God and the World
The whole topic is looking at two different
approaches throughout.
The existence of the
world points to the
existence of God
The world as we know it
is incompatible with a
God
For Design
We look at the world with awe
and wonder. It could be
random but we see that it has
consistency, predictability and
things work together and it
has purpose.
Fine Tuning argument.
Cosmologists argue that the
conditions for this life are
improbable (F.R.Tennant) One
slight variation and we would
not be here, therefore the
very fact that we are here is
an argument for God. Natural
selection could be part of the
process.
Paley – Watch analogy
Natural selection.
Through millions of alterations it
may give the appearance of
design.
‘shifting the goal posts’ Flew
may claim that this is ‘death by
a thousand qualifications’ In
that the theist is trying to justify
the existence of a God
Hume- Earth is not a machine.
The world is more organic.
Evolutionary biologists may
argue against intelligent design
eg lungs; initially they were
unimportant air bladders in fish.
Intelligent Design – Michael
Behe (biochemist) Talks of
irreducible complexity – if the
removal of one thing stops it
from working then it suggests
this has been planned.
From Design
Moving on from Paley ‘like
effects have like causes’ This
can point to a designer.
Hume claims that the effects
aren’t the same therefore we
can’t point to the same causes.
This could point to
anthropomorphism.
Also the universe could be
infinitely old and so over time all
possible combinations of matter
will occur.
Big Bang - Some may say that
it is 13.8 billion yrs old.
Also actual infinites do not
exist because it is illogical so
the universe could not be
infinitely old.
Does a designer also have to be
a creator? Some may say there
is design but Hume would argue
that this does not necessarily
point to God as the creator.
The nature of God is
questioned. How can we look at
a finite world and point to an
infinite creator?
Some say that ‘God’ cannot be
the simplest explanation
because of a dysteleological
argument: J.S. Mill – Evil and
suffering.
Even if you point to a designer it
doesn’t have to be God (Hume)
Swinburne sees that this may
not point to ‘God’ and so
offers Occam’s (Ockham)
razor. Claiming that God is the
simplest explanation.
Probability: Inductive
argument. Is it more probable
that things were designed
than not and so God is the
best explanation. All scientific
explanations presuppose
‘laws’.
Problem of Evil
Theodicies: Irenaean,
Augustinian, Hick (Vale of Soul
making),
A.N.Whitehead and Process
theodicy - God is not
omnipotent He is part of the
created process.
God cannot be all powerful, all
knowing, all loving and yet allow
evil to exist.(In this section it is
important to be able to apply
this to life)
Is religion just perception?
No
Verificationism – If it is not
making truth statements then
it is meaningless - A.J.Ayer, if
a statement cannot be proven
empirically and it is not an
analytic statement then it is
meaningless.
Yes
Seeing as: Religious belief is a
‘seeing as’ ; perception and
interpretation. language games:
Religious belief is part of a ‘form
of life’. Part of religious life
therefore language games are
the spoken part of the ‘form of
life’. Wittgenstein explained
that we can only understand
language in terms of its context.
If you are outside of the
language game you will not
understand the meaning of the
language.
bliks, R.M Hare eg Lunatic don.
anti realist approach: we are
not talking about making
universal truth statements, just
subjective meaning.
Natural Theology – ‘Belief
that’ Religious belief is not
merely an attitude it is
revealed truth through special
and general revelation.