Term
| 4 Features of Philosophy: Articulation (define) |
|
Definition
| Putting your ideas in clear, concise, readily understandable language (e.g., Understandable - use terminology people can understand, just say what you think, clearly and concisely, w/o the jargon and rambling) |
|
|
Term
| 4 Features of Philosophy: Argument (define) |
|
Definition
| Supporting your ideas with reasons from other ideas, principles, and observations to establish your conclusions and overcome objections (e.g., personal experiences, intelligent argument to ward off objections) |
|
|
Term
| 4 Features of Philosophy: Analysis (define) |
|
Definition
| Understanding an idea and clarifying its various components, not part of the argument - "Why?" (e.g., What do you mean by "murder?" - killing, intentional, offensive, immoral, etc.) |
|
|
Term
| 4 Features of Philosophy: Synthesis (define) |
|
Definition
| Collaborate ideas and try to unify them (If you believe in two things, but one is contradictory to the other, you'd have to abandon or modify one belief (…or accept being irrational)) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Expressing your opinion, observation, etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A series of statements, one of which called the conclusion is affirmed on the basis of the others, which are called premises |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Branch of logic concerned with tests for validity and invalidity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Branch of logic concerned with tests for strength and weakness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If the premises are true, then the conclusion 'must' be true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A valid argument where all premises are true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If the premises are true, the conclusion is 'likely to be' true (50-100%) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Even if the premises are true, the conclusion is 'unlikely' to be true (0-50%) (e.g., 4% of college athletes go pro, Mike is a college athlete, Mike will go pro) |
|
|
Term
| Counterexample (of validity) |
|
Definition
| An imagined scenario/story, that preserves the form of the argument, but renders the premises true and the conclusion false (e.g., If it is raining, the ground is wet / The ground is wet / It is raining - Maybe the sprinklers were on?) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Attacks the person, not the argument (ex: Father Ron claims that abortion is wrong, but he's a priest, so he's required to say such things.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An opponent's position is misinterpreted so as to make it easy to refute (ex: "It is quite clear what the proponents of legalized euthanasia are seeking. They are seeking the power to kill anyone who has a serious illness. And that is why I stand opposed to legalized euthanasia" - They do NOT want to kill anyone with an illness, so they are misrepresented) |
|
|
Term
| (Describe) Fallacy of black & white thinking |
|
Definition
| The options given are the 'only' options, and do not represent all possible beliefs (e.g., You think flag burning is fine? That must mean you hate our country.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Occurs when an ambiguous word or phrase is used with more than one meaning in a single argument (e.g., One of your answers on the math exam is not right. If it's not right, it's wrong. Further, what's wrong is immoral. So, one of your answers is immoral. - What does "right" mean?) |
|
|
Term
| (Describe) Begging the question |
|
Definition
| Circular argument. Assumes what it is trying to prove (e.g., Bible > God > Bible) |
|
|
Term
| (Describe) First Cause Argument |
|
Definition
| Since everything has a cause, God must be the first cause |
|
|
Term
| (Describe) Argument from Design |
|
Definition
| Everything in the world exists for a specific purpose, and changes would likely result in death. A world organized to support life cannot happen by chance. Therefore, there must be an Intelligent Designer (God) |
|
|
Term
| (Describe) Moral Argument |
|
Definition
| If God did not exist, there would be no 'right and wrong,' But there is a right and wrong, So God exists |
|
|
Term
| Bertrand Russell's objection to: First Cause Argument |
|
Definition
| The world doesn't need a cause if it has always existed (counter: even if the world has always been, it doesn't mean we don't still need a cause of it - Why is the earth here? Because it's always been here. Begs the question) God did not push the world into motion, He is involved. // If everything has a cause, God has a cause. But God cannot have a cause, according to Christians. Why is God the exception? (counter: Necessary VS Contingent existence - God exists necessarily since He cannot fail to exist, The universe exists contingently (since it may not have existed), Everything 'in' the world exists contingently so the world itself must be contingent) |
