cosmological argument essay ocr

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument usually refers to the presence of the cosmos as evidence for God instead of the nature of the cosmos (design arguments). It simply asks: why is there something instead of nothing?

Three of Aquinas' five ways

• The classic formulations of the cosmological argument can be found in the first three of Aquinas’ five ways. But these have their roots in Aristotelian philosophy.

Aquinas’ first way

• An acorn can change into an oak.
• A stick is potentially on fire and only becomes actually on fire when an actual flame is applied to it.
• Things cannot move themselves from a state of potential to actual. This means everything requires something else to move it. But you must have a first mover that is not moved itself to cause the movement of other things. If you did not, there would be no explanation for the movement of the things which are currently in motion because you cannot keep going back forever in the chain of movement.
• The first mover that imparts motion onto other things without being moved itself is called God.

Aquinas' second way

• All things are caused by other things.
• Nothing can be the cause of itself.
• You cannot keep going back in the series of causes forever, or you would have no things now – if there was no initial cause, there could not be other causes.
• There must be a first cause, itself uncaused, which began the causes.
• This is what people call God.

Aquinas' third way

• All things can possibly not exist (all things are contingent).
• If time is infinite, there must have been a point when there was nothing.
• If there was nothing once, there would be nothing now.
• There must be something that is necessary (impossible not to exist).
• Everything that is necessary is either caused by another necessary thing or not.
• You cannot have an infinite series of such causes.
• There must be an uncaused necessary being.

Criticisms of Aquinas' three ways

• Hume – we have no experience of universes being made, so we cannot claim to know what caused this one.
• It may be that an infinite regress is possible. This relates to the oscillating universe hypothesis - our universe alternates between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, ours can be the first of many possible universes).
• It may be that the universe itself is necessary.
• Why assume that the necessary thing is a being, or even a being called God?

1 Philosophy of Religion

1.1 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Plato

1.1.1 Plato's Understanding of Reality

1.1.2 Plato's Theory of Forms

1.1.3 Plato's Analogy of the Cave

1.1.4 The Purpose of Plato's Analogy of the Cave

1.1.5 Evaluation of Plato's Theories

1.2 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Aristotle

1.2.1 Aristotle's Understanding of Reality

1.2.2 Aristotle's Four Causes

1.2.3 Aristotle's Prime Mover

1.3 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Soul, Mind, Body

1.3.1 Plato & Aristotle's Views of the Soul

1.3.2 Metaphysics of Consciousness

1.3.3 Materialism - Ryle’s Philosophical Behaviourism

1.3.4 Materialism - Identity Theory

1.4 The Existence of God - Arguments from Observation

1.4.1 The Teleological Argument - Aquinas' Fifth Way

1.4.2 The Teleological Argument - Paley & Evolution

1.4.3 The Cosmological Argument

1.4.4 Hume's Criticisms: Teleological & Cosmological

1.5 The Existence of God - Arguments from Reason

1.5.1 The Ontological Argument

1.5.2 Criticisms of the Ontological Argument

1.6 Religious Experience

1.6.1 Introduction to Religious Experience

1.6.2 Mystical Experience

1.6.3 Conversion Experience

1.6.4 Understanding Religious Experience

1.6.5 Issues Relating to Religious Experience - Validity

1.6.6 Issues Relating to Religious Experiences - People

1.7 The Problem of Evil

1.7.1 Presentations of the Problems of Evil

1.7.2 Discussion Points -

1.8 The Nature & Attributes of God

1.8.1 Omnipotence

1.8.2 Omniscience

1.8.3 Boethius - Divine Knowledge, Free Will & Eternity

1.8.4 (Omni)benevolence

1.8.5 Eternity & Free Will

1.9 Religious Language: Negative, Analogical, Symbolic

1.9.1 Apophatic & Cataphatic Way

1.9.2 Symbol

1.9.3 Discussion Points: Religious Language

1.10 Religious Language: 20th Century Perspective

1.10.1 Logical Positivism & Verification Principle

1.10.2 Wittgenstein

1.10.3 Falsification Symposium: Flew & Hare

1.10.4 Falsification Symposium: Mitchell

1.10.5 Discussion Points: Verification & Falsification

1.10.6 Discussion Points: Aquinas vs Wittgenstein

2 Religion & Ethics

2.1 Natural Law

2.1.1 St Thomas Aquinas - Telos & Four Tiers of Law

2.1.2 St Thomas Aquinas - Precepts

2.1.3 St Thomas Aquinas - Real & Apparent Goods

2.1.4 Discussion Points - Natural Law & Doing Good

2.1.5 Discussion Points - Telos & Double Effect Doctrine

2.2 Situation Ethics

2.2.1 Fletcher's Situation Ethics

2.2.2 Fletcher's Concept of Conscience

2.2.3 Discussion Points: Moral Decision-Making

2.2.4 Discussion Points - Agape

2.3 Kantian Ethics

2.3.1 Introduction to Kantian Ethics & Duty

2.3.2 Hypothetical & Categorical Imperative

2.3.3 Summum Bonum & Three Postulates

2.3.4 Discussion Points: Kantian Ethics

2.4 Utilitarianism

2.4.1 The Utility Principle

2.4.2 Act & Rule Utilitarianism

2.4.3 Discussion Points: Utilitarianism

2.5 Euthanasia

2.5.1 Key Concepts for Euthanasia Debates

2.5.2 Discussion Points: Natural Law & Situation Ethics

2.5.3 Discussion Points: Sanctity of Life

2.5.4 Discussion Points: Autonomy & Medical Intervention

2.6 Business Ethics

2.6.1 Corporate Social Responsibility & Whistle-Blowing

2.6.2 Good Ethics & Globalisation

2.6.3 Discussion Points: Utilitarianism & Kantian Ethics

2.6.4 Discussion Points: CSR, Globalisation & Capitalism

3 Developments in Christian Thought

3.1 Saint Augustine's Teachings

3.1.1 Human Nature

3.1.2 Original Sin & God's Grace

3.2 Death & the Afterlife

3.2.1 Heaven, Hell, & Purgatory

3.2.2 Different Interpretations of the Afterlife

3.2.3 Election

3.2.4 The Final Judgement

3.2.5 Discussion Points: Heaven, Hell & Purgatory

3.3 Knowledge of God's Existence

3.3.1 Natural Knowledge

3.3.2 Revealed Knowledge in Faith, Grace, & Jesus Christ

3.3.3 Revealed Knowledge in the Bible & Church

3.3.4 Discussion Points: Reason & Belief in God

3.3.5 Discussion Points: The Fall & Trust in God

3.4 The Person of Jesus Christ

3.4.1 Jesus Christ’s Authority as the Son of God

3.4.2 Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Teacher of Wisdom

3.4.3 Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Liberator

3.5 Christian Moral Principles

3.5.1 The Bible & Love

3.5.2 Bible, Church & Reason

3.5.3 Discussion Points: Christian Ethics

3.5.4 Discussion Points: Love & the Bible

3.6 Christian Moral Action

3.6.1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer & the Confessing Church

3.6.2 Bonhoeffer & Civil Disobedience

3.6.3 Bonhoeffer's Teaching on Ethics as Action

3.6.4 Discussion Points: Civil Disobedience & Bonhoeffer

3.7 Development - Pluralism & Theology

3.7.1 Pluralism & Theology: Exclusivism & Inclusivism

3.7.2 Pluralism & Theology: Pluralism

3.7.3 Discussion Points: Salvation

3.7.4 Discussion Points: Pluralism Undermining Beliefs

3.8 Development - Pluralism & Society

3.8.1 Development of Multi-Faith Societies

3.8.2 Responses to Inter-Faith Dialogue

3.8.3 The Scriptural Reasoning Movement

3.8.4 Discussion Points: Social Cohesion & Scripture

3.8.5 Discussion Points: Conversion

3.9 Gender & Society

3.9.1 Waves of Feminism

3.9.2 Traditional Christian Views on Gender Roles

3.9.3 Christian Views on Gender Roles & Family

3.9.4 Discussion Points: Secular Views of Gender

3.9.5 Discussion Points: Motherhood & Family

3.10 Gender & Theology

3.10.1 Rosemary Radford Ruether

3.10.2 Mary Daly

3.10.3 Discussion Points: Ruether & Daly

3.10.4 Discussion Points: Male Saviour & Female God

3.11 Challenges

3.11.1 Secularism - Sigmund Freud

3.11.2 Secularism - Richard Dawkins

3.11.3 Christianity & Public Life

3.11.4 Discussion Points: Spiritual Values

3.11.5 Discussion Points: Social Values & Opportunities

3.11.6 Karl Marx

3.11.7 Liberation Theology

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

The Teleological Argument - Paley & Evolution

Hume's Criticisms: Teleological & Cosmological

Cosmological Argument

The basics of cosmological argument.

• The Cosmological Argument is a collection of arguments that suggest the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists.
• Thomas Aquinas was a prominent theologian who put forward five ways (Quinque viae) to demonstrate the existence of God, three of which can be classified as ‘cosmological’ in nature.
• The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori , dependant on observation and experience, to show it is likely that God is the entity that caused the universe to exist.

Types of Cosmological Argument

• The Argument from Contingency , which asserts that, since everything that exists (or has ever existed) could possibly not exist, there must be something that must exist – this something is what we call God.
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument , which argues that everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause which is God.
• The Argument from Sufficient Reason , also from Aquinas, argues that everything must have a sufficient reason to exist or occur, and God is the ultimate adequate explanation for all existence.

