Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
196 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What does Meta mean? |
Questions that come before etc.
|
|
|
What is Ethics mean?
|
The system of right and wrong
Webster- a theory or system of moral values |
|
|
What is the definition of Metaethics?
|
The attempt to look behind or beyond the system of values to find out if or how its tenets are justified
What comes before your system of moral values What you base your beliefs of right and wrong on Your mechanism for concluding certain things are right and wrong |
|
|
What are Applied Ethics?
|
The application of your metaethics to specific issues
|
|
|
What does every ethical dilemma involve?
|
A choice between two alternatives
|
|
|
What do most people not do?
|
Almost no one asks themselves if their beliefs about right and wrong correspond to reality- most people do not practice metaethics
|
|
|
Which ethic is more fun, but what do you have to remember about it?
|
Applied ethics is more fun to debate, but you can’t practice it unless you have a reliable metaethic
|
|
|
What is true of the characters in the Matrix?
|
They all have different metaethics
|
|
|
What is Cypher's metaethics?
|
Egoistic Hedonism- the view that an action is justified if it helps you
Look out for yourself cause no one else will Cypher is willing to betray Morpheus for his best interest |
|
|
What is Neo's metaethic?
|
Utilitarianism- an action is justified when it benefits the most people
This is the opposite of Cypher’s view which thinks only about self |
|
|
What is Neo willing to do and how can he justify it?
|
He is so convinced that Morpheus is important that he risks his life, Trinity’s life, and many other people’s lives
It is worth the death of thousands to benefit the millions in Zion |
|
|
What are the different Anti-Ethical views?
|
Determinism
Moral Nihilism Ethical Relativism Psychological Egoism |
|
|
What is true if Determinism is true?
|
If determinism is true then people cannot be held morally responsible for their actions
|
|
|
What is Moral Nihilism?
|
The view that no moral claims or judgments are ever true
|
|
|
What did Freidrich Nietzsche say in Will to Power about Moral Nihilism?
|
“Nihilism is not only the belief that everything deserves to perish, but one actually puts one’s shoulder to the plow, one destroys”
|
|
|
What is true of morality in Moral Nihilism?
|
We should make up our own ideas of what is right and wrong
Nothing is inherently moral or immoral so we choose |
|
|
What are the Two Arguments for Nihilism?
|
Moral claims involve a “category mistake” fallacy
G.E. Moore, the Naturalistic Fallacy |
|
|
What is the “category mistake” fallacy that moral claims supposedly commit?
|
Nietzche says that things or ideas cannot be categorized as moral or immoral- an object in itself is not immoral
Only people can be moral or immoral |
|
|
What is a "category mistake"?
|
Putting something in a category it does not fit in
|
|
|
What is the response to the supposed "category mistake"?
|
There is only a category mistake if you talk about nouns/objects rather than verbs/actions
Nouns/objects are not able to be moral or immoral Actions imply agency so they can be moral or immoral |
|
|
What is G.E. Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy?
|
Statements about how something is cannot lead to conclusions about how something ought to be
Observations about how the nature of the case cannot lead to conclusions about how things ought to be We just see the action, there is no direct announcement that it is moral or immoral so how do we get to that? |
|
|
What is an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
|
Abortion is killing does not lead to the idea that it should not be done
|
|
|
What are Problems for Nihilism?
|
How can we account for the universal belief in moral right and wrong unless there are actually are certain actions that are right and wrong
Nihilism lived out would lead to anarchy |
|
|
What happens if there is even one absolute?
|
Relativism fails
|
|
|
What is Ethical Relativism/Subjectivism?
|
The view that all ethical judgments are relative and/or subjective and are therefore not absolute
The opposite of ethical absolutism |
|
|
What is the difference between epistemological relativism and ethical relativism?
|
Epistemological Relativism- beliefs make sense within cultural contexts
Ethical Relativism- there is no reality to correspond to so there can be no true ethical beliefs |
|
|
What are the Arguments for Ethical Relativism?
|
Ethical views change according to cultural context, and therefore seem to be cultural productions
There are so many different ethical positions that it could be true that none are universal. How can we account for all this diversity? |
|
|
What are the Arguments Against Ethical Relativism?
|
The apparent fact that ethical judgments are culturally conditioned does not entail the conclusion that ethical norms are not absolute
A wide diversity of ethical views does not prove that none of them is more correct than any others There seem to be some ethical judgments that are universal |
|
|
What did Swidler find?
|
Lots of cultures have versions of the Golden Rule
|
|
|
How do we account for universals like the Golden Rule?
|
There actually are moral absolutes so people come to the same conclusions as they discover these
|
|
|
What is Psychological Egoism?
|
The view that everything we do is motivated by self-interest and therefore all our actions are ultimately immoral
|
|
|
What are the Arguments for Psychological Egoism?
|
Altruism is seldom, if ever, pure. Even our good deeds can be done out of selfish motivation.
We are all sinners which effects even our good deeds |
|
|
What is Isaiah 64:6?
|
“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
|
|
|
What are the Arguments Against Egoism?
|
It is not clear that self-interest is always immoral
Even if self-interest is present in every deed, that does not prove that self-interest is the only motive, nor is it the primary motive It is far from clear that self-interest is always present |
|
|
What are some examples that suggest that self-interest is not always present?
|
Mother Theresa
Jesus |
|
|
What are the Conclusions Regarding Anti-Ethics?
|
Although there is a considerable move towards denying ethical absolutism in contemporary America is not based on sound reasoning
Since ethical absolutism is the only alternative to the anti-ethical movement we must seek a method to determine these absolutes |
|
|
What are Consequentialist Theories?
|
Consequentialist ethical theories evaluate the ethical status of actions based upon their consequences
|
|
|
What are the Two Consequentialist Theories?
|
Egoistic Hedonism
Utilitarianism (Social Hedonism) |
|
|
What is Hedonism?
|
The view that the criterion by which an action should be judged as right or wrong is the ability of that action to produce happiness (or pleasure, satisfaction of needs etc.)
|
|
|
What is Egoistic Hedonism?
|
The view that the criterion by which an action should be judged as right or wrong is its ability to produce happiness (etc.) for the individual contemplating the action
|
|
|
What is Happy Days' hedonistic quote?
|
“Feels so right it can’t be wrong”
|
|
|
Who are some Famous Egoistic Hedonists?
|
Epicurus
Ayn Rand "Happy Days" |
|
|
Who was Epicurus?
|
Thefounder of Epicureanism
|
|
|
What did Epicurus conclude because we are only material?
|
The health of the body and peace of mind are the criteria that should govern our actions
|
|
|
Who was Epicurus influenced by and what did he believe?
|
Influenced by pre-Socratic atomists Leucippus and Democritus
We are only material; there is no after-life |
|
|
What did Epicurus think would bring you the most happiness and what should you do?
|
You can get more happiness through a lifetime of moderation than through tons of present happiness
You should be a good member of society and help others to create an ordered and good society |
|
|
Who was Ayn Rand?
|
20th century author who fled the Soviet Union
|
|
|
What did Ayn Rand react to and what how did she promote her ideas?
|
Reacted against socialism, defended the rights of the individual-objectivism
Popularized her philosophy in fictional works such as Atlas Shrugged |
|
|
What are some principles of Ayn Rand's hedonism?
|
Crass sensuality
Consume all you can, produce all you can Think about yourself, don’t worry about society, they don’t care about you Doing good only for yourself will benefit society Looks at short-term gratification not long term |
|
|
Whose hedonism affects our culture the most?
|
Ayn Rand and Happy Days' not Epicurus
|
|
|
What are the Arguments for Egoistic Hedonism?
|
It defends the rights of the individual
Encourages self-reliance/discourages dependency on others Epicurus’ version encourages you to take care of your body and mind |
|
|
What are the Arguments Against Egoistic Hedonism?
|
G.E. Moore, the naturalistic fallacy: can “ought” be derived from “is”?
Difficult to predict immediate and long range consequences Can evil means be used to achieve a good end? Most people sense an altruistic impulse. Altruism is not compatible with egoistic hedonism If individuals only look out for their own self-interest, society cannot survive |
|
|
How does Egoistic Hedonism reduce to an absurdity?
|
Focus on rights for individuals leads to destruction of society
|
|
|
What is Utilitarianism (Social Hedonism)?
|
The view that the criterion by which an action should be judged as right or wrong is the ability of that action to produce the greatest good for the most people
Focuses on the ends justifying the means Consequences for society at large |
|
|
Who are some Important Utilitarians?
|
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill John Rawls |
|
|
Who was Jeremy Bentham?
|
19th century English founder of Utilitarianism
|
|
|
Who was John Stuart Mill?
