Outline two key objections to the Ontological Argument and explain the responses made to them. The ontological argument was first introduced by Anselm in the ‘Prosologian’. It is an a priori argument as it is not based on empirical evidence but id deductive and analytic in that it allows one to use logical reasoning to reach a logically necessary conclusion which, in theory, cannot be disputed. Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC) and states that everyone, theist or not, can accept this definition. He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists.
Analyse the essential ideas in the Ontological Argument The Ontological (meaning ‘concerned with being’) argument is the only a priori argument for the existence of God. This means that it does not rely on the evidence of our senses for its premises or conclusion. It works by logical stages, which is self evidently true or logically necessary. This is one of its major strengths. It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises.
Although Popper never applied the falsification principle directly to religious language, it is clear that this could pose challenges to religious beliefs as you cannot falsify a religious statement. However, you could say it doesn’t pose a challenge to religious beliefs as Popper never applied the falsification principle to religious beliefs and could have had a different view towards religious statements. However, John Hick (1922-present) argued from the side of religion saying that the falsification principle doesn’t offer any real challenges to religious beliefs. This is because Hick believed in eschatological verification, this is that a statement can be verifiable if true but not falsifiable if false. This means that if religious statements are
The main reason Lawrence Cunningham and John Kelsay use a phenomenological view point towards religion is for a better understanding. A better understand on a number of aspects for multiple different religions. The phenomenological approach helps them accomplish this by letting them look at religion in an un-bias way and be totally accepting of that religion’s traditions and ideas of sacred. They state in the text, “At its simplest, a phenomenological approach leads to an effort to understand religious thought and behavior from the point of view of the religious person.”, (Cunningham and Kelsay 4) this means that if that person says that a certain book or object is sacred we take them at their word that that book or object is sacred. Phenomenology is also geared towards creating a framework for understanding religious traditions.
Just like a religious believer who states “god loves us” but can’t explain the contradiction of evil in the world, believers qualify their statements by explaining god’s love is not like humans love he calls this “death by a thousand qualifications”. Therefore religious language is meaningless. However religion has responded to the falsification principle. R.B Braithwaite argued that the falsification principle explains religious language as cognitive when it if in fact non cognitive and therefore cannot be falsified, religious language is therefore still meaningful. Hare also responds to the falsification principle, showing that religious statements are meaningful even though they cannot be falsified because they have a significant impact for the people using the statement.
This means that to have morals God has to exist. Another argument that I’m going to examine is Scriptural Ethics, which goes against the statement. This means that people should get their morals from Holy Scriptures and text like The Bible and The Qur’an
Aquinas argued that the definition of God cannot be comprehended by humans. As humans are finite, and God is infinite, it is impossible for humans to make an accurate definition of God. Another issue with the ontological argument is its problems with proving existence just from a description. David Hume claimed that it was impossible to derive existence from a definition. Hume was an empiricist, and therefore believes that for something to exist, there must be evidence that can be accessed by the senses.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
There are strengths and weaknesses in both models. I felt both had a weakness in that they assume there is a basic assumption that is wrong in order to create a problem and did not leave room for biological factors. In Crabb’s model it all starts with a “need” that has to be filled. To me, this is a weakness because it does not allow for medical disorders. In making sure that the secular psychology principles align with biblical thinking the biological issues seem to be forgotten.
Daniel Greenblatt PHIL 1600 Evaluation of The Argument From Religious Experience By first analyzing C.B Broad’s “Argument from Religious Experience, then anaylzing how he explains the arguement, this essay will conclude that religious experiences are indeed not veridical. First and foremost it is important to note that Broad does not say that claims pertaining to the natural world from religious experience should be taken as veridical. While he does not explicitly say so, he does not consider the argument from religious experience as a confirmation of God’s existence. Broad concentrates on the credibility of the experience and any claims related to it. He states that it is logical to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different places, times, and ways of life, and when they have the same rational explanations of the experiences, it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is evidence to believe otherwise.