Philosophy of Religion
Foundation
Plato and Aristotle
• Analogy of the Cave
• Concept of the Forms, especially the Form of
the Good
• Concept of Body/Soul distinction
 Ideas about Cause and Purpose in
relation to God
 Concept of Body/Soul distinction
 Aristotle on the Forms
The Nature of God
• i.e. what is God like?
• Examining the attributes of the JC concept
of God
• Need to define the kind of being we’re
talking about in order to go on to enquire
whether any such being exists
We have established so far:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Creator
Sustainer
Personal
Transcendent
Self-existent
Eternal
Incorporeal
•Omnipotent
•Omniscient
•Omnipresent
•All loving
•Perfectly good
For the exam you need to know:
1. The attributes
2. In more detail:
a) The concept of God as Creator.
Genesis 1-3.
b) The goodness of God. Exodus 20
c) God’s activity in the world and the
concept of miracle. Joshua 10:1-15
Assessment
K and U =
• Define
• Describe
• Examine
• Explain
• Identify
• Outline
• Select
E=
• Detailed critical
assessment
The Existence of God
• Theism = the belief in a personal diety, creator
of everything that exists and who is distinct from
that creation
• A priori = prior to experience, an argument
starting from a definition of God, not experience.
The argument is that by understanding the
definition, God is proved to exist.
• A posteriori = from experience, an argument
based on sensory experience and experiential
evidence
• There are five classical theistic proofs for
the existence of God
• Four of the theistic proofs attempt to
demonstrate the existence of God from
some observation or experience of the
universe- a posterior argument
• These are as follows:
The Cosmological Argument
• An argument which attempts to infer the
existence of God from the existence of the
cosmos or the phenomenon within it.
• It is an argument based on cause and effect.
• Thomas Aquinas 1273
• Frederick Copleston 1907-94
• ObjectionsDavid Hume 1711-76
Bertrand Russell 1872-1970
The Teleological Argument
• An argument which infers a designer from the
occurrence of order and regularity in the world.
This evidence points to a designer
• Aquinas’ Five Ways 1273
• William Paley 1743-1805
• The Anthropic Principle- F.R. Tennant 1930
• ChallengesHume 1779
John Stuart Mill 1806-73
Darwin 1809-82
The Moral Argument
• An argument infers God as the
explanation for moral consciousness, or
the guarantor for the highest good
• God must exist to ensure that all can
achieve that which they are morally
required to pursue. It is illogical to be
required to seek an impossible end.
God’s existence is morally necessary.
• Aquinas’ Fourth Way
• Kant’s Moral Argument 1785, 1788, 1797
• Other versionsCardinal Newman 1870
Robert Adams 1987
• ChallengesSigmund Freud 1856-1939
Richard Swinburne 1979
Ayer and Nietzsche
The Religious Experience Argument
• An argument which sees God as the best
explanation for experiences that people
claim are beyond the normal
• Rudolph Otto 1936
• William James 1902
• Swinburne 1979
• ChallengesFreud 1927
Karl Marx 1844
The Ontological Argument
• This fifth argument is in contrast to the
others. It is a priori. This argument is not
verified by experience. It concludes that
God’s definition entails his existence, i.e.
for God to be God, he must exist.
• Ontological literally means ‘concerned
with being’
St. Anselm 1033-1109
• Proslogion chapters 2-3
• Anselm’s argument is a reductio ad
absurdum argument, an argument that
makes a proof by showing that the
opposite cannot possibly be true.
• A priori argument starting from a definition
of God, not experience
• The argument is that by understanding the
definition God is proved to exist
First Form
• Anselm says: “God is that than which
nothing greater can be conceived.”
• Something that exists in reality is greater
than something that exists only in the
mind
• In other words, if it is the greatest, then it
must be something more than merely
existing in people’s thoughts. We can
think of something greater than a mere
idea.
• If God is the greatest, he must really exist
separately from people’s thoughts. He must
exist actually, in reality.
Confused?
