MSP 1 Wednesday Classes.
Tutor: Howard Taylor (University Chaplain)
Also teaches here:
– 1/2 of MSP 2, 1/3 of MSP 3.
– Philosophy of Science and Religion.
– Takes Sunday Campus service. Term time only.
Also Visiting lecturer:
• `International Christian College’.
• Edinburgh University Open Learning Department.
Previously:
– Parish Minister in West of Scotland - 17 years.
– Author of several small books/booklets.
– 16 years in Malawi, Africa:
• Minister, Theology lecturer, African Language teacher.
• Maths and Physics lecturer: University of Malawi.
– Graduate of: Nottingham, Edinburgh and Aberdeen Universities.
• Married with three grown up sons and two grandsons and two
granddaughters.
Three main Subjects for MSP1 - Wednesday Classes
1. Arguments for and against belief in
God
–
–
–
–
Do we need an argument?
Can there be arguments against belief in God?
Fundamental Mysteries.
World Views - Atheism, Deism, Pantheism, Theism,
Christian Theism.
– Three arguments and another:
1. Cosmological Argument - for and against.
2. Design or Teleological Argument - for and against.
3. Argument from religious/spiritual experience - for
and against.
4. The argument from the objective reality of morality
- which is the second subject for MSP1
Three main Subjects - continued for MSP1 (Wednesdays)
The Case for the Objective
Validity of Morality.
2.
Subjectivist and Objectivist Ethics.
C. S. Lewis’s argument for the objective
validity of morality.
Nietzche rejects morality’s objective
validity.
Three main subjects for MSP1 (Wednesday classes)
3. The Problem of Evil:
– for the atheist;
• Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
– for the theist;
• Theism is the belief that God exists.
– for the pantheist;
• Pantheism is the belief that everything is
part of God - God being the spiritual
dimension of the physical world.
Recommended reading:
• Questions that Matter. Ed Miller.
– Pages: 222 - 333, 43 - 44.
• Philosophy: Popkin and Stroll.
– Pages: 204- 210, 176 - 194, 52-54, 25-30.
• Mere Christianity: C. S. Lewis.
• Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a
Philosophy of the Future…: Nietzche.
• The tutor does his best to be fair to all views religious and non-religious.
• However in the interests of honesty he will
explain what he believes.
• Although the tutor has his own religious
convictions, the assessment of essays and
tutorials will not be affected by a student's
own different convictions.
• Knowledge of the subject and good argument
are all important for assessment.
• Holding the same beliefs as, or different
beliefs from, the tutor will not be relevant for
module assessment.
Argument in favour of materialism.
Science has successfully answered
many questions about the world.
One day it will be able to answer all
questions.
Question: Are the mysteries getting
less or more?
Leibniz’s argument against materialism.
Thoughts cannot be material.
Thoughts affect the physical world.
Therefore the physical world needs more than physical
science to understand it’s behaviour.
Why are thoughts not material?
Leibniz’s mill or mountain.
Physical processes just exist – they are not true or false.
Thoughts are true or false.
Therefore thoughts are not just material. (See Bertrand Russell
quote in next slide.)
But thoughts do affect the physical world. Therefore the behaviour
of the physical world cannot be fully understood by physical
science.
If we imagine a world of mere matter, there
would be no room for falsehood in such a
world, and although it would contain what may
be called ‘facts’, it would not contain any
truths, in the sense in which truths are things of
the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and
falsehood are properties of beliefs and
statements: hence a world of mere matter,
since it would contain no beliefs or statements,
would also contain no truth or falsehood.
(Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, page 70.)
Arguments for and against
belief in God - Introduction 1.
 These are not the same as arguments for or
against the Bible being true.
 However if we did have evidence for the truth
of the Bible that would be an argument for the
existence of God.
 They are not the same as arguments for or
against the Church (or any religion) having
behaved well and set a good example.
Arguments for and against
belief in God - Introduction 2
• Do we need an argument?
– Augustine:396-430ad(Bishop of Hippo):
• "Thou hast created us for Thyself and our hearts
are restless until they find their rest in Thee."
– Charles and Di:
 Charles: In spite of all the advances of science,
there lies deep in our soul an anxiety that
something is missing - an ingredient that makes
life worth living.
 Di: There is an overwhelming sense of loss and
isolation that undermines people's lives. They
know something is missing.
Arguments for and against
belief in God - Introduction 3
• Do we need an argument? - continued.
• Calvin: (16th century theologian and founder of
the `Reformed branches of Christianity) (QM
page 225)
– "There is within the human mind, and indeed by
natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. … God
himself has implanted in all men a certain
understanding of his divine majesty …. Men one
and all perceive that there is a God and that he is
their maker."
Can there be arguments against the existence of God?
• Consider these two Statements:
• 1. There is a spider in here. 2. There is no spider here.
– Two different types of claim:
• The second implicitly claims that the whole room has
been searched. The first doesn’t make that claim.
