Download IMPLICATIONS Powerpoint revision 1







The 3 texts are by Ayer, Donovan & Westphal.
Ayer’s is the shortest – a mere 8 paragraphs.
Donovan is the longest with 68 paragraphs
(albeit they are a lot shorter that Ayer’s).
Overall Donovan is 3.5 times longer than Ayer.
Westphal is between the other 2.
Westphal has 30 paragraphs of a similar length
to Donovan and it is about half the overall
length of Donavan and twice the length of Ayer.



Last summer the text was Ayer and in 2012 it was
Donovan. In 2011, it was Westphal and in 2010, it was
Donovan again. In 2009, the text was Westphal and in
2008 (the 1st year of the Implications exam) it was Ayer.
Ayer’s 8 paragraphs are fairly repetitive. They all push the
same theme that non-empirical language is meaningless.
Because Ayer writes the piece himself and it is primarily
about Ayer’s own theory (the modified verification
Principle) it tends to be rather one-sided but this makes it
a fairly straightforward matter to write about and
analyse, provided you are conversant with the Religious
Language module.





Donovan also follows a fairly steady theme:
That is “Can God be known by Experience?”
But the text is divided up into different categories.
This is because Donovan is not writing about
himself. He is overseeing the argument and he
tends to come down between the extremes of those
who say we can know God and those who say we
cannot by experience.
Donovan believes you need a little more than a
basic intuitive experience.
Westphal’s text is different to the others as
it is a progression rather than a fixed
theme.
 It seems little more than a History of
Philosophy over the last few centuries and
the turning point of the Enlightenment.
 It is a bit more difficult to analyse than the
others as it is not really about opinions.




One of the main differences of A2 Religious
Studies over AS is the links you are supposed
to draw between the modules.
The exam that Implications replaced in 2008
used to be called the synoptic paper.
Up to 2007 BWS and SWGS ran a combined
course where we had to link New Testament
Studies and Philosophy on the theme of
Miracles.


Since the introduction of the Implications
paper in 2008 the links are not so explicit
and you sometimes struggle to get them in.
You do not have to link to every AS and A2
Philosophy and Ethics topic, but you have to
do enough to show that you understand the
topic and where it fits into the philosophical
themes of the 3 different Implications texts.




The most obvious links to Ayer’s text is Religious
Language and then a pretty close second comes
Religious Experience (as language is the
expression of an experience).
Atheism is pretty high on the list as Ayer’s 2nd
paragraph is concerned with this.
Even though Ayer is anti atheism, he is not a
believer and would prefer the title non-theist.
Life after Death can be accounted for when you
use Hick’s eschatological argument.



If you are using the A Priori / A Posteriori split, you
can bring in the Design and Cosmological arguments
as an example of A Posteriori and the Ontological
argument as an example of A Priori.
This just leaves Miracles (part of Experience – use it
as an exemplar) and Evil and Suffering (the main
reason the fellow empiricist, Hume, gave to deny the
theistic God) in order to complete the Philosophy
links.
By far the most important Ethical link is Ayer’s
Emotivism (Yah/Boo) theory, but you can also link
to G E Moore and other ethical theories.





The most obvious links to Donovan’s text are similar
to Ayer’s links – obviously Religious Experience and
religious Language go without saying but you must
explicitly state the links
(e.g. This links to William James 4 categories of
Mystical Experience. ………..)
Atheism links quite well with empiricists like Russell
casting doubts on the truth of Religious Experiences.
Life after Death can be linked by the whole concept of
knowing God and knowing one’s destination at death.
The sheer subjectivity of Experience links to the
Ontological argument which Russell again attacked.




Donovan links to the AS modules in a similar way
that Ayer does.
The Design and Cosmological argument shows the a
posteriori (evidence based arguments) which are
fairly weak as they are inductive – one has to
interpret ones experience in light of one’s beliefs.
Miracles are linked here with the whole idea of
wishful thinking – people want to experience a
miracle.
Evil and Suffering ties in well with experience as we
all suffer during our lives but we provide theodicies to
justify the theistic God.





It is a bit more difficult to link Westphal to the other
modules than the other two texts but it can be done.
The most obvious links are with the Atheism
modules which include a variety of non theistic belief
(Kant was a deist & Hume was probably an atheist or
agnostic at best).
It links to the Cosmological, Design and Ontological
arguments as these are the ones that Kant and Hume
systematically destroyed.
It links to Experience in the form of Schleirmacher’s
intense subjectivity (he calls it feeling rather than
intuition but it is pretty close to Owen’s Intuition)
(again you can use Miracles as an exemplar)



It links to Life after Death in the form of Kant’s
Moral argument (which also gives an Ethical link).
Links to religious Language permeate throughout
Wesphal’s text but they are usually implicit rather
than explicit, but the best example is in M7 when
discussing Hegel‘s antipathy to the change to
Philosophy of Religion from Philosophical Theology.
Evil and suffering are explicitly linked in M14 where
Augustine and Pelagius (a 5th century Irenaeus type
figure who unfortunately lived post Constantine).
We have accounted for the links to the
philosophical modules and at least one
Ethical link
 But examiners also like to see you put
these texts in a broader context.
 They would like you to show that you do
not do philosophy in isolation and you can
link it to the outside world.
 Obviously some subjects are easier to link
to than other.





History is probably the easiest link.
All three texts have historical qualities – Ayer and
the Logical Positivists were writing mainly
between the two world wars.
A similar time frame is being written about by
Donovan.
Westphal sets most of his action in the
Enlightenment period, especially the late 18th
century when Europe was on the brink of change
between an Agrarian society & an Industrial one.






Many other subjects can be linked such as science
(particularly the Enlightenment context of Westphal).
Politics comes in to all the texts in some form.
English obviously comes in to the Ayer text but can be
linked via language to the other ones.
Other subjects might have some tenuous links but don’t
force them. It is better to get the most important
philosophical links and any more are a bonus.
Don’t lose sight of the explanation and clarification by
swamping your essay with too many links.
Try to keep all links down to a single sentence if possible.


Context
First paragraph of the section, setting the scene for
Ayer’s argument against the possibility of
meaningful ‘God-talk’. It establishes Ayer’s key
claim that metaphysical statements cannot be true
or false, and so cannot be meaningful. Ayer then
goes on to contrast this position with more typical
forms of atheism and agnosticism, and elaborates
how ideas and so-called experiences of God are
unintelligible.




Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
Philosophers are generally agreed that God cannot be
demonstratively proved: true / false? Which
philosophers, and why? This connects with atheism /
unbelief topic.
If the existence of God were probable, the claim that
he exists would be an empirical hypothesis (based on
sense perception). Do such beliefs have to be
empirically verifiable? This connects with religious
language topic: verification principle. Have theists
regarded God as empirically verifiable? (Design
argument, religious experience)



Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
The claim that God is apparent in the regularity of
nature tells us nothing more than that the requisite
regularity is present in nature, and does not really tell
us about God himself. This connects with the design
argument from AS. Ayer’s view fits with criticisms of
that argument: it’s a bad analogy (Hume) and has
been displaced by evolution (Dawkins). Perhaps there
can be no knowledge of what is beyond the natural?
Consider the counter-arguments.



Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
God is a transcendent being who might be known but
could not be defined through empirical
manifestations. This connects with religious language
and religious experience topics (A2) and design
argument (AS). Explain ‘transcendent being’: fair
description of God? How might God be known
through empirical manifestations? Is it impossible for
God to be fully known (defined) through empirical
manifestations? (Hick on verification).




Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
A metaphysical utterance cannot be true or false.
Verification principle, cognitive / non-cognitive
language, connecting with religious language
topic. Consider logical positivism and Ayer’s view
on verification. Compare / contrast with atheism /
unbelief topic. What are the implications of
dismissing metaphysical claims?
Key terms you must deal with: proof, empirical
hypothesis, transcendent, metaphysical.







Secondary Points
Although the main focus is on religious language, Ayer also
raises:
- The design argument for God’s existence
- Atheism
Also, by implication (talking about ‘manifestations’), we might
say that religious experience is relevant to what Ayer is saying.
Contribution
Here Ayer makes a major contribution to the debate surrounding
religious language. He takes a very firm approach, based on the
verification principle. Ayer’s views may be contrasted with those
of other philosophers in the religious language topic.









Evaluation – Part (b)
This will depend on your own personal perspective, but you would have to
address the following issues:
- Is Ayer right about metaphysical claims being unverifiable and
meaningless?
- What are the key strengths / weaknesses of Ayer’s verificationist position?
- Are there any decent alternatives to what Ayer is saying?
- Is Ayer’s understanding of God adequate?
- What are the implications of saying that God’s existence is not even
probable?
- What are the implications of saying that metaphysical terms are
meaningless?
You would also have to discuss further the implications of these views for
religion and human experience


Context
This second paragraph develops Ayer’s claim that
God-talk is meaningless and that God’s existence
is not even probable. Here, Ayer demonstrates the
implications of his view for atheism and
agnosticism. These perspectives are misguided,
because they assume that religious language is
meaningful. In the next paragraph, Ayer will move
on to consider and dismiss the possibility of a nonempirical or super-empirical God.




Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
It is characteristic for an atheist to hold it to be at least
probable that God does not exist. Which examples
could we give? Perhaps consider David Hume. Make
connections with A2 topic unbelief and atheism.
The atheist’s assertion that there is no God is equally
nonsensical as the claim that God exists. Here, Ayer
must have in mind his verification principle – the
statement could not be demonstrated either
analytically or synthetically. This connects with A2
religious language topic. How do you think that
someone like Richard Dawkins would respond to this
claim?




Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
The statement that ‘there is a transcendent God’ does
not express a proposition at all. There is some
controversy over this claim – mystics might claim to
have experienced the transcendent God. This connects
with the A2 topic religious experience. Can God in
principle be verified? Perhaps consider John Hick’s
arguments regarding verification, that religious claims
in principle might be verifiable.
Key terms you must deal with: atheists, agnostics,
nonsensical assertion, transcendent God.






Secondary Points
The passage is primarily concerned with unbelief and
religious language. Some secondary points you might
briefly raise are:
How theistic argument might contradict what Ayer is
saying (e.g. the design argument (AS topic). Perhaps it
makes sense to ask whether God exists.
Perhaps also consider falsification (Anthony Flew). Can the
claim that ‘God does not exist’ be falsified?
Contribution
Here Ayer makes a significant contribution to the debates
surrounding atheism and agnosticism, by provocatively
claiming that disbelief in God is just as meaningless as
belief in God. His views can be contrasted with more
familiar forms of atheism.







Evaluation – Part (b)
Address the following issues:
Is what Ayer is suggesting just a different form of
atheism?
Are atheist statements really nonsensical? How would
someone like Richard Dawkins explain atheism
instead? What role would science play in this?
Evaluate verification: is it of any use for understanding
atheism?
What are the implications of saying that atheism is
just as meaningless as theism? Should we forget about
the God debate?
What are the implications of putting verification into
practice?


Context
In this third paragraph, Ayer continues his
argument that God-talk is nonsense. Having
suggested that atheism and agnosticism are
concerned with a meaningless problem (paragraph
B), he now argues that a non-empirical personal
God is devoid of meaning. Ayer will then go on to
relate this argument to views which theists
themselves hold and claims about their
experience.



Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
“Cases where deities are identified with natural
objects” refers to the desire of some atheists to
give naturalistic accounts of religion (e.g. Freud).
This connects with atheism / unbelief topic in A2.
Ayer allows that this kind of nature worship might
mean something but points out that modern
believers have tried to go beyond it. Is Ayer right
that this less sophisticated but more empirical
approach to religion might have more meaning?



Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
But could God be known indirectly through
natural processes (like a thunder storm)? This
view might be reflected in some forms of the
design argument (AS topic), particularly
Swinburne’s argument from beauty. Is it foolish to
claim that a thunder storm might indirectly reflect
upon the power and beauty of God’s work? Ayer
suggests that a God ‘beyond’ such experiences
would not make sense, but others would disagree.





Argument / Interpretation
Some points to consider:
The idea of a God with non-empirical attributes makes no
sense. This is because of Ayer’s verification principle – the
need for scientific testing. However, theists may point to
the idea of perfection, which cannot in the case of God be
known simply or empirically. This is the case with the
ontological argument for God (A2 topic); God is the
greatest thing we can conceive, rather than experience. Is
this really nonsense?
The idea of a non-empirical God could never be verified.
Again, this ties to the A2 religious language topic. Explain
verification principle and logical positivism. Is Ayer right?
Key terms you must deal with: super-empirical
attributes, empirically verifiable, transcendent
object.






