Philosophy Test 2 study guide PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Philosophy Test 2 study guide PDF

Description

Chapter 6: Evolution and Creationism I.

Creationism a. Species were created individually by a creative designer G= God O= Observed complex adaptations E= Mindless evolutionary process Theistic Evolution: G > E > O Atheistic Evolution E > O Creationism G > O b. Evolutionary theory IS compatible with god c. Evolutionary theory IS NOT compatible with creationism

II.

Some Creationsist argue: a. Evolutionary theory is not certain (Nothing in science is certain we just strive for good evidence) b. Second Law of Thermodynamics: 1. Impossible for order to arise from disorder through natural processes. Example: Car can turn into a heap of junk but a heap of junk can’t become a car. -Closed system: Greater order > Less order -Open system: Nothing happens -If earth was a closed system it would be moving towards disorder but it isn’t.

III. Darwin’s 2 part theory: a. All things are genetically related and life evolved from non-life - You can go back and find a common ancestor for any species.

IV.

Natural Selection a. A novel (new) mutations occurs, creating a variation in some animals, those animals reproduces causing a change in the composition of the population b. Evolution has 2 parts 1. Mutation (random) 2. The selection of mutation (not-random)

V.

VI. -

Speciation a. Occurs when drastic variation happens - Example: Zebras wander off into a new environment and develop new adaptations to that old environment to the point they can’t reproduce with other species because they have become new species. - Mechanisms that cause small changes can lead to big changes The principle of common cause a. Tree of life (this is the principle of common cause) Uncontroversial Analogy to explain why living things are related to each other 2 students turn in similar papers (2 reasons can explain this) 1. Copied each other or used the same source (more possible) 2. Coincidentally wrote the same paper b. This is the principle of common cause - If one hypothesis says that the observations are very probable whereas the other hypothesis says that the observations are very improbable, then the observations strongly favor the first hypothesis over the second.

VII.

Arbitrary similarities among organisms a. Same genes that code for amino acid in frogs is the same gene that codes for amino acid in humans. b. Why is this the case? If all species arose independently we would expect them to have different codes but they don’t (human/frog example) but they do so we can expect to be able to trace back all living creatures to a common ancestor.

VIII.

Useful similarities among organisms a. Fish are shaped like torpedos not because they have a common ancestor but because it’s advantageous. b. If we were to go to another planet we would expect to find the same adaptation of they had creatures who lived in water.

IX.

Irreducible complexity (Michael Behe) a. System has many parts and the system would not be able to function without all it’s parts. b. Horses with one leg instead of four doesn't work but this assumes that the horse had to grow each one of its legs indicially to work.

X.

Is creationism testable and predictive equivalency a. H1: (Creationist argument) A super intelligent designer fashioned all the complex adaptations we observe organisms to have so that organisms would be perfectly adapted to their environment. - This isn’t true because some organisms have imperfect adaptations. For example the eye has blind spots. b. H2: (Creationsist argument) An intelligent designed fashioned all complex adaptations we observe organisms to have. - Scientists expect theories to be testable, which means that thoriesi should make predictions that can be checked against observations. H2 as a result is not testable. c. H3: (Creationsist argument): Organisms did not evolve. Rather, God created such species separately and endowed them with the very characteristic they would have had if they had evolved by natural selection. -

Evolutionary theory H3 is predictively equivalent Example: - J1: you are looking at your computer - J2: you are now looking at Salami. Your sensory experiences is telling you that J1 is true and J2 is false.

XI.

Prediction vs Accommodation H4: An intelligent designer made the human eye and gave it the set of features F. -

XII.

This theory merely accommodates the observation and doesn’t provide novel predictions. A good theory makes predictions that were not used to construct that theory and make predictions that are novel.

Does evolutionary theory make novel predictions a. A novel prediction is one that was not used in the construction of a theory, but that nevertheless follows from it.

Chapter 7: Can science explain everything ? I.

Scientific ignorance a. There are questions that science can’t explain but that doesn’t mean science won’t ever be able to explain it. (Scientific ignorance is temporary)

II.

