Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy A-level AQA > God > Flashcards

God Flashcards

Memorize

1
Q

Analytic proposition

A

a proposition true by definition e.g. 2+2=4, triangles have 3 sides

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

Synthetic proposition

A

Something that can be true but won’t necessarily always be true e.g. that door is blue

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

Anti-realism

A

mind-dependent. perception of material objects only exist in our minds

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

A posteriori

A

belief that knowledge can only come from experience

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

A priori

A

the belief that knowledge comes prior to our experiences

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

Atemporal

A

exists outside of time

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

Blik

A

Hare’s term for a belief/interpretation of the world

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

Cognitivist

A

judgements are propositions that can be known

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

Non-cognitivist

A

judgements cannot be known there is nothing true about the world

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

Cosmological argument

A

argument about the existence of god by claiming there must be a reason for the universe to exist
The Principle of Universal Causation: the idea that everything has a cause, and there cannot be an infinite series (must be a start)

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

Deductive argument

A

an argument where the conclusion is guaranteed by the claims
e.g. all men are mortal
Socrates is a man
therefore Socrates is mortal

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

Empiricist

A

knowledge is based on experience, facts

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

Existentialism

A

philosophies focusing on describing and explaining what is means to exist

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

Falsificationism

A

theory about the nature of meaning. Verificationism but instead of what would verify it, we must be able to understand what it would take to falsify it

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

Immutable

A

unchangeable

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

Incorporeal

A

not corporeal. Not of matter or material e.g. god

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Inductive argument

A

truth of the conclusion is not fully guaranteed by claims
e.g. Paul is 98 years old
Paul has pneumonia
therefore Paul will not be running a marathon

it’s most likely he won’t, but not guaranteed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Infinite regress

A

process of reasoning from effect to cause. Process never stops and is repeated endlessly in a chain of explanations
(considered problematic)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Metaphysics

A

determining what exists and what doesn’t

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Necessary vs contingent

A

necessary must be

contingent just happens to be

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Ontological arguments

A

study of existence

because the concept of god exists, so must he

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Design arguments

A

god must exist because the universe appears to have a designer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Predicate

A

the expression/claim
e.g. the balloon is red
‘the balloon’ is the subject ‘is red’ is the predicate
god exists
‘god’ is the subject ‘exists’ is the predicate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Premise

A

a reason given to build an argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Proposition

A

statement claiming about the way the world is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Rationalism

A

regard reason as opposed to experience as the primary source of knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Abductive

A

best explanations for something, taking into account the weight of evidence
less formal ; doesn’t claim to be conclusive
e.g. an external world being there is a simpler answer than there not being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is a horizontal argument?

A

temporal argument
series of event in time
e.g. first event&raquo_space;> causes this&raquo_space;> causes this
decides to take a-levels&raquo_space;> chooses philosophy&raquo_space;> in philosophy class

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is a vertical argument?

A

go from specific causes to higher causes order explanations
more from particular changes to wider explanations for movement and change

e.g.
which was caused by an all powerful being
^^^
which was caused by human beings able to make choices
^^^
the person holding the stick makes the decision to move it
^^^
what causes the stick to move?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Discuss The Kalam argument (argument from temporal causation)

A
  • horizontal, deductive
    1. everything with a beginning must have a cause
    2. the universe has a beginning
    3. therefore the universe must have a cause

assumptions: the principle of universal causation and the rejection of infinite regression
Al-Ghazahi intends to show that an infinite series is impossible
e.g. Jupiter takes 12 years to orbit the sun, Saturn takes 30 years, but if past time is infinite, then Saturn and Jupiter have orbited the same amount of times. x=y & x=1/2y at the same time which doesn’t make sense
Another example of a paradox that claims to show the impossibility of an infinite series is Hilbert’s Hotel (infinite hotel with infinite people 1 room at a time)
Suggests the hotel is full and empty at the same time
Paradox= the hotel is full and empty; these 2 states seem to show the incoherence of infinity

Not actually impossible
Set theory undermines premise 2
(set theory = mathematical theory)

31
Q

Outline Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason (argument from contingency)

A
  • No fact can be true unless there is sufficient reason why things are as they are
  • Contingent facts exist
  • C.F can only be partially explained in terms of other C.F
  • The whole series of C.F cannot be sufficiently explained by any C.F within that series
  • The sufficient reason for C.F and series must lie outside the series
  • The ultimate reason for facts is a necessary substance = god