Secondary Points
This passage is concerned with the idea that a non-empirical God
is meaningless. However, Ayer touches on some secondary
points:
Naturalistic accounts of religion (“identified with natural
objects”), such as that given by Freud. Is the ‘basic’ form of
religion just a projection of the human mind onto the world
around?
“Awe of natural process” in modern times is often reflected in the
Design Argument for God.
Contribution
Here Ayer attacks a key basis of theism – the idea that God could
exist despite not being directly observable. The whole idea of
non-empirical qualities is discarded as nonsense. This is
important, because there are many things in our lives which are
non-empirical.







Evaluation – Part (b)
Address the following issues:
Is a non-empirical God really less meaningful than,
say, simple nature worship?
Is it possible to make a logical case for a God beyond
our experiences?
Is the verification principle really able to demonstrate
that the idea of a non-empirical God is meaningless?
What are the implications of seeing non-empirical
matters as meaningless?
What are the implications of discarding God?

Context This short paragraph simply clarifies Ayer’s aims. He is
interested in religious language, rather than the history or future of
religion. It links his criticism of religious truth claims in the first three
paragraphs to the rest of his discussion of theism.

Argument / Interpretation
Consider:
“Causes of religious feelings” – again this may tie to naturalistic
accounts of faith, such as those of Freud. Contrast Ayer with Freud,
since Ayer is only concern with language, not psychology. This makes a
good tie with atheism / unbelief (A2).
“Possibility of religious knowledge” – i.e. all that Ayer cares about is
how religious language cannot be verified. This connects with the A2
topic of religious language.




Key terms to deal with: Causes of religious feeling, transcendent
truth.









Secondary Points
Ayer does not get involved in the discussion of the causes of
religious feelings, but he alludes to the fact that this debate is
happening (see above).
Contribution
Ayer’s contribution has nothing to do with the explanation of
religion, only with the argument that it does not mean anything.
Evaluation – Part (b)
Consider:
Is Ayer correct to ignore the causes of religious feelings? Surely, if
religious language is nonsense, Ayer should be able to explain why
such nonsensical language came to be used.
Evaluate verification principle: “possibility of religious knowledge”.
What are the implications of seeing religious language as
meaningless?





Context
Having set out his main argument (in the first four
paragraphs) that religious language is meaningless, Ayer
here attempts to show that his views connect with the
claims of theists (people who believe in God). He will then
give further consideration to the claims of mystics in the
next paragraph.
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Theists believe that “God is a mystery which transcends
human understanding”. Which theists? This connects with
two A2 topics: religious experience and religious language.
You should be able to explain mysticism. You should also
explain what non-literal accounts of religious language
(analogy, symbol) have to say about this.





Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
“What is unintelligible cannot be significantly described” –
this takes us back to A2 religious language and verification.
Ayer decides what is intelligible (or not) by applying the
verification principle. Explain this and the logical positivists.
Consider alternate perspectives such as Hick or Swinburne.
The object of “purely mystical intuition” cannot be
intelligible to reason. This needs to be discussed in light of
A2 religious experience. How have some philosophers
assessed mystical experiences? Might Swinburne have
something to say in defence of mystics, against Ayer?
Key terms you must consider: theists, ‘transcends the
human understanding’, ‘mystical intuition’,
‘impossible to define God in intelligible terms’.







Secondary Points
The main thrust deals with the inability of theists to
give meaningful description to God. However, Ayer
also touches upon:
The question of whether God is known through reason
or faith.
Mysticism – a form of religious experience
Contribution
Ayer is advancing a fairly bold and original argument,
that theists themselves really believe that God is
meaningless. He justifies this by observing that theists
readily admit that God cannot be fully described.







Evaluation – Part (b)
Consider:
- Is Ayer correct in his claim that God cannot be
defined or described?
- Are mystics really “bound to talk nonsense”?
- Could we account for religious experience in
any other way?
- What would the implications be for ignoring
religious experiences?
- What are the implications of seeing God as
indefinite, un-provable?





Context
Having discussed how common theistic attitudes
connect with his argument about meaning in religious
language, Ayer now looks at mysticism specifically.
The view that God cannot be described suggests that
God is unintelligible.
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Mystics claim to know through intuition. This ties
directly to A2 religious experience. You should be able
to explain what mysticism is and consider why Ayer
views it as he does. Gives examples. Do they have no
way of expressing what they experience?




Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Mysticism is not a “cognitive state”. This links with
A2 religious language: distinguish cognitive and
non-cognitive language. Why does Ayer think that
mysticism is non-cognitive? Verification. Why
might some theists claim that mysticism is
cognitive?
A ‘real’ experience could be tested empirically –
this is the verification principle pure and simple.



Argument / Interpretation
The mystic “merely gives us indirect information
about the condition of his own mind”. A2 religious
experience. What other critics of religious
experience have said something similar? On what
grounds might someone dispute this? Tests for
authenticity – Swinburne: how would these tests
contradict what Ayer is saying?
Key terms you must consider: mystic, intuition,
cognitive faculty, intelligible propositions,
empirically determined.







Secondary Points
The thrust of Ayer’s argument rejects the idea of
mystical experience, but he also incidentally raises
secondary issues:
Cognitivism / non-Cognitivism (this is a factor in
ethics, as well as religion)
Reliability and validation of experiences
Psychology – “information about the issue of his own
mind”. Are religious experiences signs of delusion?
Contribution
Ayer here builds on his general dismissal or religion
with a distinctive rejection of personal and mystical
intuition – it is nonsense.







Evaluation – Part (b)
Consider:
Is mystical language necessarily non-cognitive?
Does our inability to test what the mystic knows
really matter? What else can’t we test?
Does a rejection of mysticism lead to a rejection of
theism?
What are the implications of dismissing religious
and mystical experience?
What are the implications of seeing knowledge as
something which always requires an empirical
test?





Context
Ayer has argued that the concept of God is meaningless because it is
non-empirical (makes no reference to sense experience). Similarly,
mystical experiences mean nothing, because they cannot be tested
with the senses. Here he argues that religious experience as a whole
can be discounted because it cannot be verified (by contrast with
simple everyday experiences).
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Is it “logically possible for men to be immediately acquainted with
God”? This links in with your A2 religious experience topic.
Swinburne and other would maintain that this is quite possible.
However, note the weakness of the ‘direct awareness’ argument –
it’s not good enough to say that ‘I just know’ that I’ve experienced
God. Surely we need criteria for determining the truth of religious
experiences, as Swinburne suggests. Is this or Ayer’s perspective
more convincing?



Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Are religious experiences really different from ‘normal’
experiences in that they cannot be verified? This links
our A2 topics of religious experience and religious
language together. This raises logical positivism and
the verification principle. Some would claim that
religious experiences can be in some ways verified, or
at least aspects of religious experiences. Look at
attempts to check the authenticity of religious
experiences (RC Church, Swinburne). This also links
to the problem of ‘disanalogies’ between religious and
normal sense experiences (J.L. Mackie); note that
Alston is not convinced that religious experiences
really are different from all of our other experiences.




Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
“… genuine synthetic proposition which could be
empirically verified” – but what do we mean by
“empirically verified”? Links to A2 topic religious
language and verification. But does the verification
principle really prove that things exist, or just that they
are perceived by many people? Ayer had to distinguish
between the strong and weak principles because he
realised that hardly anything can be really verified in
the strict sense. What about events such as Our Lady
of Fatima (links to A2 religious experience), when
thousands of witnesses claimed to have seen the same
peculiar solar activity?

Key terms you must deal with: ‘argument from religious
experience’, ‘immediately acquainted with God’,
transcendent being, empirically verified, ‘no literal
significance’.

Secondary Points
Ayer’s main point is an attack on religious experience, but he raises
other issues:
When should we / should we not believe a person?
Are there general differences between ‘normal’ and ‘religious’
experiences?





Contribution
Here Ayer adds fuel to the fire of the religious experience debate by
being very negative about any possibility of religious experiences. He
puts forward a bold idea: it is always irrational to believe someone who
is making claims which could never be tested?









Evaluation
Consider:
Are religious experiences really in another category to
normal experiences? Is Ayer being completely honest here?
Can we test religious experiences?
What does verification really mean?
What are the implications of following the verification
principle strictly? Can we do it?
What are the implications of ignoring religious experience?
What are the implications of not believing people who
cannot offer us empirically verifiable propositions?
What would the world be like if we were all verificationists?





Context
Ayer concludes this essay with a firm rejection of
religious experience and, indeed, all religious and
moral knowledge. This builds on his general argument
that non-empirical and unverifiable claims are
meaningless.
Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Argument from religious experience is false / flawed.
But is it? This connects with A2 topic religious
experience. What counter-arguments are there to what
Ayer is saying? He thinks it’s flawed because of the
verification principle – see A2 religious language.
Explain this and the logical positivists.




Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Religious experiences are interesting from a
psychological point of view. Which psychologists
have taken an interest? A2 religious experience.
Have psychologists arrived at similar or different
conclusions to Ayer?
Religious claims are non-cognitive. This links to
A2 religious language. Consider verification. Is
this true? What are the key strengths and
weaknesses of this approach to language?




Argument / Interpretation
Points to consider:
Meaningful language has to work in a scientific
system. Is that true? Consider language games and
Wittgenstein in A2 rel. language.
Key terms you must consider: ‘psychological
point of view’, religious knowledge, moral
knowledge, empirically verifiable, ‘system
… which constitutes science’.







Secondary Points
Ayer concludes by the whole idea of religious
experience or knowledge, but he also touches upon
secondary points:
What religion tells us from a psychological point of
view.
The possibility (or lack!) of moral knowledge.
The link between language and science.
Contribution
Ayer’s final paragraph contributes a remarkable and
controversial argument: there could never be such a
thing as religious knowledge or moral knowledge (note
that addition). Meaningful language has to be
incorporated into a system of science.









Evaluation
Consider:
Must religious language be meaningless? Must the
argument fail?
Is there no such thing as moral knowledge either? Are there
any problems associated with this view?
What are the implications of seeing language as purely
scientific?
Does psychology agree with what Ayer claims here?
What are the implications of Ayer’s radical conclusion?
What are the implications of eliminating religious or moral
truth claims?
What are the implication of seeing language as just a
matter of science?
Paragraph 1:
 Why we can't demonstratively prove God, so Hume
and Kant's criticisms of the classical arguments for
God's existence (Ontological, Design and
Cosmological). I'd only worry about 1 criticism for
each, just mention them in passing
 Why existence of God isn't provable (according to
Ayer): Verification Principle (strong and weak forms)
 Regularity in nature is not God, so reference Kant here
(see above)
 Metaphysical is no good - some may argue AntiRealism says otherwise




Paragraph 2:
Atheism/Agnosticism = no good - reference
Hume's criticism of the Ontological argument
(can't reason something into existence or nonexistence
Anselm's Fool - can understand God, so gives it
meaning. Also Anti-Realism can be mentioned
here too
Ideas of the Verification Principle








Paragraph 3:
Language games - words mean certain things for
certain religious groups
Aquinas - have to talk of God analogically (at the
end of the paragraph)
Myth & symbol
Kant's idea of God being external to the world
Anti-Realism & Anselm's Fool (at the end of the
paragraph)
Paragraph 4:
Dawkins' Memes (I guess)








Paragraph 5:
Christian doctrine - the Trinity is external & a mystery,
not literal
Ideas of religious experience
Paragraph 6:
Logical Positivists - need empirical proof
Examples of mystics & what they say - Julian of
Norwich, for example. Describing the experiences in
ordinary language would take away their meaning.
Ayer - they're meaningless anyway
Wittgenstein, Vicious Circle, etc
Ayer suggests something that is not understandable
contains no facts











Paragraph 7:
Verification Principle
Falsification Principle
Effect on society = negative: 9/11
Effect on society = positive: Martin Luther King
Paragraph 8:
Freud
Moral knowledge - Intuitionism, Naturalism, Aquinas
Reference Donovan's article & H.P. Owen - ideas over
what role intuition plays
Science - Dawkins
Russell - "there is no difference between the man who
drinks much and sees snakes and the man who eats
little and sees God"

Support for Ayer:
-To say that something is transcendent is to admit that it is
beyond your understanding, so how can you have
experience of it? How can you even attempt to describe it
accurately if you have no idea what the beyond entails?
-Falsification – development of verif.
-Just because there is regularity in nature doesn’t
conclusively postulate God’s existence – too big a leap –
illogical – David Hume (Cosmo+Teleo criticisms).
-when he says ‘the mere existence of the noun is enough to
foster the illusion that there is a real…’ could bring in
Freud= ‘universal neurosis’ and Marx, Dawkins= ‘delusion’
etc.
-Russell – universe is a BRUTE FACT and nothing more.

