Component 2: An Introduction to the philosophy of religion



Component 2 Philosophy: Knowledge and Understanding

Complete this chart as you revise this component. Use pencil. When you become more familiar with the terms, you can rub out your earlier evaluations of your K & U.

|THEME 1 : ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - inductive |

|Key Term |Definition |My Knowledge (what it is) |

| | |My Understanding (what it means) |

| |On the basis of experience; used of an argument, such as the | |

|a posteriori |cosmological argument, which is based on experience or empirical |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |evidence. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Relating to beauty. | |

|aesthetic | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A teleological argument that claims that nature has been planned in| |

|anthropic argument |advance for the needs of human beings |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - 13th Century Dominican priest, | |

| |commonly regarded as the most influential philosopher and |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Aquinas, Thomas St |theologian of the Roman Catholic Church. The works for which he is | |

| |best known are Summa Theologica in which he summarized five |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |arguments (The Five Ways) for the existence of God, and Summa | |

| |Contra Gentiles | |

| |A set of statements which is such that one of them (the conclusion)| |

|argument |is supported or implied by the others (the premises). |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Not just human beings but anything that has a property. | |

|beings | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The belief in a personal deity, creator of everything that exists, | |

| |who is distinct from that creation and is sustainer and preserver |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Classical theism |of the universe. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Beings that depend upon something else for their existence. They | |

|contingent beings |have the property that they need not be, or could have been |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |different. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Argument for the existence of God based on the existence of the | |

| |universe; commonly associated with Aquinas’ concepts of motion, |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|cosmological argument |causality and contingency. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |William Lane Craig (1949- ), one of the proponents of the modern | |

|Craig, William Lane |day Kalam aspect of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |God. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A collection of arguments which, when formed together, present a | |

| |stronger case than when the arguments stand alone. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|cumulative arguments | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |That which causes change and motion to start and stop. In many | |

| |cases, this is simply the thing that brings something about. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|efficient cause | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The view that the dominant foundation of knowledge is experience. | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|empiricism | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A Latin phrase meaning “out of nothing”. Refers to the belief that | |

| |God did not use any previously existing material when he created. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Ex nihilo | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Existing or remaining; in theology it refers to God’s involvement | |

| |in creation. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|immanent | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Argument constructed on possibly true premises reaching a logically| |

| |possible and persuasive conclusion. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|inductive argument | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A chain of causes or sequence of reasoning that can never come to | |

| |an end. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|infinite regression | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The view that an intelligent cause (which is not identified) | |

| |accounts for certain features of the universe. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|intelligent design | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A form of the cosmological argument that rests on the idea that the| |

| |universe had a beginning in time |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Kalam argument | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), 17th/18th century German | |

| |philosopher and mathematician, whose principle of sufficient reason|K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm |supports the cosmological arguments for the existence of God. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

|motion |In Aquinas’ First Way of the Cosmological argument, it refers to |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |the process by which an object acquires a new form. |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A key mechanism of evolution. It is the principle by which each | |

| |slight variation, if useful, is preserved and the trait passed on |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|natural selection |to the next generation. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Beings which if they exist, cannot not exist; beings which are not | |

| |dependent on any other for their existence. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|necessary beings | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A key feature upon which the teleological argument for the | |

| |existence of God rests – that both order and regularity are |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |observable phenomena within the experiential universe, leading to | |

|order and regularity |inference that this is a deliberate feature of some intelligent |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |being, responsible for the workings of the universe. | |

| |William Paley (1743-1805), 18th century, English clergyman | |

| |(Archdeacon of Carlisle) and philosopher, famed for his Watchmaker |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Paley, William |analogy, which forms part of the teleological argument for the | |

| |existence of God. |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |There is some sort of explanation, known or unknown, for | |

|Principle of sufficient reason |everything. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The likelihood of something happening or being true. | |

|probability | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The reason why something is in existence or being done. | |

|purpose | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A Latin word meaning ‘according to’ or ‘relating to’. | |

|qua | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Argument for the existence of God based on observation of design | |

|teleological argument |and purpose in the world. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Fredrick Robert Tennant (1866-1957) 19th/20th Century English | |

| |philosopher who developed forms of aesthetic arguments to infer the|K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |existence of an intelligent designer behind the Universe. Within |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |his book, Philosophical Theology, he also advocated a form of the | |

|Tennant, Fredrick, Robert |anthropic principle (although he did not use the term itself) to | |

| |support his arguments for God’s existence | |

| | | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|theistic |That which pertains to God. |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

