Bits of Dawkins

- Dawkins: Identity doesn’t survive death; the only part of us that “lives” on is genes and memes.

- Dawkins: Richard Dawkins would definitely argue that disembodied consciousness is impossible. He believes that the mind is not a separate entity, but instead a physical process that the body performs when our brain’s model of the world becomes so complete that it needs to include itself.

- Dawkins: Dawkins would say that the mind is just a physical process the body performs, and that it is not an ontologically distinct substance. He said that there is no “mystic jelly” driving us around, and that belief in the mind is a “dangerous myth”, as no scientific evidence supports it.

- Dawkins: As a physicalist, Dawkins would say that the mind is reducible to physical processes. He would say that we are completely physical, because the mind is just a process the body performs and is therefore not a separate substance. We are simply just bodies; there is no “mystic jelly”.

Dawkins (mind) – Dawkins was a monist who believed that the mind and body are not ontologically distinct. Dawkins believed that the mind is a product of the body and it is something the body does. Therefore as humans are no ontologically distinct, once dead, we will remain dead, as the mind is simply digital information.

Dawkins (body) – Dawkins was a monist who believed that the mind and body are not ontologically distinct. Dawkins further believes that once dead we remain dead, however believes that out genes and memes survive the death of our body.

Dawkins (personality/memories) – once dead we remain dead, yet our genes and memes live on.

1. Describe what Dawkins believes about the body in 50 words.

Richard Dawkins is a physicalist and so believes everything is reducible to physical processes, this means as a whole we are just a body with a brain and nothing more. Dawkins believes that our body dies and decays and the only thing that does live on is our genetic code.

2. Describe what Dawkins believes about the mind in 49 words.

Dawkins believes there is no such thing as a mind and it is not ontologically distinct from our body it is just digital information that describes what bodies do. The mind is not some mystical jelly that lives on after death and there’s no scientific evidence to believe so.

3. Describe what Dawkins believes about our self identity in 16 words.

It doesn’t live on in but memories of who we were may be remembered through others.

4. Describe what Dawkins believes about our disembodied consciousness in 45 words.

Dawkins believes there is no scientific evidence to suggest that we have some sort of mysterious, immaterial and eternal consciousness that lives on after death. Believing such things is dangerous to the human endeavour and can stop us as humans moving on as a species.

Dawkins on the mind – Dawkins believes that there is no such thing as a mind, or as it is sometimes referred to as the soul. However, he also states that the mind is just something the body does. Dawkins refers to the mind as mystical jelly, as he believes it just floats around. He’s a physicalist.

Dawkins on the body – Dawkins is a physicalist, which means he believes in the physical body being the main substance. As he is an atheist, he doesn’t believe that the mind lives on, but the physical body dies. Dawkins also says that we are carriers of genes and memes, which are memories.

Dawkins on self identity – Dawkins believes that our self identity dies with the body as there’s no personality in the mind.

Dawkins on disembodied consciousness – Dawkins believes that the mind is just something a body does, and this doesn’t make us, any more aware of the world around us than other animals. He believes that once the physical body dies, nothing is left behind as he calls the mind “mystical jelly”

Dawkins: When we die, our personality dies but our genes (genetic code) and memes, (ideas), survive us.

.Dawkins: He says there's no "spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic mystic jelly", meaning there is no soul within us. Belief in the soul is "dangerous to human endeavour" This is because there's no physical evidence. It's just a bronze age myth.

