Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with the nature of knowledge. What does that mean? well epistemology basically asks questions about knowledge. What is it? Is it possible to acquire it? What types of things can I know? How do I know what I know? and so on. These questions might sound trivial, but deep thinking is required if we are to soundly answer any of them.
Knowledge is in its most basic form justified true belief, and like everyone else Descartes was just your ordinary philosopher/mathematician/genius trying to show that he was justified in believing what he did. Descartes was not satisfied with dogma, or common beliefs; instead, Descartes wanted 100% certainty that what he believed was justified. To do this he developed a systematic method by which he could doubt everything. If there were beliefs which could not be doubted, then they could serve as a foundation for more beliefs until everything that was true, was justified. The Cartesian Method of Doubt relies heavily on the epistemic closure principle which states that I know that X happens, and I know that X happening entails Y happening, then I know that Y happens. By using this principle Descartes makes what was a pretty profound argument for skepticism. In his first meditation descartes states that: P1. If I know that the external world exists than I know I am not dreaming. P2. I do not know that I am not dreaming. C. I do not know that the external world exists. (side note: Descartes is not arguing that the external world does not exist, he is merely pointing out that we can doubt its existence.) Now you can substitute many things for his example of dreaming. In fact, Descartes himself gives similar arguments using different examples (the Evil Demon, Distorted perception ect.). Basically to understand his argument all you need to do is understand that since we do not know that we are not dreaming, how can we know the world around us is real? Life could be illusory and we would never know it. Since dreams distort our perceptions and senses why couldn’t our perception of the external world be a false reality? Using the example of the evil demon: maybe our minds are simply being controlled by a malevolent demon who cruelly decided to give us a false sense of reality. Since we do not know that this is not the case, we do not know that our perception of the external world falls in line with reality.
After he figured out things we cannot know (according to his view of justified true beliefs). Descartes continued his quest for justified belief in his second meditation by finding that in which we can know, and cannot doubt. This is where Descartes uses the famous phrase “cogito ergo sum” roughly translated “I think, therefore I exist” to demonstrate his main point. Descartes cannot rationally doubt his own existence. For if there is doubting, then their is one doing this doubting. He does not try prove that he exists, only that it is irrational to doubt his existence. If he does not exist, than their is nothing doing the doubting ect.
Now that he had this foundational belief which could not be rationally doubted, Descartes set out to build on this foundation. Most philosophers agree that he was unsuccessful in his later meditations, trying in one to prove that God exists, and that this God (being omni-benevolent) would not give us a false sense of reality. Regardless of the soundness of his later works Descartes’ work serves as a great foundation for skepticism, and epistomology in general.
Went to a fantastic concert last night at the University.
Reilly, an alternative rock band had a unique sound which was partly due to the fact that they incorporated violin into their songs which made their music almost symphonic. They have some amazing talent and well thought out lyrics.
Here is their newest music video, a great song called Sunlight
Next Lecrae got up and knocked the concert out of the park.
Lecrae’s songs are sermons put to music. Well, not really, but they are very sound as far as doctrine is concerned, and his beats are out of this world. He gave his testimony and shared the gospel at the end which was really awesome to hear. The guy has serious talent and he stays so humble. He gives God the full credit for all that he does which was really cool to see.
Here is his latest video “Dont Waste Your Life” based off of on of John Pipers books.
One objection that has been raised regarding a theistic view of morality as absolute and objective is that of Euthyphro’s Dilemma. The dilemma was posed by the philosopher Socrates to a religious scholar named Euthyphro, since then it has been reformulated for a monotheistic God. The dilemma simply poses the question: Does God will certain acts because they are moral, or are certain acts moral because they are willed by God?” In this paper I will argue a solution that seems not only possible, but necessary given the theists definition of God.
