Chapter 5: The Intrinsic Probability of Theism
In this chapter, RS covers:
- the justification for believing a hypothesis;
- the intrinsic probability of a hypothesis;
- God's nature;
- theism's simplicity;
- God as a necessary explanatory terminus;
- God's other attributes;
- an agent's reasons for acting; and
- calculating the moral value of actions.
I don't think I'll cover all that stuff here bc (a) I mainly want to cover his discussion of and conclusion re: theism's simplicity and so I'll cover the stuff that most directly contributes to his discussion and conclusion; and (b) I want to finish summarizing this chapter already!
RS will argue that, 'The intrinsic probability of theism is, relative to other hypotheses about what there is, very high, because of the great simplicity of the hypothesis of theism.' (109) The 'other hypotheses' here refers to standard scientific explanation of what there is.
RS has argued that the the justification for believing that a hypothesis h is true wrt phenomenon E = the prior probability of h + explanatory power of evidence e.
A theory's prior probability depends on:
- scope,
- fit w/background knowledge and
- simplicity.
A theory's explanatory power is the extent to which the evidence entails or makes probable the occurrence of the phenomena in question. RS discusses theism's explanatory power in chapter 6.
A theory's intrinsic probability = scope + simplicity (i.e., prior probability sans fit w/background knowledge). A theory's scope is the breadth of phenomena it purports to explain. Wrt simplicity, the less a theory postulates ito entities, propositions, laws, etc., the simpler it is. RS maintains that, the simpler a theory is, it's (a) more probable and (b) more likely true.
Scope and fit with background knowledge do not feature in evaluating the probability of a theory that attempts to explain life, the universe and everything. Such a theory is proposed to explain everything except tautological knowledge, so there is no background knowledge with which to fit. Anything that might have been a candidate for background knowledge is part of what such a theory supposedly explains. Theories of everything have, well, everything included in their scopes. So, when comparing different theories of everything, scope doesn't figure bc they'll all have the same scope.
Since a theory's intrinsic probability = scope + simplicity, and scope can be put aside, it all comes down to simplicity when evaluating theories of everything. Wrt theism, RS finds that much of the simplicity he finds therein derives from God's nature. So, what's RS's God like?
- God is a non-embodied spirit.
- Gods has always existed, exists now and always will exist. God cannot not exist.
- God is omniscient, which roughly = that he knows everything that it is logically possible to know, everywhere and at all times w/o reliance on anything or anyone for such knowledge.
- God is perfectly free, which roughly = nothing causally influences God's choices. God's actions depend only upon God's choices. God cannot perform any morally bad action and will always do a/the morally best action (if there is one).
- God's existence is an inexplicable brute fact w/o explanation; two possible versions:
- God's essence = an eternal essence
- God's essence = a temporal essence
Simplicity of God and Theism
RS maintains that theism's God is a simpler postulate than those of scientific theories of everything. God's simplicity contributes to theism's simplicity.
- God as an omnipresent, non-embodied spirit - God just is everywhere; there is no matter to explain, describe, demarcate, etc.
- wrt a scientific, e.g., big bang, theory - need to explain where matter came from, why did it materialize, what's it like, how much is there, etc.
- God always existing - God just is; there is no need to explain God in re: time, e.g., when God came into being bc an always existing God doesn't come into being;
- wrt a scientific theory - need to explain when did matter materialize, why did it materialize at that time, etc.
- God as possessing infinite power, knowledge, goodness, freedom, etc. - postulating an infinite X is simpler than a finite X; the infinite nature of God's characteristics requires no or less explanation
- wrt a scientific theory - the finite nature of such a theory's initial being/substance 'cries out' for an explanation: why is that being/substance finite in any respect; why is that being finite to the extent it is, i.e., why does it not less or more finite in any respect, etc.
- theism as a personal explanation - personal explanation is ito an agent's powers, beliefs and intentions; God has basic powers, beliefs and intentions, all of which are simple in nature: God acts via basic action (does not need mediate action); God has all beliefs it's logically possible to have and all these beliefs are true; God's intentions result in phenomena according to his uncaused choice (which I think of as God willing something and it happens)
- wrt a scientific theory - scientific explanation is ito laws and conditions; laws need explanation wrt why they work, which will regress to initial laws we will be unable to explain; conditions need explanation wrt why they hold, which will regress to initial conditions we will be unable to explain; need explanations wrt why laws and conditions together result in phenomena
- theism's simpler postulates - theism postulates God, a simple (though great) being; God's basic powers, beliefs and intentions are also simple; all else follows from this one postulate
- wrt a scientific theory - if postulating a non-God being, then need to postulate beliefs, powers and intentions specific in nature, extent, etc.; if postulating a substance(s), then need to postulate specific powers and liabilities to use those powers
God as a Necessary Explanatory Terminus
Let's review full, complete and ultimate explanation, where:
C = cause
R = reason
E = explained event
In scientific explanation:
C = initial conditions
R = LON
In personal explanation:
C = agent
R = agent's intentions, beliefs and basic powers
Full Explanation: An explanation wherein C + R entails E. Although there may exist explanations for C and R, it's not necessary that this be the case; C and R could be brute facts.
Complete Explanation: A full explanation of E where C and R are such that there isn't a full or partial explanation 'of their existence or operation ito factors operative at the time of their existence or operation'.
Ultimate Explanation: A complete explanation of E where C and R 'are such that their existence and operation have no full or partial explanation ito any other factors'. C and R are ultimate brute facts.
Why is theism's God a necessary terminus of complete explanation? God is essentially omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly free. Anything that happens/obtains does so bco God's basic powers, beliefs and intentions. There is nothing/no one else to influence or cause God to do, believe or intend anything prior to or contemporaneous with any action, belief or intention. So, there is nothing which could provide further and/or simpler prior or contemporaneous explanation for what happens/obtains.
Why is theism's God a necessary terminus of ultimate explanation? In chapter 4, RS argued that depending on how God relates to time, God may or may not be a necessary terminus of ultimate explanation. The existence of a God who keeps himself in existence at any given time by his intentions at a previous time would, if he were to be ultimately explained, have an explanation of his existence at any given time ito his intentions (C) at a previous time; but God is perfectly free and so there is no cause (C) for his intentions; so this God cannot be ultimately explained. The necessarily eternal God that RS favors would require no further explanation of his existence at any time; if he exists at at any time, he exists at all times. So, although God is a logically contingent being, God is necessary in that his existence is what RS calls 'factually necessary existence'. Add this kind of God, i.e., God as a brute fact, to the above complete explanation and it becomes an ultimate explanation.
Shorter
Soooooo...theism is simpler bc it's personal explanation ito God. The 'what' of theism is God. The 'why' of theism is God's nature. God's nature is such that it allows us to expect the phenomena we in fact observe.
Scientific explanation is more complicated than theism bc it needs to postulate a more complicated non-God being and/or more complicated substance, ito the being/substance as the starting point of the universe and also ito the being/substance keeping itself/the universe in existence. Scientific explanation would require more explanatory factors iot explain how and why phenomena occurs as we observe it w/o any 'good reason'.
Even Shorter
If God, then God.
Hi Annie!
Hope all is well with you.
I am thinking about getting a second cat for Bourbon and myself.
I know they say cats are solitary animals, but I decided he needs a friend.
Any advice?
Kristen
Posted by: Kristen | Sunday, September 17, 2006 at 01:58 PM