OCR Philosophy Whole

Rationalism= the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge
A priori= knowing things before we experience them
Epistemology: theory of knowledge
All people have innate knowledge o E.g. Meno's slave boy
Everyone should practice philosophical thought

• Our world is a secondary and inferior world to a perfect world of forms
• The soul came from/can access the world of forms
o Perfect world knowledge forgotten o Rational thought can recover it
o E.g. we can recognise various styles of boat because the perfect form exists, and our souls remember it
• Perfect forms cast a shadow into our lives • Hierarchy of forms:
o Good -> love + beauty -> objects o Good is the ultimate because our innate knowledge of hierarchy lets us always recognise it

• Division between the forms and objects
• 2:1 ratio
• Through rational thought, our minds can progress up from the lower levels

Illustrates differences between the two worlds
o Prisoners = ordinary people o Chains = our sense that makes us accept all we see and hear o Fire= a copy of the Form of Good, lets us see shadows
The prisoners are stuck seeing the imperfect forms
Philosophers can break the chains and escape to the world of forms
o Will be blinded by the sun but eventually will be able to see as rational knowledge develops
o The sun = the highest form/ good Knowledge is justified true belief o E.g. The Gether Problem

Helps to understand imperfections in the world
Encourages us to think rather than accept things at face value
Brian Davies: without forms we cannot discuss, argue etc about general world features like justice or beauty, because we wouldn't have any recognition of the forms or essence

Impossible to prove
Doesn't help understand our world
Not everyone will see the form of Good the same, subjective not universal
Stephen Law: The world "requires the existence of deeply unpleasant things. The 'Platonic Heaven of Forms' doesn't sound heavenly"
Mel Thompson: the cave "fails to illustrate the attractiveness of the physical world"
Some things lack forms, e.g. numbers

Empiricism = theory that knowledge comes from only sensory experience
A posteriori = knowing after we experience it
o Anything we observe exists, should be accepted as fact

Knowledge comes from observation, not within
o We can know the world and reality through observation
Humans:
o Our soul is our formal cause
o Parents are our efficient cause
o God is our final cause

God is perfect, he and the word are co-eternal. He is a perfect being = pure thought, not material
o Exists in his own realm, no link to material world o No point in prayer, can't see and doesn't care
o Uninterested in anything he's caused o Attracts/ pull things towards it
o Always moving and shifting = constant change o ULTIMATE CAUSE OF ALL MOVEMENT AND
CHANGE
All living things have a soul as formal cause and God as final cause
o Plants = soul with capacity for nutrition etc o Animals = capacity for appetite = feelings + desires o Humans = capacity for reason = ethics + intellect
Similar to Abrahamic God as is; understandable, eternal and immovable When we live fulfilling, moral and good lives
o All things are good if they achieve their purpose

Supported by other empiricists e.g. Hume

4 causes are derived on his studies of the natural world = reliable

Problem of evil eliminated as the prime mover is transcendent

Not everything has or needs a purpose for existing
His emphasis on observation can be disputed o Senses can be tricked
If god is pure thought, how can be move material things
Unmoved mover is a contradiction
Bertrand Russel: "the universe just is there, and that is all"
Fallacy of composition = a part being true doesn't make the whole true
Existentialism: things have no purpose or meaning other than what we give it

Metaphysical + theological view that body and soul are one
Wax seal: imprint cannot be separated from the wax, soul cannot be separated from the body
Our soul is the organisational part of us, the force which activate the body
Hierarchy of souls: mind > locomotive > appetite > sensory > nutritive
The soul gives shape and provides facilities for the body but cannot survive death

Soul as the life force, the way in which the body behaviour and lives, the difference between life and death

The soul exists in the body. E.g. electricity in a machine

Body and soul are united, both develop and change, both essential in a physical afterlife

Idea of a separate soul is a "category error"
o "The ghost in the machine"
o Mistake resulted in ppl talking of the mind and body as different phenomena as if the soul was something identifiably extra within a person
o E.g. watching a cricket game and asking where the team spirit was

The body is all that there is
Consciousness is nothing more than brain activity

DAWKINS: dualism is a bizarre superstition, no empirical evidence
o Accepts the possibility of a soul being consciousness and spirituality, not traditional ideas
o Believed that human beings are bytes of
digital information, we're just the sum total of our genes
o Feeling of individuality within each human is just because of our genes working together
Such an area is inaccessible to scientific activity that a soul could never be proven

Believe that people are wholes, not divided as in dualism.
But don't believe that all a person is, is a sum total of genes
Unlike Dawkins (a harsh materialist) they believe in life after death

B.F. SKINNER
All mental states are simply physical behaviour
o E.g. 'happiness' is showing outward signs of being happy
Traditional view of the mind is wrong, there is no internal thought processes
Thoughts are pre-behaviours, first step in physical behaviour

