Complete revision PowerPoint for religious studies unit 3. AQA exam board.

1. UNIT 3 REVISION
(MR PLATTS’ UNIT)

2. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

3. Types of evil
NATURAL – evil caused naturally in the world e.g. earthquakes, volcanoes
MORAL – caused by people e.g. murder, war

4. The logical problem of evil
A God who’s omnibenevolent will have a motive to get rid of evil
A God who’s omnipotent will have the ability
Evil exists in the world
Therefore God doesn’t exist, or he is not
omnibenevolent/omnipotent

5. The evidential problem of evil – Rowe
If evil resulted in a greater good then suffering might be justified
but the act is still considered evil
God could prevent suffering without removing a greater good
Unnecessary evil points to the non-existence of the God of classical
theism

6. The inconsistent triad – Mackie
God is omnipotent
God is omnibenevolent Evil exists
Evil makes the existence
of God impossible. Evil
and God are
incompatible. God
cannot be omnipotent
and omnibenevolent
and evil exist at the
same time.

7. The inconsistent triad – Hume
Only two of the three can exist alongside each other
Either God isn’t either omnipotent or omnibenevolent, or evil
doesn’t exist
The consequences of evil are too prominent to deny so it does exist
Therefore God must not be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, or he
doesn’t exist

8. Augustine
The bible shows God is wholly good
He created a perfect world and created all things good
Evil isn’t good therefore God cannot have created evil
Evil doesn’t exist, it is simply the privation of good
Evil comes from humans and fallen angels who have free will but have chosen to turn away
from God
Perfection was ruined by human sin
It wouldn’t be right for God to intervene with suffering so God is justified in allowing us to
suffer
He sent Jesus to earth to take the punishment for sin so that all believers can be saved

9. Criticism – Schleiermacher
It’s a logical contradiction to say a perfectly created world went
wrong
Either the world wasn’t perfect to start with or God made it so that
there was the possibility the world could go wrong
It’s God who’s to blame

10. The free will defence
Free will is essential to humanity
We need evil to have free will
We need evil and free will to be able to make our own choices about believing in God
STRENTHS WEAKNESSES
Swinburne – if God intervened it would
jeopardise freedom, God can’t act like an
overprotective parent
Vardy – natural evil doesn’t always bring
about good
Plantinga – can’t always choose God or
wouldn’t be free, enables humans to get
into heaven
Mackie – God has the capability of
creating free will where all people choose
good and don’t want to sin
Blames humans not God
Logical

11. Irenaeus
Evil traced back to free will
God didn’t make a perfect world
Evil plays a valuable plan in God’s plan
Goodness and perfection had to be developed by humans
Evil allows us to develop virtues
Evil and suffering will be overcome and humanity will live in heaven

12. Criticisms of Irenaeus
Suggests everyone goes to heaven
Challenges don’t always result in positive human development
Love can’t be expressed by allowing suffering

13. Hick
If God made humans perfectly we’d all be robots
Humans need free will
God had to create humans at an epistemic distance
In this way, God isn’t so close to humans that we have no choice
but to believe in him

14. Process thought – Griffin
God didn’t create the universe as it’s an uncreated process
God is part of the universe, therefore part of suffering with us
God’s role in creation was to start off the evolutionary process
God doesn’t have total control
He can’t stop evil
God’s actions are justified as the universe produced sufficient good to outweigh evil
WEAKNESSES
Denies God’s omnipotence
Questions whether a limited God is worthy of worship
God could still prevent evil

15. RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE

16. The problem of religious language
Some say religious language is cognitive (communicates
knowledge, information and facts about God)
Something about God can be known
However, religious statements aren’t facts
Therefore religious language is meaningless

17. Via negative – Aquinas
Negative way
We can’t talk about God in positive terms as it’s misleading and
confusing
We must only talk of God in negative terms such as what he’s not
CRITICISM
Davies – describing something as what it’s not gives no clue to what he is

18. Verification principle – Ayer
If we verify a statement we check its truth against a body of evidence or facts
A statement which can’t be conclusively verified can’t be verified at all
It’s simply devoid of any meaning
Denys the possibility of God’s existence altogether
No way of empirically verifying his existence
Analytic propositions: statements that contain all the information within the statement that we need to verify it
Synthetic propositions: statements that can be confirmed through the use of the senses
Strong verification: an assertion only has meaning if it can be verified according to empirical information
Weak verification: for an assertion to be true one simply has to state what kind of evidence would verify its’
contents

