Religious Studies A-Level

Religious Philosophy (Eduqas)

Themes
Theme 1. Arguments for the existence of God (1)
i) Inductive Arguments
Theme 2. Arguments for the existence of God (2)
i) Deductive Arguments
Theme 3. Challenges to religious belief
i) The problem of evil
Theme 4. Religious Experience
i) Religious Experience
 Theme 1. Arguments for the existence of God
i: Inductive Arguments
Part ‘A’ Question (Theory) – Inductive Arguments -
Section 1: Introduction to Inductive Arguments
● This topic is designed to give you an overview of arguments (proofs) of God’s Existence. This topic will also
consider challenges to these ‘proofs’ of God’s existence.
● In this section we will look at ‘INDUCTIVE’ arguments for the existence of God.
Inductive Arguments:
● The arguments you will see in this section are inductive. An inductive argument is an argument where the
premise (the arguments supporting it) provide strong reasons for you to accept the conclusion.
● For example, if I wanted to prove the argument that ‘Manchester United were a better football club than
Manchester City’, I would put forward a set of premises (arguments) that I thought were so strong that you
would have to conclude that Manchester United were the better club.
A-posteriori
● The inductive arguments you are going to look at are also a-posteriori (empirical). This means that the
arguments are going to be based on human observation or experience.
● For example, Manchester United are the better football team because it was observed they beat Manchester
City 1-0 in March 2016.
Inductive Arguments for the existence of God
● There are two types of inductive arguments for the existence of God:
✓ Cosmological Arguments
✓ Teleological Arguments

Section 2: Inductive Arguments for the Existence of God 1 – The Cosmological Argument
Background: Cosmological Argument
● The cosmological argument tries to show that God exists 100% (not that He might but He definitely does).
● Cosmological arguments are based upon the idea of CAUSES i.e. everything has a cause e.g. the football moves
only because I kicked it (cause). However, that cause also has a cause etc.
● The cosmological argument works on the belief that a chain of causes and effects cannot go back an infinite
number of times. Therefore, there must be a first causer that started the first cause.
● Cosmologicalists believe that the first causer is God.
● The syllabus wants you to look at two Philosophers who have created Cosmological Arguments:
✓ An old version by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
✓ A modern version (called the Kalam Argument) by William Lane Craig (1949-………).
Version 1: Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments
● Aquinas cosmological arguments (from his book ‘Summa Theological’) are influenced by the work of the great
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle was also influenced by the works of great Jewish thinker
Maimonides and influential Muslim thinker Avicenna.
● Aquinas split his Cosmological argument into 3 different ways to reflect the slightly different arguments of his
influences (see below). They are known as the first three of five ways Aquinas attempted to prove God’s
existence (you will come across way 5, when you look at the teleological argument)
➢ Way 1 – The Unmoved Mover – (a.k.a. The Unchanged Changer)
➢ Way 2 – The Uncaused Causer (a.k.a. The First Cause Argument)
➢ Way 3 – Contingency & Necessity
Aquinas’ Way 1 – The Unmoved Mover
● Aquinas believed some things are in motion. He defines the word ‘motion’ as anything that is changing state.
● However, Aquinas reasoned that everything that has the potentiality to change state cannot change itself; for it
to be actualised (actually change state) it must be changed by something else. As Aquinas states “Whatever is in
motion must be put in motion by another.”
● However, this something else must also have actualised (changed state) due to something else.
● But this set of changes of state cannot go back an infinite number of times (infinite regress); therefore, there
must be a first changer. This is because as Aquinas states “If there was no first changer there would be no
subsequent changes.”
● This first changer, for Aquinas, is the God of mono theism. Therefore, he must exist.
Aquinas’ Own Example
● The best way to understand this theory is through Aquinas’ own example of a piece of wood:
● He said a piece of wood has the potentiality to change state from being cold (not on fire) to being hot (on fire).
But this can only happen (be actualised) if something else that is hot (another piece of wood that is on fire)
touches it.
● However, this hot piece of wood must also have changed state (been made hot / set on fire) by another piece of
wood that was changed state to hot etc.
● This chain of changes of state cannot go back an infinite number of times (infinite regress).
● Therefore, there must have been a first changer of state, changed by no other e.g. the first entity to make
something hot.
● This is what we understand by God (and therefore God must exist).
Aquinas’ Way 2 – The Uncaused Causer
● Aquinas firstly argued every effect in the universe has a cause e.g. the pen in your hand did not cause itself it was
caused by something else.
● He argued this is a universal law. This is because it is logically impossible for anything to cause itself because this
would mean that it would have had to already exist; to make itself exist e.g. you can’t cause yourself, it would be
like you been your own parent!!!!
● However, the cause that caused your pen (for example) also has a cause e.g. one of the causes of a pen is plastic.
However, plastic did also not cause itself, one of its causes is oil.
● However, Aquinas believed that this chain of causes and effect cannot logically go back an infinite number of
times (infinite regress), therefore there must be a first causer, that started off all the causes but is itself
uncaused.
● This is because if there was no first cause nothing would exist now i.e. ‘out of nothing comes nothing’ or in Latin
“ex nihilo nihil fit”
● This first cause was the God of classical/mono theism, therefore God exists. As Aquinas states “It is necessary to
admit a first efficient causer, to which everyone gives the name of God.”
● A famous analogy to illustrate this is a series of dominoes falling down, one after another. Each domino cannot
fall down of its own accord; it needs another domino to fall on to it. However, this series of falling dominoes
cannot have started itself; it needs someone to push the first domino. In this analogy the pusher of the first
domino is God and the dominos represent all the past causes and effects in the world.
Aquinas’ Way 3 – Contingency & Necessity
● According to Aquinas the world consists of contingent beings
● Existing as a contingent being means that we are all created and eventually we will all cease to exist i.e. for
humanity this means we are born and we will all eventually die.
● Therefore, you exist now but there was time before you existed and there will be a time when you don’t exist.
● Aquinas then logically postulates (a-priori deduction or guesses) that if everything is a contingent being and
therefore can either exist or not exist then logically there would have been a time when no contingent beings
existed. As Aquinas states “Therefore, if everything cannot be, then at one time there was nothing is existence.”
● (Optional – this is called the Principle of Plenitude which states that if something is a real possibility then given
an infinite amount of time, it should happen)
● Aquinas then argues that if there was a time when there were no contingent beings, then no contingent beings
would exist today, because contingent beings cannot ‘come from nothing’. As Aquinas states “If at one time
nothing was in existence, it would be impossible for anything to have begun to exist.”
● However, contingent beings do exist (including ourselves), therefore logically there must be a necessary being (a
being not reliant on its creation by any other being) capable of bringing contingent beings into existence.
● Therefore, a Necessary Being must exist that is the source of all contingent beings. As Aquinas states: “We
cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity”
● Aquinas refers to this Necessary Being as the God of classical/mono theism, therefore God exists.
● (Optional 1: Aquinas does make a distinction between caused necessary beings (angels) and uncaused necessary
beings (God). He argues that everything can’t depend upon caused necessary beings since this would mean an
infinite regression of caused necessary beings, but no complete explanation. Therefore, there must be some
uncaused necessary being upon which everything relies – something which is self-explanatory and eternal. This
uncaused necessary being, Aquinas says, is God.)
● (Optional 2: Years later a theologian called Frederick Copleston simplified Aquinas’ Third Way in a famous radio
debate (1947) with atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (see criticisms). His argument goes like this: everything
 in the universe in contingent and the universe is the sum total of contingent things, and so the universe is itself
must be contingent. If this is the case, there must be something upon which it depends – a necessary being,
namely God. “In order to explain existence, we must come to a being who contains within itself the reason for
its own existence. That is to say a being which cannot not exist.”)
Version 2: William Lane Craig’s (Kalam) Cosmological Argument
● William Lane Craig created a more modern version of the cosmological argument.
● Craig called it the ‘Kalam Argument’; the name ‘Kalam’ is taken from a group of cosmological Muslim
philosophers (such as Al-Kindi) from the 9th century.
● The original Kalam argument basically argued that everything having a cause was a simple law of the universe –
therefore the universe itself must also have a cause. Moreover, the cause of the universe must be outside of the
universe itself (just as the cause of you tripping up would be something outside of yourself – like a banana skin).
Therefore, as the cause of the universe must be something outside of itself it must be non-physical in nature.
This non-physical nature is ‘God’.
● Craig updated the Kalam groups cosmological theory and out of respect for the Kalam philosophers named his
book after them: ‘The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979)’.
● Craig’s argument is best explained in two sections:
Section 1 – Craig: The basic argument:
● Craig’s Kalam argument starts by with four simple ideas:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe MUST have a cause of its existence.
4. Since no scientific explanation can provide an account of the cause of the universe (in terms of ‘why’ and ‘how’ it
was caused), the cause must be personal creator (i.e. God).
Section 2 – Craig: More detailed argument:
● The above argument is fairly straight forward. However, Craig recognised that point 2 (above) is controversial –
it can be argued the universe might be infinite and therefore does not need a cause. Craig developed the
following defence that the universe needs a cause:
● An actual infinity cannot exist. Craig attempts to prove this by giving an analogy of a library.
● He asks us to imagine a library with an infinite number of books. The library has an infinite number of black
books and an infinite number of red books, so that for every red book there is a black book and visa- versa.
● Logically the library must contain as many red books as there are total books in the collection (both are infinite).
● Therefore, there must be as many red books as there are red and black books combined!!!
● This is clearly absurd because how can there be as many red books as there are total books when we also have a
set of black books. This library analogy illustrates that actual infinities cannot exist in reality.
● Therefore, a beginning less infinite universe cannot exist because actual infinities can’t exist.
● Craig argues as he has now proved the second part of his argument (the universe began to exist) therefore the
rest of his argument to show God exists succeeds.

