Philosophy
- Created by: Sailing26880
- Created on: 19-04-18 16:06
View mindmap
- Plato
- Forms and the form of the Good
- Solves the problem of the many and the one
- It may explain how knowledge works
- seems something right in that people only do something wrong as they don't know what is good.
- It may explain how knowledge works
- Popper
- Knowledge doesn't require eternal certainty
- Aristotle
- The form's have no practical value
- There is no agreement about the concept of Good
- The third man argument - infinite
- Aristotle
- four cause of being
- Material-made Formal-shape Efficient-how Final-purpose
- prime mover
- the four causes seem to explain things well
- the four causes are really practical
- If you believe everything has a purpose there must logically be a prime mover
- the four causes are really practical
- Wilkinson
- not everything appears to have a purpose
- Aristotle is too quick to dismiss rationalism
- Russell
- the fallacy of composition (bricks)
- Dawkins
- Evolution is blind
- The prime mover is a rubbish God
- Russell
- four cause of being
- Soul/Mind/ Body Problem
- Dualism
- Plato - Descartes
- The Malevolent Demon analogy is correct (physical world could be an illusion
- Numerous thought experiments support the idea the mind and body exist seperatly
- Lacewing
- Piercing things as seperate doesnt make them seperate
- Descartes fails to explain how the two worlds interact
- The mind is really just the physical brain
- The Malevolent Demon analogy is correct (physical world could be an illusion
- Plato - Descartes
- Monism
- materialism Dawkins/ behaviorism Skinner
- Dawkins- there is a huge scientific evidence supporting monism
- Materialism doesn't recognize we have personalities
- Behaviorism ignores our internal thoughts
- materialism Dawkins/ behaviorism Skinner
- Dualism
- Design Argument
- Aquinas 5th way
- Kant it can be supported by empirical examples Whales migrating
- The principle of non-rational beings are being guided by a being can be supported by an analogy, animal instincts
- non-rational being act inn a beneficial order and God must be guiding them
- Hume, we cannot accurately assess the beneficial order of the world (nothing to compare it to
- Hume it anthropomorphize God.
- Kant it can be supported by empirical examples Whales migrating
- Paley's Watchmaker Analogy
- watch found on a heath, evidence of a watchmaker, just as world is evidence of a world maker.
- Swinburne, any analogies like that of science showing an order to the world
- Tennant, you can add beauty to strengthen the argument
- Dawkins, Evolution is more convincing (puddle and hole analogy)
- Dawkins, we see the world through purpose coloured spectacles
- Mill The problem of suffering
- Dawkins, we see the world through purpose coloured spectacles
- Aquinas 5th way
- The Cosmological Argument
- Aquinas' 1st way
- The argument from motion, must have been a prime mover to put the whole world in motion
- Mackie, a convincing analogy can be used, train carriages
- Hume, we cannot make judgments about the universe as it is outside our experience.
- Hume, we don't need to explain the universe,if we can explain parts of it, like planets being in motion due to gravitational pull
- Aquinas' 2nd way
- The uncaused cause, everything in the universe has a cause so the universe must have a cause
- Russell, the universe is brute fact
- Hoyle, the big bang theory supports the view the universe has a cause
- Craig, infinite chains do appear impossible, Kalam cosmological argument.
- Infinite chains cannot exist in real life
- Craig, infinite chains do appear impossible, Kalam cosmological argument.
- Aquinas' third way
- The argument from contingency, contingent objects depend on something else, so a necessary being must have created the universe
- Coppleston, contingent beings cannot rely on themselves to exist
- Hume, we have no evidence of necessary beings existing.
- Hume, this doesn't prove the God of classical theism
- Aquinas' 1st way
- Ontological Argument
- Anselm
- "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
- The main principle is convincing, (money is better in re then intellectu)
- Gauinilo Pi-land to replace God with an island it doesn't work
- Gasking, you can make a reverse ontological argument , not existing and creating the world is better then existing
- Descartes
- innate idea of a supremely perfect being so it must necessarily exist
- ANALOGY, triangle must have 3 sides
- Plantinga, modal versions of the argument support the ideas of perfections
- Kant, existence is not a predicate Russell cows are brown
- Hume, you cannot define things into existence
- Anselm
- The Argument from Religious Experience
- The Argument from Religious Experience
- Swinburne
- credulity-should accept experiences unless defeater present testimony- accept testimony- of others unless defeater is present
- Mackie: deluded people may think they are telling the truth
- Davis: Religious experiences require more evidence than other experiences
- Martin: you can use the principles to prove there is no God.
