Component 2 Philosophy: Knowledge and Understanding

Complete this chart as you revise this component. Use pencil. When you become more familiar with the terms, you can rub out your earlier evaluations of your K & U.

THEME 1 : ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - inductive
Key Term / Definition / My Knowledge (what it is)
My Understanding (what it means)
a posteriori / On the basis of experience; used of an argument, such as the cosmological argument, which is based on experience or empirical evidence. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
aesthetic / Relating to beauty. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
anthropic argument / A teleological argument that claims that nature has been planned in advance for the needs of human beings / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Aquinas, Thomas St / St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - 13th Century Dominican priest, commonly regarded as the most influential philosopher and theologian of the Roman Catholic Church. The works for which he is best known are Summa Theologica in which he summarized five arguments (The Five Ways) for the existence of God, and Summa Contra Gentiles / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
argument / A set of statements which is such that one of them (the conclusion) is supported or implied by the others (the premises). / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
beings / Not just human beings but anything that has a property. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Classical theism / The belief in a personal deity, creator of everything that exists, who is distinct from that creation and is sustainer and preserver of the universe. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
contingent beings / Beings that depend upon something else for their existence. They have the property that they need not be, or could have been different. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
cosmological argument / Argument for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe; commonly associated with Aquinas’ concepts of motion, causality and contingency. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Craig, William Lane / William Lane Craig (1949- ), one of the proponents of the modern day Kalam aspect of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
cumulative arguments / A collection of arguments which, when formed together, present a stronger case than when the arguments stand alone. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
efficient cause / That which causes change and motion to start and stop. In many cases, this is simply the thing that brings something about. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
empiricism / The view that the dominant foundation of knowledge is experience. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Ex nihilo / A Latin phrase meaning “out of nothing”. Refers to the belief that God did not use any previously existing material when he created. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
immanent / Existing or remaining; in theology it refers to God’s involvement in creation. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
inductive argument / Argument constructed on possibly true premises reaching a logically possible and persuasive conclusion. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
infinite regression / A chain of causes or sequence of reasoning that can never come to an end. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
intelligent design / The view that an intelligent cause (which is not identified) accounts for certain features of the universe. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Kalam argument / A form of the cosmological argument that rests on the idea that the universe had a beginning in time / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm / Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), 17th/18th century German philosopher and mathematician, whose principle of sufficient reason supports the cosmological arguments for the existence of God. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
motion / In Aquinas’ First Way of the Cosmological argument, it refers to the process by which an object acquires a new form. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
natural selection / A key mechanism of evolution. It is the principle by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved and the trait passed on to the next generation. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
necessary beings / Beings which if they exist, cannot not exist; beings which are not dependent on any other for their existence. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
order and regularity / A key feature upon which the teleological argument for the existence of God rests – that both order and regularity are observable phenomena within the experiential universe, leading to inference that this is a deliberate feature of some intelligent being, responsible for the workings of the universe. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Paley, William / William Paley (1743-1805), 18th century, English clergyman (Archdeacon of Carlisle) and philosopher, famed for his Watchmaker analogy, which forms part of the teleological argument for the existence of God. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Principle of sufficient reason / There is some sort of explanation, known or unknown, for everything. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
probability / The likelihood of something happening or being true. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
purpose / The reason why something is in existence or being done. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
qua / A Latin word meaning ‘according to’ or ‘relating to’. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
teleological argument / Argument for the existence of God based on observation of design and purpose in the world. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Tennant, Fredrick, Robert / Fredrick Robert Tennant (1866-1957) 19th/20th Century English philosopher who developed forms of aesthetic arguments to infer the existence of an intelligent designer behind the Universe. Within his book, Philosophical Theology, he also advocated a form of the anthropic principle (although he did not use the term itself) to support his arguments for God’s existence / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
theistic / That which pertains to God. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
THEME 2 : ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD – deductive
Key Term / Definition / My Knowledge (what it is)
My Understanding (what it means)
a priori / Without or prior to experience; used of an argument, such as the ontological argument, which is based on acquired knowledge independent of or prior to experience. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Anselm, St / St Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109) - formulated the ontological argument which showed how the existence of God on could be understood on the basis of reason alone. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
deductive argument / An argument in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Descartes, René / René Descartes (1596-1650); promoted reason as most reliable basis for knowledge and analysis and used the method of doubt as a means to arrive at metaphysical truth. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
essence / The essential nature of something / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
existential / Relating to existence / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
faith / A strong belief or trust in something of someone / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Gaunilo / Contemporary to St Anselm, criticised the ontological argument by the counter argument of the ‘most perfect island’. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Kant, Immanuel / Immanuel Kant (1724-1804); German philosopher and critic of the ontological argument who used the moral argument to contend for God’s existence and life after death. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Malcolm, Norman / Norman Malcolm (1911-1990) argued for a form of the ontological argument based on defining God as an unlimited being and concluded that God exists necessarily. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
necessary beings / Beings which if they exist, cannot not exist; beings which are not dependent on any other for their existence. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
omnipotence / The characteristic of being all-powerful. Some philosophers exclude the power to do the logically impossible / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