Challenges to Cosmological Argument

• David Hume challenged the Argument from Contingency by suggesting infinite regress. Who caused God? If everything has a cause then what caused God, and what caused the first cause of God, and so on infinitely backwards. He also argued that we have no experience of universe-making to be able to make claims about the cause of the universe.
• Kant critiqued the argument stating that the concept of cause and effect cannot be applied outside our familiar word, certainly not to the universe.
• Richard Dawkins , a proponent of scientific atheism, holds that the existence of a complex universe does not necessitate a creator.
• Most modern scientists, cosmologists and physicists argue for a self-contained, uncaused universe, citing theories like quantum mechanics and the multiverse theory .

Strengths and Critiques of Cosmological Argument

• The strength of the Cosmological Argument relies on its simple logic and adherence to empiricism. It uses everyday experiences’ concept of cause and effect and is intuitively appealing.
• However, the Cosmological Argument has been widely criticised due to its basis in metaphysical speculation and for making grand claims about the nature of reality based on limited human perception and understanding. The argument is also challenged for its leap of faith from ‘cause’ to God.

Cosmological Argument

The key question asked by the cosmological argument is ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?'

The argument works from our experience of the universe towards the existence of God - it states that we can observe the universe and the very fact that things exist and therefore must conclude that God exists.

However, we will not find the reasons for the universe within the universe - God is to be seen as an external being.

St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a well-known monk, philosopher and theologian.

Aquinas offered five ways to prove the existence of God, of which the first three are forms of the cosmological argument - arguments from motion, cause and contingency.

Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle's approach to causation.

This is the argument from motion or change (the two terms are equivalent as if you move from A to B then you have changed).

• All things are in a state of change.
• Everything is a secondary mover.
• If all things are secondary movers then there must be infinite regress.
• If the above is correct then there is no Prime Mover. Without a Prime Mover, there can be no secondary movers, therefore, the point above is false as infinite regress is impossible.  (The reductio ad absurdum technique.)
• Therefore, there must be a prime mover. This we call "God".

"The chain of movers cannot go on to infinity because then there would be no first mover and consequently no other mover ." Aquinas, Summa Theologica

This is the argument from causation .

• There is an order of efficient causes.
• No efficient cause can cause itself.
• If there is infinite regress then there is no First Cause.
• If the point above is true then there can be no subsequent causes.  Infinite regress is impossible.  (The reductio ad absurdum technique.)
• Therefore there must be a first cause of everything. This we call "God".

Criticisms of the First and Second Ways

• Aquinas does not explain why there cannot only be secondary causes.
• Some argue he commits the Infinite Regress Fallacy by saying that infinite regress is wrong. In nature around us, we have infinite series, so why shouldn't nature itself be an infinite series?
• It is too large a leap from First Cause or Prime Mover to God. (However the argument doesn't prove or set out to prove the God of Classical Theism.)
• Why should we make God the exception? Why not make the universe the exception?
• Who made God - why does God have to be the First Cause?
• The argument only works with an exception, therefore everything is a secondary mover except God, which is a contradiction. (But the very nature of the argument shows that there must be a contradiction because without a First Cause, nothing can exist.)
• Quantum Physics suggests that at a sub-atomic level there may be random movement and there exist things that do not have causes themselves.

This is the argument from contingency and necessity .

A contingent being is one that relies on something else for its existence.  A necessary being relies on nothing else for its existence.

• (1)   Things are contingent.
• (2)   If everything is contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed.
• (3)   Therefore (using reductio ad absurdum ) nothing can come from nothing.
• (4)   Therefore, there must be a necessary being.
• (5)   Every necessary being must have a cause either inside or outside of itself.
• (6)   Imagine every necessary being had a cause outside itself.
• (7)   Therefore (using reductio ad absurdum ) if (6) is true, then there is no ultimate cause of necessity.
• (8)   Therefore, there must be a necessary being which causes and contains all other necessary and contingent beings. This being we call "God".

Criticisms of the Third Way

• Why can't there be overlapping contingent beings going back to infinity?  Also, causes may have more than one effect. The jump from (1) to (2) is a fallacy.
• There is no sense in which it proves the God of Classical Theism.
• It assumes that infinite regress is impossible.
• Some might say it is meaningless to ask what caused the universe.

Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

• "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on without out. It were better therefore never to look beyond the present material world." Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Hume's point is that we must not look beyond this world to anything metaphysical - The answers are in this world, otherwise we will end up going back to infinity.

• The Fallacy of Composition . Hume says that Aquinas has made a mistake in the way this argument was put together. Just because there is a common property to a group doesn't mean that property must apply to the group. Just because every event in a series has a cause, doesn't mean the series itself has a cause.
• Hume also said that we have no experience of a universe being created and so we cannot talk meaningfully about it.
• Hume rejected the idea of necessary existence - every being, according to Hume is contingent.
• Hume questions why motion needs to have a starting point - in other words why infinite regression is impossible. Surely if there can be an understanding of a prime mover there can be an understanding of perpetual motion?

Essay: Cosmological Argument

February 26, 2013.

Evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for Proving God Exists. (40)

This essay, of A grade standard, has been submitted by a student. PB

The Cosmological argument is an argument put forward by the Christian Philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in an attempt to prove God’s existence. However, it is important to take into account that Aquinas already had a strong belief in God when putting this theory forward in his Summa Theologiae, meaning that instead of trying to prove God’s existence, he was more trying to solidify his already established faith based on reason through looking at the cause of the Universe which Aquinas claims must be God.

In Summa Theolgiae, Aquinas attempts to logically prove God’s existence in his ‘Five Ways’ though the first three are the ones which are predominantly sited when referring to the argument. The first of these give ways make similar points based on the idea that infinite regression is not possible; there must have been one thing that started off everything that happened. Aquinas argues that this must be God. The first way is an argument for an ‘Unmoved Mover’. Here, Aquinas claims that everything in the world is in a constant state of change or ‘motion.’ He goes on to argue that something cannot be both potentially and actually the same thing; a cup of boiling tea could not be both hot and potentially hot, though it could be potentially cold and actually hot. By this logic, everything which is ‘in a state of movement’ must have been put into this state by a different object. Because of Aquinas’ rejection of the possibility of infinite regression, this means that there must have been a ‘first mover’ who is ‘put into motion by no other.’ This is, by Aquinas’ logic.

The second way makes a very similar point and is an argument for an ‘Uncaused Cause.’ Aquinas starts off by stating that nothing can be an efficient cause of itself; everything is caused by something else. The efficient causes of a thing follow in order meaning that there was a first cause which caused a second cause and so on and so forth. Once again, because Aquinas rejects the possibility of infinite regression, this means that ‘it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God.’ Both of these two ways are heavily influenced by Aristotle’s idea of a prime mover. However, Aquinas does not mean to argue that God is merely the being that started off the chain of events which lead to cause the universe and everything in it. He is rather claiming that he must still exist; Coppleston used the example of winding up a pocket watch every night rather than knocking over the first domino in a chain.

These two ways leave Aquinas’ argument open for several criticisms, as well as showing some strength. One such strength is the way in which it is a satisfying argument for Humans to understand. It is true that, by human, a posteriori logic, things must indeed have a cause which exists outside its own essence or self. We as humans were caused by our parents and the universe was caused by the big bang. However, if the big bang required matter to take place, then that matter, logically, had to have been caused by something and put into the correct environment for the event to take place. Aquinas argues that this causer must have been God.

However, it is possible to severely weaken Aquinas’ argument if you argue that it is in fact possible to have an infinite chain of regression. Seeing as the argument is hinged upon the assumption that this is impossible, disregarding this assumption therefore dramatically reduces the strength of the argument. The philosopher David Hume questioned the very notion of cause and effect. He argued that we make assumptions about the relationship between Cause and Effect which are by no means necessarily true. While it is true that, according to human logic, infinite regression does not seem logical, in mathematics, it is possible to have an infinite series of regression; numbers can keep increasing or decreasing in size infinitely, thereby proving that infinite regression is entirely possible. Using a posteriori knowledge, it may seem apparent that every effect has a cause. However, if you use a priori knowledge, you could easily reason that, not everything which exists has a cause. It is impossible to claim that this is analytically true. Hume would argue that the universe is just a ‘brute fact’; it just is and has no cause. This completely undermines Aquinas’ first two ways.

The Fallacy of Composition is another weakness of Aquinas’ first two ways which David Hume outlines and uses to weaken the Cosmological Argument. While it may indeed be true that everything in the universe does have a cause, it does not necessarily mean that the universe itself has a cause; the fact that everything which humans can observe can be explained by a precedent cause, this doesn’t mean that the universe can be explained in the same way. The atheistic philosopher Betrand Russell agrees with this point and claims that while all humans have mothers, ‘Obviously, the human race hasn’t a mother, that’s a different logical sphere’ in his book Why I Am Not a Christian.

However, Aquinas’ argument can be re-strengthened through Anscombe’s criticism of Hume’s criticism in ‘Whatever Has a Beginning of Existence Must Have a Cause’: Hume’s Argument Exposed. In this work, Anscombe argues that while it possible to imagine something coming into existence without a cause, this does not mean that it is ‘possible to suppose “without contradiction of absurdity”’ that this is the case. For example, though it may be possible to imagine a magician pulling a rabbit out of a magician’s hat without having a cause of its existence, this does not mean that it is logical to think that it is possible. By this logic, while it is possible imagining the universe coming into existence without a cause, that does not mean that it is logical or reasonable to think so.

Aquinas goes on to attempt to further strengthen his Cosmological Argument in his Third Way: The Argument from Contingency. In this way, Aquinas argues that all things which exist in nature are contingent; they did not exist, in the future will cease to exist and, as well as this, it is possible for them never to have come into existence. Aquinas believed that, using this logic, the fact that everything used to not exist must mean that there was a time when nothing at all existed because there would be nothing to bring anything else into existence. Therefore, ‘there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.’ Aquinas goes on to state that, because he believes infinite regression to be impossible, there must be ‘some being having of itself its own necessity…causing in others their necessity’ which he argues is God. In other words, seeing as how there was once a time when nothing contingent existed, there must have been a non-contingent, necessary being which is necessary in itself to cause the existence of contingent things.

