Religious experiences

Tell me about a C vision and include a well known example

Corporeal - form of empirical religious experience - experience through our five senses. Experiencer sees a supernatural vision of an object that is really present. A well known example is St Bernadette at Lourdes in which she claimed to have experienced 18 visions -in one of them told to dig in the ground at the feet of Mary and when she did discovered a mountain spring- “immaculate conception” . The presence of an external figure can be understood 2 ways :

• The first idea = very substance of being or person is presented. Applies to living people and, it seems, to the glorified bodies of Christ and the Virgin Mary, which, through a possible supernatural ability to be in multiple places at once, can appear to people without leaving their heavenly state.

• Second = refers to the physical appearance of the resurrected dead or pure spirits. Understood as an appearance created by a specific arrangement of light rays.

Who was William Paley?

• William Paley was an 18th-century philosopher best known for his Design Argument in support of the existence of God.

• Gifted lecturer and intellectual powerhouse

  In his book Natural Theology, he argued that just as a watch’s complexity shows it was designed by a watchmaker, the complexity and order of nature (like the human eye or laws of physics) suggest a divine designer—God.

  Paley’s version of the teleological argument (argument from design) became one of the most famous and influential in philosophy of religion

What is Paleys design argument

• Paleys design argument is aposteriori meaning that it is based on sense experience - we use our senses to draw conclusions

  Argument is also inductive (premises used to supply strong evidence for truth of conclusion). Inductive is probably true. Since paleys argument is inductive and a posteriori, his conclusion that the world was designed by God is probably true, could be false.

What 3 observations of the world are Paleys design argument based upon?

• Complexity - Complexity of the natural world like the laws of nature and biological organisms and organs - everything is governed

  - Its regularity - Regularity of the orbits of planets and regularity of seasons of the year

  - Its purpose. Paley observes that machines we make are built for a purpose. Its complexity and regularity implies it has a purpose. World must too have a purpose

How does Paleys design argument follow and use the stone and watch example to support.

• - Some objects in the world display clear evidence that they were designed because they exhibit complexity and regularity - we can infer they were made for a purpose.

• - The universe shows complexity and regularity - can infer it was made for a purpose so its likely that it was designed.

  - In summary, Paley argues inductively from what we can see in the world (the appearance of design) back to the supposed cause (God).

  ​

  -If whilst crossing a heath , you come across two objects , a stone and a watch, you would ask yourself how they came to be there. For the stone it would not be absurd to assume the stone had been there forever however the watch is different because its a complex artifact - made of brass (elasticity and anti rusting properties), front face covered with glass (to protect hands of watch and make sure numbers were visible). If one part of the mechanism had been different (e.g one clog being too large or small) then the movement would fail. Watch and its properties must have a watchmaker. Even if the watch was broken - still designed. Denied the watch could have got brought about by the ‘principle of order’

What is Paleys analogy? Include a quote.

1. A watch has complex parts, each with a function that work together for a specific function.

2. So the watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.

3. Similarly, the universe has parts that function and work together for a purpose.

4. So the universe must have been designed by a universe maker

5. The universe is a far more wonderful design, so its designer is much greater than any human designer

“ Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature”.

- e.g the eye in all life is adapter for vision - has all parts in all the rught places to achieve its purpose which is to enable vision. Like a watch - right parts in right places - purpose to tell the time

What is design qua regularity and purpose?

• Design qua regularity : this aspect looks at design in relation to the order and regularity in the universe. Philosophers who support the argument consider the order and regularity evident in the universe is evidence of a designer at work.

• E.g A formal garden shows evidence of a gardener because of the order, a lack of weeds and the arrangement of the flowers in the borders - order and regularity in the universe.

• Philosophers conclude that just as the formal and well kelt garden did not come about by chance but the work of a gardener, the order and regularity in the universe occurs by a designer.

• Design qua purpose : This aspect looks at design in relation to the ways in which parts of the universe appear to fit together for some purpose. The universe compared to a man-made machine in which a designer fits all the parts together for a specific function.

• The parts of a TV are fitted together to recieve pictures and sound. If the parts were fitted togther randomly then the TV would not work.

• There are complex arrangements within nature that have been fitted together by a designer for specific purposes.

• How realistic is it to compare machines to a universe. How might this take someone away from the existence of God rather than towards it?

  Its realistic in the idea that both processes function with order and regularity - predictable processes. However the universe is more complex than a machine - cant be explained by a mechanical view. A limiting analogy?

What were Hume’s criticisms against the design argument?

• 1. Even if we grant that the universe was designed, there is no evidence that this was the God of christian theism. A lesser being could have designed the universe.

  ​

  Hume uses one of his guiding principles that a cause must be proportional to its effect. Paley infers that the designer of the universe is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and all knowing God of Christian theism, although such inference could be true, its nevertheless out of proportion to the evidence. If theres a designer for the universe, a lesser being could have been responsible.

  ​

  Hume also explores the idea of there being multiple designers → wherever we find intelligent minds, we find them attatched to physical bodies, theres no obvious reason to suppose that the designer of this universe was a metaphysical being. Hume speculated  that the designer may have a body with arms, ears, nose etc. Possibly the designer was mortal and died long ago

• - Design is usually a feature of teamwork, theres no obvious reason to suppose designer was a single being operating on his own.

  ​

  2. The existence of evil and imperfection in the world does indeed suggest a limited designer.

  The inconsistent triad refers to 3 statements about evil that Epicurus thought were inconsistent with one another

  ​

  - God is omnibenevolent

  - God is omnipotent

  - Evil exists

  ​

  Humes comments :

  ​

  - Is willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent

  - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent

  - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil

  ​

  3. Anologues between the way the universe works and the way machines work are unsound.

  The world is more like a vast floating vegetable. Vegetables grow themselves and maintain themselves without the need for a designer. In a few parts of Hume’s writing he seems to anticipate Darwin’s theory of evolution.

  ​

  4. To make an anology between the designers of human machines and the designer is just anthropomorphism (we are trying to explain the universe in our own image and knowledge).