A human had to ask a machine questions and guess whether the thing answering was human or not
If it passes the test, then the machine has a mind
Therefore, there is such thing as a mind, its existence can be proven

The soul cannot be proven empirically
Therapies based off of it are successful
External, observable and testable

Daniel Dennett: "over simplifies human consciousness"
No account for free will or thought etc
No account for rational, a priori knowledge
Not all thoughts lead to visible behaviour
Some behave one way but are thinking another - deception

The soul is separate as it can access the world of forms
Soul has a higher ranking as it came from the world of forms
Mind + body drive the soul
o The body has desires and the responsible soul controls it

For each thing to exist, there must be an opposite
o Opinions vs knowledge
o Body vs soul
The body is concerned with pleasures, the soul is concerned with reason
3 parts of the soul; reason, spirit & appetite

1. Linguistic argument:
o Fact that we use language about ourselves suggest a distinction
o I, we, me all refer to an inner separate reality
2. Knowledge argument:
o Within the world of flux and change we can grasp these universals which are not affected by time and space
o Must be something within us that is equally unaffected by flux and change that has the ability to gasp them

3. Argument from recollection:
o Because we know the universals we must've seen them before
4. Cycle of opposites:
o We know things by their opposites
o Death must come from life and life from death
o Suggests a perpetual recycling of human souls from the realm of the living -> real of the dead and back

Rational argument for existence of another reality

Emphasises reason is required to limit our desires

Lack of convincing evidence for a soul

Underestimated the importance of the body, some desires need fulfilling e.g. food

Not everything has to have an opposite
o E.g. binoculars

René Descartes, French philosophers
Cognito ergo sum = I think therefore I am
Everything can be doubted apart from the fact we have a body
Body and soul are linked yet they're separate substances
o Linked in to the pineal gland (disproven)
Evil demon example: o Global doubt: an evil demon could be causing everyone to believe that they have a body

Makes sense rationally

Cognito ergo sum is a solid philosophical idea

Gilbert Ryle: idea that the soul being "the ghost in the machine" is a category error
o The soul is a verb
o Anything else is due to a mistake in language

Argument from design

Based on Aristotle's fourth cause

A posteriori/ evidence based

DESIGN QUA PURPOSE
• 5th way • Nature is teleological, everything serves a purpose o The purpose comes from God
• BOW AND ARCHER ANALOGY o inanimate arrows are directed by archers
o plants don't have intelligence; must be directed by something intelligent (God)
o "some intelligent being exists which directs all-natural things to their ends"

DESIGN QUA REGULARITY
• The watchmaker • Natural theology o E.g. complexity of millions of brain cells or the human eye
• Wings of a bird perfectly engineered for movement • The extent of regularity points to a design, hence a creator
• THE WATCH o Even if the watch doesn't work properly, the overwhelming design points to a creator
o Still true if we couldn't work out its functions or if we didn't know what a watch was

The watch is manufactured, and the universe is natural cannot be compared
Epicurean thesis o If enough random events occurred, the earth would eventually be created
Effect & cause o The cause can't always be assumed from the effects (e.g. brick and a window)

4 PREMISES
1. "the universe is orderly" • We don't live in a harmonious universe, why would a benevolent God create this
2. "order is a design" • Cannot be proven empirically, an inductive leap
3. "design presupposes intelligence" • Might be several designers
4. "a complex universe equals a complex designer" • We have nothing to compare it to, our universe could be very basic

Survival depends on the ability to adapt, not design
o "design" is the result of natural selection and processes ("the blind watchmaker" Design isn't an explanation for the universe, it just describes it
INFINITE REGRESS
o Big jump to assume that God is the cause for all
o If God's the cause who made God etc, would go on forever

Evolution and natural selection are a horrific process
o Why wouldn't God design them as perfect initially or as their final stage

Flawed universe suggests a flawed creator
Only a morally flawed God would allow all the evil in this world
o Nature makes humans + animals suffer
o "If the maker of the universe can do all he
wills, then he wills misery"

Just because you can claim something about the parts of an entity, doesn't mean that the same conclusions can be applied to the whole
o Fallacy of composition
o E.g. a sauce pan and a raw egg are both
inedible but together they aren't

Somethings show no significant purpose

Not all purposes are good ones
o E.g. stinging nettles

OCKHAM'S RAZOR
o Argument from simplicity
o God is the easiest and simplest answer.
o Science often 'postulates unobservables'
o E.g. quantum physics is not as reliable as it seems

ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
o Our solar system is perfectly set up for human life = must be due to a design
Human self-awareness in the universe
Humans morality
o Evil could just be soul forming

