Paper 1- Philosophy

• Plato's Rationalism; Theory of The Forms and The Cave

  
  

  +There may be no empirical evidence BUT Plato thought evidence was just a false version of the form of good anyway (a shadow on the wall)

  -ARISTOTLE rejects Rationalism as we can gain empirical knowledge by studying the world through observable flux. His theories also influenced successful modern science.

  -ARISTOTLE says the forms are an unnecessary hypothesis (world works without) and Plato shouldn't discount evidence.
• Hierarchy of the Forms

  
  

  -ARISTOTLE says being a 'good person' is different to knowing good. He says Plato is too optimistic because he wants philosophers to rule.

  -NIETZSCHE calls the forms a 'dangerous error' as they reflect the philosophers desire for power. Plato proves this, as he used the form of the good to justify dictatorship.

  -ARISTOTLE says there cannot only be one form of good because our world is so complex and diverse.
• The Four Causes

  
  

  -CAMUS Universe is chaotic not perfect. We change purpose based on what we want.

  -RUSSELL Universe just is, no telos.

  +ARISTOTLE too perfect (e.g. teeth- molars ect) leads to Teleological.

  -DARWIN Evolution, the strong survive and weak die off so only good traits are continued.

  -HUME Fallacy of Composition (we cannot observe causation, we can't jump to conclusions and assume just because A=B once, this is always the case).
• Prime Mover

  
  

  -NEWTON's Gravity disproves this. Things continue to move unless met with an equal but opposite force (friction).

  -Aristotle was therefore wrong to think motions runs out, it just transfers into something new. We do not need a Prime Mover.

  +Science is always changing. DAWKINS says just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't so.
• Plato's View of the Soul

  -Hume claims we invent the idea of perfection ourselves. We take our idea of imperfect things we see as perfect. Just because we haven’t experienced perfection, doesn’t require the existence of a soul so, Plato’s argument for the soul seems to fail

  +It’s hard to really tell for sure whether Hume is right about how we got our idea of perfection. 

  -However, his theory is a simpler explanation. We can use Ockham’s razor to justify accepting Hume’s theory. This claims that we are justified in believing the simplest explanation.
• Aristotle's Materialist View of the Soul

  -FRANCIS BACON says modern science would reject the idea of formal causation (only material and efficient causation are scientifically valid).

  -Aristotle thought that rational thought must be our ‘form’ – but modern science would say rational thought is just the result of the material and efficient causation going on in brain processes. Rational thoughts are just neuronal activity.

  +Science doesn’t fully yet understand the brain, but it’s reasonable to expect that once it does we will have a full understanding of how the mind works. 
• Descartes's View of the Soul

  +Criticised for saying the mind isn't divisible, but they misunderstand what is meant (consciousness not feelings/memories).

  -Split Brain patients (epileptics have their hemispheres split- corpus callosum- and have split minds).

  -The Masked Man Fallacy shows that we can imagine the impossible (think the robber isn't your dad but it is) so this could be what Descartes is doing.
• Ryle's 'Category Error' Critique of Dualism

  -Ryle’s claim that the mind is not a ‘thing’ seems extreme. My mind ‘feels’ like a thing.

  -Ryle may not be a verificationist strictly speaking, but he still relies on their approach that it’s scientifically invalid to talk about the mind by itself. This has come to be regarded as an overly-restrictive extreme form of empiricism.

  -It may be difficult to scientifically analyse the mind, but that doesn’t justify reducing it to merely a set of behavioural dispositions.
• Dawkins' View of the Soul

  
  

  -CHALMERS says that there are two problems of consciousness; easy, hard. Easy is which side of brain does mental process, hard is what does actual consciousness. Science explains easy but not hard.

  +More logical that science will find an answer eventually.

  -If science understood how the brain works, his argument collapses. It is too fragile.
• The Cosmological Argument

  
  

  +AQUINAS 1st-3rd ways; 1-motion, 2-causation, 3-contingent (everything relies on another to exist so must have a necessary being).

