DOCSLIB.ORG

ABSTRACT Explanation in Metaphysics Daniel M. Johnson, Ph

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ABSTRACT Explanation in Metaphysics Daniel M. Johnson, Ph ABSTRACT Explanation in Metaphysics Daniel M. Johnson, Ph.D. Mentor: Alexander R. Pruss, Ph.D. One of the primary tasks of the philosopher is to explain what it is for something to be the case—what it is for one event (substance, fact) to cause another, what it is for an action to be obligatory, what it is for an object to bear a property, what it is for a proposition to be true necessarily, what it is for a person to know something. This activity of explaining what something is or what it is for something to be the case, of identifying what I call ontological explanations, is of special importance to metaphysics, since the task of metaphysics generally is to get to the bottom of reality. The concept of ontological explanation is usually buried a layer deep in most discussions, however, and theses about it are either presupposed or clothed as claims about other things. In some cases, this leads to confusion and frustration, and in many other cases the discussion could benefit from a long look at ontological explanation even if that look isn’t strictly necessary to remedy confusion. My goal is to give ontological explanation that long look, and then use the clarity gained to reinterpret, reorganize, and even make progress on some long-standing disputes in metaphysics. In the first two chapters I examine ontological explanation itself and connect it to a host of important metaphysical issues, including ontological commitment and truthmaker theory. In the third and fourth chapters, I apply the work done in the first two chapters to a pair of important metaphysical arguments that crucially employ infinite regresses of ontological explanations—Bradley’s Regress and McTaggart’s Paradox. Explanation In Metaphysics by Daniel M. Johnson, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation Approved by the Department of Philosophy ___________________________________ Michael D. Beaty, Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved by the Dissertation Committee ___________________________________ Alexander R. Pruss, Ph.D., Chairperson ___________________________________ Jonathan L. Kvanvig, Ph.D. ___________________________________ J. Todd Buras, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Robert C. Roberts, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Klaus Kirsten, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Robert C. Koons, Ph.D. Accepted by the Graduate School ___________________________________ J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School. Copyright © 2011 by Daniel M. Johnson All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments vi Dedication vii CHAPTER ONE: Ontological Explanation and Ontological Commitment 1 1. Introduction 1 1.1 General Introduction 1 1.2 Chapter Introduction 3 2. The Nature of Ontological Explanation 5 2.1 Identifying Ontological Explanation 5 2.2 Features of Ontological Explanation 8 2.3 Related Concepts 18 3. Ontological Commitment 26 3.1 Introduction 26 3.2 A Modified Quinean Quantifier View 30 3.3 A Modified Truthmaker View 45 3.4 Objections and Alternative Approaches 65 3.5 A More General Defense 70 4. The Anti-Theory of Roberts and Wood 72 CHAPTER TWO: Constraints on and Demands for Ontological Explanation 84 1. Introduction 84 2. The Constraint: Infinite Regresses 87 iii 2.1 Introduction: Cameron‘s Challenge 87 2.2 The Argument from Explanatory Failure 89 2.3 Resisting the Argument from Explanatory Failure 101 2.4 Arguments from Ontology and Circularity 106 3. The First and Second Demands: The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Ockham‘s Razor 114 3.1 The Principle of Sufficient Reason 114 3.2 Ockham‘s Razor 118 4. The Third Demand: Truthmaker Theses 120 4.1 Truthmaker Theses and Demands for Ontological Explanation 120 4.2 Defending a Truthmaker Thesis 126 CHAPTER THREE: Explaining Properties: Bradley‘s Regress 138 1. Introduction 138 2. Understanding the Regress 140 2.1 The Nature of the Regress 140 2.2 The Viciousness of the Regress 156 3. Starting and Stopping the Regress: Realist Theories 159 3.1 Substratum Theory 161 3.2 Bundle Theory 167 3.3 Loux‘s Neo-Aristotelian Natural Kind Theory 173 3.4 States of Affairs and Trope Theory 179 iv CHAPTER FOUR: Explaining Time and Change: McTaggart‘s Paradox 183 1. Introduction 183 1.1 Chapter Introduction 183 1.2 McTaggart‘s Argument 187 1.3 The Viciousness of the Regress 194 2. The First Demand: Time‘s Motion 198 2.1 Introduction 198 2.2 The Williams-Smart Argument from the Metaphor of Motion 200 2.3 The First Solution: Retaining the Metaphor 207 2.4 The Second Solution: Discarding the Metaphor 216 2.5 Critique of Parsons 222 3. The Second Demand: Truthmakers and the Grounding Objection 224 3.1 Introduction 224 3.2 Eternalist A-theory 226 3.3 Presentism 230 4. The Third Demand: Ockham‘s Razor 233 4.1 Introduction 233 4.2 Resisting the Third Demand: The Translation Argument 235 4.3 Resisting the Third Demand: The Phenomenological Argument 248 4.4 Resisting the