|THEME 2 : ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD – deductive |

|Key Term |Definition |My Knowledge (what it is) |

| | |My Understanding (what it means) |

| |Without or prior to experience; used of an argument, such as the | |

|a priori |ontological argument, which is based on acquired knowledge |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |independent of or prior to experience. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |St Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109) - formulated the ontological | |

|Anselm, St |argument which showed how the existence of God on could be |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |understood on the basis of reason alone. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |An argument in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion| |

|deductive argument |must be true |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |René Descartes (1596-1650); promoted reason as most reliable basis | |

|Descartes, René |for knowledge and analysis and used the method of doubt as a means |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |to arrive at metaphysical truth. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The essential nature of something | |

|essence | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Relating to existence | |

|existential | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A strong belief or trust in something of someone | |

|faith | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Contemporary to St Anselm, criticised the ontological argument by | |

|Gaunilo |the counter argument of the ‘most perfect island’. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Immanuel Kant (1724-1804); German philosopher and critic of the | |

| |ontological argument who used the moral argument to contend for |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Kant, Immanuel |God’s existence and life after death. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Norman Malcolm (1911-1990) argued for a form of the ontological | |

|Malcolm, Norman |argument based on defining God as an unlimited being and concluded |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |that God exists necessarily. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|necessary beings |Beings which if they exist, cannot not exist; beings which are not |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |dependent on any other for their existence. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The characteristic of being all-powerful. Some philosophers exclude| |

|omnipotence |the power to do the logically impossible |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The characteristic of being all-knowing of all things actual and | |

|omniscience |possible. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Argument for the existence of God based on the concept of the | |

|ontological argument |nature of being. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Something that adds to our concept of the subject | |

|predicate | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The evidence which supports the fact, idea or belief. | |

|proof | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Nature or character | |

|property | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |This relates to Anselm’s concept of the necessary existence of the | |

|supremely perfect being |most perfect conceivable being, i.e. God, in his ontological |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |argument. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

|THEME 3 : CHALLENGES TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF- the problem of evil and suffering |

|Key Term |Definition |My Knowledge (what it is) |

| | |My Understanding (what it means) |

| |St Augustine (c354-430) - Early Christian Bishop of Hippo (North | |

| |Africa). Early Church Father, converted to Christianity relatively |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Augustine, St |late on in his life. Great intellectual force responsible for the | |

| |formalisation of what is now accepted as Christian orthodoxy in |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |terms of belief and ethics. Famous works include his Confessions | |

| |and The City of God. | |

| |Argument based on genesis and the Fall. Evil is caused by created | |

|Augustinian-type theodicy |beings, not God. People’s response to evil and God’s rescue plan |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |decides their destiny. Often referred to as soul-deciding. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The belief in a personal deity, creator of everything that exists, | |

|Classical theism |who is distinct from that creation and is sustainer and preserver |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |of the universe. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A distance of knowledge. A phrase used by John Hick in his | |

| |development of Irenaeus’s theodicy to refer to the distance of |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|epistemic distance |knowledge between God and humankind, so allows human beings to | |

| |choose freely. |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Meaning that all things will be made clear or ‘justified’ in the | |

|eschatological justification |end times or ‘eschaton’. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |That which produces suffering; the moral opposite of good. | |

|evil | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causes| |

| |or by divine intervention. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|freewill | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The presence of evil is deliberate and helps people to grow and | |

| |develop. Often referred to as soul-making. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Irenaean-type theodicy | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |J. L. Mackie (1917-1981), 20th Century Australian philosopher who | |

| |famously formulated the inconsistent triad as an expression for the|K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Mackie, J. L. |classical problem of evil. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Events in which responsible actions by human beings cause suffering| |

| |or harm e.g. war. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|moral evil | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Events caused by nature that cause suffering but over which human | |

| |beings have little or no control e.g. earthquakes. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|natural evil | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Gregory S. Paul (1954- ), 21st century palaeontologist and | |

| |theological observer, who stated that the statistical weight of the|K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Paul, Gregory S. |amount of suffering experienced by children challenges the | |

| |Christian understanding of a benevolent creator God. |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Deprivation or absence of something that ought to be there; term | |

| |used in Augustinian theodicy – evil is seen as an absence of good. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|privation | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |William Rowe (1931-2015), 20th/21st Century American philosopher | |