SUFFICIENT REASON
o Everything should/ does have an explanation

Argument from contingency

A posteriori

God's existence can be proven by the fact that the universe exists and that fact that it has common themes
o E.g. motion and causation

FIRST WAY: the argument from motion o There is an unmoved mover (Aristotle's prime mover)
1. Nothing can move itself
2. If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover
3. Movement cannot go on for infinity
4. The first mover is the unmoved mover/ God

SECOND WAY: causation of existence o Common sense observation tells us nothing created itself
1. Things that exist are created/ caused by other things
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself
3. Cannot be an endless string of this
4. Must be an uncaused first cause/ God

THIRD WAY: contingent & necessary objects
1. Contingent beings are caused
2. Not every being can be contingent
3. There must exist a being which is necessary to be cause contingent
4. The necessary being is God

SUFFICIENT REASON: If God's, the explanation then everything makes sense
The universe is a harmonious whole o Must be a creator or explanation o "God is the ground of being" - Tillich
For every event, truth or existence there must be a significant explanation God is the only sufficient answer for all

Infinite regress is possible o The chance of it being possible and impossible are equal
Just because there's a visible cause, doesn't mean that there's an effect. And vice versa
o At what point does a cause become an effect
CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION o We can't prove events are linked

Can a being really be necessary? o An inductive leap
The universe just is = just as likely as a necessary God
FALLACY OF COMPISITION
o The whole doesn't necessarily have the same explanation as it's parts
- E.g. all people have parents ≠ mankind has a parent
Cannot explain the extent of the universe because we can't get out of it to see the evidence

Our knowledge of cause and effect is limited to our physical + contingent world
o We don't have any knowledge of outside time + space (where God is)
It doesn't make sense to talk about a chain of causes stretching beyond the empirical world

THE PRESENCE OF EVIL
o If God is the explanation for an earthquake, famine etc then he cannot be all loving

Argument from reason
A priori
Seeks to make God's existence analytical
'onto'= Greek for 'being'

"Credo ut intelligam" = I believe in order to understand
In order to understand God, you must believe in him • Wrote 'Proslogian'
CHAPTER 2 - first premise
o God is a being "that which nothing greater can be conceived"
o God existing in minds and reality > god which only exists in minds
Therefore, he must exist, him not existing would be a logical contradiction

CHAPTER 3 -second premise
o "God cannot be thought not to be"
o A necessary being is greater than a contingent one
o God must be necessary as nothing is greater than him
o It is impossible for a necessary being not to exist
Therefore, God must exist

God is perfect and therefore must contain all perfect properties
o Including perfect existence

Existence is a defining predicate
o (a description that is necessary to a concept)
o If he didn't exist, it wouldn't be God

THE PERFECT ISLAND
o You can imagine perfect island o According to Anselm, to be truly perfect it must also exist in reality
o Only a fool would believe that the island must now exist o Imagined perfection ≠ existence
o The fool could imagine all sorts of things that don't exist in reality but now argue that they do
o Cannot demonstrate the existence of something just by having an idea about it o Cannot define the idea into existence

ANSELM
• Islands are contingent, God is necessary
• Only a fool would say that God doesn't exist because they don't understand that God is perfect
PLANTINGA
• Islands have no 'intrinsic maximum'
• No matter how great our concept of an island is, it can always be bettered
• Islands and God cannot be compared

AQUINAS
• Rejects Anselms claim that the statement "God exists" is analytic (can be proven a priori)
• God's existence isn't self-evident
• We're not in a position to 'know God's existence analytically

Suggests the theory is a logical fallacy (an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid)
Not impossible to reject a statement and all its predicates
o You can say "I don't believe in God" and "I don't believe that he exists"
Both predicates are rejected, and his existence isn't proven a priori. Existence isn't a defining predicate
o E.g. if you asked one man to describe 100 Thales in front of him and another man to imagine it; both descriptions would be the same
o Therefore, existence isn't a defining predicate

Professor of philosophy at Notre Dame uni

Argued Kant's objection doesn't conflict with Anselm's theory
o Anselm doesn't contingently add existence as
a property of God/ define him into existence

Pragmatist: believes that a theory can be treated as true if it works satisfactorily in practice
4 main criteria for religious experiences:
1. Ineffable= indescribable
2. Noetic= gaining divine knowledge
3. Transient = short lived
4. Passive = out of the persons controls

The idea of holy o Numinous:- Has to transverse the everyday/ be extraordinary
- "wholly other", completely different to what we normally experience
o Mystery: - Terrifying - Fascinating
God is not a being in the way we understand; he is extremely different from anything we know
Experiences are entirely unlike earthly experiences, no appropriate language for it - "mysteriam tremendium et fascinas"

Has to have its own logic and language, cannot be reduced to everyday language

Personal testimonies should be accepted
Principle of credibility: if someone believed that it happened, then it's most likely to be true
Ockham's razor
• Principle of testimony: generally, we believe others

People are drawn to fantastical things, they exaggerate and are willing to believe it's true

Mind altering substances may have psychological effects

Mood sleep etc. can make you think that you're seeing the world differently

Numinous experiences ≠ religious experiences

Can be caused by music, art, love etc.