> > > The main idea here is that there has got to be a good enough explanation for all we have (sufficient reason)

32
Q

Outline Leibniz’s Geometry example (principle of sufficient reason)

A

Leibniz explained that the principles of geometry exist today. These can be partially explained by previous works on Geometry but there needs to be a more complete and sufficient reason for our understanding

33
Q

Outline The Impossibility of a Necessary Being

A

“God exists” isn’t contradictory to deny like “triangles don’t have three sides”
In order for something to be deemed “necessary” it has to be contradictory to deny
A triangle is necessarily a 3 sided shape because to say a triangle is not a 3 sided shape is contradictory, god exists can be denied
Only used for analytic propositions

34
Q

Describe Ontological Arguments

A

Tend/aim to be a priori and deductive

35
Q

Outline St Anselm’s Ontological Argument

A
  1. God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived
  2. Even a ‘fool’ can understand this (an atheist)
  3. The fool says there’s no God in reality
  4. The fool is convinced that God, the greatest being, exists only in his understanding and not reality
  5. It is greater to exist in understanding AND reality
  6. If the greatest possible being is genuinely the greatest, then it must exist in the understanding and in reality
  7. Therefore God must exist in reality and the understanding. The fool is really a fool for denying the existence of a being that must exist
36
Q

Outline Gaunilo’s objection to St Anselm’s ontological argument

A
  1. We can all imagine an excellent island
  2. It is greater for it to exist in reality than understanding
  3. Therefore it must exist using Anselm’s logic, but it does not
    »Shows the absurdity of Anselm’s logic
37
Q

Outline the problem of Constant Conjunction

HUME - COSMOLOGICAL

A

Hume questions what ‘cause’ and ‘causation’ means. He claims that cause means one event that precedes another on a regular basis&raquo_space;> which we learn through experience

  1. We have no experience of the cause of the universe: cannot assume one
  2. There is no ‘constant’ when it comes to the start of the universe. This is a unique event - not something with a regular conjoining of events
38
Q

Outline the Problem of Induction

HUME - COSMOLOGICAL

A

“All things are X”
e.g. “All things have a cause”
Is impossible to prove
We should avoid any argument that assumes this

e.g. “every day the sun will rise”
just because it has so far doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to continue doing so forever, only an assumption

39
Q

Outline Hume’s problem with Anselm’s Ontological argument

A

Hume’s fork: analytic or synthetic
Claims that “God exists” is neither so it isn’t knowledge/fact/truth
Strength: undermines Anselm
Weakness: only an opinion

40
Q

Define “The Problem with Evil”

A

does the God of Classical Theism (omnibenevolent, omnipotent etc) have the ability to coexist with evil

41
Q

What are the two types of Evil?

A
  1. Natural: pain and suffering caused independently to human action e.g. disease, famine
  2. Moral: pain and suffering caused as the result of human action (sin) e.g. murder

Mostly focused on natural evil:
if God is all powerful and all loving, why did he let it happen?

42
Q

Outline and describe The Logical Problem of Evil

A

-a priori, deductive, God CANNOT exist

Often referred to as The Inconsistent Triad (Hume):
If god is omnibenevolent, he must want to get rid of evil&raquo_space; If God is omnipotent he is able to&raquo_space; If God is all knowing he know God exists&raquo_space; Therefore if God exists, evil should not&raquo_space; evil does exist&raquo_space; God cannot

43
Q

Outline and describe The Evidential Problem of Evil

A

-a posteriori, inductive/abductive, God is UNLIKELY to exist

Uses inductive logic to argue God is unlikely to exist
¬On balance the existence of evil in the world persuades us that the existence of an all powerful, supremely good God does not exist
¬Why is there so much pain and suffering in the world?
¬Why doesn’t God intervene in terms of natural disasters?
¬For many (Hume, Mackie, Rowe) the evidence stacks up against the theist’s claim that the God of classical theism exists
» Rowe: Animal Suffering example
-gives the example of suffering that seems pointless
-a deer trapped and burning in a forest fire, suffers immensely for days before
eventually dying
-this doesn’t disprove the existence of God, but makes it unlikely

44
Q

What is Cognitive Language?

A
  • Truth apt claims
  • We can claim if they are true/false
    e. g. Beyoncé is a musician
  • Propositional claims (about the world)
  • Have intrinsic content in themselves
  • So by saying “God exists” a cognitivist is claiming there IS a divine being
45
Q

What is Non-Cognitive language?

