Upgrade to remove ads
Terms in this set (93)
What does apologetics means
Apology is a defense. 1 Peter 3:15,16. They should ask us or something would be wrong. But we must be ready, to give the right answers.
Hume's argument against miracles, and the rebuke
miracles are a violation of natural law. Natural events are more probable than miracles so miracles should never be believed. Rebuke: not the impossibility but improbability.
Why Study apologetics?
It is for the defense, but also the confirmation of our faith. Helps us to build our faith, and also stay away from false doctrines. It is our responsibility to defend the faith, persuade other, and help others from falling to false teaching.
What are the Apologetic Approaches?
Objective or traditional and the subjective or modern approach.
Objective or traditional approach
it uses logic and reason, used by catholics, orthodox and conservative evangelical.
Subjective or modern approach
1. Kant invents this approach believes you cannot reason yourself to truth about a transcended God. But believes that it is because God created us that we all have a sense of right and wrong, so he wants to appeal to this, subjective proofs like morals, ethics, art, aesthetics. This approach is mostly used by liberals. Benefits of this method is that it points us to psychology and sociology. It helps us study why and how people come to faith, why they gather, this knowledge makes us better witnesses.
Kant's categorical imperative
a person ought to do only that which he would want to be made into a universal law.
Philosophy has three main areas
Metaphyscs, Epistemology, Axiology.
Metaphysics or ontology
study of nature, or the reality of being.
Metaphysics - Quantity
monism: all is from one essence (Hegel, Parmenides - Spirits)). Dualism: two basic essence (Descartes: mind & body). Pluralism: many separate essences (Leibniz- monadology an infinite number of essences)
Metaphysics - quality
Idealism: all is spiritual or mind. (Plato) Naturalism: all is earthly and now, not spiritual.(Democritism) Vitalism: all is alive. (Alexei Kozlove)
Study of knowledge: Rationalism, Empiricism, Intuitionalism.
all knowledge is ultimately based on rational principles known a priori (before experience, after the fact, by induction) (Rene Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz)
experience, all knowledge is based on experience, based on what is known a posteriori by induction. (John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume)
Epistemology: intuitionalism (personalism)
all knowledge is arrived at through immediate perception or direct insight (Augustine, Scotus, Pascal, Lossky)
the study of values: logic, ethics, aestethics
Axiology - logic
rational - the philosophical discipline or science of forms, rules and methods of valid thinking by which one comes to knowledge whose results are worthwhile.
Axiology - Ethics
custom, practice. Investigates the motive and establishes norms for human activity which have the goal of good, morals.
Axiology - aestethics
judgement or feeling. Beauty in nature and art.
if something works, it must be right.
we must accept what we cannot deny.
Three basic logical principles
law of identity A=A, law of non-contradiction A different that -A, the law of excluded middle: between A and B there is no C.
Law of identity
if any statement is true, then it is true.
Law of non-contradiction
no statement can be both true and false.
Principle of excluded middle
any statement is either true or false.
Law of causality
all effects require an adequate cause, there must be an uncaused cause. David Hume
Laws of logic
are undeniable. So we can know some truth. We can know as God knowns, but we cannot know all that God knows (Francis Schaeffer)
since we can know limited things a priori, prior to experience, we require that God tell us some things. God tells us what we would be unable to deduce. We can know some things (Rom 1:19,20) but not why we have fallen, how to be reconciled
believes we can prove the existence of God logically.
To know certainly
tests of unaffirmability, and undeniability we can decide aongst competing truth claims.
Ontological Argument proponent
Anselm of Canterbury.
Major premise: by definition God is the necessary being. Minor premise: logically necessary statements express both logical necessity and metaphysically reality. Therefore God exists logically and metaphysically
Cosmological Argument proponant
major premise: something exists, because I exist. Minor premise: what exists is not logically or metaphysically necessary (so it depends). Argument: all contingent beings must have been created by a necessary being, an uncaused cause. Conclusion: God exists as the uncaused cause of all contingent beings.
Teleological Argument proponent
major premise: everything that exists has a purpose (Design). Minor premise: something must have given them a purpose. Argument: only an intelligent, personal, uncaused cause could have assigned this purpose. So God exists as the creator and designer.
