Nature of Belief- reason

Question 1

Define strong rationalism

Answer 1

the view that you shouldn’t hold any belief unless you have evidence, whether it be a priori or a posteriori

Question 2

Explain Clifford’s evidentialist view

Answer 2

• “wrong always…to believe anything on insufficient evidence”
• Factually and morally wrong to believe in insufficient evidence => you are morally guilty
• become deontologist as it is always wrong to have a belief on insufficient evidence => there is a sense of duty that you must follow (cf. Locke)

Question 3

Locke’s view on reason

Answer 3

• we have a duty to use our reason
• a revelation could be relied upon without using evidence, but you still need to use reason and evidence to decide whether or not it is a genuine revelation

Question 4

Problems with strong rationalism

Answer 4

• tends to talk as if it is neutral but if reason comes from human minds how can it ever be ‘neutral’ or ‘value-free’
• there is no evidence that we should test all claims against evidence!

Question 5

Define natural theology

Answer 5

a theological approach that argues inductively to the existence or character of God

Question 6

Religious criticisms of natural theology

Answer 6

• Ockham = nature does not resemble the cause enough for us to know about God
• Kant = reason is too limited to understand a transcendent God
• Barth = wrong to try and prove God as it is selling reason higher than faith

Question 7

Describe Aquinas’ critical rationalism

Answer 7

• a compatible position that adopts a natural theology approach
• considers religion and faith to be in “harmony”; reason alone cannot arrive at the propositions of religious faith, but once these propositions are available, it is reason that shows us whether or not they are reasonable
• If the two views conflict it is reason that needs to be re-evaluated

Question 8

Evaluate Clifford’s view

Answer 8

+ Dawkins: would agree due to his arguments of scientific theories over religious beliefs as it is empirically based
CP: Dawkins simply disregards religious beliefs just as Clifford does as he believes faith is a leap beyond reason and evidence
- we often act without sufficient evidence (practice of medicine)
- saying it is immoral seems quite uncompromising and unemotional as there is a difference between an intellectual mistake and a moral evil
+ Flew’s falsificationism: are reduced to saying ‘God’s love is incomprehensible’ because they cannot explain why God should allow for evil to occur in world, Flew maintains they are allowing their definition of God to “die a death of a thousand qualifications”
CP: many theodicies to explain the existence of evil, none seem to maintain image of the God of classical theism, which is the mistake made by religious believers

Question 9

Define evidentialism

Answer 9

it is what it takes for one to believe justifiably, or reasonably, what is thought to be necessary for knowledge.