Section 3 - Inductive Arguments for the Existence of God 2 – The Teleological Argument
Background: Teleological Argument
● Like the cosmological argument the teleological argument wants to prove God exists 100%.
● However, it does it in a different way. The cosmological argument was based on ‘CAUSES’ whereas the
teleological argument is based on ‘DESIGN’ (Optional: the teleological argument is also known as the ‘Design
Argument’).
● The basic teleological argument states that complex things, like watches, need designers because they are too
intricate. The world is also complex and therefore it too needs a designer e.g. God, therefore God exists.
● The teleological Argument is technically two slightly different arguments:
1. Design Qua Regularity – Associated with the older versions of the teleological argument. This version generally
argues that the world/universe is too ordered/regulated to have come about by chance, therefore it must have a
designer – that designer is God. We refer to this using the Latin ‘Design Qua Regularity’.
2. Design Qua Purpose – The second type of teleological argument states that objects, like eyes, have too specific a
purpose to have come about by chance, therefore it must have a designer – that designer is God.
● The syllabus wants you to look at 3 Philosophers who have created Teleological Arguments:
✓ An old version by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) - Design Qua Regularity
✓ A moderately old argument by William Paley (1743-1805) - Design Qua Purpose
✓ A modern(ish) version by F.R. Tennant (1866-1957).
 Version 1: Aquinas’ Teleological Argument (Design Qu Regularity)
● Aquinas’ teleological argument is the fifth of his five ways to prove God exists and it is a ‘Design Qua Regularity’
teleological Argument.
● Aquinas teleological theory (which is also from his book ‘Summa Theologica’) states that all final purposes in
nature seem to have been very carefully designed to support the development and growth of human life. For
example:
✓ It rains so we have enough to drink
✓ The seasons change so that we can grow food and thus we have enough to eat.
● Therefore, Aquinas’ argument is that non-intelligent material like trees, plants and clouds act in a way to support
human life.
● However, they cannot choose to produce this support for human life, thus it requires an intelligent being to
bring this about (order it) i.e. God.
● Therefore, God must exist to design nature so that it supports human life i.e. God must exist to govern the laws
of nature. As Aquinas states: “Whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by
some intelligent being.”
● Aquinas used an analogy to illustrate his point. He stated: “An arrow is directed towards a target by an archer;
just as an intelligent being exists whom directs/orders all-natural things.” What Aquinas means by this is that
an arrow cannot fire itself towards the target; it needs someone to direct it i.e. an archer. In the same way
nature cannot direct itself to support human life it too needs someone to direct it i.e. God.
Version 2: Paley’s Teleological Argument (Design Qua Purpose)
Background
● Paley wrote his teleological argument in his 1802 book: ‘Natural Theology’.
● This is the most famous teleological argument and is often referred to as the ‘Watch Analogy’. The famous watch
analogy is a Design Qua Purpose argument and thus very different from the classic Aquinas arguments that
you’ve already studied.
● Paley was heavily influenced by the great Roman, first century BCE, Philosopher Cicero.
● Cicero argued: “When you see a sundial you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then
can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces
everything?”
Paley’s Watch Analogy
● Paley put forward his teleological argument for the existence of God in the form of a simple analogy.
● Basically, if we were to come across a watch in a field (Paley referred to it as a ‘Heath’), we would quickly
conclude that all its complex parts fitted together for the purpose of telling time. Therefore, it cannot have
come into existence by chance.
● Paley adds that anybody with intelligence would therefore have to conclude the watch had a designer (in this
case a watchmaker).
● Paley then extends his analogy to the world around us. He argues, like the watch, the world around us is
complex and also appears to have been designed with the specific purpose i.e. supporting the development and
growth of human life. Therefore, just like the watch, our world must also have a designer: the designer in the
case of the world is God.
● Basically, Paley is stating that every complex object that shows a purpose (like a watch) must have a designer.
The Earth is complex and has a specific purpose (to support human life); therefore, it too must have a designer
i.e. God – therefore God must exist.
● Paley furthered his argument by also giving several examples to illustrate the same point. Two of which are
below:
● He firstly uses the example of the eye and the way in which it is adapted for sight. Its various parts co-operate in
complex ways to produce sight. He believed that the eye was designed for the specific purpose of seeing, and
that this complex design suggests an intelligent designer (God).
● Secondly, Paley discusses the design of human teeth. He states: “At birth, every part of the human mouth is
perfectly formed but the design is so perfect that nature does not permit teeth to be formed until a time when
the baby has usually finished its dependence upon the mother’s milk.” This is yet more evidence for Paley that
there is a designing mind behind creation – God.
● Such evidence of complex design for specific purposes, Paley argued, could only be the result of a 'designing
creator', which for Paley was God.
Version 3: Tennant’s Teleological Arguments
● Tennant put forward 2 modern teleological arguments:
✓ The Anthropic Principle
✓ The Aesthetic Principle
● They both take into account the modern scientific theories, such as the ‘theory of evolution’ and the ‘big bang’.
Both of these scientific theories have been used as criticisms of the teleological argument and therefore
explanations of both these scientific theories are explained in the next section (Challenges to Inductive
Arguments)
● Both Tennant’s Anthropic Principle and Aesthetic Principle accept the Big Bang theory and the evolutionary
process. However, Tennant argues that the Big Bang and evolution were part of God’s design for the
development of intelligent life (human beings) e.g. nature produces living beings (as Darwin’s evolution states)
but without the “fine tuning” of God’s guiding hand the process would never have started or continued.
Anthropic Principle (Design Qua Regularity)
● Tennant’s Anthropic principle is based on an analogy from scientific research created by Martin Rees.
● Rees basically calculated the chances of a stable universe occurring (so that evolution could occur) from a
random Big Bang were 10 to the power of 60 (10 60) - basically 10 with 60 zeros at the end).
● Rees, as an atheist, concluded this research by stating the only reason we live in a stable universe is luck; he
argued there must be billions and billions of parallel universes that are not stable and thus life did not develop.
We just (fortunately) happen to live in the universe that was stable.
● However, Tennant (using Rees calculation) developed a different conclusion. He created an analogy for Rees’
scientific calculation. He argued that the chances of the ‘Big Bang’ producing the right conditions for a stable
universe, is the equivalent of a marksman hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light years
away!!! (basically impossible).
● For Tennant the sheer improbability of the above is proof a deeper explanation is needed for the creation of the
universe, other than just a random Big Bang. He concluded that the creation of the universe must therefore
have been aided by an ordering power (God),
● Therefore, Tennant accepts that the Big Bang occurred, as an explanation of how the universe started, but
believes that the Big Bang is just an explanation of how God designed the universe into existence.
Aesthetic Principle (Design Qua Purpose)
● Tennant’s Aesthetic Principle states that humans possess the ability to appreciate the beauty of their
surroundings. For example, humans can enjoy beauty in a variety of forms: art, landscapes, music, literature,
poetry etc.
● However, such an appreciation of beauty is not a survival instinct. Darwin’s evolution theory (see later notes)
states that humans developed from the ‘survival of the fittest’ i.e. only traits that helped humans survive
developed in humanity and those that did not died away.
● However, the appreciation of beauty is not a human survival tool. As Tennant argues: “Beauty seems to be
superfluous and has little survival value…”
● Therefore, Tennant argues that this appreciation of beauty must have been designed in humanity from another
source, other than evolution.
● This source, according to Tennant, must be a designer God. Therefore, God exists.

Section 4: Challenges to Inductive Arguments for the Existence of God

● We will consider two sets of challenges/criticisms for the inductive arguments for the existence of God
(Cosmological and Teleological). We look at:
✓ David Hume (1711-1776)
✓ Modern scientific theories (the Big Bang and the theory of evolution)
Challenges 1: David Hume
● Hume was a famous atheist who took delight in criticising religious philosophy arguments. He had 2 criticisms of
the cosmological argument and 2 of the teleological argument.
Hume’s 2 criticisms of the cosmological argument:
Criticism 1: Empirical Objections
● Hume attempted to prove that the cosmological argument fails to achieve its purpose i.e. to prove that God
exists 100%. He believed it lacked the empirical evidence to prove this.
● This is because Hume argues that the cosmological argument does not empirically (a-posteriori) prove God
exists. But instead the cosmological argument is merely a logical (a-priori) guess that God exists (thus not proving
God exists 100%).
● Hume accepts that it is a-posteriori (empirical) that everything in our world/universe needs a cause e.g. the
cause of a pen is plastic.
● However, the rest of the cosmological argument is merely a logical guess (a-priori) e.g. when theologians like
Aquinas argue that ‘a chain of causes cannot go back an infinite number of times and thus there must be a first
causer’, this is in fact just a logical guess/deduction (a-priori) not a-posteriori (empirical).
● Therefore, Hume has potentially shown that the cosmological argument has not 100% shown God exists (which
is what it sets out to do). This is because this argument is not based on empirical evidence, it is in fact nothing
more than an intellectual guess (logic/a-priori) and thus not proven.
Criticism 2: Critique of Causes (a.k.a. the Fallacy of Composition)
● For this criticism Hume again concedes that the rules of cause and effect apply in the universe e.g. everything
has a cause; like my pen needs a cause.
● However, just because everything in the universe/world has a cause this does not mean we can apply this to
things we don’t know; like who created the universe i.e. just because everything in the universe needs a cause,
this doesn’t mean the universe itself needs a cause.
● The technical term for this criticism is ‘Fallacy of Composition’ (applying something we know to something we
don’t know) i.e. we know everything in the universe follows the rule of cause and effect (has a cause); therefore,
we can apply this to the creation of the universe itself i.e. it too must have a cause. However, we don’t know
this is a ‘fallacy of composition’.
● Therefore, Hume speculated that maybe the rules of cause and effect do not apply to the creation of the
universe. Therefore, the universe does not need a cause (God) at all.
● Hume develops his argument further by arguing maybe the universe does have an infinite number of causes e.g.
it goes back forever. Therefore, the universe does not need a causer and thus no need for a ‘God’.
● A modern Quantum Physics argument that would agree with this is the ‘Oscillating Universe Theory’. This theory
states that the universe has an infinite series of expansions and contractions (A Big Bang - followed by A Big
Crunch - followed by a Big Bang etc)
Hume’s 3 criticisms of the teleological argument:
● Important Note: Hume pre-dates Paley and therefore he makes no reference to Paley’s watch analogy. Though
many of these criticisms can be applied to Paley’s theory.
● Optional: Hume did not write textbooks but instead wrote in dialogues (like a play) – the character in the
dialogues who puts forward the criticisms of the teleological argument is Philo and this represents Hume.
Criticism 1 – Problems with Analogies
● Hume firstly criticises the use of human based analogies (houses, watches etc) to demonstrate the fact the
universe is designed. He uses the example of a house (but the same can be applied to a watch). Just because a
house is complex, and thus clearly needs a designer, it does not mean that we can infer from this that the
complex universe also needs a designer.
● The house (or a watch) and the universe are just too different to draw any similarities between the two.
Therefore, just because a house (or watch) has a designer we cannot infer the universe must also have a
designer. They are just too different!
● Therefore, Hume believes that any teleological argument that tries to compare the universe to a human
construction (house, watch etc) is completely wrong because you are not comparing like with like.
● Therefore, the teleological argument is fundamentally flawed.
● (Optional) Hume goes on to suggest the universe demonstrates greater similarities to living organisms (plants,
animals etc) within nature, which grow and change, than it does to static human constructions (houses, watches
etc). As Hume states: “Does not a plant … which springs from vegetation bear a stronger resemblance to the
world, than does a machine.”
● Hume then states that living organisms (like plants etc) do not need a human designer they just need natural
things to make them grow (sunlight, water etc). This therefore suggests that if the world is like a living organism
(planet etc) it too does not need a designer because it formed naturally.
Criticism 2 – More Than One God Criticism
● Hume also argued that if we are going to use human analogies (manufactured goods like houses or watches) to
prove the teleological argument, then it is more usual for manufactured goods to be designed and made by
many people: not one.
● Hume, through his character Philo, uses the example of a ship this time. He argues it takes many hands to build
a ship.
● Hume then argues if you are going to compare the design of the universe to manufactured goods (like ships or
watches) this would suggest many God’s made the world/universe and not just one.
● Therefore, this criticism, by Hume, makes the assumption the teleological argument is right to suggest the
universe was designed. But what Hume is saying is it does not prove the existence of the God of Mono/Classical
Theism (the God of Christianity): it instead suggests many God’s designed this world.
● Therefore, Hume is pointing out that the use of human analogies (ships, watches etc) to illustrate the existence
of a designer God is a double-edged sword. Yes, it potentially shows there is a designer of the universe.
However, it points more to there been multi-designers (and thus multi-God’s). Not the single designer God,
theists like Paley, want to illustrate. A lesson Paley failed to grasp when he created his watch analogy.
Criticism 3 – Absent Designer
● Hume adds that after a ship or house (or watch) has been completed the designer moves on to other projects.
● Therefore, if you are going to use ships, houses (or watches) as an analogy to illustrate the existence of a
designer God then we must assume the same of him i.e. once the designer God created the universe he moved
off to build other (perhaps bigger and better) universes elsewhere.
● Hume even suggests that human designers die so the analogy here is that maybe the designer God has done the
same.
● This again shows the double-edged nature of using human analogies (ships, houses, watches etc) to show the
existence of a designer God. Yes, it may show a designer of the universe existed but it either shows God is no
longer there or He has died (neither of which are characteristics of the God of Mono/Classical Theism).
● The idea that God designed the universe but is no longer present is called Deism.
Challenges 2: Modern Scientific Criticisms
● We will consider 2 modern criticisms of inductive arguments for the existence of God. Firstly, the ‘Big Bang
Theory’ (which can mainly be used to criticise the cosmological argument) and the ‘theory of evolution’ (which
can mainly be used to criticise the teleological argument).
Criticism 1: The Big Bang Theory
● The ‘Big Bang’ is a scientific argument for the development of the universe. This theory argues that the universe
originated approximately 13.7 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration (a
jumbled collection) of matter of extremely high density and temperature.
● From this initial explosion the universe was formed as this matter expanded. As the temperature cooled
galaxies, with their solar systems, suns and planets very gradually formed. The universe continues to expand
and new galaxies etc are been formed, even today.
● The theory of the Big Bang has many important contributors: however, many people point to Edwin Hubble as
the creator of the Big Bang Theory. In 1924 he noted that other galaxies were gradually moving away from our
galaxy – he concluded that it must be because the universe was gradually expanding.
● Modern scientist Stephen Hawking in his recent book the ‘Grand Design’ gives a purely mathematical
explanation for the entire universe popping into existence at the beginning of time; with a Big Bang. He stated:
“The big bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, it is not necessary to create a God.”
● Therefore, the big bang is a scientific theory that the universe formed naturally purely through the laws of
science. Therefore, there is no need for a causer God (the cosmological argument) to have started the universe.
● The big bang theory is a potentially strong theory because it is an empirical/a-posteriori argument to support it.
Criticism 2: The theory of evolution
● At the end of the 19th century, Charles Darwin expressed discovered the process of evolution
● Darwin found that those members of a species whose characteristics were best suited to enable them to survive
in their environment went on to breed and survive. Those not suited generally died off (this is called the ‘survival
of the fittest’).
● This mechanical process of selection meant that whenever an advantageous characteristic appeared through a
mutation (such as the first eye) those animals that displayed it had a natural advantage which they could pass on
to their offspring e.g. the first fish that had an eye survived and thrived but those without an eye gradually died
out because they were weaker than those fish with eyes. Thus, after millions of years all fish had eyes.
● In this way, a species that adapted to their environment best survived.
● Therefore, our so called perfectly designed world was not designed by a God to perfectly fit humans but instead
our species, humans, best adapted to this world and therefore survived and dominated it.
● In summary, Darwin believed that ‘a God’ had nothing to do with the design of the Earth (in fact there was no
design at all; it was just random evolution) and thus the teleological argument was completely wrong.
● This is also a powerful argument because it has empirical evidence to back it up. For example, Richard Dawkins
famously added 20th Century scientific proof to Darwin’s 19th Century theory.
● For example, Darwin spoke about random mutations causing evolutionary developments e.g. a random mutation
caused a fish to have an eye. Dawkins added to this by arguing that random mutations can occur to create
evolution because of random mistakes in our DNA molecules. DNA mutations that were beneficial for survival
(e.g. the development of two eyes) enabled that life form to flourish. Any DNA mutations that weren’t useful
(what we might refer to as a handicap) and that life form died off.
Section 5: Part B Discussions – Inductive Arguments: 36 minutes in the exam
● There are 6 possible part B discussions:
1. Whether inductive arguments for God’s existence are persuasive.
2. The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing.
3. The effectiveness of the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence.
4. Whether cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence are persuasive in the 21 st century.
5. The effectiveness of the challenges to the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence.
6. Whether scientific explanations are more persuasive than philosophical explanations for the universe’s
existence.
● All the Part B discussions revolve around the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological/teleological
argument. Some of the arguments strengths and weaknesses work better with certain discussions.

