Paley:

The analogy – the universe is like a machine (the watch), unlike the stone.

If we found a watch we would know that there must be a watch-maker. When we look at the universe we conclude that there must be a ≥universe-maker≤.

How do arguments by analogy work?

A comparison is made between two things, usually one with which we are familiar and one with which we are not familiar. It is claimed that because the two things are similar in various ways that we know about, they are also similar in some other way.

An argument by analogy depends on:

1. There being true similarities between the two cases being compared. Each of the cases really does have the properties attributed to it.

2. There are no relevant dissimilarities. If the two cases are similar in the respects claimed but very dissimilar in other ways it could compromise the analogy.

Your notes:

Kant:

* The moral order includes an ideal of perfect justice.

* This ideal cannot be actualized during our finite existence (acts of injustice can go unpunished during the life the unjust person).

* So, in order for the moral order to make sense, it must be that case that the human soul is immortal (in order that the balance of justice can ultimately be restored and the moral order can prevail).

* Furthermore, the moral order also requires that there be the possibility of happiness proportional to morality.

* Since morality requires us to pursue the greatest good, and if we should pursue the greatest good, it must be at least possible to attain that greatest good.

* An absolute value of morality requires an absolute happiness which in turn requires a cause that is adequate to that effect.

* Only God could be such a cause.

* Therefore, morality requires the existence of God or, more accurately, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.

There are really two arguments here. Can you distinguish them?

Your notes:

Hume:

1. Pains as well as pleasures incite animals to action. Could pleasures alone have been employed? Hume suggests that this might have been possible.

2. The world is conducted through general laws rather that through the will of the creatures that live in it. It could have been otherwise.

3. Each creature has only just enough capability to ensure its survival under most circumstances, but does not have all capabilities and so cannot escape all suffering. Could not we have been made differently?

4. Not everything in nature works perfectly. Some things seem to have no purpose. Some things which do have a purpose sometimes work in ways that cause evil. Too much rain results in floods. Again, wouldnπt it have been possible that the universe had been designed differently?

If anyone of these four things had not been as it is, the universe might be one in which there was no pain and suffering. It seems that each of them might have been otherwise.

Conclusions

Though this universe may be consistent with an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent god, it is also consistent with one who does not have these attributes.

It is consistent with there being two gods.

Or a god who is not all-powerful, not all-knowing, or not entirely benevolent.

There is not enough evidence provided by the universe to decide the issue.

James:

The Will to Believe

Hypothesis: anything that may be proposed to our belief

Hypothesis is ≥live≤ or ≥dead≤: a live hypothesis is one that appeals as a real possibility

A decision between two hypotheses is an option

OPTIONS

Options may be of several kinds:

Living or dead

Forced or avoidable

Momentous or trivial

A genuine option is forced, living, and momentous

THE THESIS

≥ Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot be decided on intellectual groundsä≤ (p. 75)

Your notes: