MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

Man and Spirituality

Welcome to the eighth module of this course, Philosophy of Man

with Logic! At the end of the course you will be able to elaborate
and evaluate the notion of the self in light of articulating a concept
of a God.

Anselm’s “Ontological Argument”

The general idea of the ontological argument is based on the notion
that the concept of God as the greatest being implies that God
exists—if not, there could be something greater, namely an existent
greatest being—but this being would be God.

The structure of the Ontological Argument can be outlined as

follows (The argument is based on Anselm's Proslogion 2):

1. We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can

be conceived.

2. This being than which no greater can be conceived either

exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and in reality.

3. Assume that this being than which no greater can be

conceived exists in the mind alone.

a. Existing both in the mind and in reality is greater

than existing solely in the mind.

b. This being, existing in the mind alone, can also be

conceived to exist in reality.

c. This being existing in the mind alone is not

therefore the being than which no greater can be
conceived. (See statement 1 above.)

4. Therefore, this being than which no greater can be

conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
1
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways”

1. Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that
since everything that moves is moved by another. There must
thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)

a. Evident to our senses in motion—the movement

from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on.
(Again, note that the argument proceeds from empirical
evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive
argument.)

b. Whatever is moved is moved by something else.

Potentiality is only moved by actuality. (An actual oak
tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn.)

c. Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions.

To take away the actual is to take away the potential.
(Hence, which came first for Aristotle, the chicken or
the egg?)

d. Thus, a First Mover exists.

2. Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence

of causes which make up this universe must have a First
Cause.)

a. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can

be the efficient cause of itself.
b. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient
causes.
c. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
d. If there’s no first cause then there will be no others.
e. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

3. Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all

existent things depend upon other things for their existence,
there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so
is a Necessary Being.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________
2
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

a. Since objects in the universe come into being and pass

away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those
objects not to exist at any given time.
b. Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe
are finite in number.
c. If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some
time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing
in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is
no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.
d. But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.
e. Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it
is impossible that it should not exist) exists.

4. Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent

things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of
goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely
Good Being.)

a. There are different degrees of goodness in different

things.
b. There are different degrees of being in different
things—the more being, the more goodness. (The
notion of the Great Chain of Being1 is being
presupposed.)
c. For there to be degrees of being at all, there must be
something which has being in the highest degree.
d. Therefore, a Being in the Highest Degree or Perfect
Being exists.

5. Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The

Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of
existent things and natural processes imply that a Great
Designer exists.)

a. All things have an order or arrangement, and work for

an end. (That is, from Physical Science – inductive)

1“...the conception of the universe...composed...of an infinite, number of links ranging in hierarchical order from
the meagerest kind of existents, which barely escape nonexistence, through 'every possible' grade up to the
_ens_perfectissimum_...'' Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being, New York: Harper & Row, 1936, 59.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
3
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

b. The order of the universe cannot be explained by

chance, but only by design and purpose.
c. Design and purpose is a product of intelligence.
d. Therefore nature is directed by a Divine Intelligence or
Great Designer.

Dostoevsky, “The Problem of Evil”

1. Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) is a Russian novelist whose
works anticipate existential psychoanalysis.
a. Several biographical points should be briefly mentioned.
i. Both parents died before Dostoevsky graduated from a
military engineering academy in St. Petersburg.
ii. He was arrested, sentenced to death, but after a mock
execution and a commuted sentence, he was sent to a
Siberian penal colony for four years.
iii. Dostoevsky suffered from epilepsy; he experienced a
conversion experience to Christianity.
iv. Aside from the brief early acclaim for Poor Folk, he did
not receive literary fame until several years before his
death.
v. His influence is profound upon twentieth century
writers and philosophers.
b. In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche writes, "Dostoevski,
the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had
something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful
strokes of fortune in my life…"
2. "The Problem of Evil" as discussed in The Brothers
Karamazov:
a. Why does Ivan think that children are innocent and adults
are not? Why does he think we can love children when they
are close, but we can only love our neighbor abstractly?
i. Innocence, for Ivan, has to do with the intention of an
act rather than the outcome of an act. The child is
innocent because the child did not intend to hurt the
hound. Since an adult can intend do harm when there
are not harmful consequences, an adult cannot be
experientially innocent as a child could be.
ii. We can love our neighbor abstractly in the sense that all
people have the same nature, but once we come to
know the foibles of our neighbor, we lose sight of
human nature. People in general share no disagreeable
qualities; specific persons have specific disagreeable

_____________________________________________________________________________________
4
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

qualities which can distract us from loving them.

