Study Guides (248,658)
Canada (121,668)
York University (10,209)
Humanities (404)
HUMA 1160 (44)

HUMA 1160 9.0 - Final Exam

23 Pages

Course Code
HUMA 1160
Stanley Tweyman

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 23 pages of the document.
HUMANITIES 1160 9.0 - Final Exam Review LECTURE # 1 God : Revealed religion - God speaking to people Rational religion - you can reason your way to God - Part 9 of Dialogues Natural religion - Religion of Nature Natural Science/ Religion: Science in the 17th and 18th century: Empirical Approach Religion is very similar to science - a lot in common Science: The things that are not perceivable (gravity, air, etc.) In sciences, the objects are not perceivable but the perceivable is used to understand what isn't perceivable Religion: In religion, if object is God, God cannot be perceived Just as science uses what can be perceived, we use that to get a knowledge of God Dialogues: Does not regard God as he Creator of the world - world: all there is, not just Earth World - created or not created - not mentioned Although we do not know if the world was created or not, we know it was designed There must be a designer - we can talk about God as the designer, not creator God as the designer helps us better understand God Cleanthes in the Dialogues: Intelligence: ability to plan, organize, figure how to bring something about To purpose, design with purpose Cleanthes: intelligence of God can be learned by design of the world Natural religion: the design The mark of the workman is always imprinted in the work We can learn about the designer through their design If we believe God designed the world, we should be able to learn of God God's intelligence can be learned; the basis of human prayer Human prayers - prays with the assumption that God can understand them 109: design, Argument by Analogy The Argument For Design - of the 4 written, this is the most convincing Compares the design of the world to the design of machines - np 1-8, 12 We can look at the world in a different way There is good and evil in the world - both natural, coming out of the design of world Evil: tornadoes, natural disasters Good: sunshine, etc. Natural good v. natural evils (parts 10, 11) QUESTION: Can we conclude that God is good, given that natural evil exists? (Can God be good even if there is natural evil in the world?) Pemphelus -> Hermepus (one man telling another a story) Pemphelus is Cleanthes' student Cleanthes: believes that God is a workmen Their conversations: P.96 "This I had lately" (last paragraph) Philo (meaning lover): Pyrohouism: exaggerated doubt (Descartes: hyperbolic doubt) The difference is that hyperbolic doubt is applied prior arguments are put forward Exaggerated doubt: after an argument Anteceeded sceptism: hyperbolic doubt Consequenced sceptism: exaggerated doubt c. Demea: religious man - a mystic (extreme or modern) Demea is an extreme mystic - believes that you can believe in God On the other hand, nothing can be known about God God is "adorably mysterious" - God is unknowable "adorable" - you can adore God, but know nothing of God (ex. prayers) You can pray (adore), but still not know God Religious Language: Anthropomorphism: Independent - whether there is/ isn't a God Talk about God in terms that we use on ourselves (ex. God is good, God is wise) God has desires, ex. our happiness Same meaning as if talking about humans The term desires used literally - univocally (one meaning) Extreme Mysticism: Demea's position Nothing can be known about God, nothing can be said about God Nothing can be maintained about God 3. Moderate Mysticism: Allows the religious person to speak of God, but cannot be Anthropomorphic Uses figurative or symbolic language 4. Analogy: A compromise between Anthropomorphism and Extreme Mysticism Problem with Anthro is that there is too much comparing between us and God Problem with Extreme Myst. Is that there is too much contrast between us and God Analogy: concluded that the way that religious people use religious language can prove that all statements about God that we use, are meaningless We must rethink our language, says HUME 1. ANTHROPOMOPHIC: God is x, or God has x Anthropomorphic claims: God has desires God has a plan God understands God can doubt Perfections: God is infinite God is eternal God is omniscient (knows everything) God is omnipotent A contradiction: always eternally false (ex. holding a piece of chalk, but not) God has desires - literally Betty has desires - univocally (one meaning) The meaning between these two statements did not shift If we desire something, we know that we are without it The notion of desire implies presuppose a lack of something However, God is infinite; a being that lacks nothing The statement: God has desires = he lacks something That would be a contradiction, logically incompatible Once you see the contradiction, one choice left to make: Either: not care what anyone says, God has desires, but God is not infinite Or, God is infinite, but does not have desires Either of this may not be necessarily true, the language possibly failed The claim that God is infinite disappears, one of God's perfection is now removed from the person's vocab. Therefore, neither choice is correct or acceptable Ex. God has a plan - literally John has a plan - univocally To have a plan means they require help or assist Implies that God needs help as well The claim that God has a plan is not compatible with the perfection that God is omnipotent (doesn't need help) Cannot maintain both; must eliminate another perfection One general problem with Anthropomorphism: Thinking, willing, desiring, planning, understanding, etc. The common feature to every mental activity: Occurring in time: temporal (can't think without a time frame) Perfection normally implied to God: eternal Eternal: we believe one thing follows another - we cannot understand it because we are not infinite beings When you introspected - looking for your mind/ intellect Introspection never reveals you, it reveals the mental state and states of consciousness These mental states are understood temporally THEREFORE, if you believe God is eternal, you cannot believe that God has a mind, OR if God has a mind, God cannot be eternal These criticism on Anthropomorphism: rose the perfection of God, ultimately, will an anthro. believe in God, if the being you believe in do not have all these perfections? LECTURE # 2 Intro: the issues of religious language: Is it possible to say something meaningful about God? Is there any meaning in any statement? Looking for a cognitive content This is all an independent situation; not pre-judging Rather: is there a God? If there is, how would we talk about God? Anthropomorphism? - eternal Mysticism? - extreme or moderate Analogy? In the end, they all fail. Antony Fleu: predicates, desires, plans They must all be understood literally, same as if applying to us Univocally same to us and to God Desire = lacks God has desires, so God is not infinite Plan = can't achieve directly, require assistance God has a plan = God requires help, so God is not omnipotent Thinking, understanding, willing, etc. = beings with
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.