alevelrs

[alevelrs]

"Critically discuss the view that Christians can discover truths about God using reason"

36/40, A*

Natural theology is the manner and extent by which God can be known through the natural order. It requires the use of reason, and so is general and inclusive (in that it is accessible to everyone). Many theologians, such as William Paley and Thomas Aquinas argue that God can be known through reason, with Roman Catholicism agreeing and suggesting that God can be known through the 'light of natural theology'. In this essay, I will argue that whilst Christians can discover truths about God using reason, this alone is not sufficient, so revelation is necessary for a full knowledge of God.

William Paley, in his analogy of the watch, proposes a strong argument for God's existence using nature. He argues that if we found a watch on a heath, we could infer that this is not a natural occurrence for it is so different from the naturally occurring components of the health and has intricacy and design, therefore it must have a creator - the watchmaker. In the same way, when we observe the universe, we can see that it's unique and has purpose and regularity, therefore there must be a designer: God. So, by using reason alone, we can deduce that God is the creator of the universe, discovering truths about him.

Paley's argument is an example of a design argument, which Aquinas also proposes in his fifth way. He observes that the universe has a purpose, telos, and agrees that it can only be achieved with a guiding presence: God. Richard Swinburne agrees with this suggestion. He argues that the world shows order, regularity and purpose, and so there must be an intelligent being behind it. Aquinas also has three cosmological arguments in which he argues that everything in the universe has a cause, or a mover, or a necessary being, which is God. He says that a study of natural theology leads to an 'introduction of God's sublime power, and consequently inspires reverence for God in human hearts'. Therefore, he is arguing that truths about God are discoverable through reason. Natural theology is also supported in the Bible where it says 'the Heavens declare the glory of God; the Heavens proclaim the work of God's hands. Here it is argued that by observing the universe, we can conclude that God exists, and He is the one that created the universe.

The problem with natural theology is that although it can argue the existence of God, this is the only truth about God that Christians can discover through it. The study of nature cannot teach us about God's qualities*. God could be evil, hence the flaws in the universe, or there could be more than one God. God could have created the universe years ago and abandoned it, or God could be unintelligent. Roman philosopher Cicero argued that humans have always had a sense of divinity despite what era they lived in, or their culture/traditions. However, this again doesn't reveal anything apart from the fact God exists: the Romans interpreted God much different to Christians.

*teacher comment: can't it?

Calvin agreed with Cicero in that everyone had a subjective 'sensus divinitas' (seed of divinity) which was an innate sense of God which had the potential to grow into informed truth. However there are consequences to this subjective approach, so whilst reason can be used to discover truths about God, revelation is also necessary to have a full knowledge. The first consequence is the universality of religion: religion can degenerate into idolatry without Christianity, which for example, occurred in Roman timed where sacrifices to statues took place. Next is a troubled conscience: whilst we know that God exists, we do not know what is right and wrong and so may make immoral decisions. Finally, we may develop a servile fear of God which is not taught in Christianity, making revelation necessary.

Because natural theology only gives us a limited knowledge of God, it is necessary to take a leap of faith, and gain a revealed knowledge of God. This is specific, doctrinal and exclusive to Christians as it relies on revelation and suggests God can only be known when He lets Himself be known. Many Christians agree that reason can be used to gain some knowledge, but it must be used in conjunction to faith, which is a virtue. Aquinas argued that faith both compliments and differs from other kinds of knowledge, because it doesn't have certainty and so is a choice. The view that faith is necessary alongside reason is supported in the Bible where it says 'we have come to know and come to believe that you are the Holy one of God.'

Within the Bible, God also reveals truths about Himself to His prophets such as when He tells Abraham to sacrifice his son and saves Moses from the burning bush. These are examples of immediate revelation, where God makes Himself directly known. Mediate revelation is when knowledge of God is gained through other people, such as those who trusted Moses to take them to the promised land. These truths cannot be known through reason, thus revelation is necessary.

The most common view is that reason and revelation complement each other: they are both necessary and both reveal truths about God. Faith is not held in a vacuum but builds upon the knowledge we gain through reason: the fact we live, breathe and eat are all evidence of God. Robert Boyle argues that God has two great books: the natural world and the Bible. They have the same author, and both reveal knowledge of God and so are complementary. These views are supported by Polkinghome and Bonaventure, who aregue that we have several eyes or ways of 'seeing' God that need to work together for us to discover truths about Him.

However Karl Barth, who builds upon St Augustine's argument, suggests that truths about God can never be discovered through reason. He argues that our reason is so distorted because of the Fall, we cannot know God through our own human efforts. Natural knowledge is unnecessary because God fully revealed Himself through Christ, which tells us everything we need to know about Him.

This argument is not one supported by the Bible - the Bible doesn't distinguish between natural and revealed theology, suggesting God communicates in many ways. For example, the Bible suggests using reason by traditional wisdom is a means to understanding God, such as where it says 'trust in the Lord with all of your heart [...] and He will make your pain straight'. Of course, the Bible also stresses that revealed theology is important, such as in Genesis when God revealed Jacob in a dream, but the point is, by complementary dismissing natural theology, you are dismissing the words of the Bible.

Also linking back to Aquinas's five ways, God gave us the ability to use our natural knowledge for a reason. Kant's argument is dangerous because it encourages people to be lazy and rely on faith alone, rather than seeking certainty through observation. Richard Dawkins argues that belief in God through faith alone is foolish, similar to belief in the tooth fairy: it cannot be conclusively disproved but there is no reason to support the argument and so there is no reason to commit. David Hume also argued that we shouldn't allow faith or superstition to cloud our judgement; we need to look at empirical evidence to decide what to believe.

In conclusion, whilst I agree that reason can allow us to discover truths about God, this is only to a certain extent. Therefore, the use of revealed theology is necessary, and should be used in conjunction to natural theology for a balanced approach towards leaning about God.

teacher comments: This essay gets better as it progresses! The start is very 'arguments' topic - reduce this part; the end is full of information! You have answered the set question, but I'd like some examples of different 'truths'.

14/16 + 22/24 = 36/40 A*

#bonaventure #polkinghome #robert boyle #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #ocr rs example essay #karl barth #st augustine #knowledge of god #richard dawkins #david hume

[alevelrs]

Consciousness as a mystery: the mind-body problem

Most people argue that what differentiates humans from machines is the fact that humans have consciousness, whereas machines do not. Human beings possess a faculty known as the ‘mind’, which enables us to think, to interpret our experiences and to have emotions, something that machines cannot do because the mind is non-physical. The view that a human being can be thought of as consisting of two separate things – the physical body and non-physical mind is known as dualism.  