• The statement `God does not exist’ claims that all
reality has been investigated - which would seem
impossible.
• Some believers in God do claim that whole of nature
declares the the existence and glory of God. (Psalm
19)
– Some say the existence of evil shows there is no God.
(We consider this later in the module.)
– There are arguments against the arguments for the
existence of God.
Interlude: The Big Bang
• Not the theory that there was an explosion of
hydrogen gas!
– There was no hydrogen gas; no laws of physics (as
presently understood); no space-time.
– It is thought these came from the Big-Bang.
– It seemed like an explosion out of nothing!
– Therefore many saw the Big Bang theory as a
confirmation of the Biblical statement that the universe
had a beginning and is not eternal.
• Gen 1:1 `In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth.’
– However it isn’t as simple as that.
• This is covered in more detail in my module:
Philosophy of Science and Religion.
The mystery of existence.
• Why do matter and energy exist? - where did they come from?
• Scientific theories about the origin of the universe have to assume
the initial existence of some kind of energy/law of nature. (Eg:
Wave function of the Universe - Stephen Hawking’s phrase)
– leading to matter/space-time/laws of physics in the big bang.
• But scientific theories cannot explain how the initial energy/laws
of nature came to exist or why they exist or did exist.
• If God exists why does He exist? Was He created?
• Whether or not God exists we are face to face with the
mystery:Why does anything exist at all?
– Stephen Hawking:`Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?’
– JJC Smart (atheist philosopher): Why should anything exist at
all? - it is for me a matter of the deepest awe.
– See Handout re Quentin Smith (atheist philosopher)’s comments.
The Mystery of existence - cont.
Some believe the questions:
'What is life?'
'What is consciousness?’ and related to
it:
‘What is my self that only I experience and
know?
 also give rise to fundamental mysteries.
Fundamental Mysteries - cont.
If science could, one day, fully examine my brain,
would the scientist know what I am thinking
about?
If not, then my mind must be more than my
physical brain.
My mind affects my behaviour - therefore it is
real.
So we have something that it real but is not
subject to scientific investigation.
The Mystery of Existence - cont..
Most believe that:
‘goodness’, ‘morality’, ‘beauty’ and our sense of ‘ought’
are not just the result of our subjective feelings but are
objective realities.
 Goodness, morality, beauty:
 do have a real effect on the physical world - they effect our
behaviour.
(They therefore are real.)
 But they are not open to scientific investigation - (science
examines the physical universe),
 Many conclude that there must be more to reality than
the mere physical existence that science examines.
World Views:
• 1. Atheistic Materialism:
– There is nothing spiritual - no god, spirit or human soul.
– Impersonal matter/energy/physical laws (in one form or
another) are the basis of all that exist - the whole story.
• They are eternal
• They have developed into the universe including all its life
and human life and personal human minds.
– In principle the human person, including his/her appreciation
of beauty, right and wrong, could, in the future, be understood
entirely by physics.
• A complete understanding of the human person could, in
future, come from a study of impersonal physical
laws/matter/energy which make up his physical body/brain
and environment. See quotation from Francis Crick on next
slide.
World Views: Atheistic Materialism
continued.
Francis Crick: “You, your joys and your
sorrows, your memories and your
ambitions, your sense of personal identity
and free will, are in fact no more that the
behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells
and their associated molecules.” (The
Astonishing Hypothesis page 3)
World Views:
2. Deism: God is entirely transcendent - out there, not in here.
– God created the universe with its physical laws and now leaves
it to run its course.
– There is no continuing relation between God and the physical
universe.
– God is not relevant to our physical lives.
3. Pantheism `God’ is immanent - in here, not out there.
– There is no Creator God distinct from the universe.
– `God’ is the spiritual dimension of the physical universe.
– God is impersonal.
• We tune into God rather than pray to Him personally.
• We may pray to spirits but not to God.
– All things are sacred in their own right.
– The physical/spiritual universe is eternal.
World Views:
4. Theism - God is both transcendent and
immanent
– He is distinct from the physical world but He is
with and `in’ all things.
– He alone is eternal.
– He created matter/energy/laws of physics.
– He holds all things in being.
– He is personal Mind.
– Some believe that we may know Him
personally.
World Views:
5. Christian Theism. As well as the theism already
outlined:
• God is love.
• He does not remain distant from our sin and
suffering.
• He stoops to the human level, and bears sin, pain and
human death for us. (The Cross)
• He lifts us up back to where we belong, forgiving us
all our sin. (The Resurrection)
• Although this is seen in Jesus, it is a process that
occurs throughout history - that is what the Bible is
about.
• Judgement, new Creation and eternal life are realities.
• There our true destiny is fulfilled.
Cosmological Argument.
 A simple form of the argument:
 The Universe cannot just have popped into existence
from nowhere.
 Therefore there must be a God who created it.
 Another simple form:
– Which is the most likely cause of a finite universe?
• Nothing acting on nothing -> finite universe.
• Infinite God acting on nothing -> finite universe.