|
A famous 19th century English advocate of Utilitarianism
|
|
|
Who is John Rawls?
|
20th century American proponent of Utilitarianism
|
|
|
What are the Arguments for Utilitarianism?
|
Encourages care for others
Engenders a strong society It seems to be in harmony with the altruistic impulse found in many philosophies and religions |
|
|
What are the Arguments Against Utilitarianism?
|
May commit the naturalistic fallacy
Difficult to predict immediate and long range consequences Seems to imply that evil means can be used to achieve good ends Doesn’t help us choose between actions having equal consequences It seems to entail that we do not take ourselves into consideration which is not always good. |
|
|
What is true of the three non-consequentialist theories?
|
Like consequentialist theories, these defend moral absolutes but they do not view ends (consequences) as the justification of means (actions)
|
|
|
What is the difference between Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist Theories?
|
Consequentialist theories evaluate the ethical status of actions based upon their consequences
Non-Consequentialist ethical theories evaluate the ethical status of actions based on their conformity to some standard of right and wrong |
|
|
What are Problems with Lists of Rules?
|
How do we know if it is complete?
You would either have to memorize it or carry it with you everywhere and look up every dilemma |
|
|
What do we need for Non-Consequentialist Theories?
|
We need a principle to apply to multiple scenarios to determine right and wrong
|
|
|
What are the Three Non-Consequentialist Theories?
|
Duty Ethics
Value Ethics Natural Law Theory |
|
|
What did Kant try to find?
|
An a priori ethical principle we can discover without recourse to empirical observations
|
|
|
What did Kant observe?
|
Kant observed that moral obligation that is conditional (X is good under condition Y) is relative, which leads to situation ethics
|
|
|
What did Kant conclude about consequentialist theories because conditional moral obligation is relative?
|
Consequentialist ethical theories cannot reveal moral absolutes
|
|
|
What is true of a posteriori knowledge according to Kant?
|
A posteriori knowledge is inductive and probalistic and therefore experience cannot be the basis of moral absolutes
|
|
|
How must moral absolutes be derived according to Kant?
|
In an a priori fashion
|
|
|
What is Kant’s “Categorical Imperative”?
|
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Only do what you wouldn’t mind everyone else doing |
|
|
What are some other names for Kant’s “Categorical Imperative”?
|
Kant also called this the “imperative of morality” and others have called it the “Principle of Universalizibility”
|
|
|
What does Kant's "Categorical Imperative" serve as and how does it apply?
|
It is an imperative that commands us to act in a certain way (it is our duty)
It is categorical as opposed to hypothetical, and therefore applies regardless of the circumstances (it is our duty at all times) |
|
|
What is Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” like?
|
The Golden Rule
|
|
|
What is the problem of Kant’s “Categorical Imperative”?
|
The question of interpretation
Should you do what you would want people to do to you fi you were in their shoes? Examples like masochism when you want people to hurt you What is universally acceptable? Isn’t this still relative? |
|
|
What does Virtue Ethics focus on?
|
Focuses on the character of a person rather than the character of an action (virtues are traits of people, not actions)
|
|
|
What is true about a virtuous character in relation to action?
|
A virtuous character will manifest itself in moral action, but this is not made virtuous by performing this action (it is non-consequentialist)
|
|
|
What constitutes a moral action in Virtue Theory?
|
What would a virtuous person do?
|
|
|
How are actions determined to be moral in Virtue Theory?
|
Actions are determined to be moral based upon the character of the actor rather than the consequences of the action
|
|
|
What does Virtue Ethics enable you to do and what is it focused on?
|
Enables you to act immediately rather than by looking up or considering a specific action
Focused on cultivating the morals of individuals |
|
|
Who was the Chief Virtue Ethicist?
|
Aristotle
|
|
|
What did Aristotle say about our happiness?
|
We will not be happy unless we fulfill our telos (our purpose in life)
|
|
|
What does Aristotle say sets humans apart?
|
The ability to be ethical (virtuous) is one of the chief things that sets humans apart from other animals-it is our telos
|
|
|
What does Aristotle say that we need to do in order to be happy?
|
Therefore to be happy we must cultivate our virtuosity: our fairness, self-control, courage etc.
|
|
|
What are the Possible Problems of Virtue Theory?
|
The theory does not provide the criterion for the identification of a virtuous person (real or hypothetical)
The theory does not provide an explanation of what makes the virtues themselves good or how we can justify our belief that they are so |
|
|
What theory tries to fix the problem of Virtue Theory?
|
Natural Law Theory
|
|
|
What does Natural Law Theory say?
|
The fundamental principles of ethical conduct are rationally discernable in human nature and the natural world
|
|
|
Who defended Natural Law Theory?
|
Aristotle and then Thomas Aquinas who developed a Christian version
|
|
|
What did Aristotle believe about the natural principles of ethical conduct in the world?
|
This is how we know the virtues (response to criticism #2 of virtue ethics)
Helps us determine who is virtuous |
|
|
How do we find our role models according to Natural Law Theory?
|
Certain things are inherently right and wrong and we can figure out what they are and then we look for the people who follow these to find virtuous role models
|
|
|
What are the Two Prerequisites of Natural Law?
|
Reality must have a discernable rational order
It must be possible to discern from nature not only what IS the case, but also what OUGHT to be the case |
|
|
What is the problem of the second prerequisite of Natural Law Theory?
|
You must have a response to the Naturalistic Fallacy: it is natural in the world to go from “is” to “ought”
|
|
|
What are some Possible Objections to Natural Law Theory?
|
Not compatible with naturalistic explanations of the universe that do not allow for rational order in creation
Commits the Naturalistic Fallacy (if there is such a thing) Does reason alone enable us to determine specific mores? |
|
|
What are the issues with reason alone enable us to determine specific mores?
|
There may be natural laws that are not revealed to us, we can’t know them so we guess
Different cultures come to different conclusions |
|
|
What are the Two Questions We’ve Been Asking about metaethics?
|
What is the nature of “goodness”?- Metaethics
How can we know the “good”?- Epistemology |
|
|
What happens with the two questions of metaethics?
|
Too many people combine and confuse these so we have to separate them to get the answers
|
|
|
What are the Theories on the Nature of Good?
|
Social Contract Theory
Divine Command Theory Ethical Realism Divine Nature Theory |
|
|
What is Social Contract Theory?
|
The idea of good is the result of an implicit agreement between the members of society that facilitates the functioning of that society
Unspoken Rules |
|
|
What are the Two Problems of Social Contract Theory?
|
You can step outside and compare different social contracts to see which is better. This shows that there is a higher standard that contracts must have to measure up to
Sometimes the best people are those that go against society |
|
|
What is Divine Command Theory?
|
What is good is good simply because God commands it
If God is the source of all things than He must be the source of the good |
|
|
What is the Problem of Divine Command Theory?
|
What is good and bad is arbitrarily dependent on God- nothing is inherently right or wrong
This does not seem right |
|
|
What is Ethical Realism
|
The good is a standard which exists separate from God and to which God’s commands conform because He is perfectly holy
Moral absolutes exist and are mind-independent. Certain things are inherently right and wrong independent of society and God |
|
|
What is the Problem of Ethical Realism?
|
Seems to set up a moral authority higher than God
This goes against theology |
|
|
What is Divine Nature Theory?
|
What is good in ethics is a reflection of the ultimate good that is inherent in the nature of God himself
God’s commands institutionalize the good that is within Him What is good is a reflection of the ultimate nature of reality (God and God’s creation) |
|
|
What is true of Divine Nature Theory?
|
This is the best view: it overcomes the other view’s problems
The good is not arbitrary because it is consistent with the nature of the unchanging God |
|
|
What are the Theories of How We Know the Good?
|
Experience- Consequentialism
Reason- Deontological, Duty Ethics Revelation- the only way to know God so it is the only way to know the good because the good is part of God |
|
|
What is the “Christian Foundationalism Metaethic” like?
|
Christ as the basis
Non-Cartesian |
|
|
How is the Christian Foundationalism Metaethic Christ as the basis
Non-Cartesian? |
Not in search of apodictic certainty
Not based on a self-evident truth Accepts inductive reasoning as well as deductive |
|
|
How Can We Use the Bible to Answer Ethical Questions?
|
Look for direct statements in the Bible that address the issues
Look for General Principles from which we can deduce conclusions Look for similar situations from which we can reason to a conclusion using analogous induction |
|
|
What are the Direct Statements that we look for in the Bible like?
|
10 Commandments etc.
It is the simplest, but weakest approach |
|
|
What is an example of looking for general principles in the Bible?
|
2 Corinthians 6:14- Do Not Be Unevenly Yoked to Unbelievers
Applies to businesses, churches, marriages etc. |
|
|
What is an example of making analogous inductions from Scripture?
|
Should we pay our pastors?