• our limited knowledge.

  To know that the universe is designed, we would have to have some knowledge of how universes are made, but the fact is that we have zero experience of universe making, therefore we have no idea of what it takes to design one, or what the designer would be like. Our experience of design is limited to the machines we design ourselves, so in effect we are imagining God to be like a human designer.

  ​

  5. The universe could have developed into a comparitively ordered state simply by chance

  This is Humes “epicurean Hypothesis”. Epicurus taught that the basic constituents of the world were invisible atoms. Given infinite time, it was inevitable that atoms would arrive in an ordered state.

  Hume suggested that such theory accounted for the appearance of design in the world

What are some strengths of the design argument?

• 1. Paley may be right to argue that the designer is all-powerful Christian God because this is the simplest explanation.

  Richard Swinburne claims that ”simplicity is always evidence for truth” - God of christian theism is a simpler explanation and thus a better explanation for design in the universe.

  ​

  2. Paley argued that evil may be unavoidable in order for God to bring about good.

  The Free Will Defence : freedom to choose between the highest goods and the highest evil means that there must be such goods

• and evils in the world.

  Perhaps the best theodicy is that of Irenaeus-Hick. Hick argues that evil is “soul making” because without evil we could never learn to love the good.

  ​

  Important point is not whether which explanation is right but that Paleys argument that evil nay be unavoidable may be right.

  ​

  3. Evolution does not destroy the Design Argument because 1) evolution does not explain itself and 2) evolution is compatiable with belief in God anyway.

  Richard Swisburn maintains that evolution occurs by laws of physics, biology and chemistry and those laws dont explain themselves and come from somewhere.

  You must think about whetherevolution is compatiable with belief in a good designer which is that of God. Humans can treat eachother with indescribable barbarity or partake in things such as labratory testing. If such things are”natural” can we really approve of, or believe in, a God who uses such a process for whatever purpose.

  ​

  4. Paleys argument that “nature shows intention” becomes stronger when supported by the Anthropic principle.

  Principle points out that there are 30 or more”boundary conditions” (e.g stickiness of gravity) that have to be “fine tuned” for an ordered universe containing intelligent life to develop. Odds against all boundary conditions being at exactly the right settings are colossal. So if this is the only universe, then it seems obvious that something must have designed it to bring about intelligent beings such as ourselves.

  5. Paleys argument is a simple inductive argument.

What are some weaknesses of the design argument?

1. Overpowered Designer Argument:
   

   • While the design argument suggests that the universe’s complexity requires a designer, the concept of an all-powerful Christian God may be an unnecessarily extravagant explanation. Critics argue that a less complex or powerful designer—such as a team of lesser beings—could account for the universe’s design. The idea of an infinitely powerful God might be overkill, as the universe’s order might not require such an overwhelmingly complex cause.

2. The Problem of Evil:
   

   • The existence of evil in the world challenges the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent designer. If a God who is both all-powerful and all-loving created the universe, why would He allow such suffering and destruction, such as supernova explosions that could wipe out entire civilizations? The reality of natural disasters, disease, and cosmic-scale destruction conflicts with the concept of a perfectly good, all-powerful creator, casting doubt on the notion of a loving designer.

3. Hume’s Critique & Evolution:
   

   • David Hume argued that the universe is more like a living organism (a vegetable) than a machine, meaning it doesn’t necessarily require a designer. This idea gains support from the theory of evolution, which shows that life and nature evolved through natural processes such as variation and natural selection, not divine intervention. Evolution operates without purpose or intention, making it a more plausible explanation for the complexity of life, rather than positing a designer who deliberately created it.

4. Anthropomorphism & Human Imposition:
   

   • The design argument often relies on anthropomorphism—projecting human concepts of design onto the universe. Since humans have no experience of universe-making, we might be imposing our own understanding of “design” onto nature. What we perceive as “design” may be a human-imposed framework rather than evidence of an actual intelligent designer. This suggests that the universe’s complexity might not imply design but rather a result of natural processes.

5. Self-Design & Multiverse Theories:
   

   • If natural processes like evolution can account for life’s complexity, it’s possible the universe itself came into existence through similar processes, without the need for a designer. The multiverse theory further complicates the design argument, proposing that there could be an infinite number of universes. Some of these universes may appear “designed” by sheer chance, even though they were not created with intention. This means that the apparent design in our universe could be a random outcome of an infinite number of possibilities, challenging the idea of a divine designer.

What is the status of Paley’s design argument as proof?

• proof = - It can mean that there is sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition

  - Proof can be inductive - using our reasoning to show proof of a conclusion

  ​

  Paleys design argument is inductive but does not amount to scientific proof, because we have no clear way of assessing the degree of probability of his argument, because whatever part of Paleys evidence we use, there will always be those who reject Humes view that the universe probably orders itself. E.g

  - Paleys evidence about design in nature is not very convincing to a scientist, since it is just as likely that some version of multiverse theory is true, design may be product of pure chance.

• Nevertheless Paley’s inductive argument could well be the best explanation of order we see in the universe.

  2 explanations for universes creation - God made it or ordered itself. It it made itself, then its apparent orderliness has no explanation beyond it. If smth made it then its apparent orderliness shows the makers design. The best explanation is up to personal preference. For those who already believe in God the design argument is an inductive argument that amounts to a personal proof.

• For some individuals who believe in God, Paleys design argument could not be a proof, because proof could only come through religious experience.

  By a psychological certainty in which someone experienced God. Nevertheless, that kind of proof could never be transferred from one persons brain to another. Even if everybody believed there was a designer God, this still would not prove there is.

  ​Paleys inductive Design argument can never have the status of a deductive proof.

  Deductive proof = if premises of a proposition are true then the conclusion must logically be true. No inductive argument conclusion can ever be logically true because its a posteriori meaning its based on observation. Can never be 100% certain the observation is correct or will remain correct. At best, Paleys design argument is probably true and never logically certain.

What is the relationship between faith and reason?

