Is religious faith rational? Booklet 1 Topics The ontological argument for the existence of God Theories about the nature of faith and its relation with reason and revelation Propositions and non-propositional concepts of revelation Candidates will be expected to be familiar with the relevant arguments of major philosophers from the past (Anselm, Descartes, Gaunilo, Hume, Kant and Kiekegaard) as well as modern philosophers, but questions will not be set on individual philosophers. Issues To what degree the ontological argument is convincing The extent to which faith is more valid if based on reason rather than revelation Whether faith and reason are contradictory or complementary How far revelation is an adequate basis for religious belief To what extent the two stated forms of revelation are compatible with each other. 1 Faith can be understood as: a pyschological state (faith as a feeling, particularly of trust) a cognitive state (faith as knowledge), or a volitional act ( faith as an act of will). Illustration: belief in vs. belief that ‘Belief in’ has both a pyschological and a Reason Does faith have a rational aspect? That is, what are the conditions, if any, under which faith can be held rationally? 1. In order to rationally believe that, say, God exists one must have both good evidence for that claim and good rebuttals to objections to that claim. Faith is primarily a cognitive state. 2. In order to rationally believe that, say, God exists, one must have good evidence for that claim. Faith is
34
Embed
Web view01.07.2015 · Anselm’s argument is based on the word ‘God’ and what is meant when the ... Anselm returns to what Descartes later concerned to
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Is religious faith rational?
Booklet 1
Topics
The ontological argument for the existence of God
Theories about the nature of faith and its relation with reason and revelation
Propositions and non-propositional concepts of revelation
Candidates will be expected to be familiar with the relevant arguments of major philosophers from the past
(Anselm, Descartes, Gaunilo, Hume, Kant and Kiekegaard) as well as modern philosophers, but questions will
not be set on individual philosophers.
Issues
To what degree the ontological argument is convincing
The extent to which faith is more valid if based on reason rather than revelation
Whether faith and reason are contradictory or complementary
How far revelation is an adequate basis for religious belief
To what extent the two stated forms of revelation are compatible with each other.
1
Faith can be understood as:
a pyschological state (faith as a feeling, particularly of trust)
a cognitive state (faith as knowledge), or
a volitional act ( faith as an act of will).
Illustration: belief in vs. belief that
‘Belief in’ has both a pyschological and a cognitive apsect and my have a volitional aspect
‘Belief that’ has only a cognitive aspect
Reason
Does faith have a rational aspect? That is, what are the conditions, if any, under which faith can be held rationally?
1. In order to rationally believe that, say, God exists one must have both good evidence for that claim and good rebuttals to objections to that claim. Faith is primarily a cognitive state.
2. In order to rationally believe that, say, God exists, one must have good evidence for that claim. Faith is equally a pyschological state and a cognitive state.
3. Faith has no rational aspect. It is not responsive to reason. This is a category mistake. Faith is not the sort of thing there could be evidence for or against. Faith is a psychological and not a cognitive state. So, it is strictly false to say that we believe that, say, God exists, if belief is takento be an attitude sensitive to evidence.
Information from WJEC
Accounts of the ontological argument will be expressed mainly in terms of Anselm's concept of the necessary
existence of the most perfect conceivable Being ("nothing greater can be conceived") and Descartes' idea of
existence as a necessary characteristic of a perfect Being. However, reference to more modern
versions of the argument, such as Malcolm's 'impossible or necessary' alternatives and Plantinga's
'maximal excellence' concept, would be useful, as well as an understanding of it as an a priori
argument. Criticisms of the argument need not be confined to Hume and Kant's assertions that statements
about God are synthetic and that existence is not a predicate: consideration of Gaunilo's 'most perfect island'
analogy, Russell's concern over existential statements and so on is equally valid.
Students will find that Davies' An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion chapter 4 and Vardy's The
Puzzle of God chapter 9 contain useful material.
Candidates should be familiar with at least two or three voluntarist theories of faith (Pascal, James, Tennant,
Tillich), as well as faith in terms of seeing-as, experiencing-as and responding-to. Different ideas about
the relationship between faith and reason should be explored. The view that faith cannot be based on
reason due to the certainty, commitment and cost required by faith (Kierkegaard) and to the necessary
elements of relationship (Buber) and revelation (Barth) needs to be balanced with the contrary view that
faith needs to be based on reason to be valid (Hick, H.D. Lewis). Webber's Faith and Reason serves as a helpful
introductory summary of relevant issues for students.
