Y12 Michaelmas First Half Term (Philosophy of Religion)

Question 1

Definition of Omnipotence?

Answer 1

God has both unlimited amount of power that is beyond human reach, and unlimited amount of power that is within human reach

Question 2

Arguments of Thomas Morris on Omnipotence?

Answer 2

‘Anything that is logically possible for a perfect being to do, God can do’

We must think of power to do something as being comprised of ability, capability and determination

However, this argument depends on whether we have some sense on what is logically possible for perfect beings.

What is the nature of divine power

Question 3

What is the Boulder Problem?

Answer 3

“Can God create a stone he can’t lift”

If the answer is yes then he has succesfully created a stone he cannot lift

If the answer is no then he then there is another thing which he cannot do

Question 4

Morris’ solution to the Boulder Problem?

Answer 4

1) The stone is incoherent not God (oxymoron)
God cannot act to satisfy an incoherent act.

2) The critic assumes that if there is something specifiable which God cannot do, it denies the whole of his omnipotence.
3) Morris would answer yes: God can create a stone which he cannot lift. However, the reason that he cannot lift it is not because he hasn’t the ability to do so, but because he hasn’t the moral capability.

Promising to be benevolent

Question 5

Teleological Argument (William Paley)?

Answer 5

Teleological Argument claims that the design of nature -such as intricate objects like a watch, is complex.

If they are complex in design they are most likely created by a “complex designer” as the probability of being created randomly is unlikely.

Therefore, Paley assumes God as the “complex designer” because it is the only logical and probable answer which fits within the characteristics of complex designer

(Omni)

Question 6

COA Telological Argument

Answer 6

-Charles Darwin contended that complexity without God is possible.

Evidenced by Evolution: (where larger complex organisms derived from smaller simple organisms)

Over time, organisms with genetic advantages increased in population

Since, organisms with genetic advantages were complex, God does not need existence for the complexity of organisms

• God could have existed with Evolution
• If God did cause Evolution, denies the historicity of the Bible Genesis 1:26

Therefore, the Teleological Argument must be wrong as it disagrees with the Bible, the most prominent source of authority for man as it contains the “word of God”

Question 7

Cosmological Argument (Aquinas)?

Answer 7

Aquinas presents the argument in “three ways” but the argument is one.

This is the argument for causality:

1. ) Everything which exists must have a cause of existence
2. ) There cannot be an infinite chain of causes stretching back into the past
3. ) There must have been some first cause uncaused by anything else
4. ) Thus, we call It God “the uncaused cause”

Question 8

COA for the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 8

Analysis
“Explanation of parts is sufficient”
“The Causal principle is spurious”

Merely explaining the pars is unsatisfactory  Circular Logic

If we can think of something not having a cause then it can not have a cause

The causal Principle is also wrong because if something is conceivable doesn’t make it real

However, Mackie helps Hume out by saying that “It has only methodological utility and lacks ontological justification”

Question 9

Simplicity?

Answer 9

On the classical understanding of God, the simple God’s actions are identical to one another such that there is only one divine act.

For example, God’s act of creating the universe is identical to God’s act of predestining to save the elect.

Proponents of divine simplicity go further and say that this one divine act is identical to God’s essence and existence.

In other words, God is the one divine act

According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents,

God is radically unlike creatures and cannot be adequately understood in ways appropriate to them.

God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect.

Question 10

The logical Problem of Evil?

Answer 10

The Epicurean Paradox - Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

Inconsistent Triad

Question 11

What type of arguments are the logical problem of the evil?

Answer 11

A posteriori

Deductive

Question 12

The Evidential Problem of Evil?

Answer 12

William Rowe’s argument

Evidential arguments regarding evil seek to show that the presence of evul in the world inductively supports or make the claim that God does not exist

1. ) There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse
2. ) An Omniscient, good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse
3. ) Therefore, ALL 3 ATTRIBUTES DON’T EXIST

Question 13

Types of Argument it is?

Answer 13

A Posteriori

Inductive

Question 14

Iranian Theodicy problem of Language?

Answer 14

We have misconceived evil and suffering, they are contradictions to God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence - rather, they are part of a larger plan to allow humanity to morally develop

Answers both moral and natural evil

Question 15

The Book of Job?

Answer 15

Stems from Job (21:7) “the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power”

Questioning God is presumptuous - it presumes you can understand God

God is Transcendent - Unknowable

God is Omniscient- Man has incomplete knowledge of the Universe, God has complete knowledge

God is Benevolent - He is loving, but man is unable to understand what this truly means and entails

When God inflict evil and suffering it is part of a plan that man does not, cannot and will never understand

Yet again, we have misconceived Evil and suffering - they do not contradict God because we are unable to fully comprehend God.