As a formal deductive argument, it goes like this:
 God is the greatest possible being (nothing
greater can be conceived)
 If God exists in the mind alone (only as an idea)
then a greater being could be imagined to exist
both in the mind and in reality
 This being would then be greater than God
 Thus, God cannot exist only as an idea in the
mind. Therefore God exists both in the mind
(as an idea) and in reality.
In summary
• It is self-contradictory to be able to
conceive of something that which nothing
greater can be thought and yet to deny
that that something exists.
Second Form
• So far Anselm has suggested a proof for
God’s existence. However, for God to be
God there must be more to him than that
he simply ‘exists’ (after all, that would
make God fundamentally similar to
ourselves).
• In the next stage of Anselm’s argument
therefore, he attempts to demonstrate that
God’s existence is necessary
What does he mean by
‘necessary’?
• It is impossible to conceive of God as not
existing.
• He has necessary existence.
• He could not not be.
• This state is greater than a being who
comes and goes out of existence.
As a deductive argument
it is:
• God is the greatest possible being
(nothing greater can be conceived)
• It is greater to be a necessary being
(cannot not be) than a contingent being
(can cease to exist)
• If God exists only as a contingent being he
can therefore be imagined not to exist.
Then a greater being could be imagined
that cannot be conceived not to exist
• This being would then be greater than
God
• God is therefore a necessary being
• Therefore God must exist in reality
• In summary:
God must be a necessary being, i.e. he cannot not
exist
Necessary here means logical necessity
It would be a logical contradiction to claim that God
does not exist since any being who has the
property of necessary existence could not fail to
exist
• The OA claims to reveal that inherent in
the concept of God is necessary existence
• When you come to analyse and examine
the ‘concept’ it becomes clear that
existence is part of the concept
• Such propositions are called ‘analytic’
• This is a statement where the predicate is
contained in the subject
• The predicate is that which is said about
the subject
• E.g. of an analytic sentence is ‘all
bachelors are single’
• All bachelors = subject
• Being single = predicate
• An analytic statement does not contain
any new information but clarifies the term
• Analytic statements can be true or false
• The proposition ‘all bachelors are married’
is analytic but false
• It is analytic because the married state is
part of the concept of bachelor
• The way to decide if it is true or false is by
considering the meaning of the words
• ‘The cat sat on the mat’ is not an analytic
statement since there is nothing in the
analysis of the concept of ‘cat’ that
contains the idea of ‘sitting on the mat’
• This is synthetic, i.e. the truth value of the
statement, whether it is true or false, is
determined by empirical evidence.
Descartes 1596-1650
• Regarded as the founder of modern
philosophy
• In Meditations he put forward his
arguments for a unified and certain body
of human knowledge
• He broke free from the dogma of Aristotle
and supported instead
the new age of
science
• He favoured independent enquiry from
first principles and asserted only that
which could be known to be certain
• A crucial part of his argument involved the
existence of God as a guarantor for the
certainty that the external world exists
• The argument he uses is a form of the
ontological argument:
God, a supremely perfect being, has
all perfections
Existence is a perfection
Therefore God, a supreme perfect
being, exists
• In Meditation 5 Descartes argued:
There are some qualities that an object
necessarily has or it can’t be that object
E.g. a triangle must have three angles
adding up to 180°
The notion of a hill demands the idea of a
valley
Existence cannot be separated from the
concept of God
Existence, singularity and perfection, are
God’s characteristics. In fact, God’s
essence is existence. If something is
supremely perfect and if existence is a
perfection, God by definition exists.
