paley’s argument from design:

  1. The eye is similar to the watch.
  2. The watch is designed.
  3. Therefore, the eye is designed.

 

Thoughtfully evaluate Hume’s critique of the design argument:

Hume gave five points of critique against thinking like Paley’s:

  1. This reasoning cannot infer an infinite deity, because the effects are finite.
  2. This reasoning cannot infer a perfect deity, because theeffects are imperfect.
  3. This reasoning cannot infer a single (unified) deity.
  4. In general, this reasoning is extremely speculative and tenuous!
  5. Why not reason that the designer is corporeal and finite?

 

My evaluation: I hate to say it, but Hume is right!  How can we, when presented with the complexity of the universe simply cry “God”?  It is overly presumptuous as well as difficult to dissect, philosophically.  Though I agree with Paley’s argument, his means of getting to his conclusion is a bit hasty and over-eager.

 

Be familiar with the last three paragraphs of the Dawkins reading:

“An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design.  All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one…’ although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

 

EATE Michael Denton’s position with regard to design and evolution:

Denton’s position: Over the past twenty years, the molecular biological revolution has invalidated Hume’s criticism.  Also, Denton says that the inference made by Intelligent Design theorists is “a purely a posteriori induction based on the ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy.”  Also, he believes that the design conclusion “may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”

 

My evaluation:  One could possibly see a weakness in this statement, that the design conclusion does not depend on religious presuppositions.  If one does not have anything “religious” to prove or to discover, or even to disprove, then what is one’s motive for examining the intelligent design theory?  I think that we have religious presuppositions one way or another: no one is ever neutral on this issue.

 

EATE Robin Collins’ fine-tuning argument (also, many-universe hypothesis):

  1. F = “Universe is fine-tuned for life”
  2. T = “God exists”
  3. ASU = “Atheistic Single-Universe” hypothesis
  4. Probability of F/T is much higher than the probability of ASU/T
  5. Therefore, F is evidence for T rather than ASU.

 

Many-universe:

-AMU = “There are a very large – perhaps infinite – number of universes, with the fundamental parameters of physics varying from universe to universe.”

-Compare: Probability of F/T and Probability of F/AMU.

 

Two models for AMU:

o       Vacuum fluctuation model: “our universe, along with these other universes, were generated by quantum fluctuations in a pre-existing super-space.”  A type of ‘ocean’ upon which our universe is a type of ‘soap-bubble’.

o       Oscillating Big Bang: “our universe will eventually collapse back in on itself…and then from that…will arise another ‘Big Bang’, forming a new universe, which will in turn itself collapse, and so on.

 

Collins’ three reasons for rejection of AMU:

  1. We should prefer hypotheses for which we have independent evidence or that are natural extrapolations from what we already know.
  2. “The ‘many-universe generator’ seems like it would need to be designed.”
  3. “It cannot explain other features of the universe that seem to exhibit apparent design, whereas theism can.”  For example, the laws of physics.

 

My evaluation:  I find it ironic that some are so willing to adopt the oscillating universe model when the universe shows no signs of slowing down.  These same individuals (naturalists, generally) are, by this thinking, adopting an unscientific view of the world, which is quite opposite to their own axiom that observable nature is all that is.  Whenever I hear the oscillating model presented, I chuckle to myself from the inconsistency.

 

Provide a thoughtful summary of your own position on the ‘intelligent design theory’:

I think that, taken in and of itself, the ID theory, when restricted in its range and goals, is absolutely correct.  Philosophically, it may not be the place of the ID movement to tell us what/who/why the intelligent agent behind the design of the universe is, but that is not its place.  The ID movement is there, from my perspective, to show naturalists that they have many issues, empirically speaking, which should keep them from being comfortable with their goal of autonomy in nature.  Personally, I would not hesitate to use the arguments of Behe, Denton, Dembski, and the like, so long as my arguments did not rest solely upon their findings.

 

Provide a thoughtful summary of your own position on Darwinian evolution:

Darwin was philosophically motivated to develop his theory of evolution, just as we all are in our own theories.  The problem is that only Truth has the facts completely on It’s side.  Because of that, Darwinian evolution is flawed, both philosophically and empirically.  From a philosophical standpoint, Darwinian evolution cannot and has not explained the first appearance of life, but simply assumes it.  Empirically, the theory has not had the sufficient fossil evidence that Darwin believed would be found in the many years following his own development of his philosophy/theory.

