I WANT TO KNOW
WHETHER GOD EXISTS.
AND IF GOD DOES EXIST, WHAT
SUCH A SUPREME BEING COULD
POSSIBLY BE LIKE?
HOW TO EXAMINE SUCH
QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD?
BE THEY POSITIVE
- THERE IS A GOD.
OR NEGATIVE - THERE IS NO GOD.
I LOVE PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE
PHILOSOPHY FORCES ME TO THINK
IN A DISCIPLINED MANNER.
AND WHEN PHILOSOPHY
FOCUSES ON QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD,
THE DISCIPLINE IS CALLED
"PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION."
BUT, WHY IS PHILOSOPHY OF
RELIGION SO CONTROVERSIAL?
SO DIVISIVE?
CAN PHILOSOPHY OF
RELIGION FIND GOD?
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY
TO FIND OUT.
I'M HAUNTED BY QUESTIONS
ABOUT GOD - DOES GOD EXIST?
WHAT IS GOD LIKE?
HOW DOES GOD ACT?
THAT'S WHY I ENJOY
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.
BUT IT'S DAUNTING.
HOW TO GRASP ITS IDEAS?
WAYS OF THINKING?
WITH TREPIDATION, I REACH FOR
THE TOP - A LEADING PHILOSOPHER
OF RELIGION WHO
ENERGIZED CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY.
I GO TO NOTRE DAME TO
MEET ALVIN PLANTINGA.
I PREPARE FEVERISHLY, I AM
INTIMIDATED, NERVOUS, TOO.
I TRY NOT TO SHOW IT.
AL, IN MY QUEST, I HAVE BEEN
ABSOLUTELY ENTRANCED BY THE ROLE
OF PHILOSOPHY IN
ILLUMINATING RELIGION.
HOWEVER, I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE
BELIEVERS WHO WOULD LOOK UPON
PHILOSOPHY, AS SOMETHING THAT IS
ALMOST OVERLY INTELLECTUALIZING
AND THEREFORE
TRIVIALIZING RELIGION.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE
THINK THAT ABOUT PHILOSOPHY.
BUT THE FACT IS I THINK
PHILOSOPHY IS EXTREMELY USEFUL
FOR SERIOUS BELIEVERS IN GOD.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT CAN
HELP ONE UNDERSTAND HOW ONE'S
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, HOW TO
BELIEVE IN GOD, FOR EXAMPLE, IS
RELATED TO THE REST
OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PUT,
LET'S SAY, WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT
SCIENCE TOGETHER WITH
WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT GOD.
THAT'S, OF COURSE, A
PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.
THERE HAVE BEEN LOTS OF
ARGUMENTS THROWN UP, LOTS OF
OBJECTIONS TO THEISTIC
BELIEF OR CHRISTIAN BELIEF.
AND IT'S THE ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY TO
LOOK AT THESE ARGUMENTS AND SEE
IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO THEM AND
RESPOND TO THEM.
WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES?
WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ARGUMENT
FROM EVIL, THE CLAIM THAT IT
CAN'T BE TRUTH BOTH THAT THERE
IS SUCH A PERSON AS GOD WHO IS
ALL POWERFUL AND ALL
KNOWING AND ALL GOOD AND ALSO
EVIL, SUFFERING, PAIN.
THERE'S ALSO THE SUGGESTION
THAT WHETHER OR NOT THEISTIC
BELIEF IS TRUE.
IT'S NOT RATIONAL OR REASONABLE
OR SENSIBLE OR JUSTIFIED OR
INTELLECTUALLY UP TO
SNUFF IN SOME WAY OR OTHER.
IT'S SOMETHING
DEFECTIVE ABOUT IT.
THERE IS THIS CLAIM, THAT
BELIEVING IN GOD ISN'T PROPER OR
ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR IT.
THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD THEY
SAY AREN'T COGENT.
THEY DON'T REALLY SHOW THAT
THERE IS SUCH A PERSON AS GOD.
EVEN IF THEY MAKE IT SO IT'S
PROBABLE, THEY DON'T SUPPORT THE
BELIEFS SUFFICIENTLY SO THAT
YOU CAN ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT AS
OPPOSED TO SAYING,
YEAH, IT COULD BE.
IT'S PRETTY LIKELY.
AND HERE I THINK PHILOSOPHY HAS
GOT SOMETHING VERY SENSIBLE TO
SAY ABOUT THIS.
