Philosophy Structures Flashcards
1
Q
Design argument AO1
A
- observations
- analogical argument
- watch to world comparison
- intelligent design eg.
2
Q
Free will defence AO1
A
- Free will is what separates us from robots
- genuine free will needs the possibility of evil
- must be able to make autonomous decisions to have a genuine relationship with God so evil is due to misuse of free will
- kierkegaard parable of king and peasant girl
3
Q
Ontological AO1
A
- definition of God and the contradictory argument
- painter example
- Gaunilo response
- responsio in island vs God
4
Q
Design argument AO2
A
- hume floating veg/ evolution compatible
- not one massive God/ simplest explanation
- POE so incompetent God/ Evil is inevitable
5
Q
Cosmological AO1
A
- cumulative, cause, motion
- contingency
- necessity and infinite regress
6
Q
Free will defence AO2
A
- Logical explanation for moral evil/ Mackie suggests God could have made humans with both free will and the ability to always choose good
- can explain natural evil as death is necessary for free will as we have responsibility/ determinists believe that we don’t have free will as every decision is a result of the prior decision, freedom is an illusion so cant justify
- explains natural evils are necessary for death to limit suffering/ Rowe examples of evils that do not produce greater good eg fawn and child
7
Q
Mystical experiences AO1
A
- Stace non-sensuous
- Stace intro/extrovertive
- James PINT
- James’ view on drugs
8
Q
Types of POE AO1
A
- Logical POE, impossible, inconsistent triad
- augustine’s refusal of evil, or omni refusal
- Evidential POE, improbable, unnecessary suffering
- Fawn, child, Karamazov
9
Q
Science vs religious experience AO2
A
- freud wish fulfillment/ just a theory
- ramachandran and persinger/ God created TL
- drugs eg enthogens/ James idea of drugs
- Swinburne credulity and testimony/ first person private and can’t prove God
10
Q
Process theology AO1
A
- denying ex nihilo with revised standard version of genesis 1
- denying Gods omnipotence because creation
- panethiestic relationship and his power to pursuade
- Pursuading complexity to increase richness in life
11
Q
Ontological AO2
A
- philosophical understanding
- Defines god Aquinas disagrees
- Karl Barth argument from faith/ fideists
- deductive proof/ Kant existence cant be reasoned.
12
Q
Cosmological AO2
A
- Fallacy of composition/ Bruce Reichenbach example
- Radio debate brute facts/ need explanations in science
- empirical evidence/ deductive proofs better
13
Q
Visions AO1
A
- corporeal vision and french woman Joan of Arc
- Imaginative vision and pharaoh’s dream
-intellectual visions and Theresa of ávila
14
Q
Soul-making AO1
A
- We are gods children and choose to love him or not
- We are in God’s likeness, biology then in virtue
- epistemic distance necessary for free will
- we need evils to develop second order virtues
- world is a place for soul-making not for soul deciding
15
Q
Soul-making AO2
A
- there are pointless evils eg Rowe explanation/ If there are no irrational evils then we would be able to reason every evil, giving us irrefutable evidence of God
- Cannot fully justify the worst evils possible/ all evils are a matter of degree, can’t remove the worst, removes moral freedom
- we cannot develop without challenge so soul-making is powerful
- crucifixion was pointless if we have universal salvation either way.
16
Q
numinous experiences AO1
A
- numinous meaning
- characteristics of the divine
- sui generis and non rational feelings
- moses and burning bush
17
Q
Miracles as realist AO1
A
- an event, world mind independent and brought by God
miracles of beneficial coincidence - miracles through people
- miracles as a violation of nature
18
Q
Process theology AO2
A
- realistic portrayal of God/ John Roth- not worth worship
- backed up by bab myths of creation and flood/
- God suffers with humanity/ this is not justifiable for animals
19
Q
Plato and Aristotle on the soul AO1
A
Plato:
- 2 worlds - world of forms and empirical
- psyche / soul has 3 parts - logical, thumus and appetitive
Aristotle:
- a soul provides essential nature
- an eye without sight is like a person without a soul - what animates us
- soul/body are distinct but inseperable- soul is expressed through the body
20
Q
descartes on the soul AO1
A
- mind and bosy are separate
- substance dualism
- res cognita and res extensa
- argument from doubt - can doubt body, cant doubt mind - i think therefore i am
- argument from divisibility - cant divide mind, can with body
- argument from CDP - can imagine them as 2 sep things
- soul speaks to the body via the pineal gland
clear and distinct perception
21
Q
hume’s critique of descartes AO1
A
- The thing that’s thinking is material so that doesn’t make sense
- If we could have a soul, how do we know we don’t have multiple?
- Might not be an I that thinks – could be an illusion created by the mind
22
Q
different ideas about the soul/body relationship AO1
A
- Dual Aspect Monism - 1 ontological entity with 2 aspects - 1st person subjective and 3rd person objective, panpsychism - every cell has 2 aspects
- functionalism/ physicalism - everything can be explained in reference to physical matter - dont need a soul to explain bodily stuff
- interactionism - dualism but res extensa communicates with res cognita via pineal gland
23
Q
physical afterlife AO1
A
- science states we cant be alive without a brain and when that dies we die - only afterlife is possible via cryonics
- russell - we die and we are just scared of death and thats why we believe in an afterlife
- replica theory - physically ressurected in a ressurection world as a replica made from non-phys substances
24
Q
psychological afterlife - AO1
A
- bundle theory - parfitt we are a bundle of mass and memories and flesh, we can live on in the memories of others
- Dennet - if we upload our existence onto a computer it would be a continued existence because he’s a functionalist - brain functipon could be replaced by computer
- objective immortality - we live on in God’s mind through panentheistic relationship
25
Q
metaphysical afterlife AO1
A
- plato - world of forms
- price - dream like world with telepathy
- swinburne - lightbulb - if cable can be repaired so could the brain - being is in the soul, not the brain
26
Q
types of language:
A
- cognitive - factual claims that can be verified - synthetic
- non-cognitive - subjective statements - would be inappropriate to test the truth of them because subjective eg i love this painting
- strengths of cog - easily validated, beliefs are facts in the believers eyes
- strengths of non-cog - doesnt claim to be scientific, beliefs that are held despite evidence, value on non-scientific language
27
Q
verification and falsification AO1
A
verification:
- 2 kinds of meaningful statement - analytical and synthetic
- needs to be able to be verified or else useless - religion is useless
- ayer - pseudo-propositions are religion, aethetic and moral claims
Falsification:
- in science always need data disproving the theory in order for science to progress
- “in so far as something is not falsifiable, it does not speak of reality”
- parable of the gardener to illustrate point
- vacuous and dies a death of 1000 quals
28
Q
strengths and weaknesses of verification
A
- in principle gives value to stuff that isnt pracical to verify eg science
- easy to follow method of finding meaningful statements
- but narrow field of meaningful stuff - only facts
- if statements of approval/disapproval are meaningless, the verification principle fails by it’s own criteria as it is simply what Ayer thought was the case
29
Q
falsification strengths and weaknesses AO2
A
- believers dont know what will falsify their claims so theyre nullified
- appeal to scientists will make it more likely to be accepted
- wittgenstein
- metaphysical statements cant require physical proof, reductionist to believe only one kind of language is meaningful
30
Q
responses to the challenge on religious language
A
- hick eschatological - parable of celestial city, ver in princ
- hare’s bliks - parable of the lunatic
- wittgenstein’s language game
31
Q
language should be viewed cognitively AO2
A
- yes - flew - dies a death etc and ayer BUT problem with cog lang is too reductionist
- hare’s bliks more effective bc shows why beliefs are irrational sometimes without detracting value BUT believers want it to be factual
