Graham Oppy

Koons (2014) claims that Benardete’s Grim Reaper Scenario affords grounds for denying that there can be bounded non-well-founded sequences of time intervals. Pruss (2018) claims that Benardete’s Grim Reaper Scenario affords grounds for affirming causal finitism. I shall argue that what you take to be a minimal response to the Benardete scenario is not something that you can arrive at independently from making a determination about whether causal finitism is true and whether there can be bounded non-well-founded sequences of time intervals. In particular, whether you think that the specification of the dispositions of the reapers in Benardete’s scenario is complete depends upon whether or not you think that causal finitism is true.

In this chapter, I consider the Dialogues as a text that formulates and criticises a particular argument for design (‘the argument for design’). After presenting the relevant material from the Dialogues, I consider the strengths and weaknesses of the formulation of the argument that is the object of Hume’s criticisms, and set out what I take to be the full range of criticisms that Hume makes of it. I then assess the strength of these criticisms, paying particular attention to writers—e.g. Paley, Reid, Dawkins, and Hawthorne and Isaacs—who have claimed that Hume’s objections to ‘the argument for design’ are weak or ineffectual. Next, I consider the originality of Hume’s critique of ‘the argument for design’; I argue that, on the evidence that I have considered, Hume deserves most of the credit for the objections to ‘the argument for design’ in the Dialogues. I conclude with some brief remarks about the relative importance of the success of the criticisms of ‘the argument for design’ to the overall project of the Dialogues.

Religion and its related thoughts are an important aspect of human life and worldview. To this day, the analytic philosophy of religion has matured in the international academic community. There is no doubt that these debates concern many important philosophical issues, but it is challenging to see how they could be sufficiently sensitive to all philosophically relevant religious issues and how they could comprehensively cover philosophical concerns facing different cultures around the world – it is even possible that current Western society itself has slowly expanded its attention. This raises a pressing question: Is the field capable of accommodating the insights from a more diverse array of participants, including non-white, non-male, and non-Anglophone thinkers, and can it address philosophical questions that go beyond the traditional debates dominated by Anglophone intellectuals?

The advent of formal definitions of the simplicity of a theory has important implications for model selection. But what is the best way to define simplicity? Forster and Sober ([1994]) advocate the use of Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC), a non-Bayesian formalisation of the notion of simplicity. This forms an important part of their wider attack on Bayesianism in the philosophy of science. We defend a Bayesian alternative: the simplicity of a theory is to be characterised in terms of Wallace's Minimum Message Length (MML). We show that AIC is inadequate for many statistical problems where MML performs well. Whereas MML is always defined, AIC can be undefined. Whereas MML is not known ever to be statistically inconsistent, AIC can be. Even when defined and consistent, AIC performs worse than MML on small sample sizes. MML is statistically invariant under 1-to-1 re-parametrisation, thus avoiding a common criticism of Bayesian approaches. We also show that MML provides answers to many of Forster's objections to Bayesianism. Hence an important part of the attack on Bayesianism fails. 1. Introduction2. The Curve Fitting Problem2.1 Curves and families of curves2.2 Noise2.3 The method of Maximum Likelihood2.4 ML and over-fitting3. Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC)4. The Predictive Accuracy Framework5. The Minimum Message Length (MML) Principle5.1 The Strict MML estimator5.2 An example: The binomial distribution5.3 Properties of the SMML estimator5.3.1 Bayesianism5.3.2 Language invariance5.3.3Generality5.3.4 Consistency and efficiency5.4 Similarity to false oracles5.5 Approximations to SMML6. Criticisms of AIC6.1 Problems with ML6.1.1 Small sample bias in a Gaussian distribution6.1.2 The von Mises circular and von Mises—Fisher spherical distributions6.1.3 The Neyman–Scott problem6.1.4 Neyman–Scott, predictive accuracy and minimum expected KL distance6.2 Other problems with AIC6.2.1 Univariate polynomial regression6.2.2 Autoregressive econometric time series6.2.3 Multivariate second-order polynomial model selection6.2.4 Gap or no gap: a clustering-like problem for AIC6.3 Conclusions from the comparison of MML and AIC7. Meeting Forster's objections to Bayesianism7.1 The sub-family problem7.2 The problem of approximation, or, which framework for statistics?8. ConclusionA. Details of the derivation of the Strict MML estimatorB. MML, AIC and the Gap vs. No Gap ProblemB.1 Expected size of the largest gapB.2 Performance of AIC on the gap vs. no gap problemB.3 Performance of MML in the gap vs. no gap problem.

