Possible Philosophy of Religion Exam Questions

Question 1

Assess whether substance dualism is a convincing approach to questions of body and soul.

Answer 1

intro: Substance Dualists hold the view that the mind is a substance and that thoughts, emotions etc. are properties of the mind, Similarly, the body is a substance in the same sense of being a subject which has properties. Not convincing approach to question of body and soul, no explicit evidence, mind must be linked to body through scientific backing.

1: Descartes
- “cognito ergo sum”
- not the same but attached
- soul animates the body
- Phineas Gage = pole in head

However: Gilbert Ryle
- dogma of the ghost in the machine
- makes category error
- team spirit
- Ryle believes that there is an error made in the way that language is used to describe human beings. The mind, according to Ryle, is not something separate from the material body.

2: contrary
- aristotle monism
- wax stamp
- soul gives body its form
“hylomorphic”
- chemicals and genetic codes explain consciousness, seen within near death experiences
- dawkins
- identity linked to physical body
- soul a mythological concept

3: lastly property dualism
- only one substance matter
- but distinct properties
- emergent materialism
- mind has its own existence but not separate

Question 2

To what extent is Plato’s belief in a separate body and soul convincing?

Question 3

“There is no such thing as a soul”. Discuss.

Question 4

“There is no design in the universe”. Discuss.

Question 5

How convincing are teleological arguments for the existence of God?

Answer 5

intro: The teleological argument - attempts to prove the existence of God from the evidence of order & purpose in the world around us

1: proves existence
- thomas aquinas fifth way
- Fifth Way - Nature seems to have an order and purpose.
*Archer and arrow - if we saw an arrow flying towards a target we would know someone has aimed it.
*Purposiveness of inanimate objects, we must conclude the guiding hand of God must be behind it.
*STRONG ARGUMENT AS WE CAN SEE THE ORDER OF NATURE

However:
- david hume
- Design is something we perceive and assume.
- came about by chance, random process
- “rude attempt of an infant deity”
*If evil and suffering is present, then how can an omnibenevolent God be behind it?
*WEAK ARGUMENT AS HOW CAN THE ORDER OF THE WORLD BE EXPLAINED

2: WILLIAM PALEY
*Example of the pocket watch - if we saw a pocket watch, we assume someone has made it due to its intricacy.
*The way the world works together shows that there must be an intelligent designer.
- shows qua regularity
*STRONG ARGUMENT AS THE WORLD IS CLEARLY INTRICATE AND CANT BE EXPLAINED THROUGH SCIENCE.
- FR Tennat anthropic principle = world made suitable for us like cosmic fine tuning
- goldilocks zone = made just right for human development

However:
- J.S. Mill
*Nature is cruel.
*“Either there is no God or there exists an incompetent or immoral God”
*If there’s natural disasters, then how can there be a God who is all loving?
- pain and suffering disprove intelligent designer
*WEAK ARGUMENT AS THE WORLD CANNOT BE COMPLETELY PERFECT.

3: *RICHARD SWINBURNE
*Parts of our world are fitted together in an orderly way by a designer
*How are we to explain the universe as we find it?
- simplest explanation is that god planned everything = ockhams razor
*STRONG ARGUMENT AS THE WAY SOME ASPECTS OF THE WORLD ARE FITTED TOGETHER IS SO INTRICATE.
- fred hoyle = hurricane and boeing 747

However:
*CHARLES DARWIN
*Evolution - how can God have created using? We have developed from less complex forms, so he can’t have created us as intricate beings
*WEAK ARGUMENT AS IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INTRICACY OF THE WORLD
- evolution by natural selection
- species survived due to adaptation not because made perfect, no need for a designer

Question 6

“There must be a reason to account for the existence of the universe”. Discuss.

Question 7

“There is no purpose in the universe”. Discuss.

Question 8

How true is it to say that only the existence of God would provide sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe?

Question 9

“The universe is just there: it neither has nor needs an explanation”. Discuss.

Question 10

To what extent does Aquinas’ cosmological argument successfully reach the conclusion that there is a transcendent creator?