HOW WOULD YOU
DEVELOP THAT THOUGHT ?
WELL, THERE ARE LOTS OF BELIEFS
WE HOLD SUCH THAT YOU CAN'T HOLD
THEM SENSIBLY WITHOUT HAVING AN
ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE FOR THEM.
FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE I BELIEVED
THAT THE FIRST PERSON TO CROSS
THE LAND MASS FROM ASIA TO
NORTH AMERICA WAS LEFT HANDED.
IT WOULD BE SILLY TO BELIEVE
THAT WITHOUT HAVING ANY REASON
OR ANY EVIDENCE FOR IT.
BUT OTHER THINGS WE ALL
BELIEVE WITHOUT HAVING
ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE.
I SEE YOU SITTING HERE.
HERE'S THIS BODY BEFORE ME
LOOKING VARIOUS WAYS AND SO ON.
AND I WITHOUT EVEN THINKING
ASSUME THAT THERE'S A PERSON
HERE, SOMEBODY WHO THINKS
THINGS, HAS FEELINGS OR HAS
BELIEFS AND SO ON.
I DO THIS AUTOMATICALLY.
I DON'T GIVE AN ARGUMENT.
SO SOME BELIEFS ARE SUCH THAT
YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE FOR
THEM TO BE RATIONAL OR
REASONABLE OR SENSIBLE.
OTHER BELIEFS ARE SUCH
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE.
AND NOW THE QUESTION IS
WHICH OF THESE TWO GROUPS
DOES BELIEF IN GOD FALL INTO?
LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE JUST
AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED THAT YOU
CAN'T PROPERLY BELIEVE IN GOD
UNLESS YOU HOLD SUCH ARGUMENTS
OR UNLESS THERE ARE
SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS.
BUT WHY THINK THAT?
MAYBE BELIEF IN GOD IS LIKE
BELIEF IN OTHER MINDS OR BELIEF
IN THE PAST.
IF GOD HAS IN FACT CREATED US,
MAYBE HE'S HARD WIRED INTO US
NOT ONLY BELIEF IN THE PAST AND
OTHER MINDS, BUT ALSO A BELIEF
IN GOD WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THE
FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THE WORLD'S POPULATION
DOES BELIEVE IN GOD OR
SOMETHING LIKE GOD.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT AS IF LET'S SAY
THE NATURAL HUMAN CONDITION IS
THAT OF THE SKEPTIC
WHO SAYS, WELL, PROVE TO ME
THAT GOD EXISTS.
THEN MAYBE I'LL BELIEVE.
THE NATURAL HUMAN CONDITION
INVOLVES TAKING IT FOR GRANTED,
OR AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVING OR AT
ANY RATE COMING TO BELIEVE THAT
THERE IS A PERSON LIKE
GOD OR SOMETHING LIKE GOD.
ONE COULD SAY THAT THE FACT
THAT YOU WANT TO PUT GOD IN THE
CATEGORY OF BELIEVING WITHOUT
ARGUMENT IS MOTIVATED BY THE
FACT THAT THE ARGUMENTS
THAT YOU HAVE ARE WEAK.
YOU COULD SAY THAT.
YOU COULD SAY THE SAME THING
ABOUT OTHER MINDS ARGUMENTS
THERE ARE PRETTY WEAK TOO.
ONE QUESTION TO ASK IS, WELL,
WHAT DO THEY THINK IS WRONG WITH
YOU IF YOU BELIEVE IN
GOD, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE
ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE?
HERE THERE ARE
THREE POSSIBILITIES.
THE FIRST IS THAT YOU'RE BEING
IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT YOU'RE NOT
LIVING UP TO YOUR INTELLECTUAL
OBLIGATIONS IF YOU BELIEVE IN
SUCH A THING AS GOD
WITHOUT HAVING A GOOD ARGUMENT.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO
BE MUCH OF A DECENT ARGUMENT.
IF YOU HAVE A DUTY TO DO
SOMETHING AND THEN IF YOU DON'T
DO IT, YOU'RE CULPABLE IN SOME
WAY, IT MUST BE THAT IT'S UP TO
YOU WHETHER YOU DO
THAT THING OR NOT.
BUT THAT ISN'T THE WAY
IT IS WITH OUR BELIEFS FOR
THE MOST PART.
