Tag: RE

Posted on

Miracles 2007

Classic definitions 3 parts

Other definitions

Feuerbach – wishful thinking / projection of our desires

RF Holland – coincidence interpreted religiously

Aquinas’ three categories

Hume’s definition – violations of laws of nature (Laws of nature – what are they?) which cannot happen

    Very low probability – but not nil!

    “Which is more likely – that a man rose from the dead or that this testimony is mistaken in some way?” sceptic’s argument.

Hume’s objections

    Witnesses evidence testimony exclusivity barbarism

Swinburne and laws of nature

Wiles – God yes, but doesn’t intervene therefore no miracles. God does not undermine laws he put in motion – world created complete. Wiles miracles should be seen as symbolic, teaching a deeper truth. So no miracles in Bible, not necessary for faith.

Problems of miracles and nature of God – Classic theistic view

Purpose / significance of miracles? Teach about God.

Examples – Nebraska Choir Peter Vardy

 

    God arbitrary?

Pros

Cons

Inductive based on evidence

Also a weak arg – Hume would argue evidence mistaken
 

People of faith expect miracles

If there is a God we should expect him to interact with his creation (Swinburne)

but cannot do so all the time as it would lead to unreliable universe

  
 

Most miracles have prosaic explanations so…

Even if some can be explained away, not all can

  
 

Peter Vardy – a God who intervenes at Lourdes but does not in Ethiopia, needs to be questioned.

Arbitrariness of God
 

Violate inflexible rules

They do not contradict the laws of nature

just the way we see those laws – even Hume didn’t regard cause and effect as necessarily linked.

  

 

Answer two questions

 

1 ‘Innocent suffering is impossible to explain unless there is life after death.’ Discuss. [45]

 

2 To what extent can it be maintained that a literal interpretation of Scripture removes all danger of human error? [45]

 

3 ‘Miracle stories are an obstacle to faith for modern people.’ Discuss. [45]

 

4 Discuss critically the use of symbol as a means of expressing ideas about God. [45]

 

1 ‘Innocent suffering is impossible to explain unless there is life after death.’

Discuss. [45]

The nature of the problem of innocent suffering should be clearly understood and expressed; it might be argued that, if the doctrine of original sin is followed, then innocent suffering is only apparent, although this does not answer questions raised by the suffering of animals. Traditional theodicies could be explained, in which the suffering is argued to have a purpose, enabling the individual to mature and to exercise free will. However, the extent of suffering and its variation from one person to the next might be considered, with the views of those such as Hick who believe that everything will be revealed and put right after death.

 

2 To what extent can it be maintained that a literal interpretation of Scripture removes all danger of human error? [45]

Candidates should discuss the views of those who attempt to interpret Scripture literally, for example creationist arguments. If Scripture is concerned to come directly from God, dictated exactly, then the dangers of the writers having added their own interpretations and angles might be removed; but there is still the need for the reader to make interpretations, especially where some passages are obviously not meant to be taken literally, such as claims that God is a rock. It might be argued that a view which does not take into account the personal preferences of the writers misses a lot of the meaning.

 

3 ‘Miracle stories are an obstacle to faith for modern people.’ Discuss. [45]

Candidates might usefully discuss the thinking of Hume, Bultmann, Maurice Wiles or David Jenkins, in a discussion of whether the concept of miracle is valid for modern people. It might be argued that miracle stories support faith in demonstrating the nature and power of God; or it could be argued that these stories are too incredible and should be ‘demythologised’ in order to enable modern people to have faith without attempting to suspend disbelief.

 

4 Discuss critically the use of symbol as a means of expressing ideas about God. [45]

The problems of religious language in general could be discussed, with acknowledgement of the difficulties of using everyday language to speak about something which is beyond sense experience. The use of symbol in religious language should be illustrated with plenty of examples. Candidates might usefully consider whether there are some symbols which transcend all cultures (for example, perhaps, the symbol of light). The ideas of Jung might be explored.

