UNIT 1 PHILOSOPHY OF' RELIGION

Structure
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Defining Religion
1.3 Issues Related to ~ e l i ~ i o h s Belief and God
1.4 Illustration From Religious Tradition of the East
1.5 Summary
1.6 Exercises
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The philosophical investigation of the nature and grounds of religious beliefs is
one of the oldest and most persistent areas of philosophical queries. Religious
belief and practice give rise to a number of philosophical issues - justification
of religious belief, the nature of God and the soul, relation of God to moral
values, nature of miracles, the problem of evil, etc. Do we need God to explain
the origins of the universe? Philosophy of religion is very different to theology.
Theology assumes the existence of God and attempts to justifL the ways of
God to man, whereas philosophy of religion raises the issues which we have
just mentioned regarding religion. These issues still dominate the philosophy
of religion today. In fact philosophy of religion developed as a concept in%
modern period and is associated in particular with the work of such philosophers
as Hume, Kant and Hegel. All religions of the world are intimately concerned
with man's place in nature and his quest for a meaningfid existence. This quest
for a meaninghl existence takes varig forms and approaches. In this Unit we
will try to familiarize you with the idea of God, arguments for and against the
exjsvence of God and how philosophers have tried to explain nature of religion
and religious belief.
1.2 DEFINING RELIGION
The word "religion" does not always carry the same meaning. Some people
use i t to mean belief in God (or Gods). For others, religion means total
coditrnent or total dedication to something, not necessarily. God. The cause
tclrtvhich one dedicates himself becomes "his religion". A person's religion can
also be defined as "whatever a person does with his leisure time". The variations
.on the use of the word are endless. A God believer need not necessarily be
religious. To be religious, matters such as prayer, membership in a religious
organisation, thought and meditation about religious matters, dedication to a
way of life and emotional involvement in a religious id& are required.
1
Many aspects of religion are of no concern to philosophers. They are not
concerned with the psychology of believers but with the justification of belief.
In other words with what arguments can religious belief be defended or attacked?
Approaches To The Study of What kind of belief is belief in God? If God is belief in a supernatural being
Religion
what is meant by "supernatural being"? The believer in God holds that in
addition to the material universe of planets, stars and galaxies, atoms and energy,
there is something else - a power (or powers) that created and sustains the
I
universe. That power (powers) also created the laws of nature and can suspend
1
these laws at will. According to theism, God has created and sustained the
universe. (Christianity, Mohammedanism and Judaism are all theistic). On the
other hand, in ancient Greek religion Gods did not create the universe but only
gave it new form. According to deism God does not sustain the material universe
but only created it and thereafter lets it run by itself. In every case, however,
there is believed to be something in reality other than the universe of matter and
energy studied by physics and other sciences - perhaps a supernatural mindi'a
"cosmic consciousness" - but at any rate, a power that exists in addition to the
universe perceived with the senses or investigated by science. Is belief in God
justified? Is there anything called God realisation? Does God exist as the
object to give that experience to human beings? Let us turn to some of the
traditional arguments now.
1.3 ISSUES RELATED TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF
AND GOD
i
Philosophers question, whether existence is a property that is essential to
greatness or perfection. Irnmanuel Kant criticized the ontological argument
(Refer to BOX 1). He declared that existence isnot a property. When one says
that unicorn is a horse with a horn, and the creature exists does my one add
anything to the list of unicorn's properties? Not at all, said Kant. When a-
property is not added to the list one refers to an object which has all these
properties.
There are various forms of cosmological arguments (Refer to BOX 2). All of
themhave their starting point with familiar facts of experience, that things exist
in universe, events occur, causes operate, and .!hey will require a cause or an
explanation. It is argued, the only\thing that can provide this is God. Saint
Thomas Aquinas (1 225- 1274) and Samuel Clarke (1 675- 1729) are considered
to be the chief proponents of the cosmological argument in Western philosophy.