IF I THOUGHT I WAS SAY THIRTY
YEARS YOUNGER AND VERY HANDSOME,
I'D PROBABLY BE A LOT HAPPIER.
BUT, THAT'S NOT
HOW IT WORKS WITH US.
BELIEF IN GOD, MY GUESS IS, FOR
MOST PEOPLE IS LIKE THAT TOO.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S SOMETHING
VOLUNTARILY ADOPTED AND CAN BE
VOLUNTARILY GOT RID OF.
SO IF BELIEF IN GOD ISN'T REALLY
UP TO ME SO TO SPEAK, WITHIN MY
POWER TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE,
THEN I CAN HARDLY BE GOING
CONTRARY TO SOME
DUTY IN FACT BELIEVING.
SECOND ARGUMENT.
THE SECOND SUGGESTION IS
THAT YOU'RE BEING IRRATIONAL.
NOW, WHAT IS IRRATIONALITY?
SO YOU'RE BEING RATIONAL, YOU'RE
BELIEVING RATIONALLY, WHEN
YOU'RE REASON, WHEN YOUR MIND,
YOUR INTELLECT, IS FUNCTIONING
PROPERLY, THERE ISN'T
ANY SORT OF DYSFUNCTION.
MAYBE YOU CAN HAVE
FIXED IDEAS, FOR EXAMPLE.
YOU SAY YOU FIND YOURSELF
FIXATED ON SOME THOUGHT, YOU
THINK IT OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THAT'S IRRATIONAL.
WELL, WHAT ABOUT BELIEF IN
GOD WITHOUT AN ARGUMENT?
IS THAT IRRATIONAL IN THAT WAY?
SURELY NOT.
AGAIN, MOST OF THE WORLD'S
POPULATION, BELIEVES IN GOD OR
SOMETHING LIKE GOD.
AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE
PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE ON THE
BASIS OF ARGUMENTS.
SO IT'S NOT IRRATIONAL EITHER.
SO I SAID ALL THESE
THREE POSSIBILITIES.
THE THIRD ONE IS THIS.
IT MIGHT BE THAT BELIEF IN GOD
LACKS THAT PROPERTY, ENOUGH OF
WHICH IS WHAT SEPARATES
KNOWLEDGE FROM A LUCKY GUESS,
FROM A MERE TRUE BELIEF.
SO SUPPOSE I BELIEVE THAT THE
YANKEES WILL WIN THE PENNANT AND
WIN THE WORLD SERIES THIS YEAR,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW
THEY'RE IN LAST PLACE.
NOW, IT MIGHT TURN
OUT THAT I'M RIGHT.
IT'S NOT THAT NOW I
KNOW THAT THEY WILL.
I JUST GUESSED AND I WAS LUCKY.
SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
KNOWLEDGE AND A LUCKY GUESS OR A
MERE TRUE BELIEF, THAT'S WE
COULD USE THE TERM "WARRANT" TO
REFER TO THAT DIFFERENCE, SUCH
THAT WHEN YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH OF
IT FOR A GIVEN BELIEF, THEN THAT
BELIEF IS SOMETHING YOU KNOW AS
OPPOSED TO MERELY
JUST BELIEVING.
WELL, NOW IT MIGHT BE THAT THE
SUGGESTION IS BELIEF IN GOD WHEN
ACCEPTED NOT ON THE BASIS OF
EVIDENCE, BUT IN THAT BASIC WAY
DOESN'T HAVE WARRANT.
AND HERE WE'D WANT TO ASK
THEN WHAT EXACTLY IS WARRANT?
WHAT DISTINGUISHES A
WARRANTED BELIEF, A BELIEF THAT
CONSTITUTES KNOWLEDGE
FROM MERE TRUE BELIEF IS
THAT IT'S BEEN PRODUCED IN
ME OR IN YOU BY COGNITIVE
FACULTIES THAT ARE FUNCTIONING
PROPERLY IN THE KIND OF
ENVIRONMENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE
DESIGNED, DESIGNED BY GOD
OR EVOLUTION OR BOTH, ACCORDING
TO A DESIGN PLAN THAT IS
SUCCESSFULLY AIMED AT TRUTH.
OKAY, SO SUPPOSE NOW WE ASK DOES
BELIEF IN GOD, HAVE WARRANT?
I THINK YOU HAVE TO
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING.
SUPPOSE THERE REALLY IS
SUCH A PERSON AS GOD.
