Download Year 13 exemplar essays booklet

Year 13 Philosophy Essay Questions
and Exemplar Answers
•
•
•
•
The Nature of God
Religious Language
Religious Experience
God and the Human Situation
Name:
_____________________________
Teacher:
_____________________________
Past Paper Questions
June 2010
A01 - Examine definitions of, and ideas about, God / Ultimate Reality in the religion(s)
you have studied. (45 marks)
A02 - Consider how far these definitions and ideas help people to understand why life is
as it is. (30 marks)
or
A01 - Examine religious language as a meaningful way of talking about God / Ultimate
Reality. (45 marks)
A02 - The nature of God / Ultimate Reality means that any attempt to talk about God /
Ultimate Reality will fail. Assess this view. (30 marks)
June 2011
A01 - Examine the views of both Marx and Freud on the role of the concept of God and on
the influence of the concept of God on society. (45 marks)
A02 - ‘Religion has no satisfactory answer to the challenges of secular thinkers about
God/Ultimate Reality.’ Assess this claim. (30 marks)
or
A01 - Examine how religious experience can be a source for knowledge about
God/Ultimate Reality. (45 marks)
A02 - ‘The personal nature of any religious experience means that it has no value beyond
the individual.’ How far do you agree? (30 marks)
2
June 2012
A01 - Examine different understandings of the human situation in relation to
God/Ultimate Reality. (45 marks)
A02 - ‘Beliefs about God/Ultimate Reality have a negative impact on the way in which
people live their lives.’ How far do you agree? (30 marks)
Or
A01 - Examine the ways in which human understanding of God/Ultimate Reality is
expressed in religious language, art and symbols. (45 marks)
A02 - ‘Attempts to express ideas about God/Ultimate Reality are meaningful only for the
believer.’ Assess this claim. (30 marks)
Specimen Questions
A01 - Examine religious ideas about the relationship between God / Ultimate Reality and
the physical world. (45 marks)
A02 - Assess the view that the relationship between humanity and God / Ultimate Reality
as depicted in religion is best described as a relationship between a slave and a master.
(30 marks)
or
A01 - Examine the nature of experiences of God / Ultimate Reality. (45 marks)
A02 - ‘Talking about God / Ultimate Reality is meaningful only in a religious context.
There is no value in talking about God / Ultimate Reality to outsiders.’ Evaluate this claim.
(30 marks)
3
A01 and A02 Assessment Criteria
Level
Mark
7
41-45
A01 Level Descriptor
Level
Mark
7
28-30
A thorough treatment of the topic.
Information is accurate and relevant.
Understanding is shown through good use
of evidence/examples. Good knowledge of
different scholars. K&U of other modules
shown.
6
36-40
A very well-focused response to the issue.
Different views of scholars used perceptively.
Evidence/examples to sustain an argument.
Evaluation is supported with clear reasons.
Evidence of independent thought. Linked to
broader context – other modules
6
24-27
A generally thorough treatment of the topic.
Information is almost accurate and relevant.
Understanding is shown through good use
of evidence /examples. Good knowledge of
different scholars. K&U of other modules
shown.
5
29-35
A well-focused response to the issue. Different
views of scholars used correctly. Evaluation is
supported with reasons. Evidence of
independent thought. Linked to broader context
– other modules.
5
20-23
A satisfactory treatment of the topic.
Information is mostly accurate and relevant.
A reasonable understanding shown through
evidence / examples. Some use of other
scholars. K&U of other modules shown.
4
22-28
A satisfactory response to the issue. Views are
explained with some supporting evidence. An
evaluation is given. Some of the response is
related to the broader context – other modules.
4
15-19
Key ideas and facts are included; some
evidence and examples included brief
reference made to scholars. Limited
knowledge and understanding of other
modules.
3
15-21
The main issue is addressed. Some supporting
evidence but reasons sometimes faulty. Little
evaluation and little response to the broader
context – other modules.
3
10-14
A summary of key points. Limited in detail.
Answer may show little understanding and
limited relevance. Some coherence.
2
8-14
A basic attempt to justify a point of view. Some
explanation of ideas.
2
5-9
A very limited outline account. Little detail
as you may miss the point of the question.
1
1-7
A few basic points with little supporting
evidence.
1
Little related to the question.
A02 Level Descriptor
1-4
A few basic points with no supporting evidence.
4
A01: Examine definitions of, and ideas about, God / Ultimate Reality in the religion(s)
you have studied.
The definitions and ideas about God in the Judaeo-Christian tradition were heavily
influenced by classical Greek philosophy. The Greeks were fascinated by the idea of some
kind of existence that underlay all individuals. One idea proposed that all things shared
some common element, a universal material providing the stuff of which all things are
made. Another idea proposed a being or principle that inhabited some form of heavenly
realm. Plato proposed his idea of an ultimate reality through his theory of the Forms. He
suggested a supreme good that existed beyond all other ordinary beings. The Platonic
idea of a highest principle which was utter perfection strongly influenced Jewish and
early Christian discussions of God. Additionally, Aristotle suggested his supreme being to
be an unchanging form that is also a first mover. Aristotle’s first mover is a simple,
unchanging form that still causally affects other beings: in Aristotle’s case all movement in
the universe was as a result of the prime mover. It was through a desire to reach the
perfection of this being movement was caused; all material things were drawn toward the
prime mover.
The notion of a simple, unchanging reality was adapted by St Augustine and St
Thomas Aquinas. Augustine commented that God is unchangeable and thus cannot lose
or gain any characteristics; similarly Aquinas spoke of God being simple as God signifies
perfect existence. Within the definition of simple philosophers have suggested three
things; firstly that God is God, this means He cannot be broken down in terms of parts,
instead when we use the term ‘God’ it contains within it all the different parts of his
nature. This idea was expressed by Anselm in his ontological argument when he
described God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Furthermore, a simple
God is also immutable. The reason for this claim, as stated by Brian Davies (2003), is “If
something changeable accounted for there being a world in which change occurs, it would be part of
such a world and could not, therefore, account for it”. In other words Davies is claiming that
anything that changes is part of the world and not distinct from it, as God is. The final
claim made within the definition of God as simple is that He is also immaterial. God does
not have a body and should not be anthropomorphised.
The idea of a simple God developed from the idea that God exists eternally. In
Judaeo-Christian philosophy the concept of God being eternal can have two senses.
Firstly, eternal can refer to God existing outside of time and is referred to as God being
timeless. Secondly eternal can also refer to God having no beginning and no end, but time
does pass for God or that God is everlasting. The Christian belief that God is eternal
(timeless) was strongly influenced by the philosophy of Boethius. Boethius argued that
God is changeless and does not exist in time. Boethius argued that God’s life is limitless
and that God possesses the whole of his/her life eternally without end. For God there is no
past, present and future. Instead, God exists eternally and all of time is present to God
‘simultaneously’. Boethius argues that God sees everything in ‘one glance’. The reason that
Boethius believes that God is eternal is because God is simple and hence does not learn
5
new things and time does not pass for God: “And God possesses this present instant
comprehension of and sight of all things not from the issuing of future events but from his own
simplicity”.
In addition Aquinas accepts the views of Boethius and argues that God exists
unendingly without a beginning or conclusion. Hence, God must exist outside of time
because time consists of parts and the notion of time involves beginnings and ends. For
example, all human beings are born, live their lives and die; for Aquinas God is the
Creator of the universe and all life who always exists without end. Time does not pass for
God. Second, Aquinas, like Boethius, states that time involves living life ‘successively’. By
this they mean that one event in life follows another, but for God this is not the case. God
exists outside of time and the nature of God is to exist.
This idea is highlighted within Aquinas cosmological arguments proposed in his
‘Summa Theologica’. Aquinas describes God as an unmoved mover, uncaused cause and
necessary being. In each of his arguments or ways Aquinas highlighted that God is
responsible for the movement and causation within the world without being moved or
caused himself. This is best shown in his understanding of God being necessary as
opposed to contingent. Everything within the universe exists contingently, that is, they
rely on something else for their existence. Therefore, if God existed within the universe he
too would be contingent and we would ask the question what caused God? Aquinas
therefore, argues that God is separate to his creation and therefore escapes the question as
to what caused God as God exists independently of time.
However, the notion of an eternal timeless God is not accepted by everyone within
the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Alternatively, we have the definition of God as an
everlasting being. Richard Swinburne supports the view that God is everlasting. He
argues that the idea of events occurring simultaneously to God cannot be made sense of.
He suggests that belief in an everlasting God also fits more satisfactorily with God as
revealed in the Bible. Nicholas Wolterstorff, supports the views of Swinburne and has
argued that the only way to understand some of God’s actions as indicated in the Bible is
to understand them as free actions in response to human beings’ behaviour, suggesting
that God’s actions involve time passing. This is highlighted in the story of the ten plagues
in the book of Exodus. Here we have God responding to the plight of the Jewish people
whilst being held as slaves in Egypt by sending the plagues and finally parting the Red
Sea in order for the Jews to escape.
As well as the idea of God existing eternally, the Judaeo-Christian belief outlines
that God displays ‘omni’ characteristics. Notably, God is said to be omnipotent (allpowerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and omni-benevolent (all-loving). Within
philosophical thinking there are two main ways in which God’s omnipotence has been
viewed. Firstly, omnipotence concerns God’s ability to do anything including the logically
impossible. Secondly, omnipotence concerns God’s ability to do what is logically possible
for a perfect God to do. René Descartes supported the view that God could do anything
6
including what might seem impossible. For example, following Descartes’ definition of
omnipotence, God could change the fundamental laws of physics, which as far as we
know are unchanging and apply universally. Alternatively, Aquinas suggests that
referring to God as omnipotent is a statement that God’s power is different from our
powers. For instance, we should not propose questions such as can God climb a tree, can
God sin or can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? This is because God exists
simply which means his powers are far beyond the realms of human understanding.
In addition a fundamental idea of God is that He is omniscient; that is has complete
knowledge of the universe. The traditional understanding is clearly revealed in the Bible
such as Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you
apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations”. However, the philosophical definition of
God’s omniscience is twofold. One way of understanding God’s omniscience is that it is
unlimited, in other words, God has complete knowledge of all history, past, present and
future. On the other hand, omniscience can also be understood as limited knowledge. In
this sense, God’s knowledge is limited to what it is logically possible to know or God
chooses to limit what he knows to allow humans free will.
Moreover, whereas classical Greek philosophy ascribed to the gods human faults,
theism from Plato onward has affirmed that God is purely good and could not do
anything evil. In the same way as omnipotence and omniscience, omni-benevolence can
be viewed in two ways. The first idea is that God is perfect which means that it is
impossible for God either to will evil or to cause evil — everything that God wills and
everything that God does is, necessarily, good. This understanding of God suggests that
goodness (morality) comes from God and God is the standard that we should strive for.
In contrast, another understanding of the concept of omni-benevolence focuses upon a
more literal reading of the word: a perfect and complete desire for goodness.
Finally, within the Judeao-Christian tradition, there are three views of God as
creator; creation ‘ex nihilo’ (creation out of nothing), creation ‘ex materia’ (creation from
pre-existing material) and creation ‘ex deo’ (creation out of the being of God). The most
common is idea that God created everything ex nihilo, out of nothing. This expresses the
important idea that God did not operate on pre-existing matter and is not an agent among
other agents. Instead, God is the absolute origin of all that exists, all matter, all energy,
and all organisation. Creation ‘ex materia’ is a less common belief in Christianity, but it
has its roots in the philosophy of Aristotle. He held the view that the universe had always
existed independently of God, who, in the creation imposed order and form upon it. This
view was developed in the Judeao-Christian tradition and the Bible includes some
references that suggest to some philosophers that God worked on pre-existent matter.
Finally, Creation ex nihilo and ex materia are not the only ways to understand God’s action
of creation. Although a bit less common, there is also the idea that creation occurred ex
deo, or out of the very substance of God. God created the world from himself rather than
from nothing or from some external pre-existing matter.