 

Explain the Euthyphro dilemma and how it is supposed to represent a challenge to the Divine Command theory of ethics.

Two options.  Either:

A: God commands x because x is right

Or

B: x is right because God commands x

 

 

How does Robert M. Adams attempt to solve the Euthyphro problem?  Do you think he is successful?:

Adam’s attempt: Modified DCT = moral rightness and wrongness is determined by the commands and prohibitions of a loving God.

 

Robert M. Adams claims that the most adequate explanation of right/wrong is the agreement or disagreement with the commands of God.  What are some other explanations of the nature of right/wrong?  Is God’s will more adequate?

Adams’ argument: “I believe that the most adequate answer is provided by a theory that entails the existence of God – specifically, by the theory that moral rightness and wrongness consist in agreement and disagreement, respectively, with the will or commands of a loving God.  One of the most generally accepted reasons for believing in the existence of anything is that its existence is implied by the theory that seems to account most adequately for some subject.”

 

Explain William Alston’s overall argument in “Perceiving God”:

If a person believes that God has presented Himself to them, then that person has prima facie justification for believing that they have had a religious encounter with God.  This experience is subject to other more evidence which may lead to the contrary, however, hence the “prima facie.”

 

In what ways is religious experience like sensory experience?

Sensory experience is relayed to us through our minds, just as a religious experience.  A genuine religious experience may not originate in our minds but instead involve action from an outside source, just as physical sensory experience.  In some ways, we must have faith in our senses just as we have faith that God is presenting Himself to us.

 

In what ways is religious experience unlike sensory experience?

Sensory experience is confirmed by more than just one sense, whereas most occurrence of religious experience involve an internal faculty that cannot be independently confirmed.  Though this is not always the determining factor of the truth of something, it does give the individual more certainty when multiple senses are involved.  Also, it is common to suggest that if an event really occurs, it should be possible for witnesses to confirm that the event did, in fact, take place.  So far as the internal element of a religious experience is concerned, this is simply not possible, as religious experiences take place in a personal, almost subjective context.

 

What do you consider to be the most powerful objection to the veridicality of religious experience?  Can ordinary sensory experience overcome this sort of objection?

I consider the most difficult challenge to be that of uncertainty.  Without outside testing, measurement, witness confirmation, or some type of proving that God actually presented Himself, we can not be certain that God did present Himself in a given situation.

However, I do not believe that sensory experience has “a leg up” so to speak.  Our sensory experience could all be fraud, just as the religious experience.  The only advantage that I see our sensory experience having is that it usually occurs through multiple channels.  For example: I can smell the meatloaf, I can touch the meatloaf, I can taste the meatloaf, and I can see the meatloaf.  It is much more difficult to prove that God presented Himself to me than to prove that the meatloaf is there.

 

Explain And Thoughtfully Evaluate Plantinga’s “naturalism is self-refuting argument”:

Plantinga’s argument essentially attacks the reliability of our cognitive faculties.  Whereas a Christian believes that God gives us reliable faculties, viz. Descartes, the naturalist, by Plantinga’s estimation, has developed his cognition via a system that was never intended to ascertain truth, but rather, to effectively self-preserve.

Plantinga’s argument: The probability of Reliable faculties in light of Naturalism are either inscrutable or relatively low.  The naturalist has a less than 50% chance of having reliable truth-knowing faculties.  Thus, naturalism is it’s own defeater, whenever logic or truth is employed.

 

My Evaluation:  The argument is brilliant, thoughtful, and insightful.  My only problem is somewhat minor, and that is the way that Plantinga estimates R/N.  It seems difficult from a scientific perspective to ascertain the actual probability of something evolving or being reliable.  I don’t think this problem is fatal to the argument, however, because no matter the probability, certainty has been lost for the naturalist, and I think that is the most important focus for Plantinga.  

 

 

Adam C. Parker is a philosophy student at Grand Canyon University, in Phoenix, AZ.  He can be contacted at: adamc.parker@gmail.com