philosophy of religion anthologies key points
russell and copleston radio debate 1948: cosmological argument
key point:
copleston argues if there are contingent beings must be necessary, russell rejects the notion of a necessary being
for russell god is meaningless as it cannot be tested
copleston believes that sufficient reason means it is an adequate explanation for a being's existence, whereas russell fallacy of composition, looking for something you will not find and cannot exist
russell argues not everything needs a cause (ie. atoms)
copleston thinks by raising the question of god, that has meaning in itself, russell thinks you can look for cause but cause may not exist
linked analogies/evidence:
scientific developments (atoms that appear from nowhere)
mother analogy: everyone in the human race has a mother, the human race itself does not - inductive leap of logic
chocolate analogy: necessary + contingent beings
j.l mackie: the problem of evil
introduction:
traditional arguments lack rationality
it is a logical issue
creator should be able to limit evil
must change omnipotence
adequate solutions:
evil is an illusion, evil is the privation of good, restrict omnipotence
cannot call a good all powerful and restrict, evil is clearly not an illusion
fallacious solutions: good cannot exist without evil or evil is necessary counterpart
god created evil to understand god
limits omnipotence (good cannot be without evil), god is limited by logic, why so much evil
fallacious solutions: evil is a necessary means to god
good can only come through evil
limits his omnipotence, god created everything why would he choose this
fallacious solutions: the universe is better with some evil in it
evil helps develop people, only with evil can good bef ound
god is willing to cause suffering
fallacious solutions: evil is due to human free will
evil is the cause of humans, god gave humans free will
why did free will choose evil, freedom = illusion
russell and copleston radio debate 1948: religious experience
copleston argues such an experience includes no doubt
the objective cause must be god
definition of RE:
loving / unclear awareness
transcends all normal objects
cannot be pictured or conceptualised
russell argues it is hard to accept validity
very private
hard to use as gods existence
mystical experience, very real, fall in love
russell says some people attach themselves with fiction
some experiences are subjective
copleston says the experience can be real and objective and motivates people
russell thinks believers would not accept satanic claims, yet they have the same conviction
copleston does not wish to deny satan but he thinks RE are not visions or expressible
good impact does not mean external force
Russell argues you can be influenced by a character in fiction, it is not an existing object
Copleston counters by saying he accepts that as objectively valid
fiction is not an otherworldly mystical experience
flew, mitchell and hare: university debate:
antony flew:
explain the parable of the gardener:
gardener parable: proof for falsification
even with proof a believer is not convince
is an intangible gardener different from none at all
assertions being reduced:
gets reduced to imagination
originally = flesh and blood, then = invisible
keep qualifying god
death by a thousand qualifications:
qualify an idea so much it cannot be disproved
not falsifiable
cannot test “god loves everyone”
a statement that does not deny anything does not claim
it is meaningless = nothing counts against it
r.m hare:
parable of the mad don:
can be an unfalsifiable
through life or empirical testing
concept of a blik:
worldviews - meaningless and unfalsifiable
can be a mental filter
choose to believe, based on faith
criticism of flew:
flew = scientific propositions
only science should be falsifiable
religion is an expression
mitchell:
how does mitchell challenge death by a thousand qualifications:
believer will keep their belief
commitment to faith accepts challenges
parable of partisan and the stranger:
believer refuses to leave the stranger
commitment is important and is not based on empirical testing
how does mitchell’s parable differ from hare’s
go through a trial of faith
understands challenges