A
  • Not Propositional
  • Not factual claims
  • Instrumental use > to express a view, not claim the truth
  • A non-cognitivist saying “God exists” is expressing an idea/feeling that may give them hope
46
Q

What is the Verification Principle?

A

-Logical positivism, inspired by Hume, empirical
-Hume exposed that knowledge is of two types = matters of fact (2+2=4) or relation of ideas (that door is blue). If a claim is neither, it is meaningless
The Principle States:
“In order for a statement to be meaningful it must be synthetic or analytic”
‘God exists’ is neither so is therefore meaningless

47
Q

What is an Issue with The Verification Principle?

A
  • Too broad
  • Excludes many scientific and historical claims, making it self-refuting
    e.g. water boils at 100C
    cannot be verified under this principle = meaningless
48
Q

What is the Weak Verification Principle?

A

-A.J.Ayer developed it to address the issues
The Principle states:
“A statement is meaningful if we know what it would take to establish it’s verification
e.g. Water boils at 100C
Verified by the experience of the hypothesis
We know what it would take to verify it
We cannot agree on what it would take to verify God, therefore it is meaningless. Th claim makes no empirical sense

49
Q

What does Hick claim on Verification? (+parable)

A

-Claims that religious statements may be eschatologically (‘end times’) verifiable

Parable of the Celestial City:
¬Journey of 2 travellers. One claims there is a celestial city at the end, the other claims there is nothing. Neither have been down the road before, but eventually one will be proven correct

  • Hick is trying to explain to illustrate that it is possible for the claims of a religious believer is verifiable after death
  • They are truth apt (cognitive) as they have the potential to be true
50
Q

What is a problem with Hick’s Verification Parable?

And how does Hick defend it?

A

Problem: rests on the idea that identity is retained after-death

Hick’s Replica Theory:

  • X disappears in London and an exact double appears in New York
  • X dies in London and an exact double appears in New York
  • X dies in London and an exact double appears in “Resurrection World”

Hick is explaining that the idea of retaining your identity is at least logically possible

51
Q

Evaluate Hick’s ideas on Verification

Leibniz

A

Leibniz’s Law of Indiscernibles:

  • In order for two things to be identical, they need to share all properties
  • These replicas do not share continuity in space
  • Therefore they are not the same (different identity)
52
Q

What is the Falsification Principle? (Popper)

A

In order for a claim to be meaningful, it needs to be falsifiable (know what it would take to prove it false)
e.g. Sam is the fastest runner in class; it would take someone running faster to falsify it

53
Q

What did Flew say about religious language in terms of religious language

A

Whenever a religious person makes a (cognitive) religious claims e.g. “God loves me”, no matter what you throw at them e.g. terrible disease, tragic accidents, nothing will disprove it
Unfalsifiable = meaningless

  1. in order for a claim to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable
  2. atheists give evidence of what the world would be like if “God exists” was false. It would have suffering and no evidence of God - our world
  3. Instead of accepting these examples as falsifying, religious people change their claims
  4. Therefore it is unfalsifiable, therefore meaningless

outlines in parable of the gardener

54
Q

Outline Flew’s parable of the Gardener

A

2 explorers find a garden
Person A claims there must be a gardener, Person B claims there isn’t
They wait and watch
No gardener is seen
A claims they could be invisible
They set traps, but nothing happens
Person A claims the gardener is invisible and intangible. Who makes no sound or scent and comes secretly
Person B states “what remains of your original assertion? Just how close does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

(Person A = religious person, Person B = atheist, Gardener = God, lack of sight = falsifying evidence)
This parable is to illustrate how instead of ever falsifying a claim, a religious person simply adapts their claims rendering the language meaningless

55
Q

How does Mitchell’s view on Falsification differ to Flew’s?