Event vs interpretation
1. People may have misinterpreted events
2. Some people may be ignorant and put their experience down to religion as they don't know any better
3. Others do it for attention

Mystical experience: experiencing a greater power
DAVEY FALCUS • BACKGROUND: o Used to be a gang member, addicted to cocaine and lot of other drugs
• WHAT HAPPENED: o A bright light streamed into his room when he was praying o Jesus appeared before him and said "son, your sins are forgiven, and you will sin no more"
JAMES' IDEAS: ✘ Wasn't ineffable or noetic
OTTO'S IDEAS: ✔ Transcended the everyday and was mystical
HOW CONVINCING:✔ Biblical language was used, wasn't on drugs at the time either
Previous drug abuse and he was desperate at the time, could've been hearing what he wanted to hear

Conversion experience: being compelled to gain or lose faith
ST PAUL • BACKGROUND: o Born in Rome and wrote 13 books of the Bible
• WHAT HAPPENED: o Was travelling to Damascus o A bright light surrounded them and knocked him off of his horse
o "they heard a voice from heaven that said "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?" "I am Jesus... but rise and enter the city; you will be told what to do"
o He had no sight, food or sleep for 3 days
JAMES' IDEAS: ✔ Was noetic, transient and passive OTTO'S IDEAS: ✔ Was numinous and mystical
HOW CONVINCING ✔ Converted him and inspired him to write books of the Bible✔ Other's witnessed it
Travelling for days, could've been hallucinations

A process by which "inferior and unhappy becomes... unified and consciously superior and happy "- JAMES (conversion exps)
Often strong enough to make people convert religion
The divine knowledge gained can't be explained
Less likely to be conducted or orchestrated like corporate

Impossible to prove, we can never experience what they did
Characteristics of religious experiences have a lot in common with hallucinations
Honesty/personal testimony isn't enough
o People may be truthful but be ignorant or naïve of what really happened
Various factors can lead to mind altering effects e.g. poppy seeds
Some people lie for attention
Have to completely rely on the interpretation of the experiences

An experience shared by a group, e.g. The Toronto Blessing
TORONTO VINEYARD
• WHAT HAPPENED:
o Pastor Clark gave a testimony saying that he would get drunk in the spirit and laughed uncontrollably
o The whole congregation erupted into pandemonium- Laughing- Growling- Dancing- Barking like dogs- Even struck in paralysis
JAMES' IDEAS: ✔ Passive only OTTO'S IDEAS: ✔ Numinous
HOW CONVINCING: ✔ Lots of people experienced it = more reliable, also happened repeatedly
-Near a jet field, could be jet fumes - No evidence of anything similar in the bible, more closely resembles demonic possession

Less likely to be ineffable due to more people experiencing it, can give more accounts of what happened

Increased validity of experience

Lots of people experiencing the exact same thing, cannot be coincidence

People may be "following the crowd"
o Convincing themselves that they experienced something because others did

Why would god cause people to humiliate themselves?

4 main responses to the inconsistent triad:
o Evil might be an illusion (doesn't work)
o Evil allows appreciation (doesn't work)
o Soul making
o Soul deciding

THEODICY: an attempt to show that the existence of God in the light of evil and suffering. Theo = god, dicy = justify

MORAL EVIL: caused by people

NATURAL EVIL: caused by nature

Theory based on Genesis 3 (the fall) and romans 5:12-20. The universe is created by God to be good
o The fall of man and the original sin created evil when they disobeyed God, the sin 'broke' the goodness of the world
o Natural evil is a disharmony caused by the "penal consequences of sin"
Evil is a "privation of good" o Not an entity itself, just like blindness is a privation of sight. We as humans are born sinners apart from God
o "seminally present in the loins of Adam" o Born with original sin
We can work out way back to goodness via obedience. Free will to redeem ourselves and show true love to God, our souls are decided on this
o Evil is the price to pay as some chose not to o A human purpose is to use their free will to choose go o On judgement day we will be punished, and the world will be perfect again

F.D.E SCHLEIERMACHER o In his book "the Christian faith" he said that the theodicy was flawed o Logical contradiction to say that a perfectly created world had gone wrong
o This would mean that evil created itself "ex nihliO" (out of nothing), which is impossible o Either the world was created imperfect or
God allowed it to go wrong. How can we be punished for evil we didn't know that we're committing?
We have no way of telling whether we are committing the right amount in God's eyes

