Philosophy of Religion

?

The Falsification Principle

  • Associated with Karl Popper - concerned with the philosophy of science. 
  • Argues that religious statements are meaningless since we cannot falsify them. 
  • Takes religious language as non-cognitive since we can't falsify it. 
  • Anthony Flew - John Wisdom's Parable of the Unseen Gardener to show how religious believers don't allow for falsification of their beliefs - ''death by a thousand qualifications''. 
  • Values the nature of empirical criticism. 
  • Example: a child dying of cancer does not dissuade the believer. 
  • R.M Hare - bliks (a belief for which essentially we have no proof). But they often have a significant importance in someone's life. Neither verifiable nor falsifiable - we should take religious language as non-cognitive. 
  • Religious lang should not be subject to the same empirical critcisms as science - Wittgenstein. 
  • Basil Mitchell - the Partisan and the Stranger - analogy for belief in God despite evidence suggesting he isn't there. 
  • Swinburne's Toys in the Cupboard - we can't falsify that toys come out in the night and dance because we haven't witnessed it. 
1 of 23

Verification Principle

  • Logical positivists/verificationists/Vienna Circle. 
  • Argued for Hume's Fork - influenced by Hume - a statement must be analytic (true or false), synthetic (true or false by verification). 
  • Religious language is COGNITIVE (true or false) and meaningless because it can't be verified. 
  • Strong Verification - anything that can't be verified is meaningless, e.g history or some aspects of science. 
  • Moritz Schlick - all talk of science is useful nonsense. 
  • Weak Verification - accepts history and science as having been verified. 
  • Criticisms: How is it helpful if it rules out science and history? 
  • Hick's eschatological verification - the story of the Celestial City. We can't say anything meaningfully until we have reached the end. 
  • Isn't the Bible a verification of something religious? 
  • The verification principle itself is unverifiable - we can't verify the principle so it means it cannot work. 
2 of 23

Language Games

  • Wittgenstein - Tratacus Logico Philosophicus. 
  • Early Wittgenstein - Picture Theory of Language - something is meaningful if you can picture it. 
  • Language game - used to convey how language applies to rules. 
  • Words have a use rather than a meaning. 
  • Their use is in their particular language game and is only applicable to that particular language game, e.g I can't play try and play Monopoly on a chess board. 
  • Philosophical problems arise when language ''goes on holiday'', i.e when we put words from separate language games together. 
  • I.e I should not be able to understand a lion because he speaks a different language game. 
  • Words can mean different things in different language games e.g the word ''gay''. 
  • Religious language is a language game - understood by those within that language game. 
  • E.g saying ''God is the father'' would not be relevant to an atheist. 
  • Assumes religious lang as non cognitive. 
  • However, Wittgenstein did not directly talk about religious lang, we only assume what he says from what he says about language games. 
  • Ayer - reduces God to the same level of talk about witches and wizards. 
  • Not understood by those outside the language game. 
3 of 23

The Problems of Religious Language

  • Ineffable as ''no one has ever seen the Father" - Jesus, or the story of the Turtle and the Fish. 
  • Such language is esoteric and therefore only open to a certain number of people who have studied the subject. 
  • Religious language is often too patriarchal and power based, too masculine and too much about power. 
  • Ancient and refers to things we don't know about in modern society, e.g the Parable of the Sower refers to a specific geographical area many of us are unfamiliar with. 
  • Should we take religious language as cognitive or non-cognitive? 
  • Atheists would say when a religious believer speaks of God they are being true in what they say, and for a religious believer to be told that their God is only metaphorical/statement of opinion - is offensive. Cognitive - place a real emphasis on scripture, e.g Fundamentalists. 
  • Religious language as non-cognitive means it's interpretive like a piece of art, e.g we could take the Gospel of John Chapter 2 (Jesus turning water into wine) and assume it's non-cognitive and each stage is representative of something. 
4 of 23

The Via-Negativa

  • Describing God backwards, in a negative way. Instead of saying ''God is good'' we would say ''God is not evil". Saying what God is not rather than what He is, thus solves the problem of ineffable language. 
  • By negating the possibilities of what God could be, you gain more of an understanding of what it actually is. We can only describe God by saying what he is not. Even saying ''God is perfect is accepted by the Via-Negativa because we understand perfect as ''lacking nothing''. - Aquinas. 
  • Pseudo-Dionysius: God is ''beyond all comprehension and knowledge''. People should recognise that God is a mystery and the perfect cause of all things. If we describe God in positive terms - we get an idea of God that is too small. 
  • Moses Maimonides: Used the example of a ship in his ''Guide for the Perplexed" to explain how we can gain knowledge from speaking in negative terms. The ten people around the ship, learn what the ship is by saying what it is not. The tenth person comes to the conclusion that it is a ship and NOT any of the things that were said. In the same way, we come closer to knowledge and comprehension of God through negative attributes. 
  • Criticisms: Does not bring us any closer to what God is - only tells us what he is not. Brian Davies says that by saying ''God is not a wombat'' does not tell us what God is. Keith Ward says by talking of God by way of negation, He ends up being a ''great big nothing''. 
5 of 23

The Via-Positiva

  • Also Aquinas - argued that we could talk of God through analogy. 
  • We cannot speak of God and humans univocally, nor could we speak of them equivocally because God is too perfect and beyond our comprehension and understanding. To understand him, we must be like him. 
  • Paley and Aquinas both used examples of analogy in the teleological argument. Speaking of God via analogy avoids the problems of univocal and equivocal language. 
  • Analogy of Attribution: God's qualities are reflected in the world around us. We can learn about God through things in the world - example of the bull and its urine. We are justified in comparing God to the things in the world since He made the world and the things in it. 
  • Analogy of Proper Proportion: We have God's qualities, just in a lesser proportion e.g Hick, I am faithful, my dog is faithful, God is faithful. 
  • Analogy of Improper Proportion: Comparing God to something he isn't like, e.g saying God is a rock ignores essential differences for the sake of a loose comparison. 
  • Criticisms: There are a lot of bad things in the world which wouldn't fit when describing God analogically. Swinburne says we can speak of God and humans as good univocally, it's just that God and humans possess goodness in different ways. Vienna Circle - a statement is only meaningful if it can be verified by the senses. Aquinas relies on God for this to work. 
6 of 23

Symbolic Language

  • Associated with Paull Tillich. It is through metaphors and symbols that religious language communicates religious experience. 
  • Symbols are not the same as signs. Signs may point to something, but a symbol participates in the thing it points to, e.g the Cross or a flag which participates in the power of the king or nation. Symbols open up a new level of reality which would otherwise remain closed. 
  • E.g the Christian Cross doesn't just point to concept of Jesus, it reminds Christian's of Jesus' sacrifice and his holding of all sin on his shoulders. 
  • Symbols are independent of empirical critcism because they are different to each individual. In this sense, belief in God can only be explained through symbolic language because we cannot critcise it empirically. 
  • Religious symbols are meant to convey the same feelings within people, e.g the Star of David invokes pride and patriotism for the Jews. The Bible can be regarded as an example fo religious symbollism e.g Jonah and the Whale. 
  • J.H Randall says religious symbols can expose things we didn't know about the Divine, in the same way an artist can reveal hidden depths. 
  • Criticisms: May be only properly understood by those within a specific community. Symbols can be contradictory e.g the Nazi Swastika, originally a Hindu symbol for peace. Tillich additionally provides no distinction between religious and non-religious symbols, meaning that there isn't necessarily specific content for symbollic language. 
7 of 23

Problem of Evil

  • Problem of evil - can there be a God at the same time as evil and suffering? 
  • Epicurean Paradox. 
  • Buddhists say suffering is a natural aspect of life. 
  • Aristotle's PM does not know of suffering. 
  • Bertrand Russell says suffering is a brute fact of life. 
  • Theodicy - attempting to explain why God exists at the same time as evil and suffering. 
  • Augustine's Theodicy: the fall, privation of good, God is justified in not interfering, free will means we're not robots. 
  • Criticisms of Augustine: Schlierermacher - logical contradiction, either God let the world go wrong or it wasn't perfect. Evolution - we have move away from animalistic instincts. We are not seminally present in the loins of Adam. ''Nature is red in tooth and claw'' - Tenneyson - doesn't explain why natural evil exists. 
  • Irenaen Theodicy: spiritual immaturity, distinction between image and likeness of God. Suffering is used as an instrument in a ''vale of soul making''. Since we all suffer, we are all rewarded in heaven. (Hick). 
  • Criticisms of Irenaeus: Why is there so much suffering? - Hick. Elie Wiesel, such a God is not worth worshipping. Suffering should not be the tool of an omnibenevolent God. Morality is pointless if even Hitler is rewarded in heaven.
8 of 23