• - By reason we mean the rational part of the human mind - uses logic, facts, reaching conclusions and judgements

  - Having faith means having trust or belief in something/someone e.g God.

  Some may argue that belief in God is unreasonable, because belief in God is about a being who by definition cannot be investigated by science. Those who take this view hold truth through using science and our senses to come to conclusions. Belief in God =rational hypothesis - universe = intelligent designer.

• - For others, faith is the only thing that gives us certainty.

  ​

  Fiedism. Fiedists hold that in matters to do with religion then  faith is all - important, and not reason. Faith is abt passionate commitment, ppl are fully justified in believing smth to be true through their own personal experience. People who believe in God with absolute passionate conviction , this certainty can never be experienced by using reason.

  ​

  Can also question this approach. If someone was to be absolutely convinced that their faith entitles them to torture others or commit crime, then feidesm might be seen to justify this on religious grounds, which hardly seems rational.

• Peanuts comic strip- Linus believes in Great Pumpkin that never comes. Althought humiliated, Linus never abandons his belief. The cartoon does not belittle sincerely held beliefs, however aomw may use the ‘Great Pumpkin’ to argue that fedeism can justify absolutely anything. Should there not be rational justification for beliefs held?

• H.H. Price distinguishes between “belief in” and “belief that.” “Belief that” God exists is merely accepting a proposition, while “belief in” God is a deeper personal commitment. Belief in God is both interested (seeking spiritual benefits) and disinterested (valuing God’s existence as intrinsically good, regardless of personal gain). This belief sees God as the “fundamental good” without which other goods would not exist. In contrast, believing that God exists lacks this sense of personal value or connection. While reason helps articulate the idea of God, it is faith that allows us to value God as the ultimate good, giving God significance beyond mere intellectual assent.

What value does Paley’s design argument have for religious faith?

Paley’s argument offers valuable support for religious faith by showing that belief in God can be rooted in reason. Through natural theology—the idea that God’s existence can be known through observation of the natural world—Paley argues that the complexity and order in nature point to a designer, without relying on special revelation.

His argument also serves as a rational defense against atheism. Atheists often claim that faith is irrational and based on mere speculation. However, they offer no conclusive proof that God does not exist. In this sense, atheism involves its own form of speculation. If it’s considered reasonable for atheists to deny God’s existence without certainty, then it is equally reasonable for theists to affirm it based on the evidence of design in nature.

That said, some argue Paley’s design argument holds limited value for faith itself. They suggest true faith is not based on arguments or probabilities, but on a personal commitment to God and a religious way of life. Faith, in this view, goes beyond reason—it is a matter of trust and relationship, not just intellectual belief.

Still, Paley’s work plays an important role in showing that faith is not necessarily blind or irrational, but can be supported by thoughtful reflection on the natural world

What is the basis of Anselm’s ontological argument?

• - Apriori argument. Does not depend on experience as a starting point instead seeks to argue from the concept of God to the existence of God

• Deductive argument (If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true)

• In the phrase “God exists,” the idea of existence is built into the very definition of God. So, if we accept the definition of God, then His existence logically follows. Some philosophers argue that God’s existence is part of what it means to be God. In other words, when we say “God,” we’re talking about a being that, by definition, must exist. So if you accept the idea of God, then you also have to accept that God exists—because existence is part of the definition.

• Gods existence is a necessary (couldn’t possibly be false) truth not a contingent (happens to be true, but might have been otherwise) one.

How does the ontological argument follow?

​

1. The concept of God is agreed on by both the believer and the unbeliever alike - God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

2. It is greater for a thing to exist both in the mind and in reality rather than for it to exist only in the mind.

3. If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, God cannot exist as only a concept. If god exists as only a concept then there is something greater.

4. The believer and the unbeliever accept the concept of God as that than which no greater can be thought. The unbeliever is a fool however because the unbeliever does not understand the concept that “ that than which nothing greater can be conceived” must logically include existence.

What is Aquinas’ way 3 : argument from contingency and necessity

• We observe that things in the universe:
  

  • Come into existence

  • Go out of existence
    → These are contingent beings (they depend on something else to exist)

• If everything were contingent:
  

  • At some point, there would have been nothing

  • But nothing comes from nothing, so nothing would exist now

• Yet things do exist, so:
  

  • Not everything can be contingent

• Therefore, there must be a necessary being:
  

  • A being that must exist and cannot not exist

• A necessary being:
  

  • Either gets its necessity from another

  • Or has necessity in itself (uncaused)

• There cannot be an infinite chain of caused necessary beings

• So there must be a being that is necessary in itself, with no cause

• Aquinas concludes this uncaused necessary being is God

How does the cosmological argument follow?

• The main idea comes from the point:
  → If everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing.

• Aquinas observes that:
  

  • Contingent beings (things that begin and end) cannot explain their own existence.

  • There must have been a time when no contingent beings existed.

• But if nothing existed, then nothing could come into existence — because nothing comes from nothing.

• Yet clearly, things do exist now, so the conclusion must be:
  → Something must exist necessarily.

• Aquinas considers whether this necessary being could be part of an infinite chain of caused necessary beings.
  

  • He argues this is impossible — such a chain would still need an explanation.

• So, there must be a necessary being that is uncaused — it exists by its own nature.

• This being brings into existence all contingent beings and all caused necessary beings.

• Aquinas calls this being God.

What are criticisms from Hume and Russell?

Criticism 1: Russell – Fallacy of Composition

• Russell argues Aquinas commits the fallacy of composition:
  

  • Just because every part of the universe is contingent, doesn’t mean the whole universe is contingent.

• Example: Every brick in a wall is small, but the wall itself is not necessarily small.

• Russell applies this to Aquinas’ logic:
  

  • From “every being is contingent” Aquinas concludes “the universe is contingent” — Russell says this is a faulty leap in logic.

Criticism 2: Hume and Russell – Reject the Idea of Necessary Beings

• Hume says: Anything that exists can also not exist.

• There is no contradiction in thinking that any being could fail to exist.

• Therefore, the idea of a necessary being (something that must exist) is flawed — we cannot prove God must exist.