The mind: many people understand it to be the part of the person which has intelligence and emotions, allowing us to interpret the data we get from our senses so that we experience them; our mind forms judgments. For some, the mind is described as a ‘part of a person’, but for others, it’s the activity of physical nature.

The body: it consists of the physical stuff of which people are made. For materialists, we exist as our body and nothing more. For others, the body may be seen as a vehicle that the self or ‘soul’ inhabits for a while it is in some way less real than the self.

Substance Dualism

Substance dualism is the view that the mind and body are separate substances which both exist. They hold the view that the mind is a substance, and that thoughts, intentions and emotions are properties of the mind. So, if I am angry for example, then the substance that is my mind would have the property of anger.

The other substance of a human is the body, which too is a subject that has properties, e.g.: being tall, short, freckled. It has the property of ‘extension’, meaning it takes up space and is physical.

The mind = not physical or extended but has properties of thought (mental capabilities).

The body = physical and has extension but no properties of thought.

Somehow, these two distinct substances are attached to each other and form the human being, a person with both physical and mental capabilities. This is a view upheld by Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato, agreeing we have an essential non-physical self which could be capable of existing without the body. The idea that we have more than just physical bodies is something taken up by many different religious world views.

Descartes’s dualist understanding

Descartes wanted to work out what could be known with certainty, wanting philosophy to have the same kinds of certainty and precision of mathematics. He adopted a method called ‘hyperbolic doubt’, thinking about all of the things he though could be known, and rejecting them if there was any doubt at all of their certain truths, trying to establish which beliefs have both endurance and stability.

He started by testing all of his beliefs with sceptical arguments, questioning how he could be sure that his belief was true. He couldn’t trust his sense experiences, because our senses could deceive us – everything around us could be illusions or dreams. He couldn’t even be certain about the basics of mathematics because our reasoning could be wrong, or God could be deceiving us. We cannot be 100 percent certain that we are not being deceived about everything.

He realised that there was one fact, the ‘first certainty’ that he could not possibly doubt: the fact that he was here, thinking sceptically. He could not doubt himself as a thinker, as he would first have to exist as a thinker to do so, thus leading him to the conclusion ‘I think, therefore I am’.

Descartes knew that he had a mind, because he could not doubt it without a contradiction, but he could not confirm he had a body (we could be deceived into thinking we have a body). Therefore, for Descartes, the mind and the body had to be two distinct substances. Descartes followed the thinking of Augustine in saying that it is possible for us to imagine being without a body, but impossible for us to imagine being without a mind. Therefore, for Descartes, the mind and body are made up of two distinct substances: the physical body, and spiritual mind – they cannot be the same thing, for they have different properties. The body also has different parts, whereas the mind cannot be divided into parts.

He questioned how the mind and body could be attached to one another, and assumed it was because of the pineal gland, a very small organ located in the centre of the human brain, which he called “the principle of the soul”. He thought it contained air-like ‘animal spirits’ which controlled imagination, sense perception, bodily movement and memory. He came to this conclusion because other parts of the head are ‘double’ – two ears, eyes, hemispheres of the brain etc., but there is just the one, central pineal gland. However, this view is not backed by modern medicine.

Criticisms

He hasn’t demonstrated the mind is a substance, but has merely asserted it

How do the mind and body interact in the way they do? When I hurt myself, not only do I see the bruise, but I feel the pain too – mental consequences. Also hand-eye coordination: physical and mental capabilities in conjunction

How can mental thoughts cause physical responses? How can my mental feeling of embarrassment cause me to blush?

‘The problem of other minds’: if the mind is separate from the body, we can only perceive if other people have bodies but no way of knowing if they have minds.

Anthony Flew: talk of life after death where the soul continues is nonsensical. The Cheshire cat, in Alice in Wonderland slowly disappears until there is only a grin left – this is comical because a grin cannot occur without a face, it is not a substance on its own. There could not be a survival of the mind/soul after death because the physical body has no behaviour, mind cannot occur without body.

Responses

The soul is more than just a word for physical behaviour, it can be capable of independent continued existence after the death of the body.

We talk about ourselves and our bodies differently: ‘Emily’s body went to the theatre’ implies mind was elsewhere ‘Emily’s body was in the garden’ suggests she is dead.

Mind and body cannot be the same, they have mutually exclusive properties.

Materialism cannot explain how an opinion or logical chain of reasoning can be no more than a physical chemical reaction.

Swinburne: soul is capable of surviving death: there are fundamental truths about us that cannot be explained in purely physical terms. The soul is unique as it is capable of logical, ordered and complex thought, aware of its own freedom to make moral choices and aware of moral obligations

Keith Ward: Without the soul, humanity lacks any sense of final purpose, we need the moral claims that the soul recognises as coming from God in order to progress and achieve that special dignity of being human.

Property Dualism

According to property dualism, there is one kind of material, physical substance, but there are two distinct kinds of properties: mental and physical. The physical matter of the brain has physical properties (such as size shape and mass) but also mental properties (such as opinions and emotions). They hold that the mind and body have different properties but the same substance.

‘Emergent materialism’ is a kind of property dualism which holds that as physical things become more and more complex, new properties ‘emerge’ from them, which cannot be reduced simply to the material. The mind has its own existence in some sense but is not a completely separate substance from the physical. This view is held by John Stuart Mill, amongst others.

Reductive Materialism

Reductive materials, sometimes referred to as ‘identity theory’ or ‘type physicalism’ is a theory which says that the mind is not distinct from the physical brain but is identical with it.

This theory claims that metal states can be classified into different types such as memory pain happiness etc., which correspond to different parts of the brain. The chemical reactions which occur in the brain do not just cause the mental events but are the mental events. As psychologist Boring asserted, mental events and physical events in the brain are identical: when X happens in the brain, the consequence is not Y – X and Y are the same thing. Therefore, there is no room for the possibility of life after death, as the consciousness is physical – when the body dies, the consciousness ends.

Gilbert Ryle

Gilbert Ryle was a materialist who argued that any talk of a ‘self’ or ‘soul’ existing beyond the physical body is a mistake in the way we use language. He used the example of watching a cricket match: we can see all the layers and tactics used, but still ask where the ‘team spirit’ is, as if that is something to be found as an extra to the otherwise observable elements of the game: the team spirit is just how the observable people interact with one another. In the same way, the mind is not something separate and extra from the body. Just as the team spirit is not found in addition to the team but is a way of describing how the team works, the ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ is not an addition to the physical person but a way of describing their functions. He argued that saying there is a separate mind and body is like ‘the ghost in the machine’, as if we were physical machines being operated by an imaginary mind.