-Swinburne says it is probable: more arguments for than
against…and we should believe what people say unless there is
evidence to contrary (Principles of Credulity and Testimony).
-Descartes famously dismissed his senses as unreliable as they
can deceive you (use examples of illusions/mirages etc).
-As an empiricist, Ayer ignores a priori arguments such as the
Ont. Arg.
-Hick – eschatological verification (Celestial City) parable
-VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE ITSELF CANNOT BE
VERIFED…ALL AYER’S WORK IS FLAWED.
-Ayer himself said at a later date that most of his early work
was false. (If you have explained about his weak verification) –
this allows for some religious statements to be considered
meaningful because they are historical e.g: Jesus rose from the
dead.

-Ayer ignores religious experiences that are not ineffable,
only focusing on discrediting those that cannot be
explained (mystics)
-Even if it is meaningless to him, religious language, or
‘God-talk’ is meaningful to a massive proportion of the
population (and has been for centuries).
-Swinburne/Basil Mitchell/R.M.Hare/Tillich/Aquinas…all
say religious language is meaningful even if it doesn’t
convey knowledge…THEREFORE it is not nonsense (the
title), just not a cognitive fact…but it still has a
purpose/meaning.
-Religious experiences are NOETIC (William James) that is
they impart knowledge that it beyond human
understanding – just because something cannot be
verbalised doesn’t mean it is meaningless…it just exposes
the limits and inadequacies of human language.

-You can have/feel emotions that you can’t describe – they
still exist and are true.
-REDUCTIONISM - concept argued by many 20th century
philosophers who felt that religious ideas were in need of
reinterpretation and that religious language should not be
seen as being about the 'transcendant' or 'metaphysical' as
it is really about life and the things that we all experience.
Therefore rel.lang is no longer seen as a problem because it
is about our own psychology and sociology, not a
transcendant being. BUT this undermines the existence of
an omnipotent, omniscient God of classical theism.
-Braithwaite argued religious language is really moral
discourse...BUT Ayer and verification reject moral
discourse.
-Final sentence 'and all such...constitutes science'...well no
actually - Popper highlighted the fact that science deals in
falsification not verification.

Typical Introduction (‘context’) to an Ayer Essay
(made up of two parts) – Part 1

(1) In his essay ‘God-Talk is Evidently Nonsense’ A.J.
Ayer argues that all talk of God is meaningless because
it cannot be verified. Any talk of God, even from an
atheistic or agnostic perspective, must be meaningless
because it deals with the non-empirical. Ayer takes the
view that this debate about God should not even be
entered into. God’s existence is, he claims, “not even
probable”. The ultimate basis for this is Ayer’s
Verification Principle and his agreement with Logical
Positivism: metaphysical and unscientific ideas must be
rejected.

(2) [… In this specific passage, however, the focus is
upon …] his controversial claim that God’s existence
is not even probable. Ayer separates himself from
other religious perspectives, surprisingly including
atheism and agnosticism, and goes onto critique
these views. Ayer does this through highlighting the
point that the atheist’s arguments against God
cannot be tested any more than God’s existence can
be tested in general. He then argues that agnostics
are equally wrong as, by entering into the question
of whether God exists or not, agnosticism accepts
that this is a genuine question. Ayer argues that
statements about God cannot be empirically
verifiable and so they are meaningless, regardless of
whether they are positive or negative.

Standard Paragraph’ on Ayer and verification
(self assembly model)

See how it’s easy to drop in a memorised chunk of text
to explain the idea of verification as it arises in Ayer’s
essay. You can assemble a paragraph from a few key
pieces:

(1) [What the passage says] … “In this passage Ayer
argues that … [e.g.] the notion of a person whose
essential attributes are non-empirical is not an
intelligible notion at all. By this, Ayer implies that the
traditional transcendent concept of God is
meaningless, because His qualities cannot be known
through sense data. They cannot be verified.”

(2) [Your learned material – write your own] … “The idea
of empirical verification, often mentioned by Ayer,
ultimately derives from the Logical Positivists – an early
20th century school of philosophy influenced by the work
of Ludwig Wittgenstein. These philosophers sought to
establish undeniable truths which could be determined
through science, searching for answers in response to the
atrocities experienced in World War I. Ayer and other
Positivists developed the ‘Verification Principle’, the
theory that unless a proposition can be analytically or
synthetically verified, then it is meaningless. In relation
to God-talk, or any aspect of faith, these tough standards
of verification seem to rule out religious truths.”

(3) [Refer back to the wording of the passage] … [e.g.]
“So it is that God, the being of non-empirical attributes,
cannot be verified and accordingly should be rejected.”.

Verbal keys which might prompt this
paragraph:

Empirical hypothesis – ideas we can test with
evidence
Empirical verification – testing through evidence
Verification – testing / checking
Intelligible – makes sense / meaningful
Meaningful / meaningful proposition –
meaningful statement





‘Standard Paragraph’ on Ayer’s rejection of
theism

Again, the same process can be used for another key
theme in Ayer – the rejection of theism (belief in God).
Combine the following parts to form a paragraph:

(1) [What the passage says] … [e.g.] “In this part of the
text, Ayer argues that ‘no sentence which purports to
describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess
any literal significance’, thus indicating his rejection of
theism. Ayer does not regard belief in God as having any
linguistic or logical sense to it.”

(2) [Your learned material] … “Throughout this essay,
Ayer claims that the existence of God is not empirically
verifiable; it cannot be tested with the evidence of the
senses. However, some theists would argue that God can
be known through the evidence of nature or the exercise
of reason. This is seen in the natural theology of
philosophers like Thomas Aquinas or William Paley.
Some might see such arguments as a form of verification.
Theists might also appeal to religious experience as a
basis for theism, if this is judged to be reliable (see the
work of Richard Swinburne). So, Ayer is making quite an
assumption here; he supposes that belief in God is not
evidence based and that arguments for God do not work,
a view which some would challenge.”

(3) [Refer back to the wording of the passage] …
[e.g.] “Therefore, Ayer’s claim that the idea of a
transcendent God has no literal significance forms
a controversial argument. Theism is described as a
non-rational belief, without much consideration
for views to the contrary.”




Verbal keys which might prompt this
paragraph:
God / God-talk
Transcendent / metaphysical being

‘Standard Paragraph’ on Ayer and atheism

Same process, link the appropriate bits to comment on
the text in front of you:

(1) [What the passage says] … [e.g.] “In this part of the
text, Ayer claims that it is important not to confuse his
arguments with those commonly adopted by atheists or
agnostics. That is to say, Ayer is not concerned to
discuss the question of whether God exists, or answer it
negatively or positively. On the contrary, Ayer rejects all
talk of God (even in a negative way) because he regards
this as unverifiable and thus meaningless.”

(2) [Your learned material] … “It is easy to find
examples of how Ayer’s views contrast with
common forms of atheism or agnosticism. For
instance, atheists have argued that scientific
explanations for our universe are more probably
than God, who is described by Richard Dawkins for
example as a piece of ‘bad science’. Atheists have
also attempted to build logical arguments against
theism, as in the problem of evil and suffering
(Epicurus, Hume, Mackie). Ayer, by contrast, is not
interested in any of this evidence for atheism, since
he does not regard God’s existence as a meaningful
proposition in the first place.”

(3) [Refer back to the wording of the passage] …
[e.g.] “So, Ayer’s comment here that ‘all utterances
about the nature of God are nonsensical’ is not a
typical atheist view. Most atheists would consider
the real possibility of God before rejecting it on the
basis of evidence or logical argument. Agnostics
would be undecided, but would regard God as a
genuine possibility.”

Verbal keys which might prompt this
paragraph:
Atheism / agnosticism / non-existence of God




Much of religious belief and practice is
meaningless. Worship ceremonies, scriptures,
stories of religious experience; all are unverifiable
and therefore meaningless. Does this mean that
religion should be abolished, ridiculed, reduced to
the bits that work (e.g. helping others) or just left
to wither and die?
Religious experiences are all in the mind: people
claiming to have mystical experiences should
probably be treated as psychiatric patients.
The idea of design and purpose in the world is
meaningless as it cannot be verified.




Beliefs about life after death are meaningless, so there is
no hope of post-mortem existence.
There are no ultimate moral values, only opinions. This
would make it impossible to condemn the actions of
another, because that implies that there are moral facts
that we can measure each other by. Theories such as
Natural Law and Utilitarianism are wrong because they
confuse opinions (e.g. preserving life is good) with facts
such as natural law and pleasure.
Life has no meaning or ultimate purpose. Might this cause
a collapse in society: do we need to believe that there is a
higher power or purpose to make us want to strive to be
better?
Perhaps religious belief should be treated as an illness or
as a psychological problem?



Any knowledge based on intuition is false and is not
knowledge, because it cannot be verified: this
contradicts Donovan, who allows that intuitions can
be meaningful (but not facts).
All arguments from atheism (e.g. Marx, Freud etc) or
from agnosticism are meaningless, because they
discuss the existence of God. Might we have to get rid
of the word ‘God’ from the language altogether?
So too subjective values judgements (beauty), which
can never be verified.


Subjective perceptions of other people (love, trust)
would also become meaningless; they cannot be
verified. We all assume intuitive knowledge of
others ('I know he loves me', 'deep down she's a
caring person') but for Ayer this would all be
nonsense.
The consequences of verification go far beyond
religion, because it is a comprehensive theory of
language. (I wonder how he got out of bed in the
morning!?) This of course contradicts people like
Owen mentioned in Donovan, who believed that
this type of intuitive belief could be taken pretty
much as fact.

In his essay ‘Can we know God by experience?’ Peter
Donovan questions whether it is possible to have
direct, intuitive knowledge of God. After setting out
this question, he considers the views of 20th century
theologians and philosophers (like H.P. Owen) who
have argued that religious experiences may provide
knowledge of God, through intuition. Donovan points
out how this idea of intuitive knowledge of God fits
with established Christian ways of thinking: God is a
personal being who acts in history. He then
distinguishes psychological feelings of certainty from
actually being right on logical grounds, and associates
intuitive awareness of God with the former.

Donovan points out that our sense of certainty is
often mistaken, an observation he takes from
Bertrand Russell. Although he considers the
possibility that experience of God might be a type
of personal encounter (I-You), Donovan rejects
the idea that this is itself a form of knowledge. He
does not accept that intuition can provide
knowledge of God, but claims that this point does
not undermine the value of religious experiences
altogether.

In paragraphs 3 & 4, however, Donovan’s focus is
upon what intuition is and how it might connect
with the topic of religion. He points out how
ordinary and common feelings of intuition are –
these sensations are part of everyday life. Donovan
gives examples of intuition in practice, where
people claim that they ‘just know’ moral or
mathematical propositions are true. Donovan
questions whether intuition should apply to
religion too; can religious experience be a source
of conviction without any further argument?

That deals with part (a) ‘context’ in the essay plan
you have. For the argument/interpretation main
section, I would aim to develop just a few key
points from this passage:

- “Don’t confuse me with arguments” – some
people would prefer not to argue about theism but
make a personal (intuitive?) judgement. Compare
with rational approaches to theism / atheism.



- “The experience of being confident … intuition” –
what intuition is in this essay, who says what about it,
and what Donovan thinks of it. Could compare this
with moral intuitionism.
- Does “religious experience also give us the right to
say we know?” What is religious experience? How is it
used as a source of knowledge? Arguments from
religious experience.
The secondary points are already clear. I would just reemphasise key themes like theism/atheism,
intuitions/intuitionism, and religious experience.

The first bit just sets out the question for the essay:


1) Why bother arguing ‘from’ religious experience (inductively) if
you just know God’s real from personal experience / awareness?


2) Claiming to know stuff without having reasons seems risky /
wrong: evil dictators have done terrible things on the basis of
misguided beliefs. Maybe it’s even insane. Yet, many believers
think they know God personally by experience.