Third Demand: McTaggart‘s Strategy 250 4.5 Satisfying the Third Demand: Presentism and Ockham‘s Razor 252 4.6 Conclusion 253 Bibliography 254 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Rob Koons, Todd Buras, Jonathan Kvanvig, and Robert Roberts for their feedback, help, and encouragement. I would also like to thank Robert Garcia, Adam Pelser, and an audience at the Baylor Graduate Colloquium for helpful conversations regarding parts of the dissertation. Most of all, I would like to thank Alexander Pruss for his remarkable help and encouragement throughout the whole project—his fingerprints are on every part of this dissertation (though of course any errors are mine alone), and it would have been a far worse project without his aid. I would also like to thank my parents for their unstinting support and encouragement, for their unwavering affirmation that a Ph.D in philosophy is a worthy and valuable goal. Finally, I thank my wife for believing in me and supporting me, now and always. vi To my father, who taught me to live the life of the mind vii CHAPTER ONE Ontological Explanation and Ontological Commitment 1. Introduction 1.1 General Introduction One of the primary tasks of the philosopher is to explain what it is for something to be the case—what it is for one event (substance, fact) to cause another, what it is for an action to be obligatory, what it is for an object to bear a property, what it is for a proposition to be true necessarily, what it is for a person to know something—there are nearly as many items on this list is as there are topics in philosophy. This activity of explaining what something is or what it is for something to be the case is of special importance to metaphysics, since the task of metaphysics generally is to get to the bottom of reality. It is a bit ironic, therefore, that metaphysicians have spent so much more of their time investigating concepts related to this kind of explanation—supervenience, emergence, ontological dependence, and so on—than they have investigating explanation itself. As we will see, the involved discussion of scientific and causal explanation in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion is peripheral to the sort of explanation relevant here, what I will from here on call ontological explanation. This isn‘t to say that metaphysicians and other philosophers haven‘t said anything relevant to ontological explanation; indeed, they could hardly have avoided doing so, given how intimately bound up with explanation so many of their projects are. Instead, the concept of ontological explanation remains buried a layer deep in most discussions, and theses 1 about it are either presupposed or clothed as claims about other things. In some cases, this leads to confusion and frustration, and in many other cases the discussion could benefit from a long look at ontological explanation even if that look isn‘t strictly necessary to remedy confusion. My goal is to give ontological explanation that long look, and then use the clarity gained to reinterpret, reorganize, and even make progress on some long-standing disputes in metaphysics. The two disputes I have particularly in mind are those over a pair of metaphysical infinite regress arguments, Bradley‘s Regress and McTaggart‘s Paradox. Both have been around for a long time—McTaggart‘s argument for over a century and Bradley‘s for far longer, since it is a version of Plato‘s Third Man argument from the Parmenides—and both remain at the center of peculiarly intractable controversy. It is my contention that the notion of ontological explanation lies buried at the center of the discussion of both arguments. Two consequences follow, which I aim to establish in each case. First, much of the variety of arguments and views surrounding each argument can and should be recast as arguments or views about ontological explanation, either as attempts to motivate (or deny) demands for it, or as restrictions or denials of restrictions on it. Realizing this can help in evaluating these arguments and views, or at least in clarifying exactly what is at stake. Second, this means that the positions it is permissible to take on these particular arguments are constrained by general truths about ontological explanation: its nature, restrictions on it, and general demands for it. Because of this, I need first to zoom out and look at ontological explanation itself. In the first chapter, I‘ll look at the nature of ontological explanation, explore some of its 2 features and its relations to a family of other concepts, and argue that it is important because of its connection to ontological commitment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ontological Arguments
    Ontological Arguments Graham Oppy Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion , St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived . St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists. In the seventeenth century, René Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For instance, in the Fifth Meditation , Descartes claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being. Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being — we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being — we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncaused Beginnings" Revisited
