Phil of Religion Final

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object

copy deck

philosopher who believes religion is used as a tool: spinoza
Spinoza believes religion is used as a tool for what purposes?: Social usefulness and civil obedience
philosopher who believes religion is a by-product: Freud
Freud believes that religion is a by product of what?: social usefulness
projection of father-figure
wish fulfillment about morality
religion as a tool (meaning): religious beliefs and practices serve a function
religion as a by-product (meaning): it does not have any particular functions but comes out of other functions (as a result of other functions)
Biological approach to religion - tools: terror management
costly signaling theory
Terror Management Theory: religion is a defense against the fear of death
Costly Signaling Theory: Religion is a way to get a group to corporate and participate
Objection to terror management and costly signaling theories: no evidence to prove either of these concepts
Biological approach to religion - by-product: Memes
philosopher who supports memes: Dennett
Meme explanation: -something that has been passed down through generations without much change
Religion is not questionable and must be transmitted exactly
Religion has evolved over generations
Objections to memes: memes do not have a physical structure and cannot be studied by direct observation and testing
Agency and Object detectors: The mind is divided into different areas that process different things
-there is a different part of the brain that detects agency (living things) and objects
Philosopher behind psychological approach to philosophy (natural born dualists and agency and object detectors): Bloom
Natural born dualists: because our minds make distinctions between objects and living things we are born dualists -we believe that the mind and body are separate
This leads us to religious beliefs
Easy to remember theory: it is easier to remember things that are surprising or counter-intuitive so that is why mythological entities are so believable
Philosopher behind NOMA: Gould
Accomodationists: Believe there is no conflict between science and religion
Different parts of accomodationists: both sciences
both religions
NOMA
NOMA: Science and religion address totally different domains of human life
Science- observable facts about the world and why they are the way they are
Religion- \"moral value and spiritual meaning\"
philosopher behind accomodationist view of all science: aquinas and dawkins
philosopher behind accomoationist view of all religion: feyerabend
Objection to NOMA - Dawkins: Religion addresses facts
the existence of God an after life and a soul are all matters of fact
Definition of Faith: the endorsement of a belief without any evidence or reasons
Evidentialism: it is morally wrong to believe in something without sufficient evidence
The opposite of evidentialism: fideism
philosopher behind evidentialism: Clifford
Philosopher behind passional nature: James
The ship-owner case: it is not morally right to send a ship out if you do not have sufficient evidence that it is running properly
Clifford\'s argument: evidentialism is true
religious beliefs influence others
there is not enough evidence for religious beliefs
therefore it is morally wrong to endorse beliefs in God
Jame\'s argument: believes that there are certain circumstances in which you can make a decision without evidence
In a situation where an action is a genuine option we can rely on passional nature (live momentous forced)
Genuine option: Live- the belief and its negation must be real
Forced - the belief is either true or false
Momentous - a unique opportunity with high stakes
Objection to passional nature: Harm to others
-your actions always affect others
Reformed theology (definition): an attempt to show it is rational to believe in God without any traditional arguments or evidence
Philosopher who supports reformed theology: plantinga
Plantinga\'s agruments: Analogy to basic beliefs
religious foundationalism
Analogy to other basic beliefs: 1-there is no traditional evidence for belief in other minds, the self, the past, or the external world
2-however it is rational to still hold these beliefs
3-there is no relevant difference between the beliefs in (1) and belief in God
-therefore it is still rational to believe in God without traditional evidence
Objections to analogy to basic beliefs: -there is evidence for the past, other minds, external world etc.
-it is actually irrational to hold these beliefs
-there is a difference between these beliefs and religious beliefs
Religious Foundationalism: -the best rational way of forming beliefs is by appeal to foundational sources
-perception and reasoning are foundational
-religious beliefs are foundational in the same way as perception and reasoning
-therefore it is rational to have religious beliefs
Belief in God is foundational because:: -people have an innate \"God Sense\"
-A Large tradition of belief in God
Sensus Divinitatus: \"God Sense\"
Objections to sensus divinitatus: What about athiests or non-theistic religions
The Redundancy Argument: 1-good evidence must be sensitive to its content
2- if evidence is the same regardless of whether its content is true, it is not sensitive
3-the god sense would still tell people that god exists even if he didn\'t
-the god sense is not good evidence
The argument from irrelevant factors: 1-good evidence must be sensitive to its content
2- if evidence can be influenced by irrelevant factors, it is not sensitive
3- the god sense is influenced by irrelevant factors
-the god sense is not good evidence
Non-Cognitivism: religious claims are neither true nor false
Philosopher behind non-cognitivism: Flew and Tillich
non-cognitivism - Metaphor: transferring of one meaning to another context
-no intention of making a true or false statement
Verificationism: a claim that makes sense if you can think of observations to back it up
The Gardener story: Flew
-both claims are meaningless/non-sense
Non-Cognitivism argument: -verificationism is true
-religious claims cannot be verified
-religious claims are meaningless
Plenary Verbal Inspiration: the view that God directed the topics but not the words
Inspired Concept: Holds that God inspired the ideas but not the stories and topics themselves
Objection to the Gardner Story: Wittgenstein
-the most important things are \"unsayable\" Religious claim are beyond what we can say
Types of Non-Cognitivism: -religious claims are expressions of preference
-religious claims are nonsense
-religious claims are metaphors/symbols
Feyerabend\'s argument for science as a type of religion: science and religion have the same aims of explanation
or they have different but equally arbitrary aims
Dawkins reply to Feyerabend: just because religion can have the same effects on people does not mean that they are the same enterprise
religion is not concerned with basing its beliefs on observations and reasoning
Objections to the Religious Foundationalism Argument: Circular
Objections to empiricism
objections to rationalism
the great pumpkin objection
objections to empiricism: what about beliefs about mathematics, moral claims, or universal statements?
-perceptions themselves are not reasons
-what is the unique relation to the real world?
objections to rationalism: how does the coherence of a system help connect our beliefs to the truth?
The great pumpkin objection: there\'s a problem with restricting the class of basic beliefs
-why can\'t someone say \"I take it as foundational that the great pumpkin exists\"

Start Studying!

Deck Info

Number of cards 62

Created By ElenaMatthews