|
|
Term
| Bertrand Russell's objection to: Argument from Design |
|
Definition
| The world was not made suitable to us, we were made suitable to the world (through evolution and random chance) // Even if the world shows signs of intelligent design, there is too much destruction and death to be created by an all-powerful all-knowing and all-good Intelligence |
|
|
Term
| Bertrand Russell's objection to: Moral Argument |
|
Definition
| If right and wrong is due to a divine decree, then anything (even murder) could be made "right" - if NOT, then right and wrong have a meaning independent of God's decree ("God is good" means that something else determines why He is "good") |
|
|
Term
| Inductive Logic - Generalizations (give example) |
|
Definition
| (1) Every animal we've observed with sharp teeth eats meat, (2) So all animals with sharp teeth eats meat. |
|
|
Term
| Inductive Logic - Argument by analogy (give example) |
|
Definition
| John, you're sure to pass the BAR exam. After all, I passed and you and I went to the same law school, we studied together for the exam, and you've spent just as much time as I have studying. |
|
|
Term
| Inductive Logic - Appeals to authority, APPROPRIATE (give example) |
|
Definition
| My philosophy professor said Aristotle was a student of Plato. So, Aristotle was a student of Plato. |
|
|
Term
| Inductive Logic - Appeals to authority, INAPPROPRIATE (give example) |
|
Definition
| My philosophy professor said the real estate market will rebound this year. So, I'm sure it will! |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Religious beliefs should not be subjected to rational evaluation (it's a MISTAKE to apply standards of rationality to religious belief. Ration SHOULD NOT apply to faith. "Leap of faith, Childlike faith, Blind faith" |
|
|
Term
| List arguments FOR Fideism |
|
Definition
| If religious belief is rational, there is no need for faith // If you base your belief on arguments, your commitment will be partial (if they aren't persuasive, you won't be too interested OR if a faith-related"fact" is disproven, you may lose your faith) // If religious beliefs must be rational, certain distinctive Christian beliefs must be rejected (contradictory) // If religious beliefs were supposed to be rational, then the Bible would contain arguments for God's existence |
|
|
Term
| List Challenges for Fideism |
|
Definition
| WHICH religious beliefs should one "leap" for? How does religious belief differ from superstition (e.g., if knocking on wood is silly, why isn't belief in God?)? What does a "childlike" faith look like (believing w/o asking questions or doubt)? |
|
|
Term
| (Describe) Strong Rationalism |
|
Definition
| A religious belief is rationally accepted "only if" it is possible to "prove" that is true ("prove" = should convince all rational people) |
|
|
Term
| List arguments FOR Strong Rationalism |
|
Definition
| If we ought to care about truth, then we ought to base our beliefs on sufficient evidence. And we ought to care about truth. So, we ought to base our beliefs on sufficient evidence (it is irrational to do otherwise). |
|
|
Term
| List challenges for Strong Rationalism |
|
Definition
| Is there a double-standard for religious belief? In general, SR will deny us beliefs in areas (of religion) that are controversial (e.g., Christ is God - prove it!), Given that we must start somewhere in our reasoning, we cannot give proofs for every belief we hold. SR seems to be self-defeating (You should only believe something is true if you can prove it is true - (Is this statement true? Prove it!) |
|
|
Term
| (Describe) Critical Rationalism |
|
Definition
| Religious beliefs should be rationally evaluated, but conclusive proof of them is not possible |
|
|
Term
| List arguments FOR Critical Rationalism |
|
Definition
| May not settle the matter, but it does benefit us in some way. CR allows room to avoid making 'persuading others' our ultimate goal. We do not all hold views of morality/politics that will convince all rational people. |
|
|
Term
| List challenges for Critical Rationalism |
|
Definition
| Why apply reason if you know in advance that it won't settle the issue? (Even if we can't settle an issue, we can still: Gain clarity, Identify mistakes, Identify best arguments, Find arguments convincing to ourselves (if not to other people) |
|
|
Term
| List the 5 types of "experiences of God" |
|
Definition
| While perceiving a common/public object (e.g., the night sky), While perceiving an uncommon object (e.g., a miracle), Via private sensations, but describable to others (e.g., dream, voice heard within), Ineffable and private experience (e.g., mystical experience - nobody else experienced and cannot be described), Apart from any sense experience but describable (e.g., "feeling His presence in the room") |
|
|
Term
| List the argument for Religious Experience |
|
Definition
| When someone claims to have had an experience, it is rational to believe they really experienced it (unless we have reason to think they were lying or delusional). Some experiences seem, to their subjects, to be from God. There are no good reasons for thinking that all experiences that seem to be from God are delusional. So it is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are really experiences from God. So it is rational to believe that God exists. |
|
|
Term
| List the objections against Religious Experience |
|
Definition
| Not everyone has RE (counter: not everyone has all forms of sense experience, few have capacity to distinguish - e.g., coffee tones), Some RE conflict across religions (Sheep VS white rock, many RE's across traditions do not conflict), RE subject to interpretation through religion (sense experience is also interpreted), Can RE be tested? (Limits on testing sense experience too, since one sense experience is compared to another sense experience, but one is always left unverified) |
|
|
Term
| List Hume's argument against miracles |
|
Definition
| Miracles are always very improbable. It is not as improbable that the reporter of a miracle is either lying or mistaken. Conclusion: One should never accept a miracle report |
|
|
Term
| Give an example that describes an objection to Hume's anti-miracle belief |
|
Definition
| Lottery. It is unlikely that anyone will win. If someone says they won, why couldn't they have won? Even though the chances are low, it is still possible. |
|
|
Term
| List the 4 historical facts that need to be explained in Jesus resurrection (with Craig and Ehrman) |
|
Definition
| Jesus' burial, The discovery of the empty tomb, Jesus' post-mortem(death) appearances, The disciples' beliefs in his resurrection |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An event that cannot occur (or be explained) through natural causes operative at the time and place |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A generalization about the behavior of physical objects |
|
|
Term
| (Define) Inherent (or prior) probability |
|
Definition
| How likely is the hypothesis on the background evidence alone (prior to considering the phenomenon)? |
|
|
Term
| (Define) Background evidence |
|
Definition
| What we can reasonably assume other than the phenomenon (i.e., the facts to be explained) |
|
|
Term
| (Define) Explanatory power |
|
Definition
| To what extent does the hypothesis lead us to expect the phenomenon? |
|
|
Term
| List Craig's 5 hypotheses for Jesus' post-mortem apperances |
|
Definition
| (1) Jesus came back to life by purely natural causes, (2) Jesus never really died but revived while he lay in the tomb, (3) Jesus' body was taken from the grave by his family or by the disciples, (4) Jesus had a twin brother who was mistaken for Jesus after his death, (5) Jesus was raised from the dead by God |
|
|
Term
| Describe the basis for Craig's beliefs on Jesus' post-mortem apperances |
|
Definition
| There is good historical evidence for: the burial, empty tomb, and disciples' belief. Even if the Gospels were written 30-40 years after Jesus death, they were based on earlier accounts (written and oral). If historians can say nothing about God (since they are only focused on the evidence), how can they say whether or not Jesus was raised "by God?" |
|
|
Term
| Describe the basis for Ehrman's beliefs on Jesus' post-mortem apperances |
|
Definition
| The Gospel accounts were written long after Jesus' death (not written by eyewitnesses, subject to Christian bias). "Jesus was raised by God" has a low probability, and historians should write only about natural matters as opposed to supernatural matters. |
|
|
Term
| Substance Dualism (Define) |
|
Definition
| A person is composed of two substances - a soul/mind AND a body |
|
|
Term
| Reductive Physicalism (Define) |
|
Definition
| Mental states are reducible to brain states (they are nothing over and above brain states) |
|
|
Term
| Nonreductive Physicalism (Define) |
|
Definition
| There is only one kind of substance and it is physical (body only), but there are nevertheless irreducible mental states |
|
|
Term
| List the 4 conscious states |
|
Definition
| Sensation (direct awareness via 5 senses), Thoughts/Beliefs (mental states expressible as statements - I think/believe that...), Desire (a felt inclination to act or to have/experience certain things - I would like some...), Choice (ability to form an effective intention) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Knowing everything that can be known |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If something happens that could have potentially not happened, despite it actually happening, it is considered a future contingent.