– Romans 1:20:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his
eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without
excuse. (NIV)
Cosmological Argument - cont.
– Another form of same argument:
•
•
•
•
There is a universe.
It could not cause itself.
It could not come from nothing.
It could not be an effect of an infinite series of
causes.
• Therefore it must be caused by something that is
uncaused and everlasting.
• Therefore God exists.
– Yet another form:
• The universe is contingent and therefore it
depends ultimately on something that is
uncaused.
Cosmological Argument - cont.
• Does this argument depend on the universe
having a beginning?
– Thomas Aquinas (13th Century - born in Naples)
• believed that this argument would be valid even
for an infinite universe.
• God the cause for all events:
God
Time line
 --------------------------------------------------------- 
– However Thomas believed the case would be even
more convincing if the universe had a beginning.
Cosmological Argument - cont.
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
– The Universe must have had a beginning and
therefore must have had a cause.
– God ------time line -----------------------– (Kalam was a word used for a kind of Islamic philosophy and
means `speech’ in Arabic)
Some have argued that the universe must have had a
beginning otherwise we are left with the belief that
there would be an infinite time before anything would
happen and therefore nothing would happen!
Cosmological Argument - cont.
• In response to the Cosmological Argument some
say:
– the Universe is just brute fact and its existence is
ultimately unintelligible.
– There is no explanation for its existence - it just
exists.
– It is not worth asking why it exists.
– It just does.
• Before we look at other arguments against it, we consider the
other main argument for the existence of God that starts with
our experience of the universe.
Teleological or Design Argument.
• Unlike the Cosmological Argument this is
not based on the mere existence of the
universe but the properties of the
universe.
• The universe not only exists but seems
very well designed.
• It seems at least as if it must have a
purpose. (the meaning of teleology).
• Does not this mean it had/has a
purposeful Designer?
Teleological/Design Argument (Cont)
• Paley's Watch.
– Willaim Paley said:
• If we find a watch with all its parts fitted together we will
not assume that it was brought into being by the blind
forces of nature but by an intelligent designer.
• The eye is extremely complex therefore it was made by an
intelligent designer - God.
– Darwin’s theory of evolution weakened Paley’s argument:
• It claimed to explain how natural processes alone gradually
transform the simple to the complex by random mutation
through the sieve of `natural selection’ or `survival of fittest’.
• However many now doubt whether living things can be
reduced to a combination of simple things. They say that all
living things are irreducibly complex. They side with Paley.
– The argument continues - eg Dawkins and Behe.
Teleological/Design Argument (Cont)
• The environment suits us not because of a Designer but because
we gradually adapted to the environment.
• However some argue that in order for any life to exist the earth
and the whole universe must be very special.
• Some say the design argument still does have force because the
whole universe is ordered. We have reliable laws of nature :
– These laws of nature are very finely tuned:
• If any of them were different by a very tiny fraction, no
stars (such as our sun) nor any solid object could exist.
• Some reply that there may be many other universes and
so we should not be surprised that one exists where the
balance is right.
• This ‘Many Universes’ hypothesis is not a response to the
Cosmological Argument but only Design argument.
• At present it is not science but speculation.
Bertrand Russell (famous 20th C British agnostic/atheist
mathematician/philosopher greatly respected the argument
from design especially as expounded by Leibniz. (He regarded
Leibniz, in whom he specialised, as "one of the supreme
intellects of all time")
BR writes: "This argument contends that, on a survey of the
known world, we find things which cannot plausibly be
explained as the product of blind natural forces, but are much
more reasonably to be regarded as evidences of a beneficent
purpose.”
He regards this familiar argument as having “no formal logical
defect".
He rightly points out that it does not prove the infinite or good
God of normal religious belief but nevertheless says, that “if
valid,” (and BR does not give any argument against it) “it
demonstrates that God is vastly wiser and more powerful than
we are".
(See his chapter on Leibniz in his History of Western Philosophy).
More arguments against Cosmological
and Design arguments.
 What caused God?
 There must be something without a
cause. Why not say the universe is
this thing?
 Just because individual things in the
universe need an explanation that
does not mean that the universe as a
whole needs explanation.
David Hume (1711-1776) against the
Cosmological and Design Arguments.
• God's supposed causing of the universe to exist cannot find an
analogy of causes in nature because we have no experience of
things beyond nature and the alleged creation would be so
unique an event that there is nothing to compare it with. This
means we cannot speak of causation or design from the things
of our experience and apply them to the origin of the
universe.
• However some believe that in his famous book: `Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion’, Hume was really arguing with
himself.
• In the book Cleanthes supports the Design argument and
Philo is against it.
• Whose side was Hume really on? Was he unsure?
More arguments against Cosmological and Design
arguments
 Would we not perceive the universe to be ordered
even if it wasn't?
 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) believed that human
minds impose their own order on the universe.
 We cannot get beyond our minds and know that nature
really is ordered or that effects really must have causes.