Answer 10

intro: St Thomas Aquinas, put forward the Cosmological Argument to prove God’s existence in his book ‘Summa Theologicae’, Motion, Cause and Contingency make up the first three ways of his 5 ways of the cosmological argument

1: Inspired by Aristotle’s unmoved mover. Recognised everything was in a state of actuality (movement) and potentiality (what it could become after movement). When the actuality was fulfilled, the previous state of potentiality became the new actuality.
- everything is moved by something else and everything has different movers. Cant be a infinite chain of movers therefore there must be an unmoved mover which causes movement without itself being moved and this is God
- Aristotle says its transcendent, outside of space and time to supports argument

However:
- Aquinas argues everything has a mover yet the unmoved mover does not. This is a logical contradiction
- logical fallacy

2: Inspired by Aristotle’s Efficient Cause which refers to the reason for somethings existence. Nothing can have its own efficient cause as only things that existed before it can be the causer such as a human building a table
- You cannot have an infinite number of causes so there must be an uncaused cause which causes everything to happen without itself being caused
- Used in Christian Doctrine in understanding the nature of God as transcendent therefore supported by Christian community

However:
- Makes a Fallacy of Composition in assuming just because everything in the world has a cause the world must too (Hume)
- Just because humans have mothers doesn’t mean the world does (Russell)
- We can’t observe the first cause of the universe (its creation) so we are lacking empirical evidence to support Aquinas (Kant)

3: There are contingent beings which means they rely on something else to start their existence and will eventually stop existing
- There must be a necessary being that doesn’t rely on anything else for its own existence but gives others existence. Must be transcendent so not limited to time and infinite like contingent beings
- Credited as argument based on observation. Can clearly see we are contingent beings so the need for a necessary being is crucial

However:
- Even if there is a neccessary being why does this have to be the Christian God? Similar to critique of Teleological Argument suggesting could be proof of a team of god’s or team of devils (Hume)
- Rejects completely stating “any talk of a transcendent” is ultimately meaningless as we have no experience of it (Dawkins)
- brute fact, no pint in questioning (Russell)

Question 11

To what extent does St Anselm’s ontological argument prove the necessary existence of God?

Question 12

“We cannot derive the existence of God from his definition”. Discuss.

Question 13

“A priori arguments for the existence of God are more persuasive than a posteriori arguments”. Discuss.

Question 14

To what extent was Kant successful in his criticisms of the ontological argument?

Question 15

To what extent are the ideas of William James helpful in understanding religious experience?

Question 16

“Conversion experiences are the most convincing form of religious experience”. Discuss.

Question 17

How satisfactory are religious experiences as proof for the existence of God?

Question 18

“There is no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil”. Discuss.

Question 19

“The free will defence resolves some but not all the problems created by evil in the world”. Discuss.

Question 20

To what extent is St Augustine more successful than the Irenaean theodicy in explaining evil in the world?

Answer 20

1: The Irenaean theodicy is more compatible than Augustine’s with an omnibenevolent God. God seeks to mould humans to his likeness, and the concept of universal salvation shows God’s love for all humanity.

However:
Augustine is more compatible with an omni-benevolent God- God’s creation was free from evil, the sin of humans and angels turned from God. God was so loving he gave free will, humans are responsible for sin and evil. Irenaeus not compatible- evil shouldn’t be the means of a loving God- some pain is futile- Rowe, ‘intense’ and futile suffering of animal suffering’ fawn in a forest fire”

2: Augustine upholds traditional church teachings such as belief in the Garden of Eden, the original sin and the literal incarnation of Christ.

However:
Irenaeus doesn’t require belief in specific Christian God; however, Augustine’s does due to literal view of Bible. Marilyn Adams notes that Hick’s ‘soul-making theodicy’ was made to fit pluralistic orientation to religions, including concepts such as reincarnation and post-mortem moral development.
· According to Hick the Augustinian type is often too impersonal and is undermined by its view of the destiny of humanity divided between the pleasures of heaven and the torments of hell.

3: Augustine is better because the theory is more compatible with extreme examples of moral evil- evil we see today, for example, the Holocaust.

However: Irenaean theodicy might argue that all evil does have a purpose, bet we may not be easily able to understand it. Hick proposes epistemic distance- the idea that God deliberately distances himself and his actions from our understanding to promote the importance of faith and good moral action without incentive.
- ‘Privation of good’ does not seem to correlate with the nature of suffering. Analogy that sickness is privation of health does not seem compatible with modern suffering- having specific diseases.

