Essay titles Flashcards
Aristotle’s understanding of the world is more convincing than plato
rationalism vs. empiricism - working hypothesis, senses e.g. table - vs. tautologies, a priori. e.g. maths r \+ descartes \+ accessible - augustine e \+ hume \+ logical positivism, ayer - Descartes
4 causes(give examples) vs. WofF, analogy
- p: - popper
- a: - Sartre, russell (+aquinas, paley)
Pm vs. form of good
p, - Aristotle, kotarbinski
a - aquinas, russell
platos analogy of the cave provides a convincing approach to reality
shadows
- wofa, shadows of fog (- eschatological verif, - popper)
- sun = form of good. (- Aristotle, kotarbinski)
- prisoners = ignorant humans (- restriitve, based on socrates)
PM vs. FofG
both pure and perfect
PM = goodness itself
FoG = highest form, everything has goodness in it (+augustine, privato Boni, - Aristotle)
both have necessary, unchanging existence
PM; pure actuality, draws things to it. not affected (+boethius)
FG: unchanging, reveals truths about wof and woe (- Popper, - Swinburne)
both immatrial
PM: beyond time and space (+anselm)
FG: not physical, esence of an object (-less tangible)
rationalism vs. empiricism (p and a)
reason vs. expreince
- r = a priori, analytic, tautologies (descartes, log pos)
- e = senses before knowledge. working hypothesis. a posteriori (-descartes, +hume)
attitudes t change
- r = unchanging, eternal. world of forms (- popper +davies)
- change = good, potentiality to actuality. (- Dawkins, Sartre, fallacy of composition)
truth
- r = thinking e.g. man in cave adjusting to foG
- e: experience, 4 causes. + log pos
soul is metaphorical not real
property dualist, 4 causes (+ geach, flew) vs. substance dualist, wof (- Poppe, Ryle)
3 elements of soul, but does not survive death (- singer, + hick, replica theory) vs. chariot (-xian trad, + smith, wish fulfilment)
Dawkins survival machines, soul 2, evolution vs. Descartes substance dualist, cogito (-williams, geach)
materialist critiques of dualism
- nothing beyond physical. behaviourism
(wof, unchanging, plato) - singer
- dennett
- soul 2, consciousness is not separate. Aristotle (Descartes) \+ flew \+ryle \+ williams
- wish fulfillment. survival machines (plato, horaton. chariot analogy) \+ geach - hick - descartes
discussion of mind body distinction is a category error r
mistakenly treating something as one thing. Gilbert ryle
- only category error when substance dualist. not immaterial
plato
descartes
artistotle is superior
only way to understand idea of mind is through physical
Dawkins, nothing goes beyond physical. machines of genes. wish fulfilment
- descartes
- hick
survival machines, only awe inspiring thing is evolution. consciousness is personality. soul 2
+ ryle
+ russell
- f r Tennant
skinenr and behaviourism
- singer
- dennet
- winnicott
a posteriori vs. a priori
rationalism vs. empiricism - empriicsm romans 1:19-20 aquinas 5th way, teleological. archer - rationalism pros 3 rely on a priori analytic statement that god exists
inductive vs. deductive
a posteriori - statements of probability, not conclusive proofs like in a priori
e.g. aquinas cosmo argument
- a priori - reason deduces answer on already known premises. relies on belief in god as necessary. reductio ad absurdum
e.g. Malcolm
examples
- Descartes vs. paley teleological
evolution logically explains design
design qua purpose, paleys watch, order
+ evolution came after purpose
- dawkins
- stephen fry
design qua regularity. astronomy. Aquinas reg of such. \+ cicero \+ Swinburne - hume, no other worlds - mill
f. .r Tennant, anthropic principle.evolution is because of god
- darwin
- rowe
humes criticisms against cosmological argument are coherent
concern about structure, fallacious, e.g. unmoved mover
- fallacy of composiion
(+russelll)
causation
fallacy of affirmation of consequent. assumption that there is a link between cause and effect e.g. uncaused causer
- Leibniz
rejected that god is necessary. infinite regress is impossible e.g. contingency
- Anselm
+ copleston
Anselm successfully avoids gaunilo weaknesses
lost island argument
- islands are contingent. fallacy of composition
god does not exist in mind. verbal statement
- only applies to necessary existence. modified pros 2 to 3
can teleological arguments survive threat of chance
paley watch \+ francis \+ mcgrath \+ fibanaci - dawkins - augustine - ockhams razor
design qua reg \+ Arthur brown \+ cicero - dawkins - russell
reg of suc
+ tennant
- darwin
critically assess the argument for god from religious experience
mysticism teresa \+ f c haploid \+ Otto \+ davies, spider - freud