Of Aquinas' five arguments for the existence of God, the first three are the
versions of the cosmological argument. His first argument attempts to explain
the existence of motion. How did any thing in the universe get moving? The
second argument was a causal one. Everything that happens, it is said, has a
cause. (The causal argument assumes this proposition to be true). If everything
has a cause, the universe too must Have a cause, and that cause is God. But still
the question persists: doesn't there have to be a first cause to set the entire
series of other causes in motion? sh$urdn7t there at least be a first event? God,
however, is not usually referred to (in Western philosophy) be a first event, but
rather referred as enduring being who created the material universe and thus
caused its first event to occur. In either case we face the same question -
whether a first event or a first being. Many children ask this question, if a
everything has a cause, then God too has a cause; and what caused God? The
question cannot be dismissed. If everything *thout exception has a cause,
doesn't that include God too?
BOX 1 .
P ~ U O S O ~ ~ ~ of Rellgion
Arthur ~ ho ~ e nha ue r (1 788-1 860) remarked that the causal argument is used
as if a taxi is being used. A taxi is used topach wherever one wants to reach,
and one does not czire about the taxi reaching destination. In other words a
causal principle is used to get to God. If God had no cause, was he the cause
himself! David Hume, has an interesting observation in his Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion. "If we stop, and go no farther, why go so far?
'Why not stop at the material world? . . . And after all'what satisfaction is there
in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher
and his elephant.. . It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present
material world. By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within
itself, we really assert it to be God".
7
L
Ontolqical Arguments
Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises
which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world - e.g.,
from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are argumentS from nothing but
analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury
in the I 1' Centwy, A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of
God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm
reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater* being - namely, a being than
which no greater can be conceived, and which exists - can be conceived. But this would
be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So
a being pan which no greater can be conceived - i.e., God - exists,
In the Seventeenth century, Rene Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For
instance, in thefiph Meditation, Descartes claims to provide a proof.demonsgating the
existence of God from the idea ofa supremely perfect being. Descartes argues that there is
no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than
there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence,
he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being - we do have the idea of a
supremely perfect being - we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists.
In the early eighteenth century, Gottfiied Leibniz attempted to fill what he took to be a
shortcoming in Descartes' view. According to Leibniz, Descartes' arguments fail unless
one first shows that the idea of a supremely perfect being is coherent, or that it is possible
for there to be a supremely perfect being. Leibniz argued that, since perfections are
unanalysable, it is impossible to demonstrate that perfections are incompatible - and he
concluded from this that all perfections can co-exist together in a single entity.
In more recent times, Kurt Godel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm and Alvin
Plantinga have all presented much -discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting
connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Of these, the
most interesting are those of Godel and Plantinga; in these cases, however, it is unclear
whether we should really say that these authors claim that the arguments are proofs of the
existence of God.
Critiques of ontological begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Anselm. Perhaps the
best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique
of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by
their reliance upon the implicit assumption that "existence" is a predicate. However, as
B e m d Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments,
i are no good that it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps td plain why
ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for ahnost a thousand years.
I
Source: Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
-
BOX 2
Approaches To The Study of
Religion >
I The Qosmological Argument
The basic notion of cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is
dependent on something other than itself for its existence. In other words, despite the fact
that the world seems to be self-perpetuating one needs to consider the sohce of all that
there is.
Although the cosmological argument was famously expressed in three of Thomas Aquinas'
Five Ways (rational arguments for the existence of God), there is an early. form of it in the
writings of Plato (see Plato's Cosmological Argument), and the argument is also largely
grounded in the metaphysics of Aristotle. Both Plato and Aristotle argued that the fact of
motion (i.e. things move) requires a mover ('. . . the series must start with something for
nothing can come from nothing' (Aristotle)). The key idea is that if something exists there
must be preliminary factors that have influenced (and caused) it to exist. An example
might be to say that if the computer I am currently using to write these words on exists
then there must have been certain individuals who weretresponsible for its design and
construction. It is certainly true that if they had not lived (existed) then this computer
would quite possibly not be in front of me today.