 (Very few scientists take this Kantian view of their
work.)
 He therefore rejected the Design and Cosmological
arguments for the existence of God.
 However he did believe in God but for another reason.
 - the reason commonly called the `moral argument’.
The argument from religious experience.
– Non rational argument (not irrational)
– Based on experience of `the other' `the holy'.
– Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) and the sense of
the `Numinous’.
• Three aspects of the sense of the numinous:
–Wholly Other
–Dread in the presence of the Holy.
–Mercy, Grace, love.
 Religious experience includes such specific
experiences as:
 the deep questionings that come from the wonder
of the greatness (and infinity?) of the cosmos
 sense of awe & mystery in the presence of the
holy
 feelings of dependence on a Divine power
 the sense of guilt and anxiety accompanying
belief in a divine righteousness and/or judgement
 the feeling of peace that follows faith in Divine
forgiveness.
 Near Death experiences - considered a few slides
on.
• Is religious experience evidence for the
existence of God?
–It is for the one who has the
experience.
–See William Rees Mogg’s Times article
(2.9.2000) and following letters.
The argument from religious experience (cont)
Some reject the religious experience
argument saying:
 The religious experience is private and
therefore cannot be verified.
 Religious experience and belief are
caused by physical effects in the brain:
(Medical Materialism).
 If that were true then all beliefs
(including atheist beliefs) would be
invalidated.
The argument from religious experience (cont)
 Susan Greenfield’s studies on the brain show
where religious feelings are located and how they
can be induced.
 But feelings of pain - in the arm (say) - also can
be artificially induced.
 Does that invalidate external influences on
the arm as the cause of pain?
 Of course not! Pains in the arm typically are
caused by the arm being hit or knocked by
something. The brain state of `pain in the arm’
is not normally the whole story.
Are religious brain states the whole story? - that is the
question.
The argument from religious experience (cont).
• A significant number of people who recovered from the gates
of death - heart, breathing and brain activity having stopped
- claim to have looked down on their ‘dead’ body and then
travelled to another world before returning to their earthly
body.
• Such a ‘Near Death Experience’ (NDE) could be shown to be
valid if the person experiencing it were able to learn
something about the state of the hospital room (say) that
he/she could not have known from the position of the body.
– This has been claimed many times especially in medical
research done in the Cardiac departments of some Dutch
hospitals.
– An impressive report of scientific findings was given at the
2003 Edinburgh Science Festival.
Participants and speakers at the ‘Out of Body’ ‘Near Death Experience’ (NDE) lecture:
• David Lorimer, Scientific and Medical Network;
• Dr Olaf Blanke, Dept. of Neurosurgery, University
Hospitals of Geneva and Lausanne;
• Dr Pim van Lommel, Consultant Cardiologist,
Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, Netherlands;
• Dr Peter Fenwick, Institute of Psychiatry, University
of London;
• Professor Bob Morris, Koestler Chair of
Parapsychology, University of Edinburgh.
For more on the scientific research see: ‘The Lancet’
December 15th 2001.
Pre-talk publicity said: “Surveys show that ‘out-of-body’ experiences (OBEs)
are not uncommon: between 10% and 15% of populations across the world
have experienced an OBE. [These experiences may or may not be associated
with a near-death experience (NDE).] Approaches to the OBE centre round the
question: does the self or consciousness actually leave the body? Some recent
scientific research in Switzerland indicates that the feeling of leaving the body
can be stimulated experimentally. The researchers propose that the OBE is
simply a distortion of the bodily image arising from stimulation of the reticular
activating system (RAS). So are spontaneous OBEs also illusions due to
temporal lobe activity?
Possibly not. Experiments by Professor Charles Tart in the 1970s showed some
success in out-of-body experiences correctly reporting five digit random
numbers. And confirmed reports from near-death experiencers suggest that they
can accurately recount events that occurred while they were unconscious and
clinically dead. Some OBEs are even reported by patients whose hearts have
stopped. And since it takes just over 10 seconds before all electrical activity in
the brain ceases after the heart has stopped, these reports point to the
possibility that our consciousness may not be entirely dependent on the brain. If
this proves to be the case, then much of neuroscience, psychology and
philosophy will need to be radically rethought.”
Interesting results of research reported at the April
2003 Edinburgh Science Festival.
NDEs are reported by 18% of resuscitated patients often
involving:
• Seeing the old body from above.
• Watching medical procedures
• Seeing beyond the hospital even to distant places where the mind
focussed.
– Such knowledge gained was later verified.
• A review of earlier life including childhood.
• Travelling down a tunnel to a beautiful light where deceased
family members and a religious figure are there to welcome.
• An awesome experience of peace, unconditional love, beauty and
freedom.
Not all experience all of these phases. Many return to their
body after the first one or two stages.
• Attempts have been made to explain these experiences
from the consequences of the body closing down and
starving the brain of oxygen. It is alleged that this
lack of oxygen would produce illusions including an
illusion of light.
