Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Squarespace：與世界分享你的熱情

It’s about time that we had a serious talk about religion.

我們該是嚴肅地來聊聊「宗教」的時候了

The philosophy of religion is often confused with theology, which makes sense, because

宗教哲學常常會和神學混淆，這很正常，因為

they both take God and religion as their subjects. But theology starts by assuming that God exists,

他們同樣以「神」和「宗教」做為主題。但是神學通常假設上帝是預先存在的

and then figures out what follows. Or theology might try to solve philosophical problems

然後再去推論後面的發展。或著神學可能會試圖去解決哲學問題

that might arise from a belief in God. But one thing that’s never on the table in theology

是出自於對上帝的信仰。但是神學絕對不會去

is simply not believing in God. Atheism is not an option.

推翻神的存在。「無神論」從來就不是神學的菜

This is what separates the philosophical study of religion from the theological.

這就是宗教哲學和神學最大的差別

Philosophers take nothing as a given – and that includes religious belief. Everything is on the table,

哲學家從來沒有預設立場，當然也包含了宗教信仰。萬物都只是個名相

and everything needs an argument. So, no area of belief is sacred, and that means even your

萬物都可以被探討。因此，沒有所謂神聖的信仰，這代表了即使你的

sacred beliefs are going to need to be examined, and evidence will need to be given.

信仰都必須仔細檢視，並從中提供證據

Some people say religion is the one area where you don’t need arguments – that faith alone is enough.

有些人會宣稱：宗教是不需要被討論的領域，只要有「信心」就夠了

But philosophers don’t take faith for an answer.

但是哲學家並不接受以「信心」做為答案

After all, I might have faith Faith moon is made of green cheese. So what

畢竟，我可能相信月亮是綠色起士做的，那又如何？

Faith is definitionally unprovable, which makes it, from a philosophical perspective, not valuable.

信心理所當然是無法被實證的，因此從哲學角度來看，它是不值一提的

So, if you’re a theist, now’s the time to offer some justification for your religious beliefs.

因此，如果你是「有神論者」，現在是為你的宗教信仰提出一些合理說明的時候了

religious beliefs. And if you’re an atheist, it’s time for you to pay attention too.

而如果你是「無神論者」，現在也是你該注意的時候

No one’s off the hook – we all need to pay attention to these arguments, because

沒有人可以例外，我們都必須留意這些爭論，因為

religion is hugely important. Can you think of many things that have been as influential

宗教是極為重要的。你還能想出其它重要的東西

in shaping history than religious belief?

能夠像宗教一樣影像人類的歷史嗎？

Probably not. So if we can get to the bottom of it, we should.

可能沒辦法。所以如果我們必須追根究底，我們就應該如此做

（音樂）

I’ll get to God in a minute. But first I want to go over a few other things that the

我會馬上談到上帝，但我首先要來說說

philosophy of religion is not:

什麼是宗教哲學所「不是」的

It’s not about believing whatever your parents taught you. Because that doesn’t prove anything

它不是叫你照單全收你雙親所要你去相信的，因為這無法去證明任何

about the truth of a religious belief. If how you were raised proved something about

有關宗教信仰的真理。如果你的成長方式能夠證明任何有關

religious truth, then every religion – and therefore also no religion – would be true.

宗教的真理，如此所有的宗教 - 甚至沒有一個宗教 - 將會是真實的

So, how you were raised can give you a reason that you hold a certain belief, but it says

所以，你的成長背景可能導致你有特定的信仰，但即便如此也無法說明

nothing whatsoever about its truth.

任何有關這個信仰的真理

Philosophy of religion is also not the study of the Bible, because you can’t use what’s

宗教哲學也不是指研讀聖經，因為你無法使用

written in a book to prove the truth of the book. You need outside evidence.

聖經中的內容來證明其真實性。你必須要有第三方的證據

certain things about religion. But it doesn’t help us here.

the time and place in which it was written. And such study can be very helpful in understanding

psychological understanding of our reasons for religious belief. Those are all wonderful things

that you can study, but they are not what we’re studying here.

What we are doing is considering whether we can offer arguments in support of belief in God’s existence.

you can study, but they are not what we’re studying here.

French monk Anselm of Canterbury. He offered a deductive argument for the existence of God,

based on what he understood to be the nature of God’s being, or the definition of God.

Because the study of being is called ontology, this argument, and others like it, are called ontological arguments.

French monk Anselm of Canterbury. He offered a deductive argument for the existence of

God, based on what he understood to be the nature of God’s being, or the definition

of God. Because the study of being is called ontology, this argument, and others like it,

are called ontological arguments.

Now: What do you think God is like?

Long, flowing white beard, robe to match? Nice guy, hard to reach on the phone?

Well, Anselm aimed a little bit higher. In fact, he thought that God is, by definition,

In Anselm’s words, God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.” So what does that mean?

THE. BEST. THING.

Just try to think of the coolest, awesomest, most amazing and wonderful thing you can imagine.

And whatever you’re thinking of, Anselm said that God is better. He’s just the best.

In Anselm’s words, God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.”

So what does that mean?