(i.e. - The fact that I’m writing this is a future contingent because I could not have, but I did.) |
|
|
Term
| Describe the issue with divine omniscience and human free will. |
|
Definition
| Suppose God knew 10 years ago that I’d steal a car tomorrow. Given this supposition, am I free to refrain from stealing it? (If YES, I have an ability that: (1) God held a false belief 10 years ago, (2) God held a different belief (but future events cannot change past truths), and (3) God did not exist 10 years ago) |
|
|
Term
| Name the three solutions to the issue with divine omniscience/free will |
|
Definition
| Compatibilist, Timelessness, Open Theism |
|
|
Term
| Describe the Compatabilist solution (to divine omniscience/free will) |
|
Definition
| You are acting FREELY if what you're doing is what you WANT to be doing (ability to do otherwise is not required) |
|
|
Term
| Describe the Timelessness solution (to divine omniscience/free will) |
|
Definition
| God is "outside" of time. His beliefs are not in the past, but rather knows the future in a way similar to how we know the present (direct observation) |
|
|
Term
| Describe Open Theism (solution to divine omniscience/free will) |
|
Definition
| God limits his own knowledge for the sake of granting free will to creatures (however, by limiting it, he doesn't know it, so he wouldn't be omniscient) |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem with Compatibilism? |
|
Definition
| If there is only one possible future (since God knows the future), we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions (since it was His doing) |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem with the Timelessness solution? |
|
Definition
| Timeless beliefs are unchangeable, as "set in stone" as past beliefs are (i.e., does not solve the issue of divine omniscience). Assumes God is directly aware of future, but one cannot be directly aware of something unless it exists (think of looking at a tree). Jesus was in time (can a timeless God enter time?) |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem with Open Theism? |
|
Definition
| Even if God limits His knowledge of the future, he still holds unlimited power over it. Prophecies: Some prophecies are conditional, God reserves the right to interfere with human acts. |
|
|
Term
| Regarding the Problem of Evil, define the "Basic Argument" |
|
Definition
| God and evil cannot coexist |
|
|
Term
| Regarding the Problem of Evil, define the "Argument from Amount" |
|
Definition
| (1) If God exists, he is omnipotent and perfectly good. (2) A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. (3) There are no limits on an omnipotent being. (4) If God exists, then he eliminates all evil. (5) But, there is evil (suffering). (6) So, God does not exist. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A description of the actual explanation for the existence of evil in the world |
|
|
Term
| Describe the "Counterpart Theodicy" |
|
Definition
| "Good" is relative to something that is "bad". So, if God brings "good" things into the world, He necessarily brings "evil" things into the world. ***Do not confuse this with the Knowledge Theodicy*** |
|
|
Term
| Describe the "Knowledge Theodicy" and some issues with it |
|
Definition
| We cannot know what "good" is unless there is "evil" to contrast it with. // Issues: (1) Doesn't justify all kinds of evil (Do we need genocide to know what goodness is?), (2) Doesn't justify the amount of evil (Do we need so much killing/theft to know what goodness is?), (3) God can know good/evil prior to creation/evil, so why can't we? |
|
|
Term
| Describe the "Punishment Theodicy" and some issues with it |
|
Definition
| People suffer because they did something to deserve it. // Issue: Innocents (infants, mentally ill), Bible rejects this (John 9:1-3) |
|
|
Term
| Describe the "Free Will Theodicy" |
|
Definition
| The ability to CHOOSE between good and evil is a necessary condition of the highest forms of love/goodness. (1) If people had no choice then morality/love would be ingenuine, (2) So God created free creatures to realize good/love, (3) And Evil/suffering is due to free choice, but justified by a greater good. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the "Soul Building Theodicy" |
|
Definition
| Hardship leads to character traits. (Issue: Fawn in burning forest) |
|
|
Term
| Describe the "noseeum inference" |
|
Definition
| There are no reasons that would justify God's actions (Skeptical Theists reject this) |
|
|
Term
| What idea do Skeptical Theists reject, and what 3 arguments can be given to support their belief? |