3) However, there are lots of things we think we ‘just know’ by
intuition. It’s perfectly ordinary to suppose that we know things
without further argument.


4) But does that apply to religion too? Do we ‘just know’ about
religion through intuition? Do we have the right to say we know
about religion intuitively?

The next bit considers knowledge from intuition:


5) A number of theologians and philosophers have claimed that we can know
things about religion just from intuition. On the one hand, God can be known
indirectly through the basic finite stuff of the world, but that’s only part of the
picture (i.e. there could be experience of God too).


6) Some writers have drawn attention to other things we ‘just know’ through
intuition and have gone on to argue that this can also apply to religious
interpretations of our experiences. Intuition grasps knowledge of God.






7) H.P. Owen claimed that we get a grasp on the material world and other
people through intuition – we ‘just know’ that they are real, conscious, etc. and
the same applies to the believer’s grasp of God:
(a) As we know people through actions, we know God through creation
(b) A person’s inner self can be revealed to us, so too with God in Christ
(c) Actions reveal a person’s self and character, so too God’s character can
be seen in nature.
(d) As we can grasp that a person brings about certain effects, so we
realise that God creates certain realities.

8) In all of these cases, intuition has ‘mediated immediacy’ (it feels very
real/close but is not direct knowledge). God would not be the product of
reason here, but would be encountered through other experiences (e.g.
experience of his creation).

9) Of course, intellectual reasoning also has a role. It can make things
clearer, or supply some key ideas which help intuition along. However,
in religious experience God is really known through intuition.

[QUOTE: H.P. Owen] The basic form of Christian experience is the
apprehension of God to which I have given the names of ‘intuition’ and
‘faith’. All forms of experience are modes of this one fundamental
form; they are all expressions of this primary awareness.

[Basically …] The basic Christian experience is intuition (‘just knowing’
God). All the other types of Christian religious experiences are simply
different versions of this.

10) Having decided that knowledge of God pretty much amounts to intuition,
Owen then goes on to treat all religious experiences as forms of knowledge.
(Similarly, given that we assume that other people exist, we carry on assuming
that they’re real when we have dealings with them and see their bodily actions.)

11) According to Owen, God’s reality underlies all religious experiences, and
this arises in many ways.

[QUOTE: H.P. Owen] The sense of God’s reality can occur in various contexts.
It can be produced by the contemplation of beauty and order in nature, by
meditation on the words of Scripture, by participation in the Church’s liturgy,
by some event within our personal existence. Yet it may not have any
assignable cause or channel; it may come uninvited. And although it is more
likely to occur in moods of quiet recollection, it can occur when our minds are
troubled by the secular pressures of life.

[Basically …] We get the sense that God exists by looking at beauty in nature,
thinking about the Bible, going to Church, or through personal experiences.
Yet, we might not know why we get such experiences. They might happen when
we are quiet and thoughtful, but they can happen when we’re busy with our
daily lives.

12) The idea of knowing God through intuition is attractive to
Christians, because it fits with the Bible. There, God communicates
with humanity and is known through nature – experiences are signs
and symbols through which he is known.

[QUOTE: D.H. Baillie] Because nature is God’s and He is its
creator, it lends itself to His use, and He can make its natural
elements to speak sacramentally to us; not in the sense of a
‘natural theology’ which can prove the purpose of God from a mere
contemplation of nature, but in the sense that God by His Word
can use, and therefore we by our faith can use, natural objects… as
sacramental expressions of His mercy and faithfulness.

[Basically …] Because God made nature, he can communicate
through it ‘sacramentally’ (i.e. through actions which have an inner
sacred/spiritual meaning). This is not to say that we can prove God
through studying nature (‘natural theology’) but we can experience
God’s mercy and faithfulness through his natural objects.

13) This idea of intuition of God also fits with the idea of ‘faith’ – human
response to God. Faith is not just belief without evidence; it is an intuitive
response to God.

[QUOTE: H.H. Farmer] The essential content of revelation is… God
Himself, and not general truths about God or the universe or immortality
or the way of duty; though such truths are implicit in the divine selfgiving, as this is mediated ever more richly to the responsive soul in the
changing situations of life, and are capable of reflective formulation.
And the proper response to revelation is … faith, faith being not an
intellectual assent to general truths, but the decisive commitment of the
whole person in active obedience to, and quiet trust in the divine will
apprehended as rightfully sovereign and utterly trustworthy at one and
the same time.


[Basically …] Revelation is an encounter with God, not a source of truths
about God. Such truths are however implicit in God’s self-giving presence.
The response to that is faith – not just agreeing to truths about God but
committing personally to obeying Him (who is trustworthy).

14) The believer’s knowledge of God is intuitive; it requires no further
argument.

The next bit discusses feeling certain and being right

15) Despite its popularity among some writers and Christians, the views
about intuition of God expressed above have been criticised by modern
philosophers. This isn’t just an anti-religious bias, but reflects concerns
about appealing to intuition in the case of God.

16) Critics of religious intuition distinguish between psychological
certainty (feeling certain) and rational certainty (being right).

17) Obviously, one can feel certain without being right. If I feel certain
of the time, I can still check that against my watch. However, I can’t
check the rightness of my watch against my feeling of certainty. It’s not
the feeling which makes us right, no matter how convinced we are.

18) Being right is not a state of mind (not a way we feel), but
has to do with how our beliefs relate to states of affairs (how
things are).

19) The problems of feeling certain also apply to intuitive
knowledge. The sense of having an intuition (‘I just know that
…’) may seem clear and direct (‘someone is watching me’).
Sometimes these feelings are right; this tempts us to think that
having an intuition amounts to being right.

20) Question: if you only have intuition to go on, how do you
know that your feeling counts as proper intuition? Perhaps you
don’t remember the ‘intuitive feel’ properly. Can you use
intuition to check on intuition?

21) We cannot take for granted the reliability of intuition as a source of
knowledge. Sometimes intuition is right, but that’s just the chance of
the situation. Even with the example of intuitionally ‘just knowing’
other people, that sense of certainty could be wrong.

[QUOTE: Bertrand Russell] One of the most notable examples of
intuition is the knowledge people believe themselves to possess of those
with whom they are in love. The wall between different personalities
seems to become transparent, and people think they see into another
soul as into their own. Yet deception in such cases is constantly
practised with success; and even where there is no intentional
deception, experience gradually proves, as a rule, that the supposed
insight was illusory, and that the slower more groping methods of the
intellect are in the long run more reliable.

[Basically …] People in love think they have an intuitive knowledge of
the other person, seeing his/her soul. Yet partners/spouses often
deceive each other and the ‘insight’ was wrong. In the long run, intellect
and evidence is more reliable than intuition.

22) Intuitive religious experience suffers from exactly the same
difficulties. Terms like ‘encounter’ assume that the thing
encountered (God) is real, but his existence is exactly what is at
issue.


23) Also, it’s not enough to say that we accept what our senses
tell us, or that there are other people, without argument. Our
knowledge of the senses is something that we can test. For our
knowledge of other people, we have the analogy that we
ourselves exist while being in a normal and observable body.


24) In other areas where we rely on our intuition (e.g. investing
money), it’s difficult to say whether we’re right. Religion is very
diverse and open to disagreement – does that mean that
intuition works better here? (E.g. compare gambling on the stock
market). There are so many different religious intuitions and
different people; surely intuition cannot be reliable?

25) Just because there are some accepted intuitions (e.g. 2+2=4), it does
not follow that there is a general and accepted intuitive way of knowing.
What counts as knowledge of God is doubted and disputed, so we could not
agree what we could work out through intuition, even if we accept that
intuition is sometimes reliable.

26) Of course, Owen and Lewis aren’t arguing that Christianity is true
simply because the believer intuitively ‘just knows’ it. They are trying to
describe Christianity as an interpretation of our human experiences. (E.g. I
experience this that and the other, and interpret it as being God’s presence
affecting my life).

27) But the central position given to intuition of God has been criticised by
philosophers.

28) Despite the criticisms, it doesn’t mean that experiences of God are
illusions. If Christianity were true, it is likely that people would be directly
aware of God’s reality. But how can we know whether the impression that
we’re aware of God can be reliable?

The next bit explores ‘knowledge about’ and ‘experience of’

29) Theologians (people who study God) who argue that God is known by
immediate encounter base their views on ‘person-to-person’ knowledge.
There’s a special kind of knowledge in encountering a conscious person,
rather than just an object.

30) Philosopher Martin Buber wrote about this in I and Thou.


[QUOTE: Martin Buber] The world is twofold for man in accordance with
his twofold attitude.
The attitude of man is two fold in accordance with the two basic words he
can speak.
The basic words are not single words but word pairs.
One basic word is the pair I-You
The other basic word is the pair I-It.

[Basically …] Humans speak in two basic relationship terms: I-You, and I-It.





31) I-You relationships are person-to-person. They are not based on
reason, and are profound but fragile. ‘It’ refers to objects and reason;
without the person side one isn’t fully human.

32) Buber points to the biblical tradition which sees God as personal. If
God is personal, we should think in I-You terms, rather than of ‘It’. So, in
theology there can be a great difference between arguing about God and
experiencing God personally.

33) That contrast can be related to Christianity. Faith has often been
preferred to speculative thinking about God.

34) Also with I-You relationships, we often think that a personal
encounter can’t be put into words. This may support the view that God is
to be known in an I-You relationship. Why should a relationship with God
be more subject to reasoned argument than person-to-person knowledge?
Indeed, if you attempt to describe/analyse a personal encounter, then the
relationship is broken and the person becomes an ‘It’.

35) Because the idea of encountering God in religious experience is so
familiar to Christians, anyone relying on this needs to be aware of the
philosophical problems it raises. This idea of knowledge through
encounter has been strongly criticised. Three points needs to be
discussed: (i) the sense of an encounter might be mistaken, (ii) having
‘experience of’ presupposes ‘knowledge about’, (iii) ‘experience of’ is not
knowledge.

36) (i) sense of encounter may be mistaken. Like with intuition, the
mere impression of certainty is no guide to whether this is true.

37) Russell reminded us that our intuitions about people can be wrong.
The same is true of the I-You encounter. How do we know that we really
have a personal connection with someone? Is that impression enough to
go on?

38) TV and theatre shows us how supposed I-You relationships can be
something different (e.g. a spy trusting a double-agent). Misinterpreted
encounters are common.

39) Thus far, the critic’s point is just that ‘you may not be right’,
and this won’t bother the convinced believer. But there’s more to it
than that

40) (ii) having ‘experience of’ presupposes ‘knowledge about’.
Preachers and theologians (people who study God) often point out
that the biblical meaning of the word ‘know’ assumes a rich I-You
relationship. Religious knowing is person to person knowing
(Adam ‘knew his wife Eve’ Genesis 4.1).

41) Biblical knowledge is not theoretical, but enters into subjective
relations (i.e. it is perceived personally). This is ‘existential’
knowledge (focused on human existence) rather than ‘scientific’
knowledge (based on theory and testing). [The footnote here
attributes this view to the theologian Alan Richardson].

42) If the believer has a direct experience of God, surely it’s
inappropriate to force that experience into scientific terms.

43) However, just because scientific ‘knowledge about’ is not most
important in personal relationships, that doesn’t mean that it’s
irrelevant. E.g. Adam’s knowledge about Eve is assumed in his
relationship with her; he knows that she exists. If he couldn’t be
sure, Adam couldn’t have a relationship with her.

44) So, factual knowledge is important to personal knowledge.
People too easily take it for granted that they can relate to God, as
though knowledge about him is not problematic.

45) To the philosopher, knowledge about God is the very thing in
question. It is only because religious experience might give
knowledge about God that we investigate it in the first place.

46) That’s not to say that a philosopher can demand definite
knowledge about God; a religious tradition might say that God is
not an object (‘it’). But this causes a problem from the comparison
with personal encounters, because people can be investigated.

47) With people, we can have knowledge about them without a personal
encounter (I-It and not I-You), but we cannot have a personal encounter
if we know nothing of them. So with God, the personal encounter
assumes a good deal of knowledge about him (creator, etc.)

48) (iii) ‘Experience of’ if not in itself knowledge. Suppose God were
experienced first-hand; it would not follow for certain that this counts as
knowledge. We assume that people who have experienced things for
themselves are in a better position for knowing truth, but why? Is firsthand experience actually better than second-hand knowledge?

49) There are situations in which a lack of first-hand experience really
doesn’t matter; a male doctor can know much of pregnancy but never
falls pregnant.

