Introduction to the Anthology Extracts

Welcome! In this part of your Philosophy of Religion course, you’ll be looking at four specific texts (extracts) that bring the theories you’ve studied to life. Think of these as the "greatest hits" of philosophical arguments. In your exam, Section B will ask you to analyze and evaluate these specific pieces of writing. Don’t worry if the language seems a bit formal at first; we are going to break down exactly what each scholar is saying and why it matters. These extracts aren't just old documents—they are intense debates about whether God exists, how we talk about God, and why a good God would allow suffering.

1. J. Mackie: "Evil and Omnipotence"

Topic Connection: Problems of Evil and Suffering. In this famous article, J.L. Mackie argues that religious belief is not just "unproven," but actually positively irrational. He focuses on what we call the Logical Problem of Evil.

The Inconsistent Triad

Mackie sets up a logical trap. He says that the following three statements cannot all be true at the same time: 1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful). 2. God is wholly good (perfectly loving). 3. Evil exists. If you have any two, the third one must be false. For example, if God is all-powerful and all-loving, He would and could stop evil. Since evil exists, one of those descriptions of God must be wrong.

Mackie’s Critique of Theodicies

Mackie looks at how religious people try to solve this (theodicies) and labels them "inadequate": * "Good cannot exist without evil": Mackie says this limits God’s power. If God is truly all-powerful, why couldn't He create a world where we understand "good" without needing "evil" as a contrast? * "The Free Will Defence": This is the idea that God gave us freedom, and we chose evil. Mackie's "killer" counter-argument is: Why couldn't an all-powerful God create humans who freely choose the good every time? If God is omnipotent, this should be possible! Key Takeaway: Mackie believes that if you want to be logical, you cannot hold onto the traditional definition of God while acknowledging that the world contains evil.

2. Flew & Hare: "Theology and Falsification"

Topic Connection: Religious Language. This extract is part of a "symposium" (a written debate) about whether religious talk actually means anything at all.

Antony Flew: The Parable of the Gardener

Flew uses a story about two explorers who find a clearing in the jungle. One says a gardener tends the plot; the other disagrees. They watch, but no gardener is seen. The believer says, "He is an invisible gardener." They set up electric fences, but no sound is heard. The believer then says, "He is invisible, intangible, and has no scent." Eventually, the skeptic asks: "What is the difference between an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener and no gardener at all?" Flew argues that for a statement to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable. You must be able to say what would prove you wrong. If a religious person keeps "qualifying" their statement (e.g., "God loves us, but in a way we can't understand") every time they see suffering, their claim suffers a "death by a thousand qualifications." It becomes meaningless.

R.M. Hare: The "Blik"

Hare disagrees with Flew. He tells a story about a "lunatic" student who is convinced his professors want to murder him. No matter how kind the professors are, the student stays convinced—he just thinks they are being "extra sneaky." Hare calls this a "Blik". A Blik is a fundamental way of seeing the world that isn't based on evidence or logic, but it is still meaningful because it changes how we live. Key Takeaway: Flew thinks religious language is meaningless because it won't let itself be proven wrong. Hare argues it is meaningful because it is a "Blik" that shapes our entire life.

3. Flew & Mitchell: "Theology and Falsification"

Topic Connection: Religious Language / Faith and Evidence. In the second part of the debate, Basil Mitchell tries to find a middle ground between Flew and Hare.

Basil Mitchell: The Parable of the Stranger

Imagine a resistance fighter in a war-torn country. He meets a Stranger who claims to be the leader of the resistance. The Stranger tells the fighter, "Trust me, no matter what happens." Sometimes the Stranger helps the resistance; other times, he is seen helping the enemy. The fighter’s friends say, "He’s a traitor!" But the fighter says, "No, I trust him." Mitchell argues that, unlike Hare’s "Blik," the fighter does see the evidence against the Stranger. He isn't blind to it. However, because of his original encounter/relationship, he chooses to trust the Stranger. Mitchell says religious belief is a "trial of faith." Religious statements are not meaningless (as Flew says) because the believer does acknowledge the "evidence" of evil—they just choose to trust God anyway. Key Takeaway: For Mitchell, faith is a commitment to a "Stranger" (God) based on a personal encounter, which allows the believer to hold onto their belief even when things look bad.

4. Russell & Copleston: The Existence of God

Topic Connection: Cosmological Argument and Religious Experience. This is a transcript of a 1948 BBC radio debate between Bertrand Russell (an atheist philosopher) and Frederick Copleston (a Jesuit priest).

The Argument from Contingency

Copleston uses a version of the Cosmological Argument. He argues: 1. Everything in the world is contingent (it doesn't have to exist; it depends on something else for its existence). 2. The universe is just the sum of all these contingent things. 3. Therefore, the universe itself needs an explanation that is not contingent. 4. This explanation must be a Necessary Being—which we call God. Copleston relies on the Principle of Sufficient Reason: the idea that there must be a total explanation for why things exist.

Russell’s "Brute Fact"

Russell famously refuses to play the game. He says Copleston is making a logical error (the fallacy of composition). Just because every human has a mother doesn't mean the "human race" as a whole has a mother. Russell says: "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all." He accepts the universe as a "brute fact" and argues that looking for a "cause" for the whole universe is a meaningless search.

Religious Experience

They also debate whether feeling "God's presence" proves God exists. Copleston argues these experiences are real effects that need a cause (God). Russell argues they are purely subjective—just because someone feels a "mystical" presence doesn't mean there is an objective "presence" there. He compares it to someone being in love with a fictional character. Key Takeaway: Copleston argues the universe must have an explanation (God), while Russell argues we don't need an explanation at all—the universe just is.

Study Tips for the Exam

* Clarify (AO1): Be ready to explain the parables! If you can explain the Gardener, the Stranger, and the Lunatic, you are halfway there. * Evaluate (AO2): Ask yourself: Who wins? Is Mackie right that free will could have been "better"? Is Russell right that the universe is just a "brute fact"? * Terminology: Use terms like Contingency, Falsification, Omnipotence, and Subjective/Objective. * Common Mistake: Don't just tell the story of the parable. You must explain what it represents in the philosophy of religion. For example, the Stranger represents God, and the "enemy help" represents the problem of evil.