Although Aquinas is the most well known exponent of the cosmological Argument other
forms have also been explored. For instance, Leibniz attempted to explain why there was
something rather than nothing in the universe (see Leibniz 'On the Ultimate Orginiation
of Things'). In the modernera, those who have wanted to question the notion of causation
and medieval physics have argued that the fact the universe has existence means it must
have had a beginning. This latter view can be found in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
In its most widely accepted forms the cosmological argument asks questions about the
origin of the world around us. If we accept the idea that everything depends on something
else for its existence then by continually regressing back we will surely arrive at the first
cause behind all things which exist today. This fact is assumed by both Christians and
scientists who argue that the world and everything in it exists because of a 'first cause'.
Scientists would argue that the first cause was the Big Bang (Evolution): Christians (and
other theistic religions) believe God (or the Divine) was the first cause of all there is
(Creation).
The cosmological argument not only seeks to reason the existence of God but could also be
said to provide a meaning to life in the world. For instance, if we know. where we have
come from then surely, it could be argued, we have some idea of where are we going?
Theists could obviously claim that if life begins with God then life has a purpose with God.
However, atheists could argue that if life began from a series of natural causes then the
purpose to life must be found in biology. This is the teaching of atheist evolutionists such
as Richard Dawkins who believe that our purpose in life is simply to propagate our genes
and successfilly pass them onto the next generation. . . .
One of the main issues with regard to the cosmological argument for the existence of God
is what the role of God is after the world has been created? Certainly it can be aigued that
God could be the first. cause (either .as creation out-of-nothing ( 'ex nihilo ' Genesis 1-2) or
a form of theistic evolution (God as the cause of the evolutionary process - the power
behind the Big Bang?)). However, the law of the conservation of energy (that the amount
of energy in the universe must remain constant in order for there to be 'laws of nature')
means that God could not be continually putting energy into the world. This questions
God's activity infhe universe and thus the question of miracles. Thus ~ b d as the first
cause may only be the fmt cause. God may not be the causing or causes! This then leads
us to the notion of deism in that after setting it in motion God has withdrawn from the
world and merely observe it from-a distance (like a watchmaker winding up a watch and
watching it work, run down and stop). But if is is so what reason is there for believing
in God and practicing religion today? Furthermore,why believe that a God who may have
set the world in motion is still around? It may have been that in the act of being the first
cause of all there is God 'burnt out' and died. God might even have gone off to do a better
job of creating universes elsewhere! Even if God is still around the Cosmological Argument
has not solved the further issue of which God actually created the world. This latter point
may only be solved on the basis of special revelation (which is outside the boundary of the
Cosmological Argument as presented here).
Source: http:llwww.faithnet.freeserve.co.uklcosmologicalargument.htm
Some philosophers have pointed out that the word "cause" is being misused by
carrying it outside the realm in which it has a meaning. Knowledge of causes
1 lies entirely within the realm of spatio-temporal things, processes and evevts.
1 If we extend the principle into some trans-empirical realm then it arnodts to
desert the empirical world in which all known causes occur. Kant wrote, "The
principle of causality has no meaning and no criterion for its application save
only in the sensible world. But in the cosmological proof it is precisely in order
to enable us to advance beyond the sensible world that it is employed". The
causal argument can at best give only the first cause. It cannot give us any of
1
the deities of traditional religions. Similarly the ontological argument can give
us a that-than-which-nothing can be greater etc. But in most religions God is a
personality, having human characteristics such as goodness and power and mercy,
only in far greater degree. There is a pervasive human tendency to identify the
first cause with a person whose volition's cause the universe and all that is in it.
If we go by empirical evidence of causes there is no evidence that mind or
volition goes back in the history of universe.