Believed that there were 2 stages to creation
- Created as immature being that had yet to grow and develop
- Period of change were man would respond to evil in life and eventually become a "child of God"
We were created imperfect, so we could freely choose to become good and turn to God
- We are an epistemic distance from God, there is a gap in our knowledge

Moral evil is the fault of humans for having this freedom
- Natural evil is so that everyone has a chance to experience evil and grow from it
- Eventually everyone's souls will become perfect through suffering and they can go to heaven

Free will is needed for us to truly love God
- To become in the likeness of God, we have to develop, mature and reach our potential
- Done through using our God-given free will

There must be suffering in the world or we'd be "incredibly dull" creatures
The world is instrumentally good
o Instrumental good occurs when something is good for something
o Isn't perfect but is good enough to teach us to be good
Recognises the problem of dysteleological evil (evil which serves no purpose)
God cannot interfere with evil all of the time
o No harm = no regularity = no knowledge = no growth
o Can't learn if things are constantly changing

Didactic evil: evil that is meant to teach

Natural evil created moral evil

It is the first evil we experienced, and we learnt how to be evil from that

D.Z PHILLIPS
o Suggested that the argument and those who
follow it "show the sign of a corrupt mind"
o The theodicy is morally unacceptable, horrors
like the holocaust cannot be justified
o We can't make ethical and moral assumptions
based on the idea that evil will teach us

o Outlined 6 morally unacceptable justifications
for evil
1. Character development
2. Logical necessity
3. Teaches us lessons
4. Not as bad as it seems
5. It's bearable
6. It will all be redeemed in heaven

DIVINE IMPRECCABILITY: it's impossible for God to sin as it is against his nature

Catholic Church sees god as immutablenchanging

Luke 1:37 "for nothing is impossible with God"

Matthew 19:26 "for mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible"

ABSOLUTE OMNIPOTENCE
• God's existence is prior to the laws of logic, naturally not bound by these laws
• No limitation on his capability, divine perfection
✔ God remains fully omnipotent
✖ If god can defy logic, how can we possibly
hope to understand him. God traditionally
thought of as rational e.g. God as just + can't
sin or lie

ONLY CAN DO LOGICALLY POSSIBLE THINGS

• Omnipotence = not necessary

• May choose to limit powers in circumstances to
preserve free will + beliefs in god don't require
logical justification.
- Could be limited and still omnipotent

AQUINAS- no sense to accuse god of being less than omnipotent because he cannot do the logically impossible
✔ Solves philosophical paradoxes of ultimate power
✖ JC conflict, can god tell a lie, can he cause suffering for fun? Both logically possible but conflict w/ his other qualities
✖ Limits his omnipotence

CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO

Can do anything he wishes, depending on his will
✔ Lift a rock or make it unliftable
✖ Cannot have the power to preform both parts of paradox at once so not true omnipotence?

IS MOST POWERFUL BEING. BUT NOT ALL POWERFUL
Omnipotence explains human's relationship to god, not an absolute quality
✔Consistent with scripture, overcomes paradox of omnipotence, explains lack of performative power
✖Blasphemous/anthropomorphic - god no longer possessing the divine attribute

Genesis 3 "You will be like God, knowing good and evil"

1 Samuel 2:3 "The lord is a God of knowledge"

KNOWLEDGE AND OUR SENSES
o We gain knowledge through senses; how can
God have knowledge of tastes etc. w/o a
body?
o If you separate knowledge from sensation -
he has knowledge but not the accompanying
sensation

MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE
o Consists of knowledge of what would happen if certain choices were made
o Does 'exist' in quantum physics + multiverse

FUTURE KNOWLEDGE
o Bible makes it clear God has knowledge of the future 'All the as ordained for me were written your book before one them came to be' - Psalm
o Can it be knowledge if it hasn't happened yet? - God's knowledge may be different to ours
o FLEW - given God could have foreseen consequences of creation ought to have been possible to create free creatures who always do the right thing (epistemic distance, omnipotence & POE)

GOD KNOWS ALL TRUE PROPOSITIONS
God has no perspective, exists outside of time, all around time and space (eternal)
Therefore, knows all things that can be true if they are true because he's timeless
Same way that we know that ww2 started and ended in ___, God knows all facts like that that will ever be and ever were
No perspective, looking at all facts at the same time

Only looking at a very limited view of knowledge

Indexical sentences: conditional to be true, can god know absolutely everything that's happening at the same time

Not just know that, but does he know how and know what it is like
o Theoretical knowledge vs practical

GOD CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT ALL OUTCOMES

God's knowledge is akin to a parent's knowledge of their child

He can accurately predict how people will act, but this doesn't make his knowledge causal

