‘Philosophy does not support belief in the authority of the Bible’ (25)
1st main point
Evangelical Christian’s- philosophy doesn’t support beleif in authority of the Bible due to their literal interpretation of it.
Beleive that bible r the inerrant and infallible words of god and therefore all scripture must be taken cognitively.
E.g. statement like ‘the afterlife exists’, ‘God is love’ r literal facts and r true by definition.
Becomes incoherent w philosophical theories like verification principle Ayer.
Suggests that we can’t talk meaningfully about religious statements cuz they r not cognitively significant cuz they r not tauantologies nor empirically testable.
This is because religious state to refuse to be verified as they r not analytical or synthetic by definition.
E.g. ‘God is love’ not analytic (true by definition) cuz it doesn’t express a truth based on its very wording, rather it makes a substantive claim about the nature of god. Therefore, it is not a tautology like ‘all bachelors r male’
The claim that the afterlife exists is not synthetic cuz it can’t be verified thru sense experience- there is no empirical test we can perform to prove or disprove this claim.
Promising cuz any statement that fails both tests is literally meaningless and unintelligible. They r non-cognitive and make no factual claim about reality. Therfore hv no authority as truths
‘Philosophy does not support belief in the authority of the Bible’ (25)
1st however
Howver, its flawed due to hicks argument of religious statements being verified eschatologically (after death)
Parable of celestial city, where 1 traveler believes a road leads to a celestial city and the other beleives it leads nowhere.
However, none of their claim hv been verified but will be once they turn the corner.
Somewhat adequate- demonstrates that religious statements can be verified in principle which arguably makes it synthetic.
Therefore, it is wrong to dismiss the authority of the Bible cuz statements in it can be verified after death which makes it meaningful.
Howver, remains unconvincing cuz evangelicals would still rejects falsification and finds way to qualify their experience even in the afterlife.
E.g. if faced with nothingness, the believer might say ‘God is transcendent and has a greater plan for me’, or this is the final test of my faith.’
Made even more compelling thru evangelism where they preach absolute truths to non believers as part of their mission.
Strong as to them, no evidence can falsify their claim cuz nonbelievers r not seen as disproofs but as the very reason fro evangelism- strengthened by flew’s criticism of religious stemtns dying a ‘death of 1000 qualifications’.
Overall philosophy is inchirent w the literal interpretation of the Bible as a source of authority cuz it fails VP and falisafaction- remains unintelligible and renders it to just be a Babylonian myth therefore no authority as a source of truth
‘Philosophy does not support belief in the authority of the Bible’ (25)
2nd main point
Catholic focus on the Bible’s authority leads to them adopting an emphasis on tradition and the magisterium which is coherent w the nature of the Bible as an analogical text.
Since scripture uses analogies like ‘God is light’, ‘God is father’, a living authority is needed to define their meaning.
Supported by aquinas who argued that the Bible must be interpreted a logically cuz if we use univocal language (same word, same meaning), it would mean that we r the same as god, whereas if we use equivocal language (same word, differnt meaning), it would indicate that we r completely differnt from god.
Satisfatory= cuz in order to interpret the Bible, we must compare it to something easier to understand that is within our respective frameworks e.g. paley comparing a watch to the universe,
More importantly, aligns w the role of the Pope, where Catholics look up to him to interpret the Bible.
‘Philosophy does not support belief in the authority of the Bible’ (25)
2nd howver
Howver, while analogically interpretation is necessary for understanding a transcendent god which strengthens the authority of the Bible, it becomes unsatisfactory when it dilutes the cognitive, true claims of core Christian doctrines like ‘heaven exists’ which r factual claims about reality.
TIS cuz it not only reduced them to pure analogy which makes them unfalsifiable but also risks fracturing the integrity of Christianity as it robs it of its power to claim truth- Christianity falls apart if its core claims r only non-cognitive/analogical.
Overall, the fact that the Bible’s authority rests on its factual cognitive truths which becomes incompatible w philosophy’s reliance on subjective analogy, makes the case for philosophy not supporting beleif in the authority of the Bible, to become more compelling.
Overall conclusion to ‘Philosophy does not support belief in the authority of the Bible’ (25)
Philosophy does not support beleif in the authority of the Bible cuz it fails the verfcstion principle, it refuses to be falsified and it can risk reducing and diluting the cognitive facts of the Bible to subjective claims.
Science shows that it is not reasonable to believe in God (25)
1) falsified the truth claims of the bible
Genesis-6 days
However- weakened by big bang, universe expanded from a singular point.