Religious Experience

  • Can be from prayer/experience of place of worship (indirect), to a mystical experience of God (direct). An experience in a religious context. Tend to be ineffable (can't be described in human language). 
  • Swinburne's 5 Types of RE: 1) A private phenomena that can be explained, 2) A private phenomena that CANNOT be explained (seeing God), 3) A conviction that God was seen but there are no public or private phenomena to be explained, 4) Perceiving something completely normal like a night sky, 5) Perceiving an unusual public object (e.g Hindu Milk Miracle). Swinburne's Principle of Credulity and Principle of Testimony: Credulity: we should believe what someone says unless there is empirical evidence. Testimony: no one should have reason to lie so we must believe them.
  • Otto and the Numinous: Experiences of awe and wonder the presence of an almighty and transcendent God. The numinous = a wholly other. e.g listening to Beethoven's Symphony No.5 or watching a beautiful sunset. 
  • William James and the Varities of Religious Experience: Religious experiences must be PINT (Passive, Ineffable, Noetic, Transient). They can be explained by a person's psychological makeup - but this is not a criticism. Can also be a result of drugs or alcohol which is a critcism. 
  • Mysticism - famous mystics e.g John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila (who said that religious experiences must be in line with the teachings of the Church), Margery Kempe, Walter Hilton. F.C Happold, says there are two types: 1) Mysticism of Love and Union, 2) Mysticism of Knowledge and Understanding. 
  • Conversion: a religious experience that changes our religion converts us. Usually marked by an important change in someone's life, e.g C.S Lewis, Muhummad Ali, St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Can be sudden or gradual. 
  • Coporate experience: More than one person percieving an unusal public object, e.g Toronto Blessing.
9 of 23

Criticisms of Religious Experience

  • How can the finite experience the infinite? Since God is perfect and infinite, we would have to be these things in order to recognise Him. We cannot experience God because He is transcendent and immaterial. HOWEVER - Descartes hits back and says infinity is like very large numbers. We cannot visualise them, but we can talk meaningfully about them. 
  • Usually we only have one person's testimony as to whatever happened, e.g St. Bernadette said she saw the Virgin Mary, but spectators said they saw no one and just saw St. Bernadette talking to an unseen ''someone''. 
  • Even corporate religious experiences are hard to verify - the mind is private. 
  • Empirical testing is pointless because religious experiences are unique to the individual like emotion etc. 
  • Religious experiences are all very different, e.g one person might see God and another might see the Buddha. If they're not the same then how can we verify them. 
  • Since religious experiences are existential (an experience) - we should have to be able to verify them. 
  • Freud - argues that religion is simply wishful fulfilment, a construct grafted by the mind in order to deal with the harshness of life. Religious experience is a late onset reaction to repression and childhood trauma. 
  • Marx - religion was ''the opium of the people'', used to suppress and undermine the minority. 
  • Persinger's helmet. 
10 of 23

The Ontological Argument

  • Anselm's argument for the existence of God. God is ''that than which nothing greater can be conceived'' - since there is nothing greater than God - He must exist, He is a supremely perfect being (Descartes). 
  • To say that there is no God (according to Anselm) requires some sort of concept of God (''The fool said in his heart there is no God'). Gaunilo - on behalf of the fool says that this can work for anything even an island. If the island is perfect, it must exist otherwise even the most horrible island would be better. 
  • Anselm says that this argument only works for God because God is necessary - an island is contingent. Plantinga says islands have an intrinsic maximum whereas God doesn't. A notional island can always be made better. 
  • For God to be perfect - he must possess the characteristic of existence - Descartes.
  • Kant says that ''existence isn't a predicate'' an inherent characteristic of something which makes it better or worse. The coins in Kant's pocket are the same as the coins in his head. Their characteristics are their shininess, hardness and coinness. These aren't taken away just because we imagine them. 
  • Bertrand Russell: Anselm's idea of necessary existence represented a syllogism - Santa Claus is a man. Men exists, therefore Santa Claus exists (WRONG). Existence = a numerical concept e.g counting cows and unicorns, you have lots of cows and NO unicorns. Existence is not something unicorns lack.
  • Hume: you cannot define something into existence. We cannot derive existence from something's assumed perfection. 
  • Garth Moore - compares God to the equator - we know the equator exists, but there isn't a line drawn around the middle of the world to prove this. 
  • Stephen Davies: something that doesn't exist lack practical value. 
11 of 23

