Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Philosophy A2 > Philosophy of religion > Flashcards

Philosophy of religion Flashcards

1
Q

What is strong verificationism

A

A statement is meaningful if and only if its is either analytic or empirically verifiable.

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

What is weak verificationism

A

A statement is meaningful if and only if it is either analytic of can be shown by evidence to be probable.

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

What is falsification

A

A statement is meaningful if and only if it is falsifiable: we must be able to specify circumstances that would render the statement false.

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

Who came up with verificationism?

A

AYER

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

Problems with verificationism

A

1) Ontological argument - God and existence are conceptually bound.
2) Not verifiable!! Not analytic and or empirically verifiable.

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

What is eschatological verification ?

A

We can accept verificationism and that statements about God are meaningful if there was an afterlife, because we could verify the statements about god.

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

Who came up with eschatological verification?

A

John Hicks

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

Who came up with falsification?

A

Flew

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

Explain death by a thousand qualifications

A

Theists will always have an excuse about why God didnt do something. No test will prove God, because for every test there will be a reason why God doesnt do that.

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

Who came up with bliks

A

HARE

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

What did Hare say about bliks?

A

Understanding is relative to world view

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

Why did Hare oppose falsification

A

Does not entail meaninglessness because it depends on a persons blik.

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

What did Ayer reply to Hare’s criticism to falsification?

A

This is emotive meaning, it expresses emotion, not belief or fact

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

Who came up with language games?

A

Wittgenstein

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

What did Wittgenstein say about religious language?

A

Meaning of a word is in its use and context. Religious language is meaningful in its context.
Meaning of language is relative to the activity of which it is part.

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

What is the Kalam argument?

A

i) everything that begins to exists has a cause
ii) the universe began to exist
iii) the universe had a cause (from i & ii)
iv) the cause of the universe must itself be uncaused (avoid infinite regression)
v) God is the only uncaused cause
vi) God must exist

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

The original Kalam argument:

A

i) everything that exists has a cause of its existence
ii) nothing can be the cause of itself
iii) the universe exists
iv) the universe has a cause that lies outside itself

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

problems with the original Kalam argument

A
  • infinite regression ~ implies that there are infinite causes because everything has a cause and nothing causes itself. This is inconsistence with the idea of God as the ultimate cause of the universe.
  • ‘everything that exists has a cause’ - so god must have a cause.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Kalam argument: how is the infinite regression solved?

A
  • everything that doesnt exists outside the universe has cause
  • everything that begun to exits has a cause
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Kalam argument: Humes’ argument against the first principle ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause.’

A
  • ‘we can never demonstrate the necessity of a cause to every new existence.’
  • the beginning of the universe is different to our past experiences, doesnt happen in space and time.
  • even though the causal principle works in the world, it may not work for the universe as a whole.
  • all distinct ideas are separable from each other so the ideas of cause and effect are evidently distinct.
  • if anything wanted a cause it would produce itself and exist before existing - impossible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Kalam argument: subatomic level argument against everything existing having a cause

A
  • at subatomic level there are some occurrences which are uncaused.
  • therefore kalam argument not sound, things can have no cause.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

kalam argument: Anscombe reply to Hume

A
  • nothing about the nature of reality follows from what i can imagine.
  • picturing something without a cause does not mean it doesnt have a cause in reality
  • example –> imagine rabbit with no cause, nothing follows about what is possible in reality.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Kalam argument: premise 2, Hubbles’ law

A
  • argument for the universe having a begining
  • observed that galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. Inferred that the universe was once compacted.
  • Microwave background radiation - universe was hot in early moments, we can observe the residue of the heat.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Kalam argument: argument against hubble’s law

A

the big crunch, the universe is on a beginingless and endless cycle of expansion and contraction

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

Kalam argument: William Lane Craig, premise 2 is true on a priori grounds:

A

i) an actual infinite cannot exist
ii) an beginingless series of temporal events is an actual infinite
iii) a beginingless series of temporal events cannot exist
- if a beginingless series of temporal events cannot exist then the universe cannot ave existed forever and must have a beginning.