  +LEIBNIZ everything has reason/relies on another.

  -HUME can't assume everything has a cause in universe, so universe must too. There is no start (infinite regress).

  -RUSSELL Universe just is.

  +HUME's critique of 'infinite regress' challenged by CRAIG. Infinity would make the present impossible as we're constantly going in the past ('Hilbert Hotel' infinite rooms so accepts infinite guests and is never full). Makes no sense.
• The Ontological Argument

  
  

  +God's existence proven by his own concept. ANSELM; "That than which nothing greater than can be conceived".

  -GAUNILO's Island.

  +ANSELM an island is contingent and perfection is flawed (subjective).

  +DESCARTES thinking God doesn't exist is like thinking of a triangle without 3 sides. You're thinking of something else. God is perfect so must exist.

  -KANT could just deny the very concept of a triangle. Existence is not a predicate so can't be a part of the concept.

  -AQUINAS; humans will never know the true concept of God.
• The Teleological Argument

  +AQUINAS' 5th Way=things have telos (a bow and arrow is nothing without it's archer).

  +PALEY watch analogy (if we were closer to the sun we'd die). BUT only an analogy.

  -Just by chance; the world isn't perfect (problem of evil), we have just adapted (DARWIN) weather disasters, extinction, disease. Can't rule out chance (if infinite monkeys typed on typewriters for infinite years, they'd eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare).

  -HUME anthropomorphizes God. Alike things have different causes (dry ice/fire=smoke).
• William James' Pluralism

  
  

  +STACE argues that it happens in so many cultures so there must be an objective cause.

  -Human brains are alike so it's more likely that we just all hallucinate in the same way. PERSINGER's 'God Helmet' proves that religious experiences are created in the brain and have nothing to do with higher power.

  -Whilst we cannot prove James' theory false, using Okham's Razor we should choose to deny it as the more likely theory is that the similarities of the human brain connect cultures, not religious experiences.
• James' Pragmatism

  -These experiences could just be hallucinations. DR RAMACHANDRAN said that St Paul could have just had epilepsy, which can cause hallucinations (like seizures).

  -James is wrong to say hallucinations can't be life changing, sometimes they can (e.g. Christian sees an angel).

  -Whilst he does attempt to provide evidence, ultimately we know hallucinations are just a projection of the imagination and using Ockham's Razor, it is more likely that we just hallucinate these experiences.
• Swinburne on Religious Experience

  -Even if he's right that RE is evidence for God, it still isn't enough to justify such a huge belief. GALE says 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

  -HUME objects to pluralism, he says all religions have RE, so they each disproves evidence of any other religions God. Therefore, eventually they all cancel each other out. (e.g. an experience of Allah means Jesus cannot exist).

  -FLEW says Swinburne is trying to 'fill a leaky bucket with water' he tries to provide evidence for an argument with too many flaws.
• Problem of Omnipotence DESCARTES

  -If do the impossible, it's possible. Makes no sense to say that God ‘could do’ the logically impossible, statement is self-defeating/undermines the concept.

  -Descartes’ theory undermines God's defence against the problem of evil. These rely on omnipotence, argue God is unable to remove evil without free will, deserved punishment or soul-making.

  -If God could do impossible, he can remove evil and no greater goods. Descartes’ strengthens MACKIE'S problem of evil, which shows an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God is logically incompatible with evil.
• Problem of omnipotence AQUINAS

  -Paradox of the stone MACKIE. Can God create a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it? Either way, there is at least one thing that God cannot do.

  +MAVRODES defends Aquinas. The stone actually is an impossible object. God could lift any stone. It is impossible for a stone to be too heavy for God.

  +So God cannot create the stone. This is successful because (although stone is not as obviously impossible as a four-sided triangle) it's impossible. Aquinas’ definition of omnipotence 'power to do any logically possible thing' isn't undermined by God's incapability.
• Problem of omnipotence VARDY

  -God ‘self-limiting’ is illogical. If God’s power is unlimited, even God shouldn’t limit it, would make him no longer omnipotent. Unlimited being can't limit itself, this would make him not God.