Criticism 3: Hume – The Universe Itself Could Be Necessary

• Hume suggests: Why not just say the universe is the necessary being?

• If something must exist, why assume it’s God and not the material universe?

• This would be a simpler explanation, using Occam’s Razor (don’t multiply explanations beyond what’s needed).

Criticism 4: Russell – The Universe as a ‘Brute Fact’

• Russell says: the universe might just exist without explanation.

• This is called a brute fact — a fact that has no cause or reason, it just is.

• He argues we don’t need to assume a God to explain the universe’s existence.

Conclusion – Who’s Right?

• The Cosmological Argument is inductive, based on probability and observation.

• It comes down to which you think is the more likely explanation:
  

  1. A necessarily existent mind (God)

  2. A necessarily existent universe (or matter)

Strengths of the cosmological argument

Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument (with detail):

• Based on observation of the world
  Aquinas’ argument begins with facts we can observe — that things begin, change, and end (they are contingent). This gives the argument real-world credibility rather than relying on abstract reasoning alone.

• Offers a full explanation for existence
  It avoids the problem of infinite regress by pointing to a necessary being as the ultimate explanation. This satisfies the human desire for a complete answer to “why is there something rather than nothing?”

• Avoids infinite regress
  Aquinas argues it’s not enough to have a long chain of causes or necessary beings — there must be a first cause that is uncaused. Without it, we never get a proper explanation for the whole series.

• Supported by the Principle of Sufficient Reason
  This principle (from Leibniz) states that everything must have a reason for its existence. Aquinas’ idea of a necessary being gives such a reason, while the alternative — a brute fact — leaves the question unanswered.

• Fits with modern scientific understanding (to some extent)
  Cosmology suggests the universe had a beginning (e.g. the Big Bang), which raises the question of what caused it. Aquinas’ argument remains relevant because it addresses this issue directly.

Weaknesses of the cosmological argument

Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument (with detail):

• Based on observation of the world
  Aquinas’ argument begins with facts we can observe — that things begin, change, and end (they are contingent). This gives the argument real-world credibility rather than relying on abstract reasoning alone.

• Offers a full explanation for existence
  It avoids the problem of infinite regress by pointing to a necessary being as the ultimate explanation. This satisfies the human desire for a complete answer to “why is there something rather than nothing?”

• Avoids infinite regress
  Aquinas argues it’s not enough to have a long chain of causes or necessary beings — there must be a first cause that is uncaused. Without it, we never get a proper explanation for the whole series.

• Supported by the Principle of Sufficient Reason
  This principle (from Leibniz) states that everything must have a reason for its existence. Aquinas’ idea of a necessary being gives such a reason, while the alternative — a brute fact — leaves the question unanswered.

• Fits with modern scientific understanding (to some extent)
  Cosmology suggests the universe had a beginning (e.g. the Big Bang), which raises the question of what caused it. Aquinas’ argument remains relevant because it addresses this issue directly.

Status of Aquinas’ argument as proof

Is Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument a Proof?

1. It is not a deductive proof

• Aquinas’ Third Way is part of an inductive argument — it’s based on observation and probability, not on pure logic like a mathematical proof.

• Inductive arguments don’t guarantee certainty — they suggest what is most likely true.

2. But it may count as a different kind of proof

• Philosopher Gerry J. Hughes (2005) argues we often accept other forms of non-deductive proof in real life — like scientific evidence or logic-based reasoning.

• For example, we believe in the existence of sub-atomic particles based on evidence, even if we’ve never seen them — it would be unreasonable to deny their existence given the evidence.

3. Hughes’ criteria for a satisfying explanation:

• A good explanation:
  

  • Goes beyond the thing itself (doesn’t explain the universe using the universe)

  • Refers to something outside the system (like a transcendent being or necessary being)

  • Doesn’t just say “it’s a brute fact” — that’s not satisfying enough

• Hughes sees Aquinas’ necessary being (God) as a strong candidate for such an explanation.

4. Limits of this argument as proof

• Even if the Third Way is persuasive, it does not convince everyone — especially atheists or sceptics.

• The argument cannot prove that the necessary being is the God of any religion (e.g. Christian God), only that there is some kind of necessary being.

• R.M. Hare’s idea of “bliks” (deep-rooted worldviews) suggests that the argument won’t resolve debates between believers and non-believers — people interpret the same evidence differently.

What is the cosmological arguments value for religious faith?

The Value of Aquinas’ Argument for Religious Faith

1. Supports faith using reason

• Aquinas’ Third Way shows that belief in God can be supported by rational thinking, not just blind faith.

• The argument explains why the universe exists by pointing to a necessary being — which many believers identify as God.

• This can strengthen the faith of those who already believe, and appeal to non-believers by offering a logical reason to consider God’s existence.

2. Encourages reflection on the natural world

• The argument invites people to think about why the universe exists at all.

• Believers may see the argument as confirmation that everything we observe points to God.

• The idea of a necessary being fits naturally with religious concepts of God as eternal and uncaused.

3. Not all religious believers accept it

• Some believers still reject the Cosmological Argument:
  

  • Kant believed in God but thought such arguments were flawed.

  • He believed the argument depends on the Ontological Argument, and if that fails, so must this one.

  • Karl Barth rejected all philosophical attempts to prove God — he argued that God is known only through revelation (e.g. through Jesus Christ and scripture).

What is moral and natural evil?

Natural Evil

• Suffering caused by natural processes (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases).

• Examples include the 2004 tsunami (killed ~300,000) and Pompeii’s eruption.

• Raises questions about God’s role in creating or allowing destructive natural systems.

• Some argue that human influence (e.g. climate change) makes natural evil worse.

Moral Evil

• Evil caused by human free will (e.g. murder, racism, cruelty, genocide).

• Examples: Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, slavery.

• Often involves both action and inaction (e.g. failing to stop evil).

• Raises moral responsibility and complicity—can humanity bear the full blame?

What is the logical problem of evil?