He said that the traditional mind/body distinction was a ‘category error’ – the mind and body are not two things of a similar logical kind because they are not in the same logical category.  The mind and body are not two things that a person possesses and are ‘harnessed together, viewing them as two distinct things is just taking the metaphors of ‘soul’ and ‘mind’ too literally.

Criticisms

‘The whole is more than the sum of its parts’ – perhaps people talking of humans as more than just what’s physical are trying to express something intangible

Richard Dawkins

Modern materialist views assume there is no part of a person that is not physical. The consciousness cannot be separated from the brain because nothing exists except matter – once the brain has died, the consciousness also must end.

Richard Dawkins proposes that humans are nothing more than ‘survival machines’, and just like other living creatures, have no soul, instead vehicles of genes only interested in replicating themselves in order to survive into the next generation. He wrote about ‘soul one and soul two’ – two different ways in understanding the soul. Soul one is the viewpoint that claims the soul is a distinctive spiritual supernatural part of a person, capable of knowing God and escaping death (a view that he rejects). Soul two refers to someone’s personality and individuality (much like the viewpoint of Aristotle). Dawkins accepts this, as it does not include the notion of a connection with the supernatural or life after death.

#substance dualism #property dualism #reductive materialism #gilbert ryle #ghost in the machine #richard dawkins #descartes #descartes on the soul #i think therefore i am #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #philosophy #soul mind body #mind body soul #john stuart mill #materialism

[alevelrs]

Soul, Mind and Body

The philosophical language of soul, mind and body in the thinking of Plato and Aristotle

Metaphysics of consciousness, including substance dualism and materialism

[alevelrs]

The Philosophical Language of Soul, Mind, and Body

(in the thinking of Plato and Aristotle)

The term ‘soul’ is used in different ways, making it difficult to grasp what it actually means. It is often blurred with the terms mind and body, causing a difficult discussion.

The Soul

In a philosophical sense, the word soul is used as meaning the same thing as self, to refer to the subject of mental states and of spiritual experience. When someone uses the pronoun I (e.g., ‘I had a panic attack in the supermarket’, the soul is the ‘I’. Philosophers often refer to the ‘self’ rather than the ‘soul’ to remove religious connotations, but ‘self’ has a much wider meaning, as it can include the mind and body as one coherent person, whereas the term ‘soul’ is actually used to refer to one particular part of the self: the part that is capable of having a relationship with God and carries the possibility of living after death.

Plato on the Soul

Plato believed the soul and body are two separate entities. The body is the temporary, physical, material aspect of the person and the soul is the essential (in the sense of being the essence of the person) immaterial aspect. Therefore, Plato says the soul is temporarily united with a physical body but can leave the body and move on. ANALOGY: the soul is the driver of the car inhabits and then can get out and go somewhere else

Plato, like Socrates, believed that the soul is immortal. He argues that every quality depends on its opposite to have any existence and depend on their status relative to one another: something is ‘big’ because there are smaller things, something is ‘bright’ because there are fuller things. Therefore, life comes from death, and death comes from life in an endless chain of birth, death, and rebirth.

Dialogue of Meno: slave boy with no knowledge is given geometry puzzle to solve and can answer it through questioning. Plato illustrated that this boy must have used knowledge he already had, which is clear evidence of knowledge gained before birth, so souls must have lived in the world of perfect Forms.

Metaphor of chariot being pulled by two horses. Two horses are appetite and emotion, basic needs which pull us along and motivate us that are controlled by the charioteer ‘reason’ who holds the reins and make sure the appetite and emotion work together in a rational direction. Without the guiding hand of reason, we can be led astray by letting our emotions get the better of us or letting our appetites tale the lead. People who let reason guide the other aspects of their mental lives are wise. This is a ‘tripartite view’ as he saw the soul consisting of three elements.

Myth of Er: soldier appears to die on battlefield, but his body doesn’t decompose, he comes back to life and says he experienced the afterlife. Said that once he died souls were judged: morally good rewarded and morally bad punished. Souls chose foe themselves new life on earth, either animals or humans. Those punished chose lives of power but didn’t consider immoral actions to achieve that life, those punished tended to choose more wisely because they’d learnt from their mistakes. Only the philosophical who understood the importance of choosing a new life of peace and justice benefited from the cycle of life and death, others switched between reward, punishment, life, death. This myth demonstrates the necessity of seeking wisdom through philosophy for the soul to benefit. Once they’d chosen their destinies, they were given a liquid to drink which made them forget their previous life except for Er who was freed to return.

For Plato, because the soul is immortal and the body is not, they have to be two different and distinct things, a dualist point of view. He was trying to work out what was temporary and subject to change and what was eternal, how humans can relate to the world of the forms and how reason can give the best route to certain knowledge and wisdom.

Aristotle on the Soul

Aristotle saw the soul as a ‘substance’: a term used to mean the ‘essence’ or ‘real thing’. The physical body is in a continual state of change, from a baby to a toddler to an adolescent to an adult to an elderly man, how can we say they are all the ‘same person’? The ‘substance’ is what remains the same, in terms of continuing identity. This continuing identity, or ‘essence’ is what Aristotle viewed as the soul, for which he sued the term ‘psyche’.

Aristotle had a much more materialistic attitude towards the soul than Plato. Rather than being some kind of invisible part of a person, Aristotle considered the soul to include the matter and structure of the body alongside its functions and capabilities – its form (i.e. the formal cause). The soul gives living things its essence, so it’s not just matter but has all the capabilities and characteristics that it needs in order to be what it is. Living thigs are distinguished from non-living things by what they can do, their capabilities, and it is these capabilities that for Aristotle define the ‘soul’. “The soul is in some sense the principle of animal life” – the soul, or ‘psyche’ is that which distinguishes a living thing from a dead thing.

Aristotle thought that there were various types of soul:

Plants have a vegetative or ‘nutritive’ soul – they have the capabilities to nourish themselves and ensure reproduction of their species but have no ability to reason or make plans.

Animals have ‘perceptive’ souls – they have senses to experience the world and react to different stimuli and have enough intelligence to distinguish between pleasure and pain.

Humans have a higher degree of soul – they can reason and distinguish between right and wrong.

Therefore, the soul, for Aristotle, is not an entity sperate from the body, but rather the capacities that the body has, to do whatever it is meant to do. This can be linked to his ideas about causality; the soul is that which gives the matter its form, its efficiency, and its final purpose (telos).

