Philosophy Essay Plans

Question 1

“Hume successfully criticises the teleological argument”.

Answer 1

INTRO-existence of God evidence of design and order in nature, a posteriori, Aquinas and paley, Hume criticises.
P1
Yes because inadequate comparison, world not as obvious as watch
However humans don’t survive but flourish, Tennant
Yes not flourish because natural disasters, cancer, mean and capricious, Greek gods Stephen fry
P2
Yes because overcomes argument of design qua purpose
Analogy of shipbuilder
However Gods attributes, scripture.
Yes x,y doesn’t mean X caused y
P3
No because purpose is heavily supported in ancient philosophy
Telos,eudaimonia, universe, Aristotle
However, it is not design but natural selection and evolution- Richard Dawkins.
P4
Yes because we have no suggestive evidence that is was a Cristian God
Set of scales-Unknown weight
-just as if we don’t know God is all powerful
-Greek gods

Question 2

“Critically evaluate the teleological argument”

Answer 2

INTRO
the argument for existence of God, of order, design in nature
It is based on observing the existence of order, a posteriori
P1
NoNot good to observe because the claim that the world has order is inadequate, can’t compare, could be chaotic
However, universe seems to be designed so that humans can not only design but flourish
No doesn’t take into account natural disasters, cancer etc
P2
-The design qua purpose argument is supported by ancient Philosphy
-telos, eudaimonia, universe, Aristotle
-However it is not design but it is natural selection- Dawkins
P3
-Design qua purpose is inadequate
-analogy of shipbuilder
-However, Gods attributes, scripture etc
-yes X,y doesn’t mean X caused y
P4
Some may argue that there is no evidence that it is the Christian God,set of scales, Unknown weight just as we don’t know Gods attributes.
The argument may be good but who’s to say that it is God
Greek gods Stephen fry
P5
There is so much complexity in the world that it seems illogical to suggest that such would come from a chaos/accident
Order isn’t evidence of a designer,it’s neccesary for self sustaining,epicurean thesis

Question 3

“the only way to talk about God is through the negative”

Answer 3

INTRO
Apophatic God talk, recognises the reality of God is beyond all revealed names, only way to talk about God is by what he’s not,not mortal not immortal.Symbolic language, analogy.
P1 NO
Symbolic language, adequately describes God characteristics, symbols for a reality cannot be reached any other way.
Logical positivist, not literall= it has no meaning
Symbols are unique deeper meaning about God.
P2 YES
symbolic language problem of evil, Via negative does. Via negativa ‘God is Good’ questions his nature
Scripture, positive statements, John 3:16
Moses Maimonides, disrespectful to use our language,reduce him to our level
P3 NO
Analogy, helps explain difficult concepts,analogy of proportion Gods and humans Goodness.
However Swinburne ‘God is Good’ ‘humans are Good’ we are using the word univocally.
P4 YES
Apophatic way overcomes the issues associated with poetic or symbolic language, too open to interpretation, too distrespectful
Flew, via negativa little difference between that and nothingness
Via negativa highlights the ineffable qualities of God.

Question 4

“Falsification proves that God talk is meaningless”

Answer 4

INTRO
Anthony Flew, for any theory to be meaningful the person proposing it must be able to show how it can be falsified
P1 YES
no sense qualifying beliefs which no longer express the original truths
Flew, Analogy of the Gardner, death of a thousand qualifications
However it doesn’t take into account the ultimate commitments and beliefs we have
It tries to provide clear criteria what and what is not meaningful.
P2 YES
No because the power of faith is stronger than the evidence against God- Basil Mitchell, Partisan and the stranger, aknowledges POE believes commitment and trust have nothing against belief,it’s meaningful
However, the strangers ambiguous behaviour is easy to explain, an omnipotent God should not have such problems
P3 NO
rather than fo using on reasoning of language it focuses on the boundaries of scientific/no scientific language not the meaning
However, the meaning of language cannot be determined by empirical data, bliks, a non rational belief, rm hare, parable of the lunatic.
P4 NO
It provides an alternative to the failed principle of verification
Verification fails its own test, contradicts itself, falsification doesn’t.
Swinburne argues what can be falsified?, some factual statements can be falsified, some existential statements cannot be falsified, toys in cupboard, we don’t know enough

Question 5

“the only way to talk about God is through the negative”

Answer 5

INTRO
Apophatic God talk, recognises the reality of God is beyond all revealed names, only way to talk about God is by what he’s not,not mortal not immortal.Symbolic language, analogy.
P1 NO
Symbolic language, adequately describes God characteristics, symbols for a reality cannot be reached any other way.
Logical positivist, not literall= it has no meaning
Symbols are unique deeper meaning about God.
P2 YES
symbolic language problem of evil, Via negative does. Via negativa ‘God is Good’ questions his nature
Scripture, positive statements, John 3:16
Moses Maimonides, disrespectful to use our language,reduce him to our level
P3 NO
Analogy, helps explain difficult concepts,analogy of proportion Gods and humans Goodness.
However Swinburne ‘God is Good’ ‘humans are Good’ we are using the word univocally.
P4 YES
Apophatic way overcomes the issues associated with poetic or symbolic language, too open to interpretation, too distrespectful
Flew, via negativa little difference between that and nothingness
Via negativa highlights the ineffable qualities of God.