The Logical Problem of Evil

Key Thinker: Epicurus (later developed by J.L. Mackie)

This argument claims that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God. It uses the Inconsistent Triad:

1. God is omnipotent (has the power to stop evil)

2. God is omnibenevolent (wants to stop evil)

3. Evil exists

These three cannot logically all be true at once. If God were both able and willing to prevent evil, it should not exist.

Key Quote (Epicurus)

:

“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?”

This rhetorical structure forces the theist into a dilemma: either deny God’s power, deny His goodness, or explain why evil still exists despite both.

What is the evidential problem of evil?

The Evidential Problem of Evil

Key Thinkers: William Rowe, Dostoevsky

This argument is probabilistic, not logical. It says the scale and intensity of evil makes God’s existence highly unlikely.

William Rowe’s Argument

:

• There is too much gratuitous (pointless) suffering.

• Example: A fawn trapped in a forest fire, dying slowly and painfully with no witness or greater good served.

• If an omniscient God exists, He would see such suffering and have a reason to prevent it.

Key Quote (Rowe)

:

“Intense human and animal suffering occurs, which an omnipotent, omniscient being could prevent without losing some greater good.”

Sophisticated point: While some suffering may lead to growth or good outcomes, much suffering appears utterly unnecessary (e.g. the torture of a child). This weakens belief in a benevolent God.

Solutions to solve the inconsistent triad

1. Denying God’s omnipotence - - God is unable to control evil and therefore  cannot be blamed for its continued existence - difficulty of worship because if God is not omnipotent is this a God worth worshipping? God’s omnipotence is central to His nature. If God were not all-powerful, it would challenge fundamental beliefs about His ability to create, control, and sustain the universe.

   Solution 2 : denying God’s omnibenevolence

   -  For many christians this is an unthinkable solution as this belief helps to support those who experience evil, and is the basis for the future hope of heaven. “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more”.

   ​Freud argued that denying God’s omnibenevolence (all-good nature) could be seen as a form of wish fulfillment. He suggested that humans might create a god who is all-good and all-powerful as a way to cope with the suffering and injustices they face in the world.

Solution 3 : denying that evil exists

​

evil is not something God created, but a result of free will misused by creatures turning away from God. Dark is the absence of light so surely evil is the absence of God?

However most people have experienced the power of evil to disrupt their lives which is a real and tangible reality

What is the free will defence?

The free will defence : created by Platinga and argues that God has to allow evil in the world in order to preserve free will and goodness is a choice. In order to bring about goods like love and compassion must be free in choice to pick opposite vices of hatred and heartlessness. If god controlled this choice then nobody would have freedom. Humans morally responsible for evil and suffering.

​

- It is better for God to have created a world in which beings with free will cause evil than a world in which there is no free will and no evil.

Tell me about higher and lower order goods?

- Happiness and pleasure is a first order good e.g enjoying a meal

- Contrastingly, there are first order evils e.g someone going through the heartache of a break up

​

- If we come across somebody in a state of first order evil we can minimise their suffering and misery by being compassionate, sympathetic and understanding. Or we can maximise their misery by being inconsiderate and selfish.

​

- Virtues like sympathy and compassion are higher order goods - second order goods. Vices like slefishness and greed are second order evils

​

- Second order goods exist to maximise first order good and minimise first order evil - vice versa - moreover without evils of pain and suffering, we could never have the greater joys of being able to show sympathy and love.

​

- Freedom is a third order good and allows us to choose between instantiating first and second order goods and evils - teaches us to love the good

- God justified in allowing evil as he is teaching us to be morally responsible.

What was Mackie’s rejection of the free will defence?

How to structure an AO1

AO1 = Intro - define your terms are there any words in the question which need explaining if the question asked you to compare? How will you define success implications? Why is this question important? What difference would it make if the statement is true or false? This helps you to show the examiner you grasp what the questions asking. Who are the key scholars involved in this debate? Names works articles? Show your conclusion from the start of your essay make it clear and thread it throughout.

Main paragraph = Point respond directly to question topic sentence use key terms from question. Example explain the point using scholarly language quotes and idea ideas keep linking ideas back to question you can include more than one evidence. Analyse chosen evidence and relevance to point what does this do? Does it connote? Does it construct convey evidence evoke etc? Link a point back it should be easy and simple to understand this is a mini summary of the entire section but there should be a small sentence at the end of this paragraph linking to the next section.

How to structure an AO2

Same introduction as AO1.

Main para = Main argument explanation of argument or advocating give scholarly reasoning to support this referred to question key language. Use evaluative language. Explain the point using lots of commonly language quotation and ideas keep linking ideas back to question include evidence that supports argument think critically before defending how does it support argument? How how keep asking yourself? How does it support opportunity to show how it challenges count position? Given alternative view or criticism using scholarly argument every paragraph must have debate. Give a judgement that links back to your conclusion in the introduction use called the argument what strongest and why. Give a mini conclusion at the end of paragraph linking back to line of argument. This will be a mini summary of the entire section. There should be a small sentence at the end of linking to your next paragraph. X4 for against for against

Conclusion you must refer directly to the question using language of the question reread introduction and restate line of argument and why make a clear overall judgement of whether the statements true or successful. Use evaluative language to ensure your clear.

Tell me about an I vision and include a well known example

Imaginative = most frequently in dreams where the experience is seen or imagined with the “eye of the mind” and is completely beyond the individuals control to direct. A sensible representation of an object by the act of imagination alone without the aid of an eye. Usually of short duration - unable to endure prolonged violence or to give way to intellectual vision. It’s an imaginative vision if the image persists after one’s eyes has closed.

• A well known example is Pharoah’s dream - Pharaoh’s dream involved two parts. First, he saw seven healthy cows grazing by the Nile, followed by seven skinny cows that ate the healthy ones. Then, he saw seven healthy stalks of grain, followed by seven thin, withered stalks that devoured the healthy ones. None of Pharaoh’s wise men could interpret the dream, but Joseph, imprisoned at the time, explained that it foretold seven years of abundance in Egypt, followed by seven years of severe famine.