WELL, AND SUPPOSE AS THEISM SAYS
HE'S CREATED US IN HIS IMAGE.
THEN HE WOULD ALMOST
CERTAINLY WANT US TO BE ABLE TO
KNOW ABOUT HIM.
SO BELIEF IN GOD WOULD ALMOST
CERTAINLY BE DESIGNED INTO
US BY GOD.
IT WOULD BE PART
OF OUR DESIGN PLAN.
SO IF IN FACT BELIEF IN GOD IS
TRUE, IF THERE REALLY IS SUCH A
PERSON AS GOD, THEN IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD IT'S ALSO WARRANTED.
AND IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST?
AND IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST, THEN
VERY LIKELY IT'S NOT PRODUCED IN
US BY COGNITIVE FACULTIES
FUNCTIONING PROPERLY ACCORDING
TO A DESIGNED
PLAN AIMED AT TRUTH.
BECAUSE, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT
TRUE IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
SO THAT PARTICULAR PART OF
OUR DESIGN PLAN WOULDN'T BE
AIMED AT TRUTH.
AND HENCE, BELIEF IN GOD
WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IF
GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
NOW, WHEREAS THIS CAN SOUND TO
BE CIRCULAR IN IT'S THINKING,
IT IS NOT.
BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DEALING
WITH IS A JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR
BELIEF IN GOD.
SO WE'RE DEALING NOT WITH THE
SUBJECT OF WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR
NOT OR WHETHER IT'S RATIONAL,
JUSTIFIED AND APPROPRIATE.
RIGHT, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE IS WHETHER
BELIEF IN GOD IS TRUE.
AND TWO IS WHETHER
BELIEF IN GOD HAS WARRANT.
AND THESE ARE QUITE
DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY, AS YOU
SAY, IT'S NOT REALLY CIRCULAR.
BUT IT IS TRUE THAT BELIEF IN
GOD HAS WARRANT IF AND ONLY
IF IT'S TRUE.
BECAUSE IF GOD REALLY DOES
EXIST, THEN BELIEF IN GOD ALMOST
CERTAINLY VERY
PROBABLY DOES HAVE WARRANT.
AND HENCE, ONE CAN'T SENSIBLY
ARGUE THAT BELIEF IN GOD DOESN'T
HAVE WARRANT WITHOUT FIRST
SHOWING THAT THERE ISN'T ANY
SUCH PERSON AS GOD.
WHO CAN KNOW A THING LIKE THAT?
THIS IS AL'S REVOLUTIONARY
ARGUMENT, WHICH TURNS
TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS
ABOUT GOD UPSIDE DOWN.
JUSTIFYING BELIEF IN GOD
WITHOUT THE OLD, DISCREDITED
"PROOFS OF GOD."
WARRANT, OR TRUE BELIEF, FOR
BELIEVING IN GOD, AL SAYS, IS
BASED ON GOD'S EXISTENCE.
THUS, THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW
THAT BELIEF IN GOD DOES NOT HAVE
WARRANT IS TO KNOW
THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
BUT WE CANNOT KNOW
THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
THEREFORE, AL CONCLUDES, IT IS
JUSTIFIED TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
WHAT?
CIRCULAR REASONING?
AND THUS INVALID?
AL'S ARGUMENT DOES
SEEM TO REVOLVE IN CIRCLES.
THEN, SLOWLY, THE FOG
LIFTS AND I START TO SEE
AL'S STARTLING POINT.
THERE ARE TWO
DIFFERENT QUESTIONS HERE,
DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?
AND IS IT JUSTIFIED
TO BELIEVE IN GOD?
BUT AM I SEEING A MIRAGE?
MY COGNITION
TWISTED BY MY EMOTIONS?
I'M CONFUSED.
BUT I NOW APPRECIATE THE
POWER OF PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.
BUT I NEED MORE, ANOTHER WAY OF
THINKING, ANOTHER PERSONALITY.
I MEET A PHILOSOPHER KNOWN FOR
EXPLAINING HOW GOD RELATES TO
TIME AND HOW TO "SAVE GOD"
FROM THE PROBLEM OF EVIL -
ELEONORE STUMP.
HERE'S THE WAY TO THINK
ABOUT PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.
AT THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF
ALL REALITY ACCORDING TO THE
MAJOR MONOTHEISMS IS SOMETHING
THAT HAS A MIND AND A WILL.