The universe contains countless contingent beings. It is generally argued that a
contingent being presupposes necessary being. The whole series of dependent
beings need an explanation. Should depending be grounded somewhere in
nondependency? Why is there a universe? The question exerts a powerful
psychological effect and elicits an argument in defence of miracles. Miracles
occur at various times in human history. Occurrence of miracles is taken as a
proof of the existence of God.
Philosaphy of Religion
What exactly is required for an event to be miraculous? It must be an unusual
event. It would make us suspect that there are laws of nature we did not know
or yet to know. J.S. Mill observed that an event cannot be considered a miracle
no matter how strange it is, if it would occur again, if the same set of conditions
were repeated. In other words, to constitute a miracle, an event must take
place without having been preceded by a set of conditions that are sufficient to
make it happen again. Philosophers have also attempted to define miracles as
an intervention of God. Some have asked the question whether there are miracles
in this sense?
Of all arguments, the one with the widest appeal is the teleological argument
('Telos' means purpose). It also means 'design'. It appeals to empirically
observable features of the universe and attempts to infer from these_tharGod
exists - not necessarily God the creator, or God the first cause, but God as
cosmic designer. Universe contains abundant evidence of order and design -
evidence that a "master architect" has been at work. It is not blind chance but
order and purpose that govern the universe. When there is purpose there must
be a purposer; where there is design, there must be a designer. What kind of
being must'the designer of Cosmos be? Is he (she or it?) a person - a personality
with intelligence, wisdom and other human qualities? When Plato discussed
the hypothesis of a designer (or artificer) in his dialogue 'Iimaeus he never
Approaches TO he Study of assumled that the cosmic designer created the universe from nothing. Was the
Religion
designer benevolent or evil? Was he willing to prevent evil? Is he able and
willing? Hume put the argument as dilemma. "If the evil in the world is from
the intention of the Deity, then he is not benevdent. If the evil in the world is
contrary to his intention, then he is not omnipotent. But it is either in accordance
with his intention or contrary to it. Therefore, either the Deity is not benevolent
or he is not omnipotent."
There are other arguments that circumvent the problem of evil. They are an
omnipotent being who is malevolent (Satan), a benevolent but not omnipotent
designer, Ditheism (Zoroastrian and Manichean argument of conflicting deities),
Polytheism, and finally the cosmic organism. What people do with the
teleological argument depends largely on which features of the world they start
with. If one starts with ships instead of watches, one arri es at the hypothesis
that the universe was the result of many centuries of accumu \ ated experience in
world making. If one starts with desert wastes, one gets the hypothesis of
sloppy and inefficient designer who did not have human well-being in mind.
The universe contains so many things, each with so many different properties,
that there is virtually no argument from analogy that we cannot construct,
depending on which features we select.
I
The history of religion reveals a perpetual antagonism between the domain of
science and supernatural revelation. The warfare between reason and belief is
*
conducted with f a t , weapons in five different fields. There are five fundamental
concepts of reality kn~\wn as atom, life, consciousness, reason and intuition
corresponding to Vedantic terms Annamaya, Pranamaya, Manomaya,
Vijnnanamaya and Anandamaya. The world views presented by the sciences
dealing with the categories are Physical Science, Biology, Psychology,
Philosophy and Aesthetics which in turn termed as Mechanism, Vitalism,
Panpsychism, Rationalism and Subjective Mysticism. Religion organises its
own forces of supernaturalism, animism, anthropomorphism, theology and
fbndamentalism and contests science on its own terms. Science employs the
canons of higher criticism based on the evidence of sense perception and
reasoning and shakes theology to its very foundations. Theology relies on
supersensuous knowledge to demolish reason and reject the heresies of science.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION MEDIATES BETWEEN THE TWO
EXTREMES AND HARMONISES THEIR DIFFERENCES FROM A
HIGHER POINT OF VIEW.