Explanation of vision = Dream experience behind his control and realm of his mind. His account of the dream is vivid and the effect on him is dramatic - The dream entered his imagination by God’s agency

Tell me about an I vision and include a well known example

Intellectual = Mystical vision that perceives the object without a sensible image. Takes place in pure understanding and not a reasoning faculty. The object is perceived as a truth and reality - assurance and certainty provided. Presence felt and overall an illumination of the understanding of the soul. Ineffable and experiences claim to “see things as they really are”.

• Intellectual experiences often associated with hearing a voice. Disembodied voice often represents Gods presence/ communicates a revelation from God / authoritative voice from God.

• A well known example is that of Augustine’s experience. Occurred in a garden in Milan, during moment of deep inner turmoil. Heard the voice of a child, saying, “Take it and read, take it and read.” Interpreted this as a divine command. He picked up a Bible that was nearby, opened it to a random passage, which spoke to him deeply about the need to live a life of purity and devotion to God. This led to his conversion to Christianity. Deeply moved, crying as he read, feeling as though God had directly communicated with him.

Tell me about Otto and the numinous

• Otto = German theologian who’s most famous work was the idea of the holy

• Comes from Latin numen referring to a deity or spirit relating to its power. According to Otto, the numinous is common to all religious experience regardless of religion or culture.

• Our feelings about the numinous are sui generis (of their own kind). This is because numinous feelings are intense versions of our normal feelings. They are unique and in a class of their own. They are a special faculty in our mind that recognises and responds to the holy.

• Numinous feelings are non rational. This is because the numinous is so holy and sacred and beyond our apprehension that it is beyond a rational description. We are then let with a “mysterium tremendous et fascinates” as John Macquarrie puts it. This means that feelings of awe alongside fear is inspired.

Tell me about William James and his criteria for judging whether or not someone has had a mystical experience

1. Ineffability - experience cannot be described in words . It can only be directly experience and cannot be transferred or imparted to others

2. Noetic quality - the experience gives rise to knowledge - those who experience learn from it. States of insight in which truths are intuitively realised or felt though they cannot be described

3. Transiency - mystical states cannot be sustained for long. After a time it becomes difficult to reproduce the experience in memory

4. Passivity - once the experience begins it is beyond the persons control, even if the person invites the experience. Experience controls the mystic and will of the experiencer becomes passive.

Tell me about James and non - sensuous and non - intellectual union with the divine

In mysticism’s highest form, the senses cease to work and rational intellect. The conscious ‘I’ ceases to work being replaces by pure consciousness.

• Argued that mysticism has nothing to do with mystery / occult / parapsychological phenomena e.g telekinesis, telepathy etc.

• Visions and voices - not mystical experiences. A genuine mystical experience is non sensuous (colour, shape, auditory experience= voice etc).

• Central characteristic = involves the apprehension of an ultimate non - sensuous unity . A oneness that neither senses nor reason can penetrate.

Tell me about the two different types of mystical experiences

1. Extrovertive = World of material objects seen with non sensuous unity - “all is one” vision. often perceiving everything as interconnected and imbued with a sense of divine presence. emphasises an outward, sensory immersion in the world, where the external environment feels profoundly meaningful / sacred / blessed. In this experience, the multiplicity of objects—whether people, nature, or inanimate things—are perceived not as separate or ordinary, but as interconnected aspects of a greater whole. There’s often a sense that nothing is truly “dead” or separate; everything is alive with meaning, energy, or spirit.

2. Introvertive = An introvertive mystical experience is a state of consciousness where an individual transcends the boundaries of the self, experiencing a profound sense of unity, often described as a loss of ego or individual identity. In this state, the person feels a deep connection to a transcendent reality / divine essence, often marked by intense feelings of peace, oneness, and a dissolution of the separation between self and the universe. Unlike extrovertive experiences - focus on the external world, introvertive experiences more internally focused - inner silence and stillness. The mystic becomes nonspatial and non temporal .

James argues both culminate in perception of unity/ the one

Give me reasons why someone may suggest that religious experiences are difficult to prove true

1. Only have the word of the individual who claims to have had the experience as evidence - trust

2. A religious experience may be difficult to prove because it is a personal, private experience, based on individual feelings and perceptions. Since it occurs in the mind, it cannot be easily observed or measured by others, making it hard to verify or prove objectively.

3. Ineffable - those who experience cannot describe or put into words - nothing ‘real’ to describe and understand to verify

4. There are natural explanations to account for religious experience - e.g alcohol/drug intake or mental illness etc. Additionally, psychological factors, such as the power of suggestion or the influence of culture and upbringing, can shape how people interpret these experiences.

5. There are contradictory religious experiences so cannot all be true. For example, one person might feel they’ve encountered God as a loving figure, while another may experience a sense of divine presence that is more distant or impersonal.

6. often seen as unbelievable because they are so extraordinary and rare, hard to accept in everyday life. Most of our daily experiences are grounded in the physical world, where things follow natural laws and logic. Religious experiences, often involve feelings of supernatural encounters or events that defy normal understanding. can seem difficult to believe or accept since they defy our pattern of logic and knowing/ understanding

Reasons religious experiences may be difficult to prove from science POV

1. Sigmund Freud - religion/God = “universal obesssional neurosis” (oceanic experience) wish fulfillment from unconscious mind. Expression of desire to retreat from world back to womb - comfort / security. Idea helps us control fear of unknown or death etc. RE = hallucinations for our need of control over helpless state in a hostile world. Wa

2. Temporal lobe epilepsy - prone to have religious visions/ ME. Abnormal states of brain. New Testament - St Paul afflicted by condition known as “thorn in the flesh” - TLE? St Paul accompanied by seeing light, visions, voices, falling to floor etc. Self generated experiences due to abnormal brain states.