THAT MEANS GOD IS A PERSON.
ANYTHING WITH MIND AND WILL
IN OUR SENSE OF THE WORD IS
A PERSON, OKAY?
IF AT THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF
ALL REALITY IS A PERSON THEN YOU
GOT TO KNOW A PERSON FACE TO
FACE, PERSON TO PERSON OR REALLY
DON'T KNOW THEM AT ALL.
YOU'VE GOT TO
EXPERIENCE GOD, SEE?
SO THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY.
ONE TIME MY SON CALLED ME UP AND
HE SAID TO ME, MOM, HE SAID,
I'VE MET SOMEONE AND
YOU NEED TO LIKE HER.
SO I'M ON HIGH ALERT AND
I SAY TELL ME ABOUT HER.
THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY
OF RELIGION PART, SEE?
AND I WANT TO HEAR AS MUCH AS
I CAN HEAR ABOUT HER, YOU KNOW
WHAT DOES SHE DO,
WHAT SHE'S LIKE.
WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE,
HOWEVER, UNTIL I ACTUALLY MEET
HER, I HAVEN'T REALLY GOT WHAT
I WANT BY WAY OF KNOWING HER.
SO WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS
THESE STREAMS ARE COMPLIMENTARY
TO EACH OTHER.
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION IS
"THE TELL ME ABOUT HER" PART.
AND THAT GIVES YOU STUFF WHICH
IS WONDERFUL, DEEP, ENRICHING,
BUT IN THE END WHAT THE
PSALMISTS SAYS IS TASTE AND SEE
THAT GOD IS GOOD AND YOU
GOT TO HAVE THAT PART TOO.
SO HERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO
THINK ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE.
IN THE 13TH CENTURY A VERY
LEARNED DOMINICAN CAME
TO SEE FRANCIS.
AND HE HAD A PASSAGE IN THE
BIBLE THAT WAS WORRYING HIM.
HERE'S THE PASSAGE.
GOD SAYS TO THE PROPHET EZEKIEL,
HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T
WARN SINNERS ABOUT THEIR SIN,
I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU PERSONALLY
RESPONSIBLE AND I'M GOING
TO GIVE YOU THE PUNISHMENT
THEIR EVILS DESERVE.
SO THE DOMINICAN - VERY LEARNED
DOMINICANS SAID, FATHER FRANCIS
A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO MORALLY
BAD THINGS COME ACROSS MY PATH
BUT I DON'T REALLY REBUKE THEM.
IS GOD GOING TO HOLD ME
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THAT STUFF?
SO YOU CAN SEE THE
DOMINICANS PROBLEM.
HE'S SUPPOSED TO SAY HEY,
WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE,
WAIT A MINUTE, YOU KNOW THAT
THING YOU'RE DOING THERE,
THAT'S A MORALLY WRONG ACT
AND I CAN SHOW YOU WHY IT IS.
I REASON IT OUT AND
HERE'S THE ARGUMENTS AND
PREMISES AND STUFF.
YOU CAN SEE WHY THAT WOULD
MAKE LIFE KIND OF DIFFICULT FOR
HIM AND WHY HE
WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT.
SO FRANCIS SAID TO THE LEARNED
DOMINICAN, IF YOU ARE A SERVANT
OF GOD, YOUR LIFE OUGHT
TO BE ON FIRE WITH LOVE.
LOVE FOR GOD, LOVE FOR THE GOOD.
AND THAT FIRE OF LOVE WILL SET
A STANDARD BY WHICH ANYBODY CAN
MEASURE HIS OWN SHORTCOMINGS
AND MORAL WRONGDOINGS.
SO NOW WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS
TWO RADICALLY DIFFERENT
WAYS OF THINKING.
ONE WAY IS TO SAY OK WE NEED
PRINCIPLES, PREMISES, ARGUMENTS.
THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET
OUR ETHICS DONE, OUR METAPHYSICS
AND SO ON.
BUT IN THE STORY
FRANCIS' IDEA IS THIS.
NO YOU NEED ICONIC EXEMPLAR
PEOPLE, PERSONS WHO SHOW YOU
SOMETHING THAT YOU COULDN'T GET
OUT OF THE PREMISES AND BOTH OF
THESE STREAMS ARE USEFUL FOR US.