DAWKINS -> MIND

Dawkins a 21st century monist thinks that belief in the mind or soul is dangerous myths that have no evidence to support them. He compared the mind to 'mystic jelly' inferring that there is no mysterious mind. To conclude the mind is just digital information, reducible to physical processes

DAWKINS -> BODY

Dawkins is a physicalist who believes everything is reducible to physical processes. He believes we are simply carriers of DNA and that mind and body are not separable. The mind is just a way of describing what bodies do. When our bodies die our genes and memes survive

DAWKINS -> SELF-IDENTITY

A sense of individuality is based on digital information, not the soul. We leave memes behind

DAWKINS -> SELF-AWARENESS

Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist who believes everything is reducible to physical processes. He rejected the idea of a soul or a 'mystic' mind. He believed the mind or consciousness arises when the brain's stimulation is so complete that it includes a model of itself

Dawkins – Self Identity
Dawkins believes that our self identity dies with the body

Dawkins – Disembodied Consciousness
Dawkins believes that when we die we are not conscious of things around us, because we are just simply carriers of DNA, and that we have no eternal soul. The only things we leave behind are genes and memes, the soul is just “mystical jelly.”

Dawkins – Mind
Dawkins believes that there is no such thing as the mind or as it sometimes referred to, as the soul. However he also states that the mind is just something the body doe. Dawkins refers to the mind as mystical jelly, as he believes it just floats around. He’s a physicalist.

Dawkins – Body
Dawkins is a physicalist, which means he believes in the physical body being the main substance. As he is an atheist, he doesn’t believe that the mind lives on, but the physical body dies. Dawkins also says that we are carriers of memes and genes, which are memories.

Dawkins on Consciousness - Dawkins believes that the conscience (which is the inner component of the human body showing awareness) dies at the same time as the body and will simply not continue to remain after the event of death. Similar to his concept of the personality, he states that it is not an immediate part of the human body that remains.

Dawkins on Personality - Richard Dawkins believe that the personality of a human body will certainly die in the event of death. He brands the personality as unexplainable (or to a certain degree) as the mind - which he entitles "Mystic Jelly". Similar to a Cartesian view, he appears vague with regards to after death.

Descartes on Consciousness - Descartes wholeheartedly believes that the consciousness (an awareness of the world around us) lives on past death and that it will continue to live on. Regardless of this statement, Descartes is quite vague with regards to what happens after. He mentions that this crucial awareness will most certainly remain past the event of the death of a body.

Dawkins on Body - Richard Dawkins believes that the body is a massively important part of life. We should trust in the body since, unlike the body, mind and soul, we have empirical evidence to prove we have one. He states that the body is the main component in life and that it will certainly not live on past death since we are witness to its falling and we can be certain of this. The body works mechanically and systematically and will fulfil its purpose of keeping us alive, its nature can be determined easily and therefore, it is the strongest representation of human

Bits of Descartes

Descartes – Self identity

survives death

Descartes – Disembodied consciousness

Descartes believes that we are constantly aware of everything around us; this is because our mind and personality live on after our physical body dies. He believes in a much more personal view on our rational mind. Descartes states that it is implied that our mind and memories carry on in an afterlife. He believes that once our body dies and decays the two substances of the mind and the body seperate. The body has extension and emotions compared to the mind which does not. Descartes is a rationalist.

Descartes: consciousness survives death.

Descartes: Disembodied Consciousness - As a substance dualist and the father of Cartesian Dualism, Descartes would argue that it is possible to have a conscious mind without a body, because mind and body are both ontologically distinct substances that differ in the very nature of their existence. When our ephemeral bodies die the eternal mind endures death and lives on, and is therefore still a conscious mind, but one without a body. For Descartes, this is our afterlife, and although his account of it is not very detailed, it is his example of disembodied consciousness.

Descartes (disembodied consciousness) – Descartes believes that the mind and body are ontologically distinct. The mind is non-physical and lacks motion, whereas the body is physical and has extension and motion. Descartes believes that once dead the rational part of out mind lives on.

Describe what Descartes believes about the mind in 77 words.

Descartes believes the mind is ontologically distinct from the body; they are separate because Descartes can have a clear and distinct idea of each one. The mind lets your body function through thought and that source of though comes from the rational part of our minds. He believes the mind is eternal and implies life after death for it but as he cannot prove it he does not say it will happen indefinitely. It’s also the soul

Describe what Descartes believes about the body in 43 words.