The theist has been trapped into a corner with two seemingly impossible solutions. The first horn asserts that God merely recognizes morality. The obvious problem with arguing for this option is that there is some standard that is above God, a standard which God must conform to. If God is moral in the sense that he fits the mold of an external moral law morality is independent of God, which is exactly the opposite of what the theist is attempting to prove. The second horn poses a different problem, for if morality is whatever God decides, than morality is arbitrary. God might have decided that rape and murder were moral actions. As Bertrand Russell once said, “If the only basis for morality is God’s decrees, it follows that they might just as well have been the opposite of what they are” (pg. 48). If morality is whatever God decides it to be, morality loses all authority and becomes subjective which is precisely what the theist is trying to argue against.
For a solution to be viable for the theist it must meet two requirements. First the alleged solution must make morality objective. And second the alleged solution must make God the foundation for this objective morality. My proposed argument goes as follows:
P1: It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to it
P2: If God is the greatest conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.
P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.
C: Therefore since His nature is necessarily perfect, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths.
P2 must be accepted by the one posing the dilemma as discussion can only occur when the poser evaluates a certain view of God and His relation to morality. The burden of proof is on the one posing the dilemma to find a flaw in a proposed solution, as the dilemma is a positive assertion.
P1 is philosophically solid as it is a greater thing to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to an external standard, for if one conforms to an external standard that one is subject to a thing greater than itself. Since P2 defines God as the greatest conceivable being, by the theist’s own definition this God is necessarily the standard of morality. Since he is the standard of morality there is no other standard by which he can be judged making his nature necessarily morally perfect. The moral nature of God is an essential property of Gods meaning that there is no possible world in which God according to the theist’s definition could have existed and yet lacked that property. This must not be confused with accepting the second horn of the dilemma, for if God was not necessarily morally perfect then morality is subjective. Since God is necessarily morally perfect according to the theist’s definition the theist sees no problem is claiming that this deity can serve as a foundation for objective values. God is moral neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of morality, His moral nature is an essential quality of His which if existing according to the theistic definition must make him the moral standard.
The solution proposed is not without its objections. One common objection is that if goodness is what God must be, why call bother calling Him good? Calling God good is merely saying that God is consistent with his nature. Regardless of its truth, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, for to argue this would be to confuse moral ontology with moral semantics. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states that “The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in God is a meta-ethical claim about moral ontology, not moral semantics […] It is fundamentally a claim about the metaphysical status of moral properties, not a claim about the meaning of moral sentences” (pg. 212). In addition most theists see no problem in accepting that goodness and morality are merely words used to describe God.
Another objection might be that the theist is begging the question when he or she assumes P2. Since God’s perfect goodness is part of his greatness, the theist is assuming that God is the standard for objective morality before the argument is made. It must be reiterated that all the theist is attempting to accomplish is show a possible state in which God can serve as a possible standard for objective moral truths. All the theist must do to solve the dilemma is to offer a view of God who is the perfect standard of absolute morality by virtue of His existence. If any being is perfect by definition, then if that being exists it has the power to be a standard by which others can be measured to. The theist can simply say that they believe God to be necessarily perfect in every regard, which would render the dilemma useless against this particular definition of God. God, described as the greatest conceivable being, if existing is the standard for objective morality by very definition. The solution is not stating that God is the objective moral standard because theists believe God to be the objective moral standard, for this would be tautology and circular reasoning; rather the argument is that God can be the standard for objective morality because of Gods necessary moral perfection.
While this dilemma posed a formidable problem for the polytheist who like Euthyphro believed the gods to be a group of limited individuals, the modern day monotheist can avoid this dilemma by using the modern day concept of God as a maximally great being. To answer the dilemma the theist can offer a third solution rendering it a false dilemma, and state that acts are deemed either moral or immoral based upon their conformity or lack thereof to Gods moral nature, which is essential to His being.
Craig, L William “Philosophy of Religion”
Rutgers University Press (2002)
Russell, Bertrand “Why I am not a Christian”
Taken from a lecture given on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society.
Posted by Philip Davis 
Posted by Philip Davis 
Posted by Philip Davis 