50) What if there were two experienced doctors, one male, but one a
woman who has previously been pregnant? She would have extra firsthand experience. However, it isn’t just the additional experience which
matters, but the impressions, memories, and information which comes
from it.

51) It is knowledge about pregnancy which comes from being pregnant which
gives the woman doctor an advantage, not just experience of pregnancy.
Further, all her other knowledge (training, shared with male doctors) is
necessary for her to learn from her experiences.

52) First-hand experience isn’t important because it is knowledge, but because
it enables us to increase our knowledge. Knowledge isn’t just awareness; it
comes from relating our experiences to the rest of our knowledge/experiences.

53) People might object that this places too much emphasis on learning/
knowledge about. Our personal encounters do presuppose knowledge of
people, but that’s secondary to the feeling of I-You relationships. The same
could be true of God.

54) That may be true; encounters with God/people may have non-intellectual
reasons. It’s only a problem if people claim to know God just on the basis of
such encounters. The fact is, though, that some believers do claim to have
knowledge just on this basis; the arguments above show that this is inadequate.

55) The criticisms haven’t shown that awareness of God is an illusion, just that
it cannot itself alone show that we have good reason to believe in God.

The final bit discusses the sense of knowing God

56) The situations/experiences which lead people to talk of encountering
God are crucial for religion; they keep it going. They give a sense of
knowing God.

57) The philosophical difficulties of intuition/encounter/mysticism do not
detract from their importance for religion. Religious people may claim that
philosophers have ‘hardened their hearts’ and refuse to be open to God.

58) That’s a mistake; a fair number of modern philosophers are
themselves religious believers. They wouldn’t want an important
experience (God) to be discredited by weak arguments.

59) The chief point in philosophical criticism of ‘knowing God by
experience’ is this. Religious reasoning has taken such experience to be a
kind of knowledge, immediately available to those who have it. But
knowledge doesn’t work like that. The sense of knowing isn’t on its own a
complete sign of knowledge.

60) But if the sense of God doesn’t count as knowledge, what then?

61) That doesn’t mean that we discard religious experience. We
don’t need to take an ‘all or nothing’ approach to it, as some critics
or believers have.

Answering on Donovan: Strategy and Tips

Firstly, a reminder of some general pointers for paper 4:

In part (a), follow up short quotations/summaries with longer
explanation and analysis. (E.g. Here Donovan argues that
knowledge is “not merely a matter of experiences”. By this he
means… [detail follows]).
In part (a) always links to other parts of the A Level course, naming
scholars and technical terms. (E.g. When Donovan mentions
“arguing from religious experience”, he refers to… [details from rel.
exp. topic – inductive argument, Swinburne, etc.]).


Answering on Donovan: Strategy and Tips (Continued)

Define all technical terms. (E.g. By ‘intuition’ Donovan
means…). Then use these terms yourself.
Refer to the wider argument of the text. (E.g. Here
Donovan argues that… Later on in the text he develops this
point by…).
In part (b), develop a critical appraisal of the passage. (E.g.
The claim that personal awareness cannot alone provide
sufficient reason for believing in God is justified. This is
supported by…).
In part (b), persistently use the phrases ‘the implication of
this for religion is…’ or, ‘the implication of this for human
experience is…’. You should draw out the implications of
the passage and the implications of your response to it.
What would happen if we agreed with the author, or if we
agreed with you?




Now some specific advice about Donovan:



Be very clear in your own mind what ‘intuition’ is. You will
need to use this term over and again. Any essay should
define this and state Donovan’s basic view on this matter.
Be clear on how this direct awareness contrasts with the
inductive argument from religious experience.
It’s probably worth writing separate short summary notes
on each of the philosophers Donovan refers to (Owen,
Buber, etc.) and clarifying on these what their arguments
are, how they would agree/disagree with each other, and
whether Donovan agrees/disagrees with them. For
instance, it should be obvious that H.H. Farmer and
Bertrand Russell definitely do not agree about intuition.




Work out how direction intuition of God contrasts with
some of the indirect logical reasons for God we have
studied (especially arguments). A good answer might point
out how mainstream philosophical ‘proofs’ of God have
largely ignored this idea of intuition.
Give examples of personal experiences, where relevant. For
example, where Donovan writes of an encounter that “can’t
be put into words”, you could give a classic example like St.
Teresa of Avila (and explain).
After looking at Buber, Donovan keeps using the term ‘IYou’. If this comes up, refer it back to Buber to explain
what it means.
You could produce a set of notes on ‘religious experience
for Donovan’, picking out everything from the Paper 3 topic
that’s relevant.






Some Implications of Donovan
If we agree (with H.P. Owen) that we may
know God directly and intuitively, then the
implications for this belief are as follows:
FOR RELIGION
We may reasonably claim that God exists
It supports religious belief; it suggests that
personal faith is valuable / correct
Extremist branches of religion could use intuition
to justify faith claims (nothing could be disproved
or invalidated).





God would no longer be seen as completely
transcendent; God would be available to all.
If God interacts with us through personal
encounter, then why does he not intervene in our
world (problem of evil, etc,)?
Scriptural claims about direct encounter with God
(e.g. Moses) would seem to be true.
If all faith were entirely personal / individual, how
would this effect religious conflict or cooperation?
It would have profound, but uncertain
implications.
No reason for atheism / agnosticism






FOR HUMAN EXPERIENCE
Supports individualism / individualist thought and
culture.
Leads to a rejection of the verification principle in
philosophy.
We are justified in claiming that any of our personal,
direct experience convey ‘truth’.
Lead to a conflict with science? Intuition cannot be
scientifically tested.
Intuitive claims about ethics would also have to be
accepted, along with religion. This leads to a highly
subjective ethics (compare Intuitionism and G.E.
Moore).




If we agree (with Bertrand Russell, and other
critics) that intuition may be faulty and cannot
be used as the basis for knowledge-claims
about God and our world, then the
implications for this belief are as follows:
FOR RELIGION
Biblical claims of God’s encounters with creation may
be false, as personal intuition of the divine seems
discredited.
Religions which are founded upon a personal
encounter (Islam, Christianity) would be dubious,
given that we can have no certainty about such
intuitive claims to have met God.



No highly experiential religious / sects
(Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism) and no religious
mysticism (Teresa of Avila, Sufism [Islam]).
Religion is not helpful for making judgements
about life / the world.
Belief in God is weakened generally; personal
experience is questioned. The argument from
religious experience (Swinburne et al.) is
weakened.





FOR HUMAN EXPERIENCE
Intuition would play a secondary role in the question for
knowledge – evidence and verification would always be
put first.
Many everyday intuitive beliefs / ideas may be incorrect.
This has a major impact on personal relationships,
investment, gambling, simple beliefs about other people,
etc.
The individual would have to doubt oneself and beliefs –
feelings of uncertainty would be supported.
This would fit with intellectual critiques of religion (Ayer,
Dawkins, Hitchens), which state that personal faith is
irrational or a ‘virus’. There would be more atheists in
our world.





If we agree (with Peter Donovan) that we should
avoid the ‘all or nothing’ approach to religious
experience, allowing that it may be valuable
when seen in conjunction with other beliefs /
evidence, then the implications for this belief are
as follows:
FOR RELIGION
We have to test religious statements and see them in
relation to other religious claims, because they are not
self-evidently true.
We should not focus on only one argument / justification
in religion (link this to Swinburne’s ‘leaky buckets’).
There would be no scope for extreme atheism, as
religious experiences could not be dismissed out of hand.




Religious experiences / encounters may have
subjective meaning, in relation to other beliefs, which
fits with arguments about religious language
(Wittgenstein). Perhaps religion makes sense as a
whole.
Religions would have to be self-critical and examine
their beliefs / teachings. There is no scope for purely
individualist claims being accepted.
Donovan’s arguments strengthens agnosticism, since
it allows that religious experiences are meaningful but
do not provide definitive evidence.
Religious encounters should not be used to justify
harm against others, or to make narrowly exclusivist
claims – they are too uncertain.




FOR HUMAN EXPERIENCE
To persuade others of our experiences, it would be
necessary to have some supporting arguments or
evidence.
Our intuitions about other people may be correct,
although it is necessary to anchor them in
supporting information / evidence.
Donovan implies that we should have a balanced,
critical view of the world and our experiences.
Personal intuition is not itself knowledge, but
could fit with knowledge claims. Contrast this with
more explicitly scientific approaches (Dawkins).

Introduction

1.) Looking at the words, philosophical theology seems to
have its focus on God (theos = God in Greek), while the
philosophy of religion seems to have faith or practice of
religion as its object. In the period between Hume/Kant up to
Nietzsche (approximately 1750–1900), there was a shift in
emphasis in philosophy away from God to religion.

What to write about: the different philosophical
emphasis given to God (Hegel) or to religion
(Schleiermacher). What divided philosophers? Why did
Hegel want to talk about God, while others wanted to talk
about religion?
- Also, deal with the names: Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. You
should write and learn a couple of sentences to explain each
of the key philosophers in this text.


2.) Hegel didn’t like the idea that we cannot know God; he
really valued the idea of having conceptual knowledge of God.
Some people thought that we could speak of religion and “not
of God Himself” – Hegel is having a dig at Schleiermacher
(who emphasised feeling as the basis of religion).

What to write about: More on the Hegel /
Schleiermacher disagreement – you must understand this
well for Westphal (see notes).
- Key phrase: “assumption that we do not know God”.
Sceptics like Ayer hold that we do not know God, but Hegel
had in mind Romantics who thought that religion is about
personal feeling. - Compare / contrast atheism with such
perspectives.
- Which authors have you studied who emphasise that we can
have knowledge of God? … Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes,
Swinburne, etc. Would they agree with Hegel? Write about
how their views might bear on this issue.



3.) It’s difficult to separate talk of God and talk of religion. Hegel
still points to something important: the shift of focus away from
God (theology) towards the experiences and practices of religion
(“philosophizing about religion”). It’s odd that Hegel so dislikes
this change in emphasis, since he is responsible for the idea of a
separate philosophy of religion (see his book titles). These days,
when we make a philosophical study of God, we end up calling it
philosophy of religion because that name has stuck.

What to write about: clarify the distinction between religion
and philosophical theology.
- Phrase “post-Kantian modernity” needs to be unpacked. It means,
‘modern philosophy after Immanuel Kant’. So, you should explain
why Kant is seen as such a major figure in philosophy, and what
role he plays in Westphal’s essay.
- Westphal talks about “philosophical theology … in our own time”.
What does he mean by this? - We’ve studied lots of modern
philosophers who talk about God – Swinburne, Hick, Plantinga,
etc. What do we find in this ‘philosophical theology’ today? You
could set out key ideas/arguments.



Pre-Kantian philosophical theology

4.) There are two forms of philosophical theology in the
background to what Hegel is writing: scholastic and deistic.
Both are interested in what we can establish of God
through reason. The scholastic view assumes that reason
can work in harmony with faith (belief) and revelation
(Bible). The deistic view, however, thinks that reason is
completely separate from faith or revelation. Religion
should be limited to reason and all the irrational bits
eliminated. Rational deistic ideas for religion include an
emphasis upon God as the source of moral law. Deists
dismiss the supernatural or questionable historical stories
about Jesus. [List of deist philosophers: not important]







What to write about: “movement Hegel deplores” – clarify this: the
shift of attention in philosophy away from God onto religion.
- Key terms: scholastic, deistic.
Scholastic: (Latin scholasticus – student, teacher, scholar). A school of
Christian philosophy built around Medieval scholarship. Scholasticism
emphasised the value of logic and the application of this to Christian
doctrines. A key scholastic philosopher would be Aquinas.
Deistic: (Latin deus – God). An approach to belief in God which
emphasises the impersonal and unknowable nature of the divine
qualities. Deists often argue that God exists, particularly as the source of
the universe, but that we can know nothing further about him.
- ‘Harmony of faith and reason’ – a scholastic ideal we’ve encountered
on this course: Aquinas and the arguments for God, doctrine of analogy.
Explain how many philosophers have believed that philosophy supports
the Christian faith.
- Deists like Kant have sought religion “within the limits of reason
alone”. Clarify what Kant thought religion should be about (this
emerges later in Westphal’s essay). Kantian ethics reflect the idea of a
rational ethics-centred religion.