Teleological Argument

  • About God the creator, we can assume that there is a creator from things we can see in the world. Because these things are ordered and beautiful, we can conclude that the world did not arise by chance. Aquinas' 5th Way - Telos (the arrow and the archer). Paley's analogy of the watch (he also uses an eye as an example too). 
  • Swinburne - the world is ordered, and order implies beauty. This could not have come about by chance nor could it have come about as a matter of probability considering the sheer size of the universe. 
  • Design Qua Purpose - the argument that the universe has been designed to fulfill a purpose e.g the eye. Design Qua Regularity - the argument that the universe shows some sense of regularity, e.g the movements of the planets in the solar system. - William Paley. 
  • F.R Tennant - the Anthropic Principle (life on earth is just right to be sustained - the Goldilocks Phenomenon), the Aesthetic Argument: things which are beautiful in the world are not needed for mere survival so must have been put there by an omnibenevolent God. 
  • Hume: Humans have no experience of world making - illogical to infer there is a designer when we haven't seen the world be designed. Why can't there be a team of designers, why does there have to be one God - God of Classical Theism. There is bad design in the world which is not representative of God, but implies a bad designer. Could the world have arisen by chance? A cabbage is a better analogy for the world because it is natural, organic and promotes self regularity. 
  • J.S Mill - Mother Nature is guilty of crimes that she goes unpunished. 
  • Dawkins: there is no design, we are a result of random evolutionary processes. 
12 of 23

The Cosmological Argument

  • Argument for the existence of God based on cause and effect (a posteriori). The world is a chain of causes and we cannot pursue infinite regress. 
  • Aquinas 1st Way - Movement (conclusion of the unmoved mover), 2nd Way - Cause (conclusion of the uncaused causer), 3rd Way - Contingency and Necessity (concludes that God is necessary). 
  • Copleston argued that he relies on his parents for food like everything relies on a chain of cause and effect (later criticised by Russell 1948). 
  • Leibniz - Principle of Sufficient Reason. 
  • The Kalam Argument: Al-Ghazali, (supported by William Lane Craig), everything that exists comes into being, must've been brought into being, there must be a cause. 
  • William Lane Craig - says we cannot have infinite regress, uses the example of a library of an infinite number of books to show how it doesn't work. Ed Miller says an infinite universe would have an infinite number of days which means we would never reach today. 
  • Occam's Razor - you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. The simplest solution is often best. 
  • Swiburne - the universe cannot have caused itself. 
  • The strengths of the argument lie in its simplicity. Easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes to an event. Perfectly logical.
13 of 23

Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

  • Bertrand Russell - criticises Copleston in particular. The universe is a ''brute fact'', it just exists and that's it, we shouldn't go asking questions about it. He says just because one things has a cause, we shouldn't go assuming a chain of causes. E.g just because all men on Earth have a mother, does not mean that the Earth has a mother. The term ''necessary'' can never be analytic (true or false), but it is a priori rather than a posteriori. 
  • Hume: Also uses the Fallacy of Composition and says that Aquinas makes an ''inductive leap too far'' in assuming everything has the same common properties. Just because one thing in that group of things has a property, does not mean we can assume the same property for all things.  We have no experience of world making, so we cannot talk meaningfully about it. Hume also rejected the term necessary being. All things are contingent, so why does motion need to have a starting point?
  • Other weaknesses: Depends on God being a necessary being for this to work. Why does God have to be the first cause? Why not something else. Even if God is the first cause - it does not tell us anything about Him. He could be a malicious being. We are only working with non-countable infinity - this is a level of infinity we are unable to comprehend. If we worked with countable infinity - the process might work (Hilbert's Paradox of the Infinite Hotel). 
14 of 23