7
A02: Consider how far definitions and ideas of God help people to understand why life
is as it is
The definitions and ideas of God within the Judaeo-Christian tradition aim to help
people understand why life is as it is. However, they do not fit neatly together which has
led people to question some of the definitions or even question the very existence of God.
For an atheist therefore, the idea that God is all-loving would make no sense due to the
presence of evil and suffering. On the other hand, for a theist, it would make complete
sense as God’s love is shown through His creation, miracles and Jesus.
The definition of God as a creator is very useful in that it offers humans some
meaning and purpose. Whether God created the world ‘ex nihilo’, ex deo’ or ‘ex materia’
does not necessarily matter. The value of this definition is that God chose to create the
universe in the first place. If God is the creator then we are not the result of a chance
event; instead we are specifically chosen which for many is something that provides great
comfort. This comfort comes from the belief that because God has chosen us as his
creation, we are able to share in some form of relationship with God. The idea of a
relationship is supported by the definition of God as immanent as it shows that God is
involved with his creation and acts on behalf of his creation.
In contrast, the definition of God as creator can be quite difficult to accept when the
definition is taken alongside God’s omni characteristics, notably love, power and
knowledge. The difficulty is due to the presence of evil and God’s seemingly inability or
His choice not to do anything about it. If God is a creator then he could be accused of
doing a very poor job. As John Stuart Mill suggests, nearly all the things which humans
are hanged or imprisoned for, happens everyday in nature. If this is the case then God
should be held accountable for this suffering because God is responsible for the world. If
you bought an expensive car and the engine blew on the first drive which resulted in a
crash and serious injury, then you would have the right to complain and expect
reimbursement. Therefore, instead of this definition helping us to understand why life is
as it is, it instead leaves us questioning God and his existence.
Furthermore, if we do accept that God is immanent then we may ask the question:
why does God act on behalf of some people but not all? If we take miracles as evidence of
God’s immanence in the world this raises the challenge that God is arbitrary, that is, he
picks and chooses who he will help. If we use the example of God acting on behalf of the
Jewish people when they were slaves in Egypt and then God failing to act on behalf of the
Jewish people during the holocaust; does our definition of God as all-loving still apply?
Maurice Wiles would argue that the definition does not apply and as a result many begin
to reject the existence of God. Instead, Wiles suggest that we could take the view that God
is transcendent rather than immanent and the only miraculous act was creation itself. This
means we can overcome the challenge of God not acting lovingly or performing arbitrary
miracles and still accept God as containing all the omni-characteristics.
8
Both Aquinas and Boethius would accept the definition of God being transcendent.
They argue for a God which exists timelessly and is able to see all of creation in a single
glance. By accepting this definition of God they would argue that God remains perfect
and issues of evil and suffering are not a challenge as God maintains an epistemic distance
from the world in order for people to remain truly free. If God continually intervenes with
the world by answering prayers or performing miracles then we would become
dependant on God and no longer be truly free. Therefore, if God is timeless and
transcendent then we are able to understand why God does not prevent suffering from
occurring. Instead, God somehow shares in our suffering but has made the difficult
decision not to intervene.
However, this definition of God has been criticised quite severely by many
philosophers. Richard Swinburne would argue that this definition of God will tell us
nothing of why life is as it is because it does not make sense. In addition Anthony Kenny
famously argued that Boethius’ notion of God existing timelessly was incoherent. If all
time is simultaneously present to God the meaning of the word ‘simultaneous’ entails that
all of time is happening at the same moment which appears to be incoherent. The analogy
of God viewing the entire creation at once much like viewing the entire film at once is not
consistent with how humans understand time. Therefore, if we are unable to understand
the definition of God then it cannot provide us with any answers as God is too far
removed from the world.
Moreover, this idea of God is not in keeping with the portrayal of God in the Bible.
The Bible implies that God is personal and acts in creation. For example God’s response to
the Israelites prayer for freedom from slavery in Egypt and God intervening to help
Joshua in battle. Furthermore, in the creation stories in Genesis it implies that God is
almost human like and creates the world very much like a craftsman who moulds his
materials into something he desires. These biblical events imply that God is personal and
acts in time. Therefore, the definition and understanding of an eternal (timeless) God does
not fit with the image of God portrayed in the Bible.
The fact that we have a wide of variety of definitions and ideas about God perhaps
provides more of a problem than a way of helping understand why life is as it is. The
omni-characteristics of God are helpful in that they set God apart from his creation and
highlight that God is beyond anything that exists in the world. Furthermore, to accept
God as a creator who shares in the world is also comforting as it gives meaning and
purpose to our lives. However, the presence of evil and suffering as well as the issues
with how God exists (inside or outside of time) seem to contradict the definitions and
ideas of God. For example, If God created the world ‘ex nihilo’, this is far beyond human
understanding as our experience tells us that things can only be made from material that
already exists. This example highlights that the nature of God may be a comforting
thought but may well leave humans with far more questions about how God exists than
answers.
9
A01 - Examine religious ideas about the relationship between God / Ultimate Reality
and the physical world. (45 marks)
One of the major issues within Christian philosophy is the question: How does God
have a relationship with the physical world? The argument focuses on the idea that God
exists either transcendently or immanently. Furthermore, humans look for evidence to
support God existing immanently and argue that God directly reveals himself to the
world. However, there is also the idea that God remains separate from the world and His
revelation is ‘natural’ which means that God can be observed through His creation.
One of the most traditional views of God’s relationship with the physical world is
that God is transcendent. To transcend means ‘to exist above and independent from; to
rise above, surpass or succeed’. By being transcendent, God is both the unknown and
unknowable. This concept has it roots in the teachings of Plato, Aristotle and the Old
Testament. Plato and Aristotle saw God as a being so pure and perfect that He transcends
all our categories and definitions. The Old Testament commands that God’s people
should not make any false idols (images/statues) of God which suggests that God is
something other and cannot be represented physically. Furthermore, if God is absolutely
perfect beyond all experience and understanding, then God has to be transcendent. This is
because if God is timeless (outside of time and space) and unchangeable, then God cannot
also be with beings that are within time. Such a God must be wholly ‘other’, transcendent
to everything we know.
The concept of God as transcendent is supported by Aquinas and his Cosmological
Arguments – Aquinas describes God as an Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause and a
Necessary being. These definitions are in direct opposition to contingent beings that exist
within the universe. Therefore, in order for God to be unmoved, uncaused and necessary
He must exist transcendently from the universe or else God too would be contingent and
thus by definition dependant on something else for His existence. This is emphasised
most clearly in Aquinas’ Third Way in which he argues that God, as the cause of the
universe must exist independent to his creation. This idea is reinforced by the teachings of
Boethius who argued that God was timeless. This means that God exists outside of time
and space and that he is changeless. God’s life is limitless and past, present and future do
not apply to God. Boethius famously argued that God does not see the future as it
happens; instead Boethius argues that all time is present to God ‘simultaneously’; God
sees everything in ‘one glance’.
Those who accept that God is transcendent would tend to reject the idea that God
somehow directly reveals himself to the physical world. Instead, they argue that we can
come to an understanding and realisation of God through the natural world. This is
known as natural theology which is the study of God based on the observation of nature.
For example, by examining the structure and function of a bird’s wing, we might
reasonably conclude that the God who created the wing is powerful and wise due to the
intricate design and function; this is natural theology. This idea developed from the ideas
of Aquinas where he emphasised man’s ability to comprehend certain truths about God
10
from nature alone. Natural theology stands in opposition to revealed theology such as
miracles and visions. William Paley argued that the universe is so complex that it must
have been designed by a higher power. Paley compares the natural universe to a watch.
The complexity of the watch proves that it must have been designed. Such a meticulous
machine could not have arisen by chance. Since the natural universe is far more complex
than a watch, the natural universe must have a designer that is very powerful and set
apart from its design.
In contrast to the idea of God existing outside of time and space is the belief that God is
immanent. An immanent God, is one which exists within — within us, within the universe
and, hence, very much a part of our existence. The idea of an immanent God can also be
traced to both Judaism and Greek philosophers. The stories of the Old Testament depict a
God who is very active in human affairs and the working of the universe. Christians, have
often described a God who works within them and whose presence they can perceive
immediately and personally. The idea of an immanent God is also linked to the views of
Richard Swinburne and Nicholas Wolterstorff who argue that God is an everlasting being.
This means that God always exists and will exist without end, however, time passes for
God. Swinburne and Wolterstorff accept this view of God because not only is it easier to
comprehend but also that it is in keeping with biblical ideas of how God reveals himself to
the world.
Wolterstorff has argued that the only way to understand some of God’s actions as
indicated in the Bible is to understand them as free actions in response to human beings’
behaviour, suggesting that God’s actions involve time passing. The picture in the Bible
might suggest that God is everlasting through examples such as the Exodus where God
intervenes in the world to help the Jewish people escape slavery in Eygpt. Furthermore,
we see God intervening in a battle to help Joshua’s armies overcome their enemy by
holding back the moon and keeping the sun in the sky until Joshua’s army prevails. These
Old Testament examples seem to highlight that God is immanent and will intervene in the
physical world. Furthermore, Wolterstorff thinks that God is only worthy of worship if
humans are able to have a relationship with God. The fact that Christianity teaches its
followers to pray to and worship God rests on the idea that God is immanent.
Essentially, those who accept an everlasting God are appealing to the notion that
God has directly revealed himself to his creation throughout history. This is linked to the
concept of religious experience, prayer and miracles. For many, if God exists timelessly
then we are unable to have a personal relationship with God, whereas an everlasting God
overcomes this issue. Revealed theology is based on the notion that God somehow
directly reveals himself to his people. This revelation may come in the form of Holy
Books, for Christians, the Old and New Testament. It can also be viewed as ‘supernatural’
where God reveals himself through religious experiences such as miracles and visions.
Revealed theology takes it reasoning from the Bible as it highlights the idea that God has
and will continue to directly reveal himself to humanity. In addition, the concept of
revealed theology is perhaps even more evident in the New Testament with the
incarnation of God in Jesus. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. He held all the power
11
and authority of God, but he voluntarily, for our sakes, subjected himself to the limitations
of human existence.
A further way in which God’s relationship with the physical world is understood is
through his ‘omni’ characteristics. Notably, God is said to be omnipotent (all-powerful),
omniscient (all-knowing) and omni-benevolent (all-loving). Within philosophical thinking
there are two main ways in which God’s omnipotence has been viewed. Firstly,
omnipotence concerns God’s ability to do anything including the logically impossible. In
this sense God has the ability to intervene in the world whenever and however he wants
to. René Descartes supported the view that God could do anything including what might
seem impossible. For example, following Descartes’ definition of omnipotence, God could
change the fundamental laws of physics, which as far as we know are unchanging and
apply universally. Secondly, omnipotence concerns God’s ability to do what is logically
possible for a perfect God to do. Aquinas suggests that referring to God as omnipotent is
a statement that God’s power is different from our powers. For instance, we should not
propose questions such as can God climb a tree, can God sin or can God create a stone too
heavy for him to lift? This is because God exists simply and outside of our world which
means his powers are far beyond the realms of human understanding.
In addition a fundamental idea of God is that He is omniscient; that is has complete
knowledge of the universe. The traditional understanding is clearly revealed in the Bible
such as Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you
apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations”. However, the philosophical definition of
God’s omniscience is twofold. One way of understanding God’s omniscience is that it is
unlimited, in other words, God has complete knowledge of all history, past, present and
future. On the other hand, omniscience can also be understood as limited knowledge. In
this sense, God’s knowledge is limited to what it is logically possible to know or God
chooses to limit what he knows to allow humans free will. These two understandings of
omniscience depend on whether you accept God as transcendent or immanent. For
example, if God is transcendent then complete knowledge of the entirety of the universe is
possible as God is removed from the universe and has a ‘bird’s eye view’. Alternatively, if
God is immanent then time passes for God and he can only have complete knowledge of
all present and past events.
Moreover, whereas classical Greek philosophy ascribed to the gods human faults,
theism from Plato onward has affirmed that God is purely good and could not do
anything evil. The concept of omni-benevolence highlights that God has a loving
relationship with the physical world. This is demonstrated most clearly through the Old
and New Testaments where God intervenes in the physical world for the benefit of his
people. This is now more clearly shown than through the life, death and resurrection of
Jesus. God’s love for humanity is shown through sending his son to take on the burden of
sin so that our relationship with God can be repaired.