  -AQUINAS’ theory makes more sense of this. It is logically impossible for God to destroy himself, which is why he can't do so. 

  -Similarly, it makes more sense that God can't do impossible/interfere with free will– than God limiting himself. Vardy is left with puzzle of how an unlimited being could self-limit, Aquinas doesn't face this so is more convincing.
• Problem of Omniscience BOETHIUS

  -God’s omniscience doesn't force action, but they're set in stone. God knows results of FW, so can’t be FW.

  +Criticism fails- Boethius’ distinction between simple and conditional necessity. His special necessity works with FW. Imagine someone walking. Walking was necessary, but in the past they haven't walked, not always necessary.

  -Knowledge of future actions doesn’t undermine FW. God sees I choose X but it was FW. Seems unsatisfying because it sounds like I can’t do otherwise. ANSELM addresses this with the relationship between time and eternity.
• Problem of omniscience

  
  

  +ANSELM 4 dimensionist; God sees all in one moment

  -KENNY; eternal view of God makes no sense, time doesn't happen in 1 moment. Some events happen before others (parents birth first). If God sees all in 1 moment, it's incorrect, lacks omnipotence.

  +Train Theory (can see man on tracks with train approaching but too far away to do anything) BUT lacks omnipotence.

  -STUMP; Prayer is useless as if omniscient, he already knows/chosen what will happen.

  +AQUINAS we'll never understand God.
• Problem of omniscience SWINBURNE

  -ANSELM's argument says if God were within time he would be confined and limited which contradicts his omnipotence.

  +Swinburne tries to explain this by saying God knows us as a parent knows a child (knows us very well and predicts what we’re going to do next) but doesn’t know it for absolutely certain.

  -However, doesn’t align with the Bible's presentation of Jesus’ and God’s knowledge of future/biblical prophecy (Jesus knew Judas would betray him). The Bible presents God as knowing our future actions for certain, so Swinburne’s interpretation is invalid.
• Via Negative- PSUEDO DIONYSIUS

  +Avoids anthropomorphising (God in human terms) by ensuring we don't apply concepts we understand to God. We will never understand God, when we accept this we'll have "greater unity with God".

  -Bible describes God in positive terms. “God is love”. The Bible suggests 'via positiva' language (cataphatic way) is valid.

  +BUT MAIMODENIES says Bible written in limited human language so requires careful interpretation. Interpret it as referring to actions, not nature. (e.g. God's jealousy refers to jealous actions.) Doesn’t use positive language– only seems to.
• AQUINAS' Theory of Analogy

  +AQUINAS speaks about God Via Positiva (cataphatic) without contradicting doctrine- God is beyond understanding. Analogical language respects God’s transcendence/avoids anthropomorphizing. What God is LIKE, not IS.

  -The issue of bad qualities. What about bad qualities? Suggests God would share them (greed). Aquinas’ logic suggests God has a quality of hatred that is analogous to our quality but greater.

  +BUT this fails; bad human qualities come from OG sin. Likeness to God=pre-lapsarian. Only how first created in God’s likeness, not what's acquired in OG sin.
• TILLICH Symbolic Language

  +Bible contains symbolic/metaphorical elements. Psalms says the trees will sing the glory of God=symbolic. Creation story/Fall symbolize fragile/finite nature of humanity.

  -Biblical language not all symbolic. (e.g. Jesus born in Bethlehem literal fact).

  +BUT fails. T didn’t have problem with viewing Bible as a historical document with historical facts. He’s trying to explain the language religious people use on a daily basis – he’s saying that is symbolic. 

  -ALSTON heaven/hell factual=salvation concern. T goes too far in reducing to symbols symbolic only sometimes.
• Verificationism- AYER

  -HICK; eschatological verificationism. Religious language is empirically verifiable (afterlife). Parable of the celestial city– two travellers on a road (life), one believes a celestial city (afterlife) is at the end, the other doesn’t. When they reach the end they know who's right. God is verifiable in principle.