ELEONORE HAS TWO ROADS TO GET
TO GOD - THE ANALYTICAL AND THE
EXPERIENTIAL, THE
RATIONAL AND THE EMOTIONAL.
ME?
I GUESS I'M HANDICAPPED
- I HAVE ONLY ONE.
I RELY ON ANALYSIS,
BUT I DISTRUST FEELINGS.
IF PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION HAS
UNIVERSAL IMPORT, IT MUST ALSO
WORK WITH RELIGIONS
THAT ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.
I SHOULD LEARN SOMETHING
ABOUT MY OWN HERITAGE.
I GO TO NEW YORK TO MEET
A JEWISH PHILOSOPHER AT
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY -
RABBI DAVID SHATZ.
THE TWO TYPES OF PHILOSOPHY,
THE TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES TO
STUDYING RELIGION, HAVE BEEN
FIRST OF ALL WHAT WOULD ROUGHLY
BE CALLED THE "ANALYTIC
SCHOOL," WHICH IS VERY
COMMON IN AMERICA.
IN ENGLAND THIS IS THIS IS
ALL THE RAGE THERE PRIMARILY.
THE OTHER IS THROUGH KIND OF
CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY, EUROPEAN
PHILOSOPHY, WHICH DEALS WITH
QUESTIONS MORE ABOUT THE INNER
LIFE OF THE BELIEVER WHAT IS THE
PSYCHE OF THE BELIEVER WHEN HE
PRAYS, WHEN HE HAS AN EXPERIENCE
THE HOLY RELIGIOUS PHENOMENOLOGY
IS BASICALLY WHAT IT IS.
WHAT ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY DOES
IS REALLY TWO THINGS PRIMARILY.
FIRST OF ALL IT CLARIFIES A
LOT OF RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS.
YOU HAVE CONCEPTS LIKE, YOU
KNOW, GOD'S BEING OMNISCIENT,
GOD'S BEING OMNIPOTENT, HE'S
ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING, KNOWS
EVERYTHING, CAN DO
EVERYTHING, IS ALL GOOD.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF
CLARIFICATION THAT'S NEEDED OF
THOSE CONCEPTS, PARTICULARLY
SINCE SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY
CONFLICT WITH OTHER SORTS
OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES.
ALSO, SOME PEOPLE WHO'VE WORKED
IN THIS AREA OF CLARIFYING
CONCEPTS HAVE FOUND THAT THERE'S
A CERTAIN DISTANCE THAT IT
CREATES BETWEEN BIBLICALLY
BASED RELIGION AND SORT OF
PHILOSOPHICALLY-BASED RELIGION.
I THINK THE BEST EXAMPLE OF
THIS IS THE CONCEPT OF GOD
NOT HAVING EMOTIONS.
YOU LOOK AT THE BIBLE, GOD HAS
A GREAT DEAL OF PERSONALITY.
GOD GETS ANGRY, GOD GETS
SAD, SOMETIMES HE'S FURIOUS.
AND IT PORTRAYS GOD
AS A PERSONALITY.
THEN YOU GET TO PHILOSOPHY, AND
PHILOSOPHY TELLS YOU GOD CAN'T
HAVE EMOTIONS BECAUSE - 
THAT WOULD BE AN IMPERFECTION - 
IT WOULD BE AN IMPERFECTION
BECAUSE HE CHANGES.
THAT CONCEPT DOESN'T
REALLY MESH WITH THE BIBLICAL.
PHILOSOPHERS ARE BECOMING
VERY CONSCIOUS OF THIS GAP AND
THEY'RE RAISING A LOT OF
QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE
ATTRIBUTES AND THE CONCEPTS
THAT THEY INTRODUCE IN TRYING TO
DESCRIBE GOD ARE
REALLY ONES THAT THEY NEED.
THE SECOND FUNCTION BESIDES
CLARIFYING CONCEPTS IS TRYING TO
PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
IN THE JEWISH TRADITION, THERE
WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE ON TRYING
TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF
GOD, SO MUCH SO THAT A NUMBER OF
JEWISH PHILOSOPHERS
BELIEVED THAT IT IS A RELIGIOUS
OBLIGATION TO STUDY PHILOSOPHY,
SO MUCH SO THAT MIMONADADES
ACTUALLY INCLUDES THIS IN THE
MITZVAH, OR COMMANDMENT,
TO STUDY TORAH, TALMUD, TORAH.