12
A02 ‘The nature of an immanent God is far more acceptable than that of God as
transcendent’ Assess this claim (30 marks)
The nature of God as immanent suggests that God exists within the universe and is
part of our existence. Many philosophers support the view that God is transcendent due
to the fact that God has revealed himself to humanity through Holy Books and religious
experiences. However, many philosophers believe that God does not intervene in the
physical world and argue that it is far more acceptable to believe that God is a
transcendent being whom exists above and beyond the universe. This is due to the belief
that God is a necessary being whom exists simply and cannot change; existing within the
universe would mean that God is affected by time.
The major argument in favour of God’s immanence comes from revealed theology.
This is an idea that somehow God directly reveals himself to the world. The two main
ways in which this is recognised in the Judaeo-Christian tradition is through scripture
(Bible) and religious experiences (visions and voices). The sheer numbers of examples
within the Bible and history that refer to God acting on behalf of his creation add strength
to the argument that God is most definitely immanent in the universe. The Bible implies
that God is personal and acts in creation. For example God’s response to the Israelites
prayer for freedom from slavery in Egypt and God intervening to help Joshua in battle.
Furthermore, in the creation stories in Genesis it implies that God is almost human like
and creates the world very much like a craftsman whom moulds his materials into
something he desires. These biblical events imply that God is personal and acts in time
showing that the nature of an immanent God is acceptable.
In addition, from a Roman Catholic viewpoint the strongest evidence for God’s
immanence is not simply the written word of the Bible or the apparent experiences people
have had. The strongest is Jesus and the Holy Spirit – two parts of the Holy Trinity. God
becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Second
Person of the Trinity. In Catholic theology, Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal
themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently explicitly through the Son
and Spirit, and the Divine Nature, the Godhead is wholly transcendent and unable to be
comprehended. This is expressed by St. Paul who writes: “Though he was in the form of
God, Jesus did not deem equality with God…he emptied himself and took the form of
a slave, being born in the likeness of men”. The belief that God became man through
Jesus clearly states God is immanent in our universe and acts and has acted within our
world.
On the other hand, many liberal Christians reject the infallibility of biblical
accounts and find it too difficult to comprehend accounts of religious experience. Instead,
many Christians read the scriptures symbolically as opposed to literally due to the
difficulties a literal interpretation can cause for rational belief. For example, the creation
accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 have been explained away by scientific theories such as the Big
Bang and Evolution which has led to a rereading of the text. Also, miracles such as the
parting of the Red Sea or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead could be read symbolically
13
to give the reader a better understanding of God e.g. the raising of Lazarus could inspire
Christians to follow the example of Jesus to offer comfort to those in need. Therefore, if we
are to adopt a liberal approach it seems more acceptable to accept that God is a
transcendent being whom maintains an epistemic distance from the physical world.
Moreover, in much the same way that the Bible and religious experiences provide
evidence of God acting immanently they also provide as much evidence to suggest that
God is transcendent. The definition that God exists above and independent from the
universe can be supported with many references from the Old and New Testament. Isaiah
refers to God as “sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” whereas St John clearly
outlines that God exists independent from the world: “You are from below, I am from
above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” Furthermore, if we accept William
James’ classification of a mystical/religious experience then we have to accept that God
surpasses our understanding and description. William James referred to this as
ineffability – ‘too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words’. This means that
God must exist transcendently or we would have the ability to understand and describe
God in human language.
In addition many would disagree that an immanent God is more acceptable
because God existing immanently challenges the definition that God is changeless
(immutable). Perfection does not allow for change, however, change is a necessary
consequence of any person who experiences the changing circumstances of the historical
process. According to Greek philosophy, especially that found in the work of Plato, the
“most real being” was that which existed perfectly and changelessly beyond the troubles
and concerns of our world. An immanent God, by definition, experiences the changing
circumstances of the historical process so this God is subject to change. This means
therefore, that God is not perfect and contradicts the classical understanding.
I agree with the statement particularly due to the belief that it is easier to
understand a God that exists within the universe rather than a being whom exists
independently and above our experience. As Richard Swinburne argues, an immanent
God is far more palatable than an eternal and transcendent being. He disagrees with the
idea that God is transcendent because God acts in the historical process. He believes this
does not mean that God must change; instead, he supports the idea that the only thing
that changes is God’s omniscience. As time changes, he knows everything that is logically
possible but does not infringe or impact upon our freewill. I also believe that an immanent
God is more acceptable because of the support from the Bible and the Christian belief that
God answers prayers and can become involved in time and space. A transcendent God
who is outside of time and space is unable to do this and therefore we are unable to have a
relationship with God.
14
A01 Examine the way in which ideas about God/Ultimate Reality is expressed in
religious language, art and symbols. (45 marks)
Religious language / God talk refers to the written and spoken language typically
used by religious believers when they talk about God, their religious beliefs and their
religious experiences. The term also covers the language used in sacred texts and in
worship and prayer. Throughout history scholars have attempted to offer a meaningful
form of language in which humans can gain a greater understanding of the ideas
associated with God. Religious language, art and symbols all attempt to express ideas
about God in a way that allows humans to have a closer relationship with the divine.
One of the earliest forms of religious language was proposed by the Cappadocian
Fathers. These early Christian philosophers were concerned by their inability to fully
convey through words the nature of God. As Basil the Great advocates: “Our intellect is
weak but our tongue is even weaker.” In order to overcome these concerns they put
forward the ‘Way of Negation’ or the ‘Via Negativa’. According to the philosophy behind
the ‘via negativa’, God is not an object in the universe and, therefore, it is not possible to
describe God through words and concepts which are necessarily limiting. It is; instead,
better to talk about God based upon what God is not. The ‘via negativa’ is, therefore, a
means of coming to know God and what God is through negation.
The ‘Via Negativa’ is an attempt to achieve unity with God by gaining knowledge
of what God is not, rather than by describing what God is. Within Christianity the idea of
the ‘via negativa’ has been very influential. Not only does it emphasise the transcendence
and otherness of God; the language has also been used by people who have religious
experiences to describe the ineffable nature of their experiences.
Another form of religious language which attempted to express God without
limiting his attributes was proposed by St Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas accepted that we use
two forms of language when making statements. We either speak univocally, meaning
that words mean the same things in all situations or equivocally, meaning the words
means different things in a different context. Aquinas suggested that there was an
alternative form of language which he deemed the middle way or analogy. Aquinas
described two types of analogy, the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proper
proportion.
Aquinas believed it was possible to work out the nature of God by examining his
creation. Aquinas took it for granted that the world was created by God and for him, the
link between creator and created order was clear. In the analogy of attribution, Aquinas
takes as his starting point the idea that God is the source of all things in the universe and
that God is universally perfect. He then goes on to argue that all beings in the universe in
some way imitate God. Aquinas uses the example of a bull to illustrate this point. It is
possible to determine the health of the animal by examining its urine. Aquinas said that if
15
a bull’s urine is healthy, then we can determine that the bull will be healthy. Obviously
however, the health of the bull is more completely and perfectly within the bull itself and
is only reflected in the urine produced by the bull. In the same way God is the source of
qualities in the universe and God possesses these qualities first and most perfectly.
Additionally, Aquinas offers the analogy of proper proportion which refers to the
nature of what something is. Therefore, Aquinas would make the statement that ‘God is
good’. As God is regarded as a perfect being by Aquinas then the proportion of God’s
goodness is obviously greater than a statement such as ‘this car is good’. The basic idea is
that we possess qualities like those of God such as goodness, wisdom and faithfulness. We
possess these because we were created in his image and likeness, but because we are
inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God.
Many philosophers have also argued that symbols offer a valuable way of
expressing ideas about God. The German theologian Paul Tillich believed that it is
possible to speak meaningfully about God with the theory that religious language,
because it is symbolic in nature, has a profound effect upon humans. He makes a
distinction between signs and symbols, stating that signs are simply information giving as
they direct or warn people. A symbol, however, is far more powerful as they take part in
the power and meaning of what they symbolise. For example, the symbol of the trinity is
far more successful in expressing Christian ideas about God than words. Tillich argues
that symbols open up a level of reality that is otherwise closed to us as it sums up those
deeply religious concepts without the need for human words.
Ideas about God have also been expressed throughout the past two thousand years
through art. Christian art has been used throughout this time to demonstrate the different
definitions and understandings of God that the written or spoken word often finds too
difficult. It is a way in which humans have tried to harness their feelings of awe and
wonder of the universe and through such creative activity Christians have made visible
the reality of God. Our experience of God, and our image of God, is greatly enriched by
the use of visual language.
There are many examples of the way in which art can lead to a better
understanding of God. ‘The Creation of Adam’ is a section of Michelangelo's fresco Sistine
Chapel ceiling painted in 1511. God is depicted as an elderly white-bearded man wrapped
in a swirling cloak while Adam, on the lower left, is completely nude. God is not
portrayed as a frail old man; in fact this is quite the contrary. God is shown as a wise and
powerful figure whose right arm is outstretched to impart the spark of life from his own
finger into that of Adam. His left arm is extended in a pose mirroring God's, a reminder
that man is created in the image and likeness of God Another point is that Adam's finger
and God's finger are not touching. It gives the impression that God, the giver of life, is
reaching out to Adam and Adam is receiving.
Art contains a significance for people today in that it allows people to deepen their
relationship and most importantly (in this case) their understanding of God. Art is
16
significant because it can be used to show meaning. People can use art to show
themes/ideas such as love, truth, peace and misery. Art can be meaningful because of the
images that can be collected into one small area. It is then up to the person to look at this
form of art and to think about it and to make a conclusion about it. For example, the 16th
century Russian Icon known as ‘The All-seeing eye of God’ is an attempt to portray the
omniscience of God. The success of the icon is clearly though the imagery of omniscience.
This is an attribute of God that many people struggle with, especially if we are to accept
God’s total or unlimited omniscience. Through the philosophy of Boethius and Aquinas
we are asked to accept God as existing timelessly and that God observes all of creation in
one glance. Now, both Richard and Swinburne and Anthony Kenny had reservations
which this idea as for them it just did not make sense. However, if we read this view of
God in line with this icon we that God’s eye (vision) covers the entirety of the icon much
as it does the entirety of the universe.
17
A02 ‘Attempts to express ideas about God/Ultimate Reality are meaningful only for the
believer.’ Assess this claim. (30 marks)
The religious language debate is not concerned with whether or not God exists or
what God is like. It is concerned with working out whether or not religious language
means anything. The Logical Positivists would reject the claim that attempts to express
ideas about God are meaningful only for the believer as they would argue that any form
of religious language is meaningless. However, many philosophers reject the views and
claim that it is profoundly meaningful for the believer.
The Logical Positivists, also known as the Vienna Circle developed a theory known
as the ‘verification principle’. The strong verification principle states that metaphysical
statements (i.e. statements about things beyond reality such as God) are completely
meaningless as we have no way of verifying whether or not these statements are
meaningful. They argue that the only meaningful statements are those that can be verified
through observation or experience. They claim that when people express ideas about God
such as God’s transcendence or God’s omniscience they are not saying anything
meaningful as we have no way of observing or experiencing these statements.
However, many people would reject this principle and say that language about
God is meaningful for the believer. The former Logical Positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein
puts forward the idea of language games. He argued that expressions of ideas about God
would always be meaningful for the believer because they understand the language of
religion. The term ‘language games’ came from a theory he developed after having
attended a football match. Wittgenstein observed that just like games such as football,
language operates according to rules. Just as football players understand the offside trap,
so religious people understand the language of religion and it holds meaning for them.
In addition, the philosopher R.B. Braithwaite suggested that religious language has
meaning and can be verified because it results in a change in behaviour and a moral
commitment to live a certain kind of life. For example, people have changed their lives
and been converted to religions based on statements made by religious people. In other
words, people do not have to rely upon God being omnibenevolent as being empirically
verifiable, instead the statement influences people to be more loving and caring to others
which is meaningful to them.
