Aquinas’ 3rd Way (argument from contingency ) Â is a little different. Rather than talking about motion or cause and effect, it uses the concepts of necessity and contingency :
on something else for its existence | depend on anything else for its existence |
in some other possible world | in every possible world |
E.g. exist contingently because if your parents didn’t meet, you wouldn’t have been born | E.g. is said to exist necessarily because nothing else brought God into being |
Using these concepts, the argument can be summarised as:
does not rely on the causal principle. Perhaps it’s possible there is a never-ending sequence of causes that stretches back for infinity. In this case, there is no first cause or first mover. Even if everything the universe has a cause, it does not necessarily follow that the universe has a cause. |
Ontological arguments differ from cosmological arguments and teleological arguments in that they are based on a priori reason alone.
For a more in-depth explanation, see the ontological argument notes for AQA philosophy.
Ontological arguments argue that God exists based on the definition of ‘God’.
St. Anselm says God is ‘a being greater than which cannot be conceived’ . Using this definition, he deduces God’s existence in an argument that can be summarised as:
In the next chapter, Anselm expands on this definition of God:
“O Lord, my God,… thou canst not be conceived not to exist … And, indeed, whatever else there is, except thee alone, can be conceived not to exist . To thee alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others.” – St. Anselm, Proslogium , Chapter 3
Here, Anselm contrasts God’s necessary existence – “thou canst not be conceived not to exist” – with the mere contingent existence of things which “ can be conceived not to exist”. So, a bit like in Aquinas’ 3rd way above , Anselm believes God not only exists, but exists necessarily.
Gaunilo takes the same logical structure of Anselm’s ontological argument and uses it to derive an obviously false conclusion, which suggests the logic of Anselm’s ontological argument is invalid: to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind Kant argues that ‘existence’ is not a real predicate. For example, [subject] is [predicate]” tells us something about the book – it informs us about the concept. But to say “the book ” does not logically add anything to the . Instead, existence is something that has to be proved and cannot be derived . Malcolm’s ontological argument uses the predicate of existence, which is a real predicate ). |
For a more in-depth explanation, see the problem of evil notes for AQA philosophy.
The problem of evil is an argument that God does not exist because of the existence of evil and suffering in our world. Responses to the problem of evil are known as theodicies .
There are two versions of the problem of evil:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus
The logical problem of evil says, a priori , that God’s existence is logically incompatible with the existence of any evil.
The reasoning for this is that if 1 were true, God would be powerful enough to get rid of all evil. Plus, if 2 were true, God would want to get rid of all evil. So, if 1 and 2 were both true, evil would not exist because God would just eliminate it. However, evil does exist – people steal, get murdered, etc. – so either God is unwilling (not omnibenevolent) or unable (not omnipotent) to eliminate evil.
The evidential problem of evil allows that it is logically possible that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow some evil to exist (e.g. because of free will or soul making ), but argues that the unnecessary amount of evil in our world and unfair ways evil is distributed suggest God does not exist.
For example, we might accept that God would allow the evil of stealing because of the greater good of giving humans free will. But would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow innocent babies to be born with painful congenital diseases? This seems unfair and has nothing to do with free will. There’s also pointless evils. For example, a deer gets burned in a forest fire in the middle of nowhere and dies a slow and painful death – and no one even knows about it. It seems God could easily have eliminated such pointless suffering without sacrificing some greater good.
If God is omnibenevolent, He wants to maximise good and minimise evil. And while it’s logically possible there is some mysterious and unknowable reason why our world is the most effective way to maximise good, the evidential problem of evil suggests this is highly unlikely . This is strong a posteriori evidence against God’s existence.
) But what about evils, such as deaths from earthquakes and hurricanes? How does free will explain these? Plantinga suggests natural evil could be caused by the free will of non-human agents, such as Satan ). . The soul-making hypothesis is potentially compatible with amount of evil. In other words, no amount or distribution of evil could count as evidence against God’s existence because the religious believer could always just say it is necessary for spiritual development. As such, the soul-making response may be . As a , the problem of evil sets the bar very high: It says there is no logically possible scenario where God would allow evil. And so, to beat the logical version, you only need to describe a logically possible scenario – however unlikely such a scenario is – where God would allow evil (e.g. free will). As an , the problem of evil does not 100% disprove God’s existence. However, you could argue that it is highly persuasive and strong evidence against God’s existence. One way to resolve the inconsistent triad and explain why God allows evil is to reject either God’s or God’s : . It is thus impossible for God to prevent evil. conceptions of God (e.g. ) are not necessarily omnibenevolent. |
A theodicy is an explanation of why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil. In other words, theodicies are responses to the problem of evil:
St. Augustine explained the existence of evil as the result of free will . This is sometimes called the soul- deciding theodicy . According to Augustine, God is perfect and can only do good. However, evil and suffering occur because humans (and angels) use their free will to disobey God’s perfection. So, evil is not a thing itself, but a privation (lack) of good .
The Augustinian theodicy comes from the Biblical story of the Fall in the book of Genesis. According to this story, God initially made a perfect world without evil (the Garden of Eden) along with the first humans: Adam and Eve. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but a serpent (Satan) tempts them to disobey. Adam and Eve give in to temptation (because they have free will) and eat from the tree of knowledge, after which God banishes them from the Garden of Eden into a fallen world – our world – that contains evil.
“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” – Genesis, chapter 3 verse 5 (KJV)
As descendants of Adam and Eve, all humans inherited their sinful nature (you can think of it like a sin gene ). This is known as original sin . Because of this original sin, all humans deserve to be punished.
John Hick explains the existence of evil as necessary for spiritual development . This is known as the soul- making theodicy .
The soul-making theodicy originates in the philosophy of Irenaeus (which is why it’s also referred to as the Irenaean theodicy ). According to Irenaeus, God’s ultimate plan for humanity is spiritual development. God deliberately made humanity spiritually immature and deliberately made the world a difficult environment. This difficult environment requires humans to make moral decisions, which enables them to learn and mature spiritually. God made humans in His image – with the free will to choose between good and bad – and God’s long-term plan is that creation will grow to his likeness and perfection, freely choosing the good over the bad.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” – Genesis, chapter 1 verse 26 (KJV)
Free will is a big part of the soul-making theodicy. God could have just made humanity perfectly good from the get-go, but that would effectively remove free will. True goodness – goodness in God’s likeness – must be freely chosen.
Hick builds on this idea. Hick argues that God created an epistemic distance between Himself and humanity. This epistemic distance is a gap between humans and God – it means we can never know of God’s existence with 100% certainty. The reason for this again comes back to free will: If God made his existence and character obvious, we would have no choice but to follow Him (Peter Vardy likens this to a king forcing a peasant girl to marry him due to his authority even though she doesn’t love him). Instead, what God wants is a genuine and freely chosen decision to follow in God’s ways and choose good (to continue Vardy’s analogy, this is like marrying someone because you genuinely love them).
According to the soul-making theodicy, hell exists for further soul-making. It is not a place of eternal punishment but is instead a place where souls continue to exercise free will in the face of evil and which, eventually, they can escape from. Hick thus believes in universal salvation : The idea that everyone will go to heaven (eventually).
How is it fair and just for God to punish all humans (including newborn babies) for the actions of Adam and Eve? This seems to contradict God’s . Original sin is more about the of human beings as sinners – not about specific sinful acts. , all humans are descended from Adam and Even and so inherited their sinful nature (like a gene). Â Whereas Genesis describes humans as by God fully-formed, the theory of evolution argues that humans evolved from primates. If the underlying Adam and Eve story is wrong, then it undermines any conclusions about the problem of evil drawn from it. Many Christians see the story of Adam and Eve as . They see the lessons about human nature, free will, good and evil etc. as the point of the story rather than a literal description of the origin of humanity. |
E.g. a newborn baby suffering in pain, or animal suffering – where is the soul-making here? It’s not like babies or animals can understand what’s going on and develop spiritually. This again goes back to – if there was always an obvious point to suffering, it would make God’s existence obvious. Plus, pointless evils are necessary to develop spiritual virtues such as deep sympathy ). The idea of is theologically controversial and a minority view among Christians. For example, Matthew 25:46 says which suggests that hell is a place of ‘everlasting’ punishment from which no amount of soul-making leads to escape. The idea of universal salvation avoids , which may be more consistent with God’s . |
A religious experience is a subjective encounter that the experiencing person interprets as in some way religiously significant (e.g. as an encounter with God). The syllabus mentions two types of religious experience:
This topic considers how these experiences should be understood and what conclusions, if any, we can draw from them.
William James was a philosopher and psychologist. In his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience , James studied religious experiences across different cultures.
James identifies 4 features common to mystical religious experiences:
The syllabus mentions the following explanations of religious experience:
Psychological explanations, physiological explanations.
Union with a greater power is the supernatural explanation that is used as evidence of God’s existence. This can be contrasted with the other two explanations – psychological and physiological – that say religious experiences have a natural explanation and so are not evidence of God’s existence.
“I feel bound to say that religious experience, as we have studied it, cannot be cited as unequivocally supporting the infinitist belief. The only thing that it unequivocally testifies to is that we can experience union with something larger than ourselves and in that union find our greatest peace.” – William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Postscript
From his studies, James concluded that religious experience proves the possibility of union with a greater power .
It is important to note that this is not the same thing as proving God exists – as James himself points out. However, James does take religious experience to prove the existence of a spiritual dimension to reality. He concludes that the similarities between religious experiences across cultures suggests there is some truth to be found in all religions – an idea known as pluralism .
James believed all mystical religious experiences tap into this same spiritual reality, which is the core of of religion. Different cultures then develop their own beliefs and practices around these experiences – different religions. Studying these religious practices , for James, is ‘second-hand’ religion and less important than the direct mystical experience, which is first-hand contact with God or a greater spiritual power.
