For OCRs G571 Specification

Why does toast always land butter side down?

Visit my site at sparksof t.org.uk!

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

The OCR official spec demands that you know the story of The Cave, how it works as an analogy and the strengths and weaknesses of said analogy. So here goes.

There are people sitting in a cave, chained down, facing a wall. There since birth. Behind them, a fire illuminates a track on which people carry objects. The people in the cave are literally in the dark they can hear only distorted echoes and see only the shadows cast by artificial objects. One day, one of the prisoners somehow breaks free of his chains and tries to leave the cave in search of the real world. At first he is confused, but he leaves anyway. It is a difficult journey out of the cave and into the real world. When he finally enters the real world, he is blinded by the bright light of the sun and has to shield his eyes. As his vision adjusts, he sees the world for what it really is. He goes back down into the cave to tell the others of his escape and discovery. The prisoners, however, reject his newly acquired knowledge and even threaten to kill him if he returns to the cave. They just want to play their games of guessing which shadow will appear next. Plato (428-347BCE) was a rationalist he believed that knowledge could only come through theory, not experience (A Priori knowledge is the proper term). He wrote the story as an allegory that is, it is representative of real events and world views that Plato wanted to express. Prior to writing The Cave, Platos teacher and Idol (and one of the first philosophers) Socrates had been executed for his unconventional beliefs and methods of spreading his knowledge. Plato wanted people to open their minds and see beyond the world around them the escapee is often thought to represent Socrates and indeed how he was viewed by society.

Plato Analogy of the Cave (from his book The Republic VII)

A little background on Plato and his motivation for writing

Plato also founded the first university, called The Academy in 385 BCE. It taught astronomy, politics, maths, biology and philosophy.

Part 1 Greek Philosophy The syllabus says you need to know how Platos rationalism is reflected in the Analogy of the Cave, and how the analogy represents the real world.
What do the different elements of the analogy represent?
The Cave The world in which we live. We take it as the real world because we have never known anything different. The Prisoners People like you and me. We see around us and take what we know for granted. This is empirical knowledge (A posteriori, or post-experience). The prisoners have been in the cave since childhood they know nothing different. The Chains Human thoughts and desires. These constrain us and keep us from achieving our true philosophical potential. The Shadows What Plato calls the particulars. These are the objects of our world, they are a form of reality but they are not true reality. They are a poor imitation of what Plato calls The Forms (more on that later). The Fire Minimal goodness the goodness that we see in our world. The Escapee The philosopher. His desire to learn makes him leave the cave, his desire to spread his knowledge leads him back. But it is wasted, and he can no longer see that shadows on the wall that the prisoners do. The Difficult Ascent The prisoner has difficulty in escaping the cave. This represents the difficult journey on the path to true knowledge. The Sun True goodness, representing the Form of the Good (more on that later) the sun illuminates the world around it, it is the ultimate good. Shielded Eyes At first, the escapee finds the truth hard to accept. The Guessing Games Eikasia The state of mind that the other prisoners were in. It is the lowest level of understanding based on artificial understanding, guesswork and observation. The other prisoners never had any philosophical insight.

Plato Analogy of the Cave (from his book The Republic VII)
Remember, Empiricism and Rationalism are key to this Plato made a sharp distinction between the cave and the real world. Empiricists trust their senses, and observe the world. Rationalists like Plato believe in thought and theory.

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

So thats the cave the world we live in is a poor representation of the real world and we gain little from observing our surroundings and using our senses. Wait

Criticisms of Platos Analogy of the Cave

Our senses have certainly served us well in the past in fact, theyre vital for our survival. Plato seems all too happy to completely discount them. Plato criticized Art and Poetry (mimesis) because they were based on guesswork, observation and artificial understanding, with no philosophical insight. But his analogy of The Cave is a story itself, which is a bit hypocritical, and it makes his own argument unreliable! AO1 Skills needed!

Practice Essay Questions

Show what Plato is trying to convey in his analogy of the cave. (25 marks) You may want to include in your essay A (very) brief background on Plato, the name of the book (Republic VII) An overview of the Analogy of the cave An explanation of the metaphors Plato uses to get across his point An explanation of Platos core beliefs (rationalism) You should NOT include the following Too much background on Plato and Socrates Any information on Aristotle Any AO2 (critique or analysis of Platos ideas) Too much information on The Forms (although a sentence or two is okay)

You have to be able to remember everything about Platos philosophy, but you also have to be able to convincingly convey it to an examiner. Make a plan, and always check back to make sure youre answering the question set for you.

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

Platos analogy of the cave makes mention of the world the philosopher is able to see after he escapes from the cave this is in reference to Platos Forms.

What is The Realm of The Forms?

Plato was a dualist he was a believer in two realities, separate from each other. The world we live in he called The Realm of the Particulars the Particulars being the everyday objects we see around us (think: shadows on the wall). And the Realm of the Forms, which refers to the world outside the cave, the Forms being the objects the prisoner sees in the real world. To understand better, lets look at an example a cup. What makes a cup a cup? Is it the shape? The purpose? There are many different kinds of cups of all shapes, sizes and purposes - but we can identify them all as cups. Even a small child is able to recognize a cup for what it is. Plato says that this is because it participates in the Form of the cup this is what gives it cupness.