In contrast, the philosopher Anthony Flew argues that expressions of ideas about God
can never be meaningful due to the falsification principle. Flew developed the idea that a
statement may be meaningful if it is known what evidence would prove it to be false. He
applied this idea to religious language and argued that religious believers refuse the
possibility that their statement can be falsified and so make their statements meaningless.
They will not allow evidence to discredit their beliefs and so their statements are
meaningless. For example, a believer might say that ‘God loves all humans’; if they then
witness a child dying of a terminal disease Flew says this would falsify the statement.
18
However, a believer would respond by saying ‘God loves all humans but in a different type
of love’. In other words, the believer qualifies the statement so much that the statement dies a
“death by a thousand qualifications.”
On the other hand, many scholars would argue that expressions about God may
not be verifiable or falsifiable but that they are meaningful. R.M Hare, through his parable
of the paranoid student highlights that believers have ‘bliks’. The student believes,
contrary to all the evidence that his professors are trying to kill him. The student has a
‘blik’ which is a view about the world that may not be based upon reason or fact and that
cannot be verified or falsified; however, the ‘blik’ is very meaningful for the believer.
Additionally, the philosopher Basil Mitchell also put forward a parable to show
that ideas about God are meaningful for the believer. He disagreed with ‘bliks’ as he
argued that religious language was based on fact but difficult to verify or falsify. He used
the idea of a resistance fighter to argue that believers have a prior commitment to trust in
God based on faith, and for this reason do not allow evidence to undermine their faith.
The parable shows a resistance fighter who meets a man claiming to be his leader. He is
impressed and pledges loyalty. As time goes on the fighter sees the leader apparently
helping the enemy but he maintains his trust due to his prior commitment.
Alternatively, expressions of God in symbols and art would only have meaning to
those who understand the image. For example, in a Catholic Church a red candle is
always lit which reminds Catholics of the ever presence of God. However, if you were not
a Catholic and visiting the church then this would be a simple candle doing nothing other
than lighting an area. Furthermore, many pieces of religious art require people to have an
understanding of the different definitions and ideas about God. For example, if you had
no understanding of terms such as immanence or transcendence any reference to these in
the picture would be lost. This highlights therefore that expressions of ideas about God do
have meaning only for the believer as those who no belief in God would either reject the
expression or be unable to interpret it.
19
A01 - Examine religious language as a meaningful way of talking about God / Ultimate
Reality. (45 marks)
Religious language / God talk refers to the written and spoken language typically
used by religious believers when they talk about God, their religious beliefs and their
religious experiences. The term also covers the language used in sacred texts and in
worship and prayer. The basic question behind the religious language debate is ‘what can
be said about God?’ The religious language debate is not concerned with whether or not
God exists, or what God is like or why there is evil in the world. It is solely concerned
with working out whether or not religious language means anything. On the one side of
the debate, you have the centuries old tradition of religious believers who believe that you
can speak and write about God, because God is a reality. There are many ways in which
religious language can be seen as a meaningful way of talking about God such as
Aquinas’ use of analogy, the ‘Via Negativa’ and symbol, metaphor and myth.
The former Logical Positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein put forward the idea of
language games. He argued that expressions of ideas about God would always be
meaningful for the believer because they understand the language of religion. The term
‘language games’ came from a theory he developed after having attended a football
match. Wittgenstein observed that just like games such as football, language operates
according to rules. Just as football players understand the offside trap, so religious people
understand the language of religion and it holds meaning for them. In addition, the
philosopher R.B. Braithwaite suggested that religious language has meaning and can be
verified because it results in a change in behaviour and a moral commitment to live a
certain kind of life. For example, people have changed their lives and been converted to
religions based on statements made by religious people. In other words, people do not
have to rely upon God being omnibenevolent as being empirically verifiable; instead the
statement influences people to be more loving and caring to others which is meaningful to
them.
One of the earliest forms of religious language was proposed by the Cappadocian
Fathers. These early Christian philosophers were concerned by their inability to fully
convey through words the nature of God. As Basil the Great advocates: “Our intellect is
weak but our tongue is even weaker.” In order to overcome these concerns and to make
religious language meanigful they put forward the ‘Way of Negation’ or the ‘Via
Negativa’. According to the philosophy behind the ‘via negativa’, God is not an object in
the universe and, therefore, it is not possible to describe God through words and concepts
which are necessarily limiting. It is; instead, better to talk about God based upon what
God is not. The ‘via negativa’ is, therefore, a means of coming to know God and what God
is through negation.The ‘Via Negativa’ is an attempt to achieve unity with God by gaining
knowledge of what God is not, rather than by describing what God is. Within Christianity
the idea of the ‘via negativa’ has been very influential. Not only does it emphasise the
transcendence and otherness of God; the language has also been used by people who have
religious experiences to describe the ineffable nature of their experiences.
20
An alternative way of using religious language as a meaningful way of talking
about God is through the device of metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a
term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to
suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Gerry Hughes maintains that
it is preferable to use metaphorical language about God as it is less likely to mislead and it
does not even try to describe God. Hughes claims that science uses metaphors as a way to
try to understand new concepts – in describing black holes science lacks an adequate
vocabulary and resorts to metaphor. Light for instance may be described as a wave; it is
not a wave but this is helpful way of talking about light. Brought together, a number of
metaphors may come closer to capturing the reality of God – albeit without describing it.
It follows that focusing on too narrow a range of metaphor could limit God. In Islam God
is said to have 99 names and one name that cannot be known thus emphasising the many
ways of talking about God.
Another form of religious language which attempted to express God without
limiting his attributes was proposed by St Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas accepted that we use
two forms of language when making statements. We either speak univocally, meaning
that words mean the same things in all situations or equivocally, meaning the words
means different things in a different context. Aquinas suggested that there was an
alternative form of language which he deemed the middle way or analogy. Aquinas
described two types of analogy, the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proper
proportion.
Aquinas believed it was possible to work out the nature of God by examining his
creation. Aquinas took it for granted that the world was created by God and for him, the
link between creator and created order was clear. In the analogy of attribution, Aquinas
takes as his starting point the idea that God is the source of all things in the universe and
that God is universally perfect. He then goes on to argue that all beings in the universe in
some way imitate God. Aquinas uses the example of a bull to illustrate this point. It is
possible to determine the health of the animal by examining its urine. Aquinas said that if
a bull’s urine is healthy, then we can determine that the bull will be healthy. Obviously
however, the health of the bull is more completely and perfectly within the bull itself and
is only reflected in the urine produced by the bull. In the same way God is the source of
qualities in the universe and God possesses these qualities first and most perfectly.
Additionally, Aquinas offers the analogy of proper proportion which refers to the
nature of what something is. Therefore, Aquinas would make the statement that ‘God is
good’. As God is regarded as a perfect being by Aquinas then the proportion of God’s
goodness is obviously greater than a statement such as ‘this car is good’. The basic idea is
that we possess qualities like those of God such as goodness, wisdom and faithfulness. We
possess these because we were created in his image and likeness, but because we are
inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God.
21
Many philosophers have also argued that symbols offer a meaningful way of
expressing ideas about God. The German theologian Paul Tillich believed that it is
possible to speak meaningfully about God with the theory that religious language,
because it is symbolic in nature, has a profound effect upon humans. He makes a
distinction between signs and symbols, stating that signs are simply information giving as
they direct or warn people. A symbol, however, is far more powerful as they take part in
the power and meaning of what they symbolise. For example, the symbol of the trinity is
far more successful in expressing Christian ideas about God than words. Tillich argues
that symbols open up a level of reality that is otherwise closed to us as it sums up those
deeply religious concepts without the need for human words.
Tillich’s concept of symbols being a meaningful form of religious language is also
supported by the use of religious art. Ideas about God have also been expressed
throughout the past two thousand years through art. Christian art has been used
throughout this time to demonstrate the different definitions and understandings of God
that the written or spoken word often finds too difficult. It is a way in which humans have
tried to harness their feelings of awe and wonder of the universe and through such
creative activity Christians have made visible the reality of God. Our experience of God,
and our image of God, is greatly enriched by the use of visual language.
There are many examples of the way in which art can lead to a better
understanding of God. ‘The Creation of Adam’ is a section of Michelangelo's fresco Sistine
Chapel ceiling painted in 1511. God is depicted as an elderly white-bearded man wrapped
in a swirling cloak while Adam, on the lower left, is completely nude. God is not
portrayed as a frail old man; in fact this is quite the contrary. God is shown as a wise and
powerful figure whose right arm is outstretched to impart the spark of life from his own
finger into that of Adam. His left arm is extended in a pose mirroring God's, a reminder
that man is created in the image and likeness of God Another point is that Adam's finger
and God's finger are not touching. It gives the impression that God, the giver of life, is
reaching out to Adam and Adam is receiving.
Art can be meaningful because of the images that can be collected into one small
area. It is then up to the person to look at this form of art and to think about it and to
make a conclusion about it. For example, the 16th century Russian Icon known as ‘The Allseeing eye of God’ is an attempt to portray the omniscience of God. The success of the icon
is clearly though the imagery of omniscience. This is an attribute of God that many people
struggle with, especially if we are to accept God’s total or unlimited omniscience. Through
the philosophy of Boethius and Aquinas we are asked to accept God as existing timelessly
and that God observes all of creation in one glance. Now, both Richard and Swinburne
and Anthony Kenny had reservations which this idea as for them it just did not make
sense. However, if we read this view of God in line with this icon we that God’s eye
(vision) covers the entirety of the icon much as it does the entirety of the universe.
22
A02 - The nature of God / Ultimate Reality means that any attempt to talk about God /
Ultimate Reality will fail. Assess this view. (30 marks)
Religious language / God talk refers to the written and spoken language typically
used by religious believers when they talk about God. Many have argued that the nature
of God means that any attempt to talk about Him will fail. This argument comes mainly
from the Logical Positivists through the verification and falsification principles. However,
many other philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Aquinas would argue that we can talk
about the nature of God in a meaningful way.
The Logical Positivists developed the verification principle which is a theory
stating that metaphysical statements are meaningless because we have no means to verify
(prove) them. According to verificationists statements can only be considered meaningful
if we can observe or experience what is being said. Therefore, if we focus on the nature of
God and definitions such as God being transcendent or necessary we encounter a
problem. The verification principle clearly shows that any attempt to talk about God in
this way will fail because we cannot, as humans, experience or observe God if he exists
outside the universe in a different form to us. Furthermore, A.J. Ayer said that the term
‘God’ itself is metaphysical; therefore all statements about God are meaningless because
they invariably concern themselves with something that cannot be factually verified. This
principle offers a strong argument in favour of the idea that God talk will undoubtedly
fail.
However, there are many philosophers who have suggested different ways in
which we can use language effectively to describe the nature of God. Aquinas, for
example, believed that we could gain an understanding of God’s nature through the use
of analogy. Aquinas offered two forms of analogy known as attribution and proportion; in
both ways Aquinas is offering a way in which we can talk meaningfully about God.
Analogy can be successful because it allows us to use things in our frame of reference to
understand something outside it. For example, if we look at William Paley’s analogy of
the watch we are given a frame in which we can understand God as a designer of the
world. The analogy refers to something understandable in our world in order to gain
understanding of God beyond our world. This shows by using an analogy of something
intricate like a watch we can gain an insight into the nature of God as an omnipotent
creator.
In addition to Aquinas we also have forms of God talk that are not written or
spoken communication but still offer a very clear way in which we can understand God’s
nature. Art and symbols according to the German theologian Paul Tillich help to open up
levels of reality that otherwise are closed to us. Tillich’s view counters the claim that God
talk will ultimately fail as symbols are very powerful ways in which humans can gain
understanding of profoundly difficult concepts. Life is not just factual and intellectual; it is
also emotional and symbols best describe this. They help us describe the indescribable, for
example the Christian concept of the trinity is on which has perplexed philosophers for
thousands of years yet a symbol of a three leafed clover can often make the difficult view
23
of three things existing in one far easier to understand. Tillich offers a strong argument
against the view that God talk will fail as symbolic religious language can convey God’s
nature adequately.