Well, it means God must exist, according to Anselm.

After all, he pointed out, there are just two ways in which something can exist.

Something can exist only in our minds and be strictly imaginary -- like Santa, or unicorns.

Or it can exist in our minds but also in reality, like pizza and horses --

something that we can imagine, but that’s also real.

Anselm pointed out -- and he does appear to be right about this -- that any good thing

would be better if it existed in reality as well as in our minds.

I mean: unicorns. They’re pretty great. But wouldn’t they be better if they were real?

Or the perfect romantic partner: smart, funny, hot, likes the same movies and games that you do?

Pretty rich? Would be pretty nice in your mind, but EVEN BETTER if they actually existed.

Well Anselm thought so too. And from there, he believed he could prove God’s existence.

Because, if we define God as the greatest thing we can conjure up in our minds, the

only thing that could possibly be greater than him would be – a real version!

And since we’re already imagining the greatest thing possible, there can’t be anything better.

Therefore, God has to exist, both in my imagination and in reality!

Anselm was sure that he had done it -- deductively proven God’s existence in a way that was immune to error.

Here it is, one more time, laid out as a philosophical argument:

God is the greatest thing we can think of.

Things can exist only in our imaginations, or they can also exist in reality.

Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist only in our imaginations

If God existed only in our imaginations, he wouldn’t be the greatest thing that we can

think of, because God in reality would be better

Therefore, God must exist in reality.

Anselm thought this was a tidy little argument.

But one of his contemporaries, a fellow French monk named Gaunilo, wasn’t satisfied. He

suggested that we could run the same line of reasoning to prove the existence of literally

anything we can imagine. He came up with an argument with the exact same formal structure

as Anselm’s, to prove that a mythical Lost Island exists. He proposed: The best island

I can imagine is one where I can swim and relax on a tropical beach and ski down snow-covered

mountains all in one afternoon. I can imagine it, so it must exist. Otherwise, it wouldn’t

be the best island – there would be one better And that one would have to be real!

Basically, Gaunilo said, you could make the same kind of argument to prove the existence

of whatever you wanted most -- but it wouldn’t make it real.

Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticism by saying he’d missed the point, that the

argument only works for necessary beings, of which there is only one – God.

Folks, what we have right here is a classic example of the fallacy known as begging the question.

A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, something that weakens or destroys an argument.

And when you beg the question, you assume the very thing you’re trying to prove with your argument.

By adding this idea of “a necessary being” to his definition of God, Anselm

makes God’s existence a part of the definition of God. A necessary being is one that must

exist, so Anselm’s response assumed the very point of contention to be true – that God exists!

Other philosophers since Anselm have tried to save his argument by tweaking it in various ways,

and dissenters have continued trying to deflate them.

One of the most famous objections came hundreds of years after Anselm’s time, from the 18th

century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant offered the point that, as he put it,

“existence is not a predicate.” A predicate is just something that’s said of another object.

And Kant thought Anselm’s mistake was in thinking that existence is something

that can be predicated upon a thing, or be used as a defining characteristic.

For example, if a triangle exists, it necessarily has 3 sides. But it could be that no triangle exists at all.

Because the idea of existence isn’t part of how we define a triangle.

Likewise, Kant would say, if God exists, then he must be the greatest being we can imagine

-- but that doesn’t mean that he does exist. Predicates add to the essence of their subjects,

Kant explained, but they can’t be used to prove their existence.

British philosopher John Wisdom came up with a thought exercise that sounds a lot like

like a debate over an ontological argument.

It’s called The Parable of The Invisible Gardener, which brings us to this week’s

Flash Philosophy. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

Person A and Person B return to a garden after a long absence, and notice that a few of its

plants are still thriving. Person A says, a gardener must have been tending the garden

while they were gone. Person B doubts this is true, so they agree to wait and see if

a gardener shows up. After some time passes, they see no one, so Person A says:

“The gardener must be invisible!” So, they put up traps and bring in bloodhounds to catch him.

When no one is found, Person A says the gardener must be intangible as well as unsmellable.

To which “B” replies: “What’s the difference between an invisible, intangible,

unsmellable, entirely undetectable gardener ... and no gardener at all?”

Thanks, Thought Bubble! Can you guess who A and B are really talking about?

To give you a sense of just how long this back-and-forth has been going on among philosophers

-- trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God -- John Wisdom came up with

this parable in 1944 … nearly a thousand years after Anselm and Gaunilo.

Today we introduced a new area of philosophy – philosophy of religion. And we learned

about Anselm’s argument for God’s existence, while also considering objections to that argument.

An important point to note here is that both Gaunilo and Kant agreed with Anselm’s conclusion

– they also believed in God’s existence. They just thought Anselm’s argument didn’t prove it.

So remember, you can think an argument fails, even if you accept the conclusion.

When this happens, you should look for a better argument in favor of your conclusion.

This is exactly what Thomas Aquinas did, and we’ll consider him next time.

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs

or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites look professionally designed regardless of

skill level, no coding required. Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their

channel to check out some amazing shows like Shanx FX, Its Okay to be Smart, and The Art Assignment.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.