1 Corinthians 9:4- Paul looks to the OT for an answer The ox gets sustenance from his work so it is okay and appropriate for pastors to be rewarded for their labors |
|
|
How does Consequentialism relate to the Bible?
|
Consequentialism- considering the consequences (fruit) is a principle
|
|
|
What is A Suggested Order for Christian Metaethics?
|
Christian Foundationalism: Check the Bible
Direct statements Principles Analogous Induction Natural Law Theory |
|
|
How does duty relate to the Bible?
|
Duty- the Golden Rule etc.
Duty- we have a duty to care for our pastors just as we have a duty to our animals |
|
|
What are some Philosophical Metaethical Theories that have biblical support?
|
Duty Ethics- Biblical Principle
Consequentialsim- Biblical Principle Virtue Ethics- Biblical Practice Natural Law Theory- Biblical Reality |
|
|
What is an example of Consequentialism in the Bible?
|
Matthew 7-Good and Bad Trees Show Their Fruits:
Analogy to prophets and their ministry Principle of examining the outcomes and results A consequentialist examination of prophets |
|
|
How does Virtue Ethics relate to the Bible?
|
Virtue Ethics- acting virtuously is a principle (WWJD?)
|
|
|
How does the Matrix view Freedom?
|
Neo illudes to Nihilism (freedom from all constraints) as the ultimate freedom
|
|
|
What does Morris say about Freedom?
|
Morris- suggest that moral absolutism gives us the most freedom
|
|
|
What does the Bible say about Freedom?
|
Moral Absolutes Free Us
John 8:3-36- “the truth will set you free” We need to be freed from sin through ethical living Living according to God’s divine nature This fulfils our telos which fulfills us True freedom is found in ethical living |
|
|
Definition of Philosophy of Religion
|
The rational analysis of the concepts, doctrines, and problematic issues found within religious belief systems
|
|
|
What are a Few Issues Discussed in Philosophy of Religion?
|
The meaning of “God”
The existence of God (arguments pro and con) Theodicy The nature and destiny of the soul |
|
|
What is important about faith and the Existence of God?
|
Faith- belief accompanied by trust
It should be based on evidence too not just existential faith |
|
|
Who came up with The Epistemological Argument?
|
Antony Flew
|
|
|
What does The Epistemological Argument try to do?
|
This tries to show that we are not justified in believing in a God
|
|
|
What is the Epistemological Argument?
|
Knowledge>Belief
Belief> Concept But ~Concept>~Belief ~Concept- No Concept :.~Belief- Therefore No Belief ~Belief>~Knowledge- If no belief then no knowledge ~Belief- No Belief ~Knowledge- Therefore No Knowledge |
|
|
What does the Epistemological Argument say?
|
The concept of God is utterly beyond us so we cannot have an adequate concept of God.
If we do not have a concept of God then we cannot have a belief in God. If we do not have a belief in God then we cannot have knowledge of God because Knowledge=Justified True Belief |
|
|
How is the Epistemological Argument Valid and Sound?
|
The premises are valid and the logic is sound so the conclusions should be true
This is true because we can’t really have concepts of God’s nature We wouldn’t want to because He is supposed to be “that that which nothing greater can be conceived” We really can’t know God in the sense of having knowledge of His exact nature |
|
|
How is the Epistemological Argument Wrong?
|
There are other ways to “know” someone or something
You can know someone by having a relationship with them; you do not have to have complete knowledge of them To know God can mean to have a relationship with Him We could have a relationship with God |
|
|
What happens with 1 Samuel 3:3-7?
|
The Lord Calls Samuel
It says that even though Samuel had been in the temple and learning about God his whole life he did not yet know God This means that knowing God is not possible through head knowledge This passage is the initiation of a relationship between God and Samuel |
|
|
What is probably the most common objection to the belief in God?
|
Evil
|
|
|
What is The Dilemma of Evil?
|
If God is good He would want to prevent evil
If God is all-powerful He should be able to prevent evil Evil exists Therefore either God is not good, or He is not all-powerful, or He is neither, or there is no God |
|
|
What is The “Irenaean” Theodicy?
|
God did not create evil, but He allows evil to develop in order to try, strengthen, and purify us
Going through pain deepens and refines you |
|
|
What is “Theodicy”?