Why do we know what the Form of a Cup looks like

This partial remembering of the Form of the cup is called anamnesis. Our body is contingent (it wont last forever) but our soul is immutable (unchanging). We exist in the Realm of the Forms before and after we exist in the Realm of the Particulars. We are able to recognize the cup from our time in the Realm of the Forms. This explains how a small child is able to recognize objects like cups. In The Meno, Plato uses an example in which he shows a slave boy a triangle and asks him to identify it. Despite having had little or no education, the slave boy is easily able to recognize the triangle he recognizes the Form. The Particular is concerned only with the superficial details that overlay that form.

Platos Forms are a little confusing at first. Basically, in an alternate world, there exist perfect, unchanging versions of everyday objects, and we have innate knowledge of these objects embedded in our soul.

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

The Forms dont end there, oh no they exist in a hierarchy, and Plato uses this to explain concepts like good, evil and universal ideals like truth, beauty and justice.

The Hierarchy of the Forms

Form of the Good The Form of the Good is the highest good. Goodness radiates out from it, but gets weaker further down the hierarchy. It is like the sun in Platos Cave, it allows us to recognize the other forms. Truth, beauty and justice are three key concepts that we are able to recognize by their forms. Concepts and ideals (e.g love) are inferior to truth, beauty and justice but superior to actual, physical objects. The forms are prefect, there is no Form of the Bad. Badness is explained as something that is a great distance from the Form of the Good.

Truth Beauty Justice Concepts and Ideals Physical Living Objects Inanimate Objects

How do The Forms compare to The Particulars?

Our world and the particulars are constantly changing death, decay etc. The Forms are unchanging (immutable) and everlasting (eternal). The Particulars are inferior copies\representations of The Forms. The Forms are the ideal versions of objects. The senses can easily be fooled. It takes a philosopher to see past the Particulars and see the world for what it truly is. The Forms represent the true nature of reality.

Plato thought that philosophers should be at the top of the social hierarchy because only they were smart enough to disregard their senses and recognize the importance of reasoning rather than empirical

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

So when you see a desk, you know what it is because your immortal soul has a recollection of what a desk is from a past life. Wait

Criticisms of Platos Concept of The Forms

The conclusion that there are perfect versions of the objects around us is not necessarily the logical one to draw. Plato thought it was self-evident. The idea of the Forms works better for some objects than others. Its easy to think of a perfect cake (a little too easy), but what about a perfect dog turd? How do the forms relate to specific objects? Is there a Form of the Dog or is there one Form for Labradors, one for Greyhounds, etc. Are there gender divides? Soon the idea of an all-encompassing Form has little meaning\use. Knowledge gained from the senses is vital for our survival. Like before. Good is subjective. We can all point to the same sun, but we dont all share the definition of the word good. Infinite regress. Is there a Form of the Forms? Plato said the Form of the Good is the ultimate form. This also refers to AO1 skills. How do The Forms compare to The Particulars? Questions Practice Essay Explain the Platonic Concept of the Forms (25 marks) You ought to mention A very brief background, if youd like An explanation of the concept of The Forms, and the hierarchy How it relates to Platos core beliefs (rationalism) You should ignore The use of unnecessary examples (youre being timed, dont repeat yourself) Any AO2. Save it for the part B questions

OCR recommend you spend 25 minutes on part A and 15 minutes on part B.

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

Aristotle was a student of Plato, but his philosophy was very different. He was an empiricist philosophy based on what we can observe (a posteriori knowledge). His ideas on causation are found in his book, Metaphysics, Book 12.

Aristotles Ideas on Causation and The Four Caus

The ideas of causation (things being created), movement (change) and telos (purpose) were vital to Aristotles philosophy. He used his four causes to explain why things exist, and why they are the way they are. Every object should be able to answer to these causes. In short, theyre how you define an object you look at how it was made, what it was made from, its characteristics and its purpose. Cause what caused X to come into being? Potential what X could change into. Actual what X is now. Movement when potential becomes actual. Final Cause What is its purpose (telos)? Formal Cause What are its characteristics? Particulars? Efficient Cause How was it made? Material Cause What is it made from?

How do The what X is made of. Substance\Matter Forms compare to

Essence what is Xs purpose? Form characteristics of X (not like Plato!) Goodness achieving purpose. Eudamonia achieving final purpose. Telos purpose, end, aim.

The

What is Eudamonia?
Aristotle thought that the Final Cause was the most important. After all, if something does not have a purpose (telos) then why does it exist? He said that goodness and eudamonia (perfection) occurred when an object achieved its purpose. He tried to apply these questions to humanity what is the telos of humanity?

The cosmological argument is based largely around causation and movement. Make sure you understand what these terms mean.

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

Aristotle didnt like the idea that you could have an infinite chain of causes (infinite regress). He thought something must have started off all the movement and been the initial cause of everything. He called this the Prime Mover.

PM

The Domino Effect

If the universe were like a chain of dominoes, the Prime Mover is (basically) what started the dominoes moving. The final cause of everything. Logically, it couldnt have been part of the chain, otherwise it would need to have been moved by another domino.