TIS- falsified the claims of the genesis which flips Christianity on its head as science has disproved the claim that god created the earth in 6 days- rendering god to be unintelligible
Moreover, science has challenged the notion that god created humans in his image- Darwin’s theory of evolution (define)
TIS challenges philosophical theories like paleys DA, but also it challenges the anthropocentricity of humans because Darwin’s theory and the BB places animals and humans as products of a blind process, suggesting that no species is better than the other.
However, RB refute- god caused the BB and evolution and that our reasoning abilities come from god cuz our ability to understand advance maths and physics goes beyond what is needed for mere survival. Therefore pointing towards divine reasoning to which RB suggest is cuz of endowed us w a reasoning ability that is similar to His (god given faculty of reason) in order to let his creation understand and explore his creation. Therefore making it reasonable as science is part of his creation.
However, death of 1000 qualifications. RB would still try to qualify their experience even if science has disproved it. Parable of invisible gardener
Science shows that it is not reasonable to believe in God (25)
2) belief in god is a result of psychology
Psychology explains that god/ religion is a coping mechanism to help people cope w the uncertainty of death.
Strengthened by Freud where nothing can withstand science and logic.
TIS as it suggests that believing in god is akin to a child imagining a protector.
Strengthens by Darwin’s idea of religion being a cultural virus/meme, that has been created by our ancestors to respond to the uncertainty of death.
However, polkinghorne, theology shouldn’t be viewed scientifically instead it should be viewed analogically. Answer different but equally valid questions (how and why)- kettle analogy
TIS- belief in god is valid as it helps us understand the purpose behind mankind which gives people hope and meaning to live life.
Overall, flawed as church membership is still declining which suggests that more people r turning to reason than divine revelation
Science shows that it is not reasonable to believe in God (25)
3)realist miracles
Hume explains that miracles like ‘Jesus resurrected’ is unintelligible because they r maximally improbable.
TIS as Hume explains that our sense experience is so well established thru constant observation e.g. anytime we observe an apple fall from a tree, we confirm the law of gravity. Anything that goes against sense experience is deeply suspect.
TIS because the explanation that the witness is lying or mistaken is more plausible explanation than god causing it.
However, if Christ was not raised then empty our preachings and ur faith.
TIS as Christianity stakes everything on an exclusivist view- that salvation can only be achieved through beleif in Jesus- validated by his resurrection.
If miracles of Jesus did not happen, Christianity will be pointless.
Overall, Christianity and other religions use an unproven god to solve the problem of death, where the simplest explanation, that we simply cease to exist, requires none (occam razor)
Is Act UT compatible w Christianity (1)
Source of morality
Against
Bentham believes that morality comes from observing the environment and human nature.
This strongly coheres w secular views cuz it is based off empiricism e.g. psychological evidence suggests that humans r strongly motivated by pleasure and pain.
Unlike the naturalistic feature of Act UT, evangelicals sternly believe in DCT where morals come from god as he is objectively good.
TIS- Christianity stakes everything on god’s absolute authority. This provides compelling evidence for them being incompatible cuz act UT challenges gods absolute authority. Without god being the primary SoA, Christianity will fall apart and lose its meaning.
Becomes even more compelling thr st Augustine’s theory where morals come from god who peaks to those before they commit to an action e.g. stealing is wrong.
Is Act UT compatible w Christianity (1)
source of morality
For
However, SE a Christian ethical theory also proposes a naturalistic approach that is also teleological as they have to work out whether their action will create the most amount of love
Whilst SE and Act UT share a focus on outcomes, they r fundamentally different. Christianity is grounded in the absolute good character of god to which they believe they hv a duty to uphold his commands in order to glorify him, whereas act it reduces morality to hedonist claim of pleasure or pain.
Is Act UT compatible w Christianity (2)
Against
Difference between teleological and deontological nature
Act UT emphasises consequences of an action e.g. if an action like saving a life, the its good. In contrast Christian’s believe in a more deontological approach where they hv a duty to uphold gods commands- glorify him
NML- adopted by CC to understand what morals they must uphold
E.g. gang rape is licit under hedonic calculus whereas ’Christianity ‘love ur neighbour as ur self’ ‘ -tyrannyof the majority
Therefore incompatible as Christian’s believe their duty to uphold NML is absolute whereas act UT evaluates the consequences to see if it leads to most pleasure using hedonic calcus e.g. expensiveness and duration
Is Act UT compatible w Christianity (2)
For
However despite them disagreeing on why something is good they often agree on what a good person should do.
Both strongly reject selfishness by demanding that actions prioritise the needs of others as shown by Jesus ‘feed the 5000’ and the hedonic calcus.
Evident in trolley problem where both systems would arrive at the same choice, kill 1 to save 5.
Nonetheless, extremely weak as UT uses a mathematical equation to work out pleasure while Christ and believe tha they have a duty to protect life (SoL) cuz god given
Therefore, it is too naive to argue that they r compatible cuz their reasons and foundations r fundamentally different
Is Act UT compatible w Christianity (3)
For
Although weak, could be entertained that r compatible as bth agree animal life is not as valued.
