• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"An analysis of arguments for the existence of God will result in valid philosophical reasons to believe in God." Discuss and evaluate this claim with reference to both the argument from religious experience and the Ontological argument.

Extracts from this document...


"An analysis of arguments for the existence of God will result in valid philosophical reasons to believe in God" Discuss and evaluate this claim with reference to both the argument from religious experience and the Ontological argument This question chiefly brings very important issues surrounding the basis for forming a belief in God, and whether that can purely be on philosophical grounds. For instance, if somebody were to become convinced that the rationality of the religious experience and Ontological arguments were sound would belief in God follow? Or, is it simply that an analysis of these arguments shows that they are fallacious? Firstly, when analysing Anselm's Ontological argument it can, too many, seem remarkably unconvincing, if not frustrating; it appears to be more like a riddle of words than a rational proof for a given proposition. As Bertrand Russell writes 'it is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies'. Even Plantinga, one of the main proponents of the argument, doubts its influence, writing that 'Few people, I should think, have been brought to belief in God by means of this argument.' ...read more.


However, although Platinga doubts the influence of the argument, he believes that it 'establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability.' In other words, it establishes, for someone who already believes, a rational basis for doing. Particularly, to a believer, religious experience, or testimony of a religious experience, strengthens belief. However, Richard Swinburne goes further and argues that religious experience constitutes evidence for the existence of God; his principle of credulity and testimony arguing that we are justified in accepting that a religious experience occurred and the accounts of others unless evidence is revealed for the contrary. Yet, as Peter Vardy writes, to the unbeliever 'claims to religious experience are as incredulous as claims to have seen the Loch Ness monster or to have seen UFOs.' Therefore, as somebody would be sceptical about claims about the Loch Ness or UFOs, so too will someone with a disposition that God does not exist, seek out other natural explanations. As Richard Dawkins writes 'If you've had such an experience, you may find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it.' ...read more.


Paul even makes it clear in the New Testament that God cannot be known through our own wisdom, writing that in 1 Corinthians 1:20 'For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him.' Paul even makes clear that we shouldn't in 1 Corinthians 2:4 'My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.' Furthermore, with such a tiding change of arguments, I would reject complete Evidentialism (a position that someone is not justified unless there is sufficient evidence.) Belief should be defended against objection but it cannot be founded on external evidence alone. Reformed epistemologists contend that there are many justified beliefs that one must accept without sufficient evidence or argument. For instance, upon seeing a tree, someone simply believes they are seeing a tree. Such beliefs, among which they put God, are argued to be 'properly basic' and need no argument to substantiate them - by properly basic they mean that they do not depend for their justification on other beliefs, but on something outside the realm of belief. ?? ?? ?? ?? Isaac Simmonds/1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    Immanuel Kant rejected the cosmological argument based on his theory that reason is too limited to know anything beyond human experience. However, he did argue that religion could be established as presupposed by the workings of morality in the human mind ("practical reason").

  2. The Ontological Argument - Critique

    That is to say, for every perfect horse, or perfect apple, who is to decided which is greater, the perfect horse of the perfect apple? Thus, Anselm's argument remains; it can only apply to that than which no greater can be conceived, not to objects who may or may not be perfect within their own realms.

  1. Outline the Ontological argument for the existence of God. Comment on the claim that ...

    Secondly, it is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. Thirdly, Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. It is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

  2. Cosmological argument

    individually it then seems absurd to ask the question what caused everything as a whole, or does it? You could easily say if you ask three individuals why they are catching the train and your response is one person is going to

  1. Give an account of the ontological argument for the existence of God

    He says that by the word God we mean a supremely perfect being. He is a very important person and does not have any flaws. You cannot improve on perfection. For God to lack existence, it would mean that God is lacking perfection and that cannot be the case.

  2. Proof and Probability in Arguing for God's Existence.

    If an inductive argument for God's existence is invalid, because it has not made sound use of evidence, it fails to present a probability. If it is valid but not 'good', in that its premises are not all acceptable to would-be objectors, it may still be helpful in showing that belief in God is rational.

  1. Outline the Ontological Argument for the existence of God.

    Anselm argues that it is better to be a necessary being than a contingent being, a being that depends on other things for its existence i.e. having a cause/end because this would ultimately limit your power. He explains that God must be a necessary being because if God exists as

  2. Explain the Ontological Argument + Kant's Argument has Finished all Arguments

    Also, anything that must exist no matter what (necessary) is greater that can be thought of to not exist (i.e. anything contingent.) Therefore, God is a necessary being that exists. René Descartes is another philosopher who used the Ontological argument to prove the existence of God.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work