Children have not yet developed the adult
idiosyncrasies such as mistrust, greed, and cruelty.
Dostoevsky seems to see naivety as innocence and the
consciousness of adults as awareness of right and
wrong.
b. Does the General deserve to be shot for turning his hounds
upon the child?
i. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and
a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist one
who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would
sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as
well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with
him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do
not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have
heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor
and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your
enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that
you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for
He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and
sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew
5:38:45.)
ii. "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she
gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall
surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband
imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges
determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give
life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe." (Exodus 21:22-25.)
c. What does Ivan mean when he says, "I most respectfully
return him the ticket?"
i. Ivan says he accepts God simply. He apparently
believes in a classical Euclidean creation: there is an
underlying order and meaning to life with an eternal
harmony with regularity and law.
ii. It's the world, itself, created by God that he cannot
accept.
iii. Ivan doesn't accept the world, and he states he will take
his own life. He reveals the feeling, "Stop the world, I
want to get off."
d. Possible explanations which are sometimes taken to
account for the death of an innocent child in a universe
created by God.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
5
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

i. The problem described by Ivan is the example of a

child, as his mother is forced to watch, being torn apart
by hounds set upon him by the master. Ivan asks how
we can account for the suffering of the child.
(1) Eternal harmony: Suffering and evil will vanish
like a mirage at the end of the world. Just as seeing
the individual colors of the rainbow does not
indicate to us that all colors taken together produce
white, so likewise seeing the individual events of
live does not indicate to us that all events taken
together produce the whole picture of the universe.
(2) Consciousness: "Good" and "evil" are polar
concepts—without sin we cannot have known good
and evil. (In Christianity, the eating of the apple
represents the origin of consciousness.) Without the
possibility to do harm, people could not be
conscious of what is good—people would not be
people, but robotic.
(3) Trust Alone: The suffering of the innocent child is
simply beyond human understanding. I.e., it's
absurd. The problem of evil is a mystery because
Christianity is not an idea but is essentially a
nonintellectual way of life as it is.
(4) Freedom: Given paradise, people preferred
freedom. It's our freedom which makes us people as
opposed to other natural processes. The existence of
evil is the price paid for free choice. Human beings
qua human beings could not choose only the good.
(A crucial question Dostoevsky suggests is whether
people actually seek freedom. Moreover, would
God allow freedom of choice in the afterlife?)
(5) Future Harmony: Evil events will produce
something better in the future for others (e.g.,
consider cases where there is a "necessary evil" or
cases where the ends justify the means.) For
example, my suffering today will produce a better
world for my children and others in succeeding
generations. The world course is getting better and
better—we are overcoming evil before the final
redemption at the end of the world.
(6) Paying for father's crimes: We all share
responsibility for what has happened in the past.
"The sins of the father are visited upon the sons."
(Source of the quotation results from a violation of
the second Commandment: worship not a graven

_____________________________________________________________________________________
6
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

image. "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God

and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generation." Cf.,
Deuteronomy 5:8-10 and Exodus 20:5.)
(7) Saving the world from a future evil: The child
would have grown up to sin (perhaps be a mass
murderer). By his death by the hounds, the world is
saved from his future evil deeds.
(8) Suffering is necessary for the price of truth: No
truth can be won without overcoming evil is some
form. Some kinds of good can only originate from
evil events.
ii. Additional oft-cited accounts for the problem of evil do
not address the cases of the suffering of an innocent
child and do not address the cases of nonmoral evil
such as flood, tornado, and earthquake.
(1) God's punishment for evil behavior: God is a just
God and punishes unrighteous behavior which leads
human beings either to repentance or rebellion.
(2) Evil is a test or trial: Evil is necessary for
improvement of the soul, spiritual growth, and
testing faith.
(3) Evil does not exist: Evil is an illusion or a lack of
the being of goodness. Evil arises at the
disappearance of goodness.
e. What does Alyosha mean when he says to Ivan, "That is
rebellion"?
i. Alyosha is suggesting that Ivan has forgotten that there
is a God who could forgive the guilt resulting from the
death of the child.
ii. For Ivan no just God would permit a crime like the
suffering of an innocent child. Ivan believes God is just,
but he rejects the world God has created.
3. The crucial aspect of Dostoevsky's approach to the problem of
evil in the Brother's Karamazov is how can we believe
rationalizations of solutions in the face of the horrors of natural
atrocity and the death of a small child.