• However those addressing the Science Festival said
this could not provide an explanation because:
– The experiences happened when the brain had
become completely inactive.
– The reported sensory experiences (visible,
audible and tangible) were clear and coherent
and could not come from a failing brain.
– People born blind who had never seen anything
report seeing clearly as the experience
progresses.
In answer to questions afterwards we were told:
Previous culture or religious practice are not relevant to
the experience/non-experience of NDE.
• The religious content experienced does not always
correspond with the person’s previous religious
beliefs.
• There was no statistical difference between reports
from religious former West Germany or from nonreligious former East Germany.
– Type of illness/accident, or drugs used in treatment, are
not relevant to the experience/non-experience of NDE.
– NDEs usually (but not always) lead to:
belief in the after life; transformed attitudes to other
people; a belief in purpose for life on earth; a loss of
fear of death.
In answer to my question (asked after the
meeting) I was told:
Typically the person feels that his/her
new life is embodied & clothed.
• The clothes are not those worn in the
hospital bed, but clothes associated
with his/her life when he/she was in
the prime of life.
Near death experiences almost always convince those
who experience them that God exists.
There are some known exceptions e.g.:
• A.J.Ayer, during his middle years was one of the
most famous 20th century atheist philosophers.
– But late in life, he had a `near death’ experience.
• (It was actually an unpleasant version of an NDE)
– In his article `What I saw when I was dead’, he wrote::
"The only memory that I have of an experience, closely
encompassing my death, is very vivid. I was confronted by
a red light, exceedingly bright, and also very painful even
when I turned away from it. I was aware that this light
was responsible for the government of the universe .."
• What kind of response and
evaluation of his experience did A. J.
Ayer make?
"My recent experiences have slightly
weakened my conviction that my
genuine death, which is due fairly
soon, will be the end of me, though I
continue to hope that it will be. They
have not weakened my conviction that
there is no god."
How do we make Moral
Decisions?
Deontological Ethics.
Based on Principles.
Two opposite principles about abortion.
• Roman Catholic View: Killing an unborn foetus is
always wrong.
• Radical Feminist: Abortion is right because a
woman should always have the right to control her
own body.
Some have the principle:
Freedom of Speech should have first priority.
But another person has the principle:
Propagation of Evil should not be allowed.
Problems with Deontological Ethics.
• There are contradictory principles.
– How do decide between two principles?
– From where do we get our principles?
• From nature?
– That assumes that what is in nature is good.
– How do we define nature?
• People’s understanding of nature keeps
changing.
– We should follow our conscience.
• However different people’s consciences tell them to
do different things.
Consequential Ethics. (Teleological Ethics.)
We define what is good by what will have a good
outcome.
Problems with Consequential Ethics.
We do not know the outcome.
The consequences of our own action is
unpredictable.
The consequences of other people’s actions which
impact on our actions are also unpredictable.
We do not know what the consequences will be of
our action in the long term.
Nor can we control the consequences.
Greatest happiness of the greatest number. (Utilitarianism)
•
Add up the happiness in one person and then multiply
the total happiness in the total number of people and
subtract the total pain.
– If the result is positive then the action is good.
– If the result is negative then the action is bad.
•
Problems:
– How do you measure ‘pleasure’ or ‘pain’?
– Pain and Pleasure are not exact opposites.
– How do you protect minorities against the will of
the majority?
Relativism.
• Everything is relative. Nothing is
absolute.
– Is this a relative or absolute statement?
• Relativists do emphasise the principle of
tolerance.
– Therefore relativists do have at least two
absolute principles. (i.e. ‘Everything is
relative’ and ‘We must be tolerant’.)
• Should we tolerate intolerance?
In practice most people use a
combination of each of these principles.
• Deontological Ethics – based on principles.
• Consequential Ethics – based on consequences.
• Utilitarian Ethics – based on the ‘greatest happiness of the
greatest number’.
• Someone who exhibits true goodness we say is a virtuous
person.
• But virtue cannot be measured, exactly defined, or
quantified.
Christian Ethics.
• Not based on measurable principles but on the
Person of God.
• We cannot exactly define ‘personality’. However we
do know when we meet a genuinely good person. (A
person with virtue.)
• Christian goodness and morality is based on the
goodness of the Person of God shown in the Person
of Christ.
The Objective Validity of Morality and
Goodness.
– Objectivist Ethics:
• There is something called goodness
which is independent of us - out there
in the world or revealed by God.
–This action is good - means it
conforms to that goodness.
–This action is bad - means it is in
opposition to that goodness.
• Subjectivist Ethics.
– There is no goodness independent of
us.
– Our idea of goodness comes from:
• Our biology.
• The results of evolution.
– Each individual person OR each
individual society is the criterion for
deciding the difference between good
and evil.
.
A major problem for Subjectivist Ethics:
– How do you settle a dispute about what is good?
– There is nothing to appeal to.
• In 1960, Bertrand Russell wrote:
• 'I cannot see how to refute arguments for the
subjectivity of moral values, but I find myself
incapable of believing that all that is wrong with
wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.'