| |who stated that the weight of evidence of suffering in the world |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Rowe, William |proved that God could not exist. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Moral goods that result from a response to evil e.g. compassion | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Second-order goods | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A concept within the traditions of the Augustinian theodicy that | |

| |describes how suffering helps humans to choose whether to do good |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|soul-deciding |(and choose the path God intended) or to do evil (and to reject the| |

| |plan God had for humanity). |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A concept within the traditions of the Irenaean theodicy that | |

| |describes how suffering helps humans develop morally (from God’s |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|soul-making |‘image’ into his ‘likeness’ – c.f. Genesis 1:26) | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A justification of the righteousness of God, given the existence of| |

| |evil. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|theodicy | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

|THEME 4 : RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE |

|Key Term |Definition |My Knowledge (what it is) |

| | |My Understanding (what it means) |

| |Deliberate self-denial of bodily pleasures for the attainment of | |

| |spiritual fulfilment. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|asceticism | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Christians of various groups who seek an ecstatic religious | |

| |experience, often including speaking in tongues. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|charismatic | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |To change direction or to turn around | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|conversion | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Relating to descriptions of mystical experiences as a basis for | |

| |challenging their authenticity. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|description-related | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |A belief that needs no further proof to support it. | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|foundational belief | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Caroline Franks Davis - scholar who demonstrated how the | |

| |authenticity of religious experiences could be challenged. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Davis, Caroline | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Existing or remaining; in theology it refers to God’s involvement | |

| |in creation. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|immanent | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Defies expression, unutterable, indescribable, indefinable. | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|ineffable | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |William James (1842-1910) 19th/20th Century American psychologist | |

| |renowned for investigations into religious experience and |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|James, William |mysticism. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The view that there is only one basic and fundamental reality. | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|monism | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|mystical |Experiences or systematic meditation, which cause a heightened |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |awareness of the divine or an ultimate reality. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Gaining special knowledge or insights that are unobtainable by the | |

| |intellect alone; usually as a result of a mystical experience. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|noetic | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |An experience of the holy; something wholly other than the natural | |

| |world and beyond comprehension. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|numinous | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Relating to the object (that that was experienced) of mystical | |

| |experiences as a basis for challenging their authenticity. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|object-related | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) in his book The Idea of the Holy defined | |

| |the concept of the holy as that which is numinous. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Otto, Rudolf | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Where the recipient(s) of the mystical experience do not bring it | |

| |about themselves – the actual moment is governed by a being or |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|passive |force external to the will of the recipient. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Relating to the subject (recipient) of mystical experiences as a | |

| |basis for challenging their authenticity. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|subject-related | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Having its source within the mind | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|subjective | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The mystical tradition within Islam. | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|Sufism | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Having existence outside the material universe. | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|transcendent | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |The experience may be short-lived, but the effects tend to last | |

| |much longer than the experience itself. |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|transient | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|veridical |When the object of the experience actually exists as a reality and |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |not just in the imagination. | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Something seen other than by ordinary sight. | |

| | |K 1 2 3 4 5 |

|vision | | |

| | |U 1 2 3 4 5 |

Component 2 Philosophy: Key questions

Complete this chart as you revise this component. Use pencil. When you become more familiar with answering the questions, you can rub out your earlier evaluations.

The questions in bold are the questions specified by the exam board. The questions not in bold are questions you need to be able to answer in order to answer the questions specified by the exam board.

|Area |Key Question |My ability to answer this question |

|Theme 1: Arguments for the |Are inductive arguments for God’s existence persuasive? | |

|Existence of God – Inductive | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

|A | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will be informed | | |

|by the questions of section C** | | |

| |How does an a posteriori argument work? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |How effective is the cosmological argument in proving God’s | |

| |existence? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |How does Aquinas’ first Three Ways support the need for a First | |

| |Cause to the universe? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Why does Aquinas say that this First Cause must be God? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |To what extent is the Kalam argument convincing? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Why did Craig feel that actual infinities were impossible? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Why must the decision to create a universe be a deliberate | |

| |personal action? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Is the cosmological argument for God’s existence persuasive in the | |

| |21st Century? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|Theme 1: Arguments for the |How effective is the teleological argument in proving God’s | |

|existence of God- Inductive |existence? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|B | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will be informed | | |

|by the questions of section C** | | |

| |Is the teleological argument for God’s existence persuasive in the | |

| |21st Century? |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 1: Arguments for the |How effective are the challenges to the cosmological and | |

|existence of God – Inductive |teleological arguments for God’s existence? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|C | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will inform the | | |

