• 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. The verification principle offers no real challenge to religious belief. Discuss

    Flew presented an analogy of the jungle. Two explorers in the jungle find a clearing in which weeds and flowers grow. One of them suggests that there is a gardener who looks after clearing; the other suggests that there is not.

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

    It could therefore be said that the cosmological argument can work on the assumption that the cause of existing things is not a thing, in which case the above contradiction would disappear.54 Leibniz is credited with having formulated one of the most fundamental of all metaphysical questions, "Why is there

  1. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

    The individual atoms of which we are composed would differ to those of our copy. We are contingent beings and given that there must be some gap in time in between us ceasing to be and our replica coming to be, then surely it cannot be the same person.

  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. Religious experience presents a convincing argument to prove the existence of God. Analyse this ...

    Discuss criticism of this argument (8 marks) As the argument is a posteriori means that the conclusion is only possible or probable leading many people to thinking the argument fails. Unlike the other a posteriori arguments for a belief in God, this argument needs a belief in God to succeed.

  2. Compare and contrast the contributions of Descartes and Humes on the issue of the ...

    Descartes version: Cause must have reality as it's effect, the idea of a perfect being is caused by God. Therefore God exists. However Hume also objects to Descartes cosmological argument for the existence of God by using his theory of causation in his book 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'.

  1. Philosophers have proved conclusively that religious language is meaningful. Discuss

    false using either knowledge gained through logical reasoning or empirical evidence, then the logical positivists would regard it as being meaningless. Logical positivists accepted statements as meaningful if they knew the conditions under which the statement could be proved true or false, not just statements that could be proved true, e.g.

  2. Assess whether the cosmological argument proves the existence of God.

    time when everything would pass out of existence, but Aquinas utilising his reductio ad absurdum, claims that if the previous statement were true, then there we would be nothing but there is, meaning that that is false. This first part of his argument concludes that everything cannot be contingent and there needs to be necessary being.

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