Candidates should be able to explain, with examples, the differences between propositional revelation and
non-propositional revelation and have the opportunity to consider whether faith is more valid if based on
reason rather than revelation. Hick’s Philosophy of Religion chapter 5 is a useful 'starter' for students.
1. Define the following key terms
Premise
Contingent
Deductive – an argument where the conclusion . . .
Inductive
Analytic –
2
A priori
In re
In intellectu
The Ontological argument
The ontological argument rests on the premise that there is a universe, and that its existence is contingent – it
depends on something else to exist. Whatever provides the explanation for the unvierse cannot be contingent
itself, but is necessary. The ontological argument provides a necessary explanation located in the existence of
a supremely perfect being. It argues deductively, not inductively, thus holding out the hope of a universal
proof not dependent on empirical evidence about which we may be mistaken. The ontological argument is
also analytic – the truth (or falsity) of an analytic statement is completely determined by the meanings of the
words and symbols used to express it (it is true by definition). The argument reaches conclusions about the
existence of God that are based on the definition of God used in the premises. Its scope is therefore greater
than that of the other arguments for God’s existence since they give only a limited view of what God is like,
while the concept of God as the most perfect being implies a whole range of qualities. It is also a priori –
known to be true independently of experience (though some experience may be necessary to understand
Anselm is, of course, aware that the existence of God can, and is , denied by the atheist. In response to this,
he cites Psalm 53 –‘the fool has said in his heart there is no God.’ The Psalmist’s fool is the atheist who,
Anselm observes, says what is impossible to say since it cannot possibly be true: that God does not exist.
Nevertheless, the atheist does say this and Anselm explains that this is because the atheist has failed to
understand the full implications of the concept of God. Had the atheist grasped the real meaning of God as
that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it would be impossible for him to deny this existence. In
order to deny the existence of God, the atheist must at least have a concept of God in his understanding. It is
then only a short step to recognising the impossibility of denying the existence of such a being:
Can it be that there is not such being, since the fool hath said in his heart ‘There is not God’… But when this
same fool hears what I am saying – ‘A being than which none greater can be thought’ – he understands what
he hears . . . even if he does not understand that it exists . . . Even the fool, then, must be convinced that a
being than which none greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding.
Throughout Proslogion, Anselm returns to what Descartes later concerned to investigate – the quest for intelligibility, reaching beyond mere words to articulate his proof for God’s existence. He was aware that words can be ambiguous and misleading, but from this perspective, his arguments were an analytical commentary on the concept of the God of Classical Theism rather than a proof of his existence as such. Anselm deduces the attributes of God from the perfection that is inherent in the concept of God itself.
9
The second form of Anselm’s argument
In the second form of his argument, which is closely linked to the first, Anselm argued that it was impossible
for God not to exist as God’s existence is necessary. The argument goes like this:
1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’.
Contingent beings (those which come in and out of existence, and which depend on other things for their
existence) are inferior to beings with necessary existence (which are eternal and depend on nothing else for
their existence, and of which the only example is God).
2. To be thought not to exist would be inferior to thinking of something that must always exist
Conclusion:
Therefore, God must necessarily exist
In summary, God must be a necessary being, meaning that he cannot not exist. The word ‘necessary’ here
means logical necessity. It would be a logical contradiction to claim that God does not exist, since any being
that has the property of necessary existence could not fail to exist. It has been argued that his second
argument was aimed at believers as a proof that existence in God is rational – to justify a belief in God.
11. What does Anselm mean here by necessary being?
Stretch and challenge – research the argument of Charles Hartshorne.
17
Alvin Plantinga – Victorious modal argument
Plantina developed the philosophical notion of ‘possible worlds’. For example, in our world, John F. Kennedy
was an American president. This, however, was not necessary; he could have made a different career choice
and been an estate agent!This is an example of a possible world.