Question 16

3 philosophers’ understandings of Omniscience?

Answer 16

Pike

Aquinas

Boethius

Question 17

Boethius’s understanding of Omniscience?

Answer 17

Boethius states that we must understand what God has knowledge of and this will help us to know whether we have free will, and to understand what God knowledge has of, we need to understand his nature

God’s nature is that he is eternal - To understand eternal we compare it with temporal things

God is eternal and possesses the ability to be in the past, present and the future

Therefore, God lives in something called a simultaneous present meaning that all events, regardless of when are exist simultaneously

Question 18

Does God see our future mean that he controls it?

Answer 18

Boethius states that there are two kinds of necessity, Simple or Conditional

Simple necessity means that something must happen because of its nature

e.g. the sun must rise, and conditional necessity means that if a certain condition occurs then something must happen as an outcome and without the condition, it doesn’t need to happen, e.g. School starts on Monday; you need to travel to school

He concludes that God’s knowledge doesn’t entail necessity and that “God sees future things that are the result of human free will: these things, then, are necessary, on the condition that they are known by God, but, considered only in themselves, they are still free in their own natures”.

We choose our free will and God surveys in an eternal present

Question 19

What are the three philosophers that we will look at for Eternity?

Answer 19

Boethius

Aquinas

Swinburne

Question 20

Boethius’ understanding of Eternity?

Answer 20

Boethius is understood to have taken eternally to mean timeless rather than everlasting, meaning God exists outside of humanities linear understanding of time

Therefore, for God to be eternal he must exist apart from past, present and future

So, while you only exist at one point in time, God simultaneously exists at every point in time

Question 21

Definition of God to which Coppleston and Russell both agree?

Answer 21

Supreme personal being - distinct from the world and Creator of the world

Question 22

What is Russell’s view on God?

Answer 22

Russell has a more modest position. He claims to be an agnostic.

An agnostic claim that there is insufficient evidence for belief in God.

This put the ball back in the believer’s court. Russell the agnostic doesn’t have to prove God’s non-existence; it’s up to Copleston the believer to prove that God does exist.

Question 23

What was Coppleston’s argument for contingency?

Answer 23

P1 Everything in the universe is contingent
P2 The universe is the aggregate of all the things in it
C1 Therefore the universe is contingent
P3 Contingent things require an explanation
C2 Therefore the universe requires an explanation
P4 An infinite regress of explanations is not an explanation
C3 Therefore an entity that possesses necessary existence (aseity) is needed to explain the universe

Copleston concludes that the only thing that could explain the universe would be something that existed necessarily - God would be such a being and therefore God is needed to explain the universe.

Question 24

How does Rusell criticise Copplestone’s argument for Contingency?

Answer 24

Russell argues that ideas can be ‘necessary’ - normally logical ideas, mathematical ideas, or definitions like ‘a bachelor is an unmarried man.

These things are analytic propositions. He doesn’t think a THING or a BEING can be ‘necessary’. These things are synthetic propositions.

The statement ‘God exists’ is a synthetic proposition (Russell claims) and therefore cannot be necessarily true in the way that 2+2=4 is necessarily true.

Question 25

How does Copplestone counter Russell?

Answer 25

Copleston tries in various ways to persuade Russell that God can be ‘necessary’ while still being a synthetic (factual) proposition.

For example, he explains that the existence of all the contingent things in the universe is a factual proposition and the existence of God is being deduced from them.

However, Russell will not accept this. He accuses Copleston of making a linguistic mistake, a muddle over words:

It is logically contradictory for something to be ‘round-square’ and Russell argues that a ‘Necessary Being’ is a similar sort of contradiction. You can use the words separately, but if you put them together they become nonsense. This is rather similar to many criticisms of the Ontological Argument, which Russell and Copleston also touch upon.

Question 26

Anselm Ontological Argument explained?

Answer 26

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

God exists as an idea in the mind.

A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).

But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

Therefore, God exists.

Question 27

What are Gaunilo’s Criticisms of the Ontological Argument

Answer 27

Uses Anselm’s strategy to deduce the existence of a perfect island, which Gaunilo rightly views as a counterexample to the argument form.

It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).

A piland exists as an idea in the mind.

A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind.

Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist).

But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.

Therefore, a piland exists.

Question 28

Why is Guanlio’s criticisms incoherent?

Answer 28

The qualities that make an island great are not the sort of qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities.