19. Falsification principle – Flew
Any statement that can’t be falsified is empty of meaning
Religious language is meaningless
Nothing can count against religious statements
They can’t be verified or falsified because believers won’t accept ay
evidence to count against their beliefs

20. Criticism – Hare
Flew didn’t understand the nature of religious beliefs
“Bliks” = basic beliefs about the world
Basic beliefs are “bliks” as they’re neither verifiable nor falsifiable
We all have a blik

21. Aquinas
Analogy of attribution: qualities we ascribe to each other are a reflection of
the qualities of God
When we see these attributes in others we’re able to make analogies with the
attributes of God
Analogy of proportion: these properties depend on the nature of the being
that possesses them
When we use words to describe God we’re describing an infinite being
When we use words to describe each other we’re describing finite beings
Therefore the meaning of these words can’t be the same

22. Tillich
Religious language ought to be understood in a different way
Religious language is cognitive
We’re able to learn something about God from religious language,
but our words become more symbolic
Symbolic: point us towards something else

23. Criticism – Randall
Religious language is symbolic but non-cognitive
It doesn’t tell us anything about the external reality, only human
experiences

24. Bultman
A myth is the use of imagery to express the other-worldly
Myth: ancient stories unlikely to be true, but they convey the
values and beliefs of a community
It draws the readers in and requires a response
They’re not the literal truth, but a deep truth

25. Language games – Wittgenstein
Language is like playing a game with rules
There are agreed rules within the group on how words are used
Those outside of the game cannot understand the true meaning of
the words
Therefore those outside the game believe that religious language is
meaningless
Only those inside the game who understand the context of the
word can know its’ true meaning

26. Supporter – Phillips
He suggests that no one outside of the game can criticise the belief
Some problems caused by religious language exist because we take
the language literally

27. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

28. The ontological argument
A priori argument
God’s existence is different to that of humans
Humans are contingent whereas God is necessary

29. Anselm
Theistic argument
Faith seeking understanding
Response to Psalms: “the fool says to himself, ‘there is no God’”
Began with his definition of God – God is a being that which nothing greater
can be conceived
Premise 1 God is a being than which nothing
greater can be conceived
Premise 2 Something that really exists is greater
than something just in thought
Premise 3 If there’s really nothing greater than God,
then he can’t just exist in the mind
Premise 4 God exists in the mind and reality

30. Criticism – On behalf of the fool and the
perfect island – Gaunilo
Just because you can imagine a perfect thing (e.g. a lost island)
doesn’t mean it exists in reality
We know it doesn’t exist in reality, as we can only imagine it in our
mind
You would be a fool to think it did exist in reality
If Anselm’s argument can be used to prove the existence of a non-
existent island then it’s flawed

31. Anselm’s response
You can’t compare God to an island
Islands are contingent
God is necessary
Premise 1 God is a being than which nothing
greater can be conceived
Premise 2 It’s greater to be necessary than
contingent
Premise 3 If God’s only contingent then a greater
being could be imagined that doesn’t
exist
Premise 4 This being would be greater than God
Premise 5 God is necessary

32. Criticism – Kant
Rejects Anselm’s definition of God
A necessary existence is something that the non-existence of is
impossible

33. Defence – Malcolm
God can’t come into existence by cause or chance
If he doesn’t already exist then his existence would be impossible
If he does exist he can’t stop existing
God’s existence is necessary

34. Criticism – Davies
Malcolm fails to realise the word “is” can be used in different ways
E.g. The horse “is” brown
E.g. There “is” such thing as a dragon

35. Descartes
Even if a triangle had never existed, they’d still have distinct characteristics (e.g. 3 sides, 3
angles)
God exists as an idea in the mind
God is a supremely perfect being
God necessarily exists because that’s where our idea of God came from
As imperfect beings we can’t develop that idea ourselves, it was put there by God
Existence is a predicate of God
He must possess existence otherwise he wouldn’t be perfect
God must exist in reality
God without existence is like a triangle without 3 sides – it’s not possible

36. Criticism – Kant
Existence isn’t a predicate
If we say something exists we’re not giving it characteristics
Unicorn analogy – we can’t conceive an existing unicorn not
existing, so do unicorns exist?
I don’t
exist!

37. Possible worlds – Plantinga
God is a being of maximal greatness
Such a being would exist necessarily
To exist contingently means to depend on other factors
However, this would mean God isn’t maximally great
This being’s existence isn’t impossible in an infinite number of
possible worlds
Therefore, this being has to exist necessarily in all worlds