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 32 Issue 2 Article 8 4-1-2015 "Uncaused Beginnings" Revisited Graham Oppy Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Oppy, Graham (2015) ""Uncaused Beginnings" Revisited," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 32 : Iss. 2 , Article 8. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil20154932 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol32/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. "UNCAUSED BEGINNINGS" REVISITED Graham Oppy William Lane Craig's "Reflections on 'Uncaused Beginnings" is a sustained critique of my "Uncaused Beginnings." 1 argue that the central arguments of my essay survive that critique unscathed. When we make a fair and accurate comparison of naturalist and theist claims about global causal reality, we see that considerations about causation and the shape of causal reality do not decide between naturalism and theism. Moreover, the Edwards/Prior/Craig objection does not rule out the view that there is an initial global causal state involving none but contingently existing entities. 1 Compare two views about global causal reality. Both views suppose that there is a contingent initial global causal state involving at least one neces• sarily existent entity. Both views suppose that the initial global causal state is the only global causal state that has no cause; both views also suppose that the only further causal states that have no cause are initial states of en• tities that belong to and/or are sub-states of the initial global causal state.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy for Us
    Philosophy for Us First Edition Edited By Lenny Clapp Northern Illinois University Bassim Hamadeh, CEO and Publisher Kassie Graves, Director of Acquisitions and Sales Jamie Giganti, Senior Managing Editor Jess Estrella, Senior Graphic Designer Angela Schultz, Acquisitions Editor Michelle Piehl, Project Editor Trey Soto, Licensing Associate Christian Berk, Associate Production Editor Bryan Mok, Interior Designer Copyright © 2018 by Cognella, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be re- printed, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of Cognella, Inc. For inquiries regarding permissions, translations, foreign rights, audio rights, and any other forms of reproduction, please contact the Cognella Licensing Department at [email protected]. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Cover image copyright © 2014 iStockphoto LP/alvarez. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN: 978-1-63487-487-8 (pbk) / 978-1-63487-488-5 (br) This book is dedicated to my friend and mentor Tomis Kapitan. Tomis believed that philosophy could improve the lives of everyone, and this belief influenced not only his teaching, but his courageous approach to life. This book is inspired by his example. Contents Part I: Does God Exist? 1 1. An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism ..............................................3 by Graham Oppy, Monash University 2. The Case for Divine Creation from Cosmic Fine-tuning .......................................................................................................15 by Robin Collins, Messiah College 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Century Atheism, in the History of Western Philosophy of Religion : V
    This is the published version Oppy, Graham and Trakakis, Nick 2009, Late-twentieth-century atheism, in The history of western philosophy of religion : v. 5. Twentieth-century philosophy of religion, Acumen Publishing Ltd, Durham, England, pp.301-312. Available from Deakin Research Online http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30022451 Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in Deakin Research Online. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact [email protected] Copyright: 2009, Acumen Publishing 24 LATE-TWENTIETH -CENTURY ATHEISM Graham Oppy and Nick Trakakis In 1948, the BBC broadcast a debate between Bertrand Russell and Father Frederick Copleston on the existence of God (Russell & Copleston 1957). In that debate, Copleston claims: (i) that the existence of God can be proved by a meta­ physical argument from contingency; and (ii) that only the postulation of the existence of God can make sense of our religious and moral experience. Russell replies by giving diverse reasons for thinking that these two claims are incorrect: there are various ways in which Copleston's argument from contingency fails to be persuasive, and there are more plausible alternative explanations of our religious and moral experience. While there are many significant changes of detail, it is fair to say that the debate between Russell and Copleston typifies exchanges between theists and atheists in the second half of the twentieth century, and it is also fair to say that Russell's contribution to this debate typifies the approaches of late twen­ tieth-centuryatheists.
