Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Nature of belief - Coggle Diagram
Nature of belief
strong rationalism vs. fideism
strong rationalism - for a belief system to be accepted need evidence or good reason
Anthony Flew - falsification
statement only meaningful if there is a means to falsify it - gardener analogy - explorer claims area in forest had been cleared by an invisible gardener - wait with dogs and electric fence - nothing happens so claims Gardner is intangible - useless belief
BUT : Hick - estachological verification so religious belief not technically unfalsifiable - critical rationalist
acknowledges further evidence possible, but not accessible nor impact for us - especially since no communication with life after death
AJ Ayer - verificationsm principle - statement must be analytic or empirically falsifiable
BUT : fails own test
BUT : WARD : just because we can not verify God does not mean it is not possible - "If I were God I could verify my own existence."
Clifford - morally wrong to hold a belief if no evidence - Cliffords ship
but action immoral not belief
BUT canwetruly split belief and action - belief has impact - so duty to analyse them
fideism - evidence is not required for religious belief - self authenticating
KIERKEGAARD
felt experience of God but no way of truly knowing if God exists - must take a leap of faith - it is because we can not know for certain we must have belief
faith alone is sufficient - must not be subject to rational evaluation
BUT : if belief is strong enough should be able to withstand philsophical doubt
BUT : if someone has self authentication experence telling them to commit an atrocity - is this reasonable
R.M. Hare
paranoid student analogy
statements meaningful as belief has an impact
religious belief does not fall upon empirical evidence
ref. PRAXIS
practise of being religious - things it makes you do eg. going to communion
TILLICH : Religious language is symbolic, not literal. So it is useless to discuss whether it is ‘true’
we must have 'absolute faith' In the face of doubt
ALSTON
RE basis for knowledge : "M Beliefs" - eg. God loves us do not require further evidence
BUT : no explanation fro why no further evidence required, just separated from other beliefs
as long as M Beliefs do not cause harm they are justified
BUT : this often happens, decreasing validity of argument
JAMES
RE compelling, philosophy powerless to doubt religious belief
BUT : RE not reliable - dehydration, hallucinogenic drugs, etc.
sacred texts secondary
BUT : how do people who have not had RE jutstify belief
PLANTINGA
we hold ordinary beliefs about world with no evidence eg. believing mother is your mother
should be able to do the same for non-ordinary beliefs - epistemologically correct to believe something f experience strikes person with such power
belief in God is 'properly basic' does not need evidence but still rational to hold
KANT : God is part of transcendental nominal realm - we can only see phenomenal realm so can never fully know of God's existence
moral argument strong inference
critical rationalism : religius belief should be rationally evaluated but conclusive proof not possible
Mitchell - lack of evidence does not mean someting is false - at one point earth being round had little evidence
propositional and non-propositional revelation
PROPOSITIONAL : God reveals divine truth by factual statements and propositions
belief that - have truth value
bible is the Word of God
CRITICISMS
multiple way to translate or interpret bible
Form criticism - look at form to tell which culture scripture originates from - to see how culture would impact teachings
retelling could have caused mistranslation
source criticism - where did story begin - historical inconsistencies (eg. multiple origin stories), theological inconsistencies (multiple stories about end-time)
eg. similarities between creation story and Babylonian myth - is it just a retelling
can we really trust our conscience - how do we know it is God revelling these truths to us
logical positivism and falsficationsim
is it moral to trust these beliefs without questioning authority
criticism of redaction : gospel writers were writing for specific audiences so edited what they would say - reducing authority
John's gospel written much later - less authoritative
discontinuity from OT to NT - is God changing so able to be mistaken, or is human interpretation bad
sola scripture - Martin Luther - questioned authority of church - believed we have gained conscience - Augustine orinal sin
NON-PROPOSITIONAL : truth of God revealed by personal experiences with the divine
belief in not belief that
acknowledged human freedom in interpreation
BUT : does this make belief discovered arbritay
bible records witnesses of God not the Word of God
CRITICISMS
why would God not reveal himself objectively
can you have Christian faith without a propositional belief in resurrection
RE problems - eg. fatigue, drugs
no way to distinguish validity of different Religions RE
can not criticise other peoples RE - Jonestown massacre
Karl Barth - alternative
bible authoritative not because it is the Word of God - because of who it is about (Jesus) who made available God'd Grace