|
The response to the challenge of the problem of evil. Theodicy offers reasons why it may be consistent for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God to allow evil to exist
|
|
|
What are some Unacceptable Conclusions about the existence of evil?
|
John Stuart Mill- God is not omnipotent
Manchiaeism- God is not perfectly good Neither of these suggestions is acceptable, neither philosophically nor theologically |
|
|
Based on the Unacceptable Conclusions what seems to be the answer?
|
Atheism
|
|
|
What is The “Greater Good” Argument?
|
Allowing evil can sometimes bring about a greater good
God allows specific instances of evil because He knows (although we cannot) that a greater good will result from them |
|
|
What is an example of "The Greater Good" Argument?
|
Allowing someone to see himself as he really is can cause that person to change himself for the better
|
|
|
Who propounded and supported The “Irenaean” Theodicy?
|
First propounded by Iranaeus; more recently by John Hick
|
|
|
What is another name for The “Irenaean” Theodicy?
|
The “Soul-Making” Theodicy
|
|
|
What does the “Irenaean” Theodicy refer to?
|
General evil
|
|
|
Is The “Best Possible World” better than Heaven?
|
No cause once we experience these things in one world we do not need to experience them in Heaven too
|
|
|
Who advocated The “Free Will Defense”?
|
Advocated by Augustine; more recently by Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame)
|
|
|
What is The “Free Will Defense”?
|
In order for free will to exist, those possessing it must possess the ability to choose evil as well as good
God gave humanity free will, but God did not cause our evil choices Humans are responsible for the evil they choose to do |
|
|
How do we know that God valued Free Will highly?
|
God valued free will enough to allow us the opportunity to abuse it
|
|
|
Who advocated The “Best Possible World” Argument?
|
Leibniz
|
|
|
What is The “Best Possible World” Argument?
|
God could have created a world without evil but it would be a world devoid of intercession, compassion, heroism, and mercy
God created a world in which both evil and triumph over evil are possible because this kind of world is better than the alternative |
|
|
Theistic Apologetics
|
Justifying our belief in the existence of God
Rational defense for the belief in the existence of some God |
|
|
Apologetic
|
A defense of some belief
|
|
|
Can you believe in God without evidence?
|
Yes but you would not have JTB so you would not have knowledge of God
|
|
|
Who came up with The Ontological Argument?
|
St. Anselm of Canterbury
|
|
|
What is St. Anselm's definition of God?
|
“that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
|
|
|
What is Ontological Argument's Logical Argument?
|
Either God exists in reality or it is possible to conceive of something greater than God
~Possible to conceive of something greater than God :.God exists in reality |
|
|
What is true if you accept Anselm's definition of God?
|
If you accept Anselm’s definition of God then it is implicit that God exists
|
|
|
What do people do with the Ontological Argument?
|
They argue about it and wrestle over it
|
|
|
What is the Ontological Argument similar to?
|
Descartes' Foundationalism
|
|
|
Why must something rather than nothing exist according to The Ontological Argument?
|
"That than which nothing greater can be conceived” is a logical necessity
Even if nothing else existed then God would have to exist If nothing existed then there would still have to be an idea greater than nothing which would be God |
|
|
Who came up with The Cosmological Argument?
|
Thomas Aquinas
|
|
|
What is the First Step of The Cosmological Argument?
|
World=Contingent Existence
Contingent Existence=Caused :. World=Caused |
|
|
What is the Second Step of The Cosmological Argument?
|
First Cause or Infinite Series of Causes
~Infinite Series of Causes :. First Cause |
|
|
What is the Third Step of The Cosmological Argument?
|
First Cause= Creator
Creator=God :.First Cause=God |
|
|
What is the Point of Contention of The Cosmological Argument?
|
How do we know that we don’t have an infinite series of causes?
|
|
|
How do we know that we don’t have an infinite series of causes?
|
Aquinas was a student of Aristotle who didn’t believe in an infinite series of anything
Aristotle believed this because of Zeno and Zeno's Arrow |
|
|
What is Zeno’s Arrow?
|
In order to reach a target an arrow must pass through an infinite series of points and midpoints
This would take an infinite amount of time so the arrow would never get there The arrow gets there An infinite series is possible, but not at all rational |
|
|
What are the other names for The Teleological Argument?
|
The Argument from Design
The Watchmaker Argument |
|
|
Who came up with The Teleological Argument?
|
William Paley
|
|
|
What is Step 1 of The Teleological Argument?