Some examples given by Aristotle to explain what he means. If an axe was a living thing, its soul would be its capacity to chop. A toy axe is not a ‘real/ axe, because it does not have the capacity to chop wood, therefore it is only an axe by name. The capacity to chop wood could not have an existence on its own without the axe. For Aristotle, the soul was inseparable from the living body in the same way that the shape stamped into a block of wax is inseparable from the matter of the wax.

Because Aristotle believed that the soul and the body could not be separated, his view did not allow for the idea that the soul could withstand death.

#a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #philosophy #aristotle #plato #mind body soul #soul mind body #the soul

[alevelrs]

Arguments Based on Observation

The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God

The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

#arguments based on observation #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #philosophy

[alevelrs]

Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Start with observations about how universe works and from this try to explain why it exists. also known as the first cause argument for the existence of God. Fundamentally, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the existence of the universe requires an explanation, which must be God.

Aquinas’s First Way: the unmoved mover

In Aquinas’s First Way, he concentrated on the existence of change, or motion, in the world.

Everything is both in a state of actuality (how it is) and potentiality (what it might become).

All things that are moved (the potentiality becomes the new actuality) are moved by something else, things can’t move themselves.

The mover is moved by something else, which is moved by something else and then something else.

This cannot go on for infinity because there would be no first mover so nothing would have started moving at all.

So, there must be a first mover.

This first unmoved mover is God.

Aquinas’s Second Way: the uncaused causer

Aquinas’s Second Way is similar to his first, but it focuses on the concept of change.

Nothing can be its own efficient cause because it cannot have existed before itself.

Things that are causes must themselves be caused, otherwise the effect would be taken away.

We cannot go back to infinity (infinite regress is impossible) because there would be no first cause so all later effects couldn’t have happened.

Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause that is not instead caused.

The first uncaused causer is what everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas’s Third Way: contingency and necessity

Everything in nature is contingent, it relies on something to have brought it into existence.

If we trace back, nothing existed, but then nothing could have begun to exist because nothing can come from nothing (everything has to come from something)

Therefore, there needs to be a being that isn’t contingent: a necessary being.

Necessary beings could have their necessity come from another being.

But this cannot go back to infinity.

So, there must be a being that has its own necessity which causes other beings.

This is what people call God.

Gottfried Leibniz

Leibniz raised the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’, questioning why anything exists at all. He offered a form of the cosmological argument, based on his Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that everything which exists must have a reason or a cause for its existence. According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason:

If something exists, there must be a reason why that thing exists.

If a statement is true, there must be a reason why that statement is true.

If something happens, there must be a reason why that thing happens.

Whether or not we know the reason why something exists, or is true, or happens, there still must be a reason, known or unknown. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternal or not – we still need a reason for it.

Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

Can we make the jump from Aquinas’s observations to the Christian God? The effect cannot immediately point towards a particular cause because causation is a psychological concept, we cannot make links that are beyond our experience – we could imagine anything to create the universe: a stupid God, a committee of Gods, a demon etc. God is just one of a large number of possible hypotheses.

Is it plausible for anything but a transcendent God to create the universe? Aristotle, Aquinas: need a necessary being that would have to transcend the rest of the universe to exist in a unique, all-powerful way.

When we look at the world, we have only the effect to look at – the cause is hidden from us. He uses the example of a pair of scales with one end hidden from view: we can see that the other end outweighs it, but  we have no means of knowing by how much.

It isn’t necessary to suppose that everything has a cause

Just because everything in the universe has a cause or reason to exist, doesn’t mean the entire universe has a cause or reason to exist (just because you can explain the cause of 20 particles of matter doesn’t mean you can explain the cause of the group of the particles)

Bertrand Russell: just because every human being has a mother, doesn’t mean that the human species as a whole has a mother.

BUT modern science suggests there is a definite beginning to the universe

Hume: Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?’ Why could we not accept that the universe is eternal and the cause of all the things in it rather than looking to God for an explanation

#Gottfried Leibniz #bertrand russell #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #philosophy #cosmological argument #cosmological arguments for the existence of god #existence of god #philosophical arguments

[alevelrs]

The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God

Teleological arguments are design arguments, looks at the purpose of something and from that reasons that God must exist. Attempt to prove God through the concept of design, claims that the world displays God’s purpose or end goal. A posteriori and inductive because they look at experience of the world and draw inferences from it. Indictive because reach conclusions which are statements of probability rather than conclusive proofs.

Aquinas:

Aquinas believed that there are two ways God could be reached: through revelation, and through reason, therefore faith and reason could be combined to reach a better understanding of God. Aquinas put forward 5 ways to demonstrate the existence of God, and his 5th way is teleological.

In this, he argues that intelligent objects (like the arrow of an archer), can only be aimed towards a goal (like the target of an archer), with the guiding presence of an intelligent being (like the archer). This intelligent being, he argues, is God. Everything in nature which is moving but which has no intelligence must be directed to its goal by God. This is known as a design qua purpose argument because it seeks to show that the universe has direction and a goal (a purpose) enabled by God.

Aquinas’ teleological argument makes use of a belief that Aristotle held, that everything in the universe has telos (purpose). However, Aquinas argued that this telos did not come about naturally, but rather there must be an intelligent being behind this purposefulness. For example, Aristotle’s example that ducks have webbed feet for the purpose of swimming faster, Aquinas would argue someone designed the webbed feet. Aquinas thought about what Aristotle noted about nature exhibiting regularities, concluding that there is a guiding hand behind it.

William Paley:

Paley argued that the way things work seem to have been put together deliberately with a purpose, e.g. the eye seems to be constructed deliberately with the purpose to see, which is evidence of design. He puts forward the analogy of the watch: if we found a watch on a heath there would be no natural explanation: after observing how well the watch worked, we would assume that it has some designer, e.g. a watchmaker because of the cogs and springs, this design is not a result of chance. By analogy, we could say the same of nature. This designer is God.

Looking at a watch was similar to looking at the world, or at the human body, and noticing how it all works together – so intricately that one can only infer that there must have been a divine intelligence ordering it.

Paley also argued:

We do not have to have ever seen a watch being made in order to realise that there must have been a maker.

The watch does not have to work perfectly for us still to realise that it must have been designed. (in the same way the universe…)

Even if the watch is broken, there is enough design to suggest a watchmaker: he is not commenting on the quality of the design

Even if we didn’t fully understand the watch, we could still identify design.

Hume’s Criticisms of the Teleological Argument

Hume predates Paley and said that the world is not like a watch - it might be true that a watch looks like it is designed, but it is harder to say that the world has these characteristics.

We only conclude that the watch has been designed because we can conclude that it is different to other things in nature – what can we compare the world to? The world is nature.