Applied to religious experience, Swinburne would argue that if someone claims to have had an experience of God or ‘union with a higher power’, the principle of testimony says we should take this account at face value and accept it as accurate – unless there is good reason not to.
Psychological explanations explain religious experiences as the result of mental processes , such as illusions and hallucinations.
Sigmund Freud, for example, believed religion to be a man-made psychological fantasy. He saw the mind as composed of different parts – conscious and subconscious – that interact with each other. According to Freud, religion fulfils several useful psychological purposes, such as:
Applied to religious experience, Freud would say such experiences are merely illusions that result from a person’s beliefs, fears, and desires surrounding religion. The subconscious forces of the mind are so powerful that they may cause someone to hallucinate a religious experience – a bit like in a dream – but such experiences are entirely a creation of the mind and do not reflect reality.
Physiological explanations try to explain religious experience by identifying the underlying physical processes that cause them, such as brain states and chemical factors.
Medical researchers Newburg and D’Aquili studied mystical experiences in an attempt to identify the underlying neural mechanisms. For example, through brain scans of monks and nuns engaging in religious practices (e.g. meditation and prayer), they identified areas of the brain – which they call the ‘causal operator’ and ‘holistic operator’ – which show increased activity during religious experience.
Similarly, Michael Persinger used a device – nicknamed the ‘ God helmet ‘ – to stimulate areas of the brain associated with religious experience via magnetic fields. According to Persinger, over 80% of participants felt they experienced a ‘presence’ with them, with some participants having perceptions of what felt to them like God.
In response to , Hume would argue we should always . In the case of religious experience, Hume would say it is more likely that the person claiming to have had a religious experience than that they really did meet God. In other words, we have plenty of evidence of people hallucinating, dreaming, lying, or just making mistakes. And, in contrast, we have very little evidence of meeting God in-person. So, in the case of religious experience, Hume would argue it is more likely the testimony is mistaken than that such a thing really happened. Corporate religious experiences are when a religious experience is by multiple people. For example, in the of 1917, more than 30,000 people gathered in Fatima, Portugal, where they saw the sun ‘dance’ in the sky after a miracle was prophecised by 3 shepherd children. The fact that so many different people all experienced the same thing makes this testimony far stronger than the claim of a single person. In this case, you could argue the greater miracle would be 30,000 people all suffering hallucinations at the exact same time. Sceptics often point to the many examples of mass hysteria from over the years (e.g. the Hammersmith Ghost hysteria of 1803 or the clown panic of 2016) and argue that the Miracle of the Sun and other corporate religious experiences are similar such cases of mass hallucination. Even if there really is no natural explanation for some religious experiences, this does not necessarily prove that is causing them. For example, there are many accounts of religious experiences in Buddhist cultures, but Buddhists do not believe in a monotheistic God like Christians, Jews, and Muslims do. James never took religious evidence to God’s existence – only . Similarly, Swinburne does not take religious experience as of God’s existence. However, the principle of testimony suggests we should take religious experiences of God as in support of God’s existence. |
William James makes a argument for the validity of religious experience. is the view that if a belief or theory has practical benefits or effects, then it should be treated as true. are the most obvious example of observable positive effects of religious experience. James gives several examples of conversions, including an alcoholic named Mr. Hadley who never drank again and went on to become following a religious experience. James argues that mere hallucinations are not able to cause such drastic change and so dramatic conversions such as these require a explanation. Bertrand Russell counters that there are plenty of cases of people being inspired by works of fiction to change their lives – and we don’t take these cases as evidence that these fictional characters must exist. If religious experience was entirely psychological, you would expect differences between cultures that reflected the different beliefs of those cultures. However, as described above, William James observed – . The fact different cultures have the experience may suggest a common supernatural cause to all of them, which supports the union with a higher power explanation. These common experiences may be due to the fact that humans from different cultures have common (e.g. common brain pathways), which could be seen to support explanations of religious experience instead. Even if religious experiences have a natural explanation (e.g. or ), this does not mean there isn’t a supernatural explanation as well. For example, James says: of human nature” – in other words, physiological factors (e.g. alcohol) may religious experience but such experiences are still interactions with something supernatural. Similarly, conclude that .” In other words, it is equally possible that the supernatural (God) causes changes in the brain than the other way round. |
The religious language topic covers 2 different debates:
Religions and sacred texts often talk about God as ‘infinite’, ‘eternal’, and ‘beyond understanding’. However, as finite and temporal beings, it is unclear whether we can even make make sense of such descriptions. In some Islamic traditions, for example, it is forbidden to depict or even imagine God because God is beyond human comprehension and so any representations will be inaccurate. So, this topic is about how we should describe and think of God, when God is beyond human understanding:
Pseudo-Dionysus argued that positive descriptions of God create an anthropomorphic (i.e. human) and inaccurate idea of God. If we think of God’s power, for example, we will inevitably think of powerful human beings (e.g. presidents or business leaders) and this will create a picture of God’s power as somehow similar. However, God’s power is beyond human comprehension and so such comparisons are inaccurate – it is only appropriate to think of God’s power in an apophatic way.