This third way could be argued to be either strong or weak. One strength which the argument holds is that, as with the first two ways, this argument appeals strongly to human reason and logic, leading it to be widely accepted by empiricists. In accordance with human logic, things in existence are indeed caused by other things; we are made by our parents, mountains are made by tectonic plate movement etc. Aquinas draws on this logic when putting forward his third way, meaning that it is a fairly satisfying argument.

However, there are also several strengths which are pointed out by philosophers including Immanuel Kant and J.L. Mackie. Kant’s criticism lies in his rejection of the concept of necessary existence. He entirely rejects the idea of the existence of a subject being necessary; existence could not possibly be a defining predicate of a sunject as it adds nothing to the definition of the subject. In other words, nothing can be necessary. However, this criticism could be weakened by arguing that Kant is just rehashing his criticism of the Ontological differences despite the obvious differences in the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments (Ontological Argument is a priori, Cosmological argument is a posteriori).

Another weakness of the Cosmological Argument is put forward by J.L. Mackie in his The Miracle of Theism. Mackie accepts the logic behind Aquinas’ third way up until the point when he claims that the cause of all contingent objects must be a necessary being. While Aquinas argues that all contingent things whose essence does not include existence must rely on a necessary being to exist, Mackie retorts by claiming that this is not necessarily true; contingent beings could be argued, by Aquinas’ logic, to have been ultimately caused by some necessary stock of matter which has always existed and always will. This severely undermines Aquinas’ third way by proving that Aquinas’ logic has not actually managed to prove the necessity of a Christian God, but rather just some necessary thing-a being, beings or otherwise.

The Cosmological Argument for proving God’s existence has a number of clear strengths and weaknesses. Personally, however, I would argue that the argument’s criticisms outweigh its strengths, thereby making it a weak argument for proving God’s existence. One clear strength of the arguments is its appeal to human logic and reason. As an a posteriori argument which is based on human experience, it satisfies human assumptions. It is illogical to humans to think of an infinite chain of regression in regards to anything, let alone to creation of the universe. However, this strength does not necessarily add to the arguments ability to prove the existence of God, but more to the accessibility of the argument to a wide range of people.

Conversely, perhaps the most severe and damaging criticism of this argument is the idea that an infinite chain of regression is in fact possible. When writing Summa Theologiae and outlining his Cosmological Argument, Aquinas makes the assumption that it is impossible to have an infinite chain of aggression; there must be an ‘uncaused causer’ or ‘unmoved mover.’ However, retrospectively, this assumption is by no means necessarily true. In terms of mathematics, infinite regress is entirely possible as it is always possible to increase or decrease a number. Therefore, it is definitely possible to infinitely regress. This hugely takes away from the strength of the argument as it is upon this assumption which Aquinas bases his entire premise.

On the other hand, a clear strength of the argument is outlined by Copleston in his radio debate with Russell in 1948, and that is that the argument does offer a sound reason as to why anything exists through developing on Aquinas’ Argument from Contingency. In this debate, Copleston claims that the universe is, in itself, not a physical thing, it is instead the aggregate (or sum of) all the objects which it contains. He goes on to argue that all the things which make up the universe are contingent and, as a result, do not contain their own reason for existence. Therefore, seeing as the universe is the aggregate of these contingent parts, the universe itself must also be contingent and therefore have a cause outside of itself; Copleston argues (and Aquinas would agree) that the only feasible cause of the universe is God. While this is an obvious strength, the degree to which it strengthens the argument could be brought into existence because, once again, it relies on the assumption that an infinite regression is not possible which, if untrue, would completely unbalance the entire argument.

Contrary to this, there is another very obvious weakness to the argument which contradicts this idea of God being the only feasible explanation for the creation of the contingent argument, and that is that, while Aquinas’ logic in building up to this conclusion is sound, his reasoning does nothing to prove that it is the omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent God of Christianity which initially caused the creation of the Universe. This argument is put forward by J.L Mackie. He argues that, assuming that Aquinas is right in claiming there cannot be infinite regression, and assuming that the existence of everything contingent relies on the existence of some necessary thing, there is no proof that the initial cause of the universe is a necessary being. He claims that, by Aquinas’ logic, the cause could be a ‘permanent stock of matter whose essence did not involve existence from anything else.’ Equally, the creator of the universe could well be a necessary being, but not the Christian God; it could be Allah, or even the multiple Gods of Hinduism. This again is a strong criticism of Aquinas’ argument as it shows that, even if his logic in reaching his conclusion is accurate, his conclusion lacks evidence and therefore, does not prove the existence of a Christian God.

Yet another obvious weakness of the Cosmological argument was highlighted by Russell in the afore mentioned radio debate with Copleston and is supported by David Hume. While, according to human reason, all effects have a cause (a headache may be caused by banging your head, or you may put on weight from eating a lot of fatty foods), it is, Russell and Hume would argue, to assume that this is true in the case of the universe as it is ‘a different logical sphere.’ Russell used the example of humans; while all humans have mothers, ‘Obviously, the human race doesn’t have a mother.’ Therefore, not only is there the possibility of infinite regress when looking at the cause of the universe, but there is also the possibility that the universe is ‘just a brute fact’ which ‘just is’ and needs no further explanation; in laymen’s terms, it has always existed. Again, this is a clearly thought out criticism of the Cosmological Argument which takes away from its strength.

Overall, therefore, it is clear that, while not without its strengths, the Cosmological Argument is a weak argument for proving God’s existence as it lacks in both the proof given for the conclusion that the Christian God is the cause of the universe and in the logic behind the concept that the universe must have had a cause at all.

Study with us

Practise Questions 2020

Religious Studies Guides – 2020

Check out our great books in the Shop

Thank you. Very concise and helpful

Leave a Reply Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

OCR Religious Studies – Philosophy of Religion

The Philosophy of Religion exam paper in OCR A Level Religious Studies (H573/01) contains essay questions on the following topics:

• Ancient philosophical influences ( Plato and Aristotle )
• The nature of the soul, mind, and body (including dualism vs. materialism )
• The nature of God (i.e. as omnipotent , omniscient , omnibenevolent , etc.)
• Arguments for God’s existence (i.e. teleological , cosmological , and ontological )
• The problem of evil (including the logical and evidential versions and theodicies )
• Religious experience (including different explanations of religious experience )
• Religious language (including apophatic vs. cataphatic and 20th Century perspectives )

Ancient philosophical influences

Plato and Aristotle were ancient Greek philosophers who arrived at different conclusions about the fundamental nature of reality and how we can gain knowledge:

• Plato emphasises the role of a priori reason (rationalism)
• Aristotle emphasises the role of a posteriori observation (empiricism)

The theory of the Forms

Plato saw the physical world we inhabit as a kind of shadow or illusion – a poor representation of the true nature of reality. Physical things come and go, but Plato believed the true nature of reality must be eternal and unchanging. This eternal and unchanging reality is the world of the Forms .

For example, when you look at a beautiful painting, you experience a particular thing. But these particulars are just inaccurate and incomplete reflections of the Forms in which they participate – in the case of the painting, the Form of beauty .

Another example: You draw a triangle on a piece of paper. But however precisely you draw it, this particular triangle will never be a perfect triangle – only the Form of the triangle has perfectly straight sides and angles that add up to exactly 180°.

Basically, the world of the Forms is a world of perfect, eternal, and unchanging abstract objects, and this world of Forms is what reality is according to Plato.

• At the top of this hierarchy is the Form of the good.
• Beneath this are other higher Forms, such as justice and beauty, which partake in the Form of the good. For example, justice is a good thing, so partakes in the Form of the good, but is not goodness itself .
• Beneath these are the lower Forms, such as shapes and numbers.
• Lower still are actual physical objects – the world of appearances. These aren’t even Forms, they’re just temporary particulars that partake in the Forms. For example, a table is just a temporary particular that partakes in the Forms of tableness, squareness, etc.

Our senses (e.g. sight and sound) tell us about the physical world, but this isn’t knowledge according to Plato because it’s just perceptions of a temporary and changing realm. Our physical reality imperfectly reflects and distorts the Forms, which are the true nature of reality. To acquire proper knowledge of reality, according to Plato, we must use a priori methods (i.e. reason and understanding) to comprehend the world of the Forms.

The allegory of the cave

Plato’s allegory of the cave illustrates the difference between:

• False knowledge of our physical world (i.e. appearances), and
• True knowledge of the world of the Forms (i.e. reality)

The allegory is as follows:

• Prisoners (who represent ordinary people ) are chained facing a wall in a cave, their heads tied so they can’t turn around.
• Behind them is a fire, and people parade objects in front of the fire, which cast shadows on the wall (these shadows represent our perceptions of the physical world ).
• The prisoners think these shadows are reality, because that’s all they ever experience.
• But one day, a prisoner is freed (this freed prisoner represents the philosopher ). Once he gets used to the brightness, he sees the fire and the real objects that cast the shadows.
• The freed prisoner then goes outside the cave. At first it’s so bright that he can only look at the shadows cast by objects. But once accustomed to the light, he is able to look at the objects (these real objects represent the Forms ) and, eventually, the sun itself (the sun represents the Form of the good ).
• If the freed prisoner were returned to the cave, his eyes would no longer be used to the darkness and he’d be unable to discern the shadows on the cave wall. If he told the other prisoners what he saw when he left the cave and how the shadows are not real, the other prisoners would think he’d been harmed from leaving the cave and had gone mad.

