Concepts Flashcards
Is God simple?
Aquinas asked this to argue that the First Cause is God. God is simple because God is not complex in either of the two ways that other things are complex
Form and Matter, Existing and Essence
Aquinas argues that God is not complex because God is not of form and matter (like material objects) or even being and essence (like angels) due to God’s existing and essence being one
Is God perfect?
Aquinas asks this to argue that the First Cause is God. God is perfect because God is the original source of all the world’s perfections
Univocal causation
Here, the cause extends its form to the effect and they share the same kind of form (Aquinas used the example of animal offspring, and argues that God cannot be the univocal cause)
Equivocal causation
Here the cause extends its form to the effect, but the latter form does not exist in the same way- for example, an artist translating the idea of some sculpture to a lump of clay (Aquinas argues God has equivocal causation- thus, as that perfection is of a higher form, God is indeed perfect)
Is God infinite?
Aquinas asks this to argue that the First Cause is God. To do so, he challenges the old idea of antiquity and instead thinks of infinite-ness differently. Matter is finite, limited by form, while the divine is already fully realized.
Limits by form, limits by being joined with essence
Aquinas argues that God is neither limited by form/matter, nor by being joined with essence as God’s existence = essence
Is God one?
Aquinas asks this to argue that there is one First Cause rather than multiple. If there’s more than one First Cause, they have to be different by way of perfections. BUT the First Cause has all perfections, so there must only be one
Analogical Predication
Associated with Aquinas, looks at predicated assigned to God vs to us. Aquinas takes an analogical (think “health”) view, rather than Univocal or Equivocal
Mysticism
Mystics, like Al-Ghazali, have had an experience with God. There is a doctrine/practice side and an experience side. Mysticism can be across traditions.
Feeling Account of Religious Experience
Rudolph Otto is a proponent- he argues direct religious experiences are intuitive and more emotional than rational. They are free of content, with rationalization maybe coming later as an afterthought.
Objection to the Feeling AoRE
If it is non-cognitive and without content, then it is not enough to support a belief. (Or, emotions must have content). There’s no “evidence.” A reply to this objection says that the objector is misunderstanding the nature of feelings/emotions
Perception Account of Religious Experience
William Alston is a proponent- he argues for the receiver, the experience, and the mode/appearance of the experience.. the structure of regular experience mirrors the structure of religious experience.
Objection to the Perception AoRE
Ordinary experience is vastly more common than religious experience. Also, what if the receiver is having a misperception?
Interpretation Account of Religious Experience
Whether or not an experience is religious is up to the receiver. If it was perceived to be, it is so (this account is more modest in its aims- couldn’t support organized religion, maybe, but is enough for individual’s basis of faith)
Objection to the Interpretation AoRE
This account could leave out the object itself and instead focus on the receiver
Traditional (Skeptical) View
Says that no, mysticism or religious experiences are not enough to be a foundation for religious belief. If you knew that it was an experience of God, maybe. But you don’t know that (faulty calculator analogy)
Reformed Epistemology
Says that since most of our beliefs rest on basic epistemologic practices, religious ones can too? They can be tested piecemeal but not as a whole
Piety is examples of piety
Euthypro’s first attempt to answer “what is piety”. To be pious is to do good things, like prosecute his father; to do things like he and the gods do
Piety is what is dear to the gods
Euthyphro’s second attempt. Socrates responds that the gods may not all agree- on what is pious, or otherwise
Exclusivism
Maintains that there is only one correct religion, and those who follow it are in the right (receive its benefits and rewards)
Inclusivism
Maintains that although there is one correct religion, even those who don’t follow it can receives the benefits if moral
Pluralism
Maintains that the various religions strive for but not achieve the actual truth of the divine. Nobody is fully correct, but they aren’t wrong either (…similar to God being knowable but beyond our grasp)
Relativism
Maintains that all beliefs are true.
