6.7 GB
Can humans determine if the assertion “God exists” is true or false? If so, how so? Why not, if not? Questions like this have confused humanity from the moment we learned to ask them. Now, in Philosophy of Religion, you may use epistemology, the field of philosophy concerned with what we can know, to investigate problems of divine existence. You have an extraordinarily competent instructor in Professor James Hall, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Richmond. Professor Hall, the son of a Baptist pastor (who subsequently became a university professor), attended seminary before earning his PhD in philosophy and beginning his teaching career about 40 years ago. He declares his position on these problems early in the series; this is not a course with a hidden goal or an exercise in polemic. (And, no, we’re not going to let the cat out of the bag here.) Professor Hall’s personal biography and philosophical journey, which he discusses with you in Lecture 3, is simply too fascinating for us to reveal.)

According to AudioFile magazine, “[Professor Hall] is affable, amusing, clear, and entertaining, and, luckily, never pedantic.”

Make no mistake about it: this is a hard course in the best possible way. One of the great delights of intelligence is its application, which you do in every lesson.

At the same time, philosophy may be overly complex at times, and Professor Hall’s ability to avoid this pitfall makes this course constantly intriguing. He uses a notable antacid ad, for example, to demonstrate the loss of relevance in a non sequitur argument, and a classic Garry Trudeau cartoon to demonstrate linguistic equivocation.

Clarification of Tools and Terms
The course’s first eight lectures are foundational. You gain a firm grasp on the concepts of “philosophy,” “religion,” “God,” and “knowing.”

What Exactly Do We Mean By “God”?
Professor Hall limits the usage of the term “God” in this course to the God of ethical monotheism: the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is a single God who is worthy of worship. Each feature of the God of ethical monotheism is introduced one by one:

Omnipotence: God’s capabilities are limitless.

Omniscience: God’s knowledge has no bounds.

Omnipresence: There are no distance or separation boundaries that effect God.

Omnipotence: God must be completely morally flawless.

Aseity: God is not constrained by anything outside of itself, being the limit of all else.

Ontology, Cosmology, Teleology, and Divine Encounters as Proofs of God’s Existence
The course then examines the primary arguments for God’s existence, putting each to the test using philosophical reasoning tools.

The Ontological Case. According to this classic argument given by St. Anselm and René Descartes, divine reality is implied by the mere idea of Godhood.

The Cosmological Case. This classic St. Thomas Aquinas argument states that the sheer presence of the universe shows the existence of God, without whom there could be no initial cause for all being.

The Teleological Case. This argument, advanced by the psalmist, St. Paul, and William Paley, contends that the world’s wonderful design necessitates the presence of a designer. Paley contended that if we stroll along a beach and come across a clock, we automatically think it was made by a clockmaker.

Encounter with the Divine. This argument focuses on those who claim to have experienced direct connection with God. If their claims are correct, the other arguments are a wicked waste of effort since we would have direct evidence of God.

The examination and testing of these four reasons results in a “Scottish verdict”: not proved.

Arguments Against God’s Existence: The Evil Problem
Professor Hall flips the burden of evidence and asks, “Can humans know that God does not exist?” after evaluating the reasons for God’s existence.

You investigate the claim that God cannot exist because nature or evil individuals force innocent people to suffer.

And you study about the major religious traditions’ responses (theodicies):

Because the world is flawless, there is no evil.
The lack of good is simply defined as evil.
Apparent evil exists to serve a greater good: God’s goals are beyond our comprehension, and evil is only an apparition generated by our ignorance.
Human evil is an inevitable byproduct of God’s gift of free choice and autonomy. There may be no potential for virtue if there is no opportunity for evil. Another related viewpoint is that demonic powers are responsible for evil (and this, too, may be a consequence of their freedom). God is not the source of evil in any situation.
Those that suffer do so because they are being punished or exalted as a result of their pain.
This section of the course also allows for a hung jury. Atheism, like theism, is not an apparent candidate for knowing.

Faith and Transcendence Tip the Chessboard
You also investigate options that do not need logical or empirical “evidence” of God.

Two lectures look at religious agnosticism: faith without (or in opposition to) proof. You investigate the arguments that proof is unimportant to faith (as well as the argument that the need for proof is a barrier to trust) and the repercussions of these arguments.
You also investigate transcendentalist beliefs that God transcends the universe and everything in it, as well as the implications of this reasoning.
Playing a Different Game: Intentions vs. Causes
In general, logical and empirical explanations look for causes and consequences. A “caused consequence” is not “free” to occur and hence lacks “motives” or “intentions.”

However, religious discourse is deeply concerned with intentions as a means of explaining life and the universe.

You investigate two more techniques to comprehending religious claims:

Paradigms. Three lectures investigate religious claims and tales as part of a way of life that operates under a different paradigm that incorporates intentionality as one of its core categories of description and explanation.
Language Contests. Four lectures investigate religious claims and stories as movements in one or more, perhaps nondescriptive, language games, particularly one based on stories-told-for-a-purpose. These are neither factual or untrue stories, but rather functional or dysfunctional in terms of their life impact.
In the last lesson, you trace the conceptual challenges in ethical monotheism that prompted its philosophical investigation in the first place, as well as the findings along the road that lead to describing it as we have. However, because philosophy is a continuing reflective endeavor, the final point is an invitation to anyone who have worked through this series to continue the reflection.