5.) Deism is the school of thought which was current immediately before
Hegel came along. This period (esp. 18th century) was known as the
‘Enlightenment’ (= ‘age of reason’), the time at which new ideas in science
and philosophy were developing. Major religious wars had happened in
Europe (particularly between Catholics and Protestants) and
Enlightenment thinkers wanted to leave that behind. While some rejected
religion, others wanted to define a new type of religion to bring people
together (“foster moral unity”). They wanted to make religion objective so
that everyone could agree and live in peace.

What to write about: Explain the key terms: ‘deism’ and ‘scholasticism’
(just see above).
- Key term: Enlightenment. In the Medieval era, philosophers emphasised
the authority of the Church and the Bible (bring in Aquinas here). In the
Enlightenment, philosophers emphasised human reason instead, believing
that religion and society should be reformed (bring in Kant). The Medieval
Church (Aquinas) was happy to justify religious wars (think about Just War
Theory), whereas Enlightenment philosophers were not (Kant).
- “anti-religious materialism” = atheism. Some Enlightenment philosophers
were atheists, some not. Perhaps contrast a key atheist with Kant.
- “moral unity … among human societies” links to justice, law and
punishment topic. Which philosophers have emphasised the importance of
a united society? (Plato, Kant, Rawls).





6.) This agenda (focus on a new, moral religion) had
consequences for knowledge (epistemology) and for
the Church (ecclesiology). Non-violent religion would
have to be universal (agreed by all) and so could not
rely on a special revelation (God’s presence in the
Bible, or religious experience). The new moral religion
couldn’t be found in any one church or sect either. It is
rationalism: based on reason.
This rationalism did not emphasise pure logic (a
priori reasoning) at the expense of sense perception
(empiricism, a posteriori reason). Rationalists and
empiricists agreed that religion should be limited to
commonly available sources of knowledge: whether
reason or experience. This contrasts with the faith
emphasis upon special revelation or a particular
church.





What to write about: Rational faith could not be based on
revelation. Contrast this with scholasticism and Aquinas: what
would he say? Also contrast religious experience (a revelation):
how is this different from what Kant and others propose?
- Rational faith not tied to any specific Church: a good
opportunity to explain what the key figures in this text think of
the Church: Kant (it should just be a moral community),
Schleiermacher (it should be a group united in contemplation of
the Infinite), and Hegel (it should be the site for human selfconsciousness, leading to consciousness of God – Absolute
Spirit).
- Explain contrast between empirical and a priori reasoning
(with examples?)
- Rejection of revelation and the Church. Compare deistic views
with atheism: how are these different and how are they the
same? Critics of religion also reject revelation and Church …

7.) Deism comes from three main ideas: the focus on knowledge
and reason, religious tolerance (not hating other faiths), and the
rejection of the power and authority of the Church. These ideas
pre-date the trend criticised by Hegel of denying knowledge of God
and focusing on religion. Still, by asking what makes a good
religion, deism already shifts the attention away from God and
onto religion. It sees religion as a human, social reality.

What to write about: Explain how deism focused on reason
(esp. Kant).
- Religious tolerance comes up a lot in this essay: Kant thought this
was important because rational and ethical people would get along.
There would not be ‘one true faith’.
- Explain Hegel’s complaint that people were denying knowledge of
God. What did he think would be better instead?
- Deism sees religion as a human, social reality. Compare this with
atheism. Marx and others also saw religion as a social reality. How
is deism similar and different from atheism?




8.) Hume and Kant: they believed that their criticisms of the
arguments for God had finished off the scholastic and deistic
philosophy of their times. People thought that Kant had taken
apart the arguments for God. That’s why Hegel complained of
people no longer believing that we can know God. Philosophers
became interested in what we can learn of religion in human life,
instead of the concept of God.

What to write about: Explain who the philosophers are:
Hume and Kant and how they fit into Westphal’s essay.
- Explain the ‘scholastic’ and ‘deist’ projects (see 4).
- What are the arguments for God? What sort of criticisms did
Hume and Kant come up with?
- What ideas in the philosophy of religion after Kant, without the
proofs for God? (See the last sentence). You might consider Kant
and Schleiermacher.




9.) Hume and Kant both thought that the arguments for God did not work,
but their philosophy led in different directions.

What to write about: Hume and Kant again. Who are they?
- Again, rejection of arguments for God (see above).
- Different directions for their work. Hume was a sceptic, rejecting theism.
Kant meanwhile wanted religion within the limits of reason. Contrast the
ideas of these two.
Post-Kantian reconstructions of the deist project




10.) Kant is the deist who undermined the arguments for God
(“metaphysical foundations”), but then sought to give deism a new basis. In
this new (“post-Kantian”) era of philosophy, he brought a new approach to
religion.

What to write about: Kant had undermined the metaphysical basis for
God: the arguments. What are these arguments and how were they
criticised?
- What is deism?
- What did Kant do to bring about this new approach? (“rescuing the deist
project”).



11.) Kant’s new approach to deism had two distinctive features.
First, he claimed that we have no theoretical knowledge of God,
but we can get a practical understanding. He thought that we
should believe in God because of morality, not logic. Second,
Kant thought that humans could be deliberately, radically evil.
They could freely chose evil (an idea which connects with
Original Sin – St. Augustine’s view that humans have innate evil
because of the rebellion against God in Eden).

What to write about: No a priori knowledge of God?
Contrast ontological argument.
- Contrast Kant’s views with Hegel, who thought our reason
could make us aware of God.
- Morality is the basis for our understanding of God? Contrast
critics of religious morality.
- Is there ‘radical evil’ in humanity? Compare the problem of evil,
Augustine.




12.) Kant also talks about the type of religion which would be
acceptable in the Enlightenment (=”Age of Reason”). Religion should
involve rationality leading us to morality. There are three principles for
the relationship between religion and morality: (a) morality doesn’t
need religion, (b) but morality leads to religion, and finally (c) religion
recognises duties as God’s commands. So, religion is useful to morality.

What to write about: Kant – always explain who he is. Also explain
“Age of Reason”.
- Reason serving morality: what did Kant think about ethics? Why did
Kant think that reason was important in morality? How could this be
contrasted with other approaches to morality?
- Morality does not need religion: contrast this with purely biblical
ethics, or Natural Moral Law.
- Morality leads to religion: explain Kant’s approach. Why might God be
useful in ethics?
- Divine commands: examples, compare biblical ethics, etc. Think of the
Euthyphro dilemma: here we say that God wills things because they are
good. Goodness is higher than God?





13.) If religion is universal, rational and moral, then there’s no
need for special duties to God (ritual, priesthood). All the
outward expressions of religion are just illusions, only useful if
they encourage moral behaviour. God only seems to be useful as
an idea which helps us to be more moral.

What to write about: Explain Kant’s emphasis on universal,
rational religion: why did he think this important?
- Contrast Kant’s take on religion with established ideas. How
might Medieval Church philosophers (e.g. Aquinas, Anselm)
disagree? Who would support the established Church? Why do
you think philosophy is suggesting something so radical here?
- Link religion and morality topic. Kant brings the two together,
but in an unusual way.
- Religion only useful for promoting ethics? Contrast that with
Natural Moral Law and Aquinas: the goal of ethics is union with
God.




14.) Kant continues to try to reform Christianity and make it rational,
drawing out the consequences for Christ and the Church. The Church is no
more than a moral community. Kant’s (‘Augustinian’) focus on human
sinfulness thus gives way to the positive/optimistic (‘Pelagian’) view that
humans can choose to be perfectly good. Christ, then, is only useful as an
example of moral perfection. Any view we have on Christ has to be based on
reason, not claims about history (which can be challenged or criticised).

What to write about: Always give time in your essay to explain who
Kant is, and his agenda.
- Religion based on reason alone. Contrast this idea with atheist critics of
religion, who claim that it is always irrational / non-rational (Dawkins,
Freud, etc.).
- Distinguish Augustinian from Pelagian ideas. Bring in Problem of Evil:
how would this fit with what Kant is saying?
- Christ is just a good example of moral perfection? Why might Christians
disagree with this? Which groups would oppose this idea, and what would
there arguments be?
- Compare / contrast Kant’s view of Christ with that of Hegel (see later on).





15.) Kant’s views fit with the philosopher Lessing, who thought
that knowledge of God should not depend on historical evidence:
questionable or changeable. Kant and Lessing did not want to get
rid of Christianity altogether, but wanted to reinterpret the main
ideas to make it reasonable and free from mythology.

What to write about: Knowledge of God should not depend
on historical evidence or accounts: contrast this with the
argument from religious experience, which assumes that a body
of testimony can tell us about God.
- Expand on what some would see as historical evidence for faith:
Scripture, Church, etc.
- Again, who might disagree with this idea of reinterpreting
Christianity?
- Kant has something in common with Hegel here: compare
views on myth-free religion.




16.) Unlike Kant, Schleiermacher and Hegel were not deists,
although they shared his desire to change our approach to God.
Schleiermacher addressed an audience which was not interested in
complex and speculative arguments about God, or in Kant’s hardline moralistic approach. God’s direct control and care for the world
(providence) and immortality Schleiermacher dismissed as
‘external’ to real religion. The essence of religion is in feeling, a
conscious awareness of the unity of all things.

What to write about: Who were Schleiermacher and Hegel?
How do they differ from Kant?
- Explain scholasticism and deism. How do they contrast with
Schleiermacher’s perspective?
- Schleiermacher’s audience didn’t find Kant’s rigorous morals very
appealing – what was it that Kant suggested about ethics? Why
might that have been off-putting?
- Schleiermacher linked religion with feeling. This may be compared
with religious experience; personal perception may be an important
source of religious knowledge. Examples?




17.) Schleiermacher was a supporter of the philosopher
Spinoza, suggesting pantheism (the view that God is
everything) as opposed to the view that God is a distinct
and personal being. Religion is a feeling of unity;
everything lives in and through God. The idea that God is
separate and personal is “vain mythology”.




What to write about: Explain: who were
Schleiermacher and Spinoza? What is pantheism?
- Contrast pantheism with more typical theistic beliefs?
What are the traditional ideas about God, and which
philosophers would support them? How radical is
Schleiermacher’s suggestion?
- Again, link feeling with religious experience. Compare /
contrast Schleiermacher with Hegel.

18.) Schleiermacher’s ‘church’ would be a united group
(=communion) who recognise the feeling of unity as true
religion. This doesn’t mean rejecting churches which already
have their own beliefs about God or practices, but the Church is
just an association of those who are seeking true religion. We
should “discover religion in religions” – we can learn from faiths
as we know them today.





What to write about: Explain who Schleiermacher was and
his ideas.
- Schleiermacher reinterprets what the real ‘Church’ is all about.
Compare this with Kant, who saw the real Church as a moral
community.
- How might some believers react to Schleiermacher’s claim that
the religions of the world only offer a pathway to true religion?
- If God is everything (Pantheism), we might not need a Church
at all. Compare this with atheism; are communities of believers
of any real use?

19.) Schleiermacher gave this advice about religions, because
he thought that real religion would be clothed in particular ideas
and practices. Religious feeling needs to be communicated in
some concrete image or idea, even if temporary or limited. We
need a concrete way of looking at religion, to help make sense of
it. Yet, we don’t need particular ideas or practices to be holy /
pious. We can be religious without following one specific code.

What to write about: Again: background on Schleiermacher.
- What ‘ideas and practices’ surround religion as we know it?
Give examples. What ideas about God have we studied on this
course? How do these compare with Schleiermacher?
- Compare Paul Tillich on symbols, who claimed that these
religions images ‘point beyond themselves’ to something higher
or true.
- Religion doesn’t have to follow one specific faith or code:
compare with Kant’s view that religion can be rational and
universal.




20.) Hegel is unconvinced by Kant
(religion=morality) and Schleiermacher
(religion=feeling), because he is interested in
conceptual knowledge of God. Although Hegel
sympathises with Schleiermacher, he thinks he is
confused. Romanticism (emphasising feeling) can be
empty of content and so may be compatible with
anything (anything goes, relativism). Who’s to say
which feelings are real and which feelings matter?
Alternatively, Romanticism puts forward content that
needs to be explained and defended. Saying that we
just have an immediate experience is dogmatism,
blind unquestioning faith. Schleiermacher’s ideas
about the Infinite and Eternal are concepts, not just
feelings, just as with traditional Christian ideas
(Trinity, etc.).



