Quick Summaries

Question 1

Ancient Philosophical Influences - Plato

Answer 1

Believes in two realms: the World of the Forms (perfect, eternal, unchanging) and the World of Appearances (imperfect, temporary, sensory).

The Form of the Good is the highest form, like the sun in his Allegory of the Cave, illuminating all knowledge.

Humans are born with innate knowledge of the Forms, and learning is recollection.

The soul is immortal and temporarily trapped in the body.

True knowledge (episteme) comes from rationalism (reason), not from the senses.

Question 2

Ancient Philosophical Influences - Plato criticisms

Answer 2

Empiricism (e.g. Aristotle): knowledge comes from the senses, not innate ideas.

The Forms are too abstract – what is the Form of dirt or disease?

No evidence for a separate realm or immortal soul.

Popper: Plato’s ideal state leads to authoritarianism.

Question 3

Ancient Philosophical Influences - Aristotle

Answer 3

Rejected Plato’s dualism and metaphysical Forms.

Believed the physical world is real and can be understood through empirical observation.

Developed the Four Causes to explain why things exist:
1. Material cause – what something is made from.
2. Formal cause – its structure or shape.
3. Efficient cause – what brings it into being.
4. Final cause (telos) – its purpose or end goal.

Believed everything has a purpose (teleology) and seeks to achieve its full potential.

The Prime Mover is an eternal, immaterial being that causes motion by attraction (not interaction), and is pure actuality.

Question 4

Ancient Philosophical Influences - Aristotle criticisms

Answer 4

The Final cause is outdated in science (e.g. evolution has no purpose).

The Prime Mover doesn’t interact or care, unlike the God of classical theism.

Empirical method is powerful but not infallible – senses can be misleading.

Question 5

Soul, Mind and Body - Aristotle View

Answer 5

The soul is the form of a living body — it’s what makes a body alive.

Not a separate substance, but the “function” or essence of a thing.

The soul dies with the body; no afterlife.

Different types of soul: plant (growth), animal (sensation), human (reason).

Question 6

Soul, Mind and Body - Aristotle View Criticisms

Answer 6

Doesn’t account for near-death experiences or spiritual phenomena.

Lacks hope of an afterlife or immortality.

Some argue it reduces human beings to biological machines.

Question 7

Soul, Mind and Body - Descartes Dualism

Answer 7

Mind and body are two distinct substances: res cogitans (thinking thing) and res extensa (extended thing).

We know the mind exists because we can doubt everything except thought: “Cogito ergo sum”.

The body is physical and extended in space; the mind is non-physical and indivisible.

Interaction occurs in the pineal gland.

Question 8

Soul, Mind and Body - Descartes Dualism criticisms

Answer 8

Mind-body interaction is not clearly explained.

Neuroscience suggests mental states are linked to brain states.

Gilbert Ryle: calls dualism the “ghost in the machine”.

Question 9

Soul, Mind and Body - Plato Dualism

Answer 9

The soul is non-physical, immortal, and the source of reason and truth.

The body is temporary, physical, and distracts us from real knowledge.

At death, the soul returns to the world of the Forms.

The soul has three parts: reason (wisdom), spirit (courage), and appetite (desire), like the charioteer analogy in Phaedrus.

Question 10

Soul, Mind and Body - Plato Dualism Criticisms

Answer 10

No evidence for the soul’s existence or reincarnation.

Ryle: this is a “category mistake”, treating the soul like a separate entity when it isn’t.

Doesn’t explain how mental states influence physical actions (mind-body interaction problem).

Question 11

Argument for the Existence of God - Ontological Argument (Anselm, Descartes)

Answer 11

A priori, analytic argument — based on logic and reason, not experience.

Anselm (Proslogion): God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” If God only exists in the mind, a greater being could be imagined — one that exists in reality too. Therefore, God must exist in reality.

Descartes: God is a supremely perfect being; existence is a perfection; so God must exist by definition.

Question 12

Argument for the Existence of God - Ontological Argument (Anselm, Descartes) criticisms

Answer 12

Gaunilo’s island: using Anselm’s logic, you could “prove” anything perfect exists (e.g. perfect island), which is absurd.

Kant: existence is not a predicate — it doesn’t add anything to a concept.

Empiricists reject a priori arguments for existence — existence must be proven through experience.

Question 13

Argument for the Existence of God - Cosmological Argument (Aquinas, Kalam)

Answer 13

A posteriori — based on observation of cause and effect.