Characteristics of the Prime Mover

Aristotle thought there must be a mover that moves them, without being moved, eternal and a substance and actual. Eternal Does not depend on anything else for its existence. It would have to be eternal, or else it would require a cause. If it had a cause, it would not be the final cause. Perfect It is the object of desire and love and this causes things to move towards it. This is how Aristotle explains movement. Aristotle relates it to God, although not a Greek god or the God of classical theism. It is fully actualized it has achieved its purpose. Outside of Space and Time The Prime Mover does not interact with anything in the universe, or this would cause it to change (and thus, stop being perfect). In the same way, it cannot think about anything in this universe, it must think of the thought of the thought. Moves by Pull The Prime Mover has no direct effect on this world, but it gradually pulls things towards itself. In this respect, it differs from the God of Classical theism. The God of CT is moved, interacts with creation and must experience change. The Prime mover is strictly hands-off. It started the chain of events, but cannot directly interact with the world.

Aristotle uses his ideas on cause and causation to conclude that the prime mover exists. These two concepts are integral to each other. Aristo

Part 1 Greek Philosophy

Criticism of Aristotles ideas on Causation and Movement
Why should everything have a final cause? Isnt it enough just to exist? Aristotle was an empiricist, and criticized Plato for his ideas on the forms but he has no evidence that empirical knowledge is any better.

Criticism of Aristotles Ideas on the Prime Mover

If the Prime Mover is a being of pure thought, where did the matter in the world come from? It contradicts the scientific viewpoint that nature is ultimately purposeless. Does there need to be a final cause of the universe? Couldnt It just be chance? Although Aristotle had a problem with infinite regression, other scholars dont see it as an issue. He says that nothing is self-causing, then contradicts himself in claiming that the prime mover is. Part A question, AO1 skills.

Practice Essay Questions

Explain what Aristotle meant by final Cause. (25 marks) In your answer, you might want to include Aristotles ideas on causation and the four causes How they fit in with Aristotles understanding of reality The importance of the final cause However, it would be irrelevant to include More than a brief mention of the Prime Mover Any use of AO2 skills

Theres a whole section in this guide on how to answer part B (AO2) questions. However, you are required to think rather than just relay your knowledge.

Part 2 The God of CT

The syllabus calls this Judeo-Christian influences on philosophy of religion. Its all about the Judeo-Christian idea of god, creation and how its relevant to philosophy.

God is Involved With His Creation

The Judeo-Christian god doesnt just sit back and watch his creation (this belief is associated more with deism). Creation is an ongoing process that God interacts with. In the book of Genesis, God interacts with the people, disciplines and praises them. There are two creation stories in the bible, one (Genesis 1) focusing on the creation of the universe, and one (Genesis 2) thats a lot more personal, about Gods creation of humanity and his relationship with them. In Jewish scriptures, the relationship between humanity and god is represented by a covenant, a binding agreement based on love. In both stories, humanity is the high-point of Gods creation. as a Craftsman God In Job 38:4-6, God speaks directly to Job and portrays himself as the skilled craftsman of the world. Who decided how large it would be?, Who stretched the measuring-line over it, Who laid the corner-stone of the world. Again, the idea of God as a craftsman is more personal, and is more related to the second idea of creation. A powerful God commands the world into existence, a loving God crafts it.

What is Creatio ex Nihilo?

This is the question of how God created the world. Did he create everything out of nothing (ex nihilo) or did he create it out of pre-existing matter? It could be argued that God is not technically the creator if the latter is true, he simply reassembled what was already there. The traditional Judeo-Christian view is that God did indeed create everything from nothing but a problem arises here as current scientific theory states that something cannot come from nothing. If God did not create ex nihilo then this problem goes away. It also means that he might not be wholly responsible for his creation.

The god of CT is Benevolent (all good), omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (existing everywhere).

Part 2 The God of CT

A lot of this stuff on God links in both to Aristotles Prime Mover and to later traditional arguments for the existence of God. So without further adieu

How does the God of CT compare to the Prime Mov

The Prime Mover cant interact with the Physical world. The Prime Mover and God of CT are both objects of desire and love. The God of CT is eternal, but not unchanging like the Prime Mover. The Prime Mover and God of CT both have a necessary, non-contingent existence. The Prime Mover and the God of CT are both the first of all substances. The key distinction here is the difference between a personal God (theism) and an impersonal god (deism).

If God created everything, should he be responsible for his creation?

For example, did God create the snake that tempts Adam and Eve in The Fall? And if not, what did? If you believe God did create ex nihilo then logically he must have created evil as well as good (although if not, God is again not responsible for every aspect of creation. Later theodicies by Augustine and Irenaus tie in to this question.

Vocab used to describe God

Eternal outside of time, has always been and will always be. Everlasting exists in the time frame of infinity can still interact with the world. Immanent existing within, intervening in and sustaining the world Transcendent Outside of time, space Qualities of God Benevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent.

These ideas of God, the goodness of God and the creation of the universe also factor into the traditional arguments for the existence of the

Part 2 The God of CT

If God is truly the #1 guy, that means he makes the rules. The concept of God in relation to morality is a difficult one he is defined as perfect, but interactive.