- Davis: Religious experiences require more evidence than other experiences
- Swinburne
- Psychological interpretation of religious experience
- Freud
- human mind is ego, id and super ego, when stressed we project an image of God to help understand the world
- Freuerbach: the idea of projecting a God seems reasonable
- People tend to have religious experiences under stressful situations
- Lowenthal: not all religious experiences are projective
- Persinger: Neurology may explain these religious experiences better then psychology (magnetic helmet)
- Freud
- The Argument from Religious Experience
- The Problem of Suffering
- Augustinian Theodicy
- evil is not a substance itself but a privation of good
- ANALOGY of blindness
- There seems something right that free-will would justify some evil
- HIck: there are scientific problems with Original Sin
- Schleiermacher: how can perfect beings go wrong
- Hick's soul making theodicy
- two stage first image then likeness
- HIck avoids the problems with the Augustinian theodicy
- Epistemic distance as a justification of free will is very persuasive
- Stump: there is too much evil in the world
- Not all suffering leads to people becoming better people
- Logical, Hume and Mackie, inconsistent triad
- Evidential, Rowe, each example of evil is another reason God doesn't exist
- Augustinian Theodicy
- Problems with the attributes of God
- Omnipotence
- Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it
- God is Omnipotent
- Descartes: God can do anything including the impossible and paradoxical
- Firstly, this makes God seem arbitrary as he could make torture appear good.
- Secondly it makes God outside of human understanding
- Thirdly it contradicts theodicies in response to the problem of evil as you can argue God could have made a world with no evil in it
- Secondly it makes God outside of human understanding
- Firstly, this makes God seem arbitrary as he could make torture appear good.
- Descartes: God can do anything including the impossible and paradoxical
- Omnipotence doesn't mean the power to do anything
- Aquinas, it is the power to do anything which is not a logical contradiction
- many feel this is not real omnipotence
- Vardy God chooses to limit his own power
- This appears that God was not omnipotent in the first place
- Aquinas, it is the power to do anything which is not a logical contradiction
- Omniscience and free will
- Go is timeless and can see all of time
- Aquinas and Augustine; God exists outside of time
- God already knows everything and so we don't have free will
- The problem of evil cannot be solved
- God cannot interact with the world
- Aquinas and Augustine; God exists outside of time
- God is timeless but experiences time all at once
- Boethius: God experiences time simultaneously
- God cannot interact with the world
- It contradicts many holy texts
- Boethius: God experiences time simultaneously
- Go is timeless and can see all of time
- Omnipotence
- Types of religious language
- Via Negativa
- Maimonides, understand God by knowing what he is not
- Cole: avoids the problems of other interpretations
- Dionysius: it recognizes the transcendent nature of God
- Flew: you may as well be an atheist
- Via negativa contradicts most religious texts
- Analogous Language
- Aquinas: in between uni-vocal and equivocal
- We use analogous language in other situations (snow blanket)
- Analogy of proportionalit: we use words proportionaly in different contexts
- analogy of attribution: we use a word when something gets its quality from something else
- Swinburne: it is really uni-vocal language in disguise
- Symbolic language
- Tillich: symbols represent what they participate in
- There are clear examples of this in the bible
- Bultmann: many people argue that stories are symbols of myths
- Flew: religion dies the death of a thousand qualifications
- Hick: symbols might lose its meaning (British flag)
- Cognitive/non-cognitive, uni vocal/equivocal
- Via Negativa
- The meaningfulness of religious language
- The Verification Principle
- Hume: abstract reasoning or experimental reasoning only have meaning, VIenna Circle, Ayer
- analytic statement (true by definition) or synthetic statements (verified by evidence) are true
- Ayer saw religious statements were neither so meaningless
- analytic statement (true by definition) or synthetic statements (verified by evidence) are true
- The verification principle rightly identifies some meaningless belief's (flying spagetti monster
- The verification principle cannot be verified itself
- The verification principle makes history meaningless
- Hick: eschatological Verification, we can verify God when we die
- Ayer added in weak verification
- The verification principle makes history meaningless
- Hume: abstract reasoning or experimental reasoning only have meaning, VIenna Circle, Ayer
- Langaue Game Theory
- Wittgenstein: language follows different rules in different contexts
- It explains the disagreements in religious language (category error, using the wrong rules)
- It reduces all religious language to non-cognitive claims
- The Falsification Principle
- Flew, you must be able to state what would falsify the belief for it to be true
- Swinburne: lots of unfalsifiable beliefs are still meaningful (Toy Story)
- Hare: religious language is a bilk (unfalsifiable in our world)
- Parable, garden
- logical positivist movement: does religious language have any meaning at all
- The Verification Principle
Comments
No comments have yet been made