Just because we recognise order in this world, doesn’t mean it came from a Divine Creator. We have no standards of order, nothing to compare it to, maybe our world isn’t as ordered as we think. Therefore: analogy isn’t suitable.

Order is just a necessary part of the world’s existence – if everything was random, the world could not exist. This order could have come about by chance.

The world could be said to be more like a vegetable that has the characteristics of intricacy (a complex natural object) rather than a machine like a watch. BUT a vegetable only grows because the laws of biology work- where do these laws come from?

Instead Hume said that given an infinite amount of time all the particles in the universe would be able to combine in every possible combination. Eventually, a stable environment would be created and that would be the world in which we live, therefore the universe is due to randomness rather than a designer.

Hume says we cannot make inferences about the cause (God) by looking at the effects in the world: our world is finite and imperfect, why should God be infinite and perfect? He used the example of a pair of scales: just because we know one side is heavier than the other, doesn’t mean we know the exact weight of the other side. Therefore, just because we see evidence of a designer doesn’t mean we know anything about the nature of the designer. The designer could create the world through trial and error, or could be an infant deity who then abandoned the world, or there could be many designers, or could be immoral – how can we suggest that it is the Christian God? BUT just because we cannot fully understand God, doesn’t mean the argument isn’t logical

Chance Arguments

Chance arguments suggest there are better, more plausible explanations for the apparent design in the world: chance. Ockham’s razor: perhaps chance is a better explanation than God: it is simpler.

The theory of evolution: Mutations allow animals to evolve this happens by chance rather than because of a designer: Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Survival of the fittest: better evolved animals will survive, so nature is responsible for the world rather than God.

BUT F.R. Tennant argued against this with the anthropic principle: there has been too much that has gone right in the world leading to the existence of humankind for it to be chance. For example: in many fundamental laws of nature, if anything was just slightly different, human life could not have happened.  Also, the aesthetic principle: why can we recognise beauty, no evolutionary advantage, must be a divine creator. Perhaps Ockham’s razor? Easiest explanation is that there is a God.

But no matter what happens in the world, the odds are always against it: the odds are against your parents meeting, you being born etc. This doesn’t not rule out the possibility of chance.

#a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #philosophy #teleological argument for the existence of god #existence of god #william paley #aquinas

[alevelrs]

Plato vs Aristotle

Similarities

Form of the Good gives Christians the concept of God as a perfect source of goodness, permanent and unchanging unlike the temporary nature of our physical world; The Prime Mover gives Christians the understanding of a God who is the ultimate cause of all that exists but is himself not caused by anything else

Form of the Good top of hierarchy, physical things just illumination of forms so without it nothing would exist; Prime Mover is primary cause of existence, the reason why everything is in motion and the first cause of every cause and effect we see

Both have an independent, necessary existence: depend on nothing else

Both do not take an interest in the moral affairs of humanity. Both are understood as perfect, but neither is capable of noticing or caring whether humans behave morally: Form of the Good does not have a mind to take an interest in anything, The Prime Mover cannot interact with the world.

Differences

Form of the Good is not a being with a mind, no intentions or emotions, and so cannot think; The Prime Mover draws things to itself by attraction, making them move and change. Thinks of itself and its own perfect nature

Humans could possibly encounter Form of Good after leaving the physical life; no indication of humans gaining more knowledge of Prime Mover after death

#form of the good #prime mover #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #philosophy #religious studies #ancient philosophical influences #ocr rs #ocr religious studies

[alevelrs]

Aristotle

Aristotle was an empiricist, who thought that ideas can have no real existence just on their own. For him, the physical world around us is the key to knowledge, and we can learn about it using our senses.

The Four Causes

Aristotle used the term ‘aetion’ when thinking and writing about different kinds of explanation. It can be used to describe what something looks like and what it Is made from, as well as what caused it to come into being, Aristotle recognised that something could have several different explanations for its existence on different levels. Aristotle therefore thought that ‘cause’ can be understood in four different ways, to which he gave different names.

The material cause explains what something is made from. Scientists often attempt to answer this question when learning about something, by taking the thing apart and looking at the various kinds of matter by which the object is composed in detail. For example, the material cause of a rat is its blood, muscles, fur, organs etc, but this does not explain everything. It cannot provide an explanation for the rat itself, but can help us to understand important aspects of it.

The formal cause terms the form, or shape, that something has, allowing it to be identified as whatever it is. A desk is a desk because it is desk shaped, despite the materials used to create it also being used for other things. There are other shapes it could still be whist still being a desk, but there are certain characteristics that a desk has to have in order to be recognised as such.

The efficient cause is the activity that makes something happen. The efficient cause of the desk is the activity of the carpenter, the efficient cause of the rat is mating between the rat’s parents. Aristotle described this as the actualising of potential. Wood has the potential to be made into furniture but needs the efficient cause of the carpenter’s activity to realise this potential. Efficient cause brings about change in something.

The final cause is its purpose, its reason for existing, its telos and is the most important cause. For Example, the final cause of a desk is to write at. Aristotle thought that something was ‘good’ when it fulfilled its telos. An axe is a good axe if it cuts well, boots are good boots if they keep your feet warm and dry.

Aristotle’s Prime Mover

Aristotle realised that the universe as in a constant state of change and motion, therefore, there must be an efficient cause, something or someone performing an action and making all this change and motion happen. He considered the idea that there may be constant cause and effect but rejected this idea as it did not provide a satisfactory solution.

Aristotle thought the cause of the universe must be God, who is the Prime Mover, and actualises the potential in everything else, but causes without being affected. It must be a being with no potential, ‘pure actuality’. The Prime Mover was the first of all substances, causing change and motion by attracting other things towards itself whilst remaining unaffected. The final cause of movement is a desire for God: everything in the universe is drawn towards God’s protection.

God (the Prime Mover) doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence, because He is not capable of change, He exists independently or ‘necessarily’.

He is eternal, he cannot cease to be, and has always existed because of his lack of potential.

God is perfectly good, badness is related to lacking, an absence of something that ought to be there. Because God is pure actuality, He contains everything that ought to be there, and so must be perfect.

God is immaterial, beyond time and space. All matter can be acted on, so He is not made of matter. If He is immaterial, He cannot perform any sort of physical activity, so Aristotle concluded God must be purely spiritual, pure thought, and so must only think of Himself and his own perfect nature.

The Prime mover is the final cause of everything in the universe, it is the purpose of everything. It is not the efficient cause because it is incapable of bringing things about. It is the object of desire and love for the world, drawing everything to itself without being affected. It is transcendent, and the telos for everything.