What to write about: Explain the key figures
Hegel, Kant, Schleiermacher. Why do you think
Hegel is more sympathetic to Schleiermacher?
Both are admirers of Spinoza …
- Explain how reliance on feelings could lead to
‘absurd beliefs’ and ‘immoral practices’.
- Why should we explain the content of ‘feeling’ or
experience? This brings up a much wider question:
is religion rational, and should it be rational?

21.) Hegel sets himself two tasks: firstly defending
metaphysics (the study of reality beyond our everyday
perceptions, especially of God) after Kant’s criticisms of the
theistic arguments, and secondly developing metaphysics
which is significant for religion. [Ignore list of his works].
His key idea is that religion and philosophy have the same
content or focus, but they work in different ways and take
different forms. Religion is linked to images and narratives
(rituals, art, Bible). Philosophy is better because it is
conceptual and so can give real knowledge. Older forms of
philosophical theology were too caught up in images and
narratives (“finite subject matter”). Hegel wants a purely
conceptual approach, reinterpreting Idea and Spirit. This
would firstly justify philosophical speculation and secondly
give us a solid basis for philosophical theology.





What to write about: Who is Hegel? Why did he
value metaphysics?
- Explain the contrast between Hegel’s position and
that of Kant.
- Westphal talks about “the aftermath of Kant”. What
does that mean? What had Kant said about the
arguments for God?
- Give examples of the “sensory images and historical
narratives” which limit religion according to Hegel.
Who would disagree with this idea? How radical is
what Hegel suggests?
- Compare Hegel’s reinterpretation of religion with the
religions of Kant and Schleiermacher.

22.) Hegel’s focus on Ideas is quite close to Aristotle and Plotinus (who
both emphasised the ultimate power of thought/contemplation), rather
than Berkeley and Kant (who were more sceptical of the reality of Ideas,
independent of the mind). But Hegel’s views are perhaps closest to
Spinoza’s (Pantheism). Hegel contrasts with Lessing, whose support for
Spinoza led him to reject traditional Christian ideas. Hegel instead prefers a
radical reinterpretation, freeing Christianity from mythology. Unlike
Schleiermacher, Hegel gives a specific philosophical argument to defend his
support for Spinoza.

What to write about: Who is Hegel? Why would someone think that
Ideas are the most real or important things? Explain comparison with
Aristotle and Plotinus.
- Explain Spinoza. How are Hegel’s views similar to those of Spinoza? Why
is that controversial?
- Why might Spinoza’s philosophy lead to a rejection of traditional
Christianity (Lessing)?
- Explain how classic Christian philosophy (e.g. Aquinas, Anselm) contrast
with Pantheism, offering a distinct and personal view of God.
- ‘Demythologizing’ Christianity: which mythological aspects of Christianity
might a philosopher which to eliminate?





23.) Hegel’s views aren’t quite like Spinoza’s, however, although
he doesn’t see God as a personal being distinct from the world (=
traditional theism). Our basic understanding sees God (= Infinite
Spirit) and the world (= finite spirit) as separate, but reason can
perceive their unity (“no longer two”). Hegel could defend himself
against the charge of Pantheism only by saying that the Spirit in
all things is most real, rather than matter / substance.

What to write about: Explain key figures: Hegel and Spinoza.
What’s the background to Hegel’s philosophy, and why does it
lead him to Spinoza?
- Contrast Hegel’s attitude with traditional theism: what are the
more traditional ideas about God? Who would support traditional
views?
- Compare / contrast Hegel’s support for Spinoza with that of
Schleiermacher.
- How does Hegel contribute to the theism debate: can we have
real knowledge of God in accordance with his theory?




24.) Religion lifts up limited, human, worldly ‘finite spirit’ to the
level of ‘Infinite Spirit’. In religion, this is often misunderstood as
a personal encounter with someone. In philosophy, this is the
recognition that God is the product and object of human selfawareness. God is present in humans becoming aware of Absolute
Spirit. This awareness of the Idea is the only true reality.

What to write about: Explain what Hegel’s view of religion is,
in your own words.
- Compare Hegel’s view of religion with other key reformers: Kant
and Schleiermacher.
- “Encounter with someone other”: this is religious experience.
Explain what rel. exp. Is and how it contrasts with Hegel’s
conceptual approach to religion. Could bring in Donovan …
- God is found in human self-awareness. Contrast this with
traditional theism. Some would see Hegel’s view as coming close
to atheism: why? Compare with atheists like Marx, who regard
religion as a product of the human mind.








25.) The idea of lifting up the human spirit is found in all
religions, but is best in Christianity. However, Hegel thinks that
Christianity can only achieve this when put in philosophical
form, reinterpreting key themes. It is revealed religion, not
because of Jesus or the Bible, but because philosophically reason
makes God fully manifest (known/obvious). Incarnation – the
doctrine that Jesus took on human flesh – is the central
Christian truth. This is because Jesus represents the idea that
human awareness is itself divine.
What to write about: Explain Hegel and the link between
awareness and God (see above).
- What might it mean to reinterpret Christianity? Compare
Hegel’s approach with the other key figures from Westphal.
- Reason makes God manifest – for Hegel this is just a part of
consciousness. However, other theists have claimed that reason
proves God through arguments – explain and compare.
- Why is Incarnation an important idea in Christianity? Why
might Hegel’s approach be controversial?


Hume and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion
‘Hermeneutic of suspicion’ = a method of enquiry which refuses to take
someone at his or her word; a suspicious reading of the evidence.

26.)Modern philosophy of religion developed among those who were
did not accept traditional Christianity (i.e. rejecting authority of Church,
Scripture, dogma). Yet, Hume’s approach was very different from Kant.
Instead of trying to reform religion & make it relevant to the modern
world, Hume thought that religion itself was inherently flawed.

What to write about: ‘Philosophy of religion’ – remember that this is
different from philosophical theology (see the opening section); explain
how / why.
- Unpack what Westphal means by ‘historic Christianity’; give examples.
- Explain who the key figures are: Hume and Kant.
- Explain Kant’s approach to religion (rational, moral) and distinguish
this from Hume.




27.) We are suspicious when we ask what motives might lie behind
religious beliefs; perhaps the religious have a hidden agenda. Hume
suggests that being holy or pious might just be a way of flattering and
pleasing the gods, to get something out of it (selfish hope / fear). This
piety leads to self-deception; believers don’t recognise that their hope
for reward in heaven is selfish; the sacred is just a means to an end.

What to write about: explain who Hume is and his wider
approach to religion.
- What practical benefits do religious believers take from their faith?
How might this explain the existence religion?
- What are the ‘hopes and fears’ which religion addresses?
- Link with religion and morality topic: according to Dawkins
religious morality is just “sucking up”, a way of seeking personal
benefit. What other explanations for faith and religious ethics are
there? Kant’s view of duty as a ‘divine command’ arguably is not
focused on ‘selfish hope’.
- Other atheists have linked religion to self-interest (see Marx and
Nietzsche below); Freud thought that faith brought psychological
satisfaction in the form of a father figure (God).





28.) Marx and Nietzsche also see religion in terms of self-deception. Marx
is interested in how religion affects society (=sociology) rather than the
individual (=psychology). Marx thinks that religion is an ideology with a
function: propping up an unfair society, or social domination. When people
are exploited, religion gives the impression that this set up is a natural
order, given by God. This encourages the victims of exploitation to
cooperate with the rich and powerful. Religion gets the poor and exploited
to accept the privilege of others, because the thought of going to heaven is
comforting.

What to write about: brief explanation of who these figures are: Marx
and Nietzsche. More detail information on Marx could be helpful.
- Possibly distinguish Marx’s approach from psychological critiques (like
Freud).
- In what ways has religion traditionally influenced society? Examples
would clarify Marx here.
- Explain how religion could be used to exploit. Also consider whether
religion can challenge social privilege (how does Jesus’ condemnation of
wealth fit in?).
- Contrast Marx’s approach with Hume’s – are believers really being selfish?





29.) For Nietzsche, religion is based on the slave revolt in morals.
However, since he thought that all would strive for power, Nietzsche
thought that the weak (religious believers) would want to get revenge
instead of just being consoled. Linking up with the priests, poor people
would express their frustration through religion. This gives them the
satisfaction of feeling superior to the rich and strong, and makes the strong
feel guilty. God exists to punish enemies (the strong).

What to write about: Explain who Nietzsche is.
- Explain ‘slave revolt in morals’. Give examples of how biblical teaching
supports to poor.
- Contrast Nietzsche’s views with other critics of religion: Hume and Marx.
- How might religion make rich people feel guilty?
- Is religion all about condemning the rich and powerful? How else might
we explain religion?
That is, Nietzsche believed that morality had once been dictated by the
strong and brave (as with the heroes of ancient Greece). However, with
Christianity, Nietzsche believed that the weak had taken over, using
religion to criticise the rich and powerful whilst praising the poor and
meek. Nietzsche thought this ‘slave revolt’ was a disaster, and hoped that
the powerful (‘supermen’) could once again take control of ethics.






30.) It’s not just the non-religious who have been suspicious of
traditional religion. The Christian philosopher Kierkegaard
attacked Christian society. Smug middle class Christians think that
the current society is perfect and ordered by God (=kingdom of
heaven). That confuses imperfect and limited human society with
the ultimate. It suggests that we just have to be good citizens, but
that contrasts with Jesus, who most often criticised the
establishment.

What to write about: Explain the secular criticism of religion
(Hume, Marx, Nietzsche). This shares a critique of Christian
society with Kierkegaard, but ends up with very different
outcomes.
- How could some Christians suppose that present society is like
the kingdom of God?
- What’s wrong with associating God with middle class
respectability?
- Which aspects of Jesus’ life contrast with ‘the established order’?




Some Implications from Westphal


(1) If philosophy shifts its focus away from God and onto
the human practice of religion the implications would be …

There might be less support for the existence of God, with less
people willing to talk about God as a philosophical idea. The
arguments for God would be ignored.
The human experience of God might seem less credible;
philosophical supporters of God (like Richard Swinburne) would not
be there to back up those who believe that they have encountered
God.
The controversial debate regarding the existence of God would not
be as important; thinkers would be more focused on the role of
religion in society.
Believers might be more humanistic: focused on practices and
values rather than metaphysical beliefs. That might be a good thing
(?).





EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?

(2) If we emphasise reason as the only basis for religion,
the implications would be …

Traditional aspects of faith not grounded in logic might suffer, or be
scrapped altogether (ritual, narratives/Bible, religious art, worship
etc.).
Religion everywhere would have to be the same. Cultural
differences between religions are not based on reason. Truths
known through reason would be the same in Europe, the Middle
East, or East Asia. Tensions between faiths might disappear.
Religion might not seem to be a distinct part of life, since being
religious would mean no more than being reasonable or rational.
Human experience would have to be dominated by rational
judgements, since these are the most important things. Irrational
emotion is not the highest value.
Humans might become more sympathetic and understanding, since
they try to base their faith and values on considered judgements.





EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?

(3) If (with Kant) we agree that religion is no more than a
system of morality, the implications would be …

Aspects of faith not concerned with ethics would be marginalised or
disappear (again: ritual, narratives/Bible, religious art, worship
etc.).
The emotional content of religion (love, gratitude) would be
replaced by a focus on moral duty.
Religion everywhere would be the same, since rational ethics should
be universal.
Churches, mosques and synagogues would change into moral
support groups; all their other curious activities would be irrelevant.
Human experience would always have to focus on ethics: being
moral is the highest good and the only basis for religion. We would
always have to be conscious of duty.
Human society might become more just and moral, since
consideration of the moral law would replace self interest and
hedonism.






EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?

(4) If (with Schleiermacher) we agree that religion should
be focused on ‘feeling’, the implications would be …

Religion would become very personal, as individual sensations and
experiences would be the source of ‘truth’, rather than cold logic or
Church authority.
External forms of faith (ritual, Church, Bible) would be less
important that what the individual feels. Religion would be much
more flexible.
‘Feeling’ is quite open in terms of what it means: there isn’t really
any strict guidance in terms of what religion should be like. People
could choose their own values and practices if they ‘felt’ right.
Human experience on a personal level would take priority; people
would be less interested in what authorities had to say, whether
priests or philosophy professors.
Reason and logical argument might be marginalised as being less
important than individual and personal awareness.





EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?