conversion james e.g. William james \+ Swinburne \+Acts9 - winnicott
NDEs 1/5 eben alexander - sacks - mobbs, watt - feuerbach
religious experiences - natural terms
feuerbach and winncott
+ freud
+ Marx
- Swinburne (h, Mackie)
persinger
+ davies, spider
- descartes, innate sense of divine
+ james
near death
mobbs and wwatt
- Otto
- eben alexander (h, Oliver sacks)
augustine theodicy
pre fall
- duffy
- Dawkins
- tillich, symbolic
post fall
- not omnibenevolent
+ romans 7
- own experiences
privatio boni e.g. sickness is absence of health e.g. cold is absence of warmth - Martin, evil is necessary \+ rabbi Daniel polish - plantinga - rowe
hick vs. augustine
world is imperfect, counter factual hypothesis vs. world was perfect pre lap
h: + martin, - philips, - fry , - dawkins
a - duffy, - dawkins - tillich
vale of soul making, 2 cor 3:18 vs. post lapidarian
h: + plantinga, + vardy
a + romans 7 - Oakes - own exp
universal salv, indisc suffeirng vs. privatio boni
h, + teresa + simone + martin
a - Rowe, + rabbi david polish
logical vs. eventual
deductive vs. inductive
inconsistent triad, logical contradiction vs. evidence in world
compare examples
apophatic vs cataphatic
non cog vs. cog
views of god
maimonides vs. proportion
symbol
sign vs symbol
re symbol comes to terms with human experience e..g cross
- hick
+ bible
in relation to god sure reality, transcendent more to profound spirit - can evolve \+ log Pos (-hick) \+ philips
internal reality, personal experience e.g. art
+ Otto
+ randall
- Randall
via negativa
pseudo Dionysus god is transcendent beyond human understanding mysterious \+ c.s. Evans - hume, empricism
maimonides ship \+ yahweh - davies - Olson
sped counter productive to speak as though god can be perceived through senses limits of humanity body and soul are divided \+ language games - inge - tillich
we can never begin to describe god
apophatic maimonides \+ pseudo \+ st John of cross - hume - olson - davies
analogy \+ hick - ayer \+ Ramsey \+ c s Evans
symbol \+ bultmann - fundamentalists \+ tillich \+ Otto
all religious language is non cog
symbolic
apophatic, pseudo
w language games
analogy vs. Witt
cog vs. non cog
how lang is used
focused on religion vs. not focused on religion. both say it is meaningful
existence of god is a scientific question
Vienna circle. analytic syntheitc
ayer, strong weak verif
Witt picture theory
verification principle is too flawed to be useful
cognitive reality depicting loss of any metaphysical language - witt - tillich - Braithwaite
analytic and synthetic humes fork \+ hume - randall - aquinas - hare
weak and strong verif \+ Mitchell, h would say re is weak - hick - davies, does not survive own test - popper - hughes
a just god cannot be merciful
aquinas
love is analogical
just as doesn’t expect anything back
boethius
merciful in assessment
Swinburne, if in time he is just and merciful.
+ proces theo
problems raised by omibenecolent god
evil and suffering
free will and omniscience. boethius
interaction if timeless
an omnipotent god cannot be responsible for evils of the world
logically impossible - can \+ luke 1:47 \+ salvation - mackie - stone paradox
logically possible - can
+ Swinburne
- process theology
necessarily limited, cannot - vary
+ plantinga
+ brightman
+ geach, omnipotence = capacity for power
+ phil 2:58. kenosis, stephen evans and macquarrie
god limits himself
vardy galatians 5:1, it is for our freedom not a chess master - luke 1:37 - descartes (h.mackie) \+ plantinga
macquarrie analogy kenosis \+ stephen evans \+ phil 2:5-8 \+philips - council of Chalcedon
brightman
persnalstic idealist, reality is constituted by consciousness
limiting conditions are within god
surd evil. gods being is responsible, gods will is not
evil, operates separately
+ avoids problem of evil
+aquinas, will
should The attributes be : logical possibility vs. divinely limited
omnipotence
- logical possible vs. necc limited
omnibenevolence
- necc limited (hick)
omniscicence
log poss: boethius
necc lim” Swinburne
conflict between attributes
benevolent
- log poss: rowe
- problem of evil: necc lim, hick
omniscience
log poss: boethius
lim: Swinburne
omnipotent
log ps: aquians
lim: vardy, Macquarie
god talk is meaningless
ayer
meaning must correspond to reality - cognitivist
weak verification principle
there is no way of empirically verifying belief in God
indeed, by definition, God’s characteristics are non-empirical and beyond human experience
any metaphysical language is meaningless
analytic and synthetic statements
- hick
- hughes
- braithwaite
flew
- hare
- Swinburne
witt and lang games it is meaningful \+ d z philips \+ Donovan \+ tillich
