Today we are introducing a new area of philosophy – philosophy of religion. We are starting this unit off with Anselm’s argument for God’s existence, while also considering objections to that argument.
“That’s a Neigh” David Goehring https://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonnyc/8757020626
All other images via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashC...
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr - http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
But Guanilo did miss the point. Anaselm did mention at the begginig of hipothesis that god was the best THING that exists. He was precisely talking about every-thing thus it makes that hipothesis only work for God.
watched til 6;03 , but what am I, as an atheist supposed to learn from this? im not "on the hook" because atheism lacks belief, and that is as far as philosophers have been able to go, at least philosophers that as the presenter has said, dont beg the question. The monk thing was funny though, but nothing most atheists have not heard (atheists that have done very basic research)
All of Existence is Itself a part of God - God is the Sum of ALL Natural Processes – The Ground of ALL Being - Omnipresence, the Supreme.. or Ultimate.. Reality. The Creative and Controlling Force in the Universe - The Force regarded as causing and regulating the Phenomena of the World by the Universal Natural Laws - God is both Outside.. and Inside.. Space-Time. Not subject to the cycle of Birth and Death - The Ultimate, the Absolute, Infinite and Eternal….. ENERGY & FORCE
The word – GOD – functions as a SYMBOL.. representing.. the underlying Unity.. and.. or.. as a METAPHOR.. representing a personification of a Motivating Power.. of a Value System.. that functions in Human Life.. and in the Universe. The Force.. and Energy.. that supports the World - A personification of the Energy.. or Force.. that seems to regulate the Physical Universe - An anthropomorphic idea whose dynamism.. and symbolism.. are filtered through the medium of the psyche..
“God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.” - - Joseph Campbell
CARL JUNG ON GOD
“A young female student accused Jung of being an atheist. Jung was confused and asked the student where she had gotten that idea. The student paraphrased a quote she had read in which Jung said he didn't believe God existed. Jung smiled and said "Dear girl, rest easy, “When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!" - Carl Jung - The Undiscovered Self
“The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it - I don't need to believe it.”
“I did not say in the broadcast, ‘There is a God’, I said ‘I do not need to believe in God; I know’. Which does not mean: I do know a certain God (Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, the Trinitarian God, etc.) but rather: I do know that I am obviously confronted with a factor unknown in itself, which I call 'God' in consensu omnium (‘quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur’).
“I put the word "God" in quotes in order to indicate that we are dealing with an anthropomorphic idea whose dynamism and symbolism are filtered through the medium of the unconscious psyche. Anyone who wants to can at least draw near to the source of such experiences, no matter whether he believes in God or not.”
“That religious experiences exist no longer needs proof. But it will always remain doubtful whether what metaphysics and theology call God and the gods is the real ground of these experiences. The question is idle, actually, and answers itself by reason of the subjectively overwhelming numinosity of the experience. Anyone who has had it is seized by it and therefore not in a position to indulge in fruitless metaphysical or epistemological speculations. Absolute certainty brings its own evidence and has no need of anthropomorphic proofs.” - Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self
Faith by definition (Hebrews 11:1) is believing in something that cannot be seen and thus proven. To demand proof from the person of faith, or to be a person of faith and thinking that their faith can be proven to the nonbeliever is to not understand it. The person of faith cannot prove their belief to the person with no faith, and the person of no faith cannot prove the person of faith to be wrong unless the faith is in something that is not metaphysical, like believing that the moon is made of green cheese which can be checked. The person of faith can explain their faith but this is not the same as empirical evidence. The debates on the topic really have no value. The bible teaches that faith is a gift of God. The belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross a sinless man to pay for the sins of the world inherited from Adam, and that he rose from the dead on the third day thus imparting the gift of faith and eternal life is a gift from God. That belief is not the function of tangible evidence.
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
The fact is that all argumentation for the metaphysical begs the question. It all stems from a presupposition that cannot be proven absolutely. If one reasons that you don't have to prove the platform your coming from you've put yourself into the same category as the side you accuse. Philosophy chases it's tail for the same reason.
PBS? gee, that's not connected to any Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Postmodernist stuff, is it? No. I thought this might be a good video then I sensed a hint of contempt and THEN I saw the PBS logo. Tricky, tricky.