(5) If (with Hegel) we agree that religion should be
focused on conceptual knowledge of God (as Infinite
Spirit), the implications would be …

Religion would feel more academic or intellectual. Philosophy
would be the most important support for religion.
Traditional religious practices (ritual, worship, Bible, etc.) would
be less important than the concepts people study.
Faith might become a bit elitist – the best philosophers would
have the best understanding of God, and so would be the most
religious.
Human experience would have to be dominated by philosophical
study, since this would be the only way to access the ultimate –
God.
Emotional and non-rational parts of human life might be seen as
trivial.





EVALUATE: Are any of the above good outcomes?

(6) If (with Hume, Marx, Nietzsche) we agree that
religion is practised only because it brings people
advantages, the implications would be …

Religion would have to be scrapped; it’s just a big fat
institutionalised lie.
The existence of God would not be seen as an important matter.
The arguments for God would be seen as attempts to justify
people’s selfish behaviour.
Religion would lose all moral authority, since it is based on selfinterest. People would have to look elsewhere for moral
guidance.
Human life and experience would have to turn away from faith
as a source of structure; meaning would have to come from other
sources.
Religious experiences would be understood as anomalies or
psychological events. This part of human experience cannot
match up with what Hume et al. are saying.





Critique of Pure Reason

In this work, Kant wants to know what the limits of
‘pure reason’ are; in other words, what are the limits of
a priori reasoning? Kant does not think that God’s
existence can be known through pure reason, or
through any metaphysical argument. Kant dismisses
the cosmological argument, the design argument and
the ontological argument.

Kant now needs to rescue the deist project (Westphal
refers to deism as being the ‘new religion of the
Enlightenment’: a ‘religion’ based on principles of
reason, without the ‘husk’ of the traditional religions.

Critique of Practical Reason

This is Kant’s ethical work, in which he discusses the
categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Even
morality—the way we should act—is determined by
reason. We are moral creatures precisely because we
are rational creatures. We don’t need religion to be
moral;

Kant uses morality as his way to bring back Godattained-by-reason, since he had, in Westphal’s words,
‘demolished’ arguments for the existence of God in the
Critique of Pure Reason.

Kant’s Pelagianism

Pelagius was a 4th century theologian who denied the
existence of original sin. Pelagius taught that human
beings could choose good or evil by the strength of
their own wills—no special graces are necessary.
Pelagius’ teachings were condemned by the Church as
heresy (Council of Carthage).

Kant’s views are similar to those of Pelagius, hence
Westphal refers to Kant’s ‘Pelagianism’. Kant also
believed that Christ was nothing more than a good role
model, since his claims to divinity could not be
established by reason.




RATIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE
OBJECTIVE NATURE OF MORALITY
SUGGESTS THAT GOD EXISTS – KANT 1
Kant believed God’s existence could only be
established through faith as opposed to logic.
Kant reasoned in a perfect world, behaving
morally should lead to happiness, since
happiness should be the natural reward for
virtue.
However, in this world, this reward rarely
happens, so Kant considered there must be
another answer.





RATIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE
OBJECTIVE NATURE OF MORALITY SUGGESTS
THAT GOD EXISTS – KANT 2
Something must motivate people apart from
immediate happiness.
Kant believed people must feel an objective sense of
obligation which compels then to behave in a certain
way, regardless of consequences.
Kant argued there were rationally discoverable laws
which we are duty bound to follow.
Kant calls these laws CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVES
RATIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE
OBJECTIVE NATURE OF MORALITY
SUGGESTS THAT GOD EXISTS – KANT 3
 Kant then considered any possible further
implications that could be drawn from his
discovery that morality is a matter of applying
rational thought to discover categorical
imperatives.
 What else had he to accept as true?
 Kant argued there were 3 assumptions which he
called Postulates of morality:
 FREEDOM
– IMMORTALITY - GOD






HIGHEST GOOD – SUMMUM BONUM
Kant has a 3 stage argument to explain the
summum bonum.
1/ Morality demands us to aim for the highest
good
2/ We cannot attain this unless there is a God to
assist us.
3/ God must exist to ensure that we can achieve
that which we are duty bound to do.






Kant’s three Postulates of morality
FREEDOM – If we feel obliged to fulfil a certain
duty we must have the freedom to fulfil it
IMMORTALITY – This follows on from Kant’s 3rd
argument – If we are unable to attain this goal in
our present life there must be an afterlife in which
we can attain it.
GOD – following on from the above – there must be
someone who can ensure that we do attain it in a
future life. Only God has the necessary power.
God is both the ground of the moral law and that
which can enable us to achieve its goals.
Therefore it is morally necessary to assume God.

CRITICISMS OF THE MORAL ARGUMENT – 1

Morality stems from the demands placed upon
the human animal by living in societies.
Rules meet the needs of a particular situation
and facilitate human development in that
particular context.
This view explains morality without reference to
God.
It also suggests that moral laws can change as
and when necessary.




CRITICISMS OF THE MORAL ARGUMENT 2

The moral argument may strengthen the faith of
existing believers.
Newman.s argument appeals to those who
worship the God of the bible.
Those arguments based on objective laws might
appeal who already accept such unconditional ‘a
priori’ laws.








CRITICISMS OF THE MORAL ARGUMENT – 3
Problems arise for those who do not accept God’s
existence; or that of objective laws. The moral
argument is unlikely to inspire belief for them.
1/ Morality can be explained without the need for
God. Clashes of opinions amongst believers on
issues such as war and abortion support this view.
2/ The concept of objective law has been
challenged
3/ Even if accepted, God may still not be necessary
4/ Proof of the existence of God is beyond the
scope of the moral argument – the best we can say
is it points to a law-maker.





CONCLUSION
The moral argument cannot be used to provide
proof for the existence of God.
It can only reinforce the beliefs of an existing
believer.
The unbeliever would not be swayed by these
arguments because the moral argument is based
on a logical error:
While the existence of a moral God would
indeed suggest the existence of moral laws,
the existence of moral laws cannot point us
back to God.

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)

Schleiermacher was a German Romantic Philosopher
and theologian.

The Romantic period (roughly from 1750-1830) was a
literary, artistic and intellectual movement against the
Enlightenment. The Romantic poets

Like Kant, Schleiermacher rejected the notion of dogma
(religious teaching held on authority).

Unlike Kant, Schleiermacher did not dismiss human
emotion or feeling into the realm of the ‘husk’; rather, he
felt that feeling (in German, Gefuhl) was the only way to
truly know and experience God.

Paul Tillich feels that Schleiermacher has made a grave
mistake in basing his philosophy and theology on the idea of
Gefuhl.

“But now Schleiermacher made a great mistake. The term he
used for the experience of this identity [between a person and
God] was ‘feeling’…. A better term would have been
‘intuition’.” [Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought,
1972]

Intuition is the immediate understanding of something
without the need for induction or deduction. Plato had
taught that intuition is the highest form of knowledge, since it
put us directly in touch with the archetypal Forms.

Schleiermacher did consider the word intuition but persisted,
despite his critics, with the notion of Gefuhl.

Implications of Schleiermacher

Schleiermacher wrote a book addressed called On
Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers (1799)
and was addressed to educated disciples of
Enlightenment circles who had rejected organised
religion. He wanted to appeal to their appreciation of
the Romantic movement, arguing that religion was
about feeling and a sense of dependency.

Schleiermacher is considered the first of a new era of
liberal theologians; many think that he is still a model
for us today as to how we should rethink traditional
doctrines in a new light, accessible to modern
thinkers.

He is also important for reminding us that the human
person is essentially one in relationship with another;
in our technological age, we often forget the important
of emotional attachments, family, friends and love.
Look at what Fr. Raniero Cantelmessa says about the
implications of Schleiermacher’s philosophy for
human relationships and marriage:

“I've found the most convincing explanation for this
divine "invention" of the difference between the sexes
not from a biblical scholar, but from a poet, Paul
Claudel:

"Man is a proud being; there was no other way to make him
understand his neighbor except introducing him in the flesh.
There was no other way to make him understand dependence
and need other than through the law of another distinct being
(woman) over him, due to the simple fact that she exists."[1]

Opening oneself to the opposite sex is the first step toward
opening oneself to others, our neighbors, and to the Other with a
capital O, which is God. Marriage is born under the sign of
humility; it is the recognition of dependence and therefore of
one's condition of being a creature. Falling in love with a woman
or a man is the completion of the most radical act of humility. It
is becoming a beggar and telling the other person, "I'm not
enough for myself, I need your being." If, as Schleiermacher said,
the essence of religion is the "sense of dependence"
("Abhaengigheitsgefuehl") on God, then human sexuality is the
first school of religion.” [Cantelmessa, ‘Values According to the
Bible’, Zenit News, 2009]

Georg Hegel (1770-1831)

Philosophical theology is about God. This was more closely
associate with metaphysics (about unseen things); the
emphasis was on the existence of God and on the nature of
being.

Philosophy of religion is about religion. This was more closely
associated with morality (about human acts); the emphasis
was on personal experience and human knowledge.

In the Enlightenment project, ‘philosophical theology’ lost
ground; philosophy of religion became more prominent:
questions about the value of religion, rather than questions
about the existence of God.

Hegel wanted to rescue philosophical theology. Hegel felt
that religion and philosophy both had the same object: to
know God. But religion, he felt, had become monumental
and overbearing. Philosophy had to return to the true mode
of religious expression found through freedom of the mind.

Hegel was not satisfied with Kant’s reduction of religion to
morality.

Neither was he satisfied with Schleiermacher’s romanticism,
or his reduction of religion to feelings (Gefuhl).

God can be known; his existence can be known, thought
Hegel. In order to show this, he had to rescue metaphysics
and the idea that God can be known through reason.

Hegel was aware that existence is full of tension: good and bad,
positive and negative, war and peace, knowledge and confusion,
Romanticism and Enlightenment thinking, and so on. Hegel wanted
to synthesise all these conflicting ideas to produce true knowledge,
the “Absolute Idea.” This process is known as ‘Hegelian dialectic’.

Implications of Hegel

In his book, Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820), Hegel
writes, “Supposedly the chief design and accomplishment of the
Christian religion is to better man morally and make him more
pleasing to God." But added to this basic definition he adds the
problem of which has "burgeoned into the most shocking profusion
of repressive institutions and ways of deluding mankind: oral
confession, excommunication, penance, and a whole array of
disgraceful monuments to human self-abasement.” What reason
finds valuable in religion is “the great principle that duty and virtue
are self-sufficient"; but this becomes clouded when anything more
"than the merest association with the idea of God" is invoked.

"Religion's proper task is to strengthen, by means of
the idea of God as moral lawgiver, what impels us to
act ethically and to enhance the satisfaction we derive
from performing what our practical reason demands,
specifically with regard to the ultimate end that reason
posits: the highest good."

Hegel also adds that belief in "the historical person of
Christ" is a matter of empirical testimony rather than
"any requirement of practical reason." He says
sarcastically that taking such matters on faith "is far
easier than cultivating the habit of thinking for
ourselves." He describes belief in Jesus as "faith in a
personified ideal." This is typical of Enlightenment
thought, against which Hegel had yet to rebel.

Hegel argues that tension also exists between the family and state.
The family and its individuals should be integrated with civil society
(the economic level). Civil society is part of the state (political level)
and the state “has supreme right against the individual, whose
supreme duty is to be a member of the state.” [Hegel, Philosophy of
Right, 1820]

Lenin, Marx and Engels all relied on what is known as ‘Hegelian
dialectic’ in developing the communist ideal.

Hegelian dialectic moves through thesis and antithesis to produce a
synthesis. Hegel uses the example of good and evil; good is a thesis;
evil is an antithesis; together (synthesis) we come to understand the
meaning of ‘good.’ Marx used this idea; he proposed one system of
government in opposition to another, leading to the overthrow of
the first, and providing the synthesis—a new state. Lenin saw this
dialectic as being used to induce a world-wide class struggle; the
thesis of one class (poor), pitted against another (antithesis) to
produce a synthesis (equality for all).

While there was room in Hegel’s dialectic for God, communist
philosophy rejected God. Hegelian dialectic became known as
the materialist dialectic.

Hegel’s dialectic is still very much in evidence in politics and
economics today. Some commentators have argued that the
War on Terror, US hegemony, global economic policies, have
roots in Hegelian dialectics.

Like Kant and Schleiermacher, Hegel rejects organised
religion. He insists instead on human freedom and argues
that human history is the story of making the transition from
bondage to freedom. True freedom needs to be achieved
when Hegelian dialectic is employed to reconcile the freedom
of the individual with the freedom of the state—thus
providing the ideal synthesis.