E.g. Christians believe they hv dominion over animals as described as having been made ‘little less than God’ due to god given faculty of reason. Coheres w Aristotle’s hierachy of the souls
Animals only hvworth if they serve human desires e.g. food.
Similarly UT=humans r more valued cuz they can experience more happiness due to higher consciousness.
Is Act UT compatible w Christianity (3)
Against
UT believes human life has instrumental value as it can produce happiness- if a person fails to contribute to overall happiness or reduces it their moral value diminishes.
Contrastingly, Christianity teaches that human life has intrinsic worth as each person is created in imago dei.
Therefore, UT and Christianity disagree on the source of human life due to clashes between instruments vs intrinsic value.
To conclude, whilst UT and SE share similar motives of selfless love and r teleological coupled w them agreeing that animals hold instrumental value, it is clear that they r ultimately incompatible cuz both hold fundamentally different ideas of where morality comes from and ones sense of duty
‘Kantian ethics has little value for Christian’s’ (25)
1) reduces ethics to cold duty
Against
Kantian ethics focuses on emotionless duty motivated by rationality
E.g. ‘a man is only acting morally when he suppresses his feelings’
Strengthens by Jerome schneewind who argued that Kant is arguing that emotion/desires is not good for moral thinking when it is based on things like love as this is a ‘wobbly compass’
TIS as human emotions r unstable, inconsistent and subjective.
Strongly aligns w Kant ethics cuz moral obligations would disappear when ur feelings change- what feels right to 1 person might feel wrong to someone else.
Contradicts Christian view where the main driving force of duty is agape love e.g. ‘love thy neighbour’ (Matthew).
Fixed rule contradict Jesus teaching where He himself broke the sabbath regulations to heal those in need, showing that compassion can override legalism
Convincing cuz Christin moral decision making is relative and teleological (aimed at cherishing gods creation) not deontological like Kant’s.
A Christian will lie if it saves a life, kantian ethicists will never lie
TIS-morally counter intuitive which strongly undermines Jesus teachings, who often broke rigid rules if it led to agape love
‘Kantian ethics has little value for Christian’s’ (25)
1) reduces ethics to cold duty
For
However, Christian’s /evangelicals adherence to to DCT suggest they r compatible.
DCT believes that by simple following gods commands ultimately makes them a good person.
Somewhat adequate cuz morals r simply about who can follow gods commands the best e.g. ‘do not commit adultery’ exodus
Therefore adultery is wrong in any scenario- cohering to absolute nature of Kant’s ethics and thus having value
Ultimately, flawed as not only does bible hv contradictions due to diff interpretations on moral dilemmas like abortion, but also the deontological nature of Kant’s ethics severely deviates from Christian mission to prepare for judgement, where one must use FW and rationality to decide what is moral or bot, therefore Kant’s ethics has little value.
‘Kantian ethics has little value for Christian’s’ (25)
2)has value- coheres w Jesus golden rule
Against
Although not very convincing….
Categorical imperative suggest that moral actions cannot create contradiction e.g. lying is always wrong cuz it is a universal truth and would render the truth to become meaningless.
TIS as it coheres w golden rule ‘do unto others as u would have them done unto u’
TIS because both share intuitive goal of creating emphatic behaviour that forces an indivual to introspect and assess whether their actions align w their morals- drawing parallels to Principle of Universbailty- both reflecting selfless behaviour and demand respecting the dignity of others
‘Kantian ethics has little value for Christian’s’ (25)
2)has value- coheres w Jesus golden rule
For
Overstatement to say it has lots of value for Christina’s because both lead to different conclusions due to golden rule being subjective
E.g. white lies would be accepted by the golden rule cuz it might save an innocent life e.g. hiding a Jew from the nazis
However, under kantian ethics lying is always wrong.
Therefore it is clear that kantian ethics holds little value as the golden rule allows for flexibility as it lacks an objective moral standard, whereas kantian ethics reaffirms an absolutist approach where moral duties are fixed.
‘Kantian ethics has little value for Christian’s’ (25)
3) ignores god as source of morality
For
It’s secular nature ignores god as the ultimate source of morality
TIS cuz Kant’s ethics places heavy emphasis on human intellect and reason to which he believes is the key to understanding the goal of philosophy.
This is convincing cuz Kant believes that morals r priori knowledge and r objective truths e.g. all bachelors are male.
‘Kantian ethics has little value for Christian’s’ (25)
3) ignores god as source of morality
Against
However, Christin morality stems from god being objectively good.