Tries to overcome the omniscience - free will problems
Argues that God has to be able to see everything at once, "as though from a lofty peak"
Our past, present and future come together to form one "eternal present" to God
To God there is no future, only a simultaneous present of all time
We are still free as we move into our future

Psalm 63 "because your steadfast love is better than life"

Psalm 118 "Gracious is the lord, and righteous, our lord is merciful"

GOD ALWAYS DOES GOOD

God preforms good actions, anything he does it good

Hell is needed, like a parent God must punisheward us to help us

GOD CANNOT CONTRADICT HIS GOOD NATURE
God preforms good actions, anything he does is good
Hell isn't a place of torture, it would be a logical contradiction if so
God is b nature good, so anything he do must be good

COMMUTABLE VS DISTRABUTIVE JUSTICE
God does good as he "lacks no excellence", he acts and wishes us well, takes an active role is distributive justice
Part of gods goodness to create good out of evil, hell exists for this reason. Not a place of torture but separation from god
God will always choose good because he's perfect, has the power to do bad but will never.

HUMAN UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION
Preforms good actions and wishes us well, any good that comes to us is from god
Hell is a place of torture because we deserve it. Fact that we have any chance of being in heaven with god shows his loving nature
Whatever he does is good, something bad by human terms has a good reason if goes choses to do it.

Space and time are dimensions, we live in it = we are spatial and temporal

God traditionally described as eternal - sees all space and time from perfect outside perspective
o Sees past, present and future all at once

GOD OUTSIDE OF TIME
CALVIN: God's eternity removes possibility of free will, free will is an illusion due to omniscience
BOETHIUS: Free will possible through simple vs conditional necessity, outside of time
ANSELM: free will possible through dimensional difference

GOD WITHIN TIME

SWINBURNE (from Barth and Tillich): Only way to understand scripture properly, allows for free will. Everlasting god > eternal

Followed Origen and Augustine, argued god as eternal
o I.e fully existing at all points in time

Sees everything all at once, timelessness (atemporality)

Subsequent to Boethius
Influence by Boethius, Augustine and St Paul

GOD'S NATURE:
o Impassable: unaffected by external sources
o Atemporal: existing without relation to time
o Simplicity: god has no parts, is not complex
o Unrestricted by space and time

ORDINARY LANGUAGE IS INNAPROPRIATE
o Free will suggests choice between
alternatives
o Choice of right option while wanting to do so
o God cannot choose evil, but blasphemy to
suggest that god hasn't got free will

FOUR DIMENSIONALISM
o 'foreknowledge'- God's experience outside of time is different to ours
- 'choice' is a product of being temporal, not so if eternally present
- Eternal presence = fourth dimension
o God exists outside of our dimension and outside of time, isn't bound by the same rules
o God in the 5th dimension so he can see into/all of the 4th dimension/time

FREE WILL
o God can see all different possible outcomes
o We have the free will to choose our actions,
but we don't know the outcomes

PLATO
o God exists in a separate dimension of forms

God is simple, but another dimension is
extremely complex

Impossible for us to verify
o Doesn't even fulfil weak verification =
arguably meaningless

SWINBURNE - sempiternal God
Rejection of 'timeless' God
No evidence in scriptures of timelessness; no evidence of acting temporally
E.g. exiles Jews then allows to return

SWINBURNE: timelessness is incoherent, a personal God is a temporal God
If god is temporal, then surely, he should have temporal qualities
God is meant to be immutable (unchanging)
Anthropomorphic
If he's attached to time, how can he create it?

BARTH & TILLICH
All argue that timelessness makes no sense
BARTH: Christ is temporal and shows god acting temporally
TILLICH: Eternal god would be "lifeless"

COGNITIVE SENTENCE: a sentence that can be accurately described as true or false

NON-COGNITIVE SENTENCE a sentence that cannot be appropriately described as true or false

DISCOURSE OF FAITH: language that is used with specific meaning and significance in a religion

APOPHATIC WAY

Can only describe God through what he is not (negative description)

Based on Neo-Platonist belief that God is completely ineffable

6th century

Emphasises that god is "beyond all being and knowledge"

Scripture allows some understanding of God (revealed by him) but suffers from imperfection of human language, and can never give the full picture

12th century Jewish philosopher, doctor and politician. Torah is an imperfect source when describing God due to human language
o "the torah was written by sons of men"
o Any use of human language to describe God is anthropomorphic (partially useful only for weak minds)
o A second-best approach: "the sun is hidden to eyes that are too weak to comprehend it"
God to Moses: "I am what I am"
Religious language is inherently equivocal
o Human language and religious language use the same words with different meanings
"Silence is the best premise" o Can't describe what God is meaningfully so describe what he isn't instead

Distinguished between the existence of God which could be discovered and the nature of God which he believed was inaccessible to man.