Strengths of the cosmological/teleological argument Weaknesses of the cosmological/teleological argument

1. Cosmological arguments put forward by 1. Hume’s ‘Empirical Objections’ criticism of the
philosophers, like Aquinas, are right because they cosmological argument (see earlier notes)
are a-posteriori. For example, in nature nothing
happens without a cause. This is easily testable e.g.
put a football in the middle of room and see if it
moves without a cause. Therefore, the
cosmological argument has modern scientific
support because science accepts all effects must
have a cause.

2. F.C Copleston, in a famous radio debate supported 2. Hume’s ‘Critique of Causes (fallacy of composition)’
the cosmological argument by restating Aquinas’ criticism of the cosmological argument (see earlier
argument that contingent beings (humans) cannot notes)
have created themselves. This is because it is
logically impossible for anything to cause itself
because this would mean that it would have had to
already exist; to make itself exist e.g. you can’t
cause yourself, it would be like you been your own
parent!!!! Therefore, there must be an external
agent (God) who caused humanity.
3. A modern take of the teleological argument comes 3. Hume’s ‘problems with analogies’ criticism of the
from Arthur Brown. Brown pointed to the Ozone teleological argument (see earlier notes)
Layer. Brown stated the Ozone Layer is “a wall that
is just the right thickness, which prevents death to
every living thing.” This is evidence of
order/regularity in nature. Order/Regularity needs
to be ordered and this ordering power is God.
4. Another modern version of the teleological 4. Hume’s ‘More Than One God Criticism’ and ‘Absent
argument comes from contemporary scientist Designer’ criticisms of the teleological argument (see
Michael Denton. In his book, ‘Evolution - A Theory earlier notes)
in Crisis’, he looked at the complexity of a human
cell and deduced it was far too complex to have just
evolved, it must have had an intelligent designer
 (God).

5. The teleological argument answers back the Big
Bang criticism – anthropic argument (see earlier
notes)
6. The teleological argument answers back the theory
of evolution criticism – aesthetic argument (see
earlier notes)
5. The Big Bang Theory criticism of the cosmological and
teleological argument (see earlier notes)
6. The theory of evolution criticism of the teleological
argument (see earlier notes).

Conclusion

The above strengths and weaknesses can be added to as you go through the rest of the Philosophy unit. For
example, the Deductive Arguments, in the next section, can be used to both support and criticise the Inductive
Arguments. Also remember to analyse and evaluate these points.
 Theme 2. Arguments for the existence of God (2)
Deductive Arguments
Part ‘A’ Question (Theory) – Deductive Arguments -
Section 1 - Background
Background 1: What is a Deductive Argument?
● A deductive argument is a form of reasoning (proving something by thinking it through).
● A deductive argument starts with some general premises (statements/arguments). If you accept these premises
as true, then specific truths/conclusions can be drawn from them that you can’t deny. For example:
➢ ‘All people are mortal’ (Premise)
➢ ‘Drake is a person’ (Premise)
➢ ‘Drake is mortal’ (Conclusion/Truth)
● Supporters of deductive arguments claim that you can’t deny the conclusion/truth if you have accepted the
premises. Therefore, through a deductive argument you have gained some knowledge e.g. Drake is mortal.
Knowledge gained from deductive reasoning is called a-priori knowledge.
● A-priori knowledge is just as valid as a-posteriori knowledge (knowledge we gain from experiencing things e.g. I
know there are tables in my classroom because I’ve seen them). We accept a-priori knowledge all the time e.g.
➢ ‘My teachers have always taught me the right syllabus’ (premise)
➢ ‘The person stood in from of my RS class is a teacher’ (premise)
➢ ‘Therefore, they must be teaching me the right syllabus’ (conclusion/truth)
● Therefore, you all accept, through a-priori knowledge, that you are been taught the right syllabus. I bet none of
you have actually checked the syllabus to see if we are teaching you the right syllabus (a-posteriori).
● Many philosophers argue that God can be proved deductively, rather than inductively (see previous notes on the
cosmological and teleological arguments)
Background 2: What is an Ontological Argument?
● For this syllabus you are going to look at one type of deductive argument to prove God’s existence: the
ontological argument.
● The term ontological is based on the Greek word ‘Ontos’ which means reality i.e. this argument wants to show
the ‘reality’ of God.
● Similar: The ontological argument, like the cosmological and teleological arguments, is designed to illustrate that
God exists.
● Different: However, unlike the cosmological and teleological arguments that use inductive reasoning, the
ontological argument is an attempt to prove God’s existence using deductive reasoning (see above).
● We are going to look at 3 ontological arguments:
✓ Anselm (1033-1109)
✓ Descartes (1596-1650)
✓ Malcolm (1911-1990).
● We will also consider 2 criticisms of the ontological argument:
✓ Gaunilo (1028-1089)
✓ Kant (1724-1804).

Section 2: Origins of the Ontological Argument – St. Anselm

● For this section we need to look at the originator of the ontological argument – St. Anselm (1033-1109)
Background: St. Anselm
● Anselm (1033-1109) was a Catholic monk, who was canonised (made a Saint) by the Roman Catholic Church.
● Anselm argument was not written as a piece of Philosophy but as a prayer (in his book ‘Proslogian’). It is a
prayer saying of course you exist God it is self-evident. He stated people are fools not to believe in God; he uses
the term fools because it states in Psalm 14 “Fools in their hearts say there is no God”.
● Anselm’s ontological argument has 2 parts:
✓ Part One – Anselm attempts to prove God exists – in Proslogian 2
✓ Part Two – Anselm attempts to prove that God is a ‘Necessary being’ (God is eternal) – in Proslogian 3
Part One: Anselm’s attempts to prove God exists (in Proslogian 2)
● Because this is an ontological argument it starts with a premise. The premise is about the nature of God:
✓ Anselm’s Words: God is ‘That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived’.
✓ Simpler Version of the above - ‘God is the Greatest’
● From the above premise about God, Anselm’s gives an argument for why God must exist:
(Note: This argument was not broken into 7 stages by Anselm, I’ve done it to make it easier for you)
● Stage 1: As we have already said Anselm starts this argument with a premise about God:
✓ God is ‘That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived’ or more simply ‘God is the greatest’.
✓ This premise about God means that absolutely nothing is greater than God.
● Stage 2: Anselm states even the fool (the non-believer) can understand the premise above i.e. even someone
who doesn’t believe in God (the fool) can still understand the word ‘God’ means a being who is the greatest e.g.
a being that is all-powerful (omnipotent).
● Stage 3: Then Anselm asks the question: ‘Is it greater for something to just exist in the mind/imagination (in
intellectu) or in reality (in re) as well?’
✓ (My example) This is like asking: ‘which is greater; just imagining a cream bun or a cream bun in reality as well’.
Of course, a cream bun is reality is better than an imaginary one (we can eat for a start)
✓ Therefore, Anselm stated the premise that everyone (even fools: non-believers in God) would agree that things
that exist in reality as well as in the mind/imagination (such as cream buns) are ‘greater’ than the thing just in
mind/imagination (such as an imaginary cream bun).
● Stage 4: If we apply the above premise to God: it is like asking which is ‘greater’:
✓ A God just in the mind/imagination; or
✓ A God in reality as well as the mind/imagination
✓ Of course, we would say the second point: a God in reality is greater than one just in the mind.
● Stage 5: So, Anselm would argue that even a fool (a non-believer) would have to accept that a God in reality and
the mind is greater than just a God in the mind/imagination.
● Stage 6: Therefore, going back to the original premise about God (‘That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be
Conceived’ or ‘God is the Greatest’) then if God is the greatest then He must exist in reality.
✓ This is because if ‘God is the greatest’ He must have all the ‘greatest’ attributes; one of which as we have seen,
above, is existence i.e. for God to be the greatest (that than which nothing greater can be conceived) He must
exist because existence is a facet (part of) been the greatest.
● Stage 7: Therefore, from the above premises, we can draw the specific conclusion/truth that God must exist in
reality.
Simpler Version of Anselm’s Ontological Argument – Part 1
● Premise 1: God is the greatest
● Premise 2: It is greater for God to exist in reality/mind than in just the mind.
● Conclusion/Truth: Because ‘God is the Greatest’ He must exist in reality or he wouldn’t be the greatest
otherwise. Therefore, God exists.
Part Two – Anselm attempts to prove that God is a ‘Necessary being’ - (in Proslogian 3)
● Simply proving God exists was not enough for Anselm because if God simply ‘existed’ God would just be like any
human being that currently exists (like you and I).
● Therefore, Anselm also wanted to show that God is a ‘necessary being’ (a necessary being is a being that is
eternal/has no beginning or end and has therefore existed forever) as opposed to humans who are ‘contingent
being’ (a contingent being is a being that is mortal and therefore had a beginning/birth and will have an
end/death and will thus not last forever).
● Though this is a separate part of Anselm’s argument the deductive reasoning he uses is very similar to the part.
✓ Anselm again stated the premise: God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ or ‘God is the
greatest’.
✓ A necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
✓ Therefore, for God to be ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (the greatest) He must be a
‘necessary being’
✓ Therefore, Anselm has not only proved that God exists (see Part One) but also that God is also a necessary being
(part two)
Simpler Version of Anselm’s Ontological Argument – Part 2
● Premise 1: God is the greatest.
● Premise 2: A necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
● Conclusion/Truth: Because ‘God is the Greatest’ He must be a necessary being or he wouldn’t be the greatest
otherwise. Therefore, God is a necessary being.