|
Definition
| They reject the Noseeum Inference (that there is no reason for God's actions). Arguments include: (1) Chess-Master: Just because you can't see a move that can be made (reason) doesn't mean there isn't one. (2) Complexity: Coffee connoisseur's can taste tones in coffee, just because we can't doesn't mean it isn't there. (3) Progress Argument: In the 1950's someone might have said "the Internet is not possible!" but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. |
|
|
Term
| List the four views of the nature of Hell |
|
Definition
| Traditional View, Universalism, Conditional Immortality (Annihiliation), Escapist View |
|
|
Term
| Nature of Hell: Describe the Traditional View |
|
Definition
| Those who utterly reject God are punished. Once the punishment begins it is – Inescapable, unending, and consists of profound misery. |
|
|
Term
| Nature of Hell: Describe Universalism |
|
Definition
| God’s gracious love is sufficient to save everyone eventually though some will have come to experience the torment of hell for a long period of time. (all will be saved EVENTUALLY) |
|
|
Term
| Nature of Hell: Describe Conditional Immortality (Annihilation) |
|
Definition
| After judgment, those who utterly reject God are destroyed. Immortality is thus conditional as is one’s response to God. |
|
|
Term
| Nature of Hell: Describe the Escapist View |
|
Definition
| Those who reject God are left to exist in alienation from God, but God never stops loving them, so they can be reconciled back to God; some are eventually reconciled, but not all. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| "Before death, salvation may be available to non-Christians". NOT "all paths lead to heaven", you must hold a specific belief. Instead, it's that Jesus may save you even if you aren't a Christian |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Before death, you must believe in God in order to gain salvation |
|
|
Term
| Define Descriptive Relativism |
|
Definition
| Makes a descriptive claim - Different cultures and societies have conflicting moral judgments |
|
|
Term
| Define Normative Relativism |
|
Definition
| An act is right if it conforms to the code of the society in which it is performed; an act is wrong if it violates this code. Culture dictates morality. |
|
|
Term
| What are the apparent consequences with Normative Relativism? (List the three issues) |
|
Definition
| (1) Arbitrary Issue: If NR is true, then a certain group (society) counts as the moral authority. (Why not some other group?) (2) Tolerance Issue: If NR is true, then those living in intolerant societies shouldn't be intolerant (holding a different belief deserves punishment). (3) Epistemological issue: If NR is true, then moral issues can be settled by an opinion poll. |
|
|
Term
| Why might issues with Descriptive Relativism be overstated? (List the two reasons) |
|
Definition
| (1) "Cultural disagreements" might actually be caused by something else (i.e., religious differences - ex: kosher food in America). (2) There is more agreement than we typically assume (i.e., bravery is considered good in all cultures). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Moral statements are neither true nor false, but merely expresses approval or disapproval (ex: Murder - boo!) - NOT saying "Murder is wrong" (because that's a statement) |
|
|
Term
| Divine Command Theory: Describe |
|
Definition
| An act is morally good simply because an almighty being commands it (and wrong simply because an almighty being forbids it) |
|
|
Term
| Divine Command Theory: What objections does it face? |
|
Definition
| (1) Arbitrary - What if God commands setting babies on fire? (2) Might makes right, which is not a sound ethical principle. (3) Dilemma: Does God forbid/command acts for a reason? If YES, circular argument (good because it's good), if NO, "God is good" based on an external determinant. |
|
|
Term
| Divine Command Theory: Does CS Lewis accept this, or does he prefer a different view? If different, what view? |
|
Definition
| CS Lewis prefers Natural Law Theory (and denies DCT) because he doesn't like the arbitrariness of what God can and does say. He prefers Natural Law Theory because he believes moral truths are at least partly grounded in human nature. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Natural Law Theory |
|
Definition
| Natural theory states that moral truths are not true simply because god wills them to be true. Moral truths are at least partly grounded in human nature, and in what makes humans flourish. (CS Lewis prefers this over DCT) |