On the other hand, many would dispute the use of art and symbols and suggest
that they like any other form of religious language will fail due to the nature of God. For
example, the sanctuary lamp found within a Catholic Church is a light which is constantly
lit. This symbol highlights the presence of God within a Church. For a Roman Catholic
this is a terrifically important symbol and one that highlights God’s omnipresence.
However, for a non-religious person the candle is a light, nothing more. Therefore, it does
not point beyond its original function. In addition, symbols are inventions created by
humans to represent certain things. They are therefore subjective, open to interpretation
and cannot establish any truth which means we can apply the verification principle to
them and show that they are meaningless because not everyone will experience or observe
the same ideas from art and symbol.
Furthermore, the Logical Positivist Anthony Flew developed a principle known as
falsification. His ideas came from the scientist Karl Popper whom argued that the only
way we can verify a statement is to find empirical evidence to count against it. For
example, the statement ‘All swans are white” would be impossible to verify unless I could
observe all swans on earth simultaneously. However, if I encounter a black swan then I
have falsified the claim and found meaning in my statement. Flew argues that religious
people refuse to let anything falsify their claims and instead qualify their statements. He
suggests this leads religious statements to “die a death of a thousand qualifications” and
therefore fail in any attempt to describe God’s nature. For example, if I said ‘God is
omnibenevolent’, Flew would claim that this element of God’s nature is falsified due to
evil and suffering. However, a religious person would qualify the statement and say ‘God
is omnibenevolent to those who deserve it’. This proves that religious people shift the goal
posts and fail in their attempt to talk adequately about God.
I personally do not think that any attempt to talk about God will fail due to his nature.
This is because many religious people have a clear understanding of the nature of God
and have developed language which is meaningful to them. For example, both Ludwig
Wittgenstein and Basil Mitchell suggest that religious language can be meaningful
without being verifiable or falsifiable. Wittgenstein uses ‘language games’ to suggest that
religious people understand talk about God’s nature because they like the player of a
game are aware of its rules. In other words, Catholic’s speak meaningfully about God’s
omnipresence because they use this type of language in normal life. Additionally, the
philosopher Basil Mitchell claimed that religious people have a prior faith commitment
which means language about faith will hold meaning to them. In his parable of the
resistance fighter Mitchell proves that not all attempts to talk about God will fail.
Religious language is based upon facts for the theist yet these facts may not be apparent to
everyone. This highlights that not all forms of God talk will fail.
24
A01: Examine the nature of experiences of God / Ultimate Reality. (45 marks)
A religious experience is when a person believes they have had an experience of
God, or another religious figure. Religious experiences can range from God actually
speaking to a person, to someone being aware of God's presence, to an experience of
another religious figure, or even a miracle. Therefore, religious experiences are not easily
categorised as one thing or another. However, what we might say is common to all of them
is that they are somewhat extraordinary events, and very different to ordinary everyday
experiences. There are an infinite number of different religious experiences, as each one is
unique, but there have been attempts to classify them based largely upon the results of the
experience. The main classifications of religious experience are either a form of revelation
or a mystical experience. However, any encounter that a person has with the divine/God
or any attachment a person may feel can be deemed mystical.
A form of revelatory religious experience that acts as a source of knowledge about
God is a vision. This occurs when an individual believes that they have seen or heard
something divine or a divine being. There are three ways in which the individual may
experience a vision. The first is a corporeal vision; this is where a figure is externally
present to the recipient. According to the authorities of the Catholic Church, the presence
of an external figure may be understood in two ways. Firstly the very substance of the
being/person will be presented and secondly it may merely be an appearance of a bright
light from which the recipient hears a voice. Perhaps the most famous example of a
corporeal vision within the Catholic tradition is that of the events of Lourdes in 1858. A
young girl named Bernadette Soubirous witnessed 18 visions of the Virgin Mary in the
cave of Massabielle. These visions led to the creation of one of the largest Catholic
pilgrimage sites to which millions visit each year.
The second type of vision is imaginative; an imaginative vision is very different to a
corporeal vision as the object is not physically seen with the eyes. In an imaginative vision
a being superior to man (Godly) acts directly either on the imagination itself. The sign that
these images come from God lies in the fact that the subject is powerless to define or fix
the elements of the vision. Imaginative visions are ordinarily very short, either because the
person is unable to endure the vision for a long time, or imaginative visions soon give
place to intellectual visions. This kind of vision occurs most frequently during sleep as
during sleep the mind is less divided by thoughts, it is more passive and more inclined to
accept the vision. It is imaginative if, for example, the image persists after one has closed
one's eyes. This type of vision is directly referred to in the Gospel of St Matthew.
According to Matthew, Joseph was on several occasions visited by an angel in a dream.
The angel instructed Joseph that he should not divorce Mary and instead take her as his
wife as she had conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
25
The final type of vision is intellectual; this is a type of vision which contains no
object or image. The recipient begins to realise they are having an intellectual vision when
they feel the intervention of God. This intervention is felt through the following effects,
such as feeling loved by God, an overwhelming peace in the mind or a deeper belief in
God. The intellectual vision takes place in the pure understanding, and not in the
reasoning faculty. This means that a person does not have to work out what the vision
means as the vision gives total understanding immediately. Julian of Norwich, the 14-15th
century mystic, is a particularly good example of someone who received an intellectual
vision. In her work, The Revelations of Divine Love, she recounted one vivid experience in
which she came to understand that everything owed its existence to the love of God.
Within the Christian tradition, many people believe they experience God through
miracles. The definition of the term miracle is not clear as the term is now so widely used
that the true meaning is often clouded by people’s own interpretations and experiences.
However, the most common characteristic of a miracle is that the event occurs contrary to
the natural laws we accept in our world. Richard Swinburne acknowledges that it is
difficult to outweigh the scientific evidence that could count against a miracle, but he
maintains that we do have enough historical evidence to suggest that there is a God and
that God can violate the laws of nature. He suggests: “If he (God) has reason to interact
with us, he has reason very occasionally to intervene and suspend those natural laws by
which our life is controlled” It is perfectly probable that there could be one off exceptional
and unrepeatable occurrences. The laws of nature do not have to be rewritten. If God is
omnipotent, then he quite clearly could suspend the laws of nature. Swinburne’s historical
evidence comes from the numerous accounts of miraculous events attested to in the Bible.
Swinburne would refer to events such as the healing and nature miracles of Jesus as well
as his death and subsequent resurrection.
Another way in which people are believed to experience God is the numinous. The
numinous is sense of ‘awe and wonder’ a person may feel when they experience the
presence of God in a certain place or building. It usually describes the feeling (or
realisation) that God is very different from us - powerful and awesome. Some people
usually feel this when they enter a church or a cathedral. However, they might just as
easily have a sense of God's greatness by looking at the world around them, for example a
sunset or looking up at the stars. The German thinker Rudolph Otto outlined a whole
range of feelings associated with the numinous experience such as ‘creeping flesh’, ‘the
fear of ghosts’ and ‘the sense of something that is uncanny, weird or eerie’. Otto used
these terms to illustrate that this encounter is with something that is quite out of the
ordinary, but at the same time attractive and of supreme value.
26
Otto states that the best expression for the numinous is the Latin phrase mysterium
tremendum — a magnificent mystery. The mystery is the ‘Wholly Other’ which is beyond
apprehension and comprehension. This linked clearly with William James’ understanding
or mystical experiences. James believes that experiences of God have four characteristics.
Numinous experiences seem to fit within James’ definition. The first characteristic James
describes is the Ineffable nature of the experience. This means that the experience often
goes far beyond the powers of description. The person feels like they are unable to
describe the experience or not do it justice. In addition, James suggests that the experience
can be Noetic; this means the person receives knowledge of the divine. In the case of the
numinous people may come to an understanding of God’s omnipotence through
observing the structure of DNA or examining the different parts of the human eye.
Additionally, experiences of God can also be Transient. An experience may appear
to last for a long period of time whereas it may have actually been very short. The effects
of the transient experience are however, long lasting and involve a changed view of the
universe. Finally, James suggests that mystical encounters are also Passive; which means
the person was not in control of what happened to them. Instead the experience just
happens and is from God. James’ characteristics can help us to assess if the experience of
God is genuine or not. For example, many people claim to have had an experience of God
which has led to their conversion. If we apply James’ four features to conversion
experience we can evaluate whether the recipient has had a religious experience.
Conversion is a form of religious experience where someone’s life takes a dramatic
spiritual turn. A person may be converted from no religion to religious belief, from one
religion to another or from religious belief to atheism or agnosticism. It is helpful to think
of conversion rather like a set of scales that are in a state of imbalance. Subjects of
conversion are often in a state of imbalance: they are unhappy or leading unfulfilled lives;
an experience then takes place which balances the scales and gives them a sense of
emotional and spiritual balance in their lives. There are basically two forms of mental
occurrence which lead to a difference in the conversion process. The first is a conscious
and voluntary experience known as a volitional type or gradual conversion. The second is
an involuntary and unconscious experience also known as a self-surrender type or sudden
conversion. The most famous example of conversion within Christianity is that of St Paul.
Paul, formerly known as Saul was a persecutor of Christians until he had a vision of Jesus
on the road to Damascus. Following this event, Saul’s life changed dramatically; he
changed his name to Paul and dedicated his life to spreading the message of Christianity
which led to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.
27
A02 - ‘The personal nature of any religious experience means that it has no value
beyond the individual.’ How far do you agree? (30 marks)
Religious experiences are such unique and rare occurrences that many have argued
that they have no value beyond the individual involved. However, others would argue
that the experiences do contain objective truths which provide value beyond the
individual. The Logical Positivist A.J. Ayer would firmly agree that religious experiences
have no value beyond the individual. Ayer comes from a school of thought, known as
logical positivism, which suggests that statements and events can only be accepted as
meaningful if they can be verified using experience or observation. Ayer’s most significant
criticism focuses on the concept of ineffability. Ayer's simple view of religious experience
is that, if God is something that cannot be meaningfully described, then how can the
experience have any meaning for anyone other than the recipient. Furthermore, Ayer
would argue that if experiences of God are unintelligible and cannot be described
adequately through words then what reason can we have to accept them as genuine. It is
far more probable that if a person cannot fully describe the experience that they are
perhaps mistaken.
In addition, Ayer would say that experiences lack value as they cannot be verified
either directly or indirectly. Ayer proposed the theory of weak verification in which he
argued that religious statements/experiences can be verified either directly or indirectly.
By directly, Ayer is suggesting that we can also observe or experience what someone else
has had. Unfortunately, this is not true for religious experience as it often happens to
individuals rather than groups. The experiences are often deeply personal, which only
strengthens Ayers point that they are in fact meaningless due to their subjective nature.
Furthermore, we cannot indirectly verify a religious experience either as we do not have
sufficient evidence to support it. We can only rely on the testimony of a person and this is
also a deeply subjective description which proves the experience to be meaningless.
Moreover, Ayer argues that religious experience is like an emotion. Ayer states that
there are two types of statements; firstly statements which refer to things that exist in the
world and secondly statements which record experiences in someone's mind. Ayer thinks
that religious experiences are all of the second sort - they are religious emotions that don't
actually relate to anything in the real world. Ayer goes further and considers a person
making a claim that they have seen something yellow and a claim that they are
experiencing the presence of God. Ayer points out that we can test whether there is a
yellow object there or not, for example, by looking ourselves. However, there's no way of
putting a person’s experience of God to the test. This means if a person claims to have had
a direct experience of God then it has no" literal significance" beyond the individual.
However, people would disagree with Ayer’s claims and also suggest that religious
experiences can have significance beyond the individual recipient. If an individual claims
to have experienced God it is possible just to doubt that what they claim to have
experienced is true. However, if more than one person claims to have had the same
experience, or many people witness the experience, it becomes more difficult to doubt.