Section 3 – Developments of the Ontological Argument

● For this section we need to look two developers of the ontological argument:
✓ Rene Descartes (1598-1650)
✓ Norman Malcolm (1911-1990).
Developer 1: Rene Descartes
Background: Descartes (1598-1650)
● Descartes was a hugely influential philosopher, famous for the philosophical saying: I think therefore I am.”
● Descartes developed Anselm ideas in a more philosophical way (remember Anselm argument was not designed
as a piece of philosophy but as a pray).
Descartes Ontological Argument:
● Descartes just has the one ontological argument, in his book ‘Meditation 5’. Again, I’ve broken it into stages (4
of them) to help you understand it.
● Stage 1: As this argument is a deductive ontological argument it starts with a premise. The premise Descartes
starts with is that: ‘God is a supremely perfect being’ i.e. God is perfect in everyway
● Stage 2: For his second premise Descartes stated that there were certain qualities that an object has to have, or
it would not be that object. He called these qualities ‘predicates’ (we tend to use the word ‘essences’ now).
● Stage 3: Descartes gave several examples of the predicates/essences that an object must have to make it that
object: we’ll look at 2 such objects:
✓ Example 1: A Triangle: some of the predicates/essences of a triangle are:
1. It has 3 sides
2. The 3 angles add up to 180 degrees
✓ Moreover, Descartes added that it does not matter if I know of what a (or believe in) triangle is, the predicates
will remain the same
✓ Example 2: Mountains and Valleys: some of the predicates/essences of mountains and valleys are:
1. The mountain has an up slope
2. The valley has a down slope
✓ And again, Descartes added that it does not matter if I know of what a (or believe in) mountain/valley is, the
predicates will remain the same
● Stage 4 - Descartes basically applied the above premise that all objects have certain predicates (certain qualities
that make an object what it is) to the premise that God is a ‘supremely perfect being’. By doing this, Descartes
claims to have proved God exists:
✓ God is a supremely perfect being.
✓ A supremely perfect being has all perfections (is flawless) otherwise He wouldn’t be supremely perfect.
✓ Descartes argues one of the many predicates/essences of a supremely perfect being is existence. Descartes
believed that existence is a necessary predicate of a supremely perfect being because if a being did not exist this
would be a flaw; and a supremely perfect being does not have any flaws.
✓ Therefore, because God is a supremely perfect being He must exist: therefore, God exists.
Simpler Version of Descartes Ontological Argument
● Premise 1: God is a supremely perfect being.
● Premise 2: Every object has predicates (essences) that make it what it is.
● Conclusion/Truth: One of the predicates of a supremely perfect being is existence. Because God is a ‘supremely
perfect being’ He must, therefore, exist.

Developer 2: Norman Malcolm

Background: Norman Malcolm (1911-1990)
● Norman Malcolm was an American philosopher who developed a modern version of the ontological argument.
● Malcolm agreed with the criticisms of Kant (see later notes) of Anselm’s first argument in Proslogian 2 (see
earlier notes).
● However, he thought Anselm’s second argument in Proslogian 3 (see earlier notes) that God is a necessary being
(a being that is eternal/has no beginning or end and has therefore exists forever) had much more potential.
Therefore, Malcolm developed Anselm’s second argument.
Malcolm’s definition of God
● Firstly, Malcolm accepted Anselm’s definition of God e.g. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived
(God is the greatest). However, he updates this definition of God to give it more clarity (make it clearer) – he
defines God as "an absolutely unlimited being."
● This definition means that God has absolutely no limits. Malcolm gives 2 examples of what this definition means
about God:
1. God cannot have a shape, since a shape is defined by its outer boundaries and this would limit God.
2. God cannot exist just in time and space seems because this implies God is limited by time and space; therefore,
God must be transcendent being (beyond or above the physical world).
Malcolm’s Ontological Argument
● Again, I’ve broken this argument into stages (5 of them) to help you understand it.
● Stage 1: Malcolm argument starts with his definition of God: “God” means an absolutely unlimited being.
● Stage 2: Malcolm states that with this definition; God must either be a necessary being (see stage 3) or God’s
existence is impossible (see stage 4).
● Stage 3: God’s existence is necessary (God is a necessary being):
✓ If God exists, His existence must be necessary (God is eternal) rather than just possible (Malcolm defines a
possible being as a being that only exists for a limited time period).
✓ A possible being is dependent on something else and/or could be prevented from existing by something else.
Both of which illustrate that a personal being is limited by something else. However, Malcolm’s definition of God
is that He is an unlimited being. This means God cannot be a personal being because such beings are limited.
✓ A necessary being does not need something else to bring it into existence and nothing can make it cease to exist,
therefore a necessary being is not limited by something else. Therefore, there are no limits on such beings.
Therefore, as God is defined as an unlimited being He must be a necessary being.
✓ Therefore, if God does exist, that existence must be necessary and not possible.
● Stage 4: God’s existence is impossible:
✓ If God does not exist, then His existence would be impossible.
✓ As we have seen in stage 3 if God exists He must be a necessary being (He is eternal). Therefore, if God does not
exist now, nothing can bring God is existence in the future because that would mean God needs creating. This
would limit God. As God, be definition is not limited (God is an unlimited being) then if God does not exist now,
this means He can never exist, making His existence impossible.
● Stage 5: God’s is either necessary or impossible:
✓ Malcolm’s argument thus far means that God is either necessary or impossible. The last part of Malcolm’s
argument is to show that God is necessary (and thus exists) and not impossible.
✓ Malcolm argues God’s existence is only impossible if the concept of God is self-contradictory (he borrows this
idea from an older philosopher called Leibniz: he had stated that something was true if it was not self-
contradictory).
✓ What Malcolm means by ‘the concept of God is self-contradictory’ is that it can be shown that God both has a
certain property but at the same time lacks that certain property – so that both can’t be right e.g. God is all-
loving (has the property of omnibenevolence) but God doesn’t love sinners (lacks the property of
omnibenevolence).
✓ However, Malcolm argues the concept of God is not self-contradictory because by definition God is an unlimited
being and therefore cannot lack any property. Therefore, the concept of God cannot be self-contradictory and
therefore God’s existence cannot be impossible.
✓ Therefore, if God’s existence cannot be impossible the only possibility left is that God exists necessarily.
Therefore, God must exist.
Simpler Version of Malcolm’s Ontological Argument
• Premise 1: God is an absolutely unlimited being.
• Premise 2: If God exists, God must be necessary because He would be limited otherwise.
● Premise 3: If God doesn’t exist, God’s existence is impossible because creation would limit God.
● Premise 4: Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible. However, the concept of God is not self-
contradictory therefore He can’t be impossible
● Conclusion/Truth: A necessary God must exist.

Section 4: Challenges to the Ontological Argument

● For this section we will consider two critics of the ontological argument:
✓ Gaunilo (994-1083)
✓ Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Challenger/Critic 1: Gaunilo
Background:
● Anselm had a major critic of his argument at the time of producing it in the 11 th Century. His name was Gaunilo
of Marmoutier (just use Gaunilo).
Gaunilo’s Criticism:
● Gaunilo tried to show that Anselm’s ontological argument was logically ridiculous. This is because Gaunilo said
using Anselm’s logic you could claim anything that you describe from your mind ‘as the greatest’ must also exist
in reality.
● Or put another way it was possible to construct an argument with exactly the same form as Anselm’s argument
to prove anything described from the mind ‘as the greatest’ must also exist. Which Gaunilo claimed was
absorbed.
● Gaunilo used the example of an island to illustrate his point. He said that if someone were to describe to you a
perfect island they had created in their mind and state it is the ‘greatest island’. If they were then to state that it
must exist because it would not be the greatest island, if it did not exist, you would be a fool to believe them!!
● Gaunilo uses Anselm’s exact logic to illustrate the absurdity of it:
✓ The island I’ve described from my mind is the greatest
✓ However, which is greater:
1. The island just in my mind (in intellectu)
2. Or the island in the mind and reality (in re)
✓ Clearly it is the island in mind and reality.
✓ Because ‘the perfect island I’ve described is the greatest’ therefore my island must exist in reality as well as the
mind or it wouldn’t be the greatest otherwise.
✓ Therefore. the perfect island I described must exist.
● Gaunilo is just ridiculing Anselm’s logic with this example. Gaunilo states that if Anselm claims that his logic
works to prove God’s existence, he must also except that the same logic used on the perfect island must also
work – which is clearly absurd (the perfect island I’ve described from my mind clearly does not exist).
● Gaunilo states because the two arguments (God and Island) have the same logical form, they must stand or fall
together. As the perfect island existing in reality is clearly ridiculous, all similar arguments (Anselm’s God
argument) must also fail.
Anselm’s reply back to Gaunilo
● Anselm’s replied to Gaunilo’s criticism. He claimed Gaunilo’s island argument does not stand up because Anselm
argued it is impossible to imagine a perfect island that was the greatest. This is because an Island has no
‘Intrinsic Maximum’ (no agreed standard of perfection) e.g. you can always add an extra tree or beach to make
the island more perfect.
● However, God, by definition, is perfect in every way (omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc) and therefore can be
described as the greatest, unlike the island. Therefore, Anselm claims his argument can only apply to God and
not an island (or anything else for that matter) because only God can be described as the greatest.
Challenger/Critic 2: Kant
● Background: Kant (an eighteenth century philosopher) made 2 criticisms of the Ontological argument:
✓ The first one is aimed specifically at Descartes ontological argument
✓ The second one a more general criticism of the ontological argument.
Criticism 1: Existence is not a Predicate/Essence
● Descartes argued that every object has certain predicates/essence that make it that object e.g. a triangle has
three sides. Kant agreed with this point but added that existence is not a predicate/essence of anything.
● For example, whether a triangle exists or not does not alter the predicates/essences of a triangle. Perhaps a
better example is that of the unicorn – its predicates/essences will be the same whether it exists or not.
● Therefore, this argument is criticising Descartes assumption that ‘One of the many predicates/essences of a
supremely perfect being must be existence; because if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be supremely perfect’.
● However, Kant argued that a supremely perfect being may have several predicates/essences but one of them is
not existence because as we just said existence is not a predicate/essence of anything.
● In summary: Existence is not a predicate/essence of anything and therefore you can’t argue (like Descartes did)
that one of God’s predicates/essences was that He exists. Therefore, Kant would argue that Descartes has not
proved God exists.
Criticism 2: Analytical Criticism
● Both Anselm & Descartes arguments depend upon us firstly accepting their definitions of God: God is the
Greatest (Anselm) or God is Supremely Perfect (Descartes) or God is absolutely unlimited (Malcolm) as analytical
statements i.e. that this definition does not need proving with empirical evidence.
● Anselm, Descartes and Malcolm, been religious people, would believe their definitions to be analytical
statements but that is because they already believe in God.
● But Kant argued this it is not enough. Kant argued they needed to prove their definitions e.g. how does Anselm
know God nature (God is the greatest). Thus, Kant would ask ‘prove that God is the greatest and of course
Anselm (and the others) never did.

