Welcome to the Philosophy of Religion!
Welcome to your study notes for Section A of Component 1. Philosophy of religion is one of the most exciting parts of the AQA A Level course because it asks the "big questions" that humans have been pondering for thousands of years. Does God exist? Why is there suffering? Is there life after death?
Don’t worry if some of these ideas seem a bit "out there" at first. We are going to break them down into bite-sized chunks with clear examples to help you master the material. Let’s get started!
1. Arguments for the Existence of God
In this section, we look at three famous ways philosophers have tried to prove God exists. Some use observation (looking at the world around us), and others use pure thought (logic and definitions).
A. The Design Argument (The Teleological Argument)
This argument says the world is so complex and "perfectly fit for purpose" that it must have had a designer.
William Paley’s Analogy: Imagine you are walking across a heath and you trip over a watch. You notice how all its tiny gears work together to tell the time. You wouldn’t assume it just "happened" to appear there by chance; you would conclude it must have had a watchmaker. Paley argues the universe is even more complex than a watch, so it must have a Universe Maker (God).
Criticisms from David Hume: Hume was a skeptic. He argued:
1. The analogy is weak: The universe is more like a giant vegetable (organic) than a watch (machine).
2. Poor design: If there is a designer, they aren't very good—look at diseases and natural disasters!
3. Multiple gods: Even if there is a designer, why does it have to be the Christian God? It could be a team of junior gods who made a mistake.
B. The Ontological Argument
This is an a priori argument, meaning it is based on logic and definitions rather than looking at the world.
St. Anselm’s Presentation: Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." He argued that it is better to exist in reality than just in the mind. Therefore, if God is the greatest thing we can think of, He must exist in reality, otherwise He wouldn't be the greatest!
Criticisms:
1. Gaunilo: He used the example of a "Perfect Island." Just because I can imagine the most perfect island doesn't mean it magically appears in the ocean.
2. Immanuel Kant: He argued that "existence is not a predicate." A predicate is a characteristic (like being "blue" or "tall"). Saying something "exists" doesn't tell us anything about what it is; you have to find it in the world to prove it exists.
C. The Cosmological Argument
This looks at the fact that the universe exists at all and asks: "What caused it?"
Thomas Aquinas (Way 3): This is the argument from contingency and necessity.
1. Everything in the world is contingent (it relies on something else to exist and will eventually die or disappear).
2. If everything was contingent, there might have been a time when nothing existed.
3. But something exists now! Therefore, there must be one Necessary Being (something that doesn't rely on anything else) to start everything off. This is God.
Criticisms:
1. Hume: Why can't the universe just be an "infinite chain" of causes with no beginning?
2. Bertrand Russell: He famously said the universe is "just a brute fact." It’s just there, and it doesn't need an explanation.
Quick Review Box:
- Design: Look at the watch (Paley).
- Ontological: God is the greatest (Anselm).
- Cosmological: Everything needs a cause/reason (Aquinas).
2. Evil and Suffering
This is often called the "rock of atheism." If God is all-powerful (Omnipotent) and all-loving (Omnibenevolent), why is there so much pain?
Key Concepts
Moral Evil: Suffering caused by humans (e.g., murder, war, bullying).
Natural Evil: Suffering caused by nature (e.g., earthquakes, cancer, droughts).
The Problems
1. The Logical Problem: (Epicurus/Mackie) It is a logical contradiction to have an all-powerful, all-loving God AND evil. They cannot all exist at the same time. This is called the Inconsistent Triad.
2. The Evidential Problem: (Mill/Rowe) Even if there's a reason for some evil, why is there so much? Why do innocent babies suffer? The sheer amount of evidence makes God’s existence unlikely.
Theodicies (Responses to Evil)
John Hick’s Soul-Making: Hick argues that we aren't born perfect. The world is a "vale of soul-making" where we face challenges to grow spiritually.
Analogy: Think of the world like a gym. You can't get muscles (virtues like courage or patience) without the resistance of weights (suffering).
The Free Will Defence: God gave us free will because he didn't want us to be robots. For free will to be real, we must have the possibility of choosing evil. The evil is our fault, not God's.
Process Theodicy (Griffin): This is a radical view. Griffin argues that God is not all-powerful. God "started" evolution but cannot stop evil once it's in motion. God suffers with us rather than stopping the pain.
Key Takeaway: Theodicies try to defend God's goodness in the face of suffering. Some focus on our growth (Hick), others on our freedom (Free Will), and some limit God's power (Griffin).
3. Religious Experience
Some people claim to have "met" God or felt a divine presence. Are these experiences real or just tricks of the brain?
Types of Experience
Visions:
- Corporeal: Seeing something with your physical eyes (e.g., Bernadette seeing Mary at Lourdes).
- Imaginative: A vision in a dream.
- Intellectual: A deep "knowing" or seeing with the mind's eye.
Numinous Experiences (Rudolf Otto): This is a feeling of being in the presence of something "Wholly Other." It is Mysterium Tremendum et Fascinans—a mystery that is both terrifying and wonderful at the same time.
Mystical Experiences:
- William James: He gave us the mnemonic PINT to remember the features:
1. Passive (You don't control it).
2. Ineffable (Impossible to describe in words).
3. Noetic (You gain deep knowledge).
4. Transient (It doesn't last long, but the effects do).
- Walter Stace: He focused on the idea of union—feeling "at one" with the divine.
Verifying Experiences
Challenges: Science often points to drugs, fasting, or brain disorders (like temporal lobe epilepsy) as causes for these feelings.
Richard Swinburne’s Defence:
1. Principle of Credulity: We should believe what our senses tell us unless we have a good reason not to. If I see a desk, I believe it's a desk. If someone "sees" God, they should believe it's God.
2. Principle of Testimony: We should generally believe what people tell us they have experienced unless they are known liars or on drugs.
4. Religious Language
Can we even talk about God? God is supposed to be infinite, but our language is finite. This section asks if "God is good" means anything.
The Challenge
Verification Principle: Language is only meaningful if it is Analytic (true by definition, 2+2=4) or Synthetic (can be proven by senses). Since we can't "prove" God with our senses, talk about God is meaningless.
Falsification Principle (Anthony Flew): A statement is only meaningful if you can imagine what would prove it wrong. Religious people often refuse to let anything count against their faith (e.g., "God loves us even if he lets us die"), which Flew says makes their language "die the death of a thousand qualifications."
The Responses
Eschatological Verification (John Hick): We can verify God, but only after we die!
Analogy: Two travelers on a road. One believes it leads to a Celestial City, the other doesn't. They only find out who was right at the end of the journey.
Bliks (R.M. Hare): Religious language isn't a fact; it's a Blik—a way of seeing the world that influences how we behave.
Example: A student thinks his teachers are out to kill him. No matter how nice they are, his "blik" remains. It’s meaningful to him because it changes his life.
Language Games (Wittgenstein): Language is like a sport. Football has its own rules, and so does Chess. You can't use football rules in chess. Similarly, religion is a "game" with its own rules. To an insider, "God exists" is meaningful. You can't criticize it using the rules of "Science" because it's a different game.
Other Views
Via Negativa (Apophatic Way): We can only say what God is not (e.g., God is not limited, God is not mortal). This avoids making God sound like a human.
Analogy (Aquinas): When we say God is "good," it’s not exactly like a "good" dog, but it's not totally different either. It's an analogy of proportion (God is good in a God-like way).
Symbol (Tillich): Religious language functions like a flag. A flag isn't just a piece of cloth; it points to something deeper (loyalty, a nation). Words like "Holy" point to a deeper reality.
Quick Review Box:
- Cognitive: Language describes facts (Hick).
- Non-cognitive: Language expresses feelings or ways of life (Hare, Wittgenstein).
- Via Negativa: Only say what God is NOT.
5. Miracles
What counts as a miracle? Is it a "breaking" of the laws of nature, or just a lucky event?
Two Views
1. Realist: Miracles are actual, physical events where God steps into the world (e.g., Jesus walking on water).
2. Anti-Realist: Miracles are just "signs" that are meaningful to the person experiencing them, but they don't break laws of nature.
Key Scholars
David Hume: Hume defines a miracle as a violation of a law of nature. He argues we should never believe they happen because the evidence for the laws of nature (e.g., gravity) is much stronger than the testimony of a few "ignorant" people claiming a miracle.
Maurice Wiles: Wiles was a Christian who rejected miracles. He argued that if God could perform miracles but only did them occasionally (like curing one person of cancer but letting millions die in the Holocaust), then God would be arbitrary and immoral. He prefers to see the whole of creation as the only "miracle."
6. Self, Death, and the Afterlife
What are we made of? Do we have a soul that survives death?
The Soul
René Descartes (Dualism): Descartes argued that the mind and body are two separate things. He famously said, "I think, therefore I am." He could doubt his body existed, but he couldn't doubt his mind was doing the doubting. Therefore, the soul/mind is distinct from the body.
The Body/Soul Relationship
Is the soul like a "pilot" in a ship (Dualism), or is the soul just the "shape" or "function" of the body (Materialism)?
Materialism: Most scientists today argue that there is no "soul"—everything we think and feel is just brain chemistry. When the brain dies, "you" die.
Possibility of Life After Death
1. Resurrection: The belief that God will re-create our bodies (or give us new spiritual ones).
2. Reincarnation: The soul moves from one body to another.
3. Objective Immortality (Process Thought): We don't live on as individuals, but we live on "in the mind of God" as a memory that never fades.
Key Takeaway: Philosophy asks whether "you" are just a brain or something more. If we are just brains, life after death is impossible. If we have a soul (Descartes), it becomes much more likely!
Final Tip for the Exam: Don't just list what scholars say. Always ask yourself: "Is this a strong argument? Why?" and "How would an opponent (like Hume) respond?". Good luck!