God is morally perfect

By definition, God is perfect but perfection should not be subject to change if something is perfect, then it changes, it is no longer perfect. But God does this all the time interacting with humanity, judging and disciplining. So obviously, in Judeo-Christian terms, the idea of a static good does not work. The Bible shows God being good, interacting with people and rewarding those with faith, and answering prayers. The Bible states that God is perfect, and Christians\Jews see evidence of this in the world around us. They regard the creation of the world as an act of love towards humanity, and Gods action through Jesus the same way. God is allowed to have righteous anger when people misbehave god has the right to punish them in the same way that a parent would have the right to punish a naughty child. God is not an ideal, he is a personality, interacting with and reacting to his creation. God is not unmoved, he displays emotions and makes his influence known to humanity. Ultimately, he is the moral standard by which Jews\Christians align their behaviour which begs the question is that actually good?

What is the Euthyphro Dilemma?

This philosophical conundrum dates all the way back to the ancient Greeks (and is named for one of Platos dialogues). In it, Socrates ponders Do the gods love what is good because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it? Two possibilities spring from this. If the gods love it because it is good, then there must be a moral standard that exists outside of them, which makes their moral judgement somewhat redundant. But if it is good because the gods love it, then who is to say that the judgement of the gods is correct? The Judeo-Christian God circumvents this dilemma, as there is no static definition of good for him to follow\define. Good is spoken through his actions and behaviour

The Goodness of God is also referred to and questioned in the Problem of Evil

Part 2 The God of CT

AO2 on this section is a little different to the others, theres no simple set of criticisms you can recall. Here are some good starting points.

Criticism of God, Creation and the Goodness of G

How the scientific viewpoint presents a contrary opinion. Contradiction between the two creation stories. Where did evil come from if God created ex nihilo? The Euthyphro Dilemma does the God of CT really escape it? How can God be perfect, yet personal and interactive? Is Gods definition of morality flawed?

Practice Essay Questions

How do the writers of the Bible explain the concept of God as the Creator (25 marks) In your answer, you may want to include The two creation stories. What does each say about God? Gods relationship with his creation. Use of relevant vocab. But you probably wont get marks for A straight recap of the creation story the question wants you to analyze the creation story and make relevant points on the attributes of God Any AO2, argument, critique

The how in this question is asking you to do more than describe. Remember, when you plan and write your essay, always read, understand and try to relate back to the question at hand. Youll get no

Part 3 The Arguments

The traditional arguments for the existence of God are all philosophical schools of thought that use reasoning and logic to attempt to prove Gods existence. The Ont arg is the only one of the arguments on the syllabus that is a priori.

Anselm (11th C, Proslogian) Founder of the Argument

The Ontological argument is based around the definition of God. Anselm had previously concluded (in Monologian) that God was that than which nothing greater can be conceived. His argument relies upon this assumption. He said that an atheist understands this concept, even if he does not believe in God. But he said that it must be greater to exist in reality than to exist in the mind alone. So for God to be the greatest being, his existence must be necessary. In a later argument, he also states that (by similar logic) something that cant be thought of as not existing is greater than something that can. Hence, God exists.

Gaunilo (11th C, On Behalf of the Fool) Challenges Ans

Gaunilo challenged Anselm with the perfect island analogy. He said that (by Anselms logic) if you were to imagine a perfect island, it would exist because it would not be perfect if it didnt. Being that they were contemporaries, Anselm fired back, saying that you cant compare a contingent thing (an island) with a non-contingent being (God). He also argued that a being than which greater cannot be conceived is unique. Plantinga (20th C) said that islands have no intrinsic maximum (they can always be better) but you cannot apply this to Anselms God. Gaunilos criticism only applies to the first form of the argument, not the second.

The Ontological Argument relies heavily upon Reductio Ad Absurdum basically, an argument that shows that a proposition is incorrect if you follow it through and it leads to a logically absurd consequence.

Part 3 The Arguments

A useful mnemonic to remember the Ontological Argument is Angry Dogs Growl and Kill (Anselm Descartes Gaunilo Kant) Im sure itll all come flooding back after that. th Descartes saw existence as an attribute of a perfect being. If you take away three sides or the 180 angles of a triangle, it stops being a triangle. Similarly, if you take away existence from a supremely perfect being its not supremely perfect anymore. Descartes was not concerned with the mind and reality, only the definition of a perfect being.

Descartes (16 C, Mediations V) Backs Anselm

Kant (18th C, Critique of Pure Reason) Challenges Argument

He argues that if you dont have a triangle at all then you dont need its attributes. He says its okay to dismiss the subject and the predicate together, because the predicate should enhance the subject. (e.g x is purple or x is boring) Furthermore, existence is not a predicate, it is not a quality of something as you do not enhance the description of something by saying that it exists. It is perfectly possible to imagine something that is perfect, but does not exist Desartes is trying to turn an analytic statement (a quality of god) into a synthetic one (about his existence). Basically, he separated the concepts of the nature of something (e.g God) and somethings existence, and said that one did not influence the other. A predicate must give us information about something, and it exists does not. He uses the example of $100 in the wallet you can imagine and describe them but you cannot jump from a description of them to saying that they exist.