The body can influence the actions of the mind through the pineal gland because of the body’s passions. He also believes the body is like a machine as they have extension and motion but are subject to the laws of physics, nothing else.

Describe what Descartes believes about our self identity in 2 words.

Lives on.

Describe what Descartes believes about our disembodied consciousness in 91 words.

Descartes implies that our disembodied consciousness does exist and is eternal which means it shall live on after death. This is because Descartes was a Christian and so this has influences him because Christians believe that we as a person and what makes us us will move on to heaven of hell and exist there for eternity. So the only thing in Descartes theory that is not eternal is our body and that dies and decays as it is subject to the laws of physics but the rest does live on.

Descartes on self identity – It survives.

Descartes: Personality survives.

Descartes: As a substance dualist, Descartes believes the soul and body are two separate substances. This because Descartes says:

I can have a clear and distinct idea of the soul and body. Whatever I can think of as clear and distinct, god can create it clearly and distinctively so the soul and body must be ontologically distinct. Descartes believes that when we die our body dies, yet our soul is eternal and endures. As a christian, Descartes believes the soul is eternal and retains the personal identity but he can't prove this.

DESCARTES -> SELF-AWARENESS

Descartes, a 17th century rationalist and substance dualist believed that the mind and body are ontologically different, but they can interact. The mind has no motion or extension and does not follow laws of physics. Whereas the body has motion and extension and does follow the laws of physics. Descartes believed that the mind and soul survive after the death of the body but he never specified what happened to them after our death. Therefore Descartes believed that our mind lives on, possibly implying that we go to heaven, as well as our passions and consciousness

Descartes – Self Identity

They survive.

Bits of Plato

Plato-Self Identity
Plato believes that when our physical body dies our memories and personality go with them. However, our knowledge if forms don’t.

Plato – Disembodied consciousness
He believes that we are only aware of the physical world when we’re alive.

Plato (personality/memories) - Plato was a substance dualist who believed that once you’re your memories and personality are also lost; yet knowledge of the forms is reborn.

Describe what Plato believes about the mind in 67 words.
Plato believes the mind is ontologically distinct from the body, the body has completely separate qualities from the mind and so how can they be deemed as one thing? For instance the mind is eternal, immortal and imitable and so can exist after death. What happens when we die is our knowledge of the forms is reincarnated endlessly into other humans to be rediscovered forever and ever

Describe what Plato believes about the body in 92 words.
Plato believes the body is ontologically distinct from the mind and has no connection with it, however the body’s life processes can ‘clutter’ up the mind in a sense because our bodily functions take up our mind instead of our true knowledge of the forms which is what we are supposed to focus on. He believes our bodies exist in the physical world or ‘The realm of Shadows and Illusions’, basically saying that what our eyes perceive and our body’s feel are just illusions of the true knowledge of what’s real.

Describe what Plato believes about self identity in 20 words.
Plato feels our sense of our personal identity dies and decays with our body and our personal memories die too.

Describe what Plato believes about our disembodied consciousness in 9 words.
Our consciousness dies, our knowledge of the forms lives.

Plato on self identity – Plato believes that when our physical body dies, our memories and personality goes with it. However, knowledge of forms remain.
Plato: When the body dies, memories are lost and the personality dies. Our knowledge of the forms survives to be reincarnated.

PLATO -> SELF-IDENTITY
Half of mind is full of passions and memories of physical events that disappear when our mortal physical body dies

PLATO -> SELF-AWARENESS
All our physical memories die - as well as consciousness

Plato – Self Identity
Plato believes that when our physical body dies, our memories and personality goes with it. Knowledge of forms don’t.