In my personal opinion, I think that comparing God with a human as a gardener is a false example.Due to the fact that a gardener could be only A HUMAN BEING. Especially when is invisible we could actually suppose that the gardener is dead.. Which brings us in a contrast with HOW the FLOWERS OR WHAT THE garden had inside of it still GROWS UP. Which doesnt approves that whatever grows alone in the garden after no gardener to take care of it is Gods doing..cause actually if God was an idea..before we humans gave it a shape ..could be invisible..as a shape after we imagine him/ it. So that proves that in our logic, we approve a design of a PROTECTOR ( gardener and a space - garden) who we cant see or smell..but, in the garden we seek someone! and not something. A tracter for example. That defines we humans have an Overall idea of what not to seek. SO WE KNOW WHO TO HATE!
"Some people say that religion is the one area where you don't need arguments. That faith alone is enough. But philosophers don't take faith for an answer." ... You know better, Hank. That's a strawman. What about the theologians who don't take faith for an answer? You're conflating theologian with non-thinking believer in blind faith. You're just picking off low-hanging fruit. There are clearly atheists who don't have good reasons to back up their assertions of a lack of God. They just choose to reject God - perhaps to avoid acknowledging cosmic responsibility to a higher authority. They will quickly cling to an idea that is posed by a philosopher without examining for themselves the validity of the argument. Just like there are religious people who do the same. But that doesn't account for religious people who think through and consider the evidence and make informed decisions on ultimate truths and reality.
It feels as if he purposely choose the weakest argument for God. I see a lot of comments about him being "unbiased" but he just brushed the hundreds of better arguments for God aside and settled for the most ridicules and lazy so he could quickly refute it as easily as possible. Disappointed.
Skepticism gives the paradox that what the skeptic believes is true is false. When Christianity say to have faith that they mean belief in something of substance. What has happened is faith has become a meme of Christian belief in God, and we literally have enemies claiming belief in anything is evil, but believe in me, the atheist, because atheists have the best belief. This is a logic bottom of p & not-p (believe and not-believe) and it is a contradiction that demands that you choose something to believe in (even if it is in neither the premises nor conclusion, choose something and introduce a new term of logic) for the next logic step, because life does not crash and burn like computer programs. This is Christian evangelist skepticism, that what you believe of reality has nothing to do with it. What we are asking is to believe in the holy God for the purpose driven life, because without it, then all you can do is be subjective in your beliefs and only serve being an enemy and adversary.
In defense of Philosophy, belief is too valuable to be given to people who claim wisdom, just like wealth is too valuable to be trusted to the rich, where it is that we are remaking ourselves and choosing to throw off the troubles and evil that become us that are found in the reflection in our mirrors (where 99% of your problems are found in the mirror reflection of you, now look at it and smile).
The funny thing is that I could argue with Anselm using his first and second arguments, because I strongly disagree with the third one. I mean, I can see why the real pizza would be better than the imaginary one when you're starving. But in case with unicorns?.. I wouldn't be so sure. For a dreamer like me fantasies are better than reality just because they are fantasies. If unicorns were real, they would loose the thing that made them special, they would not be so exciting anymore. Reality spoils stuff like that, we often get used to real stuff very quickly. If you ever spent months waiting for a new game and dreaming about how cool it would be and then finally you get to play that game and it suddenly seems boring to you, then you know what I mean.
Therefore, to be the greatest thing I can think of, God must not exist in reality.
The epistemologies of many spiritually-focused Indian and Chinese philosophers does a better job of explaining how beliefs can be justified through contemplative insight. I like Abhinavagupta, personally.
While I am a Christian who loves the idea of proving God, Anselm's argument was very flawed. If that was the only proof we had for God, I wouldn't believe in Him. Thankfully, it's not the only proof we have. Sorry Anselm, you had good intentions but your argument sucked.