FOR MIMOADADES THE ACTIVITY OF
PROVING WHAT THE WORLD IS LIKE
AND THINKING ABOUT GOD IS
ITSELF GOING TO LEAD TO THE
LOVE OF GOD.
A LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS
QUESTION THIS, MOST NOTABLY
JUDAH HA LEVY, WHO ACTUALLY
DIED BEFORE MIMODADES WROTE.
BUT HALAVY BELIEVED THAT
REASON COOLS THE PASSIONS.
RIGHT?
THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET LOVE
OUT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO IS GET
AN ABSTRACTNESS AND, YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE GONNA STUDY GOD THE WAY
IN WHICH THE ASTRONOMER STUDIES
THE STARS WHERE HE COULDN'T CARE
LESS WHETHER IT TURNS OUT HE HAD
THE WRONG THEORY ONE DAY.
AND HALAVY BELIEVES YOU
CAN'T HAVE LOVE OF GOD THIS WAY.
YOU CAN COME TO THE IDEA A
CREATOR BUT NOT THE IDEA OF
A PERSONAL GOD.
STILL, THIS NOTION OF PHILOSOPHY
AS A RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION IS
TIED UP WITH THE
IDEA OF LOVE OF GOD.
THE SECOND THING THAT I THINK
MADE PHILOSOPHY VALUABLE, IT
COMES IN A LITTLE, SMALL COMMENT
THAT'S MADE BY SAHDJAGOL WHERE
HE SAYS WHEN YOU STUDY
PHILOSOPHY FOR A NUMBER OF
REASONS, ONE OF THEM IS TO
ANSWER THE HERETIC AND THE
OTHER, HE SAYS, IS TO MAKE
IT A MATTER OF ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE TO US.
SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A MATH PROBLEM
AND YOU'RE TRYING TO WORK ON THE
SOLUTION AND YOU
CAN'T QUITE SOLVE IT.
YOU GO TO THE BACK OF THE BOOK,
YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY HAVE THE
ANSWERS TO THOSE, AND THE
ANSWER IS THE SQUARE ROOT OF 37.
WELL, YOU NOW KNOW THAT THE
ANSWER TO THAT PROBLEM IS THE
SQUARE ROOT OF 37.
BUT IN ANOTHER SENSE
YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW IT.
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION IS.
YOU'RE NOT PLACING IT IN
THE CONTEXT OF OTHER THINGS
THAT YOU KNOW.
AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT SADJA
MEANS WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE
IDEA OF MAKING THE KNOWLEDGE OF
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD A MATTER OF
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE TO US.
DAVID SEES MORE
COMPLEMENTARITY THAN CONFLICT
IN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.
BIBLICALLY-BASED RELIGION, HE
SAYS, DOES NOT CONTRADICT
PHILOSOPHICALLY-BASED RELIGION.
DAVID PROTECTS
HIS OWN WORLDVIEW.
I HOPE HE'S RIGHT.
I CAN DESPAIR OVER PHILOSOPHY.
THERE SEEMS AN INVERSE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROGRESS
AND MEANINGFULNESS - THAT
WHICH MAKES PROGRESS
IS NOT MEANINGFUL.
AND THAT WHICH IS
MEANINGFUL MAKES NO PROGRESS.
PERHAPS TOO MANY
BELIEVERS MAKE ME WEARY.
PERHAPS I SHOULD SPEAK WITH A
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION WHO
IS AN ATHEIST.
I MEET MICHAEL TOOLEY.
MICHAEL, CAN PHILOSOPHY
ILLUMINATE RELIGION?
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT CAN.
I MEAN, PHILOSOPHY GOES BACK TO
SOCRATES AND THE IDEA THAT THE
UNEXAMINED LIFE IS
NOT WORTH LIVING.
AND OUT OF THAT SORT OF SOCRATIC
START YOU HAVE THIS IDEA THAT IT
IS IMPORTANT TO SUBJECT YOUR
MOST BASIC BELIEFS AND VALUES
AND SO ON TO REALLY CAREFUL
CRITICAL SCRUTINY, RIGHT?
AND I THINK THAT IF A RELIGIOUS
BELIEVER DOES THAT, THEN HE OR
SHE WILL THEN MOVE ON EITHER TO
A MORE SATISFYING FORMULATION OF
THE BASIC RELIGIOUS OUTLOOKS
THEY HAVE, A FORMULATION THAT
AVOIDS CERTAIN PROBLEMS
AND OBJECTIONS AND SO ON, OR
ALTERNATIVELY OF COURSE,
THEY MAY DECIDE TO GIVE UP THE
RELIGION THAT THEY HAVE.
