What Makes Knowledge Claims Possible
Describe one of the five arguments that purport to explain why both evil and a perfectly good God can exist, as well as provide an objection to that view.
Paper instructions:
Our Knowledge of the World Around Us
James & Stuart Rachels
What Makes Knowledge Claims Possible? – “[T]rue belief, combined with reason, [is] knowledge [and] … the belief which [has] no reason [is] out of the sphere of
knowledge” (Plato, Theaetetus).
What does Plato mean by reason? – “[T]hings of which there is no rational account are not knowable … and that things which have a reason or explanation are knowable”
(Plato, Theaetetus).
Justification – Holding a true belief without justification doesn’t constitute possessing knowledge. Why? “[H]e who cannot give and receive a reason for a thing, has
no knowledge of that thing; but when he adds rational explanation, then, he is perfected in knowledge” (Plato, Theaetetus).
Knowledge Conditions:
1. Belief
2. Truth
3. Justification
Gettier Problems – Plato’s theory of knowledge as justified true belief was accepted as the standard definition of knowledge for several thousand years. In 1963,
however, Edmund Gettier published a paper entitled: “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” In his paper, Gettier uses two examples to show cases involving people who’ve
satisfied all three knowledge conditions but still can’t be said to know what it is they think they know.
The Job Example – Jones and Smith apply for a job. Smith has evidence that Jones will get the job (because his boss says he’ll get the job) and that Jones has ten
coins in his pocket (because Smith counted the coins in Jones’s pocket).
(A) Jones is the man who will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his pocket.
(B) If (A), then the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.
If Smith sees this entailment and accepts proposition B on the grounds of proposition A, then with the given evidence, Smith is justified in believing proposition B.
It turns out that Smith himself will be offered the job, and by random chance Smith also has ten coins in his pocket. Now (B) is true even though (A) is false. Thus,
proposition (B) is true, Smith believes that (B) is true, and Smith is justified in believing (B) is true. However, Smith doesn’t know that (B) is true. Smith doesn’t
even know how many coins he has in his own pocket. Smith bases his belief on the number of coins in Jones’s pocket.
So, Smith has a justified true belief in proposition (B), but he doesn’t know proposition (B).
The Brain in the Vat – What if in the future, scientists could remove your brain and place it in a vat of nutrients and keep it alive? Computers could then input
electrical signals into your brain via electrodes. You would perceive an illusory world via electrical impulses. You would believe that this illusory world is real.
How could you tell whether the world that you experience now is not illusory and that you’re just a brain in a vat?
Descartes’s Dream Argument – How could you tell whether you are dreaming right now or not?
Descartes’s Evil Demon – Suppose that an evil demon was responsible for your perception of reality at present. Further suppose that the evil demon was intent on
deceiving you. How could you tell whether everything that you’ve perceived up to this point in your life isn’t illusory?
Humean Empiricism:
1. Impressions
2. Ideas
Idealism – No physical objects are necessary to exist in order to cause qualia to manifest within us.
Qualia – Individual instances of subjective, conscious experience
Berkelian Idealism – If physical objects exist, we must know it by either sense or reason. Via sense, we only have knowledge of sensations. Via reason, we infer a
connection between our sensations and physical objects, but empiricists like Hume deny the idea of necessary connection. When I view a tree outside my window, why do I
perceive a continuity over time? God must always be perceiving everything there is to perceive, so that I too can perceive physical objects.
Evidence for Idealism:
1. We could be directly shown that we’ve been a BAT.
2. We could be directly shown God’s abilities.
Parsimony – An account is parsimonious if it is the simplest explanation one could offer about observed phenomena.
Why is the sky blue?:
1. Because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.
2. Because aliens used cosmic spray paint to color our atmosphere.
Berkeley believed that it is parsimonious to assume that God perceives everything. The only other option would be to assume that an incredible number of physical
objects actually exist.
Cartesian Proof of Personal Existence:
(1) I know that I’m now having certain thoughts.
(2) An evil demon could be supplying those thoughts.
(3) I can doubt the evil demon.
(4) Doubting the evil demon is an independent action I’m performing.
(5) Performing an independent action requires a doer.
(C) I’m the doer; therefore, I exist (cogito, ergo, sum).
Cartesian Proof of God’s Existence:
(1) Everything must have a cause.
(2) The fact that my idea of God represents an infinitely perfect being must have a cause which is infinitely perfect.
(3) I am not infinitely perfect.
(4) Therefore, I could not have an idea representing an infinitely perfect being if there were no such being outside of me.
(5) I have an idea of God which represents him as an infinitely perfect being.
(6) I could not have such an idea, if there were no infinitely perfect being outside of me.
