Essay titles Flashcards

1
Q

Aristotle’s understanding of the world is more convincing than plato

A
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

platos analogy of the cave provides a convincing approach to reality

A

shadows
- wofa, shadows of fog (- eschatological verif, - popper)

  • sun = form of good. (- Aristotle, kotarbinski)
  • prisoners = ignorant humans (- restriitve, based on socrates)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

PM vs. FofG

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

rationalism vs. empiricism (p and a)

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

soul is metaphorical not real

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

materialist critiques of dualism

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

discussion of mind body distinction is a category error r

A

mistakenly treating something as one thing. Gilbert ryle
- only category error when substance dualist. not immaterial

plato
descartes
artistotle is superior

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

only way to understand idea of mind is through physical

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

a posteriori vs. a priori

A
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

evolution logically explains design

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

humes criticisms against cosmological argument are coherent

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Anselm successfully avoids gaunilo weaknesses

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

can teleological arguments survive threat of chance

A
paley watch 
\+ francis
\+ mcgrath
\+ fibanaci
- dawkins
- augustine 
- ockhams razor
design qua reg
\+ Arthur brown
\+ cicero 
- dawkins
- russell

reg of suc
+ tennant
- darwin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

critically assess the argument for god from religious experience

A
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

religious experiences - natural terms

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

augustine theodicy

A

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
17
Q

hick vs. augustine

A

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

18
Q

logical vs. eventual

A

deductive vs. inductive

inconsistent triad, logical contradiction vs. evidence in world

compare examples

19
Q

apophatic vs cataphatic

A

non cog vs. cog

views of god

maimonides vs. proportion

20
Q

symbol

A

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

21
Q

via negativa

A
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
22
Q

we can never begin to describe god

A
apophatic 
maimonides
\+ pseudo 
\+ st John of cross 
- hume
- olson
- davies
analogy 
\+ hick
- ayer
\+ Ramsey 
\+ c s Evans
symbol 
\+ bultmann
- fundamentalists
\+ tillich 
\+ Otto
23
Q

all religious language is non cog

A

symbolic

apophatic, pseudo

w language games

24
Q

analogy vs. Witt

A

cog vs. non cog

how lang is used

focused on religion vs. not focused on religion. both say it is meaningful

25
Q

existence of god is a scientific question

A

Vienna circle. analytic syntheitc

ayer, strong weak verif

Witt picture theory

26
Q

verification principle is too flawed to be useful

A
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
27
Q

a just god cannot be merciful

A

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

28
Q

problems raised by omibenecolent god

A

evil and suffering

free will and omniscience. boethius

interaction if timeless

29
Q

an omnipotent god cannot be responsible for evils of the world

A
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

30
Q

god limits himself

A
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

31
Q

should The attributes be : logical possibility vs. divinely limited

A

omnipotence
- logical possible vs. necc limited

omnibenevolence
- necc limited (hick)

omniscicence
log poss: boethius
necc lim” Swinburne

32
Q

conflict between attributes

A

benevolent

  • log poss: rowe
  • problem of evil: necc lim, hick

omniscience
log poss: boethius
lim: Swinburne

omnipotent
log ps: aquians
lim: vardy, Macquarie

33
Q

god talk is meaningless

A

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