    [Show full text]
  • Inscrutable Evils, Skeptical Theism, and the Epistemology of Religious Trust
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2013 Inscrutable Evils, Skeptical Theism, and the Epistemology of Religious Trust John David McClellan [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Epistemology Commons Recommended Citation McClellan, John David, "Inscrutable Evils, Skeptical Theism, and the Epistemology of Religious Trust. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2013. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2459 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by John David McClellan entitled "Inscrutable Evils, Skeptical Theism, and the Epistemology of Religious Trust." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. E. J. Coffman, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Richard E. Aquila, John E. Nolt, Carl G. Wagner Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Inscrutable Evils, Skeptical Theism, and the Epistemology of Religious Trust A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville John David McClellan August 2013 Copyright © 2013 by John David McClellan All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter *** Philosophy, Religion, and Worldview Graham Oppy This
    Chapter *** Philosophy, Religion, and Worldview Graham Oppy This chapter consists of a series of reflections on widely endorsed claims about Christian philosophy and, in particular, Christian philosophy of religion. It begins with consideration of some claims about how (Christian) philosophy of religion currently is, and then moves on to consideration of some claims about how (Christian) philosophy of religion ought to be. The Triumphalist Narrative An oft-told triumphalist narrative holds that we are currently in a golden age for Christian philosophy of religion. While the details of the narrative vary, the central thread is that the bad old days have been replaced by good times. In the bad old days, philosophy of religion was in the doldrums, Christian philosophers were not pursuing philosophy of religion, Christian philosophers were hiding their Christian credentials under a bushel, Christian philosophers were held in contempt by ‘establishment’ philosophers, philosophy of religion had low status, philosophy of religion was not published in high-status generalist journals, philosophy of religion had no presence in major philosophy conferences, major presses were not taking on books in philosophy of religion, and philosophy of religion was not being taught in the higher education sector. But good times have returned: philosophy of religion is booming, Christian philosophers are pursuing Christian philosophy of religion, Christian philosophers are proudly proclaiming their Christianity to the academy and the world at large, philosophy of religion has high status, philosophy of religion is published in high-status generalist journals, philosophy of religion has a significant presence in major philosophy 1 conferences, major presses are publishing loads of books in philosophy of religion, and philosophy of religion is widely taught in the higher education sector.
    [Show full text]
  • From Classical to Intuitionistic Probability 1 Introduction
    From Classical to Intuitionistic Probability Brian Weatherson Abstract We generalize the Kolmogorov axioms for probability calculus to obtain conditions defining, for any given logic, a class of probability functions relative to that logic, coinciding with the standard probability functions in the special case of classical logic but allowing consideration of other classes of “essentially Kolmogorovian” probability functions relative to other logics. We take a broad view of the Bayesian approach as dictating inter alia that from the perspective of a given logic, rational degrees of be- lief are those representable by probability functions from the class appro- priate to that logic. Classical Bayesianism, which fixes the logic as classi- cal logic, is only one version of this general approach. Another, which we call Intuitionistic Bayesianism, selects intuitionistic logic as the preferred logic and the associated class of probability functions as the right class of candidate representions of epistemic states (rational allocations of de- grees of belief). Various objections to classical Bayesianism are, we argue, best met by passing to intuitionistic Bayesianism – in which the proba- bility functions are taken relative to intuitionistic logic – rather than by adopting a radically non-Kolmogorovian, e.g. non-additive, conception of (or substitute for) probability functions, in spite of the popularity of the latter response amongst those who have raised these objections. The interest of intuitionistic Bayesianism is further enhanced by the availabil- ity of a Dutch Book argument justifying the selection of intuitionistic probability functions as guides to rational betting behaviour when due consideration is paid to the fact that bets are settled only when/if the outcome betted on becomes known.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    BIBLIOGRAPHY Abraham, William J., and Steven W. Holtzer (eds). The Rationality of Religious Belief: Essays in Honour of Basil Mitchell. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Adams, Marilyn McCord. “Redemptive Suffering: A Christian Solution to the Problem of Evil,” in Audi and Wainwright (eds), Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment, 1986, pp. 248–67. ———. “Problems of Evil: More Advice to Christian Philosophers,” Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988): 121–43. ———. “Theodicy Without Blame,” Philosophical Topics 16 (1988): 215–45. ———. “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God,” The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 63 (1989): 297–310. ———. “God and Evil: Polarities of a Problem,” Philosophical Studies 69 (1993): 167–86. ———. “Evil, Problem of,” in Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol.3, 1998, pp. 466–72. ———. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1999. Adams, Marilyn McCord, and Robert Merrihew Adams (eds). The Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Adams, Robert Merrihew. “A Modified Divine Command Theory of Ethical Wrongness,” in Outka and Reeder (eds), Religion and Morality, 1973, pp. 318–47. ———. “Divine Command Metaethics Modified Again,” Journal of Religious Ethics 7 (1979): 66–79. ———. “Plantinga on the Problem of Evil,” in Tomberlin and van Inwagen (eds), Alvin Plantinga, 1985, pp. 225–55. ———. The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Ahern, M.B. The Problem of Evil. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971. Allen, Robert Francis. “St. Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil,” Ars Disputandi: The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (2003), URL ϭϽhttp://www.ArsDisputandi.orgϾ.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysical Naturalism and the Ignorance of Categorical Properties
    Copyright © 2017 by Lok-Chi Chan Thesis supervisor: Professor David Braddon-Mitchell Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney Cover design: Chan Man Yuk i Declaration I certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work. Assistance received in preparing this thesis and sources have been acknowledged. Lok-Chi Chan ii Abstract The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the connections between metaphysical naturalism and the categorical ignorance thesis – offered by Rae Langton (1998), David Lewis (2009), Frank Jackson (1998), and Simon Blackburn (1990) – and determine whether the latter will challenge the former. According to metaphysical naturalism, the actual world contains only metaphysically natural things. According to the categorical ignorance thesis, all we can know about things are their dispositional properties, but the categorical properties that bear these properties remain in principle unknowable. In this dissertation, I will determine whether the ignorance of categorical properties – as Rae Langton (1998), David Braddon-Mitchell and Frank Jackson (2007), John Foster (1993) and Alyssa Ney (2007) argue (or worry about) – is consistent with metaphysical naturalism (or physicalism), and whether it will lead to a scepticism about the metaphysical naturalness of categorical properties, which will, in turn, significantly decrease the probability that metaphysical naturalism is true. Being attracted to metaphysical naturalism, the categorical ignorance thesis, and also the philosophical position that the two theses are consistent, I will argue that the answer to the former question is yes, and that the answer to the latter question is no. Russellian Monism, an influential doctrine in philosophy of mind that is relevant to the topic, will also be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Chicago the Ontological Argument, Its Criticisms and Consequences a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of T
    THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, ITS CRITICISMS AND CONSEQUENCES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY JASON GRANT CATHER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AUGUST 2017 Copyright c 2017 by Jason Grant Cather All Rights Reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . vi 1 NEOCLASSICAL METAPHYSICS FOR THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT . 1 1.1 Overview . .1 1.2 The Appeal of the Ontological Argument . .2 1.3 On the Nature of Argument . .5 1.4 The Appeal of Neoclassical Metaphysics . .5 1.5 How to Think About Divine Greatness . .9 1.5.1 The Ontological Principle . .9 1.5.2 Actual Entities . .9 1.5.3 Societies . 10 1.5.4 Eternal Objects . 11 1.5.5 God . 12 1.6 Neoclassical Metaphysics as a Modal Metaphysics . 13 1.7 Neoclassical Understandings of Existential Statements . 14 1.8 Conclusion . 16 2 WHAT MAKES AN ARGUMENT ONTOLOGICAL? . 18 2.1 Overview . 18 2.2 Identifying Arguments as Ontological . 19 2.3 An Absurdly Brief History of the Debate Surrounding the Argument . 22 2.4 Parameters for Successful Arguments, or What Can We Expect an Argument toDo?....................................... 33 2.5 What Does a Parody Do? . 36 2.6 Are the Parodies Ontological? . 39 2.7 From Parody to Parity . 41 2.8 Conclusion . 42 3 ON FORMULATIONS OF ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS . 43 3.1 Overview . 43 3.2 From Parody to Caricature . 43 3.3 Two Interpretations . 45 3.4 Is the Argument Just for Theists? . 51 3.5 Ontologically Neutral Formulations . 53 3.5.1 Is Neutrality Really Desirable? .
