Moral Transcendental Arguments For & Against God

Introduction to the Podcast and Presentation

Overview of the Episode

• Host Parker Settcase introduces the podcast, emphasizing its focus on deep philosophical ideas.

• The episode features a presentation of a paper accepted at the Evangelical Philosophical Society's annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas, held in November 2023.

Main Argument of the Paper

• The paper critiques Sammy Pillstrom's moral transcendental argument against successful theodicies.

• Pillstrom argues that no justification for God's existence can succeed if it fails to address human suffering meaningfully.

Critique of Pillstrom's Argument

Direct and Indirect Approaches

• Two strategies are proposed to counter Pillstrom’s argument: direct and indirect approaches.

• Direct Approach: Challenges specific premises of Pillstrom’s argument as false or under-motivated.

• Indirect Approach: Explores deeper presuppositions underlying his argument, suggesting they align with moral realism.

Moral Realism and Theism

• The host posits that moral realism is best explained by theism, which supports successful theodicies.

• If both arguments (Pillstrom's and Settcase's) are valid, then they must coexist; if one fails, so does the other.

Abstract and Key Concepts

Summary of Key Points

• Settcase reads an abstract outlining Pillstrom’s claim that adopting a moral viewpoint negates successful theodicy.

• He asserts that his paper demonstrates flaws in Pillstrom’s premises while proposing a counterargument based on moral realism.

Understanding Transcendental Arguments

• A brief explanation is provided about transcendental arguments as tools against skepticism regarding human experience.

Aristotle to Modern Skepticism: A Philosophical Journey

The Law of Non-Contradiction and Its Evolution

• Aristotle's indirect argument for the law of non-contradiction is contrasted with Augustine's "I am mistaken, I exist" argument against skepticism.

• This philosophical lineage extends to Descartes' appropriation of similar arguments, culminating in modern attempts to refute external world skepticism.

Addressing Various Forms of Skepticism

• Discussion includes Donald Davidson's refutation of brain-in-a-vat scenarios and Hilary Putnam's challenges to naturalistic determinism.

• William Hasker contributes to the discourse by addressing naturalistic cognition, indicating that both Continental and Analytic philosophers engage with these issues.

Understanding Transcendental Arguments

• Roger Scruton defines a transcendental argument as one that transcends empirical inquiry to establish the conditions for experience.

• Pillstrom agrees but adds that medieval notions of transcendental qualities (the good, true, beautiful) still influence contemporary understandings.

Presuppositions in Argumentation

• The speaker introduces presuppositions as technical terms necessary for understanding their arguments; specifically referencing Strawsonian presupposition.

• A presupposition is defined such that if 'A' is true, then 'B' must also be true; conversely, if 'A' is false, 'B' remains true as it underpins intelligibility.

PM’s Transcendental Anti-Theodicy Argument (TAT)

• PM defines theodicies as justifications for an omnipotent and benevolent God allowing evil and suffering in creation.

• TAT argues that recognizing others’ suffering requires acknowledging its inherent meaninglessness without imposed narratives or justifications.

Implications of TAT on Moral Perspectives

• Theodicies fail to recognize individual experiences of suffering as meaningful or functional from the sufferer's perspective.

• Consequently, they prevent adopting a moral point of view (MPV), which can only exist if we acknowledge genuine suffering.

Summary and Rejection of Theodicies

• PM summarizes TAT using modus tollens: If a successful theodicy exists (T), then no moral point of view (MPV); since we adopt MPV, no successful theodicy can exist.

The Challenge of Theodicy: A Prothotic Perspective

Undermining Tat's Conclusion

• Proth theodosis aims to challenge Tat's conclusion by arguing that the presuppositions making its premises intelligible are better explained by a worldview that negates Tat's conclusion, specifically a prothotic worldview.

• The argument hinges on the idea that these presuppositions depend on a Christian or theistic worldview, suggesting that Tat's conclusion cannot hold true.

Direct Approaches to Refuting Premise 3

• One direct approach for prothodicy is to challenge premise 3 of Tat, which claims that theodicies justify suffering as part of an externally imposed narrative providing meaning not recognized by the sufferer.

• This characterization targets all forms of theodicy and can be refuted if a single example exists outside its scope.

Free Will Theodicy as a Counterexample

• Peter van Inwagen’s Free Will Theodicy serves as an example that counters premise 3, asserting that evil results from humanity's abuse of free will rather than being justified through an overarching narrative.

• Van Inwagen argues this perspective addresses both moral and natural evils, linking them back to humanity’s choices and separation from God.

Connection Between Moral and Natural Evils

• He posits that natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes) stem from humanity’s moral fall and subsequent alienation from divine guidance.

• This connection suggests instances of natural evil could have been avoided had humans maintained communion with God.

Distribution of Evil in Van Inwagen’s Argument

• Van Inwagen questions why innocent individuals often suffer while wicked ones prosper, suggesting randomness in some instances of horror without correlation to moral qualities.

• He states our rebellion has led to a loss of defenses against destructive forces, resulting in random distributions of suffering unrelated to human morality.

Implications for Premise 3

• Since Van Inwagen’s Free Will Theodicy does not fit within PM's characterization in premise 3, it demonstrates that not all theodicies justify suffering through external narratives.

Theodicy and Suffering: Analyzing Arguments

The Nature of Theodicies

• Most theodicies attempt to justify suffering as part of a larger, harmonious narrative, giving it meaning that may not be recognized in the experience itself.