|
|
Term
| Describe Religious Pluralism |
|
Definition
| Each of the major world religions is a means of salvation. The basic moral teaching of the major religions is the same. Religious doctrines describe divine reality as conceived by humans. |
|
|
Term
| What are the arguments FOR Religious Pluralism? |
|
Definition
| (1) If you have no argument for why you believe a certain religion that could convince most rational people, then you are irrational if you hold the belief to be true (but who can convince most people?). (2) Many different religious teachings, with powerful influence from upbringing/culture, but they all support a less-centered life. (3) Since humans are largely influenced by their culture, it would be unloving of God to damn all believers of a different faith. |
|
|
Term
| What are the arguments AGAINST Religious Pluralism? |
|
Definition
| Pluralists hold the idea that religious doctrines describe divine reality as conceived by HUMANS, not the divine reality in itself. But most religious people claim to be talking about God, not themselves. |
|
|
Term
| What is the significance of the "Galileo episode"? |
|
Definition
| Challenged literal interpretation of the Bible. Many church leaders believed Scripture in that the world was the center of the universe, almost viewing Scripture as a scientific source of knowledge. (If this is not literal, what else is not literal?) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| SUN is center of universe |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| EARTH is center of universe |
|
|
Term
| List and describe the three general views (theses) on the relation between science and religion |
|
Definition
| Conflict thesis (science vs religion, logically incompatible), Independence thesis (science and religion but separate, each has power in its own "department" - science for empirical, religion for values and spiritual meanings), Consonance thesis (science with religion, they work together) |
|
|
Term
| List the 3 approaches to interpreting Genesis 1-3 |
|
Definition
| Literal Interpretation View, Concordance View, Literary View |
|
|
Term
| Interpreting Genesis 1-3: Describe the Literal Interpretation view |
|
Definition
| Take Bible at face value, literal - 24 hours, 7 days, talking snake, etc. |
|
|
Term
| Interpreting Genesis 1-3: Describe the Concordance view |
|
Definition
| Aim to mix science and religion: "Day Age view" not 24 hours but a while, "Intermittent Day view" with long periods of time between each day |
|
|
Term
| Interpreting Genesis 1-3: Describe the Literary view |
|
Definition
| Text is not supposed to be scientific, read it for spiritual meanings and lessons (focus on figurative, poetic, symbolic, not literal) |
|
|
Term
| What is the Day Age view (of Genesis)? |
|
Definition
| Not 24 hour days, but a while |
|
|
Term
| What is the Intermittent Day view (of Genesis)? |
|
Definition
| 24 hour days, but with long gaps between each day |
|
|
Term
| Give an example of an issue with the Literal Interpretation of Genesis (creation) |
|
Definition
| (1) Sun created on day 4, so how could there be evening and morning on days 1-3? (2) Sun comes after vegetation (how would they grow?) |
|
|
Term
| Describe an issue with the Concordance and Literary views of Genesis (creation) |
|
Definition
| They impose modern agendas on an ancient text. They fail to place sufficient stress on the theological nature of the text. |
|
|
Term
| Young Earth Creationism: What is it? |
|
Definition
| Earth is 6000 years old (Literal Biblical interp), Major geological phenomena are caused divinely. Pro divine interaction, Anti science. |
|
|
Term
| Young Earth Creationism: What are its challenges? |
|
Definition
| Relies on accuracy of literal interpretation (e.g., Genesis - Sun, diff Gen 1 & 2 accts, symbolic events), Conflicts with modern science (science shows that earth is 4.5 billion years old) |
|
|
Term
| Old Earth Creationism: What is it? |
|
Definition
| The earth is as old as geology says it is (4.5b y/o). Microevolution occurs WITHIN species (i.e., humans do not come from simplest life forms, but rather primates or something similar) |
|
|
Term
| Old Earth Creationism: What are its challenges? |
|
Definition
| Relies on Day-Age View, Assumes evidence for evolution is weak (but scientists believe it is convincing) |
|
|
Term
| Intelligent Design: What is it? |
|
Definition
| The universe is as old as science says. Evolution is good, but not good enough. Evolution must have required an Intelligent Designer |
|
|
Term
| Intelligent Design: What are its challenges? |