This nature of God could only be talked about in negative terms, stating what God is not, via negative.

The via negative does not deny the experience of God but denies the use of language to describe what God is.

There are no language statements made of God that one can make, rather God becomes unified with self. Thus, the infinite can penetrate the finite but there are no corresponding language statements made. Hence the experience is ineffable.

It prevents anthropomorphic statements being made about God
It is more respectful. Maimonides argued that positive statements about God are improper as they don't fully convey the idea we require.
It supports the view of many thinkers, especially mystics, that God is beyond description and that experience of him is ineffable.
It can be argued that only the via negativa adequately conveys the transcendence of God.

AQUINAS: negative language gets us no closer to God

HICK: contradictory - claims God is ineffable but somehow revealed through scripture.
o seems contrary to the use of language in
Scripture, which uses positive statements. It would be contrary to Christian belief to suggest that scripture is wrong or inaccurate.

WILLIAM INGE: Humans risk annihilating God by refusing to describe God with human words as it severs the link between God and humanity.

TEILHARD: Humans can positively talk about God in terms of his relationship with us e.g. we can know he is loving because we 'feel' his love.
o Part of gods divine plan for us to find him in material world, part of our salvation

BRIAN DAVIES: argues that we could arrive at a mistaken understanding of God through the via negtiva, or gain no understanding of God, because of limits of the process of elimination in conveying information.

CATAPHATIC WAY

UNIVOCAL: words with identical meanings in two sentences, cannot be used without being anthropomorphic.

EQUIVOCAL: same words with totally different meanings, cannot use without destroying the meaning of religious language.

ANALOGY: a comparison between 2 things based on similar traits. Transfers some meaning from human language but allows mystery and extrapolation.

- Religious language is meaningful and cognitive even if cannot be verified
- E.g. saying "the living god" means more than "god isn't dead"
- Positivia is better if right type of language used
Analogy of proper proportion:
o God is beyond our known experience
o If we can understand the relationship between our own experiences we can eventually do the same to god, Stepping stones
o God through relativity. Baron von Hugel - we are to God what a dog is to a human. We know that God looks after us and cares, but we cannot understand him.

Analogy of attribution
The more things that you know are good, you can begin to think what they all have in common
We can know God from God's creation, but not exact traits. E.g. Humans are intelligent therefore God is knowledgeable.

- Analogies bring knowledge
- E.g. triangle to circle
- Humanities language is a 'qualified model', humanity is a model for what God is like.

- Ramsey developed the doctrine by reference to what he termed "models and qualifiers". If we say that God is good, the model is the word goodness. As human beings, we understand the nature of goodness (Mother Teresa was a good woman, for example), and when applied to God it is a model for our understanding the nature of God's goodness.

- Religious language is symbolic language
- Communicates significant meanings and understanding about god
- Can disclose hidden meanings in language through non-literal interpretation
- God as "the ground of our being"
- Impossible to comprehend the ground of being directly and personally - symbols needed
- Religious statements are not literally true; however, there is truth in the systems
- Cognitive, meaningful but not scientific

More than just language - images, non-physical ideas
Has a significant meaning for those involved?o i.e. wearing the cross isn't just a symbol of crucifixion
Motivational and cohesive for believe who believe them
Discloses hidden meaning in language through non-literal interpretation

Some symbols exist only in the mind = ideal o God existing only in the mind
Is religious discourse undermined if language is symbolic?o Suggests God is internal: exists only in minds, not in reality
Issue with re-use of symbols o E.g. Swastika
HICK: too vague, Tillich doesn't adequately explain
PAUL EDWARDS: symbols are meaningless no facts
JH RANDALL: non-cognitive and non- representative

Challenges the verification principle by explaining the complexity of religious language
Avoids anthropomorphising God because words are not meant to be taken literally
Avoids agnosticism because it conveys the knowledge of God
Helps to explain difficult concepts, such as God's agapeic love
Like Jesus' methods of teachings o E.g. parables

Could end up being idolatrous
Making god in our image
RICHARD SWINBURNE: we don't really need analogy at all. When we say, 'God is good' and 'humans are good' we may be using good to apply to different things, but we are using it to mean the same thing i.e. we are using the word good univocally
BARTH: God is not knowable without revelation.

FREDERICK FERRE: Use the principles of a word not the words themselves. What the words represent.