In addition to illustrating the difference between reality ( the Forms ) and appearances (the physical world), the allegory also illustrates the role of the philosopher: Once he sees the real world, he can’t go back to seeing the shadows. The philosopher sees it as their duty to educate the people still chained in the cave, but faces persecution for telling the truth (as did Plato’s teacher Socrates, who was sentenced to death for his teachings).

Where Plato rejects observation and experience as sources of knowledge ( for him this is like looking at shadows on the cave wall rather than actual objects ), Aristotle argues that a posteriori observation and experience enable us to work out the general principles that underlie change. By understanding the causes of change, we can understand the essence of things (their forms) and gain knowledge of reality.

The four causes

Aristotle believed that things naturally tend towards their telos (i.e. their purpose): They go from potentiality to actuality . For example, a seed may actually be a seed now, but it is potentially a tree. The seed tends towards its telos, which is to fulfil its potential and become an actual tree.

Aristotle identifies 4 causes (sometimes called the 4 explanations ) that underlie this change from potentiality to actuality:

• Material cause: What something is made from. For example, the material cause of a table might be wood or metal.
• Formal cause: The shape or arrangement of something. For example, the formal cause of a table might be its flat shape and legs.
• Efficient cause/agentic cause: Something apart from the thing that creates that thing. For example, the efficient cause of a table might be a carpenter who carved it from wood.
• Final cause: The purpose or ‘telos’ of something. For example, the final cause of a dining table would be to serve as a platform from which people eat their food.

These 4 causes underlie all change (the movement from potentiality to actuality ). By understanding these causes, we can understand the essence of things (i.e. their form) and gain knowledge.

The prime mover

Aristotle applied the 4 causes to the universe itself . He concluded that the final cause of the universe must be a prime mover .

Aristotle believed the default state of matter is rest. For example, if you roll a ball along the ground, it eventually stops moving and returns to rest. But things in our world are constantly moving and don’t stop. For example, the stars in the sky don’t just stop moving and return to rest – they keep moving forever. So how is motion within the universe sustained if the default state of things is to stop moving and return to rest?

Aristotle’s answer is that there must be something – a prime mover – that keeps this motion going:

• This prime mover can’t be moved by something else, because then this something else would need an explanation of what moves it, and so on for infinity. So, the prime mover must be unmoved and eternal .
• The prime mover is pure actuality and so never changes.
• The prime mover doesn’t cause this motion by pushing objects (so the prime mover is not the efficient cause of the universe). Instead, everything is naturally drawn towards the prime mover because things are naturally drawn towards their purpose/telos. It is this natural attraction of things towards the prime mover that sustains motion within the universe.
• This prime mover can’t be made of matter, because matter is subject to change. So, the prime mover is not a physical substance but a mind .
• But since the prime mover is unchanging, this mind can’t be thinking about anything outside itself because these thoughts would mean changes in the mind. So instead, the mind of the prime mover is eternally experiencing itself .

Note: This is basically an early version of the cosmological argument (see below).

The nature of soul, mind, and body

Plato vs. Aristotle on the soul

• Plato thinks the soul is separate from the physical body and made of completely different stuff (a view in line with dualism )
• Aristotle thinks the soul is inextricably linked with the physical body and so made from the same stuff (a view in line with materialism )

Plato’s view of the soul

According to Plato, just as reality consists of two parts – the unchanging and eternal world of the Forms and the temporary physical world of appearances – so too does a human being: There is the unchanging and eternal soul , which is separate from the changing and temporary body .

Plato saw the soul as originating in the world of the Forms. In the world of the Forms, the soul is eternal, unchanging, and possesses knowledge . However, the appetites/desires of the soul draw it to the physical world and into a temporary physical body. This physical body acts as a kind of prison for the soul. The body’s senses (e.g. eyesight, hearing) obscure the true nature of reality and can only give rise to opinion , not knowledge. But through reason, we are able to remember the world of the Forms and gain knowledge ( Plato uses Meno’s slave as an example to prove this – see the AQA philosophy notes for more detail ) . So, for Plato, all learning is just remembering things from the world of the Forms. When we die, the soul is freed from the prison of the body and returns to the world of the Forms.

Aristotle’s view of the soul

As we saw above , Aristotle rejects Plato’s separation of form from matter, but not the idea of form itself . For Aristotle, a thing’s form is its essence – and this essence exists within the object itself. For example, the essence of a table is its shape – a flat platform on which you can put things. This form exists within the object and not in a separate abstract world of Forms. Similarly, the essence of a human being is its soul – and this soul isn’t something that exists separate from the physical body.

Aristotle gives a couple of examples to illustrate this relationship: If the body was an axe , the soul would be its ability to cut things . If the body was an eye , the soul would be its ability to see things . Notice how these functions (cutting and seeing) are not the same thing as the physical object but are nevertheless inseparable from it. Likewise, the soul is not the same thing as the body, but is inseparable from it. 

So, for Aristotle, the soul of a human being is its essence. This includes things like abilities (e.g. jiujitsu or carpentry) and personality (e.g. funny or angry).

Metaphysics of consciousness

In modern philosophy, the debate about souls has shifted more towards a debate about minds and consciousness .

This raises the question of what the conscious mind actually is . Broadly, there are two types of response:

• Substance dualists say the mind is a non-physical thing that can exist completely separate from the body
• Materialists say the mind is a physical thing

Substance dualism

For a more in-depth explanation, see the substance dualism notes for AQA philosophy.

Substance dualism is the view that the mind is a non-physical substance that is completely separate from the physical body.

Plato’s account of the soul above is along these lines. But the most famous substance dualist is probably Rene Descartes . Descartes gives several arguments for substance dualism, such as:

The cogito argument

Descartes’ cogito argument – I think, therefore I am – can be used to support substance dualism.

In this argument, Descartes doubts everything that is possible to doubt due to the possibility that an incredibly powerful evil demon could be deceiving him without his knowledge. It’s possible that, in reality, Descartes does not have a body at all and that his perceptions of hands and feet and legs and so on are just illusions created by this evil demon. However, even if such an extreme scenario were true, Descartes realises he cannot doubt the existence of his mind because there would have to be a mind for the evil demon to be deceiving in the first place! And so, the fact that Descartes is able to doubt the existence of his mind proves his mind must exist.

Descartes argues that the essence of the mind is a thinking thing – and this essence is not physical. In contrast, the essence of the body is a physical thing that does not think. These different essences suggest the mind and body are separate substances that could exist without each other.

For a more detailed explanation of this last point, see the conceivability argument .

The indivisibility argument

Descartes’ divisibility argument suggests that mind (i.e. mental stuff) and body (i.e. physical stuff) have different properties and so cannot be the same thing:

• My body is a divisible substance (e.g. you could chop my leg off)
• My mind is an indivisible substance (e.g. you can’t chop a thought in half)
• Therefore, my mind and body are different substances

For a more detailed explanation of the indivisibility argument and responses, click here .

Materialism

For a more in-depth explanation, see the physicalism notes for AQA philosophy.

Materialism (sometimes called physicalism ) is the view that everything that exists is physical or somehow related to the physical – and this includes the mind. In other words, consciousness can be explained entirely in physical terms.

Arguments for materialism include:

Two meanings of ‘soul’ (Dawkins)

Richard Dawkins distinguishes between two uses of the word ‘soul’:

• Soul 1: A non-physical entity that contains a person’s essence and is separate from their physical body (like how Descartes or Plato conceive of soul).
• Soul 2: A metaphorical way of speaking about a person’s essence (e.g. their core personality, mind, and values).

Dawkins says it’s fine to use ‘soul’ in the soul 2 sense. For example, you might describe an evil murderer as ‘soulless’, or talk about how a really great piece of music touched your ‘soul’.

But the notion of soul 1 should be rejected, he says. Dawkins sees soul 1 as an out-dated concept used to explain consciousness in times when we didn’t know better. Nowadays, modern science has replaced the need for soul 1 and we should explain consciousness in physical terms (e.g. biological processes in the brain). It’s like how, in ancient times, illnesses might have been explained by evil spirits but these explanations got replaced by scientific ones.

Category mistake (Ryle)

A category mistake is when one concept is confused for another. For example, to ask “how much does the number 3 weigh?” confuses the concept of number with the concept of things that have weight.

Gilbert Ryle thinks substance dualists make a similar category mistake when they talk about the mind as the kind of thing that exists independently of the physical body. He gives the following analogy to illustrate this:

• Someone asks you “what is Oxford University?”
• So you show them all the lecture halls, libraries, labs, teachers, and so on
• After showing them all this, they say “you’ve shown me the lecture halls, libraries, and labs, but what is the university ?”

To ask this question is to make the category mistake that Oxford University is a single thing independent of all the buildings etc. Likewise, Ryle says it’s a category mistake to think the mind is a single thing that exists independently of the physical body and behaviours.

For a more in-depth explanation, see the behaviourism notes for AQA philosophy.

Interaction issues for dualism (Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia)

If substance dualism is true, it’s hard to see how the mind interacts with the body (e.g. how your thought “I’m hungry” can cause you to move your physical body to the fridge to get some food) given that they are two completely different kinds of substance. Materialism doesn’t face this problem – it’s just physical stuff (mind) interacting with other physical stuff (body).

Descartes’ student, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, made the following argument along these lines, which can also be used to support materialism:

• Physical things (e.g. the body) only move if pushed
• Only physical things can push physical things
• So, if substance dualism is true and the mind is a non-physical thing, the mind cannot move the body
• But the mind can move the body
• So, substance dualism is false (and materialism is true)

For a more in-depth explanation, see the interaction issues for dualism notes for AQA philosophy.

The nature of God

For a more in-depth explanation, see the concept of God notes for AQA philosophy.

God is typically understood to have the following divine characteristics:

Omnipotence

Omniscience, omnibenevolence.

• An eternal relationship to time

This topic looks at what these characteristics mean and whether it is possible for a being to possess them.