Aquinas’ 3 Ways (from Summa Theologica):

Motion — things are moved; must be a first unmoved mover (God).

Cause — there must be an uncaused first cause (God).

Contingency — everything contingent relies on something necessary (God).

Kalam version: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause (God).

Question 14

Argument for the Existence of God - Cosmological Argument (Aquinas, Kalam)

Answer 14

Hume: we cannot infer a necessary being from contingent ones.

Russell: universe may just be a “brute fact” — no explanation needed.

Fallacy of composition: just because all parts have causes doesn’t mean the whole does.

Quantum physics challenges causality at a subatomic level.

Question 15

Argument for the Existence of God - Teleological Argument (Design)

Answer 15

A posteriori, inductive — based on apparent design and order in nature.

Aquinas’ Fifth Way: non-rational objects act towards an end; must be directed by something intelligent (God).

Paley’s Watchmaker: a watch implies a designer; the natural world (e.g. eye, solar system) also implies design.

Tennant’s Anthropic Principle: the universe seems “fine-tuned” to support human life — this is best explained by a designer.

Question 16

Argument for the Existence of God - Teleological Argument (Design) criticisms

Answer 16

Hume: analogy is weak — universe is not like a watch; could be made by many gods, or trial and error.

Darwin & Evolution: apparent design can be explained by natural selection.

Problem of evil: if God designed the world, why so much suffering and flawed design?

Question 17

Challenges to Religious Belief - The Problem of Evil: Logical Problem (Epicurus, Mackie)

Answer 17

Claims the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an all-powerful, all-loving God.

Epicurus’ Inconsistent Triad: If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, He is not omnipotent; if able but not willing, He is not omnibenevolent; if both, why is there evil?

Question 18

Challenges to Religious Belief - The Problem of Evil: Evidential Problem (Rowe, Dostoevsky)

Answer 18

Argues the extent and type of suffering (e.g. natural disasters, child torture) make it improbable that an all-good, all-powerful God exists.

Rowe: some suffering appears pointless (e.g. fawn in a forest fire).

Question 19

Challenges to Religious Belief - The Problem of Evil: Criticisms (Theodicies)

Answer 19

Augustine: Evil is the privation of good; God made everything good, but humans misused free will. Evil and suffering are the result of original sin.

Irenaeus/Hick: Soul-making theodicy — suffering helps develop moral and spiritual maturity. Earth is a place of soul development.

Question 20

Challenges to Religious Belief - The Problem of Evil: Criticisms of Theodicies

Answer 20

Augustine’s view implies a perfect world went wrong, which seems logically flawed.

Why would a perfect being create fallible beings? And why eternal punishment for inherited sin?

Hick’s soul-making is criticised as justifying extreme suffering — e.g. genocide — for the sake of growth.

Doesn’t account for animal suffering or natural evil that seems unrelated to human development.

Question 21

Challenges to Religious Belief - Religious Belief as a Product of the Human Mind (Freud)

Answer 21

Religion is a psychological illusion, stemming from the unconscious mind’s need for security and a father figure.

Rooted in Oedipus complex: repressed desires and guilt are transferred onto an imagined divine figure.

Religion is a form of wish fulfilment — an escape from reality and a way to cope with death and suffering.

Question 22

Challenges to Religious Belief - Religious Belief as a Product of the Human Mind (Freud) criticisms

Answer 22

Jung: religion is a positive part of the collective unconscious; it helps achieve psychological integration.

Freud’s view is reductionist — it ignores the philosophical and spiritual dimensions of faith.

Assumes atheism is rational and religion is neurotic, which may be biased.

Question 23

Challenges to Religious Belief - Religious Belief as a Product of the Human Mind (Marx)

Answer 23

Religion is the “opium of the people” — used by the ruling class to oppress the working class.

It legitimises suffering (e.g. promising heaven) and discourages rebellion.

A tool for social control — encourages obedience and false consciousness.

Question 24

Challenges to Religious Belief - Religious Belief as a Product of the Human Mind (Marx) criticisms

Answer 24

Too economically deterministic — ignores personal spiritual experiences.

Religion has also been a force for social change (e.g. liberation theology, civil rights movement).

Not all religion supports the status quo.