3. Research findings on TLE supported by science of neurotheology - suggests religious experiences produced by electrical stimulation of temporal brain lobes. Research = 1980s Persinger. Work further confirmed further studies other scientists. “God Helmet” by Dr. Michael Persinger, head circlet device named Octopus uses magnetic fields to stimulate the temporal lobes, sometimes inducing spiritual feelings, such as sensing a divine presence. Feeling of not “ being alone”. electrical activity in the brain could play a significant role in how we experience religious or spiritual events, doesn’t necessarily mean these feelings purely brain-generated.

4. Drug induced - RE nothing more than product of brain states. LSD, mescaline and psilocybin - hallucogenic drugs - produce similar effects to RE. Drugs called “entheogens” meaning “generating/becoming the divine from within” - ppl who take - intense spiritual feeling. Walter Planke 1962 - Good Friday experiment. 10 got psilocybin and others placebo. Those who got drug - feelings similar to “ God helmet ”

Tell me the religious responses to these issues

1. Freuds wish fulfillment = hypothesis cannot be tested. Can be true but not proven that experiences of God are false.

2. If God wants to give someone a religious experience - these must be processed by brain - temporal / frontal lobes = structures of the brain in which God can bring about someone an RE.

Tell me about Swisburne’s principle of credulity

• British philosopher influential in writings on Gods existence

• Ordinary sense experience e.g seeing a chair or listening to a lecture - why shouldn’t we believe - RE

• “ what one seems to perceive is probably so”. “ in the absence of special considerations”.

• Special considerations include - reliability of claim (e.g known to lie)? Truth of the claim ( unlikely perceptual claims). Difficulty of showing God was present in the experience. What is claimed can be accounted for in other ways (TLE or drugs etc)?

Why does Swinburne reject all 4 special considerations?

• Cannot be shown all claims are unreliable - lying in past proves nothing.

• Cannot be shown all such claims are untrue. If one person lies doesn’t mean another is.

• God underpins all processes - temporal/frontal lobes by Gods will.

What’s Swisburne’s principle of testimony?

• In the absence of special considerations and evidence to the contrary, the experiences of others are probably as they report them.

Swisburne’s conclusions :

• Someone who had RE of God by POC - good reason to believe there’s a God

• Testimony of others who report similar experiences supports such a claim

• Without RE probability of Gods existence = 50/50. W = greater probability. God probably exists.

Evaluating these claims

• Measurable differences to lifestyle. Approach to prayer, worship and self sacrifice. Strong evi.

• Swisburne’s uses cumulative argument - if we consider all arguments for Gods existence (e.g ontological, design etc) arguments are stronger when taken together. Stronger case for God’s existence, as each one supports and adds weight to the others.

What are some important quotes about religious experience?

• ‘ I wish I could give a description of at least the smallest part… But… I find it impossible”. Teresa of Avila .expresses the ineffability of profound religious experiences. Her encounter with the divine is so deep and transformative that it transcends language. This highlights a common theme in mysticism

• ‘ A motion and a spirit that impels all things” - Wordsworth. unifying spiritual presence that animates the entire natural world. This reflects a pantheistic or panentheistic view, where the divine is seen as immanent within nature.

• ‘ Every good tree bear good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit’ - Matth.7. authentic religious experience is evident through one’s actions. Just as a healthy tree naturally produces good fruit, a person with genuine faith will exhibit positive behaviors and moral integrity. Conversely, harmful actions reflect a lack of true spiritual connection. This teaching emphasizes that the authenticity of religious experience is demonstrated not merely by words or appearances but by the positive impact one has on others and the world.

What is a miracle?

• The word miracle comes from the Latin word for a wonderful thing. Understood as an unusual event which has religious significance

• Brian Davies remarks “those who believe that miracles have actually occurred normally hold that they are events of some religious significance” We would only conclude something was a miracle event had some meaning or purpose such as healing somebody up preventing an injury of some sort

• In the conversion of Of Saint Paul, the account in acts of the apostles depict a clear breach of the laws of nature. The voice of God the light from heaven which was “brighter than the sun” convinces Paul that he is witnessing a miracle. There can be interpretations of this event was it? A violation of natural law was an inward vision or was it a psychological phenomenon?

What two categories can we divide miracles into

1.

Violation of Natural Laws (Realist View)

• Definition: Events that appear to break or suspend established natural laws, often attributed to direct divine intervention.

• Characteristics:
  

  • Perceived as objective occurrences.

  • Often serve to demonstrate divine power or authority.

  • Considered evidence of a deity’s active involvement in the world.

2.

Coincidence Miracles (Anti-Realist View)

• Definition: Remarkable and beneficial coincidences that, while explainable by natural causes, are interpreted as having religious or spiritual significance.

• Characteristics:
  

  • Subjective in nature; their miraculous status depends on personal or cultural interpretation.

  • Do not involve a suspension of natural laws.

  • Often lead to personal transformation, renewed faith, or a sense of divine presence.

• Impact on Individuals: Such events can profoundly affect a person’s outlook, leading to positive changes in behavior, increased altruism, or a deeper spiritual commitment. They are sometimes referred to as “happy coincidences” that inspire gratitude and reflection.

What are realist views?

• Realist View of Miracles: Realist interpretations assert that miracles are objective events where divine intervention visibly disrupts or transcends natural laws. This perspective maintains that miracles are genuine occurrences that can be observed and verified, rather than merely subjective experiences or symbolic narratives.

• Divine Intervention in Nature: Miracles serve as demonstrations of God’s omnipotence and immanence—His ability to act within and upon the natural world. For instance, Jesus’ miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, and controlling natural elements, are seen as direct interventions that reveal God’s active presence in creation.

• Faith and Doubt in Experiencing Miracles: The incident where Peter walks on water illustrates the interplay between faith and doubt in experiencing miracles. Initially, Peter steps out onto the water, demonstrating faith in Jesus’ command. However, upon noticing the wind, he becomes afraid and begins to sink, highlighting how doubt can hinder the experience of divine intervention.

• Miracles as Revelatory Signs: In realist theology, miracles are not random anomalies but purposeful signs that convey deeper spiritual truths. They are viewed as acts of revelation, intended to confirm divine authority, fulfill prophecies, and invite individuals into a closer relationship with God.