Omnipotence means God is all-powerful/the most powerful being possible/can do anything.

This might sound simple at first, but there is disagreement about what it means to say God can do anything .

God can do the impossible

This interpretation of omnipotence says God can do literally anything – even things that are impossible.

Here, we don’t just mean that God can do what’s physically impossible – like making gravity repel rather than attract objects, or making time flow backwards – we mean God can also do what’s logically impossible. In other words, God could make contradictions true. For example, God could make a 4-sided triangle, or make it so that 1+1=7. Such things might seem hard to imagine, but Descartes argues that finite human imagination is not an accurate guide to God’s infinite power.

However, this interpretation of omnipotence creates potential problems, such as:

• Self-contradictory: If God can do what’s logically impossible (e.g. make a 4-sided triangle), then it isn’t logically impossible at all!
• God becomes arbitrary: If God isn’t bound by any rules – even the rules of logic – then why choose to behave one way over the other?
• The problem of the stone :   Could God create a stone so heavy He couldn’t lift it? Yes, according to this definition of omnipotence, God could create such a stone (because God can do literally anything). But then this would mean God couldn’t lift it (which would contradict God’s omnipotence)! This shows it is hard to make sense of a being that can do literally anything – including the impossible.

God can do anything logically possible

This interpretation of omnipotence says God can do anything that’s logically possible . In other words, God can do anything that does not involve a logical contradiction.

So, God can do anything physically (or metaphysically ) possible: He can make and destroy universes, change the laws of physics, resurrect the dead, and more. But God’s omnipotence does not mean He can violate the laws of logic and make a 4-sided triangle, for example. This is the approach taken by St. Thomas Aquinas, who argued that to say God can’t do the logically impossible does not impose any real limit on God’s power because what’s logically impossible isn’t anything at all – it’s meaningless .

Divine self-limitation

Another approach to omnipotence says that any limitations to God’s power are self-imposed .

For example, it may be that God really could do the impossible if He chose to, but that God decided to create and follow the laws of logic in order to provide consistency and order for the universe. Without the rules and structure of logic, everything would be too chaotic and nothing would make any sense (including human life), so God chooses to follow the rules of logic.

Eternal (or everlasting)

God is said to be eternal . This means God is timeless/exists outside of time. From this eternal perspective, what we call the ‘past’, ‘present’, and ‘future’ all exist within an eternal present. In other words, God perceives all moments in time simultaneously .

Anselm’s 4-dimensionalist approach builds on Boethius’ understanding of eternity. Physical space has 3 dimensions: Length, width, and depth. And we can think of time as a 4th dimension: All the 3 dimensions of physical space are contained within the present moment in time. Similarly, just as all 3 dimensions of space are present within the 4th dimension of time, all 4 dimensions are present within God. In other words, all of time is present within God in an eternal 5th dimension.

Everlasting

An alternative approach describes God’s relationship with time as everlasting rather than eternal. According to this view, God exists within time rather than outside of time. God existed at the beginning of time, can remember everything that has happened since, and will continue to exist forever.

Richard Swinburne argues that the everlasting interpretation of God is more consistent with the God of the Bible. In the Bible, God regularly intervenes in human affairs. For example, in Isaiah 38, Hezekiah is terminally ill and prays to God, who hears the prayer and extends his life by 15 years. Such a sequence of events only makes sense if God exists and can act within time.

Swinburne further argues that an eternal God would be unchanging and cold. It is only an everlasting God that would be capable of forming relationships with human beings and loving them, in line with the conception of God as omnibenevolent .

Omniscience means God is all-knowing/knows everything. Like omnipotence , God’s omniscience is interpreted in different ways:

• God knows literally everything (including e.g. the future)
• God knows everything that is possible to know

Many religions claim human beings have free will – the ability to freely choose or not choose their actions. One motivation for this claim is that if humans didn’t have free will, it would seemingly be unfair for God to reward or punish them them (e.g. through heaven and hell ), which would undermine God’s omnibenevolence .

However, free will raises another potential inconsistency: How do we reconcile free will with the claim that God is omniscient ?

• If God knows everything, then God knows what I’m going to do next
• If God already knows what action I’m going to do next, then it must be true that I do that action
• And if it must be true that I do that action, then I don’t have a free choice to do something different

So, this suggests either that we don’t have free will, or that God is not omniscient .

Potential ways to resolve this conflict differ depending on God’s relationship to time :

• Response: It is possible to know the future. For example, if you know your friend well, you can predict what food they’ll order at the restaurant. Plus, there are many examples of prophecies in the Bible (e.g. the coming of Jesus) that suggest God does know the future.
• Eternal :  If God is eternal and exists outside of time, then what we call the ‘future’ is like the present to God. So, God could be observing – and thus know – our future actions as we freely choose them like how we observe other humans make free choices in the present ( see the AQA notes here for more ) .

Benevolence means someone has a disposition towards doing good. And so, God’s omni benevolence means God is perfectly disposed towards doing good.

Omnibenevolence is typically understood to mean two subtly different things:

• Emotional sense: God is perfectly loving , i.e. this is how God feels towards human beings and everything. In the Bible, this perfect love is illustrated by Jesus’ teaching to love your neighbour and even to love your enemies.
• Moral sense: God is perfectly good in a moral sense, i.e. God always acts in accordance with justice, what is right, and what is fair.

However, God’s omnibenevolence raises potential issues. For example:

• The euthyphro dilemma (see AQA notes for more) : Is God good because 1. He follows the moral law, or 2. He created the moral law? Option 1 challenges God’s omnipotence , because it suggests God is bound by rules outside of Himself. But if God creates the moral law (option 2), then in what sense is it meaningful to say God is ‘good’ when ‘good’ could have been whatever arbitrary thing God wanted! This challenges God’s omnibenevolence .
• The problem of evil: If God is perfectly good, why does He allow evil and suffering? For more on this, see below .
• The problem of hell: Many religions believe in hell as a place of eternal punishment for sins committed on earth. One reason hell may be in tension with God’s omnibenevolence is that this punishment is disproportionate and unjust. However bad someone’s sins were on earth, these sins will be finite in nature, but the punishment is infinite. The problem of hell may also be linked to God’s omniscience : An omniscient God would already know if someone was destined for hell even before they were born, in which case why create them just to suffer?

Arguments for God’s existence

The 3 classic types of argument for God’s existence are known as:

Teleological arguments

Cosmological arguments, ontological arguments.

The syllabus categorises them as arguments based on a posteriori observation ( teleological and cosmological ) and arguments based on a priori reason ( ontological ). And so, in addition to evaluating the specific arguments, you can also evaluate the general method.

Arguments based on observation

Teleological arguments and cosmological arguments argue that God exists based on a posteriori observations.

For a more in-depth explanation, see the teleological argument notes for AQA philosophy.

Teleological arguments are also known as arguments from design. These arguments observe that parts of nature (e.g. the human eye) appear so complex and perfectly suited for their purpose that they can only be explained with reference to an intelligent designer: God.

Aquinas’ 5th way

St. Thomas Aquinas gave 5 arguments for God’s existence, known as the 5 ways . The 5th way is a version of the teleological argument:

“We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.” – Aquinas, Summa Theologica , Part 1 Question 3

• For example, plants grow towards the sun so as to get more light so they can photosynthesise
• These actions always (or almost always) achieve the best result
• This can’t just be explained by luck, there must be an intelligence guiding these actions (like how an arrow won’t find its way to a target by luck, it has to be guided by the intelligence of an archer)
• This intelligence that guides these actions is God .

Paley’s teleological argument

William Paley considers the difference between things that are designed and things that aren’t designed .

The difference between the watch and the stone, Paley says, is that the watch has many parts (e.g. springs and cogs) organised for a purpose (i.e. to tell the time). This is the key hallmark of design .

Like the watch, aspects of nature have this hallmark of design. For example, the many feathers and shape of a bird’s wing are organised for the purpose of flight. The many parts of the human eye are organised for the purpose of sight. And since design can only be explained by a designer , nature must have a designer: God .

For a more in-depth explanation, see the cosmological argument notes for AQA philosophy.

Cosmological arguments start from the observation that everything has an explanation. For example, your existence can be explained by your parents, and their existence can be explained by their parents, and so on. Cosmological arguments seek an explanation of the existence of the universe itself. The argument is that the universe depends on something else to exist: God.

We saw Aquinas’ 5th way above , which is a teleological argument , but ways 1-3 are versions of the cosmological argument.

Ways 1 and 2 are very similar in structure, with one using the concepts of mover and movement , and the other using the concepts of cause and effect .

Aquinas’ 3rd Way (argument from contingency )  is a little different. Rather than talking about motion or cause and effect, it uses the concepts of necessity and contingency :

Using these concepts, the argument can be summarised as:

• Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point
• And so, if everything that exists exists contingently, there would be a point at which nothing existed
• But if nothing existed, then nothing could begin to exist
• But since things did begin to exist, there was never a point at which nothing existed
• Therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently, but that exists necessarily
• This necessary being is God

Arguments based on reason

Ontological arguments differ from cosmological arguments and teleological arguments in that they are based on a priori reason alone.

For a more in-depth explanation, see the ontological argument notes for AQA philosophy.

Ontological arguments argue that God exists based on the definition of ‘God’.

Anselm’s ontological argument

St. Anselm says God is ‘a being greater than which cannot be conceived’ . Using this definition, he deduces God’s existence in an argument that can be summarised as:

• God is, by definition, the greatest conceivable being
• It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
• (because if God only existed in the mind, then He wouldn’t be the greatest conceivable being because we could conceive of a greater being: The one that exists in reality)

In the next chapter, Anselm expands on this definition of God:

“O Lord, my God,… thou canst not be conceived not to exist … And, indeed, whatever else there is, except thee alone, can be conceived not to exist . To thee alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others.” – St. Anselm, Proslogium , Chapter 3

Here, Anselm contrasts God’s necessary existence – “thou canst not be conceived not to exist” – with the mere contingent existence of things which “ can be conceived not to exist”. So, a bit like in Aquinas’ 3rd way above , Anselm believes God not only exists, but exists necessarily.