St. Thomas Aquinas argued that, by analogy (i.e. comparison), we can understand God’s positive qualities – at least partially .
Positive words used to describe God, such as ‘powerful’ and ‘loving’, are not univocal – they don’t have the same meaning as when we describe human beings – because human beings aren’t the same as God. But nor do these words have a completely different meaning either – they’re not equivocal  – because humans were made in God’s image .
So, Aquinas advocates for a middle ground: Analogy . Words used to describe God resemble words used to describe human beings:
The symbolic way of talking about God says that words used to talk about God should not be understood literally as descriptions, but symbolically .
Paul Tillich argues that literal language is unable to adequately express God. Literal language describes things in our empirical world that we can understand – but God is beyond the physical world and beyond our understanding. So, the meaning of religious language is almost entirely symbolic.
“That which is the true ultimate transcends the realm of finite reality infinitely. Therefore, no finite reality can express it directly and properly…. Whatever we say about that which concerns us ultimately, whether or not we call it God, has a symbolic meaning… If faith calls God “almighty,” it uses the human experience of power in order to symbolize the content of its infinite concern, but it does not describe a highest being…” – Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith
According to Tillich, religious language taps into “hidden depths of our being” a bit like how art and music “reveal elements of reality which cannot be approached scientifically” . As such, the meaning of religious language is to point to a higher reality that cannot be expressed literally. When people hear religious statements, such as “God loves us”, these symbolic expressions connect them to a spiritual reality beyond what is or can be expressed in literal or scientific language.
Symbolic religious language not only points to this higher spiritual reality, it also participates in it. Tillich differentiates between signs and symbols . A sign simply points to something (e.g. an arrow pointing to a McDonalds) whereas a symbol points to and participates in the thing (e.g. a nation’s flag represents the nation itself – disrespect towards the flag is seen as disrespect towards the nation).
Religious language is similarly symbolic: The cross, for example, does not only point to God but also represents Jesus’ sacrifice. By representing and participating in this spiritual reality, religious language connects us to something beyond the physical world in a way that literal language is unable to.
The apophatic way limits theological discussion to the point where it may be impossible to know much about God at all, leading to agnosticism. Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides uses the example of a ship. He argues that with enough information – not a plant, not a natural thing, not flat or round, and so on – we would eventually have an idea of what a ship is, even if we’d never seen one. Many religious texts positively describe God. For example, in the Bible, Exodus 34:6 describes God as . Psalms 116:5 says These are positive descriptions of what God . These should be understood as descriptions of God’s , not God’s character or essence. |
The cataphatic way could potentially lead to incorrect interpretations of God. , positive descriptions risk creating an anthropomorphic (i.e. human) and inaccurate picture of God. Similarly, Maimonides argues that thinking of God in positive terms is idolatrous as it in some sense God – it separates God’s properties from God Himself. Instead, Maimonides argues, the only positive description of God is that he exists: . Aquinas would say, for example, that God’s ‘power’ is not the as human power (not univocal) but nor is it completely different (not equivocal). Although this may provide a bit more information about God than the apophatic way, it is still not fully clear what ‘power’ means in this context. Swinburne rejects Aquinas’ use of analogy and argues that religious language should be understood as univocal. So, with the example above, ‘power’ should be understood to mean the same thing as it does in human contexts, but to a much greater degree. |
Although religious language may be symbolic, a lot of religious text makes more sense when understood literally. To pick a random example from the Bible, Matthew 21:17 says This appears to be just a factual description of what happened rather than something symbolic. If religious language is only symbolic, then its claims cannot be . Thus, according to Ayer’s verification principle , religious language would be meaningless. Similarly, symbolic religious language cannot be and so would be meaningless according to Flew. . |
For a more in-depth explanation, see the religious language notes for AQA philosophy.
The 20th Century debate concerning religious language is about what people mean when they make religious claims such as “God loves us”, “God answers prayers”, and “God exists”. Are such claims even meaningful?
At first, it might seem obvious that such claims are meaningful. When religious people say “God exists”, they are describing the world and expressing a belief. In the language of philosophy, they are making a cognitive statement that they believe to be true . However, some philosophers disagree with this analysis of religious language:
The key view of logical positivism is the idea that for a statement to be meaningful and capable of being true or false, it must be verifiable .
AJ Ayer was a key figure in the logical positivist movement. Ayer’s  verification principle says that a statement is only meaningful if it is either:
Applied to religious language, Ayer’s verification principle says that it is meaningless . There is no experiment or test, for example, that could verify God’s existence.
Karl Popper argued that meaningful scientific claims must be falsifiable : There must be some possible observation or test that could in principle disprove the claim.
For example, “water boils at 100°c” could be falsified by heating some water to 999°c without it boiling and so is a meaningful claim. In contrast, there is no test that could disprove the claim “everything in the universe doubles in size every 10 seconds” because any measurement device used to prove the claim would also double in size. Thus, “everything in the universe doubles in size every 10 seconds” would be meaningless according to Popper.