No matter how great any island is in some respect, it is always possible to imagine an island greater than that island in that very respect.

For this reason, the very concept of a piland is incoherent.

Question 29

Aquinas’ criticisms of the Ontological Argument?

Answer 29

He rejected the idea that it can be deduced from claims about the concept of God.

Aquinas argued that “not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body.” The idea here is that, since different people have different concepts of God, this argument works, if at all, only to convince those who define the notion of God in the same way.

Anything can fit into the definition of Anselm’s definition

even if everyone shares the same concept of God “it does not therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally.”

Question 30

Kant’s Criticisms of the Ontological Argument?

Answer 30

Immanuel Kant proposed that existence is not a predicate. Immanuel Kant put forward an influential criticism of the ontological argument in his Critique of Pure Reason. … He considers examples of necessary propositions, such as “a triangle has three angles”, and rejects the transfer of this logic to the existence of God.

Question 31

Aquinas’ Telological Argument?

Answer 31

All things have an order or arrangement, and work for an end.

(Again, note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence of adaptation of ends to means of such natural processes as sensory organs, the food chain, the nitrogen cycle, the Krebs cycle, and so forth; hence, Thomas’ argument is à posteriori or inductive.)

The order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose.

Design and purpose is a product of intelligence.
Therefore nature is directed by a Divine Intelligence or Great Designer.

Question 32

Ayer in God Talk is Evidently Nonesense?

Answer 32

No way of Proving the Existence of God: even to a Probability.

The term God holds No Literal Significance.

Atheistic and Agnostic views hold No Significance.

Use Religious Language Analogously to describe the awe of a natural event.

God is not a genuine name.

A Mystic who speaks of the ineffable is bound to speak nonsense.

Genuine knowledge should be expressible.

A religious Experience is Not the same as a sense content experience.

Interesting from a Psychological Point of View.
Experience does not Imply Knowledge: is Meaningless.

Question 33

Cosmological Argument

Answer 33

Aquinas presents the argument in “three ways” but the argument is one.

This is the argument for causality:

1. ) Everything which exists must have a cause of existence
2. ) There cannot be an infinite chain of causes stretching back into the past
3. ) There must have been some first cause uncaused by anything else
4. ) Thus, we call It God “the uncaused cause”

Question 34

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Answer 34

The argument, in its simplest form, is that
(i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence,

(ii) The universe began to exist,
(iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

Question 35

Verificationism?

Answer 35

A statement only has meaning if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable

Question 36

What is the definition of Empirically Verifiable?

Answer 36

A statement is empirically verifiable if empirical evidence would go towards establishing that the statement is true or false

Question 37

What is Falsification?

Answer 37

According to Karl Popper, he believed that, “ the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is it’s falsifiability”

A theory or idea shouldn’t be scientific unless it could, in principle, be proven false

Real science aims to be disproven and not confirmed

Question 38

What’s Flews point about Falsification?

Answer 38

Flew supported Falsification

Regardless of the evidence to the contrary (suffering, logic etc.) people continue believing in God.

Conversely, regardless of the evidence in support, people continue to believe God does not exist.

This means that faith is not falsifiable since no evidence
appears to be able to prove the existence (or not) of God.

God died ‘a death by a thousand qualifications’

Believers modify their statements about God when
challenged to the extent that they no longer resemble the original claim

Religious language is therefore meaningless as it is not
falsifiable.

Question 39

What is John Wisdom’s response to Flew?

Answer 39

Flew’s parable was inspired by John Wisdom.

However, Wisdom was making a contrary point with the same story.

• Wisdom said that both viewers of the garden are making reasonable statements – both people are viewing the same thing and making statements supported (but not verified) by the facts
known.

• The problem is just that we can’t verify either statement.

• That just means the debate is beyond the normal scope of scientific
enquiry – religious language is a matter outside science.

• Therefore, the test for the meaningless of religious statements and
scientific statements is not the same.

Question 40

What is Hare’s point about Falsification?

Answer 40

• Religious language statements are examples of ‘bliks’ – they are how individuals interpret
the world.

They are not something that is falsifiable.

• These lines up with Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener.

If Christianity is just a blik, does this undermine its value?

• Hare thinks it matters whether your ‘blik’ is sane (as opposed to an insane blik – water
nymphs make streams run downhills”)

• Commenting on Flews’ jungle analogy he says: ‘It is because I mind very much about what
goes on in the garden in which I find myself that I am unable to share the explorer’s
detachment’

• However, we cannot decide which blik is best by observing the world.

Question 41

What is Flew’s response to Hare?