• Miracles as Historical Events: Realist interpretations also emphasize the historical reality of miracles. They are considered actual events that occurred in time and space, with tangible effects on the world and individuals. This view aligns with the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, where the divine entered human history in a concrete, observable manner.

• Summary: In summary, realist views on miracles affirm that such events are objective occurrences where God intervenes in the natural world. They are seen as demonstrations of divine power and presence, meant to reveal spiritual truths and invite faith. Through these miraculous acts, believers are encouraged to recognize and respond to the active involvement of God in their lives and the world.

What are anti realist views?

• Anti-Realist Views on Miracles: Anti-realism in philosophy suggests that our understanding of reality is shaped by human perception, social contexts, and cultural frameworks. In the context of miracles, anti-realists argue that such events are not objective occurrences but are interpreted through personal or communal experiences, emphasizing symbolic or metaphorical meanings over literal interpretations.

• Hallucinations Due to Exhaustion: Some scholars propose that the disciples’ experiences, such as seeing Jesus walking on water, could be attributed to hallucinations caused by exhaustion or stress. This perspective implies that the events may not have occurred as physical phenomena but were perceived experiences influenced by the disciples’ psychological states.

• Spiritual Salvation through Peter’s Cry: In the narrative where Peter begins to sink after walking on water, his cry for help can be interpreted symbolically as a representation of spiritual salvation. This view emphasizes the internal, spiritual significance of the event rather than a literal physical miracle.

• Focus on Jesus’ Presence: Anti-realist interpretations often highlight that the core message of the miracle is not the violation of natural laws but the presence and comfort of Jesus with His disciples. This perspective shifts the focus from external events to internal spiritual experiences.

• Miracle as Presence, Not Law Violation: From an anti-realist standpoint, the ‘miracle’ is not seen in terms of Jesus defying natural laws but in His presence and the comfort He provides to His followers. This interpretation underscores the relational and spiritual aspects of the event.

• Liberal Christian Acceptance: Liberal Christians may embrace anti-realist views, interpreting miracles as symbolic or metaphorical narratives that convey moral or spiritual truths. For instance, the story of Jesus walking on water might be seen as a metaphor for overcoming life’s challenges through faith, rather than a literal event. This approach allows for a meaningful engagement with the text while aligning with modern understandings of the world.

Tell me about RF Holland and his train tracks example

R.F. Holland’s View on Miracles

Definition: R.F. Holland defines a miracle as:
“A remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious way.”

• Key Points:
  

  • No Violation of Natural Laws: Holland argues that miracles do not require the violation of natural laws or direct intervention by God.

  • Subjective Interpretation: The perception of an event as a miracle depends on the individual’s interpretation, particularly within a religious context.

  • Religious Significance: For an event to be considered a miracle, it must hold religious significance for the observer.

The “Child on the Tracks” Example

• Scenario:
  

  • A child is playing on a railway track, unaware of an approaching train.

  • The child’s mother, observing from a distance, is powerless to intervene.

  • Miraculously, the train slows and stops just in time, seemingly saving the child.

• Explanation:
  

  • Later, it’s revealed that the train driver had fainted, causing the brakes to apply automatically, a coincidence unrelated to the child’s presence.

• Interpretation:
  

  • The mother interprets the event as a miracle, attributing it to divine intervention.

  • This interpretation aligns with Holland’s definition, emphasizing the subjective perception of the event.

Keith Lehrer’s Perspective

Definition: Keith Lehrer defines a miracle as:
“An event that is interpreted as a sign of divine intervention.”

• Key Points:
  

  • Interpretation as a Sign: For an event to be considered a miracle, it must be interpreted as a sign of divine intervention.

  • Subjective Interpretation: The perception of an event as a miracle depends on the individual’s interpretation, particularly within a religious context.

  • Religious Significance: For an event to be considered a miracle, it must hold religious significance for the observer.

Comparison with Realist Views

• Realist Views:
  

  Definition: Realist views define a miracle as:
  “An event that involves a violation of natural laws or direct divine intervention.”

  • Key Points:
    

    • Violation of Natural Laws: Realist views argue that miracles involve a violation of natural laws or direct intervention by God.

    • Objective Occurrence: For an event to be considered a miracle, it must be an objective occurrence that can be verified.

    • Religious Significance: For an event to be considered a miracle, it must hold religious significance for the observer.

What are some agree and disagree arguments for the statement that in the 21st century and he really sees miracles and more reasonable than realist views.

Arguments Supporting Anti-Realist Views as More Reasonable Today

• Scientific Advancements: Modern science explains many phenomena once deemed miraculous, reducing the need to invoke supernatural causes.

• Subjective Interpretation: Anti-realism posits that miracles are personal, subjective experiences rather than objective events, aligning with contemporary understandings of perception and psychology.

• Psychological Explanations: Events perceived as miracles can often be explained by psychological factors such as hallucinations, stress responses, or cognitive biases.

• Symbolic Teachings: Many modern theologians and believers interpret biblical miracles symbolically, focusing on the moral or spiritual lessons rather than literal historical events.

• Contextual Understanding: Anti-realism acknowledges that our understanding of events is shaped by cultural, historical, and personal contexts, making it a flexible framework for interpreting miracles today.

Arguments Supporting Realist Views as Still Reasonable Today

• Historical Foundations: Core Christian doctrines, such as the resurrection of Jesus, are based on realist interpretations of miracles. Abandoning these could undermine foundational beliefs.

• Faith in the Divine: For many believers, miracles are tangible evidence of God’s intervention in the world, reinforcing faith and the belief in a transcendent deity.

• Personal Testimonies: Individuals continue to report experiences they interpret as miracles, suggesting that such events still hold significance and cannot be entirely dismissed.

• Limitations of Science: Not all phenomena can currently be explained by science. Realist views allow for the possibility of events beyond current scientific understanding.

• Consistency in Belief: Accepting some miracles as symbolic while insisting on the literal truth of others can lead to inconsistencies in belief systems. Realism offers a consistent framework.