Section 5: Part B Discussions – Deductive Arguments: 36 minutes in the exam

● There are 6 possible part B discussions:
1. The extent to which a-priori arguments for God’s existence are persuasive.
2. The effectiveness of the ontological argument for God’s existence.
3. The effectiveness of the challenges to the ontological argument for God’s existence.
4. The extent to which objections to the ontological argument are persuasive.
5. Whether the ontological argument is more persuasive than the cosmological/teleological argument
6. The extent to which different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments for the existence of God
● All the Part B discussions revolve around the strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument. Some of
the arguments strengths and weaknesses work better with certain discussions.

Strengths of the ontological argument Weaknesses of the ontological argument

1. Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo’s criticism i.e. only God 1. Gaunilo’s perfect island criticism of Anselm’s
can be described as the greatest (see above notes) ontological argument (see above notes)

2. There is no need for empirical evidence to prove
God’s existence – use Descartes argument to
illustrate this point (see above arguments)
3. If you accept the premise (‘God is the greatest’ for
example) of the ontological argument, then the
conclusion (God exists) must be true. Use Anselm’s
first argument to illustrate this point (see above
arguments) i.e. even the fool (non-believer) has to
except his argument.
2. Kant’s predicate criticism of Descartes ontological
argument (see above notes).
3. Kant’s analytical argument criticism of the
ontological argument (see above notes).
● (Optional) Aquinas supports this criticism by stating
that Anselm cannot possibly understand God in the
way he defines God e.g. ‘God is the greatest’. This
is because God is a transcendent being that
humanity can never truly know the nature of.

4. A-priori knowledge (as used by the ontological
argument) is stronger than A-posteriori knowledge
because of 2 reasons:
A-posteriori can be subjective
● A-priori reason is based on unemotional logic and
therefore cannot be swayed by our emotions (not
subjective). Whereas a-posteriori evidence can be
very subjective (swayed by the upbringing, beliefs
etc of the person involved).
● For example, two people experiencing the same 1-1
draw football match can both claim the opposite
4. A-priori knowledge (as used by the ontological
argument) is weaker than A-posteriori knowledge
because it can be wrong; particularly if the
premises are wrong/not accepted.
● An example used to show the absurdity of a-priori
knowledge was given by philosopher Bertrand
Russell:
➢ ‘Father Christmas is a man’ (premise)
➢ ‘Men exist’ (premise)
➢ ‘Therefore Father Christmas exists’ (truth)
● As children we may have accepted the above piece
of deductive reasoning. However, as we have
 team deserved to win (usually because they are
biased by the team they support).
A-posteriori is open to error
● Our senses can deceive us and therefore open to
error e.g. we may claim that we have seen a red car
but we could be colour blind.
● As a-priori evidence is not based on our senses then
such errors can be avoided.
matured we can doubt the first premise: ‘Father
Christmas is a man.’ This is because we can reason
‘how can a man deliver billions of presents in one
night’ etc. Therefore, Father Christmas is a
mythical figure not a man. Therefore, because one
of the premises fails, so does any conclusion (a-
priori knowledge) drawn from it e.g. Father
Christmas exists.

5. The ontological argument supports the existence of
the major western based religions (Christianity,
Islam and Judaism).
● Western based religions would have no issue with
the definitions of God used in the ontological
argument e.g. God is the greatest.
● This is because western religions believe in the God
of classical theism: this God is associated with the
attributes of omnipotence (all-powerful),
omnibenevolence (all-loving), omniscience (all-
knowing etc). Such attributes match up with
definitions such as ‘God is the greatest’
Conclusion:
5. The ontological argument does not support Eastern
religions concept of God (Hinduism, Sikhism and
Buddhism).
● Eastern religions, such as Hinduism, have a
multitude of God’s with many different and varied
attributes e.g. one of Shiva’s attributes is a
destroyer, whereas one of Vishnu’s attributes a
protector.
● Therefore, single definitions of God, such as ‘God is
the greatest’, will fail in Hinduism because their
God’s have a variety of attributes that don’t fit a
single definition.

● Answer the question directly and say why.

The above strengths and weaknesses can be added to as you go through the rest of the Philosophy unit. For
example, the Inductive Arguments, in the previous section, can be used to both support and criticise the
Deductive Arguments. Also remember to analyse and evaluate these points
Theme 3. Challenges to religious belief: The Problem
of Evil & Suffering
Part ‘A’ Question (Theory) – Problem of Evil -

Section 1: Background
● The problem of evil is an atheist argument that argues for God’s non-existence.
Natural and Moral Evil
● The first thing you need to know, for this topic, is the difference between Natural and Moral Evil:
✓ Moral Evil: refers to evils that have come about as a direct result of human intentions and choices. These are
evils that simply wouldn’t have occurred if it had not have been for humans. We would include war, crime,
prejudice and genocide under this definition.
✓ Natural Evil: Natural (or non-moral) evil refers to evils caused by the natural state of things i.e. they are nothing
to do with human intentions and choices. They are evils brought about by the laws of nature and the state of the
world. We would include natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, under this definition.
Problem of Evil
● The atheist ‘problem of evil’ revolves around the existence of both moral and natural evil. We will consider two
versions of the problem of evil:
✓ The classical version by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus
✓ The modern version by Australian philosopher J.L. Mackie
● We will also consider 2 arguments that consider specific types of evil to conclude there is no God.
✓ Intense and animal suffering by William Rowe
✓ Premature deaths by Gregory Paul
● Finally, we will also consider counter arguments to the problem of evil (called theodicies):
✓ Augustinian type theodicy
✓ Irenaean type theodicy