BRUMMER: cannot know god's nature, so AOPP is just rephrased negative language
Reimaging ignorant human wisdom doesn't equal god's wisdom

The analogy of attribution raises the problem of evil. The world also compromises evil so does God possess these qualities as well

COGNITIVE SENTENCE: a sentence that can be accurately described as true or false

NON-COGNITIVE SENTENCE a sentence that cannot be appropriately described as true or false

DISCOURSE OF FAITH: language that is used with specific meaning and significance in a religion

ANALYTIC STATEMENTS: explains the meanings of its terms, doesn't depend on evidence, true in all cases all the time

SYNTHETIC STATEMENTS: requires reference to external evidence. E.g. there is cat on the floor, you'd have to be able to see the cat in order for it to be true

Must be able to prove a statement for it to be meaningful

- Based on empiricism of Locke & Hume
- Group of philosophers in '20s w/ common approach to philosophy that emphasised importance of sense experience & of using logical analysis to solve philo problems inc.
Schlick & Carnap
- Language is only meaningful (tautology) if it can be verified by sense observation
- Language that talks of God is meaningless as it cannot be proven true or false, no meaning in a factual sense

SWINBURNE: people generally accept 'all ravens are black' but there is no way to confirm this

- Cognitive statements are meaningful, non- cognitive statements are meaningless
- Religious statements are meaningless - cannot verify
- Only propositions that can be verified empirically have meaning
- Only accepted 2 types of language: a prior & a posteriori

PRACTICAL VERIFIABILITY
o Statements that are tested in reality o E.g. Man U wears red tops
VERIFIABILITY IN PRINCIPLE
o There is life on other planets in the milk way = meaningful and verifiable, we just don't have the technology to visit every planet
Strong: verified conclusively by observation and experiencWeak: shown to be probable by observation and experience

Clear parameters to verifying a statement

Not just an argument against God - atheists and
agnostics make meaningless statements too

Strong verifiability is too rigid
Scientific has become meaningless as we cannot verify it
The principle itself is unverifiable

A proposition is scientific if you can state what evidence would prove it false

FALSIFICATION SYMPOSIUM: a conference or meeting to discuss a particular subject, has all the advantages of a conversation in which a question is put, others respond then the original questioner responds

- On the status of religious language
- The difficulty with religious language is that there is no way of ever proving a religious statement as false for example the design argument for the existence of God - can we ever prove that there is no evidence of a designer?

JOHN WISDOM (ANTHONY FLEW)

- Anthony Flew applies this principle to religious language:
- Flew believed that a statement is meaningful if it is known what empirical evidence could count against it.
e.g. 'All swans are white' this can be falsified if we were to see a black swan.
- Religious believers do not give the condition which will count against their claim. Christians say 'God is Good' no matter what disaster strikes.

- 'It is a test' or 'He moves in mysterious ways' are constant qualifications rendering religious statements worthless because they die the "death by a thousand qualifications".
- Two people were looking at an overgrown garden. One noticed how overgrown and unkempt it was. The other pointed out signs of order such as beds of flowers and suggested that there is a gardener.
Implies that religious statements are NON-COGNITIVE and MEANINGLESS
Can't compare God to a gardener though

R.M. HARE
- A man is convinced that all dons want to murder him
Implies that religious statements are non-cognitive and meaningful
Meaningful as it affects their life/how they live

BASIL MITCHELL
- A man is connived of a stranger's sincerity even
after seeing him help out both sides in the war

Implies that religious language is meaning and cognitive

SWINBURNE: we do not have to be able to specify what would count against an assertion, in order for the assertion to be meaningful.
o He argues that we cannot specify what would count against scientific theories of the beginning of the universe, because we do not know enough about the theories involved, but this does not make the theories meaningless.

TILLICH: religious language is not cognitive but symbolic - these cannot be verifiable or falsifiable.

DONOVAN: outlines several ways in which religious language might have meaning (in his book Religious Language) without making propositional statements.
o Making truth claims is only a small part of religious language. 'The use of language within religious behaviour is generally not of the argumentative, fact-claiming kind'.

- Saw language in terms of a god
- To use language is to participle in a game where we know and accept the rules
- Religious language: you need to be a member of a religious tradition to fully understand the meaning, significance, feeling and aura around a word/ expression of belief
- The use of language is like playing in a game, to use a word you have to first understand how it works.
E.g. Chess, you might be told that a piece was called a "King", but without understanding the rules of Chess, you could never use the piece.
- Language, and therefore the rules of that language, can be seen from two sides, those who are inside the game and therefore know the rules and those who are outside the game and therefore do not know the rules.

- Took this theory and applies it to religious language

- Statements such as "God is Love" and discussions of Religious Experience are to be understood within their language game. As such it can only be judged by those who accept the rules.

Highlights non-cognitive nature of religious language.
Distinguishes it from other types of language
Language games provide boundaries for correct use of language

Some thinkers suggest the theory resemble Fideism.
PHILLIPS: Wittgenstein's arguments support his view of religion, this leads to irrationalism and blind faith.
Doesn't allow for believers claims to be empirically tested
Religious Language alienates those outside the game
Rules of game cannot be changed to allow outsiders in.