Question 25

Religious Language - The Verification Principle

Answer 25

(Associated with Logical Positivism, especially A.J. Ayer) A statement is only meaningful if it is analytically true (true by definition) or synthetically verifiable (provable by sense experience). Religious statements (e.g. “God exists”) are neither analytic nor empirically verifiable, so they are considered meaningless. Example: “God loves us” cannot be verified through experience or logic.

Question 26

Religious Language - The Verification Principle criticisms

Answer 26

Fails its own test: the principle itself cannot be empirically verified — it’s self-defeating. Too narrow — it would rule out ethical, historical, and scientific theories that can’t be verified directly. Swinburne: statements like “all ravens are black” are meaningful even if not verifiable now.

Question 27

Religious Language - The Falsification Principle

Answer 27

(Developed by Karl Popper; applied to religion by Antony Flew) For a statement to be meaningful, there must be a possible scenario that could prove it false. Flew argued religious believers refuse to let go of their beliefs, no matter what — making them unfalsifiable and thus meaningless. Used the parable of the invisible gardener: both believers and non-believers see the same evidence but draw different conclusions.

Question 28

Religious Language - The Falsification Principle Responses

Answer 28

R.M. Hare: introduced the idea of "bliks" — non-falsifiable but deeply meaningful worldviews (e.g. paranoid man who thinks all dons want to kill him). Basil Mitchell: religious faith can allow trust in God despite evidence (parable of the partisan and the stranger).

Question 29

Religious Language - The Falsification Principle criticisms

Answer 29

Bliks are too subjective — if anything can be a blik, we lose all standards of rationality. Mitchell’s view is seen as a cop-out by critics — faith might persist in face of contrary evidence, but it’s unclear how this is rational.

Question 30

Religious Language - Analogical and Symbolic Language (Aquinas and Tillich)

Answer 30

Aquinas’ Analogy of Proportion and Attribution We can speak meaningfully about God through analogy (not univocally or equivocally). Attribution: we learn about God by seeing the effects (e.g. goodness in creation). Proportion: we understand God’s attributes in relation to ours, but in a higher, infinite form. Paul Tillich — Symbolism Religious language is symbolic, not literal. Symbols participate in the reality they represent (e.g. cross symbolizes salvation). Symbols open levels of reality and deepen understanding, like art or music.

Question 31

Religious Language - Analogical and Symbolic Language (Aquinas and Tillich) criticisms

Answer 31

Analogical language may still not clarify what God is actually like. Symbolism depends on culture — symbols can change or die out (e.g. swastika). Some argue symbolic language is too vague for theological use.

Question 32

Religious Language - Language as Non-Cognitive: Via Negativa (Apophatic Way)

Answer 32

Via Negativa (Apophatic Way) We cannot speak of what God is, only what He is not (e.g. God is not evil, not finite). Prevents reducing God to human terms.

Question 33

Religious Language - Language as Non-Cognitive: Via Negativa (Apophatic Way) criticisms

Answer 33

Doesn’t help us build a positive understanding of God. Could make God too remote or impersonal. Still uses language — saying "God is not X" assumes we know what X is.

Question 34

The Nature or Attributes of God - Omnipotence (all-powerful)

Answer 34

Aquinas: God can do anything logically possible (can’t make square circles). Descartes: God can do anything at all, even logically impossible things — true omnipotence. Vardy & Macquarrie: God’s power is self-limited so that humans have free will. Geach: ‘Almighty’ ≠ ‘can do anything’, but rather supreme power over everything.

Question 35

The Nature or Attributes of God - Omnipotence (all-powerful) criticisms

Answer 35

Logical paradoxes: Can God create a stone He cannot lift? If God can do anything, He could do evil — contradicts omnibenevolence. Limiting God’s power (e.g. for free will) raises the question: is He really omnipotent?

Question 36

The Nature or Attributes of God - Omniscience (all-knowing)

Answer 36

God knows everything — past, present, and future. But if God knows the future, do we have free will? (compatibilism vs determinism) Some say God’s knowledge is timeless — He knows all things eternally. Others say God is everlasting in time — He knows all that can be known at each moment.

Question 37

The Nature or Attributes of God - Omniscience (all-knowing) criticisms

Answer 37

If God knows what we’ll do, we’re not free — moral responsibility disappears. If we’re free, God can’t know future choices = limits His omniscience.

Question 38

The Nature or Attributes of God - Omnibenevolence (all-good)

Answer 38

God is supremely loving and morally perfect. Often supported through scripture (e.g. “God is love” in 1 John). Justifies creation, grace, and moral law.