The only game in town fallacy a. fallacy that occurs when one assumes one must accept a hypothesis because it is the only one currently available b. We don’t have to accept the creationsist idea on why creatures reproduce sexually since science hasn’t come up with an explanation we should be patient.

III.

The two questions and scientific explanation a. Two questions we should consider 1. Is there any facts about the world science is inherently incapable of explaining? 2. If there are, can we plausibly argue that the best explanation of why those facts are true is that god exists? b. Science aims to explain 2 things - Particular events a. “Why did the solar system come to existence” b. Isn’t true or false either it happened or it didn’t - Generalizations c. “Why does it take two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen for it to combine and create a molecule of water d. Either true or false and explains it c. Science explains things by describing its causes d. SpatioTemporal: happening in both space and time or space-time. e. Science tries to explain spatiotemporal events - Local why-questions: Only something that can be explained by citing outside as a way of explanation - Global why-questions: Explanation of the totality of what has happened in the whole universe history. (Science can’t answer this) a. Example: Why is there something instead of nothing

IV.

Can physics explain the universe a. The big bang theory does not show why the universe came into existence - The universe is everything that ever was, is or will be.

-

If the big bang produced what came after it then there would be two stages 1. First there was a big bang 2. Then there was what happend it after b. Can’t be answered because it’s global V.

Can we explain the material universe as non empty by saying that god decided to make one totality actual rather than another. a. Leibnz thought this type of explanation is plausible - God considered a set of world but decided to settle on one and make it actual because its the best world. - “Best world” means a world with a maximum diversity of phenomena and a maximum simplicity of laws. (nonmoral) b. Samuel Clarke also thought this was plausible - Clarke wants us to consider the totality of the world and why it exists instead of some other world and said there are two possibilities to it. - The entire history of the universe happened for no reason - The entire history of the universe was brought into existence by a god (Only Game In Town Fallacy)

VI.

Casuality a. Causal explanation explains the cause of something (one event causes the other) b. God is outside of space and time, but nonetheless manages to bring the whole material world into existence. (Casual relationship) c. Causation is a relationship that obtains between events that occur within space and time, so its puzzling to believe God (existing outside space and time) can cause space and time to come to existence. d. It’s better to admit “we don’t know” than “god did it” for things we can’t explain because a theological explanation leaves too many questions unanswered.

VII.

The principle of sufficient reason (Clarke) a. Everything that happens in nature has an explanation; nothing happens for no reason at all. - Scientists search for an explanation to why our brain allows us to have consciousness even though there might be a chance an explanation doesn’t exist.

-

The fact that scientists search for explanation without a guarantee that they will succeed is not evidence that the principle of sufficient reason is true.

Chapter 11: Argument from evil I.

First form of the Argument (atheistic) a. 1. If God were to exist, then that being would be all-powerful, all knowing all-good (all PKG, for short) 2. If an all-PKG existed then there would be no evil (false) 3. There is evil 4. Hence, God does not exist b. This argument is deductively valid c. Two Kids of evil 1. Evil brought to existence by human actions 2. Evil that exists because of natural events out of human control d. Reaction to this argument - If you want to reject the conclusion you must reject the premises - (3) Deny the existence of evil (no right or wrong) - Reject premise (1) evil rejects that there is a PKG e. Theodicy and Defense - Reject premise (2), All because god is all knowing doesn't imply that there shouldn’t be evil in the world. - Theodicy: answer to why an omnibenevolent god would allow evil 1. Soul Building Evils: some evils make us better people 2. Why wouldn’t have god made us all “strong hearted” so we wouldn’t have to face evil to experience soul buildfing

II.

Second form of the Argument (atheistic) a. 1. If God were to exist, then that being would be all-powerful, all knowing all-good (all PKG, for short) 2. If an all-PKG existed the amount of evil would not exceed the soul building minimum 3. The amount of evil exceeds a soul-building minimum 4. Hence, God does not exist b. Free will - God made us free to do evil or not - (2) doesn’t solve the problem of evil - Hard to account for the amount of evil that exists...