Plato-personality
Personality dies with the body, only the knowledge of the forms lives on. The things that contain the mind must therefore live on as well. Plato also believes that the realm of ideas is the real world and that the physical world is just a shadow of the perfect world. Although Plato believes that the mind and body are separate he believes that personalities belong in the body, so die with it. The mind is reincarnated and is eternal whereas the body is mortal and ephemeral.

Plato clips

Work for 7th and 8th November

Now we leave 'Evil' and move onto Miracles:

Whilst I'm away you need to draw a table like this and fill it in using your own research:

(Any problems, please do send me an email)

KEY CONCEPTS (from SWINBURNE) A MIRACLE IS DEFINED AS:	Explanation of concept (what do the words in column one mean?)	Example from Bible or elsewhere	Difficulties with this concept
action of God, or an invisible (metaphysical / exterior) agent
That transgresses laws of nature
And has some religious meaning or significance.			Hume says miracles have NO religious significance - Why? (put at least four reasons here)

You need to get quite a bit of detail into each empty box - do your best

There's some good material on Hume here.

There's a definition of ' miracle' here.

This is useful, but you don't need all of it.

The material below might help with the 'difficulties' column:

Brian Davies in ‘Thinking About God’ (1985) believes that a wider definition of miracle is now common. He argues that miracles are “unexpected and fortuitous evens in the light of which we are disposed to give thanks to God”. The word ‘fortuitous’ leaves open the possibility that the event is normal, but is perceived as showing the hand of God. One of the miracle windows in Canterbury Cathedral illustrates such an event. A man is buried alive in a tunnel and his workmates go for help. In the meantime, his distant cries are heard by a passing traveller and he is saved. In the background, a hand can be seen as emerging from a cloud, indicating that the event was a miracle.

Holland – coincidences that do not break natural laws but have religious significance can sometimes be referred to as a miracle: “A coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle”. Holland’s Example: Boy and express train.

The view of miracles as events seen as bearing the hand of God has been popularised by John Hick. He believes that many of the Old Testament miracles, such as the plagues of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea, were probably natural occurrences which happened so fortuitously that they were seen as miracles from God

Process Theologians - They see God’s action permanently immanent in the world. This makes the idea of God’ intervention from the outside untenable.

Donald Neil (1984) finds it significant that all Biblical miracles, especially those of Jesus, involved the mediation or action of a human being. This shows that God’s action in the world is not an intrusion from the outside, but is done through human agency from within.

Rudolf Bultmann argues that in the scientific age it is no longer possible to believe in “direct Divine intrusion into the field of human events”,

This view is shared by John Habgood in an article called “God’s action in the world” (1991). He believes that the action of God in the world normally takes place through the agency of other people. The old view, he believes tends to raise moral questions about God’s wisdom and justice. If God were to intervene directly, it would raise questions about the inadequacy of His creation and more importantly, raise questions about why God should intervene here and not there (e.g. why should He not ward off a natural disaster or an evil such as the holocaust?).

THE BEST OF POSSIBLE WORLDS

Susan Neiman explains our next theodicy - "The Best of All Possible Worlds", as proposed by Leibniz (below) - the video doesn't get going for about 30 seconds.

In 1759 Voltaire wrote a novel called Candide which comments upon Leibniz's theodicy.

There's a summary (and some questions) below: (source link)

Candide grows up in the home of Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh in the German province of Westphalia. His tutor, Dr. Pangloss, teaches him that their world is the best of all possible worlds, and everything that transpires in this world is for the best. Candide accepts Dr. Pangloss’s teachings as absolute truth. Candide admires the Baron’s beautiful daughter, Cunégonde, and they share an innocent kiss after dinner one evening.