• By limiting the scope of discussion to "most" theodicies, an empirical claim is introduced that requires further substantiation, weakening the argument's strength.

Modifying Theodicy Claims

• A proposed modification suggests recognizing a specific type of theodicy that justifies suffering within a narrative framework rather than claiming all or most do.

• This adjustment diminishes the transcendental force of anti-theistic arguments; each theodicy must be evaluated individually for its merits.

Challenging Premise Two

• A challenge to premise two argues it presupposes suffering is inherently meaningless or absurd without considering successful theodicies.

• It asserts one cannot acknowledge another's suffering while simultaneously providing meaningful context if that suffering is initially perceived as meaningless.

Questioning Moral Principles

• Affirming premise two seems contingent on prior knowledge that suffering is indeed meaningless, which could lead to immoral conclusions about explaining away such suffering.

• If there exists a meaningful reason for enduring suffering, it would be essential for those experiencing it to understand this reasoning.

Illustrative Case Study

• An example involving a girl bitten by a dog illustrates how recognition of her pain compels justification through an external narrative structure.

• The father's explanation serves to provide meaning during her distress; failing to do so would render her experience even more painful and potentially immoral.

Reevaluating Premise Two

• This case demonstrates that one can recognize another's suffering while still seeking to provide meaningful explanations, challenging premise two’s validity.

Indirect Approach to Argumentation

Theodicy and Moral Realism

The Relationship Between Theodicy and Anti-Theism

• Theodicy can undermine anti-theist arguments by demonstrating that their presuppositions align more closely with a theistic worldview, suggesting that anti-theist principles may not effectively counter theistic beliefs.

Presuppositions of Moral Understanding

• Two key transcendental premises are necessary for understanding moral perspectives:

1. Adopting a moral viewpoint towards others is contingent on recognizing their suffering.

2. Acknowledging the experiences of suffering without imposing external narratives of meaning.

Key Features of Moral Agency

• To adopt a moral point of view, individuals must possess:

• Moral agency, which implies the ability to make decisions based on reasons.

• Recognition of personal dignity in others, affirming their intrinsic value and worthiness of moral consideration.

Essential Presuppositions for Moral Knowledge

• For moral knowledge to exist, several presuppositions must be met:

• Human beings must have reliable moral faculties to discern and reflect upon moral truths.

• There should be objective moral facts that can guide reasoning during disagreements about morality.

Summary of Moral Presuppositions

• A comprehensive list summarizing the necessary presuppositions for intelligibility in moral discourse includes:

1. Moral agency

2. Personal dignity

3. Moral knowledge

4. Moral capacities

5. Objective moral facts

6. Possibility of moral virtue

Theistic Explanation for Moral Realism

God as the Foundation for Morality

• In a theistic framework, God serves as the ultimate source (summum bonum) for all moral facts, establishing intrinsic human dignity and guiding humans toward love and care aligned with divine intentions.

Coherence in Theistic Morality

• God's nature provides a coherent explanation for why suffering exists; He has morally sufficient reasons even if humans cannot fully comprehend them due to limitations in our own moral capacities.

Transcendental Argument for Theodicy

Formulating Transcendental Proy Argument (TPT)

• TPT posits that if God exists, then He would have morally sufficient reasons for allowing human suffering; thus:

• If there is an intelligible framework (moral realism), it supports God's existence as essential to understanding morality.

• This argument challenges anti-theists by asserting that their claims rely on presuppositions better explained through a theistic lens.

Critique of TPT's Validity

Transcendental Argumentation and Moral Realism

Critique of Transcendental Argumentation

• The speaker discusses the limitations of transcendental argumentation, suggesting that while it can be taken seriously, the Pillstrom's Transcendental (PT) argument has advantages due to its deeper exploration of fundamental presuppositions regarding morality.

• It is argued that Pillstrom's transcendental argument against successful theodicy relies on a false premise, which is contentious and poorly motivated. This undermines his conclusions about God.

Engaging with Moral Realism

• The speaker asserts that they do not need to establish a foundational level to counter Pillstrom; instead, they aim to delve deeper into transcendental deductions, claiming victory in this intellectual contest.

• While not arguing for moral realism directly, the speaker contends that Pillstrom’s arguments presuppose its truth. If moral realism is false, then the entire structure of his argument collapses.

The Nature of Suffering and Meaning

• A distinction is made between providing reasons for evil versus explaining it away. The latter may diminish individual suffering by denying its meaning.

• The speaker appreciates Pillstrom's acknowledgment of suffering as experienced meaninglessly. They argue that addressing this experience requires more than just offering explanations; it necessitates recognizing the individual's feelings.

Addressing Meaninglessness in Suffering

• There’s an emphasis on being sensitive when discussing greater goods or justifications for suffering without dismissing individual pain.

Exploring the Meaning of Suffering

The Nature of Suffering

• The discussion highlights the perceived meaninglessness of suffering, suggesting that even with explanations, it can feel devoid of significance. This perspective aligns with phenomenological views on suffering.

• Acknowledgment is made regarding the reality of suffering; it is recognized as a challenging experience. There are justifying reasons for suffering, which do not negate its difficulty or impact.

• The conversation suggests multiple approaches to address arguments surrounding suffering, including transcendental perspectives and other philosophical routes.

• Emphasis is placed on the importance of including discussions about the meaning behind suffering in order to fully engage with its complexities.