2024 mocks dump Flashcards

last minute cramming, overview of everything

1
Q

what is the apophatic way?

A
  • apophatic way, via negativa, prevents anthropomorphic, limited
  • Pseudo-Dionysius, Moses Maimonides
  • cataphatic way
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

wider scholars for the apophatic way?

A
  • Inge, the Dean of St Pauls Cathedral in the 20th century criticised the apophatic way
  • said it led to a disconnect and therefore the annhiliation of God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what its the cataphatic way?

A
  • Aquinas, analogy of attribution and proper proportion
  • not equivocal or univocal so avoids agnosticism
  • similar to the way Jesus spoke ‘kingdom of God is like…’
  • people all understand analogies differently
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

wider scholars for the cataphatic way?

A
  • Hick uses proper proportion for faithfulness
  • the apophatic scholars would say it anthropomorphises God and limits understanding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

overview of religious language through symbol?

A
  • Tillich
  • sign = points to something
  • symbol = participates in that to which it points
  • we cannot speak of God as he is not part of empirical world
  • preserves the transcendence and mystery of God
  • symbols can be something like the cross or just saying ‘god is good’
  • symbol interpretation can vary and be too vague
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

wider scholars on symbol?

A
  • the apophatic thinkers ofc
  • Langdon Gilkey, 20th century American theologian, criticised it for overemphasising the existential dimension of symbols at the expense of historical and concrete aspects of religious traditions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

overview of logical positivism?

A
  • religious statements are meaningless if they cannot be empirically verified
  • started with the vienna circle, rejected religious and ethical claims entirely
  • AJ Ayer took a slightly milder approach, metaphysics should be rejected
  • he argued you don’t have to prove something by direct observation just how it would be possible to verify
  • still rejects ethics and art
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

wider scholars for logical positivism?

A
  • Hick argues for eschatological verification
  • at the end of all time it will be possible to verify religious statements therefore they are meaningful
  • so supports Ayer’s version kind of
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

overview of the falsification symposium?

A
  • popper’s falsification, if theories cannot be falsified they are meaningless
  • Flew applies it to religious language, cannot be falsified therefore are meaningless using the story of the invisible gardener, believers shift their goal posts till they aren’t saying anything at all
  • Hare’s response: murderous dons, bliks, basic beliefs cannot be empirically tested
  • Mitchell: stranger freedom fighter, importance of faith, evidence is irrelevant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

wider scholars for the falsification symposium?

A
  • Hick criticised them in favour of eschatological verification
  • argued that falsification can’t be used for religious language because it is different
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

overview of Wittgenstein and Language Games?

A
  • religious language is a game, can’t respond to the problem of evil by saying God doesn’t exist, there are rules
  • religious statements are not inherently meaningful but are seen differently like the duck rabbit drawing
  • can’t really falsify/verify as statements are non-cognitive but they are still meaningful to those who play by the rules
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

wider scholars for language games?

A
  • those who are religious would argue that their statements are inherently meaningful and that they are making cognitive statements that have meaning outside of their group
  • Gellner, 20th century Czech, said that Wittgenstein ‘takes apart a perfectly working clock and then wonders why it doesn’t work’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

overview of the teleological argument?

A
  • God is our telos, emphasis that we all have a purpose and inspiration from Aristotle
  • Aquinas’ analogy of the arrow and the archer, we need something to guide us toward our purpose
  • Paley’s watch analogy, the world is regular and ordered/constructed with a purpose
  • analogy of flexibility of the eye and wings of a bird
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

wider scholars for teleological argument?

A

Hume
- wrong to use a watch, rather something natural like a vegetable instead the world is not mechanical
- can’t jump from designer to God
- why also just one God?
- uses the Epicurean hypothesis (given an infinite amount of time the particles in the universe would be able to combine in every possible combination) therefore the randomness of the universe

infinite monkey theorem links to Hume’s randomness

the challenge of evolution and scientists (Dawkins, Darwin)
- Dawkins response to the aesthetic principle, appreciation for beauty is a meme

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

overview of the cosmological argument?

A
  1. unmoved mover
  2. uncaused causer
  3. contingency and necessity

  1. everything is in a state of actuality and potentiality, moved by something. movers cannot go onto infinity as there must be a first mover which is God.
  2. nothing can be its own efficient cause. you cannot go back to infinity otherwise there would be no first cause and nothing would happen. therefore there must be a first efficient cause that itself was not caused.
  3. there must be a necessary being to explain all the contingent beings.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

wider scholars for the cosmological argument?

A

Hume
- even if there is a first cause how can we assume this to be God, could just be the universe
- why must we assume that everything has a cuase at all, uses the fallacy from composition, just because everything on earth has a cause does not mean that earth itself must have a cause

scientists
- make similar point to Hume about why everything must have a cause

Bertrand Russel
- thinks the world having a cause is problematic in itself and that Aquinas’ argument doesn’t necessarily lead to the traditional understanding of God anyway

17
Q

overview of the ontological argument?

A

first formulation
- God is TTWNGBCBC
- atheists understand this as well as theists (psalms) therefore God exists in everyone’s minds
- a god that exists in reality is better than one that just exists in the mind

second formulation
- necessary beings are obviously better than contingent beings so God must be a necessary being and must exist

Psalm 14:1 “the fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’”

18
Q

Guanilo’s criticism of Anselm?