28
There are many examples of group or corporate experiences which could strengthen the
argument that religious experiences have value beyond an individual. In 1995, an
otherwise ordinary man in New Delhi dreamt that Lord Ganesha, the elephant-headed
God of Wisdom, craved a little milk. When he woke he went to his nearest temple where a
priest allowed him to offer a spoonful of milk to a small stone statue. Within hours news
had spread and tens of millions of people of all ages flocked to the nation temples across
the world and witnessed the miracle for themselves. This example highlights that
religious experiences may be deeply significant to individuals but that they can also hold
value for large groups. In this sense, the supposed milk miracle was a highly valuable
experience for the Hindu community.
Furthermore, many would claim that religious experiences can be extremely
valuable in demonstrating the existence of God. They would argue that we could apply
Ayer’s classification of strong and weak verification and apply these both to religious
experiences. William James, for example, would argue that religious experience would fit
within their criteria. If a person has a vision of God or another divine being then they have
observable evidence. Likewise, James argues that experience is the final arbiter of truth;
therefore, if a person has a religious experience then surely this is the strongest form of
empirical evidence to verify the existence of God. In addition, many would also argue that
religious experiences can be verified if we apply Ayer’s weak verification principle. If we
use the example of Bernadette’s vision of the Virgin Mary in Lourdes we can see that
although the visions happened only to Bernadette their legacy has been incredibly strong.
One hundred and fifty years on from the events in Lourdes the town has now become a
popular Catholic shrine. It attracts around five million people each year and sixty seven
miracles have been confirmed in Lourdes. The events therefore offer accumulated facts
that make the experience of Bernadette to be verified and provide value beyond the
individual.
I therefore disagree with the statement because we can extend the argument of
verification to the religious experience and subsequent conversion of St Paul. The vision of
the risen Christ that Paul witnessed on the road to Damascus was an individual
experience. However, the effect of that experience has had a dramatic effect on millions of
Christians worldwide. Paul’s testimony has inspired people to change their lives and the
follow the teachings of Jesus. This seems to show that some experiences have an effect
way beyond the individual recipient. Conversion, for example, can be viewed as an
objective reality. This is because the effects of the experience lead to a change in an
individual’s life which others can observe. For example, the conversion of Davey Falcus
proves that others can witness the dramatic effects of a conversion. Davey was a former
gangster, drug addict and alcoholic. Following a vision of Jesus Davey’s life was changed
and his addictions were ended. Davey had changed both in a moral and social way which
was witnessed through his reformed life as a Christian minister. This proves that although
religious experiences happen mainly to individuals their effects have value to a much
wider audience.
29
A01 - Examine how religious experience can be a source for knowledge about
God/Ultimate Reality. (45 marks)
A religious experience is when a person believes they have had an experience of
God, or another religious figure. Religious experiences can range from God actually
speaking to a person, to someone being aware of God's presence, to an experience of
another religious figure, or even a miracle. Therefore, religious experiences are not easily
categorised as one thing or another. However, what we might say is common to all of them
is that they are somewhat extraordinary events, and very different to ordinary everyday
experiences. Furthermore, religious experience can be one of the best sources for gaining
an knowledge and understanding of God.
The clearest thing that religious experiences teach us about God is that He exists.
William James’ religious experience argument clearly shows that if religious experiences
are genuine then God must exist. James suggests that experience is the final arbiter of
truth which maintains that if a person has an experience of God then they have the
truth/proof of God’s existence. For example, if someone has a corporeal vision then this
offers clear proof to that person that God exists. A ‘Corporeal vision’ is a supernatural
sighting of an object. It is where a figure really presents itself to a person. According to the
Catholic Church, the presence of an external figure may be understood in two ways.
Firstly where an actual being/person will be presented and secondly it may merely be an
appearance of a bright light from which the recipient hears a voice. The first could be the
appearance of the Virgin Mary to Bernadette at Lourdes whereas the second could be God
speaking to Moses through the burning bush.
Richard Swinburne would agree with James; he adds the religious experience
argument to his cumulative argument for the existence of God. If we take religious
experiences along with other evidence of God’s existence such as the Cosmological and
Design arguments then it makes it far more likely that God exists. Furthermore, the
philosopher William Alston argued that in normal life the evidence for something existing
is gathered from experience. For example, if you say ‘There’s a red car’ or ‘Can you hear
that bird singing?’ you are referring to things that you have observed using your senses.
You don’t doubt these experiences because many other people have had similar
experiences. Alston suggests that if many people have had a religious experience why
should we not believe what our senses tell us? We could then look at examples such as the
Toronto Blessing or the appearance of the Virgin Mary to Fatima to support Alston’s view
that due to many people having a shared experience it adds strength to the argument that
God exists.
Religious experience can also show that God is immanent in the universe. The
literal meaning of the immanence of God is "to be within" or "near" in relation to God's
creation. In other words, that God acts within the universe. Religious experiences offer
strong evidence in favour of this idea because if God performs a miracle, someone feels
the presence of God or someone converts due to a vision then God must be within our
universe. If God were simply transcendent then we would not be able to accept any
30
account of religious experience on the ground that God does not partake in a physical way
in the lives of human beings. The most important belief associated with the idea that God
is immanent is that humans are able to have a relationship with God. This relationship is
no more clearly realised when people have an experience of God. The account of the
conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus suggests Paul heard the voice of Jesus –
‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ This is followed by a declaration that the speaker
is ‘The risen Christ’. After this vision on the road to Damascus, Paul converted to
Christianity and he spent the rest of his life spreading the Christian message. This account
provides evidence for many Christians today that through religious experience we can
gain an understanding of the immanence of God.
Richard Swinburne suggests that a good way of backing up the truthfulness of
someone’s claim to have had a religious experience, is to look at whether or not there are
changes in that person’s life. In addition, these positive changes highlight the love of God
for humanity in that God intervenes in people’s lives to improve them in some way. The
many conversion experiences throughout history highlight that God, through religious
experience, can change the lives of those in desperate need thus highlighting his
benevolent nature. The conversion of Davey Falcus is testament to the loving nature of
God. Davey was a renowned criminal from Newcastle upon Tyne. During his teenage
years and early twenties he was involved heavily in the drug scene and was a very violent
man. By the age of 29 Davey was a drug addict and alcoholic. In 1995 Davey picked up a
Bible and from that point his life changed. A bright light filled the room where he was sat;
it was brighter than the sun. Then Jesus appeared and spoke to Davey. At that moment a
15 year drug habit was broken instantly; also his desire for alcohol left him. Davey’s
conversion offers support to the argument that religious experience can show that God is
a benevolent being.
Within the Christian tradition, many people believe they experience God through
miracles. The definition of the term miracle is not clear as the term is now so widely used
that the true meaning is often clouded by people’s own interpretations and experiences.
However, the most common characteristic of a miracle is that the event occurs contrary to
the natural laws we accept in our world. Richard Swinburne acknowledges that it is
difficult to outweigh the scientific evidence that could count against a miracle, but he
maintains that we do have enough historical evidence to suggest that there is a God and
that God can violate the laws of nature. He suggests: “If he (God) has reason to interact
with us, he has reason very occasionally to intervene and suspend those natural laws by
which our life is controlled” It is perfectly probable that there could be one off exceptional
and unrepeatable occurrences. The laws of nature do not have to be rewritten. If God is
omnipotent, then he quite clearly could suspend the laws of nature. Swinburne’s historical
evidence comes from the numerous accounts of miraculous events attested to in the Bible.
Swinburne would refer to events such as the healing and nature miracles of Jesus as well
as his death and subsequent resurrection.
31
In addition to Swinburne’s argument in favour of miracles is the idea that miracles
also reveal something about God. For many Christians, religious experiences are signs
that point to God and reveal something about God. In the case of Jesus, miracles and
visions of the risen Christ are seen as confirmation that Jesus is from God. Within the New
Testament we have many examples of Jesus performing miracles and Jesus appearing to
his disciples following his death. The signs Jesus works and the appearances he makes
show that Jesus is the Son of God. This view is also supported by the Catholic Church:
“The signs worked by Jesus attest that the Father has sent him…they bear witness that he
is the Son of God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church). Furthermore, the miracle of the
resurrection
32
A01 - Examine different understandings of the human situation in relation to
God/Ultimate Reality. (45 marks)
The human situation is the relationship between God and humanity. Throughout
the history of Christian philosophy many have attempted to offer valid ways in which
humans share a relationship with God. There are many different understandings of the
human situation such as humans being totally dependent on God, humans developing
through a process of soul making, the belief that humans are under the judgement of God
and also that are freedom is limited as God has predestined those that will receive eternal
life.
St Thomas Aquinas argued that the relationship between God and humanity is one
of complete dependence. In other words, humans depend on God for their initial and
continued existence. The concept of dependence is clearly shown in Aquinas’
Cosmological Arguments. In each of his ‘Three Ways’ Aquinas rejects the concept of the
universe existing infinitely and argues that a necessary being (God) was responsible for
bringing everything into existence. Therefore, as God is the efficient cause of the universe
then we are dependent on God for everything.
Furthermore, Aquinas also believed that God was not only an initial cause of the
universe but that we also depend on God for our continued existence. This is because God
is the sustainer of motion, cause and existence. Therefore, God’s continual presence
sustains the causal chain within the universe and if God were to end the causal chain then
existence as we have come to understand it would end. This type of cause is referred to as
‘Cause in Esse’: Cause in esse can be illustrated by the relation between the electricity
supply to keep the image on a TV screen. The electricity supply keeps the image on the
screen in the sense that the supply has to be there continuously here and now to keep the
image there. If the supply is cut off the image will go. This is the sense in which Aquinas
argues humans are dependent on God. He is needed as a constant presence to keep all
causal chains working.
Another understanding of the human situation in relation to God was proposed by
the Church father St Augustine. He believed that the relationship between God and
humanity began in a state of total perfection. However, this perfection was corrupted by
the actions of humans and their relationship with God was tainted; in other words,
humans fell from their state of perfection by using their free will to make choices that
drove a wedge between God and the world. Augustine based this concept on the Genesis
account of the fall of man when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. Though not named in the Bible, the concept for the ‘Fall’
comes specifically from chapter 3 of Genesis. Adam and Eve live at first with God in a
paradise, but the serpent tempts them into eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, which God forbade. After doing so they become ashamed of their
nakedness and God consequently expelled them from paradise.
33
Augustine’s understanding of the human situation in relation to God is best
understood through his theodicy. A theodicy is a way in which philosophers try to
reconcile the existence and nature of God with the problem of evil and suffering. His
theodicy is referred to as a ‘soul deciding theodicy’ which means that humans were
created with free will and can choose to have a relationship with God. Our relationship
with God is based on our ability to make free decisions. This is known as a soul deciding
theodicy or free will defence because it shows that God is not responsible for the actions
of human beings. Instead, humans have the ability to make good or bad decisions.
Therefore, the human situation in relation to God is one where we have freedom to make
decisions that could affect our relationship with God much like the account Genesis 3.
In contrast to Augustine’s view is the concept of ‘soul making’. John Hick
developed his understanding of the relationship between God and humanity from the
views of the early Church father Irenaeus. Irenaeus argued that God created the world
imperfectly so that every imperfect immature being could develop through a soul-making
process into a ‘child of God,’ in God's perfect likeness. For Irenaeus, God could not have
created humans in perfect likeness of himself because achieving the likeness of God
requires the willing co-operation of humans. God thus had to give humans free will in
order for them to be able to willingly co-operate. Since freedom requires the ability to
choose good over evil, God had to permit evil and suffering to occur.
John Hick highlighted the importance of God allowing humans to develop
themselves. He reasoned that if God made us perfect, then we would have the goodness
of robots, which would love God automatically without any further deliberation. God
wants humans to be genuinely loving and therefore gives them free will. If God interfered
or became too close, humans would be unable to make a free choice and thus would not
benefit from the developmental process. This is known as the counterfactual hypothesis.
Therefore God created humans at an epistemic distance from himself, a distance of
knowledge.