Antony Flew applied this idea of falsification to religious language. He gave the following analogy intended to illustrate how God’s existence is unfalsifiable and thus meaningless:
Flew says it’s a similar thing with belief in God: We can’t see God, hear God, touch God, etc. We can’t even use the problem of evil as evidence against God’s existence because the religious believer just creates reasons why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil. Flew argues that because the religious believer accepts no observations count as evidence against belief in God, the religious believer’s hypothesis is unfalsifiable and meaningless.
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy argues that the meaning of words is not some static thing that is the same in all contexts. Instead, meaning comes from how words are used – and the same words may be used differently in different contexts and by different people.
Just as different games have different rules, different contexts give rise to different language games . Compare, for example:
Although these two statements have the same structure on the surface , they clearly mean two completely different things – they’re ‘moves’ within two different language games.
Verificationists like Ayer analyse “God exists” within the language game of science – they treat it like a hypothesis that can be empirically proved or disproved. But Wittgenstein would argue religious believers aren’t playing the scientific language game when they say “God exists” – they’re playing the religious language game. And so, to analyse “God exists” within the scientific language game is to misunderstand what it means.
For Wittgenstein, the proper way to understand religious language is as a form of life . This is a bit like a wider language game – it’s someone’s foundational way of seeing the world:
“It strikes me that a religious belief could only be something like a passionate commitment to a system of reference. Hence, although it’s belief , itâs really a way of living, or a way of assessing life. Itâs passionately seizing hold of this interpretation.” – Wittgenstein, Culture and Value
It’s a bit like the duck-rabbit picture above: It’s not like the duck is ‘right’ and the rabbit is ‘wrong’ or vice versa – they’re two different ways of seeing the same thing. Likewise, it’s not like “God exists” is ‘right’ and “God does not exist” is ‘wrong’ – they’re two different interpretations of the world that reflect different forms of life.
Wittgenstein’s analysis of religious language is interpreted by some as non-cognivitist .
Cognitive statements | Non-cognitive statements |
of the world | of the world |
Are true or false | Are true or false |
Examples: | Examples: |
Non-cognitivist interpretations of religious language say “God exists” is not a description of the world that is either true or false. Instead, it is something non -cognitive – it is neither true or false.
The verification principle is, itself, neither an analytic truth nor empirically verifiable. So, according to its own criteria, the verification principle is meaningless! The verification principle is not a , but a . There are many meaningful claims that can’t be verified. For example, historical claims such as “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” can’t be verified because we can’t go back in time to do so. Similarly, we can’t verify many scientific claims, such as “nothing travels faster than light”, because we can’t search every corner of the universe to verify that there are no exceptions. Hick argues that even if “God exists” is not verifiable , it is verifiable (i.e. after we die). Hick tells a to illustrate this concept. |
Religious belief is not like ordinary ‘ ‘ that are abandoned as soon as the evidence goes against them. However, this does not mean religious belief is an unfalsifiable ‘ ‘ held in the face of any and all conflicting evidence (as Flew claims). Instead, religious belief is a ‘ ‘ – the religious believer evidence against God’s existence (e.g. the problem of evil) but maintains faith and seeks an explanation of conflicting evidence. Mitchell tells a to illustrate these concepts. Religious beliefs are ‘ ‘ – fundamental beliefs that are not sensitive to evidence. Although bliks are unfalsifiable, they are still to the person who holds them. Hare tells a to illustrate this concept. |
Contrary to Wittgenstein’s interpretation of religious language as a separate language game, many religious believers treat “God exists” like a scientific hypothesis that is literally true. For example, Aquinas is seemingly arguing that “God exists” is literally, scientifically true in his and above. This suggests that (at least some) religious believers are not, in fact, playing a different language game to people like Ayer. |
The OCR Religious Studies A Level is assessed via 3 exam papers:
Paper 3: developments in religious thought >>>.
A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies
These questions are taken from the wording of the specitication, meaning they could all actually come up in the exam. They are roughly sorted into easy, medium and hard.
Find revision notes for Philosophy here.
Easy Critically compare Platoâs rationalism with Aristotleâs empiricism. Does Plato or Aristotle make more sense of reality? Assess Platoâs understanding of reality Does the world of Forms exist?
Medium Are we in Plato’s cave? Is Plato right that there is more to reality than we observe? Critically discuss the ideas expressed in Platoâs analogy of the cave. Analyse Aristotleâs four causes. How convincing is Aristotleâs idea of the Prime Mover? âAristotelian teleology is falseâ â Discuss. âThe true reality is accessible only by reasonâ â Discuss. Evaluate Platoâs purpose for the analogy of the cave. Do the senses provide the best understanding of reality? “Plato’s hierarchy of the forms tells us nothing about reality” – Discuss. Is there a hierarchy of Forms? ‘Plato’s form of the Good is not real’ – Discuss. Does reality operate through final causation?