Pascal’s Wager

_____________________________________________________________________________________
7
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

1. Several biographical points of Blaise Pascal(1632-1662)

a. With no formal education, Pascal studied languages at
home until he became fascinated with Euclid's Elements.
b. At sixteen Pascal wrote an important essay on the geometry
of conic sections for a group of mathematicians who later
formed part of the French Academy.
c. He studied and made contributions to the physics of gases
and liquids.
d. By correspondence with Fermat, Pascal helped form the
origin of probability theory. His final work solved several
important problems raised by the cycloid: a mathematical
curve formed by the path taken by a point on the
circumference of a circle as it rolls along a straight line.
e. The Pensées from which "The Wager" is taken is a
collection of fragments reconstructed by editors who might
not accurately reflect the original writing of Pascal.
2. The Wager
a. According to Pascal, how much can be known about God?
i. God is so completely different from us that there is no
way for us to comprehend him.
ii. We can know that God is, but we cannot know what
God is.
iii. Ordinary human descriptions are futile and paradoxical
when applied beyond the bounds of everyday
application when we say God is all-powerful, all-good,
and all-knowing. These predicates are beyond our
experience.
b. Pascal's Wager.
i. Pascal does not think that the atheist or the believer
would be convinced by his Wager. Instead, he directs
the Wager to the curious and unconvinced.
ii. I have a choice: either first I believe God exists or
second I do not believe God exists.
iii. First, if I believe God exists, and God in fact does exist,
then I will gain infinite happiness. However, if I believe
God exists, and God in fact does not exist, then I will
have no payoff.
iv. Second, if I do not believe God exists, and God in fact
does exist, then I will gain infinite pain. However, if I
believe God does not exist, and God in fact does not
exist, then I will have no payoff.
v. Thus, I have everything to gain and nothing to lose by
believing in God, and I have everything to lose and
nothing to gain by not believing in God. On these
grounds, one would be foolish not to believe.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
8
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

c. Is Pascal's Wager a proof of God's existence or not?

i. I come to have faith in God by "acting as if I believed."
I, in effect, change my attitude, not my reason.
ii. Pascal indicates we learn from those who believe and
become like them. As a result of the Wager, we have
nothing to lose and everything to gain.
iii. By rational decision theory, one can calculate the
expected return of a payoff. Suppose I wonder whether
I should enter the Family Publisher's Sweepstakes with
a possible payoff of 20 million dollars. I look in the fine
print and see that the chance of winning the payoff is 1
in 450 million. I can calculate my "expected" return by
doing a thought-experiment. Suppose I enter the contest
an indefinite number of times; I will win on the average
the amount calculated by the following formula:

[the probability of winning] X [the payoff] = [the

expected return].
(1) So, doing the math ...
[1 / 450,000,000] X [$2,000,000] = [$0.0044] or
less than a half of a penny.
(2) Obviously, if I return my entry by mail I would
normally lose money because of the cost of the
stamp, the opportunity cost of my time, and, among
other things, the shoe leather used on the way to the
post office.
iv. With God's promise of an afterlife, however, the payoff
is so large that the expected return makes it almost
irrational not to believe, even if the probability were
low. Even so, of course, there is no certainty there
would be a payoff.
v. The everyday beliefs we act on are the things we
believe the strongest. We never bother to prove these
beliefs. We do not try to prove the existence of the
external world, that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the
floor will remain under our feet, or that we are awake.
vi. It is little matter that we can, or cannot, prove these
beliefs, so likewise, it is little matter that we prove
God's existence. We simply assume life will go on,
without proof; otherwise, it would be disastrous to our
everyday existence if we were occupied with proving
these ordinary things.
vii. In sum, Pascal's Wager is not intended to be a
philosophical proof; the Wager is just intended as a

_____________________________________________________________________________________
9
MODULE OF INSTRUCTION

persuasive, pragmatic consideration directed to the

agnostic.
d. What major objections can we construct to the Wager? Can
the objections be countered?
i. Two main objections are often raised to Pascal's Wager.
(1) To believe in God simply for the payoff is the
wrong motive for belief. Such self-seeking
individuals would not properly serve the Deity.
(2) In order to be sure of a payoff, an individual would
not know which God or gods to believe in to cover
the conditions of the wager. Would the Wager also
hold for Zeus, Odin,or Mithra? One would have to
believe in all gods to be sure, but if there were only
one God in fact, then this strategy would defeat
itself.
ii. Pascal could argue objection (1) isn't about subjective
intentions; it's about objective probabilities.
iii. Pascal could argue for objection (2) the different
conceptions of different religions could refer to the
same God.
e. What is the meaning of Pascal's sentence, "The heart has its
reasons which reason does not know?"
i. Human beings live not by reason alone. Without heart,
feeling, emotion, life would lose its value.
ii. Our uniqueness as a species might be the ability to
think, but let not that blind ourselves to the fact that our
whole value individually or as a group is not in reason
alone.

References:
Lander University: Introduction to Philosophy – Philosophy of Religion Notes. Lee C. Archie

_____________________________________________________________________________________
10