This concept is summed up adequately by Peter Vardy’s analogy of the King and
the Peasant girl. Vardy accepted that if humans are to have a truly loving relationship
with God then the relationship we have with God has to be completely free. If God creates
a perfect world in which all humans accept him without question then this relationship is
not genuinely loving as we have not had any choice in our love. “A King falls in love
with a peasant girl. If the King wanted to force her to marry him, she would not have
any choice but to do so. The peasant girl could feign or manufacture feelings for the
King but the King could not force her to give genuine, unrequited love. However, the
King wants the girl to love him freely and truly, so he disguises himself as a peasant
and allows her to fall in love with him, not because he is King, but because she loves
him freely of her own choice, which gives that love true value” God as the omnipotent
King opts not to force humanity into a relationship because it would not be genuine. Our
relationship with God is then one which is truly loving because it is built on a faith that
has been freely chosen rather than programmed and switched on when God saw fit.
34
A further way of understanding the human situation in relation to God was
proposed by the Protestant reformer John Calvin. Calvin’s idea is known as
predestination; it is based on the Christian belief that God is both omniscient and
omnipotent so God therefore is not only aware of choices that individuals will make but
that he may also control these choices. Calvin focused his idea of predestination on the
idea that God alone determines who will be saved. This is known as the Doctrine of
Divine Election. By this Calvin meant that some people are destined for a relationship
with God while some are not. This may be seen by the way that some people believe in
Jesus and some do not. What is noticeable is that whether one is saved or goes to hell is
not a matter of human choice. Calvin ultimately argues that whether a person is among
God’s elect is a matter for God. Therefore, unlike the views of John Hick and Pete Vardy,
humans do not have free will to make choices that will bring them closer to God. Instead,
God has already made decisions for us and we cannot change our destiny.
For many Christians, the concept of predestination and Divine Election is an
uncomfortable belief. This is due to the idea that some are chosen to have a relationship in
heaven with God irrelevant of how they have lived their lives whereas others will go to
hell even if they have led a moral life. Instead, many Christians maintain the belief that
God holds everyone to account and judges them according to their actions. Hence, God’s
punishment for some is to send them to hell because that is what they deserve, and justice
demands that they are appropriately punished. The concept of being under God’s
judgement derives from the Bible. The Bible paints a very clear picture that the
relationship between God and humanity is one in which the actions of humans
throughout their lives will be taken into account and used by God to make a final
judgement. Both the Old and New Testament make a number of references to the fact that
God will judge humans on their conduct and reward those who live a moral life.
The important aspect of the biblical picture of God as judge is that He accepts
people as they really are. So if people lead a good life and choose to be in a good
relationship with God and other people, they go to heaven. Equally, if people choose to
live a life of wrongdoing, God recognises that they have chosen to live in a state of
disharmony and bad relationship with God and other people, so they bring hell on
themselves. Within Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions no one is
predestined to go to hell; God loves everyone, and wishes to forgive everyone and be in a
good relationship with everyone if that is what they want. However, if people choose to
lead a life of wrongdoing, effectively turning their back on God, then those people by their
actions choose to be separate from God. It is not that God wishes for people to go to
punished, but people through their actions choose punishment as their fate.
35
A02 - ‘Beliefs about God/Ultimate Reality have a negative impact on the way in which
people live their lives.’ How far do you agree? (30 marks)
The human situation is the relationship between God and humanity. Throughout
the history of Christian philosophy many have attempted to offer valid ways in which
humans share a relationship with God. Many involved in the debate would argue that the
beliefs can have a negative impact on the way people live their lives. For example, the idea
that humans depend on God could well lead to humans refusing to act upon issues of
injustice as they believe they can depend on God to help. Alternatively, many have
argued that the different beliefs offer positive ways in which humans can develop a
relationship with God and in turn life a more moral life.
The belief that humans depend on God has led many to suggest that this idea has
an extremely negative impact on the way in which people live for lives. For example, in
terms of religious experiences such as prayers and miracles there are some who may
simply expect God to intervene rather than trying to improve their situation themselves.
For instance, a student who is preparing to take a final test may pray to God and ask for
divine inspiration or a man driving his car at 100 miles per hour, when suddenly, a young
child crosses the road may look for God to perform a miracle and save the child. Although
these examples may seem rather superficial their meaning is evident. If humans see the
relationship between God and humans as one of dependence then there is a danger that
we begin to blame God for his lack of intervention rather than looking at how we
ourselves could intervene. In addition, the prominent sociologist Karl Marx believes that
those in society who are extremely poor will remain in this social class if they maintain an
understanding that they depend on God for their salvation. Marx is suggesting that many
people depend on God to change their fortune and will be content in the belief that God
will reward them in heaven if they have suffered in this life. The negative impact of this
understanding is that people who are living in extremely desperate situations such as the
slums of Mumbai or the shanty towns of Rio will accept their lot due to a dependence on
the salvation offered by God.
Furthermore, the concept of predestination as proposed by the protestant reformer
John Calvin is viewed as having a negative impact on how people live their lives. Calvin’s
idea of double predestination can lead to spiritual apathy or even despair. The notion that
many people may be categorised as the ‘non-elect’ renders people disillusioned and
increases their sense of alienation from their faith. For example, the Benedictine Monks are
a strict monastic order whom separate themselves from society and dedicate their lives to
Jesus. If these men were to accept the doctrine of predestination the damage could be
irrevocable. The life they chose and the dedication they have shown becomes fruitless as
they may be predestined to not be saved by God. If a person cannot change their fate
through work and action then faith seems pointless. Moreover, Christian theology teaches
that God is both omniscient and omnipotent and many people have interpreted this as
meaning that he not only knows what choices individuals will make but that he may also
control those choices by virtue of his omnipotence. If this is what Calvin believed
36
predestination to be then can humans really consider themselves to have free will? The
fundamental problem with God having knowledge of the future actions of human beings
is that it would suggest that future events that we think are contingent on present events
and choices actually are not contingent but necessary. If the future is necessary there is no
free choice as the future is already set which can be seen as a particularly negative
concept.
However, many would counter this claim and suggest that the different
understandings of the relationship between God and humanity could in fact have a
positive impact upon the lives of individuals. John Hick’s understanding of ‘soul-making’
can have an extremely positive impact upon human lives because it highlights that we are
completely free in all decisions that we make. The belief that God has created us with
complete freedom means that if we choose to believe in God then it is a truly loving choice
as we have not been programmed or predestined to love God. If this was the case then the
love we had for God would be automatic and not genuine. However, as Vardy’s parable
of the ‘King and the Peasant Girl’ highlights, our relationship with God is one which is
truly loving because it is built on a faith that has been freely chosen rather than
programmed and switched on when God saw fit.
As well as this the understanding of ‘soul-making’ can be positive as it means that
acts can be viewed as being truly altruistic. Altruism or selflessness is the principle or
practice of concern for the welfare of others which should be distinguished from a sense of
duty and loyalty. Therefore, if God has created us with complete moral autonomy then
any act we perform for the sake of someone else can be classed as truly good. This is
because the act was not governed by a belief that we are duty bound to God or that God
will offer us some form of reward. For example, if the relation between God and humans
was based on predestination and I gave my last £10 to a homeless person it could be
argued that this was part of God’s plan and any form of charity would lack any moral
value. On the other hand, if we accept Hick’s understanding, the same charitable act
would be a truly moral as I freely chose to help another person.
I disagree with the statement particularly due to the understanding of the human relation
to God as under judgement. This is because it can inspire people to live a more moral life
which is a positive idea. Humans will aim to fulfil the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels
which will have an extremely positive effect on society. For example, teachings such as the
‘Greatest Commandment’ or the ‘Golden Rule’ focus on how humans should treat one
another. If people follow these teachings along with other Gospel values such as love,
compassion and charity in order to receive favourable judgement from God then this has
to be viewed as a positive thing.
37
A02 - Assess the view that the relationship between humanity and God as depicted in
religion is best described as a relationship between a slave and a master.
The human situation is the relationship between God and humanity. Throughout
the history of Christian philosophy many have attempted to offer valid ways in which
humans share a relationship with God. Many involved in the debate would argue that the
relationship between humanity and God is best described as a relationship between a
slave and a master. This is emphasised in John Calvin’s teachings on predestination and
also supported by the biblical view that humans are under God’s judgement. However,
both Augustine and John Hick offer the view that the relationship humans have with God
is one based on freedom which does not fit with the idea of slave and master.
John Calvin’s view of predestination is based on the Christian belief that God is
both omniscient and omnipotent. This means that God is not only aware of the choices
that individuals will make but also that he may control these choices. Calvin focused his
idea of predestination on the idea that God alone determines who will be saved. This is
known as the Doctrine of Divine Election. By this Calvin meant that some people are
destined for a relationship with God while some are not. This seems to fully support the
view that the relationship between humanity and God is that of a slave and master
because God makes decisions about the salvation of humans before they are born. If
salvation comes through God's predetermined will and without any influence of the
actions of human beings then humans are slaves to God and have no way of affecting
God’s decision as he is the master.
Furthermore, the relationship between a slave and master is depicted as the slave
lacking freedom. Calvin’s form of predestination fits within this understanding because if
God is aware of all our actions and our fate then can we consider ourselves free? The
fundamental problem with God having knowledge of the future actions of human beings
is that it would suggest that future events that we think are contingent on present events
and choices actually are not contingent but necessary. If the future is necessary there is no
free choice as the future is already set. If the future is already set then we are not free thus
supporting the relationship of slave and master.
However, many have argued contrary to Calvin’s idea of the human situation in
relation to God. They have suggested that humans are free and the relationship they have
with God is actually based on love which is not in keeping with the concept of slave and
master. John Hick’s belief that God has created us with complete freedom means that if
we choose to believe in God then it is a truly loving choice as we have not been
programmed or predestined to love God. If we are predestined as Calvin suggests then
the love we have for God would be a slave and master relationship. However, as Vardy’s
parable of the ‘King and the Peasant Girl’ highlights our relationship with God is one
which is truly loving because it is built on a faith that has been freely chosen rather than
programmed and switched on when God saw fit.
38
In addition, St Augustine’s concept that humans are fallen challenges the belief that
the relationship with God is best described as slave and master. This is because
Augustine’s view stresses the value of free will. God decided to give humans free will and
then was willing to stand back and accept the consequences. The philosopher Alvin
Platinga argues that if humans were created so that they can only choose good they would
not be free. John Hick highlighted the importance of God allowing humans to develop
themselves. As mentioned, if God made us perfect, then we would have the goodness of
robots, which would love God automatically without any further deliberation. He agrees
with Platinga’s belief that God created humans at an epistemic distance from himself. The
epistemic distance is a phrase used by John Hick and other philosophers to express the
idea that God’s existence is not obvious and thus human beings are not overwhelmed by
God’s presence into believing in God. This also means that humans are not dictated to by
God or forced by God highlighting that religion does not class humans as slaves to God.
In contrast however, many Christians maintain the belief that God holds everyone
to account and judges them according to their actions. Hence, God’s punishment for some
is to send them to hell because that is what they deserve, and justice demands that they
are appropriately punished. Within Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions no
one is predestined to go to hell; God loves everyone, and wishes to forgive everyone and
be in a good relationship with everyone if that is what they want. However, if people
choose to lead a life of wrongdoing, effectively turning their back on God, then those
people by their actions choose to be separate from God. Therefore, some may view the
idea that we are under God’s judgement as a relationship between slave and master
because God will make the ultimate decision of our salvation. If this is the case then
humans must look to God and do everything they can in their lives to make God’s
decision a positive one. In other words, we should view God as the master who will judge
us on how well we have lived our lives.
Moreover, if we accept the view that humans are dependent on God then this could
also be interpreted as a relationship between slave and master. This is because our role in
the relationship is minimal and the actions of God ultimately affect our future. This is how
many would view the concept of slave and master because the master has total control
and the slave comes to depend on him. According to the prominent atheist Richard
Dawkins, the threat of being judged by God and sent to hell has a dangerous impact upon
the mental health of individuals. In his book, ‘The God Delusion’, Dawkins refers to a
correspondence he received from a young lady recounting the traumatic time in her life
when she was abused and taught about hell as a punishment. Dawkins point is that many
religious people consider themselves to have a slave like relationship with God and feel
threatened by the judgement that God could cast. The concept of slavery is not positive
and Dawkins argues that unfortunately this is exactly the relationship religious people
have with God. They become slaves to religious teachings and any freedom they may
once have had is lost.