Mechanism employs the concept of atoms and explains the laws of nature
with mathematical accuracy in the light of logical methods. Naturalism reigns
supreme in the physical order. Philosophers argue that mechanism is only a
device of thought and it does not exhaust experience. Where naturalism ends
supernaturalism begins. Supernaturalism distrusts sense perception and appeals
to myths and miracles. Biology explains reality in terms of teleology and
substitutes living organism made of cells for the mere mechanical aggregate.
The protoplasm and prana originate and fbnction from within and are not
externally determined like matter and motion. Life has the power of self-
emergence and spontaneity and has a special mode of behaviour. Life responds
to the stimulus, reproduces itself and is sugtained by persistence and variation.
The vitalist views reality as a creative impulse, elan vital or entelechy. The
vitalist idea of entity is a mythical and mysterious thing which lands us in
Animism. Animism is the belief that the source of life is breath or pram different
from body and it attributes life and divinity to the natural forces. The soul
becomes the double or shadow of the body, survives after death and haunts the
graveyard. Animism gives rise to the belief in ancestral worship; fetishism and
possession.
Psychology marks the transition from the category of cell to that of sensation.
It studies consciousness as a stream of presentation with conative and affective
elements giving rise to the perception of the empirical self. Reality is Manomaya
and monadic. Mentalism commits us to subjectivism. Religion reacts against
panpsychism and Bows into anthropomorphism. This theory ascribes the origin
of the universe to Divine Thought, feeling and will and interprets the Divine
nature on the analogy of human experience. Reality is Vijnnanamaya or Rational.
The category of reason marks the transition from consciousness to self-
consciousness or discursive thought. It employs the logical method of
discovering and determining truth and advances arguments to prove the Being
of God. Rationalism whether it is metaphysical or theological ends in agnosticism
and positivism. There is no passage from nature to nature's God and the proofs
of God admit of no finality or consistency. Religion protests against rationalism
and distrusts reason, takes refuge in traditionalism and scriptural faith.
Philosophy stimulates thought but does not satisfy the'soul. Gnosticism afErms
the Knowability of God and is answered by agnosticism. Agnosticism ends in
a@solutism and thus a vicious circle is formed. Absolutism which is the
completion of agnosticism invites us to worship the universe and its units and
affords no scope for love.
Reality is Anandamaya or the bliss of mystic intuition, sense perception and
reasons are not the only gateways of knowledge. While rationalism infers truth,
mysticism intuits it without going through any logical stages. Reason dissects
reality in the interests of life and gives spatial diagrams. The rationalist worships
at the gate of God, but the mystic enters the inner shrine. Theology disputes
the claims of mysticism and takes its stand on the bedrock of Revelation.
Scriptural text, as the word of God gains importance. Historic and higher
criticism is entirely opposed to this fundamentalist faith and it evaluates its
authority in terms of human values.
John Hick ( in his Philosophy of Religion) distinguishes three usages of the
term Philosophy of Religion - viz. philosophic defence of religious convictions,
natural as distinguished fiom "revealed theology" and philosophical thinking
about religion. (Apologetics, natural theology and philosophy of religion). From
a certain point of view, truth is truth whether one calls it religion or philosophy,
but philosophy of religion is concerned with the ways in which religions arrive
at their truths and the claims they make about it. The case of Buddhism is
a classic example to prove these points. Walpola Sri Rahula asked "Is Buddhism
a religion or a philosophy?. . . .. The label is immaterial. Buddhism is opposed
to revelation per se as the valid basis of religion. Then is it a philosophy? The
particular way of knowing produced Traditionalists, Rationalists and
Experimentalists. Buddha identifies himself as an Experimentalist.
Experimentalists depended on direct personal knowledge and experience
including extrasensory perception. Many of the thinkers of Late Upanishads,
Philosophy of Religion
Approaches TO The Study of
some of the Ajivikas and Jains also belong to this group. May be even the
Religion
materialists and empiricists also fall under this category although they denied
the validity of claims to extrasensory perception. Buddhism cannot be described
as philosophy also.