Section 2 – The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Problem of Evil 1 - The classical version by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341BCE-270BCE)
● Epicurus is generally credited with first version of the problem of evil in around 300 BCE, and it is sometimes
called the ‘Epicurean paradox’.
● Epicurus wrote the original problem of evil in 4 lines. It is a deductive argument (like the Ontological argument):
● Question: If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
● Premise 1: If God wants to abolish evil, but cannot, he is impotent (not all-powerful)
● Premise 2: If God can abolish evil, but does not want to, he is wicked (not all-loving)
● Conclusion/truth: There is evil therefore he neither able nor willing to abolish evil. Then why call him God?
● There is no surviving written text of Epicurus that establishes that he actually formulated the problem of evil in
this way.
● Epicurus's argument is presented by Lactantius (250-325) who, from this argument, concluded that a god that is
all-powerful and all-loving does not exist.
● Therefore, the gods are distant and uninvolved with man's concerns. As Lactantius stated: “The gods are neither
our friends nor enemies.”
Problem of Evil 2 - Modern version by J.L. Mackie (1917-1981)
● Mackie starts his problem of evil formation with the following three propositions (statements):
1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
2. God is omnibenevolent (all-loving)
3. Evil exists
● Mackie problem of evil formation is often given in the form of an ‘inconsistent triad’ (triangle). Each point on the
triangle illustrating one of three propositions above.
● Mackie argued that these three propositions were inconsistent; what he means by this is that all three
propositions cannot not be true at once. This is because at least one of these propositions must be false if the
others are to be true.
● Therefore, either:
1. God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent but evil does not exist – this is because God has the loving nature (will)
and the power to stop evil.
2. God is omnipotent, but not omnibenevolent, and evil exists – this is because a non-loving God willed evil to exist
or does not care about stopping the existence of evil.
3. God is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent; and evil exists – this is because it is not within God’s power to stop
evil occurring.
● Mackie argues that argument number one (above) is not the right option because it is clear from our experience
that evil does exist e.g. both natural and moral evil occur on a daily basis.
● Arguments number two and three (above) are better options because they both allow evil to exist (which Mackie
claims it clearly does). However, both these arguments illustrate that the God of classical theism (the God of
Christianity/Islam etc) cannot exist. This is because the God of classical theism is supposed to have both the
attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
● Therefore, for Mackie, the problem of evil clearly illustrates the God of Classical Theism cannot exist because of
the existence of evil.
Problem of Evil 3 - Intense and animal suffering – William Rowe (1931-2015)
● William Rowe supports the idea there is no God because of pointless intense suffering and animal suffering. His
theory is called the ‘evidential argument’.
● The evidential argument states that God may justifiably not intervene to stop some evil. Rowe gives two
conditions under which he accepts why God doesn’t intervene to stop evil (he calls it ‘justified evil’):
✓ Condition 1 - Instances of evil that an omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-loving) and omniscient (all-
knowing) being could have prevented without chose not to because a greater good came from it e.g. God does
not intervene to stop the killing of a young woman. This is because her death has led to an anti-bullying charity
that has helped thousands of people (Sophie Lancaster Foundation).
✓ Condition 2: Instances of evil that an omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-loving) and omniscient (all-
knowing) being could have prevented without chose not to because some evil equally bad or worse would result
from this e.g. the nuclear bombing of Japan by the allies; though horrific stopped the land invasion of Japan by
the allies that may have caused more deaths.
● However, what Rowe is asking is: what about all the clearly evident left-over evil that does not meet either of the
conditions above (Rowe calls it ‘unjustified evil’). He particularly points out all the pointless intense suffering,
like the holocaust or the Rwanda genocide etc, and animal suffering, such as fox hunting or ivory trade etc.
● Rowe argues as there is evidently plenty of remaining evil/suffering that does not meet the above two
conditions, it looks like God is either cruel (doesn’t care) or is non-existent.
● John Hick responds to this argument by claiming that because we (humanity) cannot see God’s ultimate plan for
us, we simply don’t realise that ALL the evil in the world meets conditions 1 and 2.
● However, Rowe answers this back by arguing that it is clearly evident that there are instances of pointless
suffering among all the suffering in the world. He says: "The idea that none of this suffering could have been
prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing a greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad
seems an extraordinary absurd idea, quite beyond our belief."
Problem of Evil 4 - Premature deaths – Gregory Paul (1954 - )
● Gregory Paul considers the huge number of premature deaths (Paul considers any conception that didn’t achieve
adulthood to be a premature death) and concludes there cannot be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc God.
● Paul states his argument by stating that the current human population is around 6.5 billion (6,500,000,000),
however, Paul estimates that the number of total humans that have existed since humanity evolved is around
100 billion (100,000,000,000).
● Of those 100 billion, Paul estimates that over half (50 billion) died in childhood. This Paul claims is due to natural
or moral evil e.g.
✓ Natural Evil: diseases are the leading cause of death among children by far, Malaria alone has killed around 20
billion children. A few billion children have probably died due to starvation brought on by climate issues.
 Whereas physical trauma (earthquakes, tsunamis etc) have only killed a small portion of children but the toll is
probably still in the range of a billion.
✓ Moral Evil: war is a killer of children, however war, genocide, forced famines, and the like only account for 150
million plus deaths.
● Paul then states we need to add in the conceptions that have failed since the appearance of humans. Many
conceptions fail; due to failure to implant etc. Pregnancy is a risky process that is prone to malfunction; the
failure rate is 50%+. Paul puts the figure of failed conceptions at 300 hundred billion.
● Therefore, adding child deaths and conception failures together that is 350 billion premature deaths, compared
with the 50 billion people that made it to adulthood. That’s an approximate 7 to 1 loss ratio.
● Paul calls the huge number of premature deaths (350 billion) “the Holocaust of the Children”. Even then he
claims a high portion of the survivors were severely harmed with extreme levels of discomfort, pain, and fear.
● Paul states this dysfunctional system can be objectively described as merciless or ruthless. As Paul states “If a
creator exists, then it has chosen to fashion a habitat that has maximized the level of suffering and death among
young humans.” For Paul the above is evidence of either the non-existence of God or the existence of non-
benevolent God.
Section 3 - Theodicies
Background
● A theodicy is a religious argument put forward to defend the existence of the God of classical theism
(omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient etc) but justifies why such a God allows evil.
● We will consider two theodicies; both of which are named after their authors:
✓ Augustinian type theodicy
✓ Irenaean type theodicy
Theodicy 1 – Augustinian Type Theodicy
Background
● Augustine’s Theodicy was created by theologian and monk St. Augustine (AD 354-430). Augustine never actually
wrote a specific version of this theodicy; he wrestles with the problem of evil in several of his books. This
theodicy is basically a piecing together of his various works
● Because this is a theodicy it will attempt to show why God allows Evil despite been all-powerful and all loving.
● I will break St. Augustine’s theodicy into 4 parts to make it easier to understand.
Part 1: The Creation of the World
● Augustine starts his theodicy with the idea that God is all-powerful. Therefore, he argues God made the world
completely free of flaws i.e. God made the world perfect and thus free of evil.
● Augustine supports the above point by quoting from the Bible i.e. in Genesis 1 it states, 'God saw all that he had
made, and it was very good’. Therefore, when God created the world suffering and evil were unknown because
God did not create them.
● (Important) Augustine argues it is actually impossible for God to create evil because evil is not a substance (it is
not tangible). Evil is just a lack/privation of goodness i.e. I may steal because I choose not to be good (I have a
lack/privation of goodness).
Part 2: The Development of Natural & Moral Evil
● Augustine argued evil instead came from those entities within the world that were given freewill e.g. fallen
angels (the devil) and human beings. They abused God's gift of freedom and deliberately chose to turn away
from God (Augustine concedes it is a mystery, beyond human understanding, why humans and angels would do
such a thing).
● Again, Augustine supports his theodicy by quoting from the Bible e.g. in Genesis 3 Adam & Eve are tempted by
Satan to turn away from God by eating the forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden: the action of stealing the
forbidden fruit is often known as ‘Original Sin’.
● This action of using freewill to rebel against God has led to moral evil.
● Moral Evil (war, murder etc) has flourished and spread because humankind (starting with Adam & Eve) chose to
introduce moral evil with their freewill, starting by stealing the forbidden fruit. Therefore, Augustine is arguing
moral evil is simply a result of humankind’s decision to sin; not God’s.
● Augustine also addresses the issue of Natural Evil
● Natural Evil (earthquakes, disease etc): Augustine claims that natural evil is actually a part of God’s perfect order
for the world when He created the perfect universe. Human’s only perceive natural evil as ‘evil’ because of our
inability to see ‘the whole picture’ as God does. Augustine compares the presence of natural evil in the universe
with the presence of black in a picture. On its own black is not considered a pleasant colour; however, it is in the
 picture because the artist has a specific purpose for it being there; and if it were absent the beauty of the whole
picture would be spoilt. Therefore, the reason humanity perceives Natural Evil as ‘evil’ is their inability to see
the ‘whole picture’ as God can.
Part 3: Why Is There Still Moral Evil Today
● Augustine finally addresses the question of why God does not intervene to stop moral evil. From his writings
Augustine suggests two reasons for this:
a) Humanity deserve to suffer the consequences of moral evil because we are still being punished for Adam and
Eve's original sin. This is justified because we are all related to Adam and his original sin (As Augustine puts it
‘we are all seminally present in the loins of Adam’.)
b) Humanity has continued to abuse the responsibility of free will by voluntarily continuing to sin. Therefore, moral
evil is humanities responsibility not God’s.
● Therefore, God is right not to intervene to put a stop to moral evil (despite having the all-powerful nature to
stop it) because moral evil is punishment for human sin and God is just.
Part 4: Hope
● Augustine did conclude his theodicy with hope by reminding everyone of God's all-loving nature. Rightfully we
should all burn in hell (the punishment for sin).
● However, God sent his son (Jesus) to die on the cross so we all might be saved (if we ask for forgiveness of our
sins, that sin will be placed on Jesus and removed from us), thus allowing us to get to heaven. Thus, God is all-
loving as well as just.
Summary:
● God is All-powerful: God is all-powerful and thus made the world perfect
● Moral Evil Not God’s Fault: Moral Evil started with entities with free will (the devil and humanity) disobeyed God
e.g. Adam & Eve, Devil etc.
● Natural Evil is not evil: Natural Evil is not ‘evil’; it is just humanities inability to see why Natural Evil occurs.
● Moral Evil Not God’s Fault: God does not intervene to stop evil because we are being rightfully punished for are
sins; either because we inherit Adam’s original sin and/or humanity continues to use their free will to sin.
● God is all-loving: God, in His all-loving nature, sent His only son to save us from the above sin.
● Therefore, Augustine’s Theodicy answers the problem of evil by illustrating that evil is not the fault of an all-
loving (omnibenevolent)/all-powerful (omnipotent) God.
Strengths of Augustine's Theodicy:
● Biblically Based: Augustine's Theodicy is based on ideas from the Bible e.g. Adam and Eve's original sin.
● Evil is not a substance: Modern philosopher Brian Davies agrees with Augustine that evil is not a substance not
instead a ‘privation of good’. Davies states that evil is simply the gap between what I ought to do and what I do
e.g. I ought not to steal not I steal.
● Aquinas: Augustine’s theodicy is supported by major theologians like Aquinas. Aquinas particularly supported
Augustine’s idea that natural evil is only evil from humanities perspective.
● Free will: Plantinga agrees with Augustine that God had to give humanity free will. If God had created humans
so that they could only choose good they would have no free will (humanity would be just like little robots)
● Offers a Solution: Most importantly it shows why an all-powerful and all-loving God allows evil e.g. we are being
rightfully punished for are sin. Therefore, it offers an answer to the problem of evil.
Weaknesses of Augustine's Theodicy:
● God is Guilty: Surely an all-powerful God should have foreseen that Adam and Eve would have committed the
original sin. Moreover, why did God create the devil knowing that he would become a 'fallen angel' and then
cause evil. Furthermore, if Angels did rebel this suggests a flaw in their creation – therefore God did not create
the universe perfect
● Logical Error: It can be argued there was a logical contradiction. Augustine said God created the world perfect
and then it went wrong. But this would mean evil created itself out of nothing, which is logically impossible.
Thus, either the world was not perfect to begin with or God enabled it to go wrong.
● Scientific Error: The Genesis argument claims we are all descended from Adam; therefore, we all deserve the
punishment of Adam because we are related to him. This has been rejected on evolutionary grounds; the latest
evolutionary theory suggests we came out of at least 7 different tribes.
● Moral Error 1: Augustine argued that God would save some people if they followed Jesus. But this seems a little
harsh because if God were truly all-loving, He would save everyone.
● Moral Error 2: Why would an all-loving God create hell for the sinful to suffer in for all eternity. Also, hell is part
of God’s created order: this suggests God knew that angels and humanity would rebel against Him; so He pre-
prepared a place of punishment for them.
 Theodicy 2 – Irenaean type Theodicy
Background
● This theodicy was created by Irenaeus (AD 130-202) who was an early theologian and monk. Like Augustine,
Irenaeus’ theodicy was never a complete work by Irenaeus but arose from ideas he made in his work. Many
commentators argue Irenaeus’ theodicy is incomplete and therefore I will add some modern additions to the
theory by English theologian John Hick (1922-2012)
● Because this is a theodicy it will attempt to show why God allows Evil despite been all-powerful and all loving.
● I will break Irenaeus’ theodicy into 4 parts to make it easier to understand.
Part 1 - The Creation of the World
● Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus admitted God is partly to blame for the occurrence of moral evil. However, God did
this for a ‘greater’ reason. Therefore, this theodicy starts by Irenaeus claiming that God deliberately created
humanity imperfect. God did this because He made man's task in life to develop into God's perfection.
● Irenaeus backs up the above with a quote from Genesis 1v26 in the Bible: ‘God said “Let us make man in my
image and after in my likeness.” Irenaeus interpreted this to mean:
● “Let us make man in my image”: being made in God’s image meant God made humanity possessing potential
qualities of God’s perfection e.g. a sense of morality.
● “After in my likeness”: actualising these qualities of God’s perfection through the trials and tribulations that
humanity face and the decisions that we make i.e. every moral decision faced where a ‘good’ decision is freely
made, then the individual develops into God’s likeness (God’s perfection).
● Irenaeus created an analogy to illustrate the above theory e.g. God is a craftsman working with human beings as
his material and suggests that humans should freely allow God to mould them into His perfection
● Therefore, the reason God did not create humans perfect to start with is because humanity must decide for
themselves to become God like (God’s perfection).
Part 2 - The Development of Moral Evil
● Therefore, God had to grant humans genuine and total free will, so they could choose to be like God. However,
genuine free will opens up the possibility of people not only choosing to be good but also choosing to be morally
evil. Of course, humans did use their freewill to disobey God, causing moral evil in the world to develop; starting
with Adam and Eve’s original sin.
● However, Irenaeus claims moral evil is a necessary part of life because it enables humans to develop. Without it
decisions in life would have no real value. Virtues such as courage and perseverance (Irenaeus called these
‘second-order goods’) could never be developed if there were not the challenges in life that tested such virtues /
second order goods. Therefore, for Irenaeus, the ability for human beings to be able to freely choose to do good
was therefore, important in achieving God’s purpose for His creation (to develop in His likeness to achieve Godly
perfection).
● Therefore, God never steps in to stop potential moral evil occurring because this would compromise human
freedom and stop humanity having the potential to develop in God’s likeness. John Hick added here God has to
be distanced from humans so that humanity can decide for themselves whether to develop in God’s likeness
because if God was close we would be overwhelmed by knowledge of God’s expectations and thus automatically
try to be more like God. Hick called this distance an ‘epistemic distance.’
Part 3 - The Development of Natural Evil
● Hick added to Irenaeus Theodicy by showing why God also allows actual Natural Evil (as well as Moral Evil). He
argued the natural world could not be a paradise. This is because in a paradise there would be no chance of ever
causing harm and thus humans would not be truly free to choose to be like God i.e. it would be too easy to be
like God in a paradise.
● Therefore, to be truly free to make genuine choices to be like God, God allows natural evil i.e. (quote from Hick)
‘Our world is not designed to maximise human pleasure but for the purpose of soul making’. What he means by
this is that Natural evil is needed to help humanity make difficult choices, so that they can develop into God’s
likeness.
Part 4 - Hope for the Future
● Irenaeus also ends his theodicy with hope. He claims that eventually everyone will achieve their aim of
becoming like God (Godly perfection). Those that freely chose to become more like God will directly enter
 heaven; those that reject God in this life (and thus don’t develop into God’s likeness) will be punished in the next
life. However, this punishment is not eternal but will instead purify them so that they become like God (achieve
Godly perfection). Therefore, ultimately everyone will eventually develop into God’s likeness - this part of
Irenaeus theodicy is called ‘eschatological justification’.
Irenaeus’ Theodicy - Summary
● God deliberately created humanity imperfect.
● Humans must have freewill to develop into God's likeness.
● God given freewill allows the possibility that humanity may choose to be morally evil (which humanity did)
● God doesn't intervene because this would compromise human freedom to develop into God’s likeness.
● Hick: natural evil occurs because it would be too easy to choose to be like God if there was no natural evil.
● However, everyone will eventually have the opportunity to become like God, whether in this life (on Earth) or in
the next life (in heaven).
Strengths of Irenaeus Theodicy
● Biblically Based: Irenaeus Theodicy is also partly based on ideas from the Bible e.g. Irenaeus quotes from
Genesis 1v26 ‘God said “Let us make man in my image and after in my likeness.” Therefore, his theory is
acceptable to Christians.
● Solution to the problem of evil: this theodicy shows why an all-powerful and all-loving God allows evil e.g. we
need to have freewill to choose to be like God. Therefore, it justifies why God does not intervene to stop evil
events even today e.g. it would compromise our freedom and evil is useful tool in our development. Thus, this
argument offers a solution to the problem of evil.
● A goal for life: Irenaeus theodicy provides a recognisable and achievable goal for humanity that gives relevance
and value to life on earth i.e. every action I do has a purpose.
Weaknesses of Irenaeus Theodicy
● Quantity and Gravity of Suffering is unjust: we may be able to accept that God has to allow some natural and
moral evil in the world and thus allow us to develop naturally into his likeness. However, does are world need to
contain the extent and severity of suffering found in events like the Holocaust? Moreover, this theodicy does
not explain why some people seem to suffer more than others e.g. children (see Paul’s argument above).
● Is Suffering an Expression of Love: basically, this theodicy is saying that God is showing his love for humanity by
giving us freewill and therefore the possibility to pain and kill each other so we can become more like God.
Phillips argues that allowing evil (and thus pain and evil) is a fundamentally poor way to express one's love for
something e.g. love shouldn't be expressed through evil; surely God if He is all-powerful or all loving could have
created a better way to test us.
● The Concept of ‘Heaven for all’ Seems Unjust- Irenaeus view that everyone will go to heaven to continue trying
to be more like God has been criticised on two fronts:
✓ This contradicts religious texts, including the Bible and Qur'an, which both promise punishment for the
unrighteous.
✓ This idea is morally unacceptable because there is no incentive to develop into God likeness in this life because
you can just leave it until the next life (heaven).
Section 4: Part B Discussions – Problem of Evil: 36 minutes in the exam
● There are 6 possible part B discussions for this topic. However, the discussions can be broken into 3 pairs.
● All the Part B discussions revolve around the theory you have already learnt.
Discussions 1 & 2
1. The extent to which the classical form of the problem of evil is a problem.
2. The degree to which modern problem of evil arguments are effective in proving God’s non-existence.
Problem of Evil Arguments are effective Problem of evil arguments are not effective
1. Supported by Rowe’s ‘Intense and Animal Suffering 1. Dismissed by Augustine’s Theodicy – see above
argument’ – see above notes. notes.
2. Supported by Paul’s ‘Premature death argument’ – 2. Dismissed by Irenaeus’ Theodicy – see above notes.
see above notes.
3. (Your Own Argument) 3. (Your Own Argument)
Conclusion