Question 39

The Nature or Attributes of God - Omnibenevolence (all-good) criticisms

Answer 39

Problem of evil: too much suffering to reconcile with an all-loving God. Hell contradicts benevolence — why eternal punishment?

Question 40

The Nature or Attributes of God - God and Eternity: Timeless (Atemporal)

Answer 40

1. Timeless (Atemporal) — God is outside of time Aquinas and Boethius: God sees all of time at once (like from above a timeline). God doesn’t change; He is immutable and eternal. Boethius: God’s knowledge doesn’t cause our actions, so we remain free.

Question 41

The Nature or Attributes of God - God and Eternity: Timeless (Atemporal) criticisms

Answer 41

God can’t respond or act in time (e.g. answer prayers). Makes God seem impersonal.

Question 42

The Nature or Attributes of God - God and Eternity: Everlasting (Sempiternal)

Answer 42

2. Everlasting (Sempiternal) — God exists within time Swinburne: God exists through time but has no beginning or end. Allows for interaction and real relationships with humans.

Question 43

The Nature or Attributes of God - God and Eternity: Everlasting (Sempiternal) criticisms

Answer 43

May limit God's perfection and changelessness. Suggests He’s subject to time, like us.

Question 44

Religious Language After the 20th Century - Wittgenstein (Language Games)

Answer 44

Meaning is use — language gets its meaning from its context and community. Religious language is part of a “language game” — meaningful to those who participate (e.g. believers). Don’t judge religious statements by scientific or empirical standards — they’re not in the same game.

Question 45

Religious Language After the 20th Century - Wittgenstein (Language Games) strengths

Answer 45

Explains why religion is meaningful to believers even if not empirically verifiable. Avoids forcing religion into scientific frameworks.

Question 46

Religious Language After the 20th Century - Wittgenstein (Language Games) criticisms

Answer 46

Risks making religion relativistic — if meaning is just internal, no criticism is possible. Outsiders may say it protects religion from rational debate.

Question 47

Religious Language After the 20th Century - Hick's Eschatological Verification

Answer 47

Religious statements are verifiable in principle — at the end of time (eschaton), their truth will be known. Like two men walking down a road, one believing it leads to a celestial city, the other not — they’ll find out at the end. Therefore, claims like “God exists” are not meaningless, even if they can’t be verified now.

Question 48

Religious Language After the 20th Century - Hick's Eschatological Verification criticisms

Answer 48

Depends on life after death being real — if it isn’t, the claim remains unverifiable. Still not empirically testable in this life.

Question 49

Religious Experience - What is Religious Experience

Answer 49

Personal experiences where individuals claim to have encountered God, the divine, or the sacred. Can be mystical (union with God), conversion experiences, or numinous (awe-inspiring, beyond normal experience). Used as an argument for the existence of God or at least evidence of something beyond the physical.

Question 50

Religious Experience - Types of Religious Experience

Answer 50

William James’ Four Characteristics: 1. Ineffability — beyond words. 2. Noetic Quality — imparts knowledge. 3. Transiency — temporary. 4. Passivity — feeling controlled by an outside force. Numinous Experience (Rudolf Otto): Encounter with the ‘Wholly Other’ — awe and mystery. Mixed feelings of fascination and fear (“mysterium tremendum et fascinans”).

Question 51

Religious Experience - Religious Experience as Evidence for God

Answer 51

Swinburne’s Principle of Credulity: We should believe experiences unless there is strong reason not to. Principle of Testimony: > People generally tell the truth about their experiences. Religious experiences provide direct evidence of God’s existence for the experiencer.

Question 52

Religious Experience - Criticisms of Religious Experience

Answer 52

Subjectivity: Experiences are private and personal, difficult to verify. Psychological explanations: Freud: Religious experiences as illusions or neuroses. Hood’s ‘God Helmet’ experiments show brain stimulation can induce mystical feelings. Cultural Conditioning: Experiences often shaped by expectations and cultural background. Conflicting Experiences: Different religions claim contradictory experiences, undermining universal truth. Logical Issues: Even if experiences are genuine, they don’t prove which religion (if any) is true.

Question 53

Religious Experience - Responses

Answer 53

Swinburne accepts that no experience is infallible, but collective evidence from multiple experiences strengthens the case. Alston argues for a “properly basic belief” in God grounded in experience, akin to trusting our senses.