The problem of evil

For a more in-depth explanation, see the problem of evil notes for AQA philosophy.

The problem of evil is an argument that God does not exist because of the existence of evil and suffering in our world. Responses to the problem of evil are known as theodicies .

Versions of the problem of evil

There are two versions of the problem of evil:

• The logical problem of evil says God is logically inconsistent with the existence of any evil
• The evidential problem of evil says God’s existence is logically consistent with some evil but that if God existed there would be less evil and it would be more fairly distributed 

The logical problem of evil

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

The logical problem of evil says, a priori , that God’s existence is logically incompatible with the existence of any evil.

• An omnipotent God exists
• An omnibenevolent God exists
• Evil exists

The reasoning for this is that if 1 were true, God would be powerful enough to get rid of all evil. Plus, if 2 were true, God would want to get rid of all evil. So, if 1 and 2 were both true, evil would not exist because God would just eliminate it. However, evil does exist – people steal, get murdered, etc. – so either God is unwilling (not omnibenevolent) or unable (not omnipotent) to eliminate evil.

The evidential problem of evil

The evidential problem of evil allows that it is logically possible that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow some evil to exist (e.g. because of free will or soul making ), but argues that the unnecessary amount of evil in our world and unfair ways evil is distributed suggest God does not exist.

For example, we might accept that God would allow the evil of stealing because of the greater good of giving humans free will. But would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow innocent babies to be born with painful congenital diseases? This seems unfair and has nothing to do with free will. There’s also pointless evils. For example, a deer gets burned in a forest fire in the middle of nowhere and dies a slow and painful death – and no one even knows about it. It seems God could easily have eliminated such pointless suffering without sacrificing some greater good.

If God is omnibenevolent, He wants to maximise good and minimise evil. And while it’s logically possible there is some mysterious and unknowable reason why our world is the most effective way to maximise good, the evidential problem of evil suggests this is highly unlikely . This is strong a posteriori evidence against God’s existence.

A theodicy is an explanation of why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil. In other words, theodicies are responses to the problem of evil:

• The Augustinian theodicy says evil is the result of the free will of humans to disobey God
• The Irenaean theodicy says evil is necessary for spiritual and moral development

The Augustinian Theodicy: Free will

St. Augustine explained the existence of evil as the result of free will . This is sometimes called the soul- deciding theodicy . According to Augustine, God is perfect and can only do good. However, evil and suffering occur because humans (and angels) use their free will to disobey God’s perfection. So, evil is not a thing itself, but a privation (lack) of good .

The Augustinian theodicy comes from the Biblical story of the Fall in the book of Genesis. According to this story, God initially made a perfect world without evil (the Garden of Eden) along with the first humans: Adam and Eve. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but a serpent (Satan) tempts them to disobey. Adam and Eve give in to temptation (because they have free will) and eat from the tree of knowledge, after which God banishes them from the Garden of Eden into a fallen world – our world – that contains evil.

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” – Genesis, chapter 3 verse 5 (KJV)

As descendants of Adam and Eve, all humans inherited their sinful nature (you can think of it like a sin gene ). This is known as original sin . Because of this original sin, all humans deserve to be punished.

The Irenaean Theodicy: Soul-making

John Hick explains the existence of evil as necessary for spiritual development . This is known as the soul- making theodicy .

The soul-making theodicy originates in the philosophy of Irenaeus (which is why it’s also referred to as the Irenaean theodicy ). According to Irenaeus, God’s ultimate plan for humanity is spiritual development. God deliberately made humanity spiritually immature and deliberately made the world a difficult environment. This difficult environment requires humans to make moral decisions, which enables them to learn and mature spiritually. God made humans in His image – with the free will to choose between good and bad – and God’s long-term plan is that creation will grow to his likeness and perfection, freely choosing the good over the bad.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” – Genesis, chapter 1 verse 26 (KJV)

Free will is a big part of the soul-making theodicy. God could have just made humanity perfectly good from the get-go, but that would effectively remove free will. True goodness – goodness in God’s likeness – must be freely chosen.

Hick builds on this idea. Hick argues that God created an epistemic distance between Himself and humanity. This epistemic distance is a gap between humans and God – it means we can never know of God’s existence with 100% certainty. The reason for this again comes back to free will: If God made his existence and character obvious, we would have no choice but to follow Him (Peter Vardy likens this to a king forcing a peasant girl to marry him due to his authority even though she doesn’t love him). Instead, what God wants is a genuine and freely chosen decision to follow in God’s ways and choose good (to continue Vardy’s analogy, this is like marrying someone because you genuinely love them).

According to the soul-making theodicy, hell exists for further soul-making. It is not a place of eternal punishment but is instead a place where souls continue to exercise free will in the face of evil and which, eventually, they can escape from. Hick thus believes in universal salvation : The idea that everyone will go to heaven (eventually).

Religious experience

A religious experience is a subjective encounter that the experiencing person interprets as in some way religiously significant (e.g. as an encounter with God). The syllabus mentions two types of religious experience:

• Mystical experiences are experiences totally unlike ordinary perceptions. They can be hard to describe but common themes of mystical experiences include a feeling of experiencing the infinite and of experiencing unity with all things. This is often accompanied with strong feelings of ecstasy.
• Conversion experiences are experiences that lead someone to immediately and completely change their way of life. The classic example of this is Saul in the Bible. Saul initially persecuted Christians but, following a conversion experience where he met Jesus, converted to Christianity and became Paul the Apostle and founded several Christian communities.

This topic considers how these experiences should be understood and what conclusions, if any, we can draw from them.

William James: Features of religious experience

William James was a philosopher and psychologist. In his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience , James studied religious experiences across different cultures.

James identifies 4 features common to mystical religious experiences:

• Ineffable: The experience is indescribable . The subject can’t adequately put the experience into words.
• Noetic: The subject feels they gained knowledge or insight from the experience. In the case of religious experience, this is like direct knowledge of God that is deeper than can be reached by the intellect.
• Transient: The experience itself is short-lived in duration – usually less than half an hour (but the after-effects may be long-lasting or even permanent).
• Passive: The experience happens to the subject, it’s not something they actively make happen and is beyond their control.

Explanations of religious experience

The syllabus mentions the following explanations of religious experience:

Union with a greater power

Psychological explanations, physiological explanations.

Union with a greater power is the supernatural explanation that is used as evidence of God’s existence. This can be contrasted with the other two explanations – psychological and physiological – that say religious experiences have a natural explanation and so are not evidence of God’s existence.

William James’ conclusions

“I feel bound to say that religious experience, as we have studied it, cannot be cited as unequivocally supporting the infinitist belief. The only thing that it unequivocally testifies to is that we can experience union with something larger than ourselves and in that union find our greatest peace.” – William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Postscript

From his studies, James concluded that religious experience proves the possibility of union with a greater power .

It is important to note that this is not the same thing as proving God exists – as James himself points out. However, James does take religious experience to prove the existence of a spiritual dimension to reality. He concludes that the similarities between religious experiences across cultures suggests there is some truth to be found in all religions – an idea known as pluralism .

James believed all mystical religious experiences tap into this same spiritual reality, which is the core of of religion. Different cultures then develop their own beliefs and practices around these experiences – different religions. Studying these religious practices , for James, is ‘second-hand’ religion and less important than the direct mystical experience, which is first-hand contact with God or a greater spiritual power.

Swinburne’s principles of credulity and testimony

• Principle of credulity: We should accept our own perceptions as accurate unless there is good reason not to (e.g. you’re high on drugs). In other words: If you saw it, it’s probably real.
• Principle of testimony: We should accept others’ accounts of their experiences as accurate unless there is clear evidence against them (e.g. they’re a known liar or mentally ill). In other words: If someone says they saw something, it’s probably real.

Applied to religious experience, Swinburne would argue that if someone claims to have had an experience of God or ‘union with a higher power’, the principle of testimony says we should take this account at face value and accept it as accurate – unless there is good reason not to.

Natural explanations

Psychological explanations explain religious experiences as the result of mental processes , such as illusions and hallucinations.

Sigmund Freud, for example, believed religion to be a man-made psychological fantasy. He saw the mind as composed of different parts – conscious and subconscious – that interact with each other. According to Freud, religion fulfils several useful psychological purposes, such as:

• Fear of death: The religious belief in life after death alleviates the unpleasant fear of death.
• Guilt: The religious belief in God’s forgiveness (e.g. in the story of Jesus) alleviates the unpleasant feelings of guilt for bad things we’ve done.
• Safety: As children, our parents provide us with a sense of safety and security in a dangerous world. As adults, the world is still dangerous, but God provides that same feeling of safety and security (Freud would point to how God is referred to as ‘the Father’ as evidence for this).

Applied to religious experience, Freud would say such experiences are merely illusions that result from a person’s beliefs, fears, and desires surrounding religion. The subconscious forces of the mind are so powerful that they may cause someone to hallucinate a religious experience – a bit like in a dream – but such experiences are entirely a creation of the mind and do not reflect reality.

Physiological explanations try to explain religious experience by identifying the underlying physical processes that cause them, such as brain states and chemical factors.

Medical researchers Newburg and D’Aquili studied mystical experiences in an attempt to identify the underlying neural mechanisms. For example, through brain scans of monks and nuns engaging in religious practices (e.g. meditation and prayer), they identified areas of the brain – which they call the ‘causal operator’ and ‘holistic operator’ – which show increased activity during religious experience.