39
A01 - Examine the views of both Marx and Freud on the role of the concept of God and
on the influence of the concept of God on society. (45 marks)
Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were both highly sceptical on the role of the concept
of God. They believed that religion is essentially an illusion; because culture and location
influence religion to such a degree, the idea that religion presents a fundamental truth of
existence seemed rather improbable to them. They also speculated that, in time, the appeal
and influence of religion on the modern mind would lessen. Their views have had a major
influence on the concept of God within society.
Freud believed that belief in God was an illusion based on wish fulfilment. He
suggested that in certain circumstances the human mind will create beliefs and images to
satisfy its most basic longings and desires. Freud saw God’s role as helping the mind to
overcome two main issues, guilt and helplessness. In his famous book, Totem and Taboo,
Freud describes a past act which led to the repressed guilt shared by all humanity. He
draws on the ideas of Charles Darwin, who suggested that primitive men lived in hordes
like apes. These hordes were ruled over by a powerful father who had many children and
many wives. The father was jealous of the sons, as he wanted all of the women for
himself. He drove them out of the tribe to prevent them from having sex with any of the
women. The sons felt a mixture of feelings toward the father both admiration and
bitterness. One day the sons get together and kill the father, they eat his body as they want
to absorb his strength and power. They feel incredibly guilty for the crime they have
committed so they create a totem animal to worship as a father substitute. The animal is
sacrificed each year in the special totem meal which commemorates the original crime of
killing and devouring the father.
The second stage following the terrible act was a move toward the concept of
religion. As time passed, the totem proved unsatisfactory and eventually took on divine
significance and became transformed into the gods of religions. Freud points out that the
gods of religion are treated with the same ambivalence as was the original father figure,
proving that there is a connection. This example, provides an exact link with the animist
ritual killing (sacrifice) of the totem. This was based on Freud’s controversial ‘Oedipus
Complex’. His idea was that when a child is born it is used to having its mother’s sole
attention. However, there is an already present rival in the form of the father. The child
develops acute feelings of jealously and hatred and these feelings lead to the desire to kill
the father. These feelings are combined however, with great respect and fear for the
father. This combination of jealously, hatred, respect and fear results in a deeply traumatic
sense of guilt. This desire to possess the mother and the ambivalence towards the father is
the Oedipus Complex.
Freud’s understanding of this development of God has had a major influence
within society as it has supported the rise of atheism. Before Freud, the rise of atheism had
come from biology, physics and cosmology. Freud’s challenge to God and religion offered
perhaps the first psychology based case for people completely rejecting belief in God. The
40
reason why Freud’s ideas led to a rise in atheism was because it was a conflict model of
psychology. His approach as we have seen was to reject religious belief and to reduce the
religious impulse to one that can be explained in entirely materialistic terms. Therefore,
Freud’s views were adding to a world view that God would be slowly squeezed out with
each new discovery. This process leads some to conclude that belief in God can now be
abandoned entirely because the concept of God is a manifestation of a faulty mind which
can be cured. If the cure is found then God will no longer be needed and people will
become aware that their feelings of helplessness and guilt can be dealt with far more
appropriately than turning to God / religion.
In addition, according to a 2005 Eurobarometer poll only half of European citizens
responded that they believe in God. In the most recent census in the UK one third of the
population said they had no religion and far less are said to be a practicing member of an
organised religion. These statistics highlight that atheism has risen, especially if we
compare these to how many people followed a religion 80-100 years ago. Therefore,
Freud’s ideas (along with other scientific worldviews) are impacting the UK as we were
once considered a Christian country and this belief is steadily decreasing. Freud was
confident that as science progressed, the fears that drive humans to religious superstition
would diminish. Consequently, he concluded, the future of the religious “illusion” would
eventually disappear and these statistics support his view.
In addition the sociologist Karl Marx argued that religion is like other social
institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic situation of a society.
Religion/God has no independent history; instead it is the creation of society. As Marx
wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” Marx’s opinion is that
religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning in a
certain way. He suggests that there is a conflict between the ruling classes (those who hold
the wealth and control the production), and the working class (those who sell their labour
but are largely alienated from the results of the work they do).
Marx’s main criticism of religion was that, in the face of real oppression on earth, it
offered spiritual blessings in heaven. People would therefore put up with their present
suffering in the hope of a spiritual reward – using it like a drug to ease the pain of their
situation. Marx is saying that religion creates illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic
realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them this is
acceptable because they will find true happiness in the next life. The problem is that
opiates fail to fix a physical injury — you only forget your pain and suffering. This can be
fine, but only if you are also trying to solve the underlying causes of the pain. Similarly,
religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it
helps them forget why they are suffering and causes them to look forward to an
imaginary future when the pain will cease instead of working to change circumstances
now. Even worse, this “drug” is being administered by the oppressors who are
responsible for the pain and suffering.
41
The influence of Marx’s concept of God on society has actually been quite positive.
Although Marx believed that God / religion was an illusion that keeps society functioning
in a certain way (i.e. keeping the poor, poor) his views have close links with a movement
within the Catholic Church known as ‘Liberation Theology’. Liberation theology was a
radical movement that grew up in South America as a response to the poverty and the illtreatment of ordinary people. The movement was supported by the phrase ‘If Jesus
Christ was on Earth today, he would be a Marxist revolutionary’. It was developed
mainly by Latin American Roman Catholics that emphasises liberation from social,
political, and economic oppression.
The founder of liberation theology in the Latin-American and Catholic context is
Gustavo Gutiérrez. He was a Catholic priest who grew up in poverty in Peru and
employed Marx’s critiques of ideology, class, and capitalism as part of his theological
analysis of how Christianity should be used to make people’s lives better. He was more
concerned with the here and now rather than simply offering the poor hope of rewards in
heaven. Gutiérrez’s faith was one that places action first; a big change from how the
Catholic faith had traditionally been practiced. Within Gutiérrez’s theological system,
liberation and salvation becomes the same thing. This means that in order to gain reward
from God we should do all we can in this life to end the suffering felt by those in extreme
poverty. The first step toward salvation is the transformation of society: the poor must be
freed from economic, political, and social oppression. This will involve both struggle and
conflict, but Gutiérrez does not shy away from it. Therefore, Gutiérrez was suggesting
that if necessary violence could be used if it could bring about the social change that
would bring an end to suffering.
Therefore, the influence that Karl Marx has had on society is to promote the need
for action in trying to change the circumstances of those who live in poverty. His ideas
have influenced Gutierrez and many other people in Latin-America priests to practice a
form of Christianity that focuses on action to achieve reward and salvation rather than
trying to live a good life to gain a reward upon death. Liberation theology said the church
should base its faith and teachings on the situation of the poor. The Bible should be read
and experienced from the perspective of the poor. The church should be a movement for
those who were denied their rights and plunged into such poverty that they were
deprived of their full status as human beings. The poor should take the example of Jesus
and use it to bring about a just society. Pope John Paul criticised the Liberation Theology
movement because he thought it was a fusion between Christianity and Marxism. He
believed the business of the Church was to be a voice for the poor but not to take violent
action to make this voice heard.
42
A02 - ‘Religion has no satisfactory answer to the challenges of secular thinkers about
God/Ultimate Reality.’ Assess this claim. (30 marks)
The secular thinkers Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim have offered
strong arguments against the existence of God. Even though none of these three men was
particularly religious, the power that religion holds over people and societies interested
them all. They believed that the idea of God is essentially an illusion; because culture and
location influence religion to such a degree, the idea that religion presents a fundamental
truth of existence seemed rather improbable to them. They also speculated that, in time,
the appeal and influence of religion on the modern mind would lessen. However, religion
has offered many counter challenges and suggested that the views of these three thinkers
do not provide a satisfactory argument against the existence of God.
Sigmund Freud’s secular challenge to religion has been severely criticised which
has led many religious people to suggest that his theory offers no real challenge to God.
Interestingly, Freud offered a critique of his own position in ‘The Future of Illusions’
(1927). In it he acknowledges the argument that religion has done much that is good. For
instance, religion offers people real consolation during difficult times. Religion provides
certainty and order in an otherwise chaotic world. Furthermore, religion is not simply a
‘security blanket’ - it has been the vehicle for social change in many societies across the
world. Therefore, rather than being the cause of neurotic behaviour it could be argued
that God/religion can help people to overcome neuroses. This highlights that religion can
offer a satisfactory to this secular understanding of God.
Moreover, it was also pointed out that Freud’s argument that religion arises out of
the worship of a father figure neglects to consider the religions in which the point of
worship is a woman, or the religious systems that have no deity at all. Freud focuses on
religions with male deities such as Judaism and Christianity. He ignores religions with
important female goddesses, such as Hinduism and religions which do not have a deity at
all, such as Buddhism. The issue here is that Freud is using a small amount of evidence
and applying this to the concept of God/religion as a whole. In the words of Bertrand
Russell, Freud is committing a fallacy of composition. A ‘Fallacy of composition’ is the
error that concludes that since the parts have a certain property, the whole likewise has
that property. For example, when applied to the cosmological argument it would be
making a statement such as: ‘Objects within the universe were caused. Therefore the
universe was caused.’ Once more religion has offered a satisfactory counter challenge to
Freud’s secular views.
However, many would argue that Freud offers a clear and strong argument as to
why the concept of God/religion began. Many other philosophers and psychologists
accept that God is simply a defence mechanism invented by human beings to deal with
issues of helplessness, pain and guilt. It seems to fit with the evolutionary understanding
of life that the mind will create images and ideas in order to help preserve the health of
43
the body and mind. Furthermore, Freud’s concept of God as mere wish fulfilment is also a
strong argument as the proof for the objective reality of God is highly doubtful.
On the other hand, many religious people would suggest that they have offered
strong arguments against the understanding that God is simply a product of society. The
philosopher John Hick concluded that Durkheim’s theory that God is society may be true
in the setting of the Aboriginal group but it cannot be applied to all religion. This attempt
at a naturalistic explanation of religion is ‘not proven’. Durkheim had studied the
behaviour of groups of Aborigines, with a close-knit community and a primitive form of
religion. Like Freud, Durkheim has been criticised for making the mistake that the way in
which the Aboriginal groups live could be extended to a universal theory of religion and
society. In addition, Durkheim predicted that religion's influence would decrease as
society modernises. His view may apply to many European countries such as France,
Spain and Great Britain. However, the influence of faith, notably the Catholic faith in the
developing world proves that religion is still a very important concept for millions of
people. Therefore, Durkheim’s secular understanding of God encounters strong criticism
here from religious people highlighting that religion does offer a satisfactory challenge to
secular thinkers.
Alternatively, Durkheim’s theory challenges religious belief in God because the
origin of God is from the social interaction between people. The earliest tribesmen invent
God in their discussions and represent God through a totem object. Therefore,
religion/God has no divine origin; God does not found religion, instead belief in God is a
product of society and people interacting in society that is passed on down the
generations. If we did not live in societies then God would not have been invented.
Durkheim’s argument offers a strong challenge to religion because if focuses on the fact
that the concept of God can be found in many cultures and also that these cultures have
slightly different understandings of God. This seems to show that it is the society or
culture that invents God rather than God actually existing.
Furthermore, Karl Marx bases his idea on the fact that many poor people will
simply accept there place in the world because they believe God will reward them in
heaven. Marx again offers an intriguing argument but like Freud and Durkheim his ideas
have been challenged by religion and I believe that these challenges highlight that Marx’s
view like those of other secular thinkers may apply to certain groups but it does not apply
to everyone. For example, many sociologists and philosophers have argued that Marx
neglected the role that religion could play in social change. The teachings of Jesus, rather
than keeping people in suffering, do the opposite. They inspire people to act against
oppression and fight for a more equal world. This idea is highlighted by the Neo-Marxist
groups in Latin America that practice liberation theology. This emphasises that religion
can provide satisfactory answers to the secular challenge.
44