(Notes on Philosophy, January 1960, Philosophy, 35, 146-147.)
This problem is more graphically illustrated in
the hypothetical example given in the next
slide.
Hitler believed that only some human life is valuable.
He ordered the killing of millions of people,
believing humans of their race have no value at all.
– He felt like it, believed it to be right, and so did
many others.
– Suppose he had won the war, brainwashed or killed
those who disagreed with him,
– so that the remaining human society came to
believe that the genocide was right,
• would that have made it right?
Or is there some objective goodness - independent of a person
or society’s beliefs and feelings - that says it is wrong even
if every person believes it to be right?
Are certain actions intrinsically right or wrong or are right
and wrong merely matters of public opinion?
C. S. Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’ and the ‘Moral Argument’ - this book
was the turning point, from atheism to Christianity, in Francis Collins’
life. (He was the head of the Human Genome project and wrote the
book: ‘The Language of God.’ [DNA is a form of language or code.]
• We have heard people quarrelling.
• They say things like this:
 How'd you like it if ….?
 That's my seat I was in it first.
 Give me a bit of your chocolate,
I gave you some of mine.
 Come on you promised.
• The person who says these things is not
just saying that he doesn't like the
behaviour - rather he is appealing to a
higher standard which he expects the
other person to know about.
• The other person seldom replies: `I
don't believe in fairness, or kindness
or keeping promises.' `I don't believe
in standards of behaviour'.
He will try to say that there is some
special reason why he did what he
did.
 There is another reason why he
should have taken the seat,
 Things were quite different when
he was given the chocolate,
 Something else has turned up to
stop him keeping the promise.
Quarrelling shows that we try to demonstrate that the other
person is in the wrong. He has offended ‘right’ behaviour.
• So some say that everyone instinctively
recognises there is a difference between
right and wrong and does not need to be
taught its basic principles such as fairness,
honesty, kindness, courage etc.
– (They do not mean that there are not some
people who are completely oblivious to
the difference - after all some people are
colour blind and can’t tell green from
blue.)
Others reply and ask: What about
the differences between cultures?
However in no culture do
people regard kindness as
evil, or double crossing
people who have been kind
to one as good, or cowardice
as good.
• There have been, and are, moral
differences between cultures but the differences are not about
whether kindness, fairness,
generosity, honesty etc are good
or evil, but
– how these should be applied and
– whether they should be applied to all
or just to a privileged group.
Two Verses from the Bible which
say the same thing:
• Romans 2:14-15:
• Indeed, when heathens, who do not have
the law, (ie The 10 Commandments etc) do by
nature things required by the law, they are
a law for themselves, even though they do
not have the law, since they show that the
requirements of the law are written on their
hearts, their consciences also bearing
witness, and their thoughts now accusing,
now even defending them.
Where did this moral sense come from?
• (1) Either it comes from physical world:
 (a) Our sense of right and wrong is an
instinct that has come from our
biological make up or psychology which are the results of random
evolutionary processes.
 (b) Our sense of right and wrong comes
from social conventions we have learnt.
 © A combination of (a) and (b)
(2) Or it comes from beyond the
physical world:
the Spiritual world or God.
Even if (1) (ie our sense of right and
wrong comes from the physical world)
is part of the story, can it be the
whole story?
Can either of the explanations from the
physical world be right?
• Consider the first.
 Our psychology - result of random
evolutionary processes - has led us to
value kindness and selflessness..
• But if the sense of goodness is just an
instinct which is the result of `survival
of fittest' then does it have any intrinsic
value?
Is morality only the instinct to preserve the species?
• If we hear of someone in danger there will be two
contradictory instincts:
– Herd instinct to help him - preserve the species.
– Instinct to avoid danger - preserve the species.
• We will also feel inside us a third thing which tells
us we ought to suppress one instinct and
encourage the other.
• There are appropriate times for each instinct.
• Morality tells us that at this time, such and such
an instinct should be encouraged.
Therefore morality is not just a physical instinct.
Leaving C. S. Lewis’s argument for two slides we note
something said by Richard Dawkins (Atheist
biologist). In his book: The Selfish Gene, p. 2:
"I shall argue that a predominant quality to be
expected in a successful gene is ruthless
selfishness.... Be warned that if you wish, as I
do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a
common good, you can expect little help from
biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity
and altruism, because we are born selfish."
• Richard Dawkins does not seem
to realise that his desire that we
be taught to be unselfish against our biology - implies
–that there is purpose to human
existence
–that something has gone wrong
with our human being which
should be countered by
Returning to C. S. Lewis’s argument:
• Where does our moral sense come from?
– Not as we have seen from our biology.
Has it come from social conventions we have
learnt?
• The problem is that there are differences
between social conventions.
• Do we ever think that one is better than the
other?
• Do we think we have progressed - ie improved
our social conventions?
• If we do then we are implicitly acknowledging
another greater Real Morality by which we judge
one morality against another.