 

 

Read the first 3 boxes (paragraphs) from this site regarding form criticism and miracle stories: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rsposse/miraclerach.htm

Posted on

Cosmological argument 2009 – sample answer

1 (a) Examine the key features of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The cosmological argument is the argument that for every effect there is a cause, thus the fact of the existence of the universe means that it must have been caused by something and religious cosmologists say that that thing is God.

Thomas Aquinas in his 5 ways stated 5 proofs for the existence of God and his second was ‘the
argument form an uncaused cause’.

Around the same time historically two muslin philosophers Al Kindi and Al Ghazali put forward the Kalam argument with runs like so:

  • Everything that exists must have a cause for its existence.
  • The universe exists.
  • (Therefore) The universe must have a cause.

One of the assumptions underlying this argument is that infinite regress is impossible, i.e. there cannot be an infinite number of causes and effects and there must be an original cause.

The Kalam argument continues along these lines: an infinite number cannot exist, \there cannot be an infinite number of causes, \there are a finite number of causes,\there is a prime or first cause, \at some stage in the past one of two states was possible : that there should be or should not be a universe. It goes on to state as argued by Al Ghazali that when 2 states are equally possible the one which comes about must be willed by a personal agent ® God. This later become known as the argument from logical necessity, it isn’t logical that God cannot exist.

Aquinas’ argument is based on his observation that everything that moves is moved by something \there is an unmoved mover which is God (his 1st way).                

More recently a philosopher called Copleston argued that God was a non-contingent being; very similar to the logical necessity view, things which exist now do so because of past events \the universe exists now because of a past event; the only logical explanation is that is was caused by an outside agent: this is a necessary being i.e. God but also the universe’s very existence is contingent upon the existence of God.

When refuting possible argument against the cosmological view Richard Swinburne has explained that the clue is in God’s name: Jahweh/Jehovah which is Hebrew and means ‘I am‘ which indicates that God is, was and shall be i.e. He is outside of time.

G W Leibniz explained Copleston’s view in the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason’, that God is a metaphysically necessary being – there must be an absolute cause ® that cause is God ® God cannot exist, and again the idea that from this being came the contingent (dependent) upon universe. God is reason enough.

 

1 b) i. For what reasons have some thinkers rejected the cosmological argument?

Most opponents of this view take issue with the idea that infinite regress is impossible. Hume in the 18th Century regarded our powers of observation as limited – just because we have seen what w believe to be limited series of chains of causes and effects does not mean that in the larger area of the universe there was necessarily a first cause. After all we cannot get outside our world to be more objective.

Bertrand Russell took up this idea with his suggestion that the universe just is- Brute Fact – and why not just accept that.

Even Immanuel Kant argued that the notion of cause & effect comes from a way of seeing that our mines impose on the world and that this way of seeing is of Limited value but which we have to use or go mad!

Going further, Hume wonders why, even if we accept that there may be a first cause, does it have to be God? And even if we call it ‘God’ what can we possibly learn about ‘God’s’ nature? We certainly can’t deduce that for example he is good!

On a practical level the cosmological argument is rejected for being an inductive one; one where the conclusion leaps beyond the evidence available to an unsound conclusion.

And finally Hume and others, query the nature of the world which exists – after all if God created and God is good why then does evil exist?

 

1b) ii. How far is it possible to regard the cosmological argument as a strong argument?

Even your most fervent believer should realise, as Aquinas did, that this argument has flows; it can suggest reasons for believing that God exists but can never ultimately prove it. As Anselm said ‘reasoned argument can strengthen strength but is not a true substitute for commitment to God’.

Nevertheless the argument has stood the test of time, it has not been disproved. But perhaps we should view it as the best theory yet. After all Hume’s suggestion that just because experience tells us all events have a cause this may not necessarily be the case with the universe, seems more than a little pedantic.

It is certainly true that this argument can tell us nothing about the nature of God.

Perhaps it is useful to use the Ockham’s, Razor Principle, to sum up the cosmological argument’s strength; i.e. as quoted by Richard Swinburne “the simplest explanation is usually the most reliable.“