|questions of A and B** | | |

| |What does Hume require of a philosophical argument? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |What problems does Hume have with analogies? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |What are the logical consequences of accepting the analogies used | |

| |to argue for God’s existence? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Are the scientific explanations for the existence of the universe | |

| |more persuasive than the philosophical explanations? |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 2: Arguments for the |To what extent are a priori arguments for the existence of God | |

|existence of God –deductive |persuasive? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|A | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will be informed | | |

|by the questions of section C** | | |

| |How does an a priori argument work? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |To what extent do different religious views on the nature of God | |

| |impact on the arguments for the existence of God? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |How effective is the ontological argument for God’s existence? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Is the ontological more persuasive than either the teleological or | |

| |cosmological arguments? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

|Theme 2: Arguments for the |To what extent do different religious views on the nature of God | |

|existence of God –deductive |impact on the arguments for the existence of God? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|B | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will be informed | | |

|by the questions of section C** | | |

| |How effective is the ontological argument for God’s existence? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |Is the ontological more persuasive than either the teleological or | |

| |cosmological arguments? |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 2: Arguments for the |How effective are the challenges to the ontological argument for | |

|existence of God –deductive |the existence of God? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|C | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will inform the | | |

|questions of A and B** | | |

| |To what extent are the objections to the ontological argument | |

| |persuasive? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Why can existence not be a predicate? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |How does Gaunilo’s Island example ridicule Anselm’s logic? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 3: Challenges to religious |How can evil be defined? | |

|belief - the problem of evil and | |1 2 3 4 5 |

|suffering | | |

| | | |

|A | | |

| |To what extent is the classical form of the problem of evil a | |

| |problem for believers? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |To what degree are modern problem of evil arguments effective in | |

| |proving God’s non-existence? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

|Theme 3: Challenges to religious |Are Augustinian type theodicies relevant in the 21st Century? | |

|belief - the problem of evil and | |1 2 3 4 5 |

|suffering | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|B | | |

| |To what extent does Augustine’s theodicy succeed as a defence of | |

| |the God of Classical Theism? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |How does Schleiermacher critique Augustinian type theodicies? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |What are the strengths and weaknesses of Augustinian type | |

| |theodicies? |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 3: Challenges to religious |Are Irenaean type theodicies credible in the 21st Century? | |

|belief - the problem of evil and | | |

|suffering | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| | | |

|C | | |

| |Do modern versions of the Irenaean type theodicies overcome the | |

| |difficulties of the earlier versions? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |To what extent does Irenaeus’ theodicy succeed as a defence of the | |

| |God of Classical Theism? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Irenaean theodicy? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 4: Religious Experience |What is the impact of religious experiences upon religious belief | |

| |and practice? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

|A | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will be informed | | |

|by the questions of section C** | | |

| |Can different types of religious experience be accepted as equally | |

| |valid in communicating religious teachings and beliefs? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

| |How does Teresa of Avila explain the stages and types of prayer? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |Where will you find exemplification of the four stated types of | |

| |religious experience? |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 4: Religious Experience |How adequate are James’ four characteristics in defining mystical | |

| |experiences? |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

|B | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will be informed | | |

|by the questions of section C** | | |

| |What are examples to explain these characteristics? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |What was the context James was writing in? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |How adequate is Otto’s definition of ‘numinous’? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| |What are examples to explain Otto’s concept of the numinous? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

|Theme 4: Religious Experience |To what extent are challenges to religious experience valid? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

| | | |

|C | | |

| | | |

|**these questions will inform the | | |

|questions of A and B ** | | |

| |How persuasive are Franks-Davis’ different challenges? | |

| | |1 2 3 4 5 |

Websites for further information

|Theme |Area |Website |

|1 |William Craig's website. |offices/billcraig/menus |

| |Website on Craig/Leibniz/Cosmological argument | . |

| |Scientific responses to creation/evolution debate. | |

| |A detailed overview of inductive and deductive | |

| |arguments. | |

|2 |A detailed overview of inductive and deductive | |

| |arguments | |

| |Provides useful overview of the Ontological Argument | |

|3 |Film by Joe Jenkins available to buy on DVD or | |

| |download. | |

| |The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Problem | |

| |of Evil (Plato.stanford.edu). | |

|4 |Alister Hardy Religious Experience Research Centre. | |

-----------------------

A self-assessment of how well you know and understand the key terms and how well you feel you could answer the key questions

Component 2: An Introduction to the philosophy of religion

Key terms & Key questions from this component

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download