• Suppose two of us had an idea of what New
York was like.
• Your idea might be truer than mine because
there is a real place called New York by which
we can compare our ideas.
• But if we only meant `the town I am imagining
in my head' (there being no real New York), one
person's idea would be no more correct than
the other person’s idea.
• If there were no such thing as Real Morality but just what cultures had made up themselves
- there would be no meaning to the statement
that Nazi morality is inferior to another morality
Universal agreement that
fairness, honesty, kindness etc
are good and not evil, cannot be
a mere world wide social
convention because different
cultures believed them to be
good before they had met one
another.
A different form of the argument that morality
must come from beyond the physical world.
Can one derive an `ought' from an `is'?
• Science can tell us what is the case, but can it tell
us what ought to be the case?
– Electrons behave as they do - that is neither morally
right nor wrong - it is just the way things are - the
whole story.
– We behave in certain ways but that is not the whole
story for we know we ought to behave in other ways.
– Therefore there is more than one kind of reality.
– One of these realities is subject to scientific
investigation and discovery - the other one isn’t.
If our moral sense is not mere
biology/ psychology nor social
convention then:
–it must have come from beyond the
physical world.
• That is what religion is about.
This is the basis of C. S. Lewis’s
argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My own view:
• Rather than saying there must be a
‘Moral Law’ coming from beyond
us, I prefer to say:
– Beauty, grandeur in the universe and
the world are objective realities.
• When we say: ‘The valley is beautiful’ we
are not merely talking about our own
feelings.
• We are claiming that beauty is
something that is actually there.
My own view continued:
Beauty and grandeur are connected with
goodness which is also something real.
Evil and suffering are alien intrusions.
Although we may not recognise it at first,
the Spirit and Word of God (the source of
creation, beauty and goodness) impinge
upon us all and therefore we recognise
righteousness when we see it and evil
when we see it.
Read handout: ‘The Gospel according to science’ by
physicist Paul Davies and ponder the points below:
He believes we must use science to find moral
values.
• Does he indicate what he means by goodness?
• As well as good he believes humans commit much
evil.
• There is an underlying assumption that the
survival and future happiness of our species is the
final goal of goodness and morality.
– If, as he says, we do evil things, why
should our survival be a `good’?
Even if it is the case that our survival
and happiness are good things, does that
belief follow from science?
If not science then what?
Our desires?
Do our desires determine what is
‘good’?
What about competing desires?
• Paul Davies wonders how science can
be used to give us moral values.
–Does he give any indication of how
this might be possible?
–If not, why do you think he fails (and
is bound to fail) to find a solution to
his problem?
• Can we get an `ought’ from an ‘is’?
(See six slides back.)
Read handout: ‘Michael Ruse and
.
reductionary illusions.’ by John Byle.
• Michael Ruse’s theory is that there
is no real ‘good’; it is just a useful
illusion that helps preserves our
species by making us behave more
co-operatively.
– (If the ‘good’ is an ‘illusion’ why should it be
‘good’ that we behave co-operatively?)
Michael Ruse believes that morality
comes from our genes that trick us into
thinking that co-operation is
objectively ‘good.’
He believes, then, that understanding
morality can be reduced to
understanding our genes.
He has a reductionist view of morality.
John Byle argues that this theory refutes
itself and therefore cannot be true.
A Christian View of the source of our moral sense:
 Our moral awareness must be something
above and beyond what we actually do.
 Something real that is pressing on us though
we often try to forget it.
• We, from the inside, know there is a moral
imperative.
– We cannot follow it.
– God comes to us and from the inside makes
us what we ought to be.
Read and study handout: `Lord
Hailsham on the Objective Validity of
Morality’.
===================
Nietzsche - rejects objective morality.
He says: God is Dead’
Thus Spake Zarathustra begins with
pronouncement by Zarathustra that God is
dead.
Because God is Dead (said Nietzsche)
:
It follows that:
· the physical world with its physical laws is all that
there is.
· Our thoughts are not really thoughts but just the
laws of physics controlling our brain.
As for the superstitions of the logicians, I shall never tire of
underlining a concise little fact which these superstitious
people are loath to admit - namely that a thought comes when it
wants, not when `I' want; so that it is a falsification of the facts
to say: the subject `I' is the condition of the predicate `think’.
(Quotation from his `Beyond Good and Evil’)
(By ‘superstitions of the logicians’ he means the beliefs of
scientists and others who say: “I know such and such…”)
Here Nietzsche is saying two related things:
1. There is no real ‘self’ (`I’) that can initiate
anything. All actions and ‘thoughts’ are the
result of impersonal physical laws.
2. `Thinking’, as we normally consider it, is
impossible.
·This has made our normal understanding of truth
unintelligible.
·There is no objective purpose to life - no good
and evil.
·Therefore morality is an illusion.
In MSP3 we consider Nietzsche’s advice on how to cope with the
seeming meaninglessness of life.