Moral Argument proponent
Immanuel Kant. By experience of moral law
major premise: in the heart of every person exists a moral law (categorical imperative - act in such a way as if your behavior could be made universal law). Minor Premise: every law requires a lawgiver. God is the law giver.
Argument from the trinity
This argument counters an argument from atheists. Major premise: a creating God is not possible. Creation means that he had the need to create, and then cannot be God. The need for fellowship. (This means that the universe was eternal). Minor premise: Trinity taught in the scriptures, from eternity, their was fellowship in God. So he did not need to create. So God created freely, so he does exist.
Miracles: Two ways of arguing against the possibility of miracles
The naturalistic or scientific; atheistic which argues against the existence of God.
Miracles: Two ways of arguing against the possibility of miracles
The naturalistic or scientific; atheistic which argues against the existence of God.
Naturalistic/scientific view of miracles
miracles don't fit in the worldview so are impossible
descriptive, they do not forbid.
Anthony flew against miracles
miracles are unrepeatable, scientific laws are. There is more evidence for the repeatable, therefore we should not believe in miracles. Reponse: we must look at the data first, before concluding. Not saying that there is more evidence for natural laws. Again he proves the improbability, not the impossibility.
2 Classes of miracles
1. We know neither the how, the why or the why now. 2. We know the how, not the why or why now.
Reason for miracles from theism
if God exists, he can do whatever he wants, miracles are not impossible and can occur
Reason for miracles 2 - contingency
what began the chain of efficient caused (existential causality)
Difference between problem of evil, and problem of suffering ?
The problem of evil is a philosophical problem which has a complex history. Several basic options explain the presence and persistence of evil have been put forward philosophically. The problem of suffering is an intensely personal question: why do I, or my loved ones suffer? It is a pastoral issue. It can be dealt to some degree through philosophical discourses, but there is also a biblical approach.
What is the Bible data relevant for discussing the problem of suffering?
1. God is one, and he is Good. 2. Evil and suffering were not God's original intent, 3. evil is real, 4. Creatures have limited freedom and they do evil. 5. There will be judgment of evil. 6. We experience evil and are evil.
Classic dilemma for the the problem of evil?
Major premise: God is all powerful and good. Minor premise: Evil exists. But a good and all-powerful God would eliminate evil. Ergo: There cannot be a good and all-powerful God.
What are the attempts to solve the minor premise of the problem of evil? (4)
1. Evil is nothing (evil is a lack, (problem evil is more distructive than something that would just be a lack of good),is a malevolent something, evil is only apparent) . 2. Evil is necessary. 3. Evil is eternal. 4. Evil is a perversion of the good.
What are attempts to resolve this dilemma by focusing on the major premise of the Problem of evil?
1. There is no good, 2. God is good but not all powerful, 3. God is evil
Definition of scientism
it is a blind faith in the scientific method and human reason to answer all of life's questions: not only the "How" but the "Why" questions
3 ways to harmonize Science and the Bible?
1. Conflict (Ken Ham, Henry Morris), there is no possible compromise. 2. Compartmentalization, upper/lower theories.(Karl Barth) 3. Complementarity, we need to separate out what science can be legitimately speak about from unnecessary metaphysical epistemological and ethical assumptions.
Problems with scientistic rationalism: :- too much faith in human reason, too much pride in human achievement.
Definition of Deism
Only accept what agrees with sound reason. They accept that God exists, they believe in the immortality of the soul, but not in revelation. God exists, and we cannot know anything else!
Symbol for Deism
To circles one with God, one with World, they do not even touch!
Representatives of Deism:
John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant.
Definition of Pantheism
The world and God are the same thing. Some see it as only God exists, others only the world, though God is only a unity of all.
Representatives of panentheism
Symbol of Panentheism
circle with "God= world" in it.
Definition of atheism
there is no God. Usually combined with a belief in Naturalism or Materialism, and evolution. In the world there is only matter.
Symbol of Atheism
just one circle with "world" in it.
Definition of theism
God exists as a personality beyond and above the world who created that world, sustains it and directs it.