Similarly, Michael Persinger used a device – nicknamed the ‘ God helmet ‘ – to stimulate areas of the brain associated with religious experience via magnetic fields. According to Persinger, over 80% of participants felt they experienced a ‘presence’ with them, with some participants having perceptions of what felt to them like God.

Religious language

The religious language topic covers 2 different debates:

• The apophatic vs. cataphatic vs. symbolic debate is about how we can describe God when God is, by definition, far beyond human understanding.
• The 20th Century debate is about whether ‘God exists’ is a meaningful or meaningless statement, and whether it is the kind of statement that is capable of being true or false.

Negative vs. analogical vs. symbolic

Religions and sacred texts often talk about God as ‘infinite’, ‘eternal’, and ‘beyond understanding’. However, as finite and temporal beings, it is unclear whether we can even make make sense of such descriptions. In some Islamic traditions, for example, it is forbidden to depict or even imagine God because God is beyond human comprehension and so any representations will be inaccurate. So, this topic is about how we should describe and think of God, when God is beyond human understanding:

• The apophatic way (via negativa) says we can only describe what God is not .
• The cataphatic way (via positiva) says we can describe what God is – for example by making analogies with things in our own world.
• The symbolic way says words used to describe God are symbolic, not literal.

The apophatic way (via negativa)

Pseudo-Dionysus argued that positive descriptions of God create an anthropomorphic (i.e. human) and inaccurate idea of God. If we think of God’s power, for example, we will inevitably think of powerful human beings (e.g. presidents or business leaders) and this will create a picture of God’s power as somehow similar. However, God’s power is beyond human comprehension and so such comparisons are inaccurate – it is only appropriate to think of God’s power in an apophatic way.

The cataphatic way (via positiva)

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that, by analogy (i.e. comparison), we can understand God’s positive qualities – at least partially .

Positive words used to describe God, such as ‘powerful’ and ‘loving’, are not univocal – they don’t have the same meaning as when we describe human beings – because human beings aren’t the same as God. But nor do these words have a completely different meaning either – they’re not equivocal  – because humans were made in God’s image .

So, Aquinas advocates for a middle ground: Analogy . Words used to describe God resemble words used to describe human beings:

• Analogy of attribution: We can say there is a causal relationship between properties of human beings and properties of God. Aquinas illustrates this with an example using the medical understanding of his day: A healthy cow will produce healthy urine, and so we can get an idea of the cow’s health from the cow’s urine . Similarly, as God is the cause of human beings, we can get a vague idea of God’s power and love from looking at human examples of power and love.
• Analogy of proportion: We should understand the extent to which something has a property in proportion to the kind of thing it is. For example, we might call a 3 year old who can read a book ‘clever’, but we wouldn’t apply the same standard of ‘clever’ to a 20 year old PhD student. As God is infinite , we should understand God’s properties – power, love, knowledge, etc. – in proportion to that.

The symbolic way

The symbolic way of talking about God says that words used to talk about God should not be understood literally as descriptions, but symbolically .

Paul Tillich argues that literal language is unable to adequately express God. Literal language describes things in our empirical world that we can understand – but God is beyond the physical world and beyond our understanding. So, the meaning of religious language is almost entirely symbolic.

“That which is the true ultimate transcends the realm of finite reality infinitely. Therefore, no finite reality can express it directly and properly…. Whatever we say about that which concerns us ultimately, whether or not we call it God, has a symbolic meaning… If faith calls God “almighty,” it uses the human experience of power in order to symbolize the content of its infinite concern, but it does not describe a highest being…” – Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith

According to Tillich, religious language taps into “hidden depths of our being” a bit like how art and music “reveal elements of reality which cannot be approached scientifically” . As such, the meaning of religious language is to point to a higher reality that cannot be expressed literally. When people hear religious statements, such as “God loves us”, these symbolic expressions connect them to a spiritual reality beyond what is or can be expressed in literal or scientific language.

Symbolic religious language not only points to this higher spiritual reality, it also participates in it. Tillich differentiates between signs and symbols . A sign simply points to something (e.g. an arrow pointing to a McDonalds) whereas a symbol points to and participates in the thing (e.g. a nation’s flag represents the nation itself – disrespect towards the flag is seen as disrespect towards the nation).

Religious language is similarly symbolic: The cross, for example, does not only point to God but also represents Jesus’ sacrifice. By representing and participating in this spiritual reality, religious language connects us to something beyond the physical world in a way that literal language is unable to.

20th Century perspectives

For a more in-depth explanation, see the religious language notes for AQA philosophy.

The 20th Century debate concerning religious language is about what people mean when they make religious claims such as “God loves us”, “God answers prayers”, and “God exists”. Are such claims even meaningful?

At first, it might seem obvious that such claims are meaningful. When religious people say “God exists”, they are describing the world and expressing a belief. In the language of philosophy, they are making a cognitive statement that they believe to be true . However, some philosophers disagree with this analysis of religious language:

• The logical positivists say “God exists” is meaningless because it can’t be verified .
• Falsificationism says “God exists” is meaningless because it can’t be falsified .
• Wittgenstein takes a non-cognitive approach, arguing that “God exists” is not a description of the world that is either true or false. Instead, the religious believer is doing something like expressing their commitment to a particular – religious – way of life.

Logical positivism

The key view of logical positivism is the idea that for a statement to be meaningful and capable of being true or false, it must be verifiable .

AJ Ayer was a key figure in the logical positivist movement. Ayer’s  verification principle says that a statement is only meaningful if it is either:

• An analytic truth, i.e. logical truths, such as mathematical statements (e.g. “1+1=2”), and things that are true by definition (e.g. “triangles have 3 sides”).
• Verifiable, i.e. there must be some observation or test (at least in principle) that would prove the statement is true. For example, even if the technology didn’t exist yet, you could in principle verify the statement “there is water on Mars” by sending a space ship to Mars and finding water there.

Applied to religious language, Ayer’s verification principle says that it is meaningless . There is no experiment or test, for example, that could verify God’s existence.

Falsificationism

Karl Popper argued that meaningful scientific claims must be falsifiable : There must be some possible observation or test that could in principle disprove the claim.

For example, “water boils at 100°c” could be falsified by heating some water to 999°c without it boiling and so is a meaningful claim. In contrast, there is no test that could disprove the claim “everything in the universe doubles in size every 10 seconds” because any measurement device used to prove the claim would also double in size. Thus, “everything in the universe doubles in size every 10 seconds” would be meaningless according to Popper.

Antony Flew applied this idea of falsification to religious language. He gave the following analogy intended to illustrate how God’s existence is unfalsifiable and thus meaningless:

• Two explorers find a clearing in a jungle. Both weeds (these represent evil ) and flowers
• (these represent good ) grow here.
• Explorer A says the clearing is the work of a gardener (who represents God ).   Explorer B ( atheist ) disagrees.
• To settle the argument, they keep watch for the gardener.
• After a few days, they haven’t seen him, but Explorer A says it’s because the gardener is invisible .
• So, they set up an electric fence and guard dogs to catch the gardener instead.
• But, after a few more days, they still haven’t detected the gardener.
• Explorer A then says that not only is the gardener invisible, he’s also intangible , makes no sound, has no smell, etc.
• Explorer B asks: What is the meaningful difference between this claim and the claim that the gardener doesn’t even exist?

Flew says it’s a similar thing with belief in God: We can’t see God, hear God, touch God, etc. We can’t even use the problem of evil as evidence against God’s existence because the religious believer just creates reasons why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil. Flew argues that because the religious believer accepts no observations count as evidence against belief in God, the religious believer’s hypothesis is unfalsifiable and meaningless.

Language games and form of life (Wittgenstein)

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy argues that the meaning of words is not some static thing that is the same in all contexts. Instead, meaning comes from how words are used – and the same words may be used differently in different contexts and by different people.

Just as different games have different rules, different contexts give rise to different language games . Compare, for example:

• “The bus passes the bus stop”
• “The peace of the Lord passes all understanding”

Although these two statements have the same structure on the surface , they clearly mean two completely different things – they’re ‘moves’ within two different language games.

Verificationists like Ayer analyse “God exists” within the language game of science – they treat it like a hypothesis that can be empirically proved or disproved. But Wittgenstein would argue religious believers aren’t playing the scientific language game when they say “God exists” – they’re playing the religious language game. And so, to analyse “God exists” within the scientific language game is to misunderstand what it means.

For Wittgenstein, the proper way to understand religious language is as a form of life . This is a bit like a wider language game – it’s someone’s foundational way of seeing the world:

“It strikes me that a religious belief could only be something like a passionate commitment to a system of reference. Hence, although it’s belief , it’s really a way of living, or a way of assessing life. It’s passionately seizing hold of this interpretation.” – Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

It’s a bit like the duck-rabbit picture above: It’s not like the duck is ‘right’ and the rabbit is ‘wrong’ or vice versa – they’re two different ways of seeing the same thing. Likewise, it’s not like “God exists” is ‘right’ and “God does not exist” is ‘wrong’ – they’re two different interpretations of the world that reflect different forms of life.

Non-cognitivism

Wittgenstein’s analysis of religious language is interpreted by some as non-cognivitist .

Non-cognitivist interpretations of religious language say “God exists” is not a description of the world that is either true or false. Instead, it is something non -cognitive – it is neither true or false.

The OCR Religious Studies A Level is assessed via 3 exam papers:

Paper 2: Religion and Ethics>>>

Paper 3: developments in religious thought >>>.

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

OCR Philosophy possible exam questions

These questions are taken from the wording of the specitication, meaning they could all actually come up in the exam. They are roughly sorted into easy, medium and hard.

Find revision notes for Philosophy here.