Strengthened by Augustine’s belief that morality comes from gods inner voice telling u what is right or wrong
E.g. stealing is wrong cuz god tells u it is wrong
Therefore incompatible cuz morality to Kant is not contingent on the commands of god or the pursuit of happiness but on reason.
However, could be compatible cuz the rational basis of Kant’s ethics links to aquinas god give faculty of reason which coheres w their basis of NML
Nonetheless, still weak cuz Kant’s ethics denies god as the sovereign source of morality which renders it inadequate for a theistic worldview.
‘Kantian ethics has little value for Christian’s’ (25)
Conc
Whilst it could be argued that our sense of rationality can be attributed to god which makes kantian ethics seem valuable, it ultimately remains invaluable cuz its deontological nature conflicts w Jesus teachings- it separates morality from love/emotion and dismisses god as the ultimates source of morality.
‘Belief in FW undermines religious authority for Christians’ (25)
1) libertarian angle
Although not very convincing,
Libertarian FW may initially appear to undermine religious authority by challenging divine sovereignty and omniscience.
If humans r fully autonomous they become self-legislating (kantian ethic), therefore morality shifts from god to reason as humans follow their conscience independent of the church and scripture
Weaken DCT
However, reason comes from god: Natural moral law teaches that humans can know right and wrong because our reason participates in God’s eternal law.
Natural moral law preserves free will because it assumes humans can genuinely understand and choose the good through reason. Moral knowledge would be meaningless if we were not capable of freely responding to it.
It preserves religious authority because that moral law ultimately comes from God’s eternal law. Human reason doesn’t replace divine authority-it participates in it
‘Belief in FW undermines religious authority for Christians’ (25)
2) scripture
Scripture constantly preserves meaningful choice and therefore suggests that humans are not predetermined.
E.g. ‘whoever believes’ (John), ‘God desires all to be saved’ (Timothy)
If humans r fully lacked real choice, then gods words becomes contradictory and therefore not meaningful
However, a strict Calvinist understanding of predestination suggests that belief in FW undermines religous authority by diminishing gods absolute sovereignty.
(Explain predestination)
TIS because if humans r genuinely free, it means that god is not fully determining salvation and therefore FW is an illusion. If god has already predetermined eternal destinations and actions it seems unfair for god to judge people for actions they could not help performing. (? Gods omnibenevolence)
‘Belief in FW undermines religious authority for Christians’ (25)
3)Bible presents god as the source of authority and freedom
Genesis 2-3 depicts humans as free as they can make real choices e.g. Adam and Eve chose to disrespect god.
Therefore, FW is part of gods creation
Made even more compelling-prepare for judgement (Parable of sheep and goats)
Vs if humans hv complete freedom then scripture can become subjective
Contradicts role of church- no need for a living authority (pope) to determine meaning, no extra ecclesia nulla salus
Nonetheless, this view is too radical cuz ultimate god gave up on trial of humans, giving them FW to choose own eternal destiny and to bring about greater good
Therefore, praise and blame becomes meaningful
-
Arguements For And Against God’s Existence37
-
Evidential Problem Of Evil4
-
Secular Views On Conscience19
-
Is The Anti-realist Approach To Miracles Thestrongest Interpretation?6
-
Does The Realist Approach To Miracles Disprove The God Of Classical Theism?6
-
Hume’s Critque Of Miracles13
-
Wiles Crique Of Miracles6
-
Differences Between Hume And Wiles1
-
Religious Views On The Conscience12
-
Are Religious Views And Secular Views On Conscience Compatible?4
-
Why Is Conscience Not A Reliable Guide When Making Moral Decisions12
-
Normative Ethics And How To Answer 10 Markers On It20
-
Aquians’ Natural Moral Law19
-
Double Effect8
-
Aquinas’ NML Provides Sufficient Guidance On How To Live A Moral Life3
-
Willaim James Religious Experience/can ME Be Verified15
-
Walter Stace Religious Experience3
-
How Does Science Pose A Problem To Mystical Experince/miracles (Swinburne)16
-
Problem Of Evil21
-
The Free Will Defence7
-
Soul Making Hick2
-
Situation Ethics7
-
Religious Experince Otto2
-
Virtue Ethics14
-
SE And NML Vs VE2
-
Evalaution Of VE4
-
How Do Ethical Theories Apply To Issues Of Human Life (embryo Research, Designer Babies)13
-
How Do Ethical Theories Respond To Abortion,Euthanasia, Lying, Theft17
-
How Do Ethical Theories Respond To Animals28
-
Verification Principle/langage Games10
-
Falsfication Principle3
-
Analogy3
-
Key Thinkers In Life,death,afterlife17
-
Via Negativa And Symbolic11
-
Dialogues31
-
Meta Ethics25
-
Teleological Essays4
-
FW17