|
Definition
| (1) ID believes that ID hypotheses are required as part of SCIENCE, but science requires empirically testable predictions (i.e., if I drop the eraser, it will fall). (2) Darwinian evolution can build irreducibly complex systems serving ONE function then later changing to serve MULTIPLE functions (e.g., wings = warmth -> warmth and flight). |
|
|
Term
| Progressive Creationism: What is it? |
|
Definition
| Accept science and evolution of the human body, but God divinely inserted a soul into humans |
|
|
Term
| Theistic Evolution: What is it? |
|
Definition
| Evolution occurred according to science, but salvation occurs according to Christianity. Soul is divinely given, miracles occur in lives, salvation is given. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| There is no God. Evolution occurred according to science only. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the Design Argument |
|
Definition
| (1) The world is too complex, purposeful, beautiful to have occurred randomly/accidentally. (2) Therefore, it must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, purposeful being. (3) God is a sentient, intelligent, purposeful being. (4) Therefore, God exists. |
|
|
Term
| What is William Paley's version of the Design Argument? |
|
Definition
| WATCHMAKER: Watch found in the sand, its several parts were put together for a specific purpose, i.e., telling time. Conclusion, the watch must have had an intelligent maker who designed it to do what it does. |
|
|
Term
| As opposed to Inductive and Deductive arguments, what is Abductive? |
|
Definition
| Inferences to the BEST explanation. (i.e., since it is so unlikely that the world was created by random chance, it seems a better response that it was created purposefully, i.e., by God) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The apparent "purposiveness" of the universe (occurring either by God or by random chance) |
|
|
Term
| Define Irreducible Complexity, and give an example |
|
Definition
| Something so simple that it cannot function by itself (i.e., millions of cillia in the lungs that don't do anything without microtubules, connectors, etc.) |
|
|
Term
| Describe the Fine-Tuned Universe |
|
Definition
| The basic physical structures (laws of nature, physical constants, & initial conditions) are life-supporting |
|
|
Term
| What is the point of "Life Supporting Physics"? |
|
Definition
| Produces the types of chemicals necessary for life to be supported on earth (i.e., oxygen & hydrogen in balance so that we can breath, etc.) - If there was too much of one thing (hydrogen), we would die. |
|
|
Term
| What do theistic and non-theistic scientists disagree on regarding the Fine-Tuned Universe? |
|
Definition
| They DO agree that the universe is fine-tuned, but they disagree on WHY it is fine-tuned (i.e., God or chance?). |
|
|
Term
| What would the Fine-Tuned argument suggest about the "Big Bang"? |
|
Definition
| If it was slightly WEAKER, the universe would have collapsed back on itself almost immediately. If it was slightly STRONGER, the universe would have been blown apart and fail to form. |
|
|
Term
| What would the Fine-Tuned argument suggest about the composition of a star? |
|
Definition
| If the nuclear force (that holds together protons and neutrons) was slightly stronger, all hydrogen would be converted to helium. If it was slightly weaker, there would be nothing but hydrogen. (Either way, it would not be self-sustaining). It is so fine-tuned that if it was any different, it could not support life of any kind. |
|
|
Term
| What is the ABDUCTIVE phenomenon (argument) about the Fine-Tuned Universe? |
|
Definition
| FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE: It is highly unlikely on the assumption of Naturalism, and NOT highly unlikely on the assumption of Theism. So our universe is evidence for Theism over Naturalism. |
|
|
Term
| What are the OBJECTIONS to the ABDUCTIVE phenomenon (argument) about the Fine-Tuned Universe? |
|
Definition
| (1) How do we assign a numerical possibility to the probability of God? (2) "God of the Gaps" where any lack of scientific explanation instantly assumes divine explanation. (3) Just because "random chance" is unlikely does not mean it is impossible (i.e., lottery example). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Evil caused by the immoral behavior (or negligence) of humans (e.g., genocide, murder, child abuse) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Evil that is NOT caused by the immoral behavior of humans (e.g., Disease, tsunamis, earthquakes) |
|
|
