Works of scholars Flashcards
what did Wesphal write and what’s it about
the emergence of modern philosophy of religion, 1997
explains how critiques of religious belief have developed and changed over time
what was the turning point in philosophy
the enlightenment
what is the enlightenment and when&where, what did in emphasise instead of what
intellectual and philosophical movement late 17th and 18th century Europe emphasised reason, scientific method and individualism over religion and tradition
enlightenment view of God and Wetphal’s opinion on this
not rejecting God but critical of RCC
shift from theology to philosophy due to this
what was it like pre-enlightenment
aquinas/anselm
faith and reason can work together to gain understanding of God
e.g. Aquinas’ NML, understanding through reason and moral law is revealed in the Bible
what was it like post-enlightenment
westphal - gave rise to deism
deists affirm that God exists, but reject any divine revelation or religious experience or religious texts
there is no direct experience of God, can only be known through reason and logic
revelation is irrational and redundant
what is westphal’s popcorn analogy
kernel of religious belief focuses on god
and it’s what matters
husk is revelation, removable and unnecessary
political and ethical dimensions of the enlightenment - distrusting of what and why
distrusting of religion
religious wars between Protestants and Catholics had plagued Europe
and because of immense authority religion had over state
political and ethical dimensions of the enlightenment - what saw separation of what
French Revolution 1789-99
saw separation of Church and state
political and ethical dimensions of the enlightenment - what did deists argue
deists argued overcoming religion could lead to a rise of universal religion grounded in reason
would foster moral unity and tolerance
what to Kant and Hume both believe in regards to Westphal (3)
both play key role in deist movement
both argue for God’s existence, can only be known through reason if he exists
both argue with different reasons that God can’t be known
what do both kant and Hume argue god cannot
both argue god cannot be known a priori - without any form of sense experience
e.g,. Ontological argument doesn’t work as proof for god’s existence
Hume’s argument against priori
a priori arguments cannot explain anything of the physical world or nature of reality
Kant’s argument against OA
existence is not a predicate, can’t define something into existence
Hume’s criticism in reference to design argument
Hume shows arguing from the appearance of design to an intelligent designer is a false inference
to know this, we would need to go back in time to observe it taking place
flaws in design point to an imperfect creator
what does Kant’s moral argument do
destroys traditional arguments for God
reconstructs deist project with moral argument
what is Kant’s moral argument (5)
humans have good will which leads to moral intention
morality is motives and objectives, not hedonism
to do moral good is to achieve the highest good, summum bonum - highest moral perfection
we feel duty to achieve summum bonum, so must be achievable, even of we never do or see reward
therefore, God must exist
what is highest moral perfection for kant
summum bonum
reward of summum bonum
only God can reward us for trying to achieve summum bonum
logical reward is afterlife
Kant’s focus for religion in regard to his moral argument
religion should involve rationality, which leads to morality
universal religion could be Christianity, as Christ was an example of moral perfection (summum bonum)
what is a weakness of Kant’s moral argument
doesn’t allow God to be personal
how dies Shleiermacher disagree with Kant and deists
he wants to put religious experience at the centre
who disagrees with deists
schleiermacher
how would schleiermacher rearrange westphal’s popcorn analogy
swap the two
focus should be on religious experience, feelings and emotions instead