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

Kalam argument: Craig library example

A
  • explains why there cannot be an actual infinite
  • imagine a library where with an actual infinite number of books.
  • contains an infinite number of red books and black books
  • the library contains as many red books as it contains black books and vice versa
  • it follows that the library contains as many red books as it contains red and black books combined.
  • this is an absurd consequence: a subset of the whole cannot be equal to the whole itself
  • so an actual infinite cannot exist.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

cosmological argument: the argument from contingent experience

A
  • defended by Copleston & Libniz
  • Briefly –> things must have a sufficient reason for their existence, and this must be fount ultimately in a necessary being.
  • things in the universe exist contingently, things which exist contingently have an explantation as why why they exist.
  • this explanation may be provided by the existence of another contingent being, like parents, but these will also have to be explained.
  • repeating this ad infinitum is no explanation of why anything exists at all.
  • only thing which explains the existence of contingent beings is a non contingent being, a being which cannot not exist, it exists necessarily and does not need further explanation as to why it exists.
  • this necessary being is God.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

cosmological argument: Swinburne in inductive arguments

A
  • cosmological argument is better understood as an inference to the best explanation, Gods existence is not logically proven, but it is probable.
  • an inductive argument would need to take into account all the evidence, put all of the arguments together in order to show that gods existence is probable.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Swinburne’s cosmological argument?

A
  • although not analytic that everything that beings to exist has a cause, it is probable
  • big bang & problems with infinite regress make it more plausible that the universe has not always existed and therefore has a cause
  • no other explanation of the universe is satisfactory other than God –> scientific explanations, caused by another universe then what is the cause of that universe? science cannot explain scientific laws, all scientific explanation presupposes laws.
  • explaining existence of universe in terms of God is a personal explanation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What does Frederick Copleston argue?

A

that the universe must have been caused by a necessary being.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Attracions of Swinburne’s cosmological argument?

A

Its a deductive proof, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What happens in an inference to the best explanation? (Swinburne)

A

the conclusion goes beyond the premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What is a beginingless temporal series of events?

A

a group of events occurring across time that have no first member.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

kalam argument: why must the God be personal?

A
  • there are necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe to begin, either these conditions were always there or werent.
  • if they were not always there then what caused them?
  • if mechanical (impoersonal) cause the universe would have started to exist as soon as the conditions were right
  • but didnt, it only happened 13.8 billion yrs ago
  • so the universe must have a personal cause
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Kalam argument: Moreland & personal cause

A
  • the existence of the universe depends on the existence of sufficient and necessary conditions
  • if the cause was mechanical the universe would be eternal
  • universe cannot be eternal (actual infinities)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Kalam argument: Mackie and actual infinities

A
  • there can be actual infinities, there might be permanent matter whose existence is not dependent on anything esle.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Cosmological argument: Why is the world contingent?

A
  • nothing about the world suggests that it exists by its own nature.
  • anything which is the reason for its own existence is eternal, infinite and imperishable by nature, the world is not eternal therefore it cannot exist by its own nature.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

cosmological argument: what is a necessary being?

A
  • a being that depends for its existence upon nothing but itself, and is in this sense self caused.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What is a religious experience according to William James

A

Episodes through which an individual is immediately aware of an unseen reality.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What is the common core between all religious experiences according to William James? (4)

A

1 - they are experiential, different to just thinking about god.
2 - not connected to any mode of senses, the experiences transcends sense perception.
3 - the person is immediately aware of and connected to god.
4 - the awareness tends to block everything out temporarily.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What are the 5 types of religious experience according to Swinburne?

A

1 - The experience of the natural world in which you detect God’s presence (public)
2 - The experience of something extraordinary (public)
3 - Experience which can be subsumed under existing concepts. (personal)
4 - Experience that cannot be subsumed under existing concepts. (personal)
5 - An awareness of a presence (personal)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What are the 4 characteristics of mystical experience according to William James?

A

1 - ineffable: cannot be described or put into words
2 - noetic: gives knowledge
3 - transcient - its starts and stops
4 - passive: we are not the agent of the event

43
Q

Accoriding to William James, how can we tell if a religious experience is veridical?

A

If it has transformative consequences, it must connect to the rest of our lives, those experiences which have no impact on how someone understands life are dubitable and may not be genuine.

44
Q

How does Mike Martin show that God’s existence is probably true?

A

i) Under C conditions, religious belief generated by religious experience is probably true.
ii) C conditions have been met
iii) my religious belief that God exists was generated by a religious experience
iv) My belief that God exists is probably true.

45
Q

Swinburne’s principle of credulity & what does it allow him to do?

A

i) If a person S experiences X and judges X to exist, then it is probable that S’s experience is veridical and that X exists
ii) If S has an experience of God, then it is probable that God exists
iii) Numerous people believe God exists because of experiences.
iv) Its probable that God exists
- the way things seem is good evidence for the way things are.
- the principle of credulity allows Swinburne to infer from it seeming to a person that X is present, to X probably being present.

46
Q

Why accept Swinburne’s principle of credulity? (4)

A
  • looks persuasive because of its application to everyday life.
  • Its an acceptable way to proceed in science and pure inquiry.
  • As long as there are no defeating factors (drugs/ lying/ bad presumptions) we should accept it as veridical.
  • if we do not accept the principle of credulity then we embrace wide scepticism. Its arbitrary to reject the application of the principle of credulity just for religious experience.
47
Q

How is the principle of credulity applied to the argument for religious experience?

A
  • if a person has a religious experience, an experience of the divine God, the pc implies that in the absence of the defeating factors, that experience should be treated as veridical.
48
Q

What is Freud’s psychological explanation for religious belief and experience & quote.

A
  • religious experiences are hallucinations caused by a deep unconscious wish for consolation and reassurance, the wish for there to be a God protector, to feel safe in the face of danger and uncertainty.
  • religious beliefs are ‘fulfilment of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wished of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes.’
  • the belief is based on a wish rather than on evidence.
49
Q

How does Freud’s theory about religious experience account for the William James’ characteristics of religious experience? (3)

A
  • they are experiential, different form thinking about god –> they are hallucinations so they are experiences rather than thoughts.
  • intense awareness which blocks everything out –> given the nature of the wish, we can expect the hallucinations to involve intense feelings.
  • not connected to any mode of perception –> the wish is abstract so wont be related to any mode of perception.
50
Q

What are William James’ replies to Freud’s psychological explanation? (4)

A
  • it doesnt undermine that religious experiences are experiences of god
  • we cant evaluate the truth of an experience just by looking at its origin, we must look at their effects. Religious experiences produce real and positive effects.
  • it is possible that the unconscious is a conduit of spiritual reality.
  • the wish for contact with God is realistic, if we were made by God then a relationship with God would be one of our deepest desires.
51
Q

How does Freud reply to William James about his psychological explanation?

A
  • Freud only argues that religious experience itself does not give us no reason to think that it is an experience of god. It is perfectly possible for religious experience to have an entirely psychological cause.
  • We need some independent reason to think that God exists, until then we cannot use religious experience to support the claim that God exists.
52
Q

Brief argument from religious experience for the existence of God

A
  • religious experiences exhibit great similarity in certain core aspects (William James)
  • they are similar to perceptual experiences which we usually trust unless we have reason to doubt them (principle of credulity).
53
Q

What is Swinburne’s principle of testimony?

A
  • principle for determining the rationality of accepting someone elses testimony.
54
Q

What is Mike Martins negative principle of credulity

A
  • if it seems to a subject that X is absent, then X is probably absent.
55
Q

Why does Donovan reject the idea that religious experiences constitutes knowledge? (4)

A
  • example of obstetrician – one has been pregnant and the other hasnt, tempting to say that the one who has, knows something more. NOT TRUE
  • feeling and sensation is not a type of knowledge, and experience is not a type of knowledge. Only gains set of impressions and memories. the extra knowledge is not the same thing as the experience.
  • only when experience is connected to other knowledge does it constitute a cognitive improvement.
  • experiencing god does not give you knowledge that god exists
56
Q

What is a miracle (3)

A
  • an event that has religious significance
  • an event caused by God (Tillich)
  • an event which violates the laws of nature caused by god
57
Q

What is the role of miracle stories (4)

A
  • demonstrate connection between physical and spiritual world. They are integral to the nature and meaning of religion. they confirm and strengthen faith.
  • support the belief that a physical God responds to the world and that prayer can be meaningful.
  • support belief of revelation through scripture.
  • signs which demonstrate God’s underlying activity in the world and his purposes. They reveal Gods character and plan
58
Q

What is the issue of competing truths? (3)

A
  • all religions claims that their miracles are true
  • Hume pointed out that every religion proclaims its miracles as indications of the truth of its message, but not every religion cab be true.
  • if miracles support the truth claims of religion, then the miracle stories of one religious are evidence against the miracle story of another. so they cancel each other out.
59
Q

Miracles: why are they an event that has religious significance? (2)

A
  • people talk of events as miracles even when the event isnt outside the laws of nature.
  • it allows an element of subjectivity or interpretation as to whether it has religious significance.
60
Q

Miracles: why accept and reject that are they an event caused by god?

A

yes
- fits with pre rationalist understanding of the world, because before people formulated scientific laws (the laws of nature) they would not think that miracles were violations of these laws.
- instead they are events connected with the divine
- according to Tillich, must be astonishing, shaking event.
no
- it would mean that every act of God is a miracle, so god sustaining the universe
- suggest that God acts selectively, sharpens the problem of evil, why did god only save one person?

61
Q

Miracles: miracles and the laws of nature (3)

A
  • cant say that miracles are violations of the laws of nature because if a miracle occurred, it would be wrong to call what we believe to be the laws of nature, laws.
  • cant say that miracles are violations of what we believe the laws of nature to be because it means that what a miracle is depends on what we believe.
  • we can say that miracles are events outside or not in accordance with the laws of nature, because it preserves the idea that miracles are at odds with the laws of nature. The laws of nature apply only to natural events, if an event is caused by god it is not a natural event. so the event doesnt violate the laws of nature it just falls outside them.
62
Q

Miracles: Richard Swinburne (4)

A
  • the generality of a law of nature is not absolute, the laws describe what happens in terms of regularity & predictability.
  • if an event violates the laws of nature, we shouldnt conclude that this law is not genuine. To revise laws science needs to be able to be able to test and repeat events.
  • he claims that miracles are natural events because they happen within the natural universe, to natural objects.
  • we should say that miracles are genuine non repeatable exceptions to the laws of nature.
63
Q

Miracles: rejection to Swinburne (2)

A
  • reject notion of laws, laws of nature are not just descriptions of wha normally happens, but define the limits of what is actually possible.
  • miracles are not non repeatable events, we cant repeat them, but god can.
64
Q

How does Hume define miracles? (3)

A
  • as ‘a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity.’
  • has to transgress laws of nature and be caused by God
  • it is impossible given the laws of nature, an event which contradicts everything we know.
  • the miracle must have a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation.
65
Q

What does the word miracle mean (2)

A
  • to be astonished, awed and to marvel at

- emphasises our reaction and response to something

66
Q

What did Spinoza think miracles are

A
  • what we dont understand
  • ’ it signifies nothing other than a phenomena whose natural cause cannot be explained.’
  • miracles are events which people cannot explain on the basis of what they already believe.
67
Q

What did Holland think miracles are (2)

A
  • rejects miracles as violation of the laws of nature because not all violations of the laws of nature are miracles and not all miracles are definitions of the laws of nature.
  • he thought the laws of nature are descriptions of how everything is, if we find something which violates the laws of nature then it is wrong.
68
Q

Miracles : role and significance of miracles?

A

Role - sings of gods nature and plan, strengthen a persons religious faith, confirm what is stated in scripture, a way for god to interfere with his creation, make it continue with his plan.
Significance - it can change or strengthen someones faith, its a direct sign from God, exposes nature and plan. (eg christianity based on bible based on conical miracles), emotional because confirms faith and what is written in scripture.

69
Q

Hume on miracles: what are the two sources of evidence about hod and his nature

A

Personal experience - religious experience

Revelation - disclosure of information from God (bible)

70
Q

Hume on miracles: what is the standard of the wise man(2)

A
  • the wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence

- under what circumstances would the wise man accept testimony?

71
Q

Hume on miracles: why reject testimony? (5)

A
  • people exaggerate, pleasures of story telling.
  • factors of impeding judgements )drugs/ cognitive impairments)
  • deliberate deception
  • for the greater good (Durkheim, stabilise communities)
  • the likely hood of the event, the factor controlling the rationality of accepting the testimony.
  • the passions of surprise and wonder result in a propensity to believe extraordinary things.
72
Q

Hume on miracles: what is humes maxim

A
  • ‘no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.’
  • what is more likely, that the miracle occurred, or that the testimony is false?
73
Q

Hume on miracles: Whats more likely, that the miracle occurred or that the testimony is false?

A
  • miracles are rare, the chances of a miracle occurring are very low, it being a miracle is because of improbability.
  • the chances of testimony being false is very high, people make mistakes every day
  • more likely for the testimony to be false, so it is irrational to form a belief on the basis of testimony about miracles.
  • in practice we never have a good reason to believe miracles occurred on the basis of testimony.
74
Q

Hume on miracles: how does hume suggest we asses testimony about the occurrence of miracles ?

A
  • the testimony is sufficient as long as the falsehood is not more miraculous that the fact it endeavours to establish.
75
Q

Hume on miracles: what does accepting testimony depend on?

A
  • the character or number of the witnesses.

- if witnesses do not contradict each other, show doubt, or hesitate, these all diminish the force of the argument.

76
Q

Hume on miracles: example of dead man (3)

A
  • if someone tells me they saw a dead man restored to life, i consider whether it is more plausible that this person should either deceive or be deceived or that this event actually happened.
  • when i weigh up the miracle against his testimony, i always reject the greater miracle.
  • the falsehood of his testimony would not be more miraculous that the event happening.
77
Q

Hume on miracles: criticism to hume

A
  • although the probability of a miracle occurring is low,, there could in principle be a sufficient number of well qualified witnesses to render to occurrence possible.
  • hume cannot know that no witnesses are qualified of of upright character.
  • wishful thinking about miracles does not produce conviction.
  • miracles continue to happen today, medical marvels for example.
78
Q

Hume on miracles: humes argument in short (4)

A

1- a wise person proportions belief to evidence
2 - one of the factors is the probability of the reported event
3 - probability of miracle occurring is exceptionally low.
4 - the wise person would not believe in miracles, so its irrational to believe in miracles, because the wise person is the norm and the standard of rationality.

79
Q

Hume on miracles: when would hume accept testimony?

A
  • if the chances of the testimony being false were even lowed that the chances of the event occurring.
  • if the testimony arguing that the miracle happened is greater than the possibility it didnt
80
Q

why can hume never accept mircles (3)

A
  • testimony never good enough
  • human nature is to get excited about miracles and to want to form beleifs, cannot be trusted. ‘goves a sensible tendency towards beleif.’
  • miracles are old beleifs from barbarous nations.
81
Q

Miracles: spinoza’s argument (5)

A

i) the will of god is identical to the laws of nature
ii) a miracle is a violation to the laws of nature
iii) gods will cannot be violated
iv) nothing can happen contrary to the laws of nature
v) miracles are impossible

82
Q

Miracles: what is the argument from considerations from the principle of conservation of energy (4)

A
  • in an isolated system energy cannot be created or destroyed
  • in the feeding of the 5000, Jesus creates (produces from nothing) enough food to feed 5000 people.
  • since matter and energy are equivalent, it would increase the total amount of energy in the universe.
  • the universe is an isolated system, so the feeding of the 5000 would constitute a violation of the principle of conservation of energy.
83
Q

Miracles: god cannot cause miracles agurment (7)

A
  • we usually infer causality from observation between on event and another.
  • it requires us to be able to observe both the cause and the effect, we cannot do this with God.
  • the alleged assosiation between God ad miracles is an observation of effects but no cause.
  • gods existence is infered from its alleged effects
  • this is different from how we attribute causality in everyday life and science
  • in some scientific cases, we do appeal to invisible entities to explain observable effects nit there is a predictable consistency of effect that enables us to identity such a cause.
  • gods intervention are not of this sort, they are individual and unique.
  • plus problem of causal interaction: how can supernatural being interact with the physical world?
84
Q

what does explaining away religion mean

A
  • its a reductive account of religion which aims to reduce religion to something else so that we can understand it better.
  • A reduces to B, because we can explain B better.
  • Example - A = religious experience. B = hallucinations
    B = A.
85
Q

What are the social scientific explanations for religion? (4)

A
  • religion provides an explanation
  • religions provides comfort
  • religion provides social order
  • religion as a cognitive illusion
86
Q

Social scientists: religion provides an explanation (3)

A
  • religion reduces to science
  • explains the unexplainable: death/creation/suffering.
  • gives answers, especially in early religion when science could not explain things such as the sunrise.
87
Q

Social scientists: religion provides comfort (4)

A
  • reduces religion to therapy
  • We believe in a God for the sake of comfort
  • Malinowski –> in primitive times, magical rites emerged to ensure success regarding hunting. Religion helps revolve anxiety and motivates individuals to keep trying.
  • Freud –> in early religion people felt vulnerable etc because couldnt control nature, God as a way to control nature. Unconscious wish for protector God, want to feel safe in the face of danger and uncertainty. Religious beliefs are ‘fulfillment of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind.’
88
Q

Social scientists: religion provides social order (3)

A
  • reduces religion to politics
  • it provides a common stock of stories which hold the community together by providing a common world view.
  • Durkheim –> ‘ a religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things,’. Thought the origin of religion was totemism - clans had totem poles which were symbols of their society, was a symbol of authority and divinity. Clan worshiped their society.
89
Q

Social scientists: religion as a cognitive illusion (4)

A
  • reduces religion to cognition, the process involved in thinking and judging
  • our religious beliefs do not come from the world but from within. Not a response to the world, but because of our predisposition for such beliefs.
  • not rational beliefs because suggests we have no control over them, what we believe is predetermined.
  • the belief in God is caused by cognitive biases meaning we automatically lean towards Gods existence.
90
Q

does social science explain away religion?