  +However– if there is no afterlife, we won’t know. If death is annihilation there won’t be a moment of realisation of that. So – Hick has only shown that religious language is possibly verifiable in principle, but not actually verifiable in principle.
• Falsificationism

  -MITCHELL argues Flew characterised religious belief as irrationally blind to evidence against it. However, religious people accept there's evidence against (problem of evil). Story of the partizan; had faith that a stranger was their leader even when seeing them fight for other side. Analogy for faith in God despite evil.

  +This isn't enough to be falsifiable (don't just acknowledge there's some evidence, but what, were we to discover, would completely disprove). Religious can't do that– so it's unfalsifiable/meaningless as Flew argued.
• Non Cognitive Approach- HARE

  -Most religious would reject Hare. They claim they aren’t just expressing their personal feelings/attitudes (expressing cognitive belief for god). E.g. Aquinas’ cosmological argument– looks like logical argument; can say it’s false, but hard to argue that it’s just an expression of his feelings/attitudes. Aquinas has cognitive belief for god.

  +Religious people might think they are describing reality– but arguably they are only describing their reality as an expression of their own personal feelings and attitudes (their Blik).
• Language Games- WITTGENSTEIN

  -Says religion/science are totally different LGs. Issue is, they overlap (natural theology). (e.g. some religious scientists think science proves God’s existence. POLKINGHORNE/SWINBURNE modern teleological argument). Wittgensttein reduces religious meaning to pure faith, excluding role reason/natural theology.

  +Most scientists reject scientific evidence, (P/S isn't genuine science). Such language isn't scientific LG. Polkinghorne hasn't fused religious/scientific LG. He is either playing RLG or created new LG. His arguments aren't related to SLG. So, no issue.
• Using Aquinas (AQ) to Criticize Wittgenstein (W)

  -Most religious people wouldn't accept RL if just a social game. AQ didn’t write cosmo argument as a game. He believes God exists(scientific sense). We can say he's scientifically wrong– but can’t say he doesn’t believe God (scientific way). So, AQ would defend cognitivism of RL against Wittgenstein (non-cog).

  +Defend W; AQ had religious interpretation of reality. Thought he was describing reality with cosmo argument, but was only religious view of reality in RLG that he's describing. (SLG wouldn’t recognise concepts like ‘necessary being’).
• Empririsism

  
  

  -PLATO/ARISTOTLE

  +LOCKE Reason can't give real knowledge, we don't learn anything significant that we didn't already know (Socrates is a man/mortal).

  -PLATO Sense experience isn't reliable.

  -DESCARTES Could be a dream/hallucination.

  +RUSSELL No reason to distrust our senses, normally reliable.

  -HUME Inductive Issue; we can't assume because A=B once, this will always be the case.

  -LEIBNIZ Things will not always happen in the same way, we cannot generalize ever.
• Religious Experience

  • JAMES "Feelings, acts and experiences" with the "divine". 4 Characteristics; Passive, Ineffable, Noetic, Transient.
  • SWINBURNE 5 Types; Public Ordinary, Public Extraordinary, Private Describable, Private Indescribable, Non Specific.
  • OTTO Numinous experiences (feel presence).
  • +SWINBURNE Principles; Credulity=true until proven false, Testimony=people are usually truthful.
  • -PERSINGER'S God Helmet
  • -FREUD we have an unconscious desire for a father to protect us from our fear of death.
  • -We should only believe what we've experienced.
• Problem of Evil

  • -Logical Problem= The Triad.
  • -Hume; God can't exist, there's too much evil. We've simply adapted to live in a world full of evil DARWIN.
  • +AUGUSTINE Free Will is the only way to have good as a world without it would be worse. Humans cause the evil, not God. BUT this only addresses moral evils.
  • +HICK 'soul making theodicy' our time on earth "gives us a robust texture" needed to better us as people. We need pain to understand pleasure (feeling warm wouldn't feel good if we didn't know cold).
  • -Evidential Problem= Why so much? What good can come from disease, genocide, rape.