Cunégonde’s father sees the young lovers kiss, and he immediately banishes the Candide from his home. This incident begins a miraculous series of misfortunes for all of the novel’s characters. Candide is conscripted into the army where he is abused (to a nearly absurd degree) and almost executed before escaping to Holland. In Holland, he is pitied by an Anabaptist who apprentices him and offers him shelter. Soon after, Candide runs into Dr. Pangloss, who has contracted syphilis and is now a poor beggar on the street. Pangloss explains that the Baron, Baroness, Cunégonde, and her brother were disemboweled and killed by soldiers. Pangloss is cured of his illness, and he departs with the Anabaptist and Candide for Lisbon. En route, they are shipwrecked, the Anabaptist dies, and Candide and Pangloss hardly reach shore before a massive earthquake strikes.

In Lisbon, Pangloss is executed for his heretical views and Candide is beaten for approving of them. By a stroke of fortune, Candide is reunited with Cunégonde, who survived the murder attempt described by Pangloss and is now a servant and mistress to two men. But she’s been staving off the sexual advances of the men. Candide kills both of the men and the group escapes, along with their new companion, an old woman, to Buenos Aires. There, the governor of Buenos Aires proposes to Cunégonde, and wary of her financial situation, she accepts.

Meanwhile, the authorities pursue Candide for murder, so he and his faithful servant, Cacambo, escape to a Jesuit camp. The Colonel at the camps turns out to be Cunégonde’s brother, who also survived the disembowelment attack, but has suffered an unimaginable slew of misfortunes. The Colonel learns that Cunégonde is alive and that Candide intends to marry her. Although Candide has saved his sister’s life, he still disapproves of the marriage because of Candide’s inferior social status. Candide responds by stabbing him.

Candide and Cacambo travel for several months and ultimately end up in the utopian land of El Dorado. At this point, anything would look great in comparison to where they’ve been, but this place is legitimately off the charts with gold and food. While they recognize the country is perfect, Candide is dedicated to the pursuit of Cunégonde; and Cacambo is restless. With the help of scientists, the two men leave the country loaded with jewels. Cacambo departs for Buenos Aires where Candide has instructed him to buy Cunégonde (you could do that in those days), and they plan to reunite in Venice.

After having most of his wealth stolen, Candide departs for France with a hired companion named Martin. In France, Candide and Martin travel in elite circles before departing for Venice. For a long time (at least six pages), they cannot find Cacambo and Cunégonde. Finally, Cacambo appears one night as a servant and informs Candide that Cunégonde is in Turkey. Here we go again.

Everyone leaves for Turkey. Candide buys Cacambo (who has been enslaved) and, when he finds them, he buys Cunégonde and the old woman, too. Candide discovers that Dr. Pangloss and Cunégonde’s brother both survived their injuries and are working in the galley. Because by now it seems the thing to do, he buys their freedom as well. Candide marries Cunégonde, but she is now unattractive and everyone is unhappy, especially since the only reason he liked Cunégonde in the first place was because of her looks. Life is terrible until they buy a small farm on which they canspend their days doing hard work, which somehow makes them happy.

Questions:

Write a short summary of the main points of the "Best of Possible Worlds" Theodicy (use the video)

What do you think Voltaire thought of the theodicy?

Who is Doctor Pangloss meant to represent and what do you think Leibniz thought of him?

What's the 'moral' of Candide?

Here's a picture of Doctor Pangloss:

The Book of Job

Job is a wealthy man living in a land called Uz with his large family and extensive flocks. He is “blameless” and “upright,” always careful to avoid doing evil (1:1). One day, Satan (“the Adversary”) appears before God in heaven. God boasts to Satan about Job’s goodness, but Satan argues that Job is only good because God has blessed him abundantly. Satan challenges God that, if given permission to punish the man, Job will turn and curse God. God allows Satan to torment Job to test this bold claim, but he forbids Satan to take Job’s life in the process.

In the course of one day, Job receives four messages, each bearing separate news that his livestock, servants, and ten children have all died due to marauding invaders or natural catastrophes. Job tears his clothes and shaves his head in mourning, but he still blesses God in his prayers. Satan appears in heaven again, and God grants him another chance to test Job. This time, Job is afflicted with horrible skin sores. His wife encourages him to curse God and to give up and die, but Job refuses, struggling to accept his circumstances.