omniscience / The characteristic of being all-knowing of all things actual and possible. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
ontological argument / Argument for the existence of God based on the concept of the nature of being. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
predicate / Something that adds to our concept of the subject / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
proof / The evidence which supports the fact, idea or belief. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
property / Nature or character / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
supremely perfect being / This relates to Anselm’s concept of the necessary existence of the most perfect conceivable being, i.e. God, in his ontological argument. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
THEME 3 : CHALLENGES TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF- the problem of evil and suffering
Key Term / Definition / My Knowledge (what it is)
My Understanding (what it means)
Augustine, St / St Augustine (c354-430) - Early Christian Bishop of Hippo (North Africa). Early Church Father, converted to Christianity relatively late on in his life. Great intellectual force responsible for the formalisation of what is now accepted as Christian orthodoxy in terms of belief and ethics. Famous works include his Confessions and The City of God. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Augustinian-type theodicy / Argument based on genesis and the Fall. Evil is caused by created beings, not God. People’s response to evil and God’s rescue plan decides their destiny. Often referred to as soul-deciding. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Classical theism / The belief in a personal deity, creator of everything that exists, who is distinct from that creation and is sustainer and preserver of the universe. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
epistemic distance / A distance of knowledge. A phrase used by John Hick in his development of Irenaeus’s theodicy to refer to the distance of knowledge between God and humankind, so allows human beings to choose freely. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
eschatological justification / Meaning that all things will be made clear or ‘justified’ in the end times or ‘eschaton’. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
evil / That which produces suffering; the moral opposite of good. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
freewill / The ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Irenaean-type theodicy / The presence of evil is deliberate and helps people to grow and develop. Often referred to as soul-making. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Mackie, J. L. / J. L. Mackie (1917-1981), 20th Century Australian philosopher who famously formulated the inconsistent triad as an expression for the classical problem of evil. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
moral evil / Events in which responsible actions by human beings cause suffering or harm e.g. war. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
natural evil / Events caused by nature that cause suffering but over which human beings have little or no control e.g. earthquakes. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Paul, Gregory S. / Gregory S. Paul (1954- ), 21st century palaeontologist and theological observer, who stated that the statistical weight of the amount of suffering experienced by children challenges the Christian understanding of a benevolent creator God. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
privation / Deprivation or absence of something that ought to be there; term used in Augustinian theodicy – evil is seen as an absence of good. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Rowe, William / William Rowe (1931-2015), 20th/21st Century American philosopher who stated that the weight of evidence of suffering in the world proved that God could not exist. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Second-order goods / Moral goods that result from a response to evil e.g. compassion / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
soul-deciding / A concept within the traditions of the Augustinian theodicy that describes how suffering helps humans to choose whether to do good (and choose the path God intended) or to do evil (and to reject the plan God had for humanity). / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
soul-making / A concept within the traditions of the Irenaean theodicy that describes how suffering helps humans develop morally (from God’s ‘image’ into his ‘likeness’ – c.f. Genesis 1:26) / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
theodicy / A justification of the righteousness of God, given the existence of evil. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
THEME 4 : RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
Key Term / Definition / My Knowledge (what it is)
My Understanding (what it means)
asceticism / Deliberate self-denial of bodily pleasures for the attainment of spiritual fulfilment. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
charismatic / Christians of various groups who seek an ecstatic religious experience, often including speaking in tongues. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
conversion / To change direction or to turn around / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
description-related / Relating to descriptions of mystical experiences as a basis for challenging their authenticity. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
foundational belief / A belief that needs no further proof to support it. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Davis, Caroline / Caroline Franks Davis - scholar who demonstrated how the authenticity of religious experiences could be challenged. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
immanent / Existing or remaining; in theology it refers to God’s involvement in creation. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
ineffable / Defies expression, unutterable, indescribable, indefinable. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
James, William / William James (1842-1910) 19th/20th Century American psychologist renowned for investigations into religious experience and mysticism. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
monism / The view that there is only one basic and fundamental reality. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
mystical / Experiences or systematic meditation, which cause a heightened awareness of the divine or an ultimate reality. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
noetic / Gaining special knowledge or insights that are unobtainable by the intellect alone; usually as a result of a mystical experience. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
numinous / An experience of the holy; something wholly other than the natural world and beyond comprehension. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
object-related / Relating to the object (that that was experienced) of mystical experiences as a basis for challenging their authenticity. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Otto, Rudolf / Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) in his book The Idea of the Holy defined the concept of the holy as that which is numinous. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
passive / Where the recipient(s) of the mystical experience do not bring it about themselves – the actual moment is governed by a being or force external to the will of the recipient. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
subject-related / Relating to the subject (recipient) of mystical experiences as a basis for challenging their authenticity. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
subjective / Having its source within the mind / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
Sufism / The mystical tradition within Islam. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
transcendent / Having existence outside the material universe. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
transient / The experience may be short-lived, but the effects tend to last much longer than the experience itself. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
veridical / When the object of the experience actually exists as a reality and not just in the imagination. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5
vision / Something seen other than by ordinary sight. / K 1 2 3 4 5
U 1 2 3 4 5

Component 2 Philosophy: Key questions

Complete this chart as you revise this component. Use pencil. When you become more familiar with answering the questions, you can rub out your earlier evaluations.