Soul, Mind and Body - Greek Influences

  • Plato takes the dualist approach. He argues that mind/distinct from the body and that this is where our knowledge comes from - we have spent time in the Forms prior to living and this is where we acquire our knowledge. The soul survives the body and with it survives the identity of the individual. The aim of the soul, is to return to the World of Ideas. The soul = eternal
  • Plato's 4 Arguments for the Existence of a Soul: 1) Linguistic: ''I'', implies I am a thinking thing. 2) Knowledge: Knowledge of the universals does not change, 3) Recollection: we remember the universals from our time spent in the Forms, 4) Opposites: we know things from their opposites, from birth comes death and thus an endless recycling of souls. 
  • Aristotle - called the body ''psyche'', Greek word for animator. Powers of the psyche include, nutrition, reproduction, movement and perception. 
  • He called the soul ''nous'' - the highest form of rationality. The Prime Mover was a cosmic nous. 
  • Types of soul, Plant (vegetative soul, repsonsible for powers of nutrition, growth etc.), Animal (appetetive soul, responsible for desires and feelings) and Human (a soul within the power of reason, gives people the ability to develop intellect). 
  • Contrast between Plato's rationalism and Aristotle's Empiricism: Plato says that empirical knowledge is useless. Aristotle said we live in the real world - all knowledge comes from the senses. 
15 of 23

Soul, Mind and Body - Cartesian/Substance Dualism

  • Descartes' ''Meditations'' where he wrote about mind and body. ''There is a great difference between the body and the mind''. 
  • He concluded that while he can doubt his body, he cannot doubt his mind hence ''I think therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum).
  • He concluded that sensory knowledge (existential and therefore reliant on the body) could cause deception. Uses the example of seeing a sheep in the distance but it turns out it's a hedge. Wonders if life is a dream or the trick of an evil demon. 
  • We can take things away from the body but we cannot take things away from the mind - if I cut off my leg I am not taking anything away from the mind. 
  • The fact he could doubt one thing but not the other told him that he must be made of two different types of ''stuff''. The world is made of both mental and physical stuff. Minds are a separate non-physical substance that cannot be reduced like brains. 
  • Mental states have the ability to act upon physical states (this is interactionism). Descartes believed that the mind and body interacted via the pineal gland. The mind can exist outside the body, but the body cannot exist without the mind. 
  • Problems: Interactionism, how can a non-physical substance act on a purely physical substance. Surely we can doubt the mind? Modern science has shown links between the mind and the brain. Monkeys have pineal glands. 
16 of 23

Soul, Mind and Body - Materialism

  • Darwin, argues that we have come about through evolutionary processes. All life is built on DNA. There is scientific evidence to support this so many other people support it as well. 
  • Richard Dawkins - biological materialist. There is no soul, there is only a body. There is nothing after death because the mind dies with the physical body. We are just ''bytes'' of digital information and our brains are just ''meat machines''. We exist in order to pass on DNA. Emotions such as love and hatred are just ''memes'' - social contructs that are passed down from one generation to another. We are just ''survival machines''. 
  • Dawkins has science on his side and therefore has many supporters as to what he is saying. 
  • Believed in a ''soul 2" - that our work is continued on in our work and ideas. 
  • Gilbert Ryle is also a materialist. He says that the view of the mind is a ''category error''. He uses the example of a foreigner at a cricket match who asks ''where is the famous element of team spirit?" The foreigner doesn't realise that the team spirit is not an entity in itself, but a term used to describe the interaction of the players as they play. Mind behaviour is like the team spirit, or disposition to behave. It is not an entity in itself. 
  • Criticisms: Dawkins' theory does not take into account the true nature of emotions. Keith Ward argues that Dawkins is too naive in his theory. Soft materialists argue for a life after death. 
17 of 23

Soul, Mind and Body - Additional Ideas

  • Colin McGinn, coined the term ''mysterian'' believes that there is no answer to human consciousness. We can no more understand human consciousness than monkeys can understand nuclear physics. 
  • B.F Skinner - mental states are just learned behaviour e.g Pavlov's Dog. 
  • Nicholas Malebranche argued for occasionalism - that God occasions the mind to act upon the body. 
  • Spinoza and the theory of parallelism - the mind and body are separate entities and they act alongside each other but do not interact. 
  • Thomas Huxley - mind is a 'residue' of body. Mental states are like smoke from a fire. 
  • Smart and Place argue for Identity Theory - Mental State A is no more than Brain State B. The desire I have for a cup of tea is no more than neurons firing across the body. 
  • Thomas Nagel says that we will one day know the answer to human consciousness. 
  • Wittgenstein says that the mind, body problem is an illusion (like his duck/rabbit). 
18 of 23

