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) |
|
|
