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). |
|
|
