A2 - May question RS OCR philosophical/ ethics investigations

Original post by laureneb10

The nature of God is the one i am really struggling on, but finding religious language quite difficult too. Thank you so much!

I ment an area within the topics :P
But basically the nature of God involves:

God as omnipotent:
Descartes - God's omnipotence allows him to do absolutely anything(even logically impossible actions)

Logically impossible actions - Can God create a stone he cannot lift?

Can God sin? No? Are we better at sinning than him?

C.S.Lewis - Putting together random words don't suddenly give them a meaning. (referring to logically impossible actions here.)

Aquinas - logically impossible actions do no not exist (2x2=5 can never exist)

Kenny - redefined the definition of omnipotence by saying that God can do anything logically possible to do, and which fits in with his attributes. (therefore he doesn't sin because God is all good.)

Geach - also redefined God's omnipotence by saying that God has power over everything, not power of everything.

God as eternal:
Timeless - God stands outside of time. Supported by philosophers such as Anselm and Boethius. However, this poses problems such as: How can God have a relationship with his creation if he is outside of time. Special relativity argues that time is a universal thing that exists everywhere in the universe, and so timelessness can't exist. The Bible talks about God remembering and promising (both to do with time) and the Bible also has God interacting with his creation (parting the Red Sea for Moses) and so how did he do this from outside of time, he must have stepped inside of time.
Everlasting - God is involved in time, moves along with us. Philosophers (can't think of any here, sorry.) argue that it is incoherent for God to be outside of time. People against this idea argue that if God is in time, then he must be subject to change (therefore he isn't immutable.)

That's just part of that topic. Really hope this one comes up.

Reply 22

Just wondering if I could have some help....I really don't understand what John Polkinghorne is saying at the end of the miracles chapter (if you have the same textbook as me, Matthew Taylor.) where he talks of God being an 'inactive spectator', I don't really get his point :s-smilie:

Reply 23

Original post by lampshade1

Just wondering if I could have some help....I really don't understand what John Polkinghorne is saying at the end of the miracles chapter (if you have the same textbook as me, Matthew Taylor.) where he talks of God being an 'inactive spectator', I don't really get his point :s-smilie:

If you don't understand it I would leave it out. The syllabus only specifically mentions Hume (1711 - 76) and Wiles (1923 - 2005). However, it is good to have extra philosophers/thinkers, I recommend Holland/Vardy (miracles can happen through natural processes - story of train which suddenly stops in front of a boy on the track) Brian Davies (miracles need religious significance, an elephant suddenly appearing in your office would not be a miracle.) Swinburne (God would want to have a relationship with his creation and so might temporarily suspend natural laws)

If I had to guess at what Polkinghorne was saying I would say his views are similar to Wiles in saying that miracles don't/shouldn't happen. (Wiles argued that if they did happen then God is not worthy of our worship because miracles show how he must act arbitrary and be partisan.)

Reply 24

Original post by SBradford

If you don't understand it I would leave it out. The syllabus only specifically mentions Hume (1711 - 76) and Wiles (1923 - 2005). However, it is good to have extra philosophers/thinkers, I recommend Holland/Vardy (miracles can happen through natural processes - story of train which suddenly stops in front of a boy on the track) Brian Davies (miracles need religious significance, an elephant suddenly appearing in your office would not be a miracle.) Swinburne (God would want to have a relationship with his creation and so might temporarily suspend natural laws)

If I had to guess at what Polkinghorne was saying I would say his views are similar to Wiles in saying that miracles don't/shouldn't happen. (Wiles argued that if they did happen then God is not worthy of our worship because miracles show how he must act arbitrary and be partisan.)

Yeah that's true, it isn't much in the textbook that I'd be missing out on...I just like to understand everything! :biggrin:

I'll ask my teacher on Monday :smile:

No I know he's not similar to Wiles as he criticises him earlier on saying that Wiles' ideas go against the Christian idea of God acting in the world, like people do pray etc and it's shown in the Bible.

But thanks anyway! I'm sure I'll get my head round it :s-smilie:

Reply 25

swiftylol

18

Can someone give me a quick explanation of conscience? Really don't understand it.

Reply 26

scifire

OP

don't do NoG , do miracles , rl and body and soul the easiest ones ! lol and conscience is ez that should come up i learned it in a day !

Reply 27

scifire

OP

Original post by swiftylol

Can someone give me a quick explanation of conscience? Really don't understand it.

any particular part of conscience i.e a particular philo or part of conscience i.e voice of god ?

Reply 28

bubbletrouble

1

can someone help me please :smile:

can someone explain what the secular approaches like freud, piaget and kohlberg are saying about the conscience as in do they think we have to always follow it? thank you

Reply 29

swiftylol

18

Original post by scifire

any particular part of conscience i.e a particular philo or part of conscience i.e voice of god ?

Could you explain Freud and Butler?

Reply 30

bubbletrouble

1

yeah can someone explain how Butlers heirarchial view fit in with the conscience lol ^

Reply 31

ManPowa

7

Can anyone help me with Sartres view on freewill.?? I know he is a libertarian, but what does he actually say?