Hard Critically compare Platoâs form of the good with Aristotleâs prime mover. âAristotelian teleology is outdatedâ â Discuss. Critically compare Plato’s hierarchy of the forms with Aristotle’s four causes. âPlatoâs cave is more convincing than Aristotleâs four causesâ â Discuss Are material and efficient causation the most convincing of Aristotleâs four causes?
Easy Assess the approach of Materialism to understanding the mind. Evaluate dualism. Are the mind and the body separate? Are Platoâs views on the soul correct? How successful is Descartesâ substance dualism?
Medium Does the soul exist? Should the soul as a spiritual substance be rejected? Can consciousness be fully explained by physical interactions? Can the mind/soul and body problem be resolved? Assess materialist critiques of dualism Assess dualist arguments against materialism Is the soul an essential and immaterial part of a human? âThe soul is only temporarily united with the bodyâ â Discuss. Is the soul the form of the body? âThere is a soul but it cannot be separated from the bodyâ â How far do you agree? Are the mind and body distinct substances? Critically compare Descartes and Aristotle’s view of the soul. What is consciousness? How convincing is Descartes’ solution to the mind-body problem?
Hard âDiscussion of the mind-body distinction is a category errorâ â Critically assess this view. Is the concept of the soul best understood metaphorically or as a reality? Assess the philosophical language of soul, mind and body in Plato and Aristotleâs work. âThe soul is the way the body behaves and livesâ â Discuss. Analyse the metaphysics of consciousness.
Easy Can the teleological arguments overcome their criticisms? Assess the teleological argument Can Godâs existence be established by observation? Can evidence of Godâs existence be observed? Are there logical fallacies in the teleological arguments that cannot be overcome?
Medium Can teleological arguments be defended against the challenge of âchanceâ? âHumeâs criticisms of the teleological argument succeedâ â How far do you agree? Assess Paleyâs design argument âThe teleological argument is more convincing than the cosmological argumentâ â Discuss
Hard Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? Is Godâs existence better proven by a priori or a posteriori argument? âA priori argument is stronger than a posterioriâ â Discuss. Assess Aquinasâ 5 th way “The teleological argument fails due to the challenge of evolution” – Discuss. Does evolution disprove the teleological argument? âAquinasâ 3 rd way is more convincing than his first twoâ â Discuss Does evolution or Humeâs criticisms pose the greater challenge to the teleological argument? âHumeâs criticisms of the teleological argument are the most serious that it facesâ â Discuss. Critically compare Aquinasâ 5 th way with Paleyâs design argument Does Aquinas or Paley present the more convincing version of the design argument?
Easy Can the cosmological arguments overcome their criticisms? Assess the cosmological argument Can Godâs existence be established by observation? Can evidence of Godâs existence be observed? Are there logical fallacies in the cosmological arguments that cannot be overcome?
Medium Do Cosmological arguments jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator without sufficient explanation? âHumeâs criticisms of the cosmological argument succeedâ â How far do you agree? âAquinasâ first three ways show that we should believe in Godâ â How far do you agree? âThe teleological argument is more convincing than the cosmological argumentâ â Discuss
Hard Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? Is Godâs existence better proven by a priori or a posteriori argument? âA priori argument is stronger than a posterioriâ â Discuss. âAquinasâ 3 rd way is more convincing than his first twoâ â Discuss âThe cosmological argument is most convincing when based on causationâ – Discuss
Easy Assess Anselmâs ontological argument Does the ontological argument justify belief? Are there logical fallacies in the ontological argument that cannot be overcome?
Medium Can existence be treated as a predicate? Are Gauniloâs criticisms of the ontological argument the most effective? Assess whether Kant or Gaunilo’s critique poses the greater challenge to the ontological argument.
Hard Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? âA priori argument is the most successful method of establishing Godâs existenceâ â Discussâ Is Godâs existence better established through observation or through reason? A priori argument is stronger than a posterioriâ â Discuss. Assess Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument. Assess Kantâs criticisms of the ontological argument
Easy Are religious experiences just illusions? âreligious experience justifies belief in Godâ â How far do you agree?
Medium Are religious experiences evidence of God? âReligious experiences are union with a greater powerâ â Discuss. Do religious experiences prove Godâs existence? Assess whether testimony and witness is sufficient to validate religious experiences âMystical experiences are of Godâ â how far do you agree? Assess whether religious experiences are the product of a physiological effect Are religious experiences better explained by a greater power than a psychological effect? Are corporate experiences more convincing than conversion experiences?
Hard Are corporate religious experiences more reliable than individual experiences? How successful are the views and main conclusions of William James? Does the influence religious experiences have show they have a supernatural source? âConversion experiences are more reliable than mystical experiencesâ â How far do you agree? âPhysiological explanations of religious experience are more successful than psychologicalâ â Discuss Analyse examples of mystical experiences Analyse examples of conversion experiences âReligious experiences are better evidence for a generic greater power than specifically for Godâ – Discuss
Easy Assess Augustineâs theodicy Assess Hickâs sole making theodicy Can monotheism be defended in the face of evil?