Ancient Philosophical Influences - Plato and the F

  • Plato and the Forms. Rationalist, believed we have knowledge a priori rather than a posteriori, we know things without experience. We recall them from our time spent in the Forms. 
  • Plato believed that this world we live in was not true reality - the Material World, Realm of Appearances (RoA). The Realm of the Forms (RoF) was true reality which we should seek in order to find truth. The Forms are perfect visions of the perfect thing, this is how we know what things should look like, e.g I know what a cake will look like before I bake it. 
  • Plato's Analogy of the Cave, used to illustrate how the RoF and RoA works. The Sun represents the Form of the Good which illuminates the other Forms and gives them life. The escape prisoner represents the philosopher. The prisoners and their chains represent ignorance/ordinary humans and failure to see the Forms. The shadows on the wall represent the things we see in our Material World. 
  • Since everything around us is only an illusion, we should only seek the Forms. 
  • Plato's Divided Line - used to describe the difference between the Forms and our Material World. Demonstrates that empirical knowledge is opinion and subject to change but the Forms are true knowledge and are not subject to change or flux (like the Universals, beauty, truth and justice). 
19 of 23

Ancient Philosophical Influences - Form of the Goo

  • Hierarchy of Forms - the Form of the Good is the highest and most valuable. 
  • Central to the existence of our entire universe. 
  • Necessary and perfect Form which is responsible for all of the other Forms existing. 
  • It structures each Form giving it its own characteristics like God made us in his image. 
  • Can be interpreted as God-like and transcendent. 
  • Not ''all loving'' or omnibenevolent. Has no divine plan or knowledge of the world. 
20 of 23

Criticisms of Plato

  • Can there be a Form of a Form? If there was, then this would allow infinite regress if we never stop looking for the perfect Form. 
  • Can there be a perfect Form of evil/disease etc. 
  • Can there be a Form of something that hasn't been invented yet? 
  • Plato's rationalism underestimates the pull of emotions. 
  • The Analogy of the Cave relies on the Forms to be able to work. Without it, the analogy breaks down. 
  • The mind is private, so we have no way of empirically testing the Forms.
  • Karl Popper said Plato sought permanence in the Forms as a way of coping with the realities of life.  
  • Good comes in many varities and there cannot be only one Form of it (Form of the Good) - Aristotle 
21 of 23

Aristotle's Four Causes

  • Aristotle = empiricist, knowledge is a posteriori. 
  • Four Causes, responsible for the things in our world. Material, Efficient, Formal (closest to Plato's Forms), Final. 
  • Everything in the world is a result of the Four Causes. We work to achieve our telos (purpose or Final Cause).
  • Prominent in the Cosmological Argument and Natural Law. 
  • A person's goal is to achieve a rational life. We are defined by our telos, e.g a horseness is defined by its telos - a horse. 
  • Criticisms: Why does cause assume purpose? What if things don't have a purpose, they just have a function? How can natural things operate to the Four Causes, e.g what makes a plant have its plantness? Evolution suggests that some things just come about on their own and don't need a cause. 
22 of 23

Aristotle's Prime Mover

  • From nothing comes nothing (ex-nihilo). Therefore there must be something. Infinite regress is impossible so there must be a beginning. 
  • PM is basically Aristotle's idea of God. 
  • The PM is a necessary being responsible for the chain of cause and effect in the world. 
  • The PM = the unmoved mover and the uncaused causer. 
  • Almost like a catalyst. It starts something off for its reason or purpose and lets things run their course. 
  • Change is eternal, we live in a constant state of flux - Heraclitus - ''you can never step in the same river twice". 
  • Different to God - perhaps more similar to a Deist approach of God (God starts the world but doesn't intervene and lets things run their course. 
  • Transcendent. 
  • The PM is NOT omnibenevolent. It does not feel anything for humans or the world. It has no divine plan and only thinks about itself - otherwise, it would not be perfect. It is impersonal and not in any sense emotional, i.e you cannot pray to the PM, whereas God is personable and can be contacted. 
  • Critcisms of the PM: What if there is more than one first cause? The Big Bang is better explanation for the oscillating universe. Can we have infinite regress (Hilbert's Hotel). 
23 of 23

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Philosophy resources »