4: The Irenaean theodicy does not face as many problems as Augustine when looking at compatibility with science.
- finally he argues that sin is passed on as we were “seminally present in the loins of Adam” (again, this is difficult to understand from a scientific perspective).
- Must all be descendants of Adam and Eve- can’t have descended from two people - limited gene pool scientifically believed that our species originated in Africa around 300,000 years ago.
- Irenaeus is supported by the idea of evolution- harsh trial of life- brutal evolutionary process- humanity as a species is strong.

Question 21

Discuss critically Augustine’s view that God cannot be blamed for the existence of moral and natural evil in the world.

Answer 21

1:
- God therefore saw his creation and declared “it was good” - Genesis, God does not create evil it is merely an absence of good. Augustine set up the premise that evil came initially into the world from angels and human who deliberately chose to turn against God
- at odds with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.

However:
- Analogy of the potter mouldings clay
God is constantly mounding us and that our “creation is being carried out”
Clay needs to be wet to be Moulder by the potter, metaphorical for how humans need to use free will to be able to turn to God so we should offer ourselves to God in a “soft and mouldable state” in order to allow God to guide us through the evils that we encounter and develop into the likeness of God- humanity’s fault for not being in a soft and mouldable state and abusing our free will

1: Explain why God is blamed for Natural Evil; logical and evidential problems
2: Augustine defends God’s righteousness with his theodicy
God is perfect and thus can only create a perfect world, evil cannot exist it is simply a privation from goodness.
People fall short of their expectations due to the fall.
3: The fall corrupted human nature, disobedience to God removed the harmonious relationship between humans and nature, causing natural evil. This has led to humans living lives in a constant battle against sin as we are all descendent of Adam and Eve.
God is spared from blame because he cannot intervene as that would obstruct human free will.
4: Criticisms that undermine Augustine making it unsuccessful:
Not to blame for our own actions
Biological Understanding
Logical incoherence for God creating a perfect world that then becomes imperfect
5: Irenaen theodicies are better:
Hick suggest all of the positives that correspond to Augustine’s negatives
Conclude

Question 22

“Evidence shows that the problem of evil disproves God”. Discuss.

Question 23

Assess the belief that we can say nothing positive about God.

Answer 23

1. Apophatic
   - Via negativa
   - making statements about God in terms of what he is not
   - his total ‘otherness’ means he cannot be referred to in terms of anything in the universe
   - tells us what God isn’t but also, doesn’t tell us what God is
   - Pseudo Dionysus: developed VN. Emphasising God as completely beyond our human understanding to ensure no language was used to limit God
2. Cataphatic
   - Via positiva
   - making positive statements about God
   - characteristics of the human father are NOT the same as God but can be usefully projected onto him
   - risks anthropomorphic language - Maimanidos: using positive aspects like power limit and reduce God

3: analogy and symbol

Question 24

“We can never begin to describe God”. Discuss.

Question 25

To what extent is it true to say that the use of the via negativia makes God too remote from his creation?

Question 26

To what extent is the via negativa the only way to talk about God?

Question 27

Assess the claim that Aquinas’ doctrine of analogy enables us to speak significantly about God.

Answer 27

1. The analogy of attribution
   - God is different to the universe but God created humans with the capacity to be good/wise. That goodness or wisdom is not equivalent to God’s nature, but God has the qualities necessary to bring about goodness and wisdom in humans
2. The analogy of proportionality
   - created things have qualities proportionate (equal to their nature): humans have goodness proportionate to their nature e.g. HICK gave the example of the faithfulness of dogs as compared to that of humans, which is totally different. In saying, God is good - it is proportionate to absolute perfection in his nature

Question 28

“Tillich’s claim that religious language is symbolic is more satisfactory than via negativa”. Discuss.

Question 29

Assess the belief that talk about God is meaningless.

Question 30

The verification is too flawed to be useful.

Question 31

Discuss the assertion that religious language is meaningless

Question 32

To what extent is Witgenstein’s theory of language games helpful in clarifying Aquinas’ idea of analogy?

Question 33

Assess the claim that religious belief is unfalsifiable.

Question 34

“Falsification presents a weaker challenge to faith than that offered by the Verification principle”. Discuss.