Discussions 3 & 4
3. Whether Augustinian type theodicies are relevant in the 21 st century.
4. The extent to which Augustine’s theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of classical theism.
Augustine’s Theodicy works Augustine’s Theodicy does not work
● Use strengths of Augustine’s Theodicy (see above ● Use weaknesses of Augustine’s Theodicy (see above
notes). Remember to analyse and evaluate notes). Remember to analyse and evaluate
Conclusion

Discussions 5 & 6
5. Whether Irenaean type theodicies are credible in the 21 st century.
6. The extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of classical theism.
Irenaeus’ Theodicy works Irenaeus’ Theodicy does not work
● Use strengths of Irenaeus’ Theodicy (see above ● Use weaknesses of Irenaeus’ Theodicy (see above
notes). Remember to analyse and evaluate notes). Remember to analyse and evaluate
Conclusion

The above fors and againsts can be added to as you go through the rest of the Philosophy unit. For example, the
Inductive Arguments and Deductive (and their challenges), in the previous topic, can be used to both support and
criticise the problem of evil and the theodicies. Also remember to analyse and evaluate these points
 Theme 4: Religious Experience
Religious Experience
Part ‘A’ Question (Theory) – Religious Experience -

Topic 1 - The nature of Religious Experience

● This theme is designed to give you an overview of religious experiences. A religious experience is generally
defined as an ‘encounter with God’.
● There are several forms of religious experience; however, your syllabus wants you to just concentrate on four:
Section 1 - Visions – sensory; intellectual; dreams
Definition:
✓ A vision is where a person sees an object, sound or figure that is not part of normal reality (not seen in our
everyday lives) but the person believes they have a religious origin.
✓ A vision has a sensory aspect i.e. it appears before the recipient, therefore they are sometimes known as sensory
visions
✓ Visions can have an intellectual quality i.e. the person receives a message of insight or instruction.
Classifications:
● There are generally four types of vision:
✓ Sensory Visions: Group. visions are seen by more than one person, for example, Fatima – the Virgin Mary,
appeared 6 times to 3 shepherd children and told them messages of wanting peace in Russia or examples in
Toronto Blessing based services.
✓ Sensory Visions: Individual – Dream Based: individual visions seen by only one person. Individual visions are
often dream based. For example, Joseph vision when engaged to Mary, about her pregnancy.
✓ Sensory Visions: Individual – Corporeal: the individual sensory vision can be corporeal i.e. a physical body can be
seen in the real world. However, it is only visible to that person, for example, the appearances of angels e.g. the
shepherds when Jesus was born.
✓ Sensory Visions: Intellectual – visions can also bring a message e.g. when the wise men were warned in a dream
not to return to King Herod (Matthew 2:12).
Content of Visions:
● Message: The content of visions can be very varied e.g. there could be an image in which there is a message. For
example, the prophet Muhammed receiving the Qur’an from the Angel Jibrail.
● Religious Figure: A vision could also contain religious figures. For example, St Teresa of Avila’ had a vision of an
angel holding a long spear. It pierced her heart several times and when it was withdrawn it left her ‘completely
afire with a great love for God’.
● A Place: The vision experience could also be of a place of significance, for example, Guru Nanak’s vision of God’s
court in which he was escorted into God’s presence and commanded to drink a cup of nectar.

Section 2 - Conversion –individual/communal; sudden/gradual

Definition
● The word ‘conversion means a process of change that alters a person’s view of the world, in a religious sense.
● Conversions can be a personal experience but not always. For example, in ‘Acts of the Apostles’ the disciples
jointly received the Holy Spirit.
Characteristic features of a conversion
● Philosopher William James (1842-1910) outlined several key features of a conversion:
✓ A conversion can be passive (the experience comes upon them someone unexpectedly without them seeing it)
or active (a person specifically seeks a spiritual experience, at a service like the Toronto Blessing).
✓ Conversions can often be transforming i.e. the person in like a ‘new person’ – often more spiritual and/or ethical.
✓ A conversion can be either slow or fast.
✓ A conversion is often involuntary - meaning that the conversion might involve the giving up of the personal will,
maybe after an internal battle.
Different types of conversions
● There are various types of conversions:
✓ Atheist to Faith: A conversion can be from no religion to a faith. For example, C.S. Lewis moved from been an
atheist (mainly due to his war time experiences) to faith, in 1931. Lewis became a lifelong Christian, writing
many books on faith.
✓ Faith to Faith: It can also be from one faith to another faith. For example, Sundar Singh, was raised a devout
Sikh, however, he had a vision of Jesus and became an active Christian for the rest of his life.
✓ Inner Self: A conversion that involves the unifying of the inner self. Linked to ideas of psychologists like Jung,
who believed conversion to religion brought psychological wholeness.
✓ Deepening of Faith: A conversion can be a deepening of someone’s faith. They can have had an intellectual
belief in God, but a conversion could mean their faith comes from their heart.
✓ Moral: Sometimes a conversion leads to increased moral standing. For example, 1960’s pop star Cat Stevens
gave up drugs, alcohol etc when he converted to Islam.

Section 3 - Mysticism – transcendent; ecstatic and unitive

Definition and Background and Features
● Definition: is a religious experience that is about the feeling a union with God. The experience can be powerful,
but the person finds it hard to explain the experience.
Common features of a mystical experience:
● Ed Miller argued mystical experiences (feeling the presence of God) have 5 common features:
1. Transcendent: the experience tends to be short/fleeting in nature. However, the experience, despite its brevity,
maybe very intense and have long lasting consequences for the recipient e.g. they become more religious.
2. Ineffable: The mystical experience is not easily expressible/explained in language
3. Noetic: The mystical experience conveys a deep truth.
4. Ecstatic: It fills the soul with bliss and/or peace
5. Unitive: Uniting our spiritual soul with reality
Types of Mystical Experiences
● There are 3 main types of mystical experiences:
✓ Mystical Experiences: Unitive. this involves the removal of the separation between the individual and God.
Many religious mystics have claimed such experiences, including St. Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 22)
✓ Mystical Experiences: Transcendent. associated with the mystical experiences that takes the person ‘beyond’
the realm of everyday experiences. Transcendental realities are often described as ‘other worldly’ or other vague
descriptions of experiencing something beyond this world. Most religious traditions have aspects of
transcendental mysticism within them e.g. Sufism is based on focusing on a union with Allah through meditation.
✓ Mystical Experiences: Ecstatic. the belief that the mystical experience gives you a feeling of powerful joy. Many
believe an ecstatic mystical experience is the closest a person can get to the feeling of what it must be like to be
in the presence of God. In Toronto Blessing services some people uncontrollably laugh hysterically, as they feel
the holy-spirit.
Section 4 - Prayer – types and stages of prayer according to Teresa of Avila.
● Definition – in a basic sense it is the activity of speaking to God
Background to Teresa of Avila - four stages of prayer
● Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), joined a nunnery at a young age.
● After a severe illness, she had a vision of a ‘wounded Christ’, which to re-energised Teresa and inspired her to
develop her prayer life, which she eventually wrote about. Teresa’s stages of prayer can be found in her book
‘The Interior Castle’.
● Teresa considers the human soul to be like a castle that contains suites or mansions
● Teresa’s approach to religious experience was through her four stages of prayer (though rather confusingly she
refers to them as 7 mansions – however the first 3 mansions/levels are often discounted because these prayers
do not give the same level of union that can be eventually gained.
● She eventually believed that true union with God could only be achieved by intense concentration and
disciplining oneself through a life of prayer that would, by a series of stages, allow a person to reach that union.
Teresa’s four stages of prayer
● Stage 1 - Found in the fourth metaphorical mansion, is the ‘prayer of consolations’ from God a.k.a. the Prayer of
Quiet. Teresa describes this as a state where the human will, is completely captivated by God’s Love. The
individual will experience, peace and spiritual fulfilment. The experience can be intense, and some individuals
can faint. This state is referred to by St. Teresa as a ‘sleep of the faculties’.
● Stage 2 - Within the fifth mansion Teresa describes the next stage as the prayer of simple union. Therefore, God
places himself in the interior of the persons soul. The experience is so powerful they cannot possibly doubt that
God has been in the experience.
● Stage 3 - The sixth mansion is commonly known as the stage of ‘spiritual marriage’. The main experiences
associated with this stage can include feelings of painful longing, spiritual happiness and visions (in essence a
powerful love for God). The main characteristic is the sense of wanting to be able to spend every possible
moment alone with God above all other things.
● Stage 4 - The seventh and final mansion: the highest possible state of prayer. The soul has reached a state of
union with God, a.k.a. ‘mystical marriage.’ It is the stage where the person is in complete unity with God, to the
extent where an intimate awareness of God is felt.