    [Show full text]
  • Graham Oppy Logic and Theism Is a Very Fine Book, Crammed With
    REVIEW ARTICLE LOGIC AND THEISM: ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST BELIEFS IN GOD, BY JORDAN HOWARD SOBEL (CAMBRIDGE: CUP), XIX+652 PP. HARDBACK. Graham Oppy Logic and Theism is a very fine book, crammed with detailed analyses of arguments for and against belief in God. It is not a book that can be read quickly; but it is a book that repays effort invested in it by readers. Despite the fact that it is a very large book, and despite the wide range of the arguments that are considered, the book is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of arguments for and against belief in God. This is one way in which it contrasts with, say, John Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism or Michael Martin’s Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. There is no serious discussion in Sobel’s book of, for example, arguments from religious experience, arguments from consciousness, arguments from morality, arguments from the natural history of religion, and sundry other minor arguments for the existence of God. Moreover, the book contains no serious discussion of, for example, the meaningfulness of religious talk, anti-realist construals of religious talk, the critiques of religion offered by Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Freud, and Nietzsche, and so forth. The book makes considerable use of technical logical and mathematical machinery. Arguments are frequently given symbolisations in first-order predicate calculus or extensions thereof; and, where these symbolisations correspond to valid arguments in the relevant logical systems, detailed derivations are supplied. Several chapters make use of the mathematics of probability, in ways that require more than just nodding acquaintance with standard formulations of Bayes’ Theorem.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 X 10.5 Long Title.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86386-5 - Arguing about Gods Graham Oppy Index More information Index absolute value, 355 beauty, 411 Adams, Bob, 70, 86, 89, 92, 328 begging the question, 5, 11, 30, 51, 52, 57, addition, successive, 142 58, 64, 67, 91, 101, 102, 106, 125, 142, adventitious ideas, 110 182, 229, 347, 354, 356, 364, 367 agnosticism, 37, 39, 53, 58, 129, 179, 231, behaviourism, 396 235, 244, 307, 333, 414, 416, 417 Behe, Michael, 187 Alston, William, 289, 309 belief: coherence, of, 9; and motivation, 40; Anderson, Tony, 70 web of, 8 Anselm, St., 65, 72, 88 Bergmann, Mike, 289, 304, 309 Aquinas, St. Thomas, xvi, 101, 120, 124, 329, big-bang cosmology, 101, 138, 149, 154, 158, 338; Five Ways, 98, 107, 130; The First 172 Way, 102, 103; The Second Way, 99, 102; Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact, 130, 132 The Third Way, 103, 107 Bigelow, John, 274 arguments from evil, xvii, 4, 103, 123, 208, Boyle lectures, 185, 230 259, 321, 328, 402; evidential arguments Brennan, Geoff, 284 from evil, 4, 289, 313; logical arguments Bridgewater treatises, 185, 230 from evil, 4, 262, 289 Bringsjord, Selmer, 395, 398 arguments, minor evidential, 4 brute contingency, 120, 134, 136, 160, 234, arguments, moral, see moral arguments 239 arguments, successful, 7, 10 Bugge, Thomas, 196 arguments, teleological, see teleological Burman, David, 333 arguments Byrne, Alex, 256 Armstrong, David, 274 atheism, 1, 15, 34, 37, 229, 246, 333 Campbell, Richard, 89 Augustine, 328 Cantor, Georg, 33, 139, 140 axiom of choice, 124 Carnap, Rudolf, 67 causation, 3, 97,
    [Show full text]