Medium Does the logical problem of evil succeed? To what extent does the evidential problem of evil challenge belief? Analyse the significance of the amount and intensity of evil in the world Does Augustineâs use of original perfection and the Fall solve the problem of evil? Assess Hickâs reworking of the Irenaean theodicy ânatural evil enables human beings to reach divine likenessâ â How far do you agree? Critically compare the success of Augustine and Hick’s theodicies. Is there some justification for divine inaction in the face of evil? Does natural evil have a purpose? âThere are no convincing presentations of the problem of evilâ â Discuss âSuffering disproves Godâ â Discuss âEvil exists, so God does not existâ â Discuss
Hard Is the logical or evidential problem of evil the greater challenge to belief? Is it easier to show that Godâs existence lacks evidence than that it is logically impossible? âAugustine solves the logical problem of evilâ â Discuss Does Augustine’s theodicy succeed against the evidential problem of evil? âHick cannot solve the evidential problem of evilâ â How far do you agree? How successfully can the evidental problem of evil be addressed through the explanation of soul-making Did Hick improve on the Irenaean theodicy?
Easy Is the concept of God coherent? What is the relationship between divinity and time? âIf God is omniscient, humans canât have free willâ â Discuss. âHumans have free will, so God lacks omniscienceâ â Discuss Analyse the implications of God’s eternity.
Medium âThe divine attributes of God conflict with each otherâ â Discuss. âGod is not limitedâ â Discuss Can God be omnipotent? Analyse omnipotence Can God do the logically impossible? âGod is limited by divine self-limitationâ â how far do you agree? Can God be omnibenevolent? Assess Boethius and Anselmâs view on Godâs relationship with time. Does God know future human actions? Does God have divine foreknowledge? Can God justly judge human actions? Critically compare Boethius with Swinburne on God’s relationship with time. Assess Boethiusâ claim that God is eternal/atemporal. Is Swinburne correct that God is everlasting/temporal? Does God have divine foreknowledge?
Hard Assess Anselmâs four-dimensionalist approach. Does Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach adequately explain divine action in time? Evaluate Boethius’ view of divine action and time. Critically compare Anselm with Swinburne on God’s relationship with time. “It is not necessary to resolve the apparent conflicts between divine attributes” – Discuss.
Easy Assess the apophatic way (via negative) Assess the cataphatic way (via positiva) âGod can be talked about symbolicallyâ â How far do you agree?
Medium âAnalogy is more effective than symbol for talking about Godâ â Discuss. Does Tillich capture religious language better than the apophatic way? Critically compare analogy and via negative as methods of approaching religious language. Is God a symbol? Can Religious language be understood through Aquinas’ analogy of attribution and proper proportion? Critically assess whether theological language is best approached by negation. Does the apophatic way enable effective understanding of theological discussion? Is symbol the most convincing theory of religious language?
Hard Does Aquinas’ analogical approach support effective expression of language about God? Is symbolic religious language comprehensible?
Easy Assess logical positivism Assess Wittgensteinâs views on language games. Is religious language meaningful? Is verificationism an accurate theory of meaning?
Medium âWords must have a verifiable connection to empirical reality to be meaningfulâ â Do you agree? Assess Flewâs views on religious language Critically compare Aquinasâ cognitivism with Wittgensteinâs non-cognitivism. Is religious language non-cognitive? âHareâs account of religious language is correctâ â Discuss. Which was the most convincing point of view in the falsification symposium? Does religious language have a factual quality?
Hard Assess Mitchellâs contribution to the falsification symposium Is religious language a form of life? To what extent is Aquinasâ analogical view of religious language valuable in the philosophy of religion. Should non-cognitive approaches influence interpretation of religious texts?
Subject: Philosophy and ethics
Age range: 16+
Resource type: Assessment and revision
Last updated
31 May 2020
This essay is based on extension and further reading. I selected a topic from a Cambridge University Exam, using content from the specification to answer the essay question within time constraints. This essay is extremely focused purely on Aquinasâ second way, including a sophisticated criticism and counter-argument as well as two popular critics The essay obtained a high A grade scoring 33/40
Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?
Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.
It's good to leave some feedback.
Something went wrong, please try again later.
This resource hasn't been reviewed yet
To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it
Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The Cosmological argument. Cosmological arguments attempt to justify the conclusion that God exists as the required explanation of the existence of the universe. A posteriori. Cosmological arguments are typically a posteriori arguments, which means they are based on experience. The cosmological argument is based on observation of everything in ...
Cosmological Arguments OCR Philosophy A Level. What style are the Cosmological arguments? Click the card to flip it đ. - Inductive: From specific observations to a general claim. - a posteriori observation. - Conclusion is PROBABLY true. - Hughes: If probability is high it might as well be a proof. Click the card to flip it đ. 1 / 12.
Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home. Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs. 30+ school subjects covered. The cosmological argument usually refers to the presence of the cosmos as evidence for God instead of the nature of the cosmos (design arguments).