The questions in bold are the questions specified by the exam board. The questions not in bold are questions you need to be able to answer in order to answer the questions specified by the exam board.

Area / Key Question / My ability to answer this question
Theme 1: Arguments for the Existence of God – Inductive
A
**these questions will be informed by the questions of section C** / Are inductive arguments for God’s existence persuasive? / 1 2 3 4 5
How does an a posteriori argument work? / 1 2 3 4 5
How effective is the cosmological argument in proving God’s existence? / 1 2 3 4 5
How does Aquinas’ first Three Ways support the need for a First Cause to the universe? / 1 2 3 4 5
Why does Aquinas say that this First Cause must be God? / 1 2 3 4 5
To what extent is the Kalam argument convincing? / 1 2 3 4 5
Why did Craig feel that actual infinities were impossible? / 1 2 3 4 5
Why must the decision to create a universe be a deliberate personal action? / 1 2 3 4 5
Is the cosmological argument for God’s existence persuasive in the 21st Century? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God- Inductive
B
**these questions will be informed by the questions of section C** / How effective is the teleological argument in proving God’s existence? / 1 2 3 4 5
Is the teleological argument for God’s existence persuasive in the 21st Century? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God – Inductive
C
**these questions will inform the questions of A and B** / How effective are the challenges to the cosmological and teleological arguments for God’s existence? / 1 2 3 4 5
What does Hume require of a philosophical argument? / 1 2 3 4 5
What problems does Hume have with analogies? / 1 2 3 4 5
What are the logical consequences of accepting the analogies used to argue for God’s existence? / 1 2 3 4 5
Are the scientific explanations for the existence of the universe more persuasive than the philosophical explanations? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 2: Arguments for the existence of God –deductive
A
**these questions will be informed by the questions of section C** / To what extent are a priori arguments for the existence of God persuasive? / 1 2 3 4 5
How does an a priori argument work? / 1 2 3 4 5
To what extent do different religious views on the nature of God impact on the arguments for the existence of God? / 1 2 3 4 5
How effective is the ontological argument for God’s existence? / 1 2 3 4 5
Is the ontological more persuasive than either the teleological or cosmological arguments? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 2: Arguments for the existence of God –deductive
B
**these questions will be informed by the questions of section C** / To what extent do different religious views on the nature of God impact on the arguments for the existence of God? / 1 2 3 4 5
How effective is the ontological argument for God’s existence? / 1 2 3 4 5
Is the ontological more persuasive than either the teleological or cosmological arguments? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 2: Arguments for the existence of God –deductive
C
**these questions will inform the questions of A and B** / How effective are the challenges to the ontological argument for the existence of God? / 1 2 3 4 5
To what extent are the objections to the ontological argument persuasive? / 1 2 3 4 5
Why can existence not be a predicate? / 1 2 3 4 5
How does Gaunilo’s Island example ridicule Anselm’s logic? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 3: Challenges to religious belief - the problem of evil and suffering
A / How can evil be defined? / 1 2 3 4 5
To what extent is the classical form of the problem of evil a problem for believers? / 1 2 3 4 5
To what degree are modern problem of evil arguments effective in proving God’s non-existence? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 3: Challenges to religious belief - the problem of evil and suffering
B / Are Augustinian type theodicies relevant in the 21st Century? / 1 2 3 4 5
To what extent does Augustine’s theodicy succeed as a defence of the God of Classical Theism? / 1 2 3 4 5
How does Schleiermacher critique Augustinian type theodicies? / 1 2 3 4 5
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Augustinian type theodicies? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 3: Challenges to religious belief - the problem of evil and suffering
C / Are Irenaean type theodicies credible in the 21st Century? / 1 2 3 4 5
Do modern versions of the Irenaean type theodicies overcome the difficulties of the earlier versions? / 1 2 3 4 5
To what extent does Irenaeus’ theodicy succeed as a defence of the God of Classical Theism? / 1 2 3 4 5
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Irenaean theodicy? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 4: Religious Experience
A
**these questions will be informed by the questions of section C** / What is the impact of religious experiences upon religious belief and practice? / 1 2 3 4 5
Can different types of religious experience be accepted as equally valid in communicating religious teachings and beliefs? / 1 2 3 4 5
How does Teresa of Avila explain the stages and types of prayer? / 1 2 3 4 5
Where will you find exemplification of the four stated types of religious experience? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 4: Religious Experience
B
**these questions will be informed by the questions of section C** / How adequate are James’ four characteristics in defining mystical experiences? / 1 2 3 4 5
What are examples to explain these characteristics? / 1 2 3 4 5
What was the context James was writing in? / 1 2 3 4 5
How adequate is Otto’s definition of ‘numinous’? / 1 2 3 4 5
What are examples to explain Otto’s concept of the numinous? / 1 2 3 4 5
Theme 4: Religious Experience
C
**these questions will inform the questions of A and B ** / To what extent are challenges to religious experience valid? / 1 2 3 4 5
How persuasive are Franks-Davis’ different challenges? / 1 2 3 4 5

Websites for further information