Adolf Schlatter began his Theological studies with Anthropology, however in anthropic terms. He addressed the questions of, how God made us so that we can arrive at a certain belief about anything. Genesis begins with a Philosophic Concept, that reasonably explains the possibility, for, "personality." It begins with, three distinct equal beings, whose mutual reciprocal actions between themselves, represents a unity, of, "thought," "will," and "expression," God is love. If the Bible doesn't begin in this way, it doesn't start at all, and must not be trusted. But, it does, because it's a book about a God that thinks in a particular way, that made other thinkers like them, us, who went, "Yeah but," one day and fell from grace and become intellectually blind. Science can't talk about "personality," because science method is insufficient to take them there. Schlatter writes in his "Systematic Theology," "God makes the revelations of himself, and the recipient of that revelation, in such a way, that love and truth are possibilities for them." According to Roman's all the evidence for knowing God is in front of you. Kant, he helped Hegel give us a Hegelian dialectic conflict. Most Theology today, is deeply rooted in this science method. Schlatter's works, and they are significant, addresses the Kantian influence upon Theological studies since the days of Harnack and others. The Bible is the intellectual affirmation of all the possibilities. If it's not in the Bible, it can't happen. Genesis 1:1 enables, "Polemics." Islam is dead and so are all the systems that can't explain the possibility for human reason process. God is great. However, if you reason in a Hegelian dialectic, God might as well be dead. You know, if you don't know for yourself, you will follow someone else. That's not even a man. I taught our 9 son's this. Male by birth, men by choice. Thinking is the first act of worship, because it deals with truth. So much heart faith today, and so little thinking. Science and education, have taken peoples' ability to think for themselves away. "Hurry Jesus! Let's do it Holy Spirit!"
love crash course, although from a materialist sense of the understanding of religion, id say that human history shapes religion, not the other way around.
That is to say, the process of history, the philosophical underpinnings of any society, forge the religious beliefs of those present in them. i.e. , the backwardness of the crusades was ultimately do to the backwards philosophical underpinnings of society, one that was barberous in nature, rather then religious crusaders foraging history due only to their individual religious ideologies
When people point at violence, stoning or punishment in general as a way to try and destroy religion, but let's understand what was going on when such commandments were called for,
We here "look a woman gets stoned outside her father's house" they go to the barbaric verses, but try to look at it from all angles,
For instance say the ruler king or leaders commanded "all non virgins will be buried alive"' no one knows what the laws were before scripture,
Now imagine if you are falsely accused of not being a virgin, you would prefer to be taking to your father's house than being buried alive without any justice, by being taken to your father's house first, your parents would pretact you and law and order would prevent you from being falsely accused, and that is the point, atheists point to such verses which in this day and age sound dreadful but you have to understand what were they doing before hand?
Again if you were born in that era and your daughter was brought to your house to be stoned, you would protect her it's human nature, while the laws before the scriptures, your hand will be tied as they bury your daughter,
Again we all go to the worse case scenario before looking at the bigger picture, again Alan Turing the British war hero was chemicalally castrated for being a homosexual, this was only less than 60 years ago in the united kingdom, it's easy to find faults regarding punishment in scriptures in this day and age, but you must ponder how did we get civilized? Scripture,,, now we see and hear the atheists point at the religious people forgetting, if it was not for religion we all would be running around in a dog eat dog fashion,
Repeatedly we are told "there is only one God" ask yourself why? Killing is not worshipping God it's playing God, judging others be that by skin colour or their sex or language then that to is not worshipping God it's playing God, there is only one God and that's not you or me,
Does this confuse Anselm’s concept of a “possible world” with the existence of something within our thoughts? Or did Anselm change his proof later on? The presentation of Anselm’s argument here is different that I’ve heard it before.
I was a little disappointed they didn't really cover the other refined versions of the Ontological Argument (particularly Kurt Godel's, which is arguably the strongest). I get that these Crash Course videos are generally only ~10min long, but they could have cut out the part about the Invisible Gardener (which wasn't particularly relevant to the video's main topic IMHO) and replace it with at least an overview of the other arguments.
Still, I liked this video (as I do all of the Crash Course Philosophy videos) and look forward to the next!
This aint the argument of Saint Anselm. The argument is : the universe are made of contingent beings, so there must be a necessary being,or first cause. A necesaary being would have to be omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient. A being with those caracteristics is equal to the being we call God. Then if God is a necessary being, so He must necessarily exist.
The Gardener analogy is easily dismantled by the idea that the Gardener simply didn't come back.... Or can see that they are waiting for him and simply doesn't reveal himself. It's neither an implausible idea nor impossible to imagine a shy gardener who simply doesn't like to be around others while he tends to the garden.