A

Agrees that religious people use religious language cognitively, and think their statements are assertions

Disagrees that those claims can’t be falsified

Religious language is: MEANINGFUL, COGNITIVE, FALSIFIABLE

56
Q

Outline Mitchell’s ideas on Religious Language

A

Religious believers have a different perspective
Mitchell argues religious believers often struggle with their belief in the face of challenging evidence, but they are aware of elements that could falsify a claim
Believers do not simply discard this evidence but they have made a commitment to believe in God and it takes a great deal to make them give it up
They choose to believe
Nevertheless, there are people who do give up on their belief in God due to contrary evidence (such as evil or suffering) therefore it suggests the language is falsifiable and therefore meaningful
Even if the believer does not give up their belief, as long as they acknowledge the conflicting evidence, their belief is meaningful

Outlined in the Parable of the Partisan

57
Q

Outline Mitchell’s Parable of the Partisan

A

A stranger meets a resistance worker
Stranger tells the partisan that he’s on the side of the resistance
Urges partisan to have faith in him no matter what
The partisan chooses to trust him, even if sometimes his actions don’t show this
Sometimes he asks the stranger for help and receives it, he’s then grateful
Sometimes he asks the stranger for help and doesn’t, he then claims the stranger knows best, the stranger has a plan
Sometimes his friends dispute the stranger in exasperation, but the partisan insists the stranger is on their side

Mitchell’s point is that believers do not allow anything to conclusively falsify their belief in God, but this does not mean it is meaningless because they do show that there are places in which God may be falsifiable to others

58
Q

What issue did Flew take with Mitchell’s Partisan Parable?

A

States that the stranger had to behave in certain ways because of his difficult situation, but God does not. God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he has no need for these things, and should not want to prolong suffering

59
Q

How did Hare’s ideas on religious language under falsification differ to Flew’s?

A

Agreed that in an empirical way, religious statements cannot be falsified
Disagreed that because of this they must be meaningless

Religious language is: MEANINGFUL, NON-COGNITIVE, UNFALSIFIABLE

60
Q

What are Hare’s views on Religious Language?

A

He takes a non-cognitivist approach so rejects that religious statements must be factual
Hare claims religious statements aren’t assertions at all, therefore immune to verification and falsification.
Blik = unfalsifiable and unverifiable views of the world
e.g. the steel of my car will keep me safe at speed
e.g. things are meant to be
e.g. God exists > this can be comfort for an individual

=Language can be meaningful if it represents a world view which causes an impact on how an individual lives their life

61
Q

Outline Hare’s Parable of the Lunatic

A

A lunatic is convinced some university professors are trying to kill him
His friend introduces them to him, showing him they’re harmless
The lunatic is still convinced he’s been plotting the whole time
However many kind professors are shown, his reaction doesn’t change
Although plausible, the lunatic’s claim is still meaningful as it has impact on his life

(Lunatic = believer, reassurance = falsifiable evidence, belief about professors = blik)

62
Q

What issue did Flew take with Hare’s Lunatic Parable?

A

Disagrees because when religious people claim something about God they absolutely mean it in the cognitivist sense. The are claiming to express knowledge on God

63
Q

What are Wittgenstein’s views on Religious language?

A

Rejects cognitivism; too limited. Don’t ask for meaning, ask for use. Sees religious language as a language game e.g. ‘that slice made and ace’ only makes sense in the context of tennis.

Language is not a matter attaching a definition to a word but about the practical usage of a word
If we want a meaning, we need the use
Meaning is use
There are different types of language use e.g. poetry, art, religion
All use language and have a particular set of rules governing it’s use
e.g. ‘God has green eyes’ is meaningless as it ‘breaks the rules’ as God is supposed to be immaterial
Saying ‘God exists’ and ‘Frank exists’ sound the same, but the rules are different
A religious person is expressing their faith, which is meaningful in the context

64
Q

What are the two types of truth and who sits under each?

Wittgenstein, Ayer, Mitchell, Hick, Hare

A

Correspondence Theory: Truth needs to correspond with the actual state of affairs
-Ayer and Hick

Coherence Theory: Truth depends on how a claim coheres with a world view

e. g. ‘Santa is jolly’ coheres with the world view ‘Santa is mean’ does not. Santa doesn’t actually exist. Meaningful when it comes with general view
- Wittgenstein and Hare

Mitchell falls under both = cognitivist, but talks about belief

65
Q

Outline Plantinga’s Free Will Defence Theodicy

A

In response to Mackie’s idea rejecting free will and how this can explain the presence of evil. Mackie claimed tehre were three choices:
1. innocent automata (no freewill)
2. free beings who often do wrong
3. beings who act freely but always go right
And not picking the third is proof God doesn’t exist

  • A world with freewill in it is more valuable than one without
  • To be able to choose the good, God had to create humans with freewill
  • God could not create humans with freewill but determine them to always choose good, as this is not true freewill
  • Sometimes people choose evil rather than good
  • Therefore evil can be explained as a result of having freewill and having the possibility of choosing the good
  • Therefore moral evil is consistent with the existence of God
    e. g. Vardy’s King example: a king falls in love with a lower class girl. He has the power to command her hand in marriage, but that would change their relationship, so wins her over so she will marry him freely

Cannot have genuine moral good, without genuine moral evil
Both is a result of free will

66
Q

What is the Problem with Plantinga’s Free Will Theory?