Kant called the Ont Arg a tired tautology and he was quite right. He successfully challenges Descartes and Anselm. When you describe an object, you do not say if it exists or not because it is irrelevant to the description.

Part 3 The Arguments

The Cosmological argument links in to Aristotles ideas on cause and causation. It is a posteriori, it looks at the universe and says what caused this to be here?

Aquinas (13th C , Summa Theologica)

Uses 3 of his 5 ways (demonstratio) motion, causality and necessity. He wanted to identify a starting point of the universe. Everything is moved and caused by something, he theorized as to what that something might be. The chain of causes\motion cannot go on forever (infinite regress), there must be a first cause He was more focused on understanding the nature of God than his existence. As things in this world are contingent, there must have been a point at which none of them existed they must have been caused by something non-contingent. He concludes that there must be a necessary being outside the universe who caused it, but is themselves uncaused. He theorized that this could be God.

Hume (18th C, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) - Against

Although Hume was also an empiricist, he questioned whether it had to begin at all couldnt the universe itself be uncaused, and not caused by any God? He questioned why we would immediately conclude that everything has a cause we see the universe, and think that it is caused, but we have not seen it be caused. He said that Aquinas leapt from making observations about the physical world (it exists) to concluding that it was been created by something metaphysical. He thought that Aquinas contradicted himself by saying that the universe could not be self-causing, but that God could be. He thought it would be more logical to say that the universe was self-causing (causa sui). He agreed that there might be a first cause of the universe, but did not think it had to be the God of Classical Theism.

Aquinas and Humes ideas also clash in the Teleological argument. Aquinas was looking to re-acquaint modern philosophers with Aristotles ideas, Hume was an Atheist and used dialogues to get across his ideas in his book.

Part 3 The Arguments

Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russel were two contemporaries of each other, and they presented their ideas in a BBC radio debate in 1948.

Fredrick Copleston (20th C) Backs Aquina

He reformed Aquinass 3rd way, said that the 1 st cause has necessary existence. He believed in a hierarchy of causes, and said that God was at the top of this. He said the universe had to be contingent as it is made up of contingent things. He also wanted to put forward the idea of a God unlike Aristotles Prime Mover, one who did not just disappear after setting a chain of causes into motion. In the 1948 Radio debate against Bertrand Russel, he said to Russel If one refuses to sit down and make a move, you cannot be checkmated

ertrand Russell (20th C) Why I am not a Christian

He opposed Copleston in the 1948 BBC radio debate. He questioned (much like Hume) why people thought the universe needed to have a first cause. He said the universe was just there and that its existence was a brute fact. Copleston was trying to make sense of the universe, but Russel argued that this was pointless, and that the universe did not have to make sense. In his response to Coplestons chessboard analogy, he said that it was skewed towards the theist that in order to engage with Copleston, he would have to work within his logic, which Russel outright denied. He stormed out of the debate when neither man was prepared to accept the others view. An edited version of the radio debate can be heard at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BWFpBTqSN0 and its well worth listening to.

This debate is an example of the split between scientific theory and religious theology. Religious theology always looks at why something happens or exists, but scientific theory often concludes that there is no reason at all.

Part 3 The Arguments

The Teleological argument looks at the complexity of the world around us and uses this evidence to conclude that it must have been intelligently designed.

Aquinas (13th C, Summa Theologica) - For

This argument makes use of the 5th of his ways, on how the world infers a designer.

He says that all things with a purpose must have been designed, and uses the example of an arrow it must have been shot for a purpose, and it does not fly itself ust like the universe did not create itself.

He uses the complex interactions between objects and organisms in this world as proof that they were designed (and designed with the same final cause, harmony)

He says the universe produces more good than bad, and a good God acts to guide he world and create harmony.

Hume (18th C, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) - Aga

He was a major critic of this argument, criticizing the link between evidence of design and the conclusion that it is the God of Classical Theism. He said that humans have no proof that its the God of CT and no proof that the God of CT is benevolent, designed it well or that it is designed to work together. He says things in this world appear to work together, but if they didnt work together, they probably wouldnt exist. He also says it could all be down to chance. He also looks at causation why should similar effects have similar causes? Just because some things appear to work together it does not mean that they were all designed by the same being. He argues that you shouldnt think of the universe in man-made terms, and that its more like a vegetable it changes and grows, it was not constructed by God\gods. Some designers arent as powerful as the things they create why the God of CT?

The Tel Arg uses examples of design qua purpose (things that are designed to work towards a specific goal) and design qua regularity (how order and regularity point to a creator that encompasses a specific set of rules)

Part 3 The Arguments

William Paley (18th-19th C, Natural Theology) - Fo

Design qua purpose and analogical (as it is based on an analogy) He uses the example of a man walking through a heath he sees a rock and is able to assume that it is part of nature. But if he were to walk through the same field and see a watch, he would know that somebody designed and made it. He would see that the parts fitted together for a purpose, and that it had not come into existence by chance. Paley says that God is to the world as the watchmaker is to the watch we look at purpose and regularity in the world and we can tell it has been designed. He looks at other examples like fish fins and the human eyeball to support his conclusion. He says that things could have a designer and a purpose, even if we do not understand their purpose. He also points to regularity in the universe (Newtons laws of motion, gravity and the orbits of the planets) as evidence of design.

Charles Darwin (19th C)

Against

John Stuart Mill (19th C

He posed the question if the world is designed by a loving God, why is nature so cruel? (in an essay entitled nature) According to Darwin, progress in nature is the result of huge amounts of suffering. Animals do freely in nature what humans would be punished for (murder, rape, etc). He says nature tramples everything underfoot nature is selfish and cruel. His ideas follow on to the Problem of Evil, the idea that an all-good God cannot be responsible for the evidently evil world that we see around us.

Darwin put forward his explanation for how life came about in his book The Origin of Species. He provided scientific evidence to back Humes criticism, and explained the illusion of design. His basic theory was that Evolution is a gradual process of change, in which better adapted organisms are better able to survive and pass on favorable characteristics to their offspring. He was actually a theist Science answers how, not why. The (flawed) counter argument from theists is that evolution is an instrument of design from God.

Part 3 The Arguments

The Moral Argument is another one of those arguments that doesnt attempt to prove that God exists, but points toward the likelihood of his existence. Kant rejected the idea that you could prove god exists with logic and reasoning.

An Overview of the Argument

Kant believed in the existence of an objective moral law that we feel obliged to obey. This is independent of culture, or circumstance. He refers to this as the categorical imperative an absolute and universal sense of moral duty which directs us to the right action. Kant thought that duty meant to do good out of a sense of obligation rather than being motivated by any kind of reward. He said this was a virtue. But he also believed that you would be rewarded at some point if you behaved virtuously. He called this the Summum Bonum or the highest good. He concluded that the only way we could achieve the Summum Bonum is with Gods help, as we often go our entire life in this world with no reward. He theorized that this pointed to some kind of afterlife. The Summum Bonum is where the three postulares (freedom, immortality and God) meet. It is the result of us choosing to be virtuous, not being virtuous for any other reason.

Freuds Psychological Challenge to Kan

Sigmund Freud was a somewhat notorious psychologist who offered a scientific counter-argument to Kant in much the same way that Darwin offered one to Paley. Frued was critical of religion, calling it a neurosis of the mind and dismissing it as wishful thinking. He thought that morals were actually rooted in our upbringing. From birth, we have an authority figure in our lives telling us to act virtuously. Freud said that this manifests itself in the unconscious mind as the superego which is responsible for our morals and conscience. He viewed the subconscious mind as a battlefield between the superego and the id (which is responsible for impulsive\instinctual behavior), with the Ego trying to mediate between the two. So Freuds argument removes the need for divine influence from morality.

Part 4 Challenges to Religion

The typical Judeo-Christian view is that God is a supremely perfect being. But the universe he created is full of evil and suffering so why does evil exist today?

What is the Problem of Evil?

There are two types of evil in the world, natural evil (caused by nature, e.g hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes) and moral evil (caused by humans, e.g murder, rape, Nick Griffin). But the God of Classical Theism is omnipotent and benevolent. If he is indeed both of these things, shouldnt he stop the evil? Augustine summed up the problem, saying either god cannot abolish evil, or he will not, if he cannot he is not all-powerful, if he will not he is not all good. This leads to five logical outcomes God is not Benevolent, God is not omnipotent, our definition of evil could be flawed, our definition of God could be flawed, or that God does not exist. Polytheistic religions do not have this problem, as they can attribute evil to different gods. But the God of classical theism created the universe ex nihilo so shouldnt he be responsible for everything in it? Evil

Epicuris The Inconsistent Triad

The Ancient greek Epicuris came up with this

triad of Gods qualities and evil. The basic idea is that only two of these qualities can exist beside one another. Hume looked at these qualities and used them as direct evidence that the God of CT does not exist. Mill had also reached the same conclusion in his essay nature, in which he remarks upon how cruel and barbaric nature can be.

God
Omnipotence Benevolence

The existence of evil indeed presents a major problem for religious theologians. The next page has religious explanations for the existence of evil.

Part 4 Challenges to Religion A theodicy is put forward by a religious scholar as an attempt to justify the
existence of evil in the face of God. In this section, well look at Irenaeus and Augustine.

The Theodicy of Irenaeus

Generally represents the eastern Christian view (eg. The Orthodox Church). The basic idea is that humans learn from our mistakes and develop our souls. He evidences Gen 1:26 we were made in the image of God, but we need to develop into his likeness in order to reach spiritual perfection. The existence of evil is justified it allows us to learn, differentiate between good and evil and reach spiritual maturity, without it we would never truly be perfect. John Hick calls this a soul-making argument it needs intelligence, personality and morality developed though co-operation with God. Interestingly, it justifies the existence of evil rather than denying it outright. He says that God could not create perfect humans from the start, we need free will in order for us to choose good and reach Gods likeness. Free will is fundamental to our humanity. God is (in a sense) responsible for evil, but it is justified. In the end, everyone goes to heaven, sins forgiven, and gods plan is complete.

Criticism of Irenaeus theodicy

It trivializes suffering and evil. It doesnt explain events like the Holocaust. How much evil is required for goodness to emerge? Some people suffer a lot more than others, is this justified? It only works when we are aware of our own free will (so it is not compatible with determinism) Does it really argue that God is benevolent if it basically states that he allows evil to happen?

We are created at an epistemic distance from God. This is a gap in our knowledge, understanding and morality that we can close only by

Part 4 Challenges to Religion

The Theodicy of Augustine

Referred to as the soul-deciding theodicy, focuses on the Fall of Man in Genesis. Augustine was Bishop of Hippo in the 4th century, his views are generally associated with western Christianity (e.g Roman Catholicism). He claims that God is perfect and did indeed create a perfect world he did not create evil. He says that evil came externally from creation, so god isnt responsible. In Eden, people lived in harmony with God, but Adam\Eve chose to disobey him. .God knew this would happen, but didnt want it to. However, he accepted that his creations needed freedom much like Irenaus. He said that evil is a Privatio Bonic or a lack of good. God couldnt create it as you cant create a lack of something. Evil comes from free beings who chose to go against god. As an act of love, God gave his son (Jesus Christ) to save humanity from evil. God is rightful not to intervene as he saves people through Jesus (not directly). Evil is a necessary possibility because only a causa sui God can be perfect. He also said that all evil is either sin or punishment for sin. Free will allowed the humans and angels to disobey god. Those who feel that they have suffered unjustly to are in fact suffering for their original sin as they were seminally present in Adam. Jesus can help us clean our slates.

Criticism of Augustines theodicy

Schliermacher pointed out that a perfect world should not have the potential for evil. How did Gods first creations know about good and evil if they were perfect? It contradicts the scientific idea that organisms evolve and gradually improve. Was hell part of the design on the world? Why would it be part of a perfect world? If God judges people and sends sinners to hell, is he really benevolent? Evil is part of the world God created, regardless of whether it is a substance or a deprivation and he should take responsibility for it.

Part 4 Challenges to Religion

Key Differences Between Augustine and Irenaus
Irenaeus thinks that God is responsible for evil, Augustine attributes it to The Fall. Irenaeus says freedom allows us moral choice, Augustine blames if for The Fall. Irenaeus believes all people go to heaven, Augustine thinks we are judged by God. Irenaeus argues that evil has a positive role, to Augustine it is a punishment. Irenaeus views evil as a real force, to Augustine it is a lack of good.

The Free Will Defense

The free will defense is an extension of Irenaeus ideas on free will. The world allows people to make choices with good and bad outcomes. But if god created beings who are free and choose evil, does that not make him responsible? Swinburne (20 th C) uses the analogy of a parent allowing their child freedom, and says if a parent intervened they might take away the Childs ability to learn from their mistakes. He also said that life had to be limited, otherwise we would always have a chance to redeem ourselves. The free will defense has been criticized for failing to explain why people turn away from God. Mackie says it is no excuse for evil. Hick argues back We look free, but if we could only choose good, we arent. And where does preterminism (Gods knowing of everything in advance) come into the argument?

Practice Essay Questions

Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus. (25 marks) Try and talk about The problem of evil in general, maybe a brief overview. The key ideas behind Irenaeuss theodicy (free will, epistemic distance), and how he interprets Genesis. But shy away from oh, you know the drill by now. No AO2, no off topic nonsense.

The creation of the universe; How\why did it all begin? Religious philosophers often look at the question and answer it as fully as they can, but they lack the scientific knowledge to come up with an explanation that is satisfactory to scientists. Similarly, scientists often look at the question, apply their knowledge and come up with an answer that isnt satisfactory to religious philosophers, as it lacks philosophical insight. In an ideal world, Science and Religion ought to complement one another, but in reality they tend to get into debates over whos right and whos wrong.

Part 4 Challenges to Religion

Two Very Different Creation Stories

Christian evangelists have a firm conviction that the universe was made 6,000 years ago within the space of six days. They evidence this in the bible, and the various arguments for Gods existence. Scientific evidence points to a universe closer to 15 billion years old. (15 with 9 zeros). Scientists calculated this using the Hubble Constant. In a nutshell, the universe is expanding and all the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other. If you can calculate the speed of movement of the interstellar objects (by red shift created by the Doppler effect) then you can work out the point in time that the entire universe was compressed into a single point in space (a singularity). In light of this evidence, it has been called into question whether the teachings of the Bible ought to be interpreted literally. Scientists say no, religious fundamentalists say yes. Its a long and probably unwinnable argument.

What Are the Criteria for These Viewpoints Co-existing?

A lot of religious believers argue that the conditions for life of this nature on this planet are so incredibly small that, even if scientific theories are accounted for, there must have been some kind of divine intervention. But some say God couldnt have started the big bang as there was nothing before it - unless you accept the theory that God is external to the universe. Augustine had already approached this problem and concluded that God created time. But if youre a believer in Quantum Mechanics and String Theory, you could say that there are an infinite number of universes, existing at different points on a dimension we cannot observe which makes our existence much more likely.

Like the big bang, the theory of evolution directly contradicts religious belief.

Part 4 Challenges to Religion

Evolution and Intelligent Design

The theory of evolution states that random mutations in the DNA of a living organism cause changes in the physical characteristics of said organisms. If these changes happen to benefit the organism then it is more likely to live and reproduce, and thus get to spread its DNA to the rest of the species. Over time, organisms change gradually depending on which characteristics are beneficial to them. This step-by-step process creates the so called illusion of creation. The characteristic that allows humans to survive is our large brains we have developed language, abstract thought and self-awareness. There are numerous theories on the origin of life, from primordial ooze to water brought down from comets. The scientific viewpoint is that ultimately, the only purpose in life is to reproduce and spread our DNA. Theres overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution, but unlike a religious explanation, it does not offer any insight into the meaning of life. The stories of the Bible often carry morals and messages. There are some who say that genesis does not rival scientific ideas, it presents its own, entirely separate set of ideas that does not conflict with science.

More Hybrid Views, This Time, Design

Rev. Dr. John Polkinghome, ex-professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge university is a believer in the big bang, but does not rule out Gods creation. He views it as the ongoing process of God interacting with humanity. Prof. Fred Hoyle, an atheist astronomer, admitted that there is a high level of chance in scientific theories, likening the chance of a single cell forming to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a working Boeing 747. Prof. Richard Dawkins is a staunch atheist, and comments that evolution is not a faith position. Like the theory that the earth is round and not flat, evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence, accepted by informed scientists and church people from the Pope on.

Part 4 Challenges to Religion

What is Irreducible Complexity?
In the Teleological argument, Paley argued that the way parts of nature appear to work together was proof that they were designed with this function in mind. Key examples are the human eye (an extremely complex organ) and flagella, which e. coli bacteria use to propel themselves through the water. The idea is that these kind of complex organs could not have evolved by a gradual process. If you remove one feature of the eye, suddenly you cannot see no survival advantage. Scientists have fired back, claiming that there is proof in fossil records that have been found or will be found to account for current gaps in the knowledge of evolution they also say that even a few light receptor cells can enhance the chances of an organism surviving greatly, and the process can continue from there. There is still controversy surrounding whether intelligent design ought to be taught in schools as a viable theory alongside evolution. It has been criticized by the scientific community for lacking a scientifically proven counter-argument to evolution. Remember, if you get an AO2 question it does not matter what you put, as long as youre able to support your opinions and come to a logical conclusion!

Practice Essay Questions

How do religious believers respond to challenges posed to them by Scientists? (25 marks) You could try explaining. Evolution versus intelligent design The big bang versus creation by God How religious believers respond to these arguments (ways of incorporating religious beliefs into scientific theory, scientific challenges and criticisms such as irreducible complexity and the probability of life on earth) But youd best save for later Your own personal opinions

Various Miscellany
AO2 (as defined by the official syllabus) refers to discussing critically the validity of particular points, arguments and statements. Youre expected both to recall your knowledge of philosophy and use it to form a reasoned argument. You might also have to look at your knowledge of philosophy in a wider context.

The A/B Boundary Performance Descriptions

Construct a coherent and well-organized argument supported by examples and/or sources of evidence. You need to look at the question and answer it with more than common sense. Youre following this on from a part A essay, so you might have the facts laid out in front of you already. It doesnt matter which conclusion you arrive at so long as youre able to show that youve put some thought into it. Identify strengths and weaknesses in an argument. Straightforward, no? Often Philosophers will attempt to discredit each others arguments, you might need to recall these or think of your own problems with philosophical arguments. Use accurate and fluent expression. Typical quality of written communication thing here. Just make sure youre able to make your point coherently, and work technical terms into your answers whenever possible, because it gives the examiner an easy excuse to give you an extra mark or two.

How do I write a good AO2 essay?

The theodicy of Irenaeus cannot justify the existence of evil Discuss. (10) How does Irenaeus theodicy attempt to justify evil, and are there flaws in his line of argument? Are there strengths? Irenaeus thinks that evil is necessary for human development. But how much evil? Give some examples of how this criticism might be applied (e.g: the Holocaust) From the evidence youve presented, come to a well-written and logical conclusion Stick to the issue: justify. Can evil be justified?

Various Miscellany
A posteriori - reasoning requiring experience and evidence A priori - reasoning supported by theory, not fact Analytic statement - truth by definition Contingent - dependant on something else for existence Deductive - logical deduction Empiricism - doctrine that knowledge stems from experience Finite - cannot be changed Inductive - proceeding from facts to a conclusion Infinite regress - a point, response or logical step that can be used indefinitely Innate - has always been, not acquired Metaphysical - without material form or substance Necessary - something that is needed or essential Obligation - action that is demanded Paradox - impossible, self-contradicting Postulate - a proposition accepted as true to provide a basis for logical reasoning Predicate - quality of something Qua - in the character or capacity of (for the purpose of) Rationalism - knowledge from reason, not experience Substance - important\vital part of an experience\idea Tautology - a statement that is neccesarily true Teleology - doctrine explaining phenomena by their ends or purposes Theodicy - branch of theology that defends god's justice in the face of the existence of evil Transcendant - beyond human understanding Unequivocal - no doubt or misunderstanding - clear meaning and conclusion