Aquinas created three versions of the cosmological argument. 1st way: motion. Everything is in motion. There can't be an infinite regress of motion. It cannot be that there is just an infinite chain of movers going back in time forever. There has to have been a first mover - a start to the motion we observe.
The Basics of Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument is a collection of arguments that suggest the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. Thomas Aquinas was a prominent theologian who put forward five ways (Quinque viae) to demonstrate the existence of God, three of which can be classified as 'cosmological' in ...
docx, 13.31 KB. This is a fantastic resource bundle of notes, essays and essay plans of Aquinas 1-3rd ways, known as his Cosmological Argument, whereby he attempts to find an explanation for the creation of the world as we know it. This is extremely helpful for those studying OCR Religious A Levels and comes under the Philosophy unit.
The Cosmological Argument A. Aquinas' First, Second and Third Way 1. First Way, From Motion 2. Second Way, From Causality 3. Third Way, From Necessity and Contingency B. Evaluation Challenges to the Arguments from Observation A. Hume's Challenge against the Teleological Argument B. Hume's Challenge against the Cosmological Argument C.
This is an example of a top A* Grade Essay within the OCR A-Level Religious Studies (RS) Course dealing with the Cosmological ARgument, part of the Arguments from Observation section of the Philosophy and Religion Topic.
THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENT EXISTENCE. This version of the cosmological argument, defended by Frederick Copleston in a radio debate with Bertrand Russell, emphasises the need to explain what exists. 1. Things in the universe exist contingently, they might not have existed or they might stop existing.
The Ontological argument | Summary notes. Religious Experience | Summary notes. The Problem of Evil | Summary notes. The Nature or Attributes of God | Summary notes. RL: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic | Summary notes. RL: Verificationism, Falsificationism & Language games | Summary notes. OCR Philosophy Revision Notes Plato & Aristotle ...
Cosmological Argument ESSAY PLAN - OCR Religious Studies A Level NEW SPEC. Subject: Philosophy and ethics. Age range: 16+. Resource type: Assessment and revision. File previews. docx, 17.91 KB. An extremely detailed essay plan on the Cosmological Argument, with a great structure that entwines information and analysis together. Even if your ...
St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a well-known monk, philosopher and theologian. Aquinas offered five ways to prove the existence of God, of which the first three are forms of the cosmological argument - arguments from motion, cause and contingency. Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle's approach to causation. First Way.
This resource is a revision guide on the Cosmological Argument, which you can use for private study. This guide covers all the topics required for the OCR exam board, including Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways and criticisms from David Hume and Bertrand Russell. It also contains discussion questions, ex... [Show more]
This essay, of A grade standard, has been submitted by a student. PB. The Cosmological argument is an argument put forward by the Christian Philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in an attempt to prove God's existence. However, it is important to take into account that Aquinas already had a strong belief in God when putting this theory ...
Kalam Cosmological Argument. Focuses on the impossibility of an infinite universe. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. And cannot have for an infinite amount of time as infinity is not a logical idea. 3. This cause was most likely a deliberate one.
The Philosophy of Religion exam paper in OCR A Level Religious Studies (H573/01) contains essay questions on the following topics: Ancient philosophical influences ( Plato and Aristotle) The nature of the soul, mind, and body (including dualism vs. materialism) The nature of God (i.e. as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.)
Lastly, I will explore the modern science arguments made by Quentin Smith and Werner Heisenberg. Ultimately, I shall agree with Kant's criticisms of Aquinas and disagree with the statement. Aquinas posed an a posteriori argument based on empirical evidence via observation of the world, known as the cosmological argument.
cosmological. To do with the universe. natural theology. drawing conclusions about the nature and activity of God by using reason and observing the world. contingent. depending on other things; have a beginning and an end. principle of sufficient reason. The principle that everything must have a reason to explain it. sceptic.
Tutoring & essay marking; OCR Philosophy possible exam questions. These questions are taken from the wording of the specitication, meaning they could all actually come up in the exam. They are roughly sorted into easy, medium and hard. ... "The teleological argument is more convincing than the cosmological argument" - Discuss. Hard
These essay plans helped me get an A* overall in OCR Philosophy & Ethics (Full Marks on ethics paper). Essay plans discussing the complexities surrounding Arguments from Observation. The essay plans have a particular focus on AO1, so that students are able to learn this topics content whilst acknowledging how they are going to categorise this ...
OCR Cosmological Argument Essay. Subject: Philosophy and ethics. Age range: 16+. Resource type: Assessment and revision. File previews. docx, 19.95 KB. This essay is based on extension and further reading. I selected a topic from a Cambridge University Exam, using content from the specification to answer the essay question within time constraints.
Preview. religion test two. 40 terms. cj_berge26. Preview. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Cosmological Argument states, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Aquinas' three ways and more.
ocr.org.uk/religiousstudies Oxford Cambridge and RSA RELIGIOUS STUDIES H573 For first teaching in 2016 ... essay, using the material as a vehicle for discussion ... number of responses included a hybrid of the teleological and cosmological arguments found in the Five . Ways. A very small number simply wrote about the first three Ways.