It's also easy to imagine or assume the Gardener would simply wait until they inevitably went home to start tending the garden. The list goes on possibility-wise.
Of course then you could argue: "What's a gardener worth if he doesn't come back"
Well he's worth the flowers currently in the garden of course, he tended to them, and now they grow.
They wouldn't be there without the gardener. Most plants can exist in any temperate climate by themselves without human interference... Exhibit A: The Rain forest.
I'm sure to most animals we seem like Gods by comparison. We give them food whenever they are hungry, we give them shelter when they are cold, from their perspective we magically cleanse them of illness...
I believe in God, and I believe in intelligent design.
Love the video but it's not rocket science to prove the fallacy of that logic. And I love discourse, so feel free to find a flaw in my logic if it pleases you, but please do be respectful. I'm a firm believer in "learning more about the world = learning more about god" so I promise I'll be more open minded than most of my fellows.
to start off the only reason why someone would try to find out if God is real or not is because they would rather get it right when they are still alive to choose rather than go to hell because they didn't beleive or choose at all. Also if they find out that God does not exist then they can do whatever they please without fear of an afterlife. In any cas it would be wise to beleive because you have nothing to loose if you are wrong and everything to gain if your are right. Just saying :)
The greatest conceivable being by nature would be a necessary being. Always existing would therefore be a great making property, as it is better to exist than not to. While don’t think is perfect it does not appear to be begging the question.
Really enjoyed the video btw.
The comment section, is why people don't like atheist. They literally show communist behavior and spit on everything that is connected to religon and expect no response. Why?
I don't think its smart to put God on the level of a dog, becouse maybe you don't belive in gods presented in religons. You don't know if maybe out there is a God that has nothig to do with our religions. I mean, aren't you acting childish? Or should I say, you're disgrace to true atheists that can debate? You kinda Muslim.
Great video dude!
Being a Catholic, I believe that God is real because without God, there would be no way for the universe to come into being. Also, many scientists have proven saints to have actually performed miracles.
nothing is better than eternal happiness;
a ham sandwich is better than nothing;
*THEREFORE:* a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
A true Zen saying; Nothing is what I want.
Christians, Mohammedans and Jews are a plague upon humanity.
*IF* you accept the Bible or the Koran or the Torah as being true
*THEN* you MUST accept that people can be owned as slaves, your own self included, that people can be killed for following a different religion and that women can be treated as second class citizens.
I think Anselm's argument is more compelling than other proofs, but it does not entail that God is a physical thing, or a person, or even an actor in any usual sense. The simple idea that there is something beyond our understanding is not so odd, and when we seek explanations of many things, we run into a brick wall at some point where we simply cannot go further even though we need to do so to get a satisfactory explanation. That is beyond our ability to conceive. This probably makes God out to be something unsatisfactory to almost everyone, but that is not a counter-argument. If your eventual ideas about God don't please you, then don't think about God. But you cannot believe in a God just because someone told you that you must - you can say you believe but will never succeed in really believing.
Why would you use one of the literal weakest arguments for God I have ever heard in my life. There are many far better. Aquinas' Five Ways would have been at least a better start. Jesus... Everybody talking about "I love how he isn't biased".
The parable of the invisible garden is horrible, and it contains many flaws on the side of the atheist. First it is against natural laws for a garden to tend itself. Second why does something have to have a smell, the ability to be touched, or is visible to be existent? it would only be logical to say that love, wisdom, and numbers don't exist. And lastly this whole argument is built on the fallacy that a predicate can't prove a subject: my existence is proof of my parents existence. I know that because I exist, I must have some kind of origin, which is my parents. my existence is the predicate of my parents existence. checkmate.
DEEP , or is it just the illusion of deep which is shallow view deep of course but then we have WELL which is in itself a deep subject butt that is or could be interpreted as a belief which true scientists & intellectually endowed do not accept as a possibility or they have entire fields of study & even more theories to prove that it is only wiseless unevolved Neanderthal folk who engage in such nonsense without a large brain to enable their kind to do so which they can because they have proven this in their research on such difficult near impossible feats of superbeing beings that only they are according to their religion OOOOPPPPSSS I let the cat out of the proverbial bag but that can not exist because it has not been properly theorized yet
faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hope for.and the evidence of things not seen (bible). the definition that this guy in the video is using is not the same as the scripture. the bible claims to be the word of God, this guy does not say his definition is from God.