In each of the possible worlds you have considered above, there will be many differences. That is the whole
point of this philosophical notion – the possibilities are infinite. With this in mind, Plantinga offers a
description of another possible world:
there is a possible world, W, in which there exists a being with ‘maximal greatness’
a being has maximal greatness only if it exists in every possible world
This means that in every possible world one envisages, there is a being of maximal greatness. This, however,
at this point in the argument, does not mean God.
Plantinga’s argument states that to be maximally great, a being only has to be present in every possible world.
He has not, as yet, accounted for the fact that in each world there may be an individual being that is more
powerful, more knowing, more morally perfect, and so on, than this maximally great being. The fact that
these beings may only be found in one possible world is irrelevant.
The deal with this, Plantinga introduces the concept of ‘maximal excellent’. The states that:
maximal greatness entails maximal excellence
maximal excellence entails omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfections
Therefore:
1. There is a possible world in which there is a being that is maximally great.
2. It has maximal excellence (entailed within maximal greatness).
3. If omnipotence, omniscient and morally perfect, and maximally great, it is existent in our world.
4. Therefore, there is a God.
18. Why is maximal excellent described as entailing the thre attibutes that is does?18
A possible world is a way that things could be, a set of possibilities. It is not ‘another world’ (i.e. a physical earth floating a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away!)
Use page 26 of the textbook to create a timeline of the challenges to the Ontological Argument.
Include – Aquinas, Kant, Brian Davis and David Hume.
20
Aquinas rejected the ontological argument as a proof of God’s existence . . .
AO2 What are the strengths of the ontological argument?
21
Past exam questions on ‘Is religious faith rational?’
2010
(a) Explain two versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. [30]
Maximum of Level 5 if only one is addressed.
Anselm: “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” must exist in reality and not only in mind or this being would lack... and hence not be “a being than...” His 2nd form – necessary existence etc. Both of Anselm's form of the argument would be acceptable as the two versions.
Descartes' “supremely perfect being.” Existence as a perfection/attribute/ characteristic. Triangle and valley/mt. examples.
Plantinga's 'possible worlds,' 'maximal greatness' and 'maximal excellence.'
Malcolm's analysis, especially of Proslogion 3 'impossible or necessary' etc.[AO1 30]
(b) ‘The ontological argument does not succeed as a proof of God’s existence.’ Evaluate this view. [20]
Succeeds: logical, a priori argument which makes sense if one accepts the premises; Anselm showing how self-evident God's existence is to believers.
Does not succeed: Aquinas' claim that God's existence is not self-evident and therefore needs demonstrating; Gaunilo's island; Kant's various criticisms; unsound argument as premises may not be true etc. [AO2 20]
2011
(a). Explain two concepts of revelation. [30]
Propositional
• divinely authenticated truths, which may be transmitted through such things as sacred writings, religious leaders, experiences which are recorded of chosen people etc.
• God takes the initiative in revelation; it can be truth found by accepting intellectually. Faith is saying "yes" to the propositions.
Non-propositional
• propositions are of secondary importance. What comes first is the revelatory event. The words are human attempts to explain the event.
• Revelation comes through normal course of events/nature/history; represents ideas of "hidden God" - open to those who seek. Human reasoning (natural theology) discovers truth.
• Faith as response to event as one which involves God. I-Thou.
• Note that revelation does not fall into clear-cut categories (e.g. sacred writings-divine truths or human constructions?) [30]Max Level 5 if only one referred to. Credit can be given to other valid concepts not mentioned in the Specification.
22
(b) Discuss to what extent revelation is an adequate basis for religious faith. [20]
• Could discuss adequacy of propositional and non-propositional revelation as a basis for faith.
• Consideration of revelation and its relationship to reason as a basis-are both needed or is one enough?
• Is faith intellectual response or experience through special means? Head and heart, belief in/that.
• Could refer to "Faith seeking understanding" which argues for faith through revelation consolidated by reason (Augustine, Anselm.)
• Priority or revelation (e.g. Barth, Kierkegaard,) priority of reason (e.g. Kant, Hick.)
• Aquinas' use of reason with revelation needed for e.g. Trinity, both are useful (e.g. James, Baillie, Tennant.)