Modern Versions
• Norman Malcolm 1960 and Charles
Hartshorne 1962 centre their arguments
on the idea of necessary existence
• If God does not exist then God cannot
come into existence as that would require
another force which would mean that God
was limited and could not be God at all
• If God does exist God cannot have come
into existence nor cease
• God’s existence is either impossible or
necessary
• It can only be impossible if the idea of God
is logically absurd
• Assuming that it is not, then God
necessarily exists
Alvin Plantinga 1974
• Develops the idea of infinite possible worlds
• In a possible world a maximally great being
could exist (omnipotent, omniscient, morally
perfect)
• For there to be a maximally great being he
would have to exist in all possible worlds so a
maximally great being exists
(this argument only proves possibility, not actuality)
Criticisms of the OA
• Gaunilo’s challenge on behalf of the fool
11th century (and Anselm’s reply)
• Gaunilo, a monk, argued if someone were
to describe to you a ‘most perfect island’,
lost somewhere and untouched by man,
and then state that it must exist because
of it’s perfection, you would be a fool to
believe him.
• He is trying to criticise the process by
which Anselm moves from his definition of
God to his suggestion of God’s existence
• Gaunilo’s criticism is not valid in this
context. Anselm never compares things of
a like kind above.
• He speaks of God ‘that than which nothing
greater can be conceived’
• Gaunilo, on the other hand, occupies
himself with a comparison between
islands
• Anselm replied that God is a special case
• There may be a thing greater than a
perfect island, but not God
• Only God has all the perfections and so
the argument can only apply to God
Immanuel Kant 1724-1804
• Kant opposed Descartes’ version of the
argument
• He objects to Descartes’ claim that
denying God’s existence is the same as
denying a triangle has three sides, which
is contradictory
• He states that if one dismisses the idea of
the three sides (predicate) and that of the
triangle itself (subject), one is left with no
contradiction
• He is saying you can define a thing in any
way that you want but whether or not
anything matches that definition in reality
is another question all together
• Kant feels he has dealt with Descartes’
notion of existence as a predicate
• Kant argues that we can only know the
world through our experience of it
• We cannot know any aspects of existence
beyond our experience
• Experience is not a predicate (an attribute
or quality) of perfection that a thing can
lack
• Existence is the thing and all its attributes
• Therefore Kant raises this second
objection to deal with Anselm
• Kant states that existence is not predicate,
e.g. x exists says nothing about x (e.g. is
x female, is x tall, etc.)
• Kant says a predicate must give us
information about x
• The statement ‘x is’ does not
Bertrand Russell
• 20th century philosopher
• Claims that Anselm uses the word exist
incorrectly
• Existence cannot be a predicate, if it were
we could construct this argument:
Men exist.
Santa Claus is a man.
Therefore Santa Claus exists.
Summary
• Theistic a priori argument
• Two principle contributors to the classical
argument:
St Anselm of Canterbury (1st and
2nd Form)
Rene Descartes
Modern Versions
• Norman Malcolm (1911-1990)
• Alvin Plantinga (1932- )
Objectors
• Gaunilo (11th century) and
Anselm’s reply
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Gottlob Frege
• Bertrand Russell
• Brian Davis
Criticisms of the OA
•
•
•
•
Definition of God
Logical tricks
Existence is not a great-making quality
You cannot have an analytic existential
proposition
• You cannot define things into existence
• It is criticised as not an argument at all,
but a statement of belief for those who
believe in the first place.
What you need to do now
Read
Read
Read
Read
Read
Read
What ?
• Philosophy of Religion for A LevelJordan, Lockyer, Tate
• Philosophy of ReligionPeter Cole
• Philosophy of ReligionJohn Hick
• Philosophy of ReligionC. Stephen Evans
• The Puzzle of GodPeter Vardy
• Questions About GodPatrick J. Clarke
• Handouts
To Buy
1. Philosophy of Religion for A Level OCR
edition
Jordan, Lockyer, Tate
Nelson Thornes
ISBN 0-7487-8078-5
www.nelsonthornes.com
2. Study Guide- Robert A. Bowie
ISBN 0-7487-8081-5
Essay
• Due in…………………….
a) Explain the traditional forms of the
ontological argument put forward by
Anselm and Descartes (33).
b) ‘The criticisms presented by Gaunilo and
Kant successfully reject these
arguments.’ Discuss (17).