1.4 ILLUSTRATION FROM RELIGIOUS
TRADITION OF THE EAST
If Buddhism cannot be characterised either as a religion (when the word religion
is used to mean revealed religion) or philosophy (when philosophy is understood
to be restricted to reason), is it possible to bring Buddhism in relation to the
Western philosophy of religion. In the study of religion in the West many
definitions have been proposed along phenomenological, psychological;
sociologiqil and ethical lines. As early as 191 2 James Leuba had catalogued
forty-eight different definitions of religions. It would be relevant to quote
Edward J. Thomas here in the context of Buddhism as a religion and philosophy.
He says that "Buddhism began by being a religion. It is needless to dispute
about the term religion. If it necessarily implies an intelligent and almighty
entity as the ultimate explanation and the ultimate goal ofthings, then Buddhism
is not a religion. The hdamental dogmas of Buddhism differ so much from
the religious dogmas of religious systems that they cannot be brought under
one definition. In one respect Buddhism was on the side of religion that it
started with fimdadental convictions and became a philosophical system when
it was forced to defend against rival laws".
John Hick argues that the idea of salvation and liberation is widespread among
the religions of the world. World faiths do have a soteriological structure.
(Greek 'soteria', salvation). They offer a transition from a radically
unsatisfactory state to a limitlessly better one. Each speaks in different ways of
the deluded character of the present human existence. It could be 'maya', it
could be 'dukka' or even alienation from God. Each offers their own way to
the ultimate - through faith in response to divine grace; or through total self-
giving to God. It could also be enlightenment and liberation. The Nirvana
represents the ultimate value in Buddhism.
For Buddhists the existence of suffering (dukka) has rendered the idea of God
implausible. They may reject the idea of God, but at the same time accept
freedom of will, human survival, need for cultivating virtue and abstaining from
vice and a state of bliss, perfection, realisation and ultimate freedom. This is of
interest to philosophers of religion, especially the problem of evil. Why do the
Buddhists find it difficult to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of
God? God is all powerful, God must be able to abolish evil.
If God (Brahma) is lord of the whole world and creator of multitude of beings,
then why has he ordained misfortune in the world, for what purpose has he
made a world with injustice, decei), falsehood and conceit qnd why a world of
misery rather than happiness" (Jataka vi.208). It is importwt to note here that
Christianity also chooses to emphasise evil but Buddhism prefers to speak of
suffering. The differexwe in orientation between suffering in theism and
Buddhism must be recognized.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith claims that the very idea of viewing religion as true or
false is a western notion. With the world contracting into a global village a
global perspective on religious tradition of humanity would be more appropriate.
Christianity came to be identified with one major cultural system while Buddhism
came to be identified with different cultural systems of the East - South East
Asian as well as Far-East-Asian and for a time with subsystems such as Sri
Lankan, Chinese, the Thai and even the Japanese. It is true that the major
cultural traditions have had their impact on the development of cultures. What
we call Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are among the resulting
historical-cultural phenomena. Christian ideas were formed within the intellectual
framework of Greek philosophy; the Christian church was moulded as an
institution by the Roman empire and Pax Romana; the catholic mind reflects
something of the Latin Mediterranean temperament where as the Protestant
mind reflects the north Germanic temperament; and so on. Liberals and
conservative are found in all religious traditions. The convoluted connection
of religion with culture possesses a universal psychological variable.
In the Indian subcontinent there has developed a complex variety of religious
paths. All those, that honor the ancient scriptures called the Vedas are commonly
grouped together under the term "Hinduism". This label is derived from a
name applied by foreigners to the people living in the region of the Indus River.