BUT IN EITHER CASE - EITHER ONE
IS MOVED ON TO A DIFFERENT VIEW
THAT ONE THINKS IS
INTELLECTUALLY MORE SATISFYING,
MORE LIKELY TO BE TRUE, OR ONE
HAS REFINED THE VIEW THAT ONE
STARTED WITH AND ARRIVED AT
A BETTER FORMULATION OF IT.
A LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS SHARE
THE VIEW PUT FORTH BY THE GREAT
SCOTTISH PHILOSOPHER DAVID HUME.
HUME SAID THAT THE WISE MAN -
ONE MIGHT ADD THE WISE WOMAN -
PROPORTIONS HIS OR HER
BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE, RIGHT?
IN CONTRAST IN THE CASE OF
RELIGION, THERE IS OFTEN AN
EMPHASIS UPON FAITH.
THAT'S SOMETIMES INTERPRETED TO
MEAN THAT IT'S A GOOD THING TO
BELIEVE THINGS EVEN IF THERE
ISN'T VERY STRONG EVIDENTIAL
SUPPORT FOR IT.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ONE
CAN GET FROM PHILOSOPHY IF ONE
IS RELIGIOUS IS JUST THIS
QUESTION, IS FAITH A GOOD
THING OR NOT?
OR SHOULD I TRY TO ARRIVE
AT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT
ARE WELL SUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE?
I THINK ONE SHOULD ALSO TAKE
THE VIEW THAT THERE COULD BE
EXPERIENCES OTHER THAN
SENSORY EXPERIENCES THAT DO HAVE
EVIDENTIAL VALUE, BUT THE IDEA
AGAIN WOULD BE THAT YOU DON'T
SIMPLY ASSUME THAT IF YOU, FOR
EXAMPLE, HAVE AN EXPERIENCE OF
GOD THAT IT FOLLOWS, OF COURSE,
THAT THERE IS GOOD REASON TO
BELIEVE IN THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD, RIGHT?
YOU HAVE TO TAKE A CRITICAL -
IT COULD BE A - A - SEIZURE
IN YOUR TEMPORAL LOBE.
THAT'S RIGHT, YEAH, OR A
BELIEF YOU ABSORB FROM YOUR
ENVIRONMENT AND
YOUR FAMILY AND SO ON.
SO, THE IDEA IS THAT YOU DON'T,
SO TO SPEAK, BEGIN BY EXCLUDING
ANY EXPERIENCES, BUT NEITHER
DO YOU ASSUME THAT CERTAIN
EXPERIENCES, OF COURSE,
JUSTIFIED GROUNDS FOR
ACCEPTING GIVEN BELIEF.
YOU LOOK AT THAT CAREFULLY USING
THE METHODS YOU USE TO LOOK AT
ANY OTHER SORTS OF EXPERIENCES.
I LOVE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
- PROOFS AND DISPROOFS OF GOD.
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
ALTERNATIVE BELIEFS ABOUT GOD.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
THE VARIETIES OF
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
I APPRECIATE PHILOSOPHERS OF
RELIGION - BE THEY THEISTS OR
ATHEISTS BECAUSE THEY CONTRIBUTE
TO RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING.
BECAUSE THEY
CLARIFY RELIGIOUS ISSUES.
I REJECT THE OBJECTION THAT
PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING WILL
REDUCE ONE'S RELIGIOUS FERVOR.
UNLESS, OF COURSE, THERE IS
NO REALITY BEHIND THE FERVOR,
AND THEN, WELL, GOOD
RIDDANCE TO FALSE FERVOR!
SOME SAY I SHOULD SUBMIT TO GOD
- EXPERIENCE GOD IN MY HEART.
OR THAT BELIEF IN GOD
IS SO BASIC I NEED NO
JUSTIFICATION TO BELIEVE.
I RESPECT THOSE WHO SAY THEY
"KNOW GOD" OR WHO GIVE LICENSE
TO BELIEVE WITHOUT
EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT.
BUT THOSE WAYS ARE NOT MY WAYS.
I MAY BE WRONG GETTING
CLOSER TO TRUTH.