Evaluating Aristotle

the four causes successfully describe objects in daily use

BUT not exactly applicable to abstract concepts or emotions

his approach requires observation rather than reason alone and observation can be shared by many people

empiricism is flawed because sensory perception differs from one person to another

Aristotle confines himself to the scientifically demonstratable. Why can’t we gain knowledge through other means than the physical world? Spiritual and intuitive knowledge

the four causes do not require recourse to another realm or plane of existence

Hume: fallacy of composition: Aristotle has assumed that what is true of one part is true of the whole: just because contingent beings have a final cause, doesn’t mean universe does

Aristotle contradicts himself in stating that there needs to be a Prime Mover which is beyond the observable universe

Must the universe have a purpose? Russel, Sartre, Dawkins etc.

Perhaps eternal cause and effect is possible?

Thiests: Aristotle’s God is irrelevant to the universe, he has no interaction with it

#aristotle #evaluating aristotle #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #philosophy #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #ocr rs #ocr religious studies #ancient philosophical influences

[alevelrs]

Philosophy

ancient philosophical influences

mind, body, soul

arguments based on observation

arguments based on reason

religious experience

the problem of evil

#a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #philosophy #ancient philosophical influences #problem of evil #mind body soul #religious experience

[alevelrs]

Plato

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who believed that empirical knowledge (gained from the senses) cannot be accepted as fact; it does not show reality. This knowledge of reality based entirely on reasoning is called a priori which means we have knowledge of something prior to our experience of it.

The Theory of Forms

Plato noticed that the physical world is always changing, and nothing stays the same, “everything tangible flows”. Even what seem to be solid, static objects change in ways we don’t notice: decaying, becoming stretched or stained, warming or cooling down etc. Because the things we see around us in the physical world are always in a state of process and change, Plato therefore concluded that they can never be the objects of completely true knowledge. Instead, he argued there are other realities of which we can have certain knowledge, in a different ‘world’ which are eternal and always stay the same. These realities are concepts, which Plato called ‘Forms’ or ‘Ideas’. We gain true knowledge through our reason. Thus, for Plato there are two fundamental aspects or realms of reality—the realm of the senses (sensible world), where things are by nature changing and chaotic, and the realm of the Forms, where things are permanent and absolute.

According to Plato, the different things we see in the physical world and learn about through experiences and our senses are imitations and examples of their ideal Form. For example, when we see someone doing an act of justice, we recognise it as an act of justice because we know what ‘true justice’ is as a concept but recognise that it is not perfect justice because of our impermanent world. Plato therefore argues that because we realise it isn’t perfect, we have an inner understanding of what ‘ideal justice’ or the ‘Form of justice’ might be. He claims that we have this understanding of the Forms from birth, even if we do not realise it, we know these things by intuition, and therefore e must have immortal souls that have lived in the world of the Forms.

Plato’s Form of the Good

According to Plato, all of the different forms were related to each other, arranged in a hierarchy with the Form of the Good being the most important. Goodness is the purest, most abstract of the Forms, and illuminates all other Forms and gives them their values, and so is the furthest away from the physical world. Plato compares the Form of the Good with the sun. Just as the sun provides the light that is necessary for us to see things in the sensible realm, so does the Form of the Good provide the intellectual light that enables us to know the Forms. Plato also believes that just as the sun causes things in the sensible world to exist and sustains them, so too does the Good cause the forms to be. Plato’s Form of the Good, then, is the ultimate principle of reality and truth and is the source of all order, harmony, beauty and intelligibility in the universe. For Plato, true knowledge is a knowledge of goodness.

The Allegory of the Cave

Plato’s entire philosophy can be summed up in his most famous analogy—the allegory of the Cave. In the image of an underground cave there is a group of prisoners chained and able to see only what is in front of them. Behind the prisoners is a fire in front of which men walk carrying objects that cast shadows on the walls of the cave. Since all they’ve been exposed to are these images, the prisoners naturally come to think that the shadows on the wall are in fact reality. However, one of the prisoners escape from the darkness of the cave. At first, he is blinded by the bright light of the sun, but after his eyes adjust, he comes to realize that what he is experiencing outside the cave is reality, and all he thought was real was mere illusion. Feeling pity for his fellow prisoners, he goes back in the cave to try to liberate them. In the end, the other prisoners kill the one who is trying to free them, so convinced are they that the shadows they experience inside the cave are the only true reality.

The prisoners in the cave represent those who are enamoured with the sensible world, completely caught up with images they perceive to be real. The man who breaks free of his chains is the philosopher who, using his intellect ascends out of the cave (into the world of the forms). Plato believes that the true philosopher—and we should think of Socrates here—would elect to return to the world of the senses to try to liberate his fellow man, even though he naturally would prefer to remain permanently in the world of the Forms and would face persecution and possible death for doing so. Plato was convinced that as long as human beings remained fixated on the sensible realm with impermanence and imperfections, there really was no hope that they’d ever attain true happiness in life.

Evaluating Plato

Good because it encourages us to live as the best versions of ourselves, taking into account the ideal form

Plato never gives any compelling reasons to accept the two realms, he just asserts it

Plato says that physical world isn’t as ‘real’ as WoF, but scientists disagree, and say it is worth studying. Richard Dawkins: nonsense to talk about ‘transcendent’ because no physical evidence to back it up, this world may be changeable but we can still study it with changes and processes, gaining true and valuable knowledge which benefits us

ToF becomes ridiculous when pushed to logical extremes (inc. Aristotle). Ideal concepts make sense, such as in maths etc, but how can there be ideal ‘bad’ qualities such as Jealousy and Spite? Can everything have an ideal form?

How specific are the ideal forms? Form of a flower, or form of a species of flower etc etc, how detailed does it go? How can these forms remain universal?

Mel Thomspson on analogy of the cave "Fails to illustrate that attractiveness of the physical world; the scene inside the gloomy cave hardly represents the delights of the senses”

HOWEVER: Plato focused on Forms of qualities. Not important to push to logical extremes because Plato himself was ambiguous

Plato was not explicit about relationships between concepts and phenomena: says phenomena participate in ideal Forms, but not how

No scientific evidence for Forms

A.J. Ayer: when we talk about something being good or bad, we talk about our own emotional reaction, not everyone has a shared concept of goodness (Form of Good).

Too optimistic in view of human nature

Elitest: only those who study philosophy are capable of doing good, esoteric

#plato #ancient philosophical influences #evaluating plato #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #philosophy #religious studies #ocr religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #ocr rs

[alevelrs]

Ancient Philosophical Influences

Plato

Aristotle

Comparison

#plato #aristotle #plato vs aristotle #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #philosophy #religious studies #ancient philosophical influences #ocr rs example essay #ocr religious studies essay #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #religious studies revision #religious studies a level

[alevelrs]

Assess the view that Christianity should focus on offering spiritual salvation, and not attempt to get involved in solving economic problems.