Answer 41

Flew’s Response - Christians should not be happy to accept their beliefs as bliks because they think their beliefs correspond to reality.

Christianity is clear that it is making assertions about the real world – i.e. God created the Un

Question 42

Swineburne?

Answer 42

• Factual statements can be falsified but existential ones cannot be.
• However, that doesn’t stop existential statements being meaningful.
• He illustrates his point with the story of toys in a cupboard… ‘the toys come out at night when no one observes them’ this is fictitious and unverifiable but still meaningful.
• He therefore rejects Popper’s and Flew’s definition of ‘meaningful’

Question 43

What is transvaluation?

Answer 43

To reestimate the value of, especially on a basis differing from accepted standards; reappraise; reevaluate

Question 44

Mary Daly?

Answer 44

Transvaluation involves creating a new radical lanuage entirely free from all forms of patriarchy

Returning to archaic language is means of rec-onnecting women with their ancient relationship with nature or being

Examples: crow, witch

They can become empowering terms

Daly thought that ‘the most basic chance has to take place in women - in our being and self-image’

She goes on to suggest that people should have the courage to reject the idea of God as a being and see God as a Being

God becomes something that people do rather than something they believe in

Question 45

Mary Daly - God the Verb // Being?

Answer 45

In the masculine world, God is seen in a transcendent and hierarchical manner - He is over and above humanity.

His power is bigger, his knowledge is greater, his love is indifferent

Understanding this is impossible as well - God is beyond human understanding he is transcendent like a the CEO of company - you, the worker, barely see Him, and you have no idea what His plans are

This rejects female identity - it is entirely male-orientated

Question 46

Is human freedom compatible with determinism?

Answer 46

-Boethius understands and agrees with the statement that what God foresees in the future must happen

Whether what happens because he sees or not is irrelevant to the situation

Question 47

How does Boethius fix the situation?

Answer 47

God may not directly cause our actions but in seeing them they become necessary, and we cannot do otherwise. Boethius says this causes problems:

• It is pointless for God to reward or punish because all actions are predestined
• If actions are foreseen but not prevented isn’t God responsible?
• Why bother to pray because the outcome won’t change?
• In the consolation of Philosophy, it is stated that whatever God foresees isn’t the cause of what actually happens
• The free Will of humans causes this thing but God surveys the whole of time in an eternal present
• That is, all of what we call time is “now” for God.
• Boethius understood the word eternal to mean timeless, rather than everlasting.
• Boethius argued that if God is eternal he is not subject to time.
• God is eternal and therefore outside time present, past and future.
• Omniscience and an everlasting God – an example…
• Peter Geach (1916- ) uses the analogy of playing chess with a grand master. Although you are free to make a move where ever you like, the grandmaster will ultimately win the game!

Question 48

Irenean Theodicy

Answer 48

Ireneas said that God made humans imperfect and therefore is slightly responsible for making humans evil.

To make humans perfect would take away their freedom to live in accordance with God’s will by creating imperfect humans.

Individuals are given the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making process into children of God.

Irenaeus states that eventually good will overcome evil and suffering

Question 49

yHick’s soul making-theodic

Answer 49

Hick’s theodicy is based on the same one as Irenaeus.
However, Hick further developed the theory, called the ‘vale of soul-making.’

Hick agreed that humans were created as imperfect from the start, so that they could grow and develop into the ‘likeness’ of God.

He developed this further by explaining that through hardships and life, humans develop virtues, and these virtues are more meaningful than if they were simply graced to us by God.

These good, moral traits are best as they come from free will.

Unlike Augustine, who claimed that humanity destroyed a perfect world, Hick and Irenaeus say that the perfect world is one to look forward to.
Hick believes that everyone has the chance to achieve eternal life.

Question 50

Augustine’s soul-deciding theodicy

Answer 50

Augustine believed that all humans were created perfect and that they were given free will.

However, humans use that free will to turn away from God and chose to sin.

God foretold that this fall would happen and therefore sent his son, Jesus Christ, so that humanity may be reconciled with God.

Augustine’s theodicy bases the origin of evil and suffering on humanity and takes that responsibility away from God.

In his document on faith, hope and love called The Enchiridion, Augustine stated that the definition of evil is the ‘privation of good.’ (3:11)
This means that evil does not exist in the same way that good exists, but rather that evil is the absence of good.

Evil does not have to exist in order for good to exist. There does not need to be an opposite.

This doctrine allows for God to exist as an omnibenevolent being. This is because God is not responsible for creating evil, as evil itself as an entity does not exist.