I disagree with the assertion that Hank makes that philosophy is empirical. Philosophy does not rely on evidence, but logical coherence. Additionally, this "proof" for God's existence is much inferior to St. Thomas Aquinas' "Unmoved Mover" proof.
The only logical argument philosophy is going to use is from a man centuries ago that obviously didn’t have a logical argument. Of course this is a bias video because the video would have information from individuals who have good arguments for explaining God and Faith. Horrible video, could have researched more about the opposing argument before concluding with the comical response.
Argument against God about causality
P1: God is believed to be a timeless (without time) being that caused the universe to exist.
P2: Causality aka cause and effect, are 2 events.
P3: Time is defined as all events: past, present and future, seen as a whole.
P4: Without time, there are no events
P5: Without events, there is no causality
P6: To cause anything without time is a contradiction.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Argument against God about lacking space
P1: God is believed by monotheists to have no space
P2: To have space means to have spatial dimensions
P3: For a being to have locality, requires spatial dimensions
P4: To have locality is to be somewhere
P5: Since God has no spacial dimensions, God can't have locality
P6: Since God doesn't have locality, God is nowhere.
P7: To be nowhere is the same as not existing.
C: God doesn't exist.
P1: God is a being believed by monotheists that it always existed
P2: God is a being believed by monotheists that it is outside time
P3: The phrase "always existed" implies duration
P4: Duration implies time
P5: IF God exists where there is no time then God has no duration
P6: Since God has no duration, God has no time to exist
P7: Since God has no time to exist, it is a contradiction for God to always exist
Conclusion: There is no God
I also think this definition of faith as unwarranted belief is simply the wrong way to think about faith. Faith is trust in God. That trust might be irrational and God may not exist. But faith itself isn't something that requires no justification. Here's an analogy. If I need a complicated surgery, I might do real research on the disease and the best doctors to do the surgery. But when I lay down on the gurney for the actual surgery, I entrust myself in the hands of the physician. I don't just trust anyone. I trust the doctor whose skills I have reason to have faith in. In the same way, I need reasons to believe in God. I also, once I'm convinced, place my personal trust in that God as my creator and whatever else. Faith and Reason go hand in hand but faith takes me places reason cannot go.
I think it is totally false that the existence of God is not even on the table in theology. Clearly it is. Anselm was a theologian who argued for God's existence. Clearly it was on the table. If it wasn't, his argument is a bit . . . weird to say the least. What theology does is work through issues raised by God's existence as to God's nature and character. But God's existence is certainly not taken as a mindless value. Some philosophers like Plantinga believe that belief in God can be properly basic and not require justification to be warranted. But even he goes on to present arguments for God's existence. He's even put on conferences where these arguments are discussed and fine-tuned. So Please, God is certainly on the table for discussion among theologians and philosophers.
We don't need to prove that God doesn't exist. If there is a God, it is his responsibility to prove to us that he exists. " the whole point of enlightenment is the release from our self imposed immaturity, particularly in matters of religion" Immanuel Kant
It's my belief that there is a creator (Not necessarily the judo-christian god) and they cleverly made it so there is no functional difference between believing everything is guided by a divine hand, or whether everything is up to chance. Things still happen either way, leaving it fully up to the individual how they would like to interpret the world from their beliefs. You are given the choice to believe that everything is meant to be and has a intentional purpose or you can believe that everything is chaotic random chance and cascading probability guided by the framework of physics. There is no functional difference between the two, things still kinda just happen for reasons.
Can we not talk about the things people said hundreds of hundreds years ago? It’s the 21st century now... we have more things to prove god’s existence. We have improved our freaking brains, philosophies and even science. And what actually proves god’s existence is actually science. As me for the scientific proof and I’ll reply back to you giving a reason. I’m too lazy to write the proof right now. So if you can’t trust me, ask me.
So theists have to provide justifications for their beliefs but atheists don't? I thought philosophy didn't take anything as a given and that that included disbelief in theism. Conclusions are doomed to be flawed with such a priori assumptions.
About the invisible gardener, the difference is that at least the nearly impossibly detectable gardener is still there and put in work to the garden. Where as with no gardener, the garden would have diminished
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.