A

It only resolves moral evil; does not explain natural evil which is the most prominent issue

67
Q

What is Augustian’s Theodicy that helps Plantinga’s?

A
  • God made a perfect world
  • Adam and eve turned away from it because of original sin
  • Suffering is a deserved punishment from God because we are all related
  • God is also merciful so it allows salvation for those who sin
68
Q

What effect does The Augustian Theodicy have on The Problem of Evil?

A

Removes previous problem of not approaching natural evil

However:
Science = no evidence for the biblical account of creation. Evidence of suffering before humans existed e.g. arthritis in dinosaurs

Illogical to say a perfect world could go wrong. Must have evil being somewhere in creation
e.g. having all yellow paints in a pallet, but one turns green. That couldn’t have happened if there wasn’t something there to contaminate it

69
Q

How did Augustine respond to the claim that evil must have always been there?

A

Claims evil doesn’t exist
Evil is only a lack of goodness just as dark is a lack of light, it’s not a substance in itself
“Privation of Goodness”
God cannot be blamed for something that doesn’t exist

70
Q

How did Anselm respond to Gaunilo?

A

Split existence into two:
1= Contingent (Gaunilo’s island)
They can be thought of as not existing
e.g. I can imagine that the tree outside doesn’t exist
2= Necessary (God)
Cannot be thought of as not existing by definition. This type of being must contain the concept of existence within the definition of the being itself

Anselm argues that it is possible to have the thought of God not existing only because you don’t understand the nature of God. If you did you would know that the thought is incoherent. It is like thinking of a married bachelor

71
Q

What is Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy?

A

Claims that the world is perfect because we can grow freely. We’re given opportunities to develop instead of being God’s pets. We aren’t here to be comfortable but make ourselves better.

Counter Factual Hypothesis:
-If nothing ever happened e.g. falling from a great height, we wouldn’t have scientific research e.g. into gravity, because the laws would be constantly changing
-If there was no consequences we wouldn’t develop kindness, empathy, patience, because there would never be a situation where it’s needed
-If there was a world with no suffering, it would be the worst of all possible worlds for humans to grow into the likeness of God. Nothing would matter. Evil serves purpose
-Furthermore, God cannot be obvious in this world for us to be truly free
Epistemic Distance = distance of knowledge
We can’t know for certain he exists for us to truly be free to develop

72
Q

What are the problems (2) that arise from Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy?

A
  1. If suffering is there for us to grow and develop how can you explain the suffering of innocents e.g. child dying of cancer, and why suffering to such a high degree
  2. Based on growth of human soul: how then can you explain animal suffering?
73
Q

What is used to defend the problem “If suffering is there for us to grow and develop how can you explain the suffering of innocents e.g. child dying of cancer, and why suffering to such a high degree”

A

If suffering is there for us to grow and develop how can you explain the suffering of innocents e.g. child dying of cancer, and why suffering to such a high degree
>Defence: heaven for all = whatever someone does or how young they die, they will go to heaven. God is all loving and would never condemn people to hell eternally
>Defence: Swinburne - Toy World
- for anything to have real meaning, they must have real consequences
- think of a toy world were things matter but not very much. Such levels of experience are not meaningful or life changing e.g. a real train going off the tracks vs a toy one. There just be a significant level of suffering in order for life to have meaning
-Imagine having a limitless amount of coins for a coin machine; winning or losing would no longer matter. There must be a limited chance

74
Q

What is used to defend “Based on growth of human soul: how then can you explain animal suffering?”

A

Based on growth of human soul: how then can you explain animal suffering?
>Defence: animals cannot suffer to the same level as us. This is because of our complexity and awareness. Animals cannot and do not consider death in the same way as people
>Defence: Swinburne = a deer burning alone in the forest could in fact inform other animals to stay away. Purpose to it’s suffering

Philosophy A-level AQA (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions