To what extent is faith in God rational

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

• question of whether faith in god rational based on what is true knowledge
• some say hard incorrigible facts about the world but some associate with wisdom
• aim of philosophy philos means the love and sophos means of wisdom
  -i find argument aht humans have innate sense of godf most convincing and so faith in god rational

Question 2

1st paragraph

Answer 2

• Alvin Plantinga reformed epistemology
• conventionsl argument is natural theology more rational as means of belief but revealed isn’t
  -Plantinga thinks reverse and revealed reasonable and Christian belief ‘warranted’
  -Natural theology never offer sufficient reason to believe in god and no knowledge of abrahamic god
  -dream of scientist and philosophers to come up with foundational claim (indipsutable like ‘cogito ergo sum’) for all other claims to be built off
• such claims hard to establish as science always changing so true today maybe false tomorrow but can still come to general agreement called ‘warrant’
• argues christian revealed truths are basic, basic knowledge is belief held to be true becasue it is so and makes sense of many other experiences
• onus on others to prove these basic beliefs better explained by other more basic beliefs
• claims there’s no separate natural theology for knowledge of god but general religious sense which makes reasonable for christians to make basic religious claims
  -these basic religious claims not product of reason or philsophical argument but sensus divinitatis
• argues if there not god wouldn’t be claims to know him but many people claim to believe in him so knowledge of him is basic
• knowldege only available to christians becasue only christ remove sin which distort senus divinitatis
• typical christian may know god or he speak to him but atheological objector suggests this is wish fulfillment or conditioning
• e.g. believer could be held to contradictory (evil incompatible with god) and religious experience explained by neurosis or miracles lacking evidence
  -Plantinga respond maybe no incorrigible proof of nelief nevertheless good reason to maintain it
• in response objector christian waft through range of strong and weak arguments for god but not one totally convincing argument proving god doesnt exist
• Plantinga said ‘all i need to do is refute this argument im not obliged to go further and produce an argument for the denial of its conclusion’ so concludes belief in god no less rational than non belief in gof

Question 3

Criticism to 1st paragraph

Answer 3

• knowledge of god argument isn’t really basic as claim that millions people for thousands of years claimed to sense god could be many people interpreting wrong experience
• many also not had experience so evidence not strong enough to support properly basic belief
• Plantinga could respond yes if one person claimed to have a sense of god and no one else he could’ve misinterpreted
  -same maybe for two or five even ten but probability of people misinterpreting decreases as number of people who believe increases and millions of people over thousands of years to misinterpret unlikely so is warrant belief
  -Plantinga convincing

Question 4

2nd paragraph

Answer 4

• Calvin
• His Institutes of the Christian Religion and Catechism start in similar saying knowledge of god innate imprinted in human consciousness
• Calvin coined sensus divinitatis ‘seed of religion’ natural human inclination to carry out religious practices like prayer
• common argument that knowledge is innate is every human society has form of religious practice/worship so humans must be naturally disposed to know god
• proof in speech of paul to athenians of sensus where they worship true god but don’t know but paul sees altar to unknown god
• Cicero universal consent argument: many people belive in god/s so must exist or at very least make it rational to believe in them
• Catechism support ‘so widespread are the practice of prayer and worship.. one may as well call man a religious being’
• Calvin considered conscience important as is our god given faculty as creatures made imago dei so is part of moral choice making process responding to god’s will of whats right/wrong
• conscience: joint knowledge between us and god
• says in Institutes ‘wherever you cast your eyes there’s no spot wherein you cannot discern at least some sparks of his glory’
  -expression of what can be known of god from beauty of his creation
• argument has Calvin principle of accommodation: human minds finite and god infinite so shows himself so we understand so manifests in creation
• from this he explains god reveals in natural world and we know of him a ‘sort of mirror’ or reflection of his invisible nature
• what we observe of him in nature isn’t his essence but appearance as apsects of him which mean something to use and contemplating on these we for idea of god’s essential being like love or power

Question 5

criticism of 2nd paragraph

Answer 5

• if god does accommodate in nature nature is more evil then good so god is evil
• the athenians paul convincing believed in other god’s beside the unknown god this idolatry not compatible with christian view of god so they cannot have believed in the true god
• i find both unconvincing first criticism god is evil as nature evil is a false conclusion, Augustine free wil defence humans need evil in order to thrive and have free will
  -argument of athenians Calvin respond say they had innate sense of one true god but didn’t knwo how to express this and were unsure whether it was monotheitic god but intentions were correct

Question 6

3rd paragraph

Answer 6

-natural theology
-despite best efforts of reformed epistemology some say falls to error of fideism (requirement that revelation is essential for human mind to know anything about God’s existence with certainty)
- accusation is by riling out reason theres no means of testing true or false religious beliefs
- strength of natural theology is knowledge of god is rational can be held consistently with non christian religions and scientific/philosophical views of world
- challenge is whether it justifies particular christian claims like divinity of Christ, resurrection etc.
-critics of it argue as natural theology’s tendency to reduce claims to human rational level: jesus no more than inspired teacher, resurrection no more than experience of hope over despair, heaven just political goal of this world
- response to claim that natural theology undermines chrsitian belief is rest exclusively on reason to test and interpret religious claims
- Hadley argues while reason has place imagination also essential to philosophical investigation
- example in Plato with stories and allegories like Cave
- imagination shares characteristics of faith: is intentional/conscious although can be refered to fantasy also used to understand states of mind, used to p;an future and working out problems
-philosophers often use thought experiments dealing with complex issues as world hard to explain solely rationally e.g. Dante descriptions of hell, heaven not intended to be factual but poetically true also writers of N.T aware deep mysterious they attempting to convey could only be achieved through symbol

Question 7

criticism of 3rd paragraph

Answer 7

• argument of KArl Barth is by trying to explain god from our own experience rather than revelation through Jesus ‘we produce a concept of god that is the projection of the highest we know’
• so god is not properly infinite as we conceive him through a finite man so natural theology is always insufficient
• furthermore natural theology deosnt justify god of abrahamic also never fully proves existnece of god just provdes probabilites for his existence
• unconvinced