Ontological argument and the relationship

between reason and faith

0 1 Analyse key objections that have been made to the

ontological argument.
The Specification identifies three areas for debate and full marks are
available for a full analysis of each one. In each case the fault with the
argument should be clear.

Those based on the definition of God

This is not what all understand to be God, (e.g. following Aquinas);
definition not coherent what Anselm means by greater can be explored
here, (e.g.
Norman Malcolm describes the idea that it is greater to exist in reality
than in the mind alone as remarkably queer); definition not informative /
lacks features of God of classical theism.

Those based on the idea that existence is a predicate of God.

Analysis of the concept of existence or of what it means to exist and the
demonstration that in normal discourse, existence is not a property or
predicate of an object. Expect reference to the established debate, e.g.
from Kant.

Those based on the possibility of deriving existential claims from

definition.
Some conflation with the above is likely but expect an analysis of the idea
of an existential claim as the claim that there is something corresponding
to a particular definition in the real world so even if I have the idea in
mind of God whose non -existence is impossible, I may still ask if there is
something in the real world that should correctly be called God.
Russells argument is of particular value here.
(30 marks) AO1

0 2 To what extent would the success or failure of the ontological

argument have any
significance for religious faith?

A well-informed discussion must deal with the likely consequences of both

success and failure. It may assume or analyse one or more concepts of
faith and consider what success or failure would actually be.
Some of the following points may be raised:
Proof negates / would negate faith, so failure as proof neither looked for
nor relevant.
The argument starts from faith rather than ending with it its success is
giving understanding to faith and would be significant for faith.
Success in challenging the fools concept of God would be valuable.
The greatest conceivable being (the God of philosophy) is not the God of
(theistic) faith
so argument is irrelevant.
For an answer which discusses only the significance of one of success or
failure maximum Level 5.
(20 marks) AO2

Question 2 Religious language

03 Explain what it means to say that religious language is:
non-cognitive
symbolic.
Candidates should show understanding of both the non-cognitive theory of
religious language and the idea that religious language is symbolic, with
appropriate use of examples and reference to scholarly views.
There is an overlap between non-cognitive and symbolic, so apply
suggestions below flexibly. Key idea: language not used literally but
represents something other than itself.
Non-cognitive: not intended to convey information e.g. Braithwaite and
the idea of religious language as moral discourse expressing attitudes
and intentions.
Religious language as evocative e.g. intended to evoke a sense of the
presence of
God rather than to inform the intellect about God.
Symbolic: Note analogical use of language may, but need not, be
included here.
Symbolic language participates in the reality it relates to (Tillich) so
opening up that reality to human understanding. The power of symbols
changes over time and their interpretation may vary. Use of symbolism in
(e.g.) religious poetry, myth, scripture, prayer.
Answers that deal with only one of non-cognitive or symbolic, max level 5.
(30 marks) AO1

04 It is not possible to talk meaningfully about God. Evaluate

this claim.
This can be approached in a variety of ways from both atheist and faith
perspectives.
The verification/ falsification debate may be, but need not be, used.
In support (e.g.)
Verification / falsification debate;
Impossible to talk meaningfully when there is no shared experience;
All words take their meaning from empirical world; God, since he is
transcendent, not
in the same category, so words do not apply;
Contrary to claim (e.g.)
Refutation of verification / falsification principles
God, through scripture, provides the words that may be used;
God guides human beings to a true understanding, the words are a
medium of religious experience;
God as a term has rules for its use that is its meaning e.g., God is
omnipotent and God is omniscient, are analytical statements and true
by definition.
(20 marks) AO2

Question 4 The problem of evil

07 Explain the free will defence and examine its purpose.
Explain: The free will defence is presented in a variety of ways, and
markers must expect a variety of different, but equally acceptable,
approaches to this question.
Creation as it left the creator was both perfect and free traditionally
understood to mean that Angels and Man were free to act as they chose.
Free will is an essential part of developing as a spiritual being, in a freely
chosen loving relationship with God, which is the greatest good. Denying
human beings this free choice, and the possibility of this greatest good,
would not have been good / loving.
All evil is the consequence of the abuse of free will. It is not the fault of
God.
God will not intervene to remove the consequences of free will because
this would make the use of free will valueless. Human beings have to
appreciate the value and significance of free will; extending this, some
argue that free will can only be meaningfully exercised in a world like this
in which what we call natural evil occurs. In this way the free will defence
may explain the existence of natural evil, but many presentations of it
simply do not tackle the issue of natural evil at all.
Purpose: to answer the challenge to faith posed by evil; to construct a
theodicy which shows that the existence of evil and of an all-loving and all
powerful God is possible; to defend the justice of God in the face of evil.
There is not expected to be any balance between the two parts of the
answer.
Max level 5 if only one tackled.
(30 marks) AO1
08 How far is free will a satisfactory explanation for the existence
of evil in a world created by God?
This may, but need not, include a debate about whether free will actually
exists.
The following points do not form an exhaustive list, nor is it expected that
candidates should refer to all of them.
Finitely perfect beings choosing to act against Gods will is that a
contradiction?
Did suffering, and therefore evil, predate the first moral evil?
How can moral evil explain natural evil?
Where did the temptation to do evil come from if evil only existed after
the decision was made?
The claim that God had the choice between creating robots controlled by
God and beings who would freely choose to do wrong is a false one. God
could, and should, have created beings who always freely chose to do
good.
Gods foreknowledge must mean that he knew the choices humanity
would make, and the consequences of those choices, before they
happened. Knowing this was
Gods action in creating such beings a loving one?
(20 marks) AO2