(C) Therefore, an infinitely perfect being (i.e., God) exists outside of me.
Cartesian Proof of Physical Objects:
(1) I know that I am now having certain thoughts about physical objects.
(2) Deception signifies imperfection.
(3) A perfect God would not deceive me.
(4) A perfect God exists.
(5) My thoughts about physical objects are not the product of deception.
(C) My thoughts about physical objects are genuine.
Advantages of Descartes’s View:
1. There is no evil demon deceiving us.
2. Our senses and reason are reliable.
3. The BVAT and the dream argument fail.
Problems with Descartes’s View:
1. Descartes’s procedure is circular – “How do we know that reasoning can be trusted? Because God created our powers of reasoning, and God is not a deceiver. How do we
know that? Because we have a chain of reasoning to prove it” (Rachels, p. 132).
2. Problems with the ontological argument in general
The Ontological Argument – Is the universe self-sufficient? If the universe is self-sufficient, then there is no need for God in regard to creation. Is the universe
dependent upon something else? If the universe is dependent upon something else, what is this something else and can we consider it to be God? If the universe is not
self-sufficient it is dependent on something else that is self-sufficient. What type of being could be self-sufficient?
Necessary Being – A being that could not fail to exist.
The Ontological Argument:
(1) The universe is a dependent thing so it cannot exist by itself; it can exist only if it is sustained by something else—something that is not dependent.
(2) God, a necessary being, is the only thing that is not dependent.
(C) Therefore, the universe is sustained by God.
Problems with the Ontological Argument – St. Anselm introduced the idea of a necessary being. God is the greatest conceivable being. God has every possible
perfection:
1. Knowledge
2. Power
3. Goodness, etc…
God, by definition, is perfect. This means that it is impossible to properly conceive of God without automatically implying the quality of perfection. If any being is
perfect by definition, then that being exists.
Ex. Bachelor
A bachelor is an unmarried male. This is true by definition.
Ex. Triangle
A triangle is a geometrical shape with three sides. This is true by definition.
Normative Judgment – It is better to exist to not exist. It is impossible for God to not exist, since God is something that cannot get any better (i.e., God is
perfect).
Gaunilo’s Objection – If this theory proves that God exists, it also can prove that a perfect island exists. Gaunilo claims that this argument can be used to prove the
existence of perfect anything’s, which is absurd.
Kant’s Objection – For an island to be perfect, it would have to possess perfection in terms of:
1. Size
2. Climate
3. Natural Beauty, etc…
For an island to be said to exist it must possess those properties mentioned earlier, (i.e. size, climate, natural beauty, etc…). We cannot just give an object the
quality of perfection by definition and proclaim it to exist. Existence is not a predicate.
Direct Realism – When we see a tree, we don’t see qualia, we see the actual tree.
Problems with Direct Realism:
1. It doesn’t let us solve the BVAT problem because it merely asserts that we directly perceive physical objects.
2. It doesn’t fit well with scientific analyses of brain information processing because sense perception is not so simple.
Indirect Realism – Our immediate object of sense perception is qualia, and we’re only indirectly aware of the tree itself.
Kant’s View – Perception is not a passive process. The mind does not simply record what passes before it. The mind actively interprets experience according to certain
built-in principles.
Simple Perception – Complicated product of the mind’s interpretation of sense-data
Sight. Splashes of light reflected off objects that is projected as a two-dimensional kaleidoscope of throbbing, heaving streaks on each retina. The brain analyzes the
streaks and makes an assumption about the objects of perception.
Defeasibility – The brain’s assumptions can be wrong, but they’re correctible via experience.
Example:
A penny might appear to be a straight line when viewed from the side.
Something’s Missing – Why do we not perceive the universe as three-dimensional rather than two-dimensional? Answer: Geons
Geons – There are 24 three-dimensional shapes that the brain uses to construct objects from sense-data and the brain combines these shapes to construct all ideas of
the objects humans experience:
1. Sphere
2. Cube
3. Cylinder
4. Bent tube, etc…
Kant & Modern Psychology:
1. Kant – The mind imposes forms upon experience.
2. Biederman – The geons are the forms.
Color – Color makes a great difference in emotional response. Humans whose brains are damaged so that they cannot perceive color see the universe as if everything was
made of lead. These people have a problem relating to others and thinking others to be alive, with thoughts and feelings.
The Rub – Realism has no argument against idealism. Realism relies on mere assumptions made about the existence of physical objects. “We have found no reason at all to
believe that we’re not living in the Matrix” (Rachels, p. 138).
ScholarMatic: Explanation & Answer
Your ready answer from a verified tutor is just a click away for as little as $14.99
Click Order Now to get 100% Original Answer Customized to your instructions!