Postmodernism - Phenomenology
Husserl - understand consciousness. Mearly Ponty - perception and not the "world out there"
Explain why relativism degenerates into agnosticism and then into skepticism
Relativism is born, at people's disgust in religion wars, and people's sincere doubt that we can know anything. If people on both sides have good arguments, they could both be true for them (relativism), or we cannot know (agnosticism) and maybe we cannot know anything (skepticism).
Explain why skepticism is self defeating
"I know that I cannot know anything certainly" there is an obvious contradiction contained in this statement. All skepticism can be reduced to this claim. Either the statement is true and self defeating, or the statement is not true and then we do not have to worry about it.
What are the three possible relationships between faith and reason? (give 2 representative per relationship)
1. Conflict: it is either faith or reason; they are mutually exclusive. We must accept certain truths by faith and then demonstrate the truth of Christianity (Van Til - Presuppositionalism). Christianity, in this sense, can be demonstrated to be internally consistent, but not externally consistent. External consistency cannot be shown by reason according to those who held to this view.Proponents: Cornelius van Til, Tertullian ("what has Jerusalem got to do with Athens?") and Shestov.2. Compartmentalization: there is no contact between these realms of knowledge. Faith is in a different order than reason. Barth, for example, believed that God's revelation was found only in the Christ of the Bible. Humans must receive revelation as stipulated by God (see Groothuis 180-181 - I used Barth to explore this view a little bit more). That (= revelation) is a different realm of knowledge than the realm of reason.Proponents: Karl Barth and Soren Kierkegaard. 3. Cooperation: faith and reason can complement each other. Reason can lead or at least contribute to faith. Faith itself is reasonable. For example: believing that God exist and that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is not outside the realm of reason, but reason can be used to show that these things are possible/probable/true. Proponents: Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig and Normal Geisler.
8 tests for an adequate epistemology according to Douglas Groothuis. What sort of argument is it?
Adequacy [comprehensiveness] ; Internal logical consistency; Coherence; Factual adequacy; Existential viability; Intellectual and cultural fecundity; No radical ad hoc readjustment ; Simplicity ; [Elegance, economy ]
epistemology Test 1. Adequacy [comprehensiveness]:
The first test of any worldview is that it explains what it ought to explain.
epistemology Test 2. Internal logical consistency
of all the essential elements of a worldview is a necessary test for every worldview, but it is not sufficient to establish any worldview as true and rational. Criterion 2a. If a worldview affirms X, Y and Z as essential elements of that worldview, and none of these individual elements contradicts another essential element, the worldview may be true because it is not logically inconsistent. Criterion 2b. If a worldview affirms X, Y and Z as essential elements, and any of these elements contradict another essential element (say X contradicts Y), or is self-contradictory, this worldview is necessarily false because it is logically inconsistent.
epistemology Test 3. Coherence:
This test is related to consistency, but moves beyond it to speak of the essential propositions of a worldview being tightly interrelated and conceptually linked. Like consistency, coherence is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for the truth of a worldview.
epistemology Test 4. Factual adequacy:
This concerns the historical and empirical dimensions of life. A worldview may be internally consistent yet inconsistent with respect to the reality it attempts to describe. [Hindus eat.]
epistemology Test 5. Existential viability:
Simply because a person claims that a certain worldview "works for me" does not mean this worldview is existentially viable. To claim that a worldview is existentially viable means that it can be affirmed without philosophical hypocrisy. Philosophical hypocrisy requires a person to engage in perpetual doublethink in order to live according to his or her worldview.
epistemology Test 6. Intellectual and cultural fecundity:
If a worldview is (1) truly explanatory, (2) internally consistent, (3) coherent, (4) factually adequate and (5) existentially viable, then it should inspire cultural and intellectual discovery, creativity and productivity. If a worldview fits reality, it should motivate its followers to embrace and master that reality with confidence and energy.
epistemology Test 7. No radical ad hoc readjustment
is an important negative criterion for testing worldviews.
epistemology Test 8. Simplicity [Elegance, economy]:
simpler explanations are preferable to unnecessarily complex ones.