37/40 A*

The view that Christianity should focus solely on offering spiritual salvation and not address economic problems is a perspective held by some Christians, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. However, this view is often criticized by others, particularly those within the liberation theology movement, who believe that looking at the economic conditions of society and working towards a solution is a necessary step towards salvation.

Liberation theology, as advocated by theologians such as Gustavo Gutierrez and Juan Segundo, argues that Christianity should actively work to alleviate poverty and address social and economic injustices. They* argue that orthopraxy (right practice) should come before orthodoxy (right belief), and so Christians must place an emphasis on actively working towards overcoming poverty, rather than just their own spiritual journey. For Gutierrez, liberation happens in two distinct ways: social and economic liberation, and liberation from sin. Both are essential for salvation. There a several Bible quotes which liberation theologians draw from, for example, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”, which implies that Christians have a duty to help all those in need as if they were God.

*Separate and explain differences

Marx’s central idea of historical materialism establishes liberation theology as a contextual theology by reversing traditional ‘top-down’ with a ‘bottom-up’ theology. Once we understand the social structures in which we live, we are in a position to reform them from the bottom up. This idea of reversal can be seen in the argument that theology should begin with the condition of the poor as the underside of history rather than ‘top-down’ abstract doctrines such as the nature of God. A bottom-up theology begins with actual human experience of suffering, alienation and hope. Thought about in this way Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of God take on new meaning: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.”

Liberation theologians share Marx’s notion that it is we who can change society. Theology cannot be a purely personal and theoretical subject because the Gospel and the example of Jesus indicate that the Christian life must involve action to tackle injustice and deal with those who live on the ‘underside of history’, rather than assuming that it is God’s will that things are the way they are. Liberation theologians quote with approval Marx’s maxim that the purpose of philosophy (or theology in their case) is not merely to interpret the world but to change it. However for this praxis to be effective analysis is needed of the social, economic, and political conditions that have caused injustice. Christian theology doesn’t have the tools to do this analysis and that is why many liberation theologians turn to Marxism which provides a useful way of re-thinking traditional Christian notions of sin in material terms. Whereas sin, in traditional terms, refers to personal disobedience of God’s will, liberation theologians consider sin in the social and economic structures of society.

Liberation theologians refer to the is kind of social sin (collective sin) as structural sin; it is one of the great contributions of liberation theology to contemporary theology. Structural sin is dialectical: “When humans sin, they create structures of sin, which in their turn, make human beings sin.” - Jose Ignacio Gonzalez Faus, 1996. It means that humans are alienated from each other because, at a deep level, there is no recognition of each other as humans. Structural sin is therefore a deeply ingrained form of social alienation in which every member of society is dehumanised. Therefore, liberation theologians maintain that it is essential to solve economic conditions, because only then will we be able to work towards spiritual salvation.

This is why the Catholic Church is critical of liberation theology: they argue that it is too heavily influenced by Marxism which strays from traditional Christian teachings. Marxism is heavily critical of religion, with Karl Marx saying, “religion is the opium of the masses” and so it is not compatible with Christianity. Pope John Paul II, for example, criticized the movement for promoting a "class struggle" rather than emphasizing the spiritual salvation of individuals. He argued that the Church should focus on the spiritual salvation of individuals rather than getting involved in political and economic issues.

However, Gustavo Gutierrez, one of the founders of liberation theology, argues that poverty and oppression are not just social or economic issues, but also spiritual ones. He contends that Christianity should work to alleviate poverty and oppression as a means of fulfilling its mission to bring salvation to all people. Juan Segundo, another prominent liberation theologian, emphasizes the importance of the "preferential option for the poor" which refers to a trend in the Bible that shows a preference for individuals who are on the margins of society and who are powerless, and also refers to the way in which Jesus associated himself more closely with the poor and dispossessed. For example, in the Bible it says, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?” According to Segundo, the preferential option for the poor is not just a social or political program, but a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. He argues that there is an authentic Christian response in the preferential option for the poor for criticisms against liberation theology for its use of Marxist theories.

The Gospel advocates living a peaceful and just life, which is incompatible with the inequalities and effects of poverty in this world. God is the defender and liberator of the poor and oppressed, and so we must also defend and liberate them in the form of liberation theology. Gutierrez held that social and economic liberation must precede liberation from sin (structural sin before personal sin), because only when society is changed to get rid of poverty will liberation from sin be possible. However, Segundo believed that liberation from sin must come first because it might not be possible to change the world’s social structures (St. Paul’s letter to Philemon acknowledges the possibility that unjust social structures will continue).

Pope John Paul II claimed that the preferential option for the poor was “A special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity”. However, he argued there must also be a concern for spiritual poverty: “This option is not limited to material poverty […] not only economic but cultural and spiritual poverty as well.” Therefore, he maintains that whilst looking at economic conditions Is important, there should be more of an emphasis on spiritual salvation. This links to when Jesus said “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?”, which implies that gaining riches (or escaping poverty) is useless if you do not gain salvation.

The Boff brothers outline 5 theological motivations that justify the preferential option for the poor. Theological motivation focuses on the God of the Bible who is immanent in the world and involved in human history. God hears ‘the cry’ of his people (Exodus 3:7) and seeks justice. When the Church imitates God it must hear the cry of the poor and seek justice. Christological motivation maintains that Jesus sided with the poor and acted in solidarity with those who were marginalised by society. Eschatological motivation says that moment when God judges the world will be based on whether a person has sided with the poor according to Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Apostolic motivation takes from the first apostles organised a general levy on all Christian groups to raise money for the poor after Jesus’s death. They did not distinguish between Christian and non-Christian poor. Finally, ecclesiological motivation maintains that all Christian members of the Church should, as a matter of faith and commitment, seek the transformation of society. These are all key examples that emphasise that Christians must focus on economic problems in their journey towards salvation, because it has a key basis in Christianity.

Despite all of this evidence from the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church is still critical of Christians focusing on economic conditions. They claim that liberation theology emphasises practical opposition above the message of the Gospel, which diverts from the spiritual messages of Christianity. Liberation theologists often ignore the ‘purpose’ of a Christian, to be ‘with and like God’. They tend to neglect the thought of the afterlife by focusing on the here and now. However, liberation theologians argue that it is impossible to be ‘with and like God’ if we are not helping to overcome the economic conditions of society, for Jesus himself was an advocate for the poor.