A
  • explainig away suggests there is nothing more to religion than therapy, politics, science and cognition.
  • example of game, could be described by sociologist as facilitating bonds or by a psychologist as reducing stress from labour. But it isnt plausible to reduce games to forging bonds and reducing stress. It does not omit the point of the game.
91
Q

cosmological argument: what does Mackie say? (3)

A
  • rejects cosmological argument which appeals to the impossibility of an infinite regress. Thinks there may be permanent matter whose existence is not dependent on anything else. - - Idea of no actual infinite is supported by empirical evidence so at most can be accepted provisionally but not as an a priori truth (as leibniz thought)
  • impossible for there to be a necessary being, how can someone contain its own sufficient reason? not logically necessary, doesnt exist in all logical possible worlds, not impossible for it not to have existed.
92
Q

Miracles: why do we accept miracles?

A
  • due to human nature we are impressed by awe and wonder
93
Q

Faith and reason: what is a basic belief?(3)

A
  • a belief is basic if it is not accepted on the basis of other beliefs
  • they rest on a form of evidence which is not itself a belief.
  • e.g. self evidence beliefs and those based on what is evident to the senses.
94
Q

Faith and reason Plantiga: why is a religious belief basic? (3)

A
  • faith is not inferred from other beliefs
  • John Clavin –> God implanted direct awareness of himself in everyone and we loose touch of this connection through sin.
  • see God in creation, dont infer.
  • direct access to God in religious experience.
95
Q

Faith and reason: W.K Clifford ? (3)

A
  • its always wrong to form a belief without sufficient evidence.
  • belief must be earned through patient investigation
  • religious faith, if it doesnt have sufficient evidence, is then wrong.
96
Q

Faith and reason: what are the genuine opetions? (4)

A

1) the alternatives are ‘live’ the person feels they could believe either.
2) the alternatives are contradictory, you cant believe both of them.
3) the alternatives are momentous (only opportunity to get it right and the steaks are high)
- If these three conditions apply and we cannot decide on the basis of evidence, then it is not unreasonable for us to incline towards on belief or another on other grounds.

97
Q

Faith and reason: Kierkergaard (4)

A
  • wrong to think of religious beliefs in the same way as other beliefs.
  • faith is characterised by passionate commitment. it cannot be established intellectually, requires a leap which requires objective uncertainty.
  • we have faith because we cannot understand God objectively.
  • faith it incomprehensible it lies outside of the limits that reason can reach for, faith is out of the limits of of reason. to acheive it we must leap.
98
Q

Faith and reason: Pascals wager (2)

A
  • the potential gain of wagering for God and being right is infinite gain as long as there is some chance that God exists, it outweights the finite gain that may come with wagering against God and being right, and the finite loss with wagering for God and being wrong.
  • it is therefore irrational not to wager for God.
  • if we believe in God are are right, the possible benefits are endless.
99
Q

Faith and reason: Pasical, what is it to wager for god? (2)

A
  • to take steps to cultivate a belief in God

- e.g. adopting a religious lifestyle, worshipping, overtime they will bring about belief.

100
Q

faith a reason : Pascal, how do we start having belief in God (3)

A
  • through our new religious lifestyle, we voluntarily undertake actions which will lead to our coming to have the belief that P.
  • we become more sensitive to experiences that justify our new beliefs.
  • they are no available to everyone, only those who sincerely seek god.
101
Q

faith and reason: pascal, how should we decide our beliefs?

A

on the possible benefits of our beliefs.

102
Q

Religious language: Wittgenstein, what is a language game

A

the speaking part of a form of life

103
Q

what do reductive accounts of religion do? (2)

A
  • they do not rule out the existence of God, still logically consitent.
  • they do undermine the rationality of religious belief.

Philosophy A2 (3 decks)

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