Topic 2 – Mystical Experience

● This section wishes for you to look deeper into mysticism (one of the four religious experiences covered above).
Specifically, it wishes to consider two theorists on mystical experiences:
● William James (1842-1910)
● Rudolf Otto (1869-1937)
Section 1 - William James’ four characteristics of mystical experience
Background:
● William James’ book on mystical experiences ‘Varieties of Religious Experience (1902)’ is regarded as one of the
most significant works on mysticism. In this work he broke religious experiences into four characteristics
Four characteristics of mystical experience
1. Ineffability - It is not possible to explain the mystical experience to other people because it is overwhelmingly
and transforming. Unless someone else has had a similar experience, it is not possible for others to understand.
Philosopher Peter Vardy compares this with the experience of being in love. Moreover, the mystical experience
is so profound, that mundane language cannot express it. James accepts such experiences cannot be proved but
just because it cannot be ‘proved’ should not mean it is not a valuable experience.
2. Noetic quality – A mystical experience also allows an insight into faith. These insights would not be available to a
person simply by intellectual investigation e.g. Bible Study. The gaining of a special kind of knowledge, or insight,
is common in the work of mystics down the ages e.g. Teresa’s four stages of prayer studied above.
3. Transiency - The mystical experience does not last long. James noted in his observations that the experiences
rarely lasted more than 30 minutes, but the effects remain for a lifetime.
4. Passivity - When the experience reaches its highest form, the individual is left with a feeling of helplessness.
Some subjects in James' observations spoke of being lost in the experience. James’ observed the experience is
‘done to’ the mystic, the actual moment of mysticism appears to be governed by a being/force external to the
mystic. The transformative effect on the passive individual is massive, and often the mystics life will often be
changed after the experience.
Section 2 - Rudolf Otto
Background:
● Otto’s studied religious experiences from the perspective that they are beyond the realms of rational thought
and/or the empirical sciences, for his book ‘The Idea of the Holy’.
● Instead he focused on the ‘feelings’ of the person involved in the mystical experience. Therefore, he accepted
that his research was subjective.
Concept of the Numinous:
● Otto starts his investigation by looking into the concept of the term ‘holy’
● The word ‘holy’ has several meanings, but he focused on one specific meaning of the term ‘holy’ which was
‘numinous’.
● Numinous definition: This word comes from the Latin word ‘numen’: which refers to a supernatural Godly
power. Therefore, the person who experiences the ‘numinous’ feels the presence of a supernatural Godly
power as part of their religious/mystical experience.
The human predisposition for religious experience
● Otto believed that human beings naturally seek out the numinous, as it is part of humanities natural inclination
to seek spiritual.
● Everyday human experience is often described as ‘rational’: particularly when dealing with the everyday aspects
of human existence. However, Otto believed that there was also a part of human existence that wants the ‘non-
rational’ i.e. those things that cannot be explained by empirical means – think UFO’s or superheroes.
● Otto makes a distinction between an irrational being (which refers to a lack of sanity) and a non-rational being
(who is stable but wants an experience that is not definable in rational terms).
Mysterium Tremendum
● Otto believes a numinous experience is the deepest and fundamental element of all religious emotions.
● He believes numinous experiences as having a profound effect on the individual having the numinous
experience. In fact the only way to sum up the intensity of this experience is by using the Latin expression
‘mysterium tremendum’ (meaning ‘terrible mystery’).
● Otto believes the numinous experience may come ‘sweeping like a gentle tide’ leading to a mood of deepest
worship. The individual will continue in this mood until it dies away, and the person resumes everyday life.
● Therefore, the numinous expereince or mysterium tremendum, is a profound experience with great intensity,
that is associated with a deeply felt religious experience.

Topic 3 - Challenges to the objectivity and authenticity of religious experience

● In this topic we will consider challenges to religious experiences. Firstly, we will look at specific challenges by
Caroline Franks-Davis and then we will consider some generalised challenges
Section 1 - Caroline Franks-Davis
● Caroline Franks-Davis (in her 1989 work ‘The Evidential Force of Religious Experience’) highlighted three
challenges to the validity of claims of religious (mystical) experiences:
1. Description-related challenges
● When any event is described that claims itself to be an experience of ‘God’ then a claim is being made without
any ability to support it with empirical evidence. This experience is therefore not valid.
● This is because any claim of such an experience is contradictory with normal everyday experience and, for this
reason, should be rejected.
● Frank-Davis believes all religious experiences are merely a misunderstanding on the part of the individual
claiming the experience i.e. when any individual claims a religious experience they are in fact just misinterpreting
an everyday event.
2. Subject-related challenges
● People claiming a religious experience are unreliable. This is because they may be suffering from a mental
illness or to have been suffering delusions brought about by some sort of substance misuse.
● If this is correct they are not in a position to properly understand what they have experienced and must have
their claims dismissed.
3. Object-related challenges
● Franks-Davis focuses on the source of the religious experience (the object of the experience).
● She believes that the likelihood of having experienced something a God like figure is so unlikely as to be totally
untrue.
● The idea that God has been experienced is no more likely than a claim of having seen the loch ness monster. As
we are unlikely to believe anyone that claimed to experience the loch ness monster, why then should we believe
the claim of someone who was said to have experienced God?
Section 2 – Other Criticisms of Religious Experiences
● Mystical/religious experiences seem to belong to a past time, particularly ancient religious texts. Especially when
faced with such claims in an era dominated by scientific empiricism and rationality. Therefore, we will consider
several other reasons why we might doubt religious experiences:
Religious Experiences are Subjective:
● Science demands that for anything to be deemed true, we must first some common criteria for establishing their
truth, that can be verified by empirical evidence. From this the objective truth of whether religious experiences
are real can be investigated.
● However, due to the very nature of mystical experiences, such criteria are virtually impossible to verify (despite
the claims of philosophers like William James). Therefore, religious experiences can be seen as subjective i.e. the
experiences are based on personal judgement or belief.
● As contemporary society tends to only believe ‘objective truths’, subjective accounts of ‘religious experiences’
are readily dismissed.
Religious Experiences are Meaningless:
● Logical positivists (see later religious language notes) helped clarify where language could be considered either
meaningful or meaningless.
● Logical positivists believe all language that cannot be supported by empirical evidence and thus are neither
‘analytical a-prior’ or ‘synthetic a-posteriori’ are meaningless. Therefore, religious experiences are considered
meaningless.
● Moreover, Flew’s ‘falsification principle’ (see later notes in Religious Language) stated that religious experiences
could be made meaningful if there was some evidence that could count against them. However, Flew believed
that as people who claim to have had a religious experience allow nothing to count against their beliefs, then all
religious experiences were meaningless.
Alternative Explanations
● Some theorists believe that the characteristics of religious experiences are similar to the effects of alcohol
and/or drugs, such as LSD. LSD can stimulate the brain into hallucinating and experiencing ‘so-called’ alternative
realities.
● Sigmund Freud (see later notes) held the view that all religious experiences were nothing more than the result of
the repression of sexual feelings.
● David Hume argues that a direct experience of God is impossible. This is because how can something that is
greater than humanity (i.e. God is given the attributes of omnipotence) be experienced by a mortal human
being.

Section 4: Part B Discussions – Religious Experiences – Part 1:

● There are 6 possible part B discussions for this topic.
1. The impact of religious experiences upon religious belief and practice
2. Whether different types of religious experience can be accepted as equally valid in communicating religious
teachings and beliefs.
3. The adequacy of James’ four characteristics in defining mystical experience
4. The adequacy of Otto’s definition of ‘numinous’
5. The extent to which the challenges to religious experience are valid
6. The persuasiveness of Franks-Davis’ different challenges
● Although each of the above discussions are unique they all revolve around the question are whether religious
experiences occur. Therefore, below is a list of arguments on why religious experiences are valid or are not valid
(most of which we have covered already).
● Not all the arguments work with each question therefore it is important to practice selecting which arguments
go best with each question.
Religious Experiences are Valid Religious Experiences are not valid
Impact on religious belief and practice: Religious Experiences are subjective - see earlier notes
● Religious experiences have had a very powerful
effect upon certain individuals
● For example, C.S. Lewis moved from been an
atheist (mainly due to his war time experiences) to
faith, in 1931. Lewis became a lifelong Christian,
writing many books on faith and is particularly
credited with advancing the Christian
understanding of grace.
William James – powerful experiences: Religious Experiences are meaningless – Logical
● James was interested in the effects of religious Positivists and Anthony Flew
experience on people’s lives and believed that the
validity of the experience is present in the effects it
produces.
● James documented many examples of religious
experience, and he saw that the effects were
powerful and positive.
● They changed the lives of individuals so much so
that he saw this as powerful evidence for both a
belief in God and the validity of the experiences.
William James: Test of Time Sigmund Freud: held the view that all religious
● It could be argued that James theory has stood the experiences were nothing more than the result of the
test of time. repression of sexual feelings (see later notes on Freud)
● If we compare Otto’s numinous classification of
religious experience as the mystical element we can
see there is nothing new really added to James’
characteristics of a mystical experience. Most of
Otto’s work is really just a re-working on James’
four characteristics
Apprehend God: David Hume: argues that a direct experience of God is
● A challenge to religious experiences is that they are impossible (see notes above)
not really the same as sense experiences, even if
they have sensory elements to them.
● However, it could be argued that just as we are
known to each other by a kind of direct
apprehension rather than through our physical
body e.g. knowing the inner beauty of someone.
● Therefore, in the same way we may be able to
experience God who is non–physical.
Richard Swinburne: Drugs etc: See notes above
● Swinburne created the principles of credulity and
testimony.
● These stated that it is reasonable to believe what
people tell us, unless there are specific reasons not
to (they were drunk, on drugs etc).
● Therefore, what people tell us they have
experienced, is probably what they have actually
experienced.
● For example, when someone tells you they have
fallen in love, we don’t tend to doubt this, we
believe they are experiencing love.
● So, why doubt the similar claim of a religious
experience. It seems hypocritical to accept one (I
am love) and not the other (I have had a religious
experience)
Jung - Jung provides a possible support for religious Caroline Franks-Davis: listed three distinct forms of
experiences. Jung argued that humanity has a challenge to the validity of claims of religious (mystical)
collective unconscious (archetypes). This could explain experiences – see notes above
the origin of religious experiences and why so many
people have them (see later notes on Jung)
Different Experiences: Different Experiences: Although some experiences may
● People may have different religious experiences be experienced by more than one person there is still
because God may reveal himself in terms of cultural the issue of the lack of overall uniformity of religious
beliefs that we will understand in a particular experiences. They are so different and sometimes
culture. contradictory. Which one is valid, and which one is
● Moreover, contradicting religious experiences true?
across different religions does not necessarily show
all religious experiences are wrong. Maybe only
one religion is correct, so the other religious
experiences are false, but those of that one religion
are all true
Religious experiences promote faith value system Bertrand Russell: argued ‘the fact that a belief has a
● Religious experiences can also be the source of good moral effect upon a man is no evidence
revealing ethical standards. For example: in whatsoever in favour of its truth’. For example, one can
 Buddhism, the Buddha’s enlightenment has guided be influenced by a character from a good story but that
many down a moral path. does not mean the character is real.
Influential Religious Figures Ineffability: Many religious experiences are beyond
In most religions, there is often a pivotal figure who is verbal description (as James reported). There are no
linked to the founding of that religion. Their authority words that can describe the experience, so it is not
often comes from their religious experience. For possible for others to understand. The experience is
example: subjective and private, it is not open to anyone else. If
The angel Gabriel is said to have appeared to all this is true then how can ineffable religious
Muhammad when he was praying alone in a cave. The experiences be as valid in communicating or evidencing
angel commanded Muhammad to recite verses that religious belief.
would be included in the Qur’an.
In Christianity, St. Paul is also seen as an influential
figure of the Christian Church. Paul changed from being
someone on a mission to arrest Christians, to someone
preaching and suffering for proclaiming Jesus. What
triggered the change were a number of religious
experiences including a conversion experience.
Remember to analysis and evaluate the above points and don’t be scared to create other points based
upon the information you have learnt elsewhere in the syllabus.