Reply 32

I don't know much on conscience so can't help you there. (Didn't it come up in January?)

Meta-ethics:

Cognitivsm - statements are subject to being true or false.
Non-cognitvism - statements are not subject to being true or false. (hurrah, ouch, etc)

Cognitivist theories:

Naturalism (Bradley, also Aquinas (sort of)), he said that we can see that ethical statements can be true or false by using empirical data. For example, we can see that genetic engineering is good because it saves peoples lives. Aquinas (1224 - 74) fits into this kind of because of his primary precepts (which, he said, were good) For example, we can see that abortion is wrong because it goes against the precept, preservation of life.

Naturalism critics David Hume (1711 - 76) said that naturalism was a "naturalistic fallacy" where you "cannot derive and ought from an is" meaning just because something happens in nature, it doesn't suggest that it should happen. However, Aquinas counter this by arguing that what happens in nature is God's will and so it should happen. (I wouldn't talk too much about Aquinas in a meta-ethics question because it's specifically discussing ethical language, not religious language - although it is a useful synoptic link.)

Non-naturalism/Intuionism (this is still a cognitive theory, don't get confused about that. (G.E.Moore) he agreed with Hume and argued that "good, bad" cannot be defined. He said that "good" was in it's simplest form (he compared it to the colour yellow. Yellow is just yellow, you cannot define it because it's just that, yellow.) "Good is good". However, the reason this is still a cognitive theory is because he still argues that good and bad can still be know (just not defined). He argued that we know what is good and bad through our intuition. W.D.Ross adapted this by adding "prima facie duties" these our duties (could compare to Aristotle here with his virtues.) which we "just know" to do in certain situations.

Sorry it's a little vague, this is all from the top of my head. I'll update this bit later.

Non-cognitive theories:

Emotivism (A.J.Ayer (1910 - 89)) he argued that ethical language is non-cognitive, that it isn't subject to being true or false. (Important to note here that A.J.Ayer is a logical positivist who created the weak verification principle.) He believed that statements were only meaningful if they be verified analytically (truth is in the definition. For example "All unmarried men are bachelors") or synthetically (through empirical senses.) He said that ethical language is neither. When we say "Murder is wrong, charity is good" we are essentials saying "Boo to murder, hurrah to charity" it's just our emotions, not absolute truth.

Prescriptivism (R.M.Hare) Basically adapted Ayer's emotivism by saying that they are emotions, but also when you make an ethical statement, you are saying what your opinion is but also stating what action other people should take (influenced by Kant's 1st imperative.) When I said "murder is wrong" I am saying that I think murder is wrong, so I won't murder, and you shouldn't either.

Reply 33

Could we get a question purely on God's omnibenevolence? I can't remember if it's in the spec or not.

Reply 34

Original post by lampshade1

Could we get a question purely on God's omnibenevolence? I can't remember if it's in the spec or not.

I remember doing an essay in class "Discuss the issues that arise from a belief in an omnibenevolent God"

Reply 35

Original post by SBradford

I remember doing an essay in class "Discuss the issues that arise from a belief in an omnibenevolent God"

Right, I best get revising that then! Thank you :smile:

Reply 36

Original post by lampshade1

Right, I best get revising that then! Thank you :smile:

It's not too bad.

Euthyphro dillema (Plato) asked whether something was good because God said it was good, or does God only command good. (Basically saying whether or not we know murder is wrong because God said so - or do we know it is wrong regardless of God, lessening his significance)

Inconsistant triad (Mackie) it's a paradox for God to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent with the existence of evil in the world. However, other people such as Augustine would argue that evil exists as a result of human freewill (The Fall) and so the

There's a bit more (Irenaeous theodicy, can Hell exist? Is God forced to do good, does he want to do it?) i'm too tired at the moment to type these out.

Reply 37

Original post by SBradford

It's not too bad.

Euthyphro dillema (Plato) asked whether something was good because God said it was good, or does God only command good. (Basically saying whether or not we know murder is wrong because God said so - or do we know it is wrong regardless of God, lessening his significance)

Inconsistant triad (Mackie) it's a paradox for God to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent with the existence of evil in the world. However, other people such as Augustine would argue that evil exists as a result of human freewill (The Fall) and so the

There's a bit more (Irenaeous theodicy, can Hell exist? Is God forced to do good, does he want to do it?) i'm too tired at the moment to type these out.

Yeah, after I looked over it, it was stuff I'd kind of already covered, just a lot comes under omnibenevolence! Goodness/justice etc

Reply 38

Jemimah7

[INDENT]
Guys i was wondering if anyone could give me their opinion on missing out Meta Ethics in my revision, we have barley done anything on it in class, i dont remember ANYTHING and im struggling to revise it!
I know the other topics better so do you think its ok to miss it out and just not answer it and make sure im prepared for the others?
Im so tempted to forget it, but im scared incase they mix it with something?
Reply ASAP please!

Reply 39