They also say that liberation theology has placed too much emphasis on temporal or political liberation – it fails to look sufficiently at human sin. It emphasises structural sin over personal sin, despite the fact that Jesus reached into people’s personal lives and spoke of the individual coming back to God through forgiveness and reconciliation. Some may argue that because structural sin seems so difficult to overcome, it is important to first focus on personal sin, as everyone’s journey to salvation is individual.

However, again, Jesus was concerned with political and economic conditions. There are examples in the Bible where he was violent towards Roman authority, such as the Incident in the Temple where he was critical of them for exploiting citizens through taxing, and he also said 'I did not come to bring peace but a sword', an example of revolutionary behaviour.

In conclusion, I believe that attempting to get involved in economic conditions is essential for Christians, because it goes hand in hand with spiritual salvation.

Teacher comments: 15 + 22 = 37/40. A little more depth needed for full marks, e.g. Marxism - what is it and how is it used by Lib. Theologians?

#liberation theology and marx #liberation theology #a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #religious studies #ocr rs example essay #ocr religious studies essay #ocr rs #ocr religious studies #religious studies essay

[alevelrs]

Essays

Most of these were done on paper, during mocks or in class exams, which I have typed up so please excuse any mistakes.

Teacher comments are written in red.

Philosophy

Christianity:

To what extent is theological inclusivism not persuasive?

Assess the view that Christianity should focus on spiritual salvation, and not attempt to get involved in economic problems.

Critically discuss the view that Christians can discover truths about God using reason

Ethics

#a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #religious studies #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #ocr rs example essay #ocr religious studies essay #religious pluralism and theology

[alevelrs]

To what extent is theological inclusivism not persuasive?

40/40 A*, timed conditions

Theological inclusivism is the view that non-Christians may be able to go to heaven. It is a view most heavily held by theologian Karl Rahner, however, in recent years, it has become increasingly popular in the Roman Catholic Church. In this essay, I will argue that theological inclusivism is not persuasive.

Karl Rahner affirmed that Christianity is unique, as it is the only religion that offers salvation through Christ, and it is absolute, in that it is the religion that sets the standards for other religions. However, he argued that an omnibenevolent God would not deny salvation to those who lived before Christ, and therefore, those people are able to go to heaven because God makes special allowances for them, as seen in the Bible where it says 'God our saviour wants all people to be saved'. This is contrary to John Calvin's view, described by Gavin D'Costa as restricted-access exclusivism, who claimed that God only selects an elect group of people to go to heaven. Whilst inclusivists claim that this is not complementary with an omnibenevolent God, this is not a persuasive viewpoint. Exclusivists may argue back by claiming offering salvation to all is unjust, as this means even evil people can be saved. Furthermore, this rules Jesus's death and resurrection as meaningless, despite it being a fundamental factor of Christianity.

Furthermore, Rahner suggests that other religions hold some sort of partial truth in them. Whilst he affirms that Christianity is still above other religions, and they are not equal paths to salvation, he argues that they may allow people to act as 'anonymous Christians'. This means that they mat be following Jesus's example without realising, for example by doing acts of service. An analogy to explain this is as follows: fluorine was put into a water system, meaning that all people in a town now had fluorine in their water. Whether they knew about this fluorine or not is redundant - they are still getting the benefits. In the same way, when for example a Muslim gives to the poor, they are acting in a Christian way, by following Jesus's example without realising.

However, exclusivist theologian Hendrick Kraemer argued that there are no 'partial truths' in other religions. Religions are entire belief systems that need to be looked at holistically in their entirety - yes Buddhists may also treat others the way Jesus did, but they do not believe in a God. Either a religion accepts Christianity or it does not, therefore, inclusivism is not persuasive.

The Catholic Church, although seemingly moving into a more inclusivist view, has the motto 'there is no salvation outside the Church', maintaining that you must be a Christian to be saved. Christianity affirms 'there is no way to the Father except through me', and so again, you must be Christian to go to heaven, and so inclusivism isn't persuasive in the face of the Bible.

Exclusivists may also argue against inclusivism because they believe that it makes missionary work pointless, even though in the Bible it says 'go and make disciples of all nations'. However, Rahner maintained that once someone finds Christianity, they must accept the Gospel and live life for Christ. Therefore, inclusivism is slightly more persuasive as it maintains the necessity of missionary work.

Pluralists take the complete opposite view to exclusivists, however they too argue that inclusivism is not persuasive. John Hick, like Rahner, argued that an omnibenevolent God would not deprive people of salvation because their cultural values mean they follow a religion other than Christianity. However, what he thinks is unpersuasive about inclusivism is it places Christianity above other religions, and so argued for a Copernican revolution. Just as Copernicus argued that the Earth, alongside other planets revolves around the Sun, (rather than the previously held view that they all revolve around the Earth) Christianity, like other religions, revolves around God, or what he refers to as 'The Real'. Rather than putting Christianity on a pedestal and assuming it has more truth than other religions (which there is no evidence for), it must be treated equally. Hick therefore also argued that the 'truth claims' held by Christianity are myths; pictural ways of understanding our relationship with God. Therefore he thought the resurrection of Jesus was a myth, and only applicable to its own context. However, this goes directly against the Bible which says 'if Christ has not risen, your faith is futile'.

A viewpoint similar to Rahner's anonymous Christianity, but arguably more persuasive, is that of Raimon Panikkar. He said that rather than arguing about which is 'the truth', we should instead respect the 'mystery of the Divine'. By this he means God reveals Himself in different ways, and so rather than making truth claims, we should be simply 'living in the Divine'. He put forward the idea of Christophany, in that Christ is just one of the many ways that God presents Himself to humans. In different religions it may be different, such as in Hinduism where Ishwara is a personal God. Therefore, Panikkar's view is more persuasive than inclusivism, as it allows people to maintain their own beliefs, and does not push them to another belief system by claiming it is superior.

In conclusion, I believe that whilst inclusivism is persuasive to a certain extent, Raimon Panikkar's pluralism is a better alternative.

teacher comment: well done!

#a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #religious pluralism and theology #religious studies #religious studies essay #ocr religious studies #ocr religious studies essay #ocr rs #ocr rs example essay

[alevelrs]

Welcome to my blog!

I have just completed my A Level exams, and decided to make this page to post my OCR Religious Studies notes and A* essays.

Most of my notes were made from the textbook, so they will be very similar, although I tried to put in some extra reading where I could.

Essays were marked by teachers who also mark for the OCR exam board.

Notes:

Philosophy

Christianity

Ethics

Essays

#a level religious studies #a level revision #a levels #philosophy #religious studies #ocr religious studies #ocr rs #a level rs #a level philosophy #a level christianity #a level help