|
Something exhibits design > It must have a designer
The universe exhibits design :. The universe must have a designer |
|
|
What is Step 2 of The Teleological Argument?
|
Something is a designer > It must be a sentient being
The universe has a designer :. The designer of the universe is a sentient being |
|
|
What is Step 3 of The Teleological Argument?
|
The universe was designed by a sentient being> That being is capable of designing the universe
That being is capable of designing the universe > That being is God :. The universe was designed by a sentient being > That being is God |
|
|
What is Step 4 of The Teleological Argument?
|
The being that designed the universe is God > God exists
The being that designed the universe is God God exists |
|
|
What is a Sentient Being?
|
A Thinking, intelligent being
|
|
|
What is the Point of Contention of The Teleological Argument?
|
The idea that there is design in the universe
Some people think that everything just looks random and there is not design Randomness could be part of the design |
|
|
Who advocated The Moral Argument?
|
Kant and C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
What is The Moral Argument?
|
Absolute moral law > An absolute mind exists
Absolute moral law exists :.An absolute mind exists |
|
|
Why must there be an absolute mind if there are absolute morals?
|
Morals are based in minds
Unchanging, absolute morals must be based in an unchanging, absolute mind As long as certain things are inherently right and wrong there must be a mind |
|
|
What is the Point of Contention of The Moral Argument?
|
Is there an absolute moral law?
Some people do not think that there is anything inherently right or wrong |
|
|
Who advocated The Prudential Argument and what is another name for it?
|
Blaise Pascal
Pascal’s Wager |
|
|
What does Pascal believe and what did he try to do with his argument?
|
He believes that we cannot prove God exists but he wants to convince people that it is prudent to believe in God anyway
|
|
|
What are the Wagers and Results according to Pascal's Argument if God does not exist?
|
~God Exists + I choose unbelief > No gain
~ God Exists + I choose belief > no loss |
|
|
What are the Wagers and Results according to Pascal's Argument if God does exist?
|
God exists + I choose unbelief > eternal loss
God exists + I choose belief > Eternal gain |
|
|
What is the conclusion based on Pascal's wager?
|
If you go into this gamble then believing in God hurts you the least if you are wrong and benefits you the most if you are right
|
|
|
What is Nichole Nordeman's song "What If"?
|
Pascal’s argument in song form
|
|
|
Who advocated The Argument From Religious Experience?
|
John Hick tried to find a way to use collective religious experience as proof for the existence of God
|
|
|
What is The Argument From Religious Experience?
|
Religious experience is private inner experience
Religious experience occurs in every part of the world. How can we best account for the universal experience of this phenomenon? The existence of God Hick thinks that there must be a God that steps in occasionally and gives people these experiences |
|
|
How can we best account for the universal experience of religious experiences?
|
We are all crazy?
We are all deceived? We are all experiencing something that actually exists in our environment but is not seen by everyone? |
|
|
What is true about religious experience?
|
It is private This is good for the person, but it makes it difficult to use these experiences as proof for others of the existence of God
|
|
|
What could that something that actually exists in our environment but is not seen by everyone be?
|
God according to most of those those who experienced it
|
|
|
What is true of collective religious experiences
|
They can be used to make a very empirically based argument for God
|
|
|
What are the supposed problems of The Argument From Religious Experience?
|
These experiences don’t tell us which God exists
None of the other arguments do either so this is okay This argument says that people of different religions are also experiencing God, not just Christians |
|
|
Is the fact that the religious argument says that people from religions are also experiencing God biblical?
|
Yes because Jesus draws all people but some people resist this or create other religions as a reaction to Him
|
|
|
Who is the proponent of The Resurrection of Christ argument?
|
Gary Habermas
|
|
|
What is The Resurrection of Christ argument?
|
Jesus’ resurrection is a historical fact
If Resurrection then Teachings are true If teachings are true then God exists Therefore if the resurrection then God exists |
|
|
What does The Resurrection of Christ argument suggest?
|
This argument suggests the nature of God
God does not resurrect people very often so He must have been pleased with Jesus because He resurrected him If God approves of Jesus then God is a loving God who is acting in history |
|
|
Why would God leave his existence ambiguous?
|
So we can have the free will to choose to believe in Him
He has given us enough evidence to be justified in believing but not enough to overwhelm us |
|
|
What is important about Romans 10:9-10- “believe with your heart”?
|
People can believe with their minds but not trust God with their lives
God wants belief and trust from our hearts |