A
  • idea of the perfect island
  • this analogy does not work because the island is not necessary it is contingent and is not TTWNGBCBC, God is the only being that cannot not exist
19
Q

Kant’s criticisms of Anselm?

A

objection one: triangle
- a triangle has only three angles should it even exist in the first place
- ontological arguments are bad logic because they god’s perfection includes existence which doesn’t work

objection two: existence as a predicate
- existence cannot be treated as a predicate
- ‘zebra’s have stripes’ tells you something about a zebra but ‘a zebra exists’ does not
- one real pound is the exact same amount as one imaginary pound, the existence of it is not something that can be defined by logic but rather experience therefore a priori arguments cannot work

20
Q

wider scholars on the ontological argument?

A

Bertrand Russel: the argument relies on linguistic confusion and existence is not a predicate
JL Mackie: the notion of a being whose non-existence is impossible is not helpful

21
Q

overview of the evidential problem of evil?

A
  • the amount of evil in the world makes it unlikely that a God of classical theism exists
  • William Rowe, looked at natural and moral suffering, susan and bambi, an omnipotent omniscient being would have stopped this
  • open theists defence and God’s relationship with time but issues with this
22
Q

overview of the logical problem of evil?

A
  • the existence of evil in the world proves that God cannot exist
  • epicurus, able and willing
  • JL Mackie inconsistent triad
23
Q

defence against the logical problem of evil?

A

Alvin Plantinga
- presented the free will defence
- God’s desire to love and be loved in return necessitates free will and therefore comes with the risk of misuse
- all natural evil follows from moral evil (that of Adam and Eve and original sin)

24
Q

what is Irenean/Hick’s theodicy?

A
  • soul-making theodicy
  • the existence of evil and suffering in the world serves a purpose in the development and maturation of human souls
  • the process of grappling with adversity contributes to the formation of resilient, compassionate, and spiritually mature individuals
25
Q

What is Augustine’s theodicy?

A
  • evil is a privation or lack of goodness rather than a substance
  • God, being wholly good, did not create evil but allowed for the potential for evil to arise due to the free will given to humans
26
Q

go study ancient philosophical influences now!!!

A
27
Q

overview of William James’ approach to religious experience

A
  • there may be a scientific explanation to religious experience but it isn’t necessarily the whole explanation e.g. Paul’s conversion may have been an epileptic episode but also had a big effect on his life
  • the importance of experiences is not the root but the fruit
  • four features are common to all religious experiences
    1. ineffable
    2. noetic - gain of a deep and direct understanding of God
    3. transient - passes with time
    4. passivity - something is acting upon you, it cannot be summoned
  • James established three principles about religious experience
    1. pragmatism - truth is not fixed, just what works in real life therefore religious experience is ‘true’
    2. empiricism - the result of the experience must be empirical data
    3. pluralism - experiences in different faiths all produce positive effects despite being interpreted differently therefore are all true
28
Q

overview of mystical experiences?

A
  • Happold, English 20th century, said our purpose is to discover our eternal selves and unite with the divine
  • St Teresa of Avila said that experiences should produce a positive effect, they should feel at peace and should fit with the teachings of the church
  • Rudolf Otto, German C20 talked of numinous experiences, one of awe and wonder in the presence of the divine, experiences should me mysterium, tremendum and fascinas
29
Q

overview of conversion experiences?

A
  • William James: conversion involves someone altering their beliefs and way of life. religious beliefs should come to be at the centre of a person’s consciousness. could be psychological explanation but it’s not the whole picture
  • Edwin Starbuck: drew parallels to finding our identity in adolescence when we go through uncertainty and anxiety before finding happy relief
30
Q

wider scholars on conversion?

A
  • Freud: conversions are hallucinations, wishful thinking
  • Antony Flew: conversions are almost always to a religion a person grew up with
  • Swinburne: principle of credulity and testimonty (accept what appears to be the case and what someone tells you unless you have strong evidence otherwise)
  • Peter Donovan: there is a distinction between feeling certain and being right
31
Q

overview of whether religious experience has physical/physiological explanations?

A
  • Psychological: Feuerbach C19 thought God was a human invention of projecting our qualities onto the divine. Freud adapted this to say that religious behaviour was neurosis caused by childhood insecurities. God is attractive as we can be forgiven for our sins. Relgious experience is just hallucinations from our subconscious
  • Physiological: Dawkins, religious ideas are memes used for our survival. Persinger’s God’s helemt where there was a magnetic field around the brain that people reported to being similar to a religious experience
32
Q

overview of objections to corporate experience?

A
  • mass hysteria: groups generate physical symptoms in response to psychological stimulus. throughout history groups of people have been convinced they’ve caught serious illness when it was purely psychological
  • trivial acts: some claims seem to be trivial, why would God interact in the world in this way and make people act so weirdly?
33
Q

three examples of individual religious experience?

A
  1. Ian McCormack: near death experience after being stung by jellyfish, out of body experience, had profound effect and he changed his way of life and became christian, wrote book, dedicated life to missionary work etc.
  2. CS Lewis’ conversion to christianity: after his conversion his work focused on religion
  3. Saul on the Damascus road
34
Q

three examples of corporate religious experience?

A
  1. Fatima, Portugal: 1917 a crowd of 30,000 gathered in response to visions that claimed a miracle would occur that day, claimed they saw the sun dancing
  2. Medjugorje: 1981 six children claimed to have experienced visions of the Virgin Mary
  3. the Toronto Blessing: 1990s caused holy laughter, crying, shrieking and falling to the floor