Before we go on, consider an extreme example of
Nietzsche’s rejection of objective morality:
"Who can attain to anything great if he does not
feel in himself the force and will to inflict great
pain ? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in
that line, weak women and even slaves often
maintain masterliness.
But not to perish from internal distress and doubt
when one inflicts great suffering and hears the
cry to it - that is great, that belongs to greatness.”
Friedrich Nietzche, 'The Joyful Wisdom', trans. by Thomas
Common (New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1964), p.25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Problem of Evil
• Two kinds of evil:
– 1. Moral Evil.
• Why do people behave badly?
• Is God to blame for creating us with the capacity
for evil?
• Why does He not stop us doing evil?
– 2. Natural evil.
• Why are there natural disasters - such as
earthquakes etc which surely cannot be blamed
on us?
The Problem of Evil
• For a journalist’s summary of the
problem for various religious beliefs
see the handout:
– `Paul Nathanson finds Michael Buerk
grappling with how to reconcile divine
goodness with the evils in the world.’
The Problem of Evil
• Intellectual problems for all world views.
For the theist:
• If God is good and powerful why is there evil and suffering?
For the pantheist:
• If the natural world (which contains evil) is part of God, does
not that mean that God Himself is partly evil?
• If the natural world is eternal, does not that mean that evil is
eternal and there is no salvation?
• Does it make sense to say we should try to escape the cycle of
re-incarnation when we have already had an infinite time?
• In response pantheism often denies the existence of evil:
– saying, the way things are is the way `things are meant to be´,
– and giving us advice on how to cope with suffering in
ourselves and others.
Problem of Evil
• For more on the problem of evil for Hinduism and
Buddhism see handout entitled:
Response to the Problem of Evil in the main
Pantheistic or Panentheistic Religions –
Hinduism and Buddhism
• For a comparison of monotheistic and pantheistic
responses to suffering see handout taken from the Daily
Telegraph and written in response to the Glen Hoddle
controversy. (Glen Hoddle had said that disabled people
were bearing the consequences of bad behaviour in a
previous incarnation.) The Handout’s title (using the Daily
Telegraph’s own title) is:
– `The true purpose of suffering.´
Problem of Evil (Cont)
• For the atheist:
– If the atheist challenges the theist saying ´Why does evil
exist?, is he not acknowledging the existence of good?
– How does he distinguish between good and evil?
– If he does distinguish good from evil does not that imply the
existence of an objective goodness?
• an objective goodness which is independent of our
private opinions and biology?
– Here is his problem: Atheism cannot allow for an objective
goodness which is outside us.
– His only option seems to be to deny the existence of real evil.
• Only a very few atheists are prepared to go that far.
• In MSP2 and 3 we consider some of the atheist beliefs
that explicitly deny the objective reality of good and evil.
Christian responses to the problem of Suffering and
Evil.
 Evil is a necessary by-product of nature.
 All things, including evil finally contribute to the goodness
of the whole.
 Eg: Our love and courage are strengthened.
 God is not indifferent to suffering:
 In all our affliction He too is afflicted.
 The Cross focuses God’s suffering with and for us.
 The resurrection of Christ is God’s final answer to evil,
suffering and death.
 Evil is temporary.
 Eternity, where justice, love and truth prevail, is a
reality.
Christian responses to the problem of
Suffering and Evil -cont.
• For a previous Lord Chancellor’s comment
on Innocent Suffering see next slide:
– Lord Hailsham’s Comment on Innocent
Suffering.
.`(The Door Wherein I Went' page 70)
What does shock us, is that the innocent suffer so often as the
result of the wrongdoing of the guilty. But this is not as
paradoxical as it sounds. As the Devil pointed out to the Almighty
in the book of Job, if God was always seen to reward the
righteous in this world for doing right, it would be seen, and very
soon said, that the righteous were only doing right for what they
could get out of it. But God does not desire this kind of
obedience. He is set on creating beings with a free will, in a world
in which they themselves are responsible for the consequences of
their own choices and desires the free obedience of intelligent and
reasoning creatures. Only when Job begins to suffer unjustly and
still will not curse God is it seen that he does not serve God for
what he can get out of it. The suffering of Job, like the
Crucifixion and Passion of Christ, is seen to be the consequence,
not of Job's own guilt, but of the presence of evil in the world, and
the need for it to be seen that good must be pursued for its own
sake, even occasionally, at personal sacrifice.
Christian responses to the problem of
Suffering and Evil -cont.
• God purpose was to create and redeem human beings so
that they would do good for the sake of goodness rather
than just for a reward.
– So in this world, pain and happiness exist side by side.
1 Pain exists but is defeated in the end.
2 Good people as well as bad´suffer but the good are eternally
rewarded in a another world presently unseen..
3 God shares our suffering & ultimately triumphs over it.
4. Ultimately goodness, love and mercy reach fulfilment in the
context of evil and pain.
A famous book on this subject is:
CS Lewis's `The Problem of Pain´.