Ancient Philosophical influences (Plato & Aristotle)

Easy Critically compare Plato’s rationalism with Aristotle’s empiricism. Does Plato or Aristotle make more sense of reality? Assess Plato’s understanding of reality Does the world of Forms exist?

Medium Are we in Plato’s cave? Is Plato right that there is more to reality than we observe? Critically discuss the ideas expressed in Plato’s analogy of the cave. Analyse Aristotle’s four causes. How convincing is Aristotle’s idea of the Prime Mover? ‘Aristotelian teleology is false’ – Discuss. ‘The true reality is accessible only by reason’ – Discuss. Evaluate Plato’s purpose for the analogy of the cave. Do the senses provide the best understanding of reality? “Plato’s hierarchy of the forms tells us nothing about reality” – Discuss. Is there a hierarchy of Forms? ‘Plato’s form of the Good is not real’ – Discuss. Does reality operate through final causation?

Hard Critically compare Plato’s form of the good with Aristotle’s prime mover. ‘Aristotelian teleology is outdated’ – Discuss. Critically compare Plato’s hierarchy of the forms with Aristotle’s four causes. “Plato’s cave is more convincing than Aristotle’s four causes” – Discuss Are material and efficient causation the most convincing of Aristotle’s four causes?

Soul, mind and body

Easy Assess the approach of Materialism to understanding the mind. Evaluate dualism. Are the mind and the body separate? Are Plato’s views on the soul correct? How successful is Descartes’ substance dualism?

Medium Does the soul exist? Should the soul as a spiritual substance be rejected? Can consciousness be fully explained by physical interactions? Can the mind/soul and body problem be resolved? Assess materialist critiques of dualism Assess dualist arguments against materialism Is the soul an essential and immaterial part of a human? ‘The soul is only temporarily united with the body’ – Discuss. Is the soul the form of the body? ‘There is a soul but it cannot be separated from the body’ – How far do you agree? Are the mind and body distinct substances? Critically compare Descartes and Aristotle’s view of the soul. What is consciousness? How convincing is Descartes’ solution to the mind-body problem?

Hard ‘Discussion of the mind-body distinction is a category error’ – Critically assess this view. Is the concept of the soul best understood metaphorically or as a reality? Assess the philosophical language of soul, mind and body in Plato and Aristotle’s work. ‘The soul is the way the body behaves and lives’ – Discuss. Analyse the metaphysics of consciousness.

The teleological (design) argument

Easy Can the teleological arguments overcome their criticisms? Assess the teleological argument Can God’s existence be established by observation? Can evidence of God’s existence be observed? Are there logical fallacies in the teleological arguments that cannot be overcome?

Medium Can teleological arguments be defended against the challenge of ‘chance’? ‘Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument succeed’ – How far do you agree? Assess Paley’s design argument “The teleological argument is more convincing than the cosmological argument” – Discuss

Hard Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? Is God’s existence better proven by a priori or a posteriori argument? ‘A priori argument is stronger than a posteriori’ – Discuss. Assess Aquinas’ 5 th way “The teleological argument fails due to the challenge of evolution” – Discuss. Does evolution disprove the teleological argument? “Aquinas’ 3 rd way is more convincing than his first two” – Discuss Does evolution or Hume’s criticisms pose the greater challenge to the teleological argument? “Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument are the most serious that it faces” – Discuss. Critically compare Aquinas’ 5 th way with Paley’s design argument Does Aquinas or Paley present the more convincing version of the design argument?

The cosmological argument

Easy Can the cosmological arguments overcome their criticisms? Assess the cosmological argument Can God’s existence be established by observation? Can evidence of God’s existence be observed? Are there logical fallacies in the cosmological arguments that cannot be overcome?

Medium Do Cosmological arguments jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator without sufficient explanation? ‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument succeed’ – How far do you agree? ‘Aquinas’ first three ways show that we should believe in God’ – How far do you agree? “The teleological argument is more convincing than the cosmological argument” – Discuss

Hard Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? Is God’s existence better proven by a priori or a posteriori argument? ‘A priori argument is stronger than a posteriori’ – Discuss. “Aquinas’ 3 rd way is more convincing than his first two” – Discuss “The cosmological argument is most convincing when based on causation” – Discuss

Arguments based on reason

Easy Assess Anselm’s ontological argument Does the ontological argument justify belief? Are there logical fallacies in the ontological argument that cannot be overcome?

Medium Can existence be treated as a predicate? Are Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument the most effective? Assess whether Kant or Gaunilo’s critique poses the greater challenge to the ontological argument.

Hard Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? “A priori argument is the most successful method of establishing God’s existence” – Discuss‘ Is God’s existence better established through observation or through reason? A priori argument is stronger than a posteriori’ – Discuss. Assess Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument. Assess Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument

Religious experience

Easy Are religious experiences just illusions? ‘religious experience justifies belief in God’ – How far do you agree?

Medium Are religious experiences evidence of God? ‘Religious experiences are union with a greater power’ – Discuss. Do religious experiences prove God’s existence? Assess whether testimony and witness is sufficient to validate religious experiences ‘Mystical experiences are of God’ – how far do you agree? Assess whether religious experiences are the product of a physiological effect Are religious experiences better explained by a greater power than a psychological effect? Are corporate experiences more convincing than conversion experiences?

Hard Are corporate religious experiences more reliable than individual experiences? How successful are the views and main conclusions of William James? Does the influence religious experiences have show they have a supernatural source? ‘Conversion experiences are more reliable than mystical experiences’ – How far do you agree? “Physiological explanations of religious experience are more successful than psychological” – Discuss Analyse examples of mystical experiences Analyse examples of conversion experiences “Religious experiences are better evidence for a generic greater power than specifically for God” – Discuss

The problem of evil

Easy Assess Augustine’s theodicy Assess Hick’s sole making theodicy Can monotheism be defended in the face of evil?

Medium Does the logical problem of evil succeed? To what extent does the evidential problem of evil challenge belief? Analyse the significance of the amount and intensity of evil in the world Does Augustine’s use of original perfection and the Fall solve the problem of evil? Assess Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy ‘natural evil enables human beings to reach divine likeness’ – How far do you agree? Critically compare the success of Augustine and Hick’s theodicies. Is there some justification for divine inaction in the face of evil? Does natural evil have a purpose? “There are no convincing presentations of the problem of evil” – Discuss “Suffering disproves God” – Discuss “Evil exists, so God does not exist” – Discuss

Hard Is the logical or evidential problem of evil the greater challenge to belief? Is it easier to show that God’s existence lacks evidence than that it is logically impossible? ‘Augustine solves the logical problem of evil’ – Discuss Does Augustine’s theodicy succeed against the evidential problem of evil? ‘Hick cannot solve the evidential problem of evil’ – How far do you agree? How successfully can the evidental problem of evil be addressed through the explanation of soul-making Did Hick improve on the Irenaean theodicy?

The nature or attributes of God

Easy Is the concept of God coherent? What is the relationship between divinity and time? ‘If God is omniscient, humans can’t have free will’ – Discuss. “Humans have free will, so God lacks omniscience” – Discuss Analyse the implications of God’s eternity.

Medium ‘The divine attributes of God conflict with each other’ – Discuss. “God is not limited” – Discuss Can God be omnipotent? Analyse omnipotence Can God do the logically impossible? ‘God is limited by divine self-limitation’ – how far do you agree? Can God be omnibenevolent? Assess Boethius and Anselm’s view on God’s relationship with time. Does God know future human actions? Does God have divine foreknowledge? Can God justly judge human actions? Critically compare Boethius with Swinburne on God’s relationship with time. Assess Boethius’ claim that God is eternal/atemporal. Is Swinburne correct that God is everlasting/temporal? Does God have divine foreknowledge?

Hard Assess Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach. Does Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach adequately explain divine action in time? Evaluate Boethius’ view of divine action and time. Critically compare Anselm with Swinburne on God’s relationship with time. “It is not necessary to resolve the apparent conflicts between divine attributes” – Discuss.

Religious language: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic

Easy Assess the apophatic way (via negative) Assess the cataphatic way (via positiva) ‘God can be talked about symbolically’ – How far do you agree?

Medium ‘Analogy is more effective than symbol for talking about God’ – Discuss. Does Tillich capture religious language better than the apophatic way? Critically compare analogy and via negative as methods of approaching religious language. Is God a symbol? Can Religious language be understood through Aquinas’ analogy of attribution and proper proportion? Critically assess whether theological language is best approached by negation. Does the apophatic way enable effective understanding of theological discussion? Is symbol the most convincing theory of religious language?

Hard Does Aquinas’ analogical approach support effective expression of language about God? Is symbolic religious language comprehensible?

Religious Language: Twentieth Century Perspectives

Easy Assess logical positivism Assess Wittgenstein’s views on language games. Is religious language meaningful? Is verificationism an accurate theory of meaning?

Medium ‘Words must have a verifiable connection to empirical reality to be meaningful’ – Do you agree? Assess Flew’s views on religious language Critically compare Aquinas’ cognitivism with Wittgenstein’s non-cognitivism. Is religious language non-cognitive? ‘Hare’s account of religious language is correct’ – Discuss. Which was the most convincing point of view in the falsification symposium? Does religious language have a factual quality?

Hard Assess Mitchell’s contribution to the falsification symposium Is religious language a form of life? To what extent is Aquinas’ analogical view of religious language valuable in the philosophy of religion. Should non-cognitive approaches influence interpretation of religious texts?

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

OCR Cosmological Argument Essay

Subject: Philosophy and ethics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

31 May 2020

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This essay is based on extension and further reading. I selected a topic from a Cambridge University Exam, using content from the specification to answer the essay question within time constraints. This essay is extremely focused purely on Aquinas’ second way, including a sophisticated criticism and counter-argument as well as two popular critics The essay obtained a high A grade scoring 33/40

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: