Ph 103 G and H: Philosophy of Religion Instructor: Michael Ner E.

Mariano Final Oral Examination Thesis Sheet

Sem 1 SY 2011-2012

1. Tillich says that Philosophical truth is truth about the structure of being; the truth of faith is truth about ones ultimate concern. Rowe clarifies that the philosophy of religion is the critical examination of basic religious beliefs and concepts. Stace describes religion as the hunger which no existencecan ever satisfy. Tillich o First points out that truth of faith cannot negate or affirm scientific or historical truth, or vice versa o Then goes on with the complexity of the relation between truth of faith and philosophical truth o Every definition of philosophy is an expression of the point of view of the philosopher. Nevertheless, philosophy is the attempt to answer the general questions about the nature of reality and human existence o Philosophy is more concerned about finding a detached universal answer and uses concepts o On the other hand, truth of faith is about the ultimate concern of the being, an involved expression of concern about the meaning of life, and uses symbols Rowe o First, philosophy of religion is not to be confused with the history of religions, but more of defining religion per se, generally as possible o Second, philosophy of religion is not theology, the study about the a particular religion from the perspective of within that particular religion. Philosophy of religion is more concerned about studying religion, in general again, from a vantage point o Philosophy of religion tries to examine the basic religious concepts Stace o First, quotes Whitehead, religion is something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things o So many paradoxes and contradictions are found in Whiteheads statement o Religion is Ultimate ideal, and hopeless quest Hunger of the soul for the impossible The seeking for the infinite Desire to break away from being and existence to go to the nothingness where that something exists and resides o Nothing can appease the hunger, but God alone o Nothing in history, past, present or future, nothing that actually existed and can possibly exist can appease the hunger, but God alone. o Then ends with either God is a mystery or He is nothing at all 2. Otto describes the religious experience as that of creature-consciousness in the presence of the numen, characterized as mysterium tremendum et fascinosum.

Refutes Schliermachers definition of the religious experience as a feeling of dependence There are other feelings of dependence that arent called religious experiences But rather calls it creature-consciousness or creature-feeling o Emotion of a creature, submerged and overwhelmed by its own nothingness in contrast to that which is supreme above all creatures o The feeling exists at the same time as the effect and as a reference to the object outside the self, rather than Schleiermacher pertaining religious experience as a result of inference, or reasoning. Then goes to the object of the creature feeling as numen o Most appropriate definition for that cause of the religious experience Describes numen as o Mysterium Wholly other Beyond understanding Extraordinary and unfamiliar Despite the numen is nothing like us, totally not us o Tremendum Fear Intense dread, tremor, fear Anxiousness, uneasiness Unapproachable Overpoweringness We cannot do anything We feel reduced to nothing Annihilation of self Urgency Wrath Immediate effect on us Presence is definitely felt We are forced and pressured o Fascinosum Putting all the negative effects on us aside, despite all of that, we are still attracted to it It is irresistible Harmony of contrasts The only way to comprehend tremendum, we feel a sense of fascination ALSO REFER TO: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/gothic/numinous.html DONT MIND THE GOTHIC NONSENSE :D

3. Thomas Aquinas prescribes what others would call cosmological arguments in order to show that belief in God is not irrational, while Anselm and Descartes would rather use ontological arguments. Five ways of Aqunas o Motion In everything that moves, there is a mover that precedes it

The object that moves is only possible because of its potentiality to move, and will move if that potentiality is actualized, which Aquinas derived from Aristotle From the analysis of Aquinas, he concludes that God is the first unmoved mover So everything that moves is preceded by the first mover and there could only one first mover, and that is God o Efficient cause All things in the universe should have a cause or source to exist Like any other human being, we existed because of our parents And our parents existed because of our grandparents and so on The line of ancestry could go on forever, but to prevent this, there must be a first cause, to have an immediate cause, and to have an ultimate effect, presently, that is us. And that efficient cause is God. o Possibility and necessity o Gradation o Governance of things/design We can see order around us That there is a system that runs around and through us That we have some kind of importance and roles So for example, planets and stars have existed because of some order, and that order came from one source And that source is an intelligent being ,which Aquinas concludes is God Anselm o God exists in the understanding of a fool o But God is that only thing that we can think of that anything or any being cannot and will not surpass o And to understand something that we can think of, that something should have existed or exists o God is the only one that is the greatest in our understanding, thinking, and imagination o Only existing things are partially understood, if not fully, when they exist, therefore, if we think of God, he exists Descartes o Analogy of Gods existence as a perfect being to the existence of a triangle o The mere shape of the triangle existed even before its conception o Like anything, existence is part of anythings essence, especially with God o Even with the concept of infinite is only possible with the existence of a perfect Being, which is God

4. William James, echoing Pascal, rejects Cliffords need for absolute certainty and instead goes for a pragmatic argument to show that belief in God is meaningful. Immanuel Kant had earlier provided a similar argument, but instead focused on the moral necessity to posit the existence of God. FOR CLIFFORD AND JAMES, REFER TO http://brindedcow.umd.edu/236/cliffordandjames.html :D

FOR KANT, REFER TO http://socyberty.com/philosophy/kants-moral-argumentfor-gods-existence/ :D THIS IS THE CLOSEST TO THE READINGS AND THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SIR

5. Nietzsche makes his Madman proclaim that God is dead. And we have killed him. Marx calls religion the opium of the people. Freud argues that through religion and its three-fold task, humans give the forces of nature the character of a father; religion for him restricts the individuals libido. Nietzche o God is not literally dead o He does not talk about atheists per se o He is talking about the context of the situation in his present time o He describes Europe as the killers of God because most Europeans lost their sense of morality and unity in God o Before, their values were centered on God, but now, science and philosophy is starting to kill God, in turn, killing the values that go with God. Marx o Man makes religion, and not vice versa o Man is the world of man, and not the other (spiritual) world religion promises o Religion is opium of the people, because it gives them illusory happiness in the future while suppressing the depression of the present. Freud o Describes nature as a threat to mankind, that without civilization, nature will destroy us o But no one believes that nature is subjected or will be subject to human control o Although man has some degree of resistance with regards to the imperfections of civilization, what about the untamed nature or Fate? o Civilization only relieves man, consoles him o So man humanizes nature to deal with it o By humanizing nature, man tries to bribe nature of at least a part of its power to help man in his helplessness against it, like a child to his parent. o But this is only wishful thinking, that nature becomes an equal, or better, a protective parent (father) or god o With nature as god (religion): Exorcise the terrors of nature Reconcile men to the cruelty of Fate Compensate for the sufferings and privations which a civilized life in common has imposed on them o Man has a need to make his helplessness tolerable o Though man suffers, everything that the superior being wills, is best for us, that though we suffer now, a greater good will come even after death o And even through the sufferings of nature, man is also bound with the pleasure principle, the drive to seek happiness, but this happiness is attainable in ones own way. o Freud then describes mans libido as

Relational Predominantly eratic Narcissistic Satisfy ones own needs, happiness Active Trying out his strength in the outside world o Religion restricts the choices into one path o Religion acts like the delusional solution for the neurotic individuals 6. McCloskey reviews the Problem of Evil and provides counter-arguments versus the proposed solutions theists employ to dissolve the problem of both physical and moral evil. States the contradiction of God being all-good and all-powerful and the existence of evil Mackie reduces physical evil to moral evil; solution is the compatibility of free will and absolute goodness. But this is not the case. Evil is a problem to all theists. To modify ones theism, one must accept that: o God is not powerful enough to create a world that does not contain evil o God created only the good in the universe, and that some other power created the evil o God is all-powerful but morally imperfect Jesuit Father G. H. Joyce: If God is all-good and all-powerful, how, where, why does evil exist? Two general and distinct problems: o Physical Examples: Deserts, icebound areas dangerous animal, pests natural calamities disease in-born disease Though they increase human pain and suffering, not all physical evil results to pain, therefore physical evils are not reducible to pain. Joyce: if we concentrate on one aspect of the universe (PAIN), then thats all we see. But the problem is not that results from looking at only one aspect. The problem is also not which predominates, physical good or evil. The problem is that physical evil exists and occurs. o Moral Moral evil is simply immorality. It is more evil than physical evil. Theists: Moral evil is the absence of good. <- WRONG Proposed Solution to Physical Evil o Physical good (PLEASURE) requires physical evil (pain) to exist at all Analogy of color, to appreciate a color, another color must exist. This applies to pleasure and pain. 1st argument Does not cover all physical goods and evils Physical evil is not reducible only to human pain

2nd argument Why not just a speck of pain, and not an immense amount? rd argument 3 Pleasure is not dependent on the existence of pain. Without pain, there can be pleasure. And without pleasure, there can be pain. Even without a distinctive name to define the state, either can exists without the other. o Physical evil is Gods punishment for sin 1st argument If calamities are for sinners, what about the innocent babies and toddlers? Every sin is grave enough to incur such punishment. 2nd argument Deformities during birth is the result of the parent/s sin/s? 3rd argument Sufferings of animals arent accounted for. o Physical Evil is Gods Warning to Men Joyce: The overpoweringness of calamities inspires reverential awer to God. 1st argument Not all calamities result to people turning to God. Rather is presents physical evil in an acute form; and physical evil is the most often result of defection from religion. If God uses evil to promote good, then he is a swindler. o Physical evil is a result of the laws of nature Often used for animal suffering and physical calamities Theist: for the nonoccurrence of these evil, Constant miraculous intervention by God Different sets of laws to different components of the universe Hence, God creates a world with most of the time good and sometimes bad 1st argument Does not cover all physical evil 2nd argument If God intervenes, then it is possible to eliminate evil This argument limits Gods power 3rd argument If God was a good creator, he would have created better laws of nature 4th argument God created a good universe as whole, but has no control over what happens after creation o Physical evil increases Total Good Joyce: The beauty of art is seen from looking at the whole, and not the perfection of each method to create the art Physical evil is a means to a greater good

1st argument Does not say how much evil is necessary and how much is unnecessary Only some evil is necessary for the production of good 2nd argument The argument is inconclusive It is possible that good may also increase the ultimate evil rd argument 3 W.D. Niven: physical evil gives rise to moral and physical good Mackie: Physical evil also gives rise to moral evil Reducing to moral evil If there is no moral good, moral evil will still be justified, but not physical evil Physical evil is not essential to free will, it is only justified if moral good occurs, and outweighs moral evil If we have an obligation to lessen physical evil, then we are reducing the total good If we have an obligation of increasing the total good, we should prevent the reduction of physical evil, and possibly increase it PHYSICAL EVIL + MORAL GOOD is better than PHYSICAL GOOD + MORAL GOOD??? Proposed Solution to Moral Evil o Free will alone justifies moral evil 1st argument It is possible for all men to will evil. That is still better than all men have predestined good choices nd argument 2 Free will is compatible with no moral evil i. Mackie: God is not all-powerful if it is not possible for God to give free will and at the same time ensure that there is no moral evil committed ii. Joyce: free will is not compatible with absolute goodness and a benevolent and omnipotent God would have given man free will and ensured his absolute virtue. 3rd argument Free will is compatible with less moral evil Joyce: i. If God is omnipotent, he could intervene to prevent some or all evil, by result of prayer or own will ii. God created man with a nature biased to evil iii. An omnipotent God could have ordered the world that it was less favorable to the practice of evil Not all evil is justified o Moral goods from free will accounts for moral evil Transition from the 1st solution 1st argument At best, this argument may justify evil

2nd argument Designed to avoid the first argument, that free will may be compatible with less or no evil Joyce: Victory through struggle is better than victory with no effort at all Joyce implies that we should court temptation and moral struggles to achieve greater good and be worthier of the reward God demands too much for the production of goods, but this can be avoided by creating man with wills predestined with values We do not reward people who promote temptation and immorality In fact, we are recommended to prevent from tempting and immoral behavior

7. Sartre, who thinks that in humans, existence precedes essence, describes the human condition as that of anguish, forlornness, and despair. He claims that the problem of Gods existence is not the issue, instead it is whether an individual, in projecting himself, defines himself. Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. REFER TO http://www.bergen.edu/faculty/gcronk/sartrenotes.pdf :D

8. Hope, especially in the face of suffering and finitude, may be what is at the root of the human need to believe. Marcel proposes that hope is essentially the availability of a soul which has entered intimately enough into the experience of communion to accomplish in the teeth of will and knowledge the transcendent actthe act establishing the vital regeneration of which this experience affords both the pledge and the first-fruits.