Wittgenstein published next to nothing on the philosophy of religion and yet his conception of religious belief has been immensely influential. While the concluding, ‘mystical’ remarks in his early work, the Tractatus, are notorious, we find only a single allusion to theology in his magnum opus, the Philosophical Investigations, posthumously published in 1953. Wittgenstein’s mature views on the nature of religious belief must therefore be pieced together from scattered remarks made in his notebooks from the 1930s, the Lectures and Conversations on Religious Belief (compiled from lecture notes), the Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough and from what has come to be known as Culture and Value. All of the above, as well as recorded conversations with friends, testify to Wittgenstein’s life-long involvement with religious issues, so it is not readily explicable why Wittgenstein remained silent about them in his most important work. But then Wittgenstein once said to his friend, Maurice Drury, ‘It is impossible for me to say in my book one word about all that music has meant in my life. How then can I hope to be understood?’ This remark might equally well apply to religion. Wittgenstein’s reflections about religious belief are inspired by a number of thinkers, such as, for example, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and William James, as well as most notably, perhaps, the Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard. With the latter he shares the view that Christianity is not a theory about the behaviour of supernatural entities, but an existence-communication, whose demands are primarily ethical, not intellectual. The believer, on this conception, is supposed to transform himself, not his ontological commitments; he is called to exist in the truth as lived out by Christ, the paradigm or pattern, not to engage in speculation about the metaphysical compatibility of the ‘two natures’ of Christ, say. Wittgenstein once wrote: ‘If Christianity is the truth then all the philosophy that is written about it is false.’ If this is indeed apt, it would seem to confine pretty much everything that goes on in philosophy of religion and theology departments to the scrapheap. Small wonder, therefore, that Wittgenstein’s views about the nature of religious belief continue to engender the fiercest opposition, both in those who are sympathetic to religion and in those who are not. In this chapter I will concentrate solely on Wittgenstein’s later conception of religious belief and shall leave his Tractatus views to one side.

Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand has been experiencing something of a 'golden age'. Within this, the richness of Australasia's philosophical past, though less well known, should not be forgotten: Australasian philosophy includes much distinctive and highly original work. The Companion contains a wide range of articles by prominent philosophers and scholars, as well as important contributions by those outside academia. As well as longer essays on selected philosophers, philosophical topics and controversies, there are shorter entries on associations, research centres, departments, journals, pedagogy and international links. Philosophy's recent inroads into the wider community are also highlighted.

Feser (2017) presents and defends five proofs of the existence of God. Each proof is in two stages: the first stage proves the existence of something which, in the second stage, is shown to possess an appropriate range of divine attributes. Each proof is given two presentations, one informal and one formal. In this paper, I critically examine two premises from one of Feser's five first stage proofs. I provide reasons for thinking that naturalists reject both of these premises. In my view, this enough to show that the proof fails: it fails to advance considerations that decide between theism and important competing positions.

This paper is a history of philosophy in Australia in the first decade of the twenty-first century. It considers, among other things: (1) the state of the higher education sector; (2) the state of the humanities; (3) the state of philosophy in the academy; (4) support for philosophy in the academy; (5) the role of philosophy beyond the academy; (6) changes in philosophical practice in this decade,; (7) changes in the teaching of philosophy in this decade; and (8) the domains of inquiry in which philosophers worked in this decade.

In this paper, I examine Kant’s discussion of ‘the cosmological argument’ in The Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Doctrine of Elements, Second Part, Second Division, Book 2, Chapter Three, Section Five (‘The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God’). While there are other places where Kant provides related discussions of ‘the cosmological argument’—e.g. in The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God, Lectures on Philosophical Theology, and Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone—I do not attempt to consider any of these further works in this paper. First, I argue that it is not true that cosmological arguments depend upon ontological arguments, and that Kant is simply mistaken when he argues that ‘the cosmological argument’ ‘assumes’ ‘the ontological argument’. Second, I argue that Kant does not provide a compelling critique of cosmological arguments to the conclusion that there is an absolutely necessary being.

This article critically examines the structure and implications of the argument in ST 1, Q2, A3, associated with Aquinas’ First Way. Our central endeavor is to discern whether a certain disambiguation of point 6 (“There is something that is not moving/changing that moves/changes other things”) can be logically inferred from points 1-5. Through a three-part proof, the article establishes that under specific conditions, it can indeed be inferred. However, this interpretation notably diverges from Aquinas’ intended conclusion and subsequent stronger interpretations of the claim. The paper also engages in discussions surrounding the soundness of the argument, assessing the plausibility of its premises in light of physics and logical analysis. The contribution does not seek to speculate on Aquinas’ understanding or to dismiss his perspective but rather to delineate what follows from his First Way premises, highlighting discrepancies with contemporary views on the nature of existence, particularly the notion of God.

There is an important distinction between two different kinds of expressions of gratitude: propositional expressions of gratitude and prepositional expressions of gratitude. I argue that there is a corresponding distinction between two different kinds of expression of resentment: propositional expressions of resentment and prepositional expressions of resentment. I then argue that theists should suppose neither that propositional expressions of gratitude are prepositional expressions of gratitude to God, nor that propositional expressions of resentment are prepositional expressions of resentment of God.