What is the role of intuition in epistemology?
intuition is all knowledge that arrives through immediate perception or direct insight. As Christians we believe we have direct contact with God through the Holy Spirit. So we know truth without any intermediate judgements or intermediary agents or steps. It has a role in the theory of knowledge, because it is a way of getting information, even though it cannot be tested. But when one has an experience with God, one knows it! Proponent: Plotinus.
What can we know from intuition?
Sometimes it is "direct insight" as in mysticism. Sometimes it is "direct grasp" as in the laws of logic are accepted by intuition, but can't be proven. We must accept them to speak, but they are accepted by intuition.
How is intuition indispensable for any epistemology?
Intuition is indispensable for any epistemology because certain presuppositions can be known only by intuition. An intuitive grasp of self-evident truths have served as a ground for all knowledge. Laws of logic are self-evident and therefore known by intuition.
What is the difference between intellectual intuition in the realm of first principles and mystical intuition?
Intellectual intuition is a posteriori, i.e. it depends on some evidence in the world (or on empirical data) as the basis to know truth. Mystical intuition however is a priori. It depends on the senses ability to make one know truth through one's experiences.
Explain the relationship between mind, will and spirit
Saving faith includes knowing facts in our mind (John 17:3), submitting our will to His, but it is necessary that we have a direct relationship with God through the Spirit. Different groups have had different theories: rationalist - believe knowledge is all about the mind, nothing is subjective, it is all logical, and can be figured out. Empiricists - believe it is more about experience, and voluntarist - believe that we are driven to accept truth based on our will! (eg: sexual desires). Hackett and Geisler go for something in the middle
What role do mind, will and spirit have in accepting truth?
Mind knows facts, yes. Will decides what we will believe and act on. We can know truth: Smoking kills, yet do that thing since we lack will. Demons know and tremble, but don't believe, put their trust in Him. Emotion often clouds our judgment or pushes us to accept incorrect or poorly demonstrated things. Spirit is connected to intuition in the sense of intuition as subjective immediate perception rather than demonstrated logical truths. It may be true, but is not provable in principle.
Why is pragmaticism so influential these days?
these days, truth has lost a lot of its value. So people really just care about whether something works or not. All truths are equal, why would you bother with things else that what works for you, and is convenient for you.
Why is pragmatism not an adequate test for truth?
it is not based on reality, but on our opinion of what works.
What role can a pragmatic test play in determining truth?
pragmatism is good to serve as a negative test for truth of a religion. If I cannot live by my beliefs successfully in the world, it is probably false.
What are the 4 possible views of evil? List them and explain
1. Evil is nothing (it is only a lack of good - weak - because it seems evil is destructive not just a lack of). 2. Evil is necessary (unavoidable, even desirable?) without evil, there would be no good. 3. Evil is eternal. If evil is necessary, then it must be eternal. 4. Evil is a perversion of the good. This is best biblically. All things were created good. People with freedom, to do evil as well.
What is the difference between science, and scientism?
Science tells us what you can do, but not what you should do. Scientism believes natural science is the only source of truth.
How can legitimate science aid faith?
scientific based is based on the assumption of eternal laws operating in the universe. We use science to see the creator's hand. Science explains how things work
What metaphysical world view lies behind scientism?
Explain the legitimate sphere of the scientific method
it applies to operational science, chemistry and mechanical physics. Repeatable and observable phenomena.
What sort of sciences can use the scientific method?
chemistry and mechanical physics. Operational science.
What other method is used in the remaining areas of science (explain + what principles does it use? Notes + moreland's chapter)?
Forensic method which uses the principle of causality, analogy and appeals to secondary evidence applies to all other areas than chemistry and mechanical physics.
This set is often in folders with...
Greek - Full Noun Paradigm with Article (Mounce ch…
Weingreen's Hebrew Grammar Vocabulary
Combo with "Koine Greek Vocabulary (Frequency 10-4…
You might also like...
Themes Unit 2
Philosophy Final Study Guide
Philosophy 2 Final Exam
Other sets by this creator
JVB CE all of it
CE 2A Gadamer
CE 4 forms and connection mal 1:2-5
CE 3C THeology of Malachi