Three of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, come to visit him, sitting with Job in silence for seven days out of respect for his mourning. On the seventh day, Job speaks, beginning a conversation in which each of the four men shares his thoughts on Job’s afflictions in long, poetic statements.

Job curses the day he was born, comparing life and death to light and darkness. He wishes that his birth had been shrouded in darkness and longs to have never been born, feeling that light, or life, only intensifies his misery. Eliphaz responds that Job, who has comforted other people, now shows that he never really understood their pain. Eliphaz believes that Job’s agony must be due to some sin Job has committed, and he urges Job to seek God’s favor. Bildad and Zophar agree that Job must have committed evil to offend God’s justice and argue that he should strive to exhibit more blameless behavior. Bildad surmises that Job’s children brought their deaths upon themselves. Even worse, Zophar implies that whatever wrong Job has done probably deserves greater punishment than what he has received.

Job responds to each of these remarks, growing so irritated that he calls his friends “worthless physicians” who “whitewash [their advice] with lies” (13:4). After making pains to assert his blameless character, Job ponders man’s relationship to God. He wonders why God judges people by their actions if God can just as easily alter or forgive their behavior. It is also unclear to Job how a human can appease or court God’s justice. God is unseen, and his ways are inscrutable and beyond human understanding. Moreover, humans cannot possibly persuade God with their words. God cannot be deceived, and Job admits that he does not even understand himself well enough to effectively plead his case to God. Job wishes for someone who can mediate between himself and God, or for God to send him to Sheol, the deep place of the dead.

Job’s friends are offended that he scorns their wisdom. They think his questions are crafty and lack an appropriate fear of God, and they use many analogies and metaphors to stress their ongoing point that nothing good comes of wickedness. Job sustains his confidence in spite of these criticisms, responding that even if he has done evil, it is his own personal problem. Furthermore, he believes that there is a “witness” or a “Redeemer” in heaven who will vouch for his innocence (16:19, 19:25). After a while, the upbraiding proves too much for Job, and he grows sarcastic, impatient, and afraid. He laments the injustice that God lets wicked people prosper while he and countless other innocent people suffer. Job wants to confront God and complain, but he cannot physically find God to do it. He feels that wisdom is hidden from human minds, but he resolves to persist in pursuing wisdom by fearing God and avoiding evil.

Without provocation, another friend, Elihu, suddenly enters the conversation. The young Elihu believes that Job has spent too much energy vindicating himself rather than God. Elihu explains to Job that God communicates with humans by two ways—visions and physical pain. He says that physical suffering provides the sufferer with an opportunity to realize God’s love and forgiveness when he is well again, understanding that God has “ransomed” him from an impending death (33:24). Elihu also assumes that Job must be wicked to be suffering as he is, and he thinks that Job’s excessive talking is an act of rebellion against God.

God finally interrupts, calling from a whirlwind and demanding Job to be brave and respond to his questions. God’s questions are rhetorical, intending to show how little Job knows about creation and how much power God alone has. God describes many detailed aspects of his creation, praising especially his creation of two large beasts, the Behemoth and Leviathan. Overwhelmed by the encounter, Job acknowledges God’s unlimited power and admits the limitations of his human knowledge. This response pleases God, but he is upset with Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for spouting poor and theologically unsound advice. Job intercedes on their behalf, and God forgives them. God returns Job’s health, providing him with twice as much property as before, new children, and an extremely long life.

(link)

Please ruminate upon the following:

1) What do you think about the depiction of God here? Is he exhibiting all of the attributes that we have discussed in class?

2) What conclusion (if any) does Job reach regarding the problem of evil?

3) Is there a message here about how we should approach or think about evil?

4) What is the meaning of the section concerning Job's friends? What are we meant to learn from this section?

5) What is the role of Satan in this story? Does he behave as you would expect him to?