The indigenous term for the Veda-based tradition in the Indian region is
"Sanatana Dharma" (or eternal religion). Sanatana, "eternal" or "ageless"
reflects the belief that the religion has always existed. Dharma is often translated
as "religion", but its meaning encompasses matters of duty, natural law, social
welfare ethics, health, and transcendental realisation. Dharma is a holistic
approach to social coherence and the good of all, corresponding to order in the
cosmos. The spiritual expression of Santana Dharma range from extreme
asceticism to extreme sensuality, from the heights of personal devotion to a
deity to the heights of abstract philosophy, from metaphysical proclamations of
the oneness behind the material world to worship of images representing a
multiplicity of deities. The feeling is that the Divine has countless faces, and all
are divine.
1.5 SUMMARY
Philosophy of religion should employ the scientific method and the canons of
imminent criticism to examine the varieties of religious experience set forth by
supernaturalism, animism, anthropomorphism, dogmatism and fundamentalism.
Religion is the thought of God revealed in faith and realised in intuition. The
eternal verities of religion are veritable in personal experience and are embodied
in the logical idea of rationality, the moral idea of righteousness and the aesthetic
idea of rapture. While philosophy gropes for God without any fixity or finality
in its speculation, theology becomes dogmatic and fanatical by substituting
sect for system and ritualism for righteousness. But in the Philosophy of Religion,
religion illumines Philosophy, and Philosophy justifies religion. Revelation is a
body of eternal objective and spiritual truths treasured up in scripture and
realisable by intuition. Religion mediates between Revelation and Intuition
and corrects the dogmatism of the former and the subjectivism of the latter.
The fallacy o'f anthropomorphism is removed by spiritualizing human values.
Philosophy of Religion
Approaches To The Study of
Man is made in the image of God and he can grow into his transcendental
Religion
purity and perfection. The goodness of man is consummated in the grace of
God.
"I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought to be
believed, but I can feel only reprobation for those who say that religion ought
to be believed because it is useful, and that to ask whether it is true is a waste of
time". Bertrand Russell
"Some people say there is a God; others say there is no God. The truth
probably lies somewhere in between."
W.B. Yeats
1 . 6 EXERCISES
Evaluate the following assertions:
a)
God was the first event.
b)
God caused the first event.
c)
There was no first event, but God is the explanation of why there was
first event as well as any subsequent events.
d)
God was present before time began.
e) God created time.
f)
God created time, then the world.
g)
The universe came from God.
h)
First there was a conscious being (God), a mind without body, who
then created matter (including bodies).
i)
God created space before creating the matter that would occupy space.
j)
Only if one believes in God can one solve the mystery of why anything
exists at all.
k)
If you don't believe in a God who created and designed the universe,
you must believe that everything that happens and ever has happened
is one vast accident.
2)
Describe the kind of universe (if any) that would make each of the following
hypotheses probable.
a)
There are two gods (one good, one evil) fighting for control of the
world.
b)
There are many gods, each with his own sphere of influence.
c)
Everything in the universe tends toward good.
d) - Everything in the universe tends toward evil.
Everything that appears to be bad in the world will in the end turn out
for the best.
f )
Everything that appears to be good in the world will in the end turn
out for the worst.
g) There is one God, both omnipotent and benevolent.
h) There is one God, omnipotent but not benevolent.
i) There is one God, benevolent, but not omnipotent.
Philosophy of Religion
1 3) Discussion
i
a)
Vaccination works and magical incarnatation does not.
)
b) The religious impulse is as much a part of human nature as is the
scientific impulse.
c) Religion does not yield the uniform results that science does. The
claims of various religions contradict one another.
I'
d) dometimes people get what they pray for, sometimes they don't. How
i
does that show that they get what they want because they pray for it?
e) The innocent often suffers and the guilty goes unpunished in this life.
There must be another life in which $he wrongs are righted and each
I person is judged by an impartial God. -
I
f )
Why do occurrences are labeled as "miracles"?
1 g) Is God the cause of greater longevity or advances in medical science?
i
I
h)
Should the teleological argument be considered a scientific theory?
Doesn't it have empirical consequefices that can be confirmed or
disconfirmed?