• Differing concepts of faith may be a factor (Pascal's wager, Kierkegaard's leap,) as would discussions of authenticity, authority, objectivity, fallibility etc. [20]
2012
(a) Examine two theories about the nature of faith. [30]
The Teacher's Guide mentions the theories of Pascal, James, Tennant and Tillich. Candidates may choose two of these or any other relevant scholars' views of faith.
As an alternative, they may be more general and refer to voluntarist/non-voluntarist, belief in/that, cognitive/trust etc. [30 AO1]
(b) ‘Faith cannot be based on reason.’ Assess this view. [20
On the one hand, candidates may look at scholars like Kierkegaard, Buber and Barth who say that faith cannot be based on reason.
On the other, they may look at scholars who say that faith requires reason e.g. Hick, Lewis etc.
As third approach, they may say that reason and revelation are both useful e.g. James, Tennant or necessary e.g. Baillie.
They may wish to explore the 'faith seeking understanding' of Augustine and Anselm. General ideas may emerge such as head and heart, belief in/that etc.[20 AO2]
23
2013
(a) Explain how the ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God. [30]
Candidates may refer to the following but credit other ontological arguments:
Anselm: “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” must exist in reality and not only in mind or this being would lack ... and hence, not be “a being than ...” His second form - necessary existence, etc.
Descartes’ “supremely perfect being.” Existence as a perfection/attribute/characteristic. Triangle and valley/mt. examples.
Plantinga’s ‘possible worlds.’ ‘maximal greatness’ and ‘maximal excellence.’
Malcolm’s analysis, especially of Proslogion 3, ‘impossible or necessary.’
(b) ‘Faith is more valid if it is based on reasoned argument rather than on revelation.’ Assess this view. [20 AO1] Arguments may include the following but credit any valid arguments:
More valid
Disadvantages of Revelation in general and/or propositional and non-propositional in particular. Religious faith as intellectual acceptance. ‘Belief that’ and use of ‘head.’ Reason is accessible to all. Interpretation of Revelation can be subjective and/or not open to verification, etc.
Not more valid
Hick, Kant (his synthesis of rationalism and empiricism) etc. Aquinas’ reference to two sources of knowledge (revelation and reason). Augustine and Anselm ‘Faith seeking understanding.’ General disadvantages of using reason; for example, too intellectual and possibly arid. Religious faith as special religious experience. Acceptance of external authority. ‘Belief in’ and use of ‘heart.’ Barth, Kierkegaard, etc.
Also, candidates may refer to arguments that say both are useful, e.g. Baillie, James and/or the statement may need the concept of faith analysed which will bring out different concepts and, thus, answers.
2014
Q.1 (a) Explain the propositional and non-propositional concepts of revelation.[AO1 30]
Candidates are likely to include some or all of the following but credit other relevant points:
24
Propositional
Divinely authenticated truths, which may be transmitted through such things as sacred writings, religious leaders, experiences which are recorded of chosen people etc.
God takes the initiative in revelations; it can be truth found by accepting intellectually.
Faith is saying "yes" to the propositions.
Examples of creeds, quotes from sacred writings, words of leaders.
Non-propositional
Propositions are of secondary importance. What comes first is the revelatory event. The words are human attempts to explain the event.
Revelation comes through normal course of events/nature/history; represents idea of "hidden God" - open to those who seek. Human reasoning (natural theology) discovers truth.
Faith as response to event as one which involves God. I-Thou.
Note that revelation does not fall into clear-cut categories (eg sacred writings-divine truths or human constructions?). Maximum Level 5 if only one referred to.
(b) 'It is only through revelation that God is known.' Assess this view. [AO2 20]
Candidates are likely to include some or all of the following but credit other relevant points
Agree
Superiority of revelation eg Kierkegaard, Barth and Buber. Adequacy of (prop and non-prop) revelation as a means of knowing God. Experience/heart for knowledge of God. Problems with using reason.
Disagree
Reason and revelation are both useful for knowing God eg James, Tennant or necessary, Baillie. Adequacy of reason as a means of knowing God. Intellectual response/head for knowledge of God. Faith requiring reason rather than revelation eg Hick, Kant. Problems with revelation.
2015 Examine the questions and write up your own mark scheme
a. Examine how ontological arguments use reason in trying to prove God’s existence. 30 marks
b. ‘Reason and revelation are both needed as a basis for religious faith.’ Assess this view. 15 marks