Adrian Rufo P.

Naragas October 10, 2017

Philosophy of Religion Rev. Fr. Joseph Alner Y. Garrido
Extensive Outline

Part 1: Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

1. What is Religion? by Walter Stace
According to Stace, the essence of religion is the search of contradiction and paradox.1
 Religion, for Stace is a vision of something that
- Stands beyond, behind and within the passing flux of things.
- Is real yet to be realized.
- Remote possibility yet recent facts.
- Possessing good yet beyond reach.
- Ulitimate ideal yet hopeless quest.2
 That something then that the religion sees is the hunger of the soul for the impossible,
unattainable and unconceivable3 – for that which is beyond existence and non-existence itself. It
is the hunger for what we are attracted.
 Religion seeks the light, the light that is nowhere at any place or time. The light is not existent
in this world yet it is the great light that shins over the world.
 It is to seek the infinite bliss and that is with God.
 Religion is the desire to break away from being and existence in order to go beyond it. To go
beyond the sphere of space and time.
 It is the desire to be utterly free from the fetters of being because “to be” is to be tied of what
you are.4
2. Philosophy and Theology by William Rowe
According to Rowe, Philosophy of Religion is different from Theology.
 He defines Philosophy of Religion as:5
- Not a study of particular religions and its history.
- Assess the rationality of Religion not within but beyond.
- To analyze religious beliefs and achieve rational justification.
- It is a study of way in which religious beliefs are justified of those who hold
them. It is not a refute but to assess sorts of reason that thoughtful people have
advanced for.

1
Yeager Hudson “the Philosophy of Religion: selected readings”. Mayfield Publishing Company,1240 Villa Street Mountain View,
California.1991. Pg. 6
2
Ibid, Pg. 6
3
Ibid, Pg. 6
4
Ibid, Pg. 7
5
Ibid, Pg 10
- It is a discipline which studies from a vantage point beyond. It is a critical
examination of basic religious beliefs.6
 Theology as:
- A study of doctrine. Its doctrine are precise and undebatable.
- A discipline within a religion. It develops doctrine and grounds them to the
reason common to mankind.7
3. The Truth of Faith and Philosophical Truth by Paul Tillich
Tillich said that the truth of faith cannot negate the Philosophical truth vice versa. He
said that the two are related as both different forms of expression of the Ultimate.
 The truth of faith:8
- Is understood through symbols.
- Involves expression
- Use symbol in order to express our faith because we cannot fully articulate and
grasp the Ultimate reality.
 Philosophical Truth:9
- Is understood through concepts.
- Detached description.
- Use concepts in order to become pointers to the Ultimate reality
 Yet, despite of their difference, they still have the same concern and that is to seek the
Ultimate Truth.
 We cannot deny the fact that there are truths of faith in the philosophy and philosophical
truths in the Faith.
 Because of this, an idea came called the philosophical faith arises. It is the marriage
between the faith and philosophy where they point to the same ultimate truth.
4. Religious Experience by Ian Barbour
Ian Barbour explicates what is a religious experience that man meets in his struggle in
the world. He also classified different attitudes of religion as its plurality rises.
 According to Barbour, Religious experience have 6 kinds:
- Numinous experience of the Holy
 The experience of overwhelming; encounter of the finite with the infinite;
the Ultimate Reality and nothingness; the Creator and the creature.
- Mystical experience of Unity
 Experience of mystical union with the Holy (e.g. mystics); united with the
nature, being one with the universe.
- Transformative experience of Reorientation
6
Ibid Pg. 11
7
Yeager Hudson “the Philosophy of Religion: selected readings”. Mayfield Publishing Company,1240 Villa Street Mountain View,
California.1991. Pg. 10
8
Ibid, Pg. 12
9
Ibid Pg. 13
The experience of change of heart (metanoia); a conversion; from
brokenness to healing.
- Courage to face suffering and death
 The experience of self-giving as the highest value (e.g. the martyrs of
faith).
- Moral experience of obligation
 It is the experience on which you are obligated to do the right thing in life.
You are bound to make the right decision in a situation you are in.
- Awe in response to order and creativity of the world.
 Your appreciation to the creation that you see in the world. You are
attracted and in awe.
 He said that in religion there are various attitudes on the plurality of religion:
- Absolutism
 There is only one religion in the world
- Approximation of truth
 Find one truth in different religion/beliefs.
- Identity of Essence
 We have the same truth and we are also the same.
- Cultural Relativism
 You have your own and I to have mine.
- Pluralistic Dialogue
 Diversity in religion recognizing the difference.
4. Rudolf Otto
The German Lutheran theologian Rudolf Otto, in his The Idea of the Holy, speaks of our
encounter with the holy – the numinous – as mysterium tremendum et fascinosum.

 According to Rudolf Otto, there are two ways of encountering the Holy as Mysterium
Tremendum et Fascinosum.10
- The experience of awefulness (tremendum) before mystery (the Wholly
Other).11
 We are drawn attracted to the numinous yet it evokes in us our creature-
feeling/creature-consciousness (there is something and we are nothing).
An experience of wonder and fear (fear of the Lord; reverence); dread and
amazement.
- The experience of over-poweringness (majestas).12

10
Otto, R. (1958). The idea of the Holy, New York: Oxford University Press Pg. 8
11
Ibid, Pg. 13
12
Ibid, Pg. 19
 We felt that there is this something that is greater than us. The experience
of createdness and the feeling of creaturehood.
 Aside from this, we also experience the Holy as mysterium familiare. Unlike the awe and
fear-inspiring Other, we behold the familiar: loving, gentle, human-like other. The
experience of closeness to God, being a personal God who is always there to be called
like a friend.

Part 1I: Argument on God’s Existence

A. Cosmological

1. Saint Thomas of Aquinas

Saint Thomas of Aquinas was a Dominican theologian and philosopher and was considered
one of the great theologians of the church. He wrote the book Summa Theologica.


In his Summa, he proposes the Quinque Viae (Five Ways) to prove God’s existence
through the evidence provided by the order and beauty of the world. 13
- Argument on Motion14
 Change (movement from potency to act). This is made possible only by
pure act. Hence, there is an Unmoved Mover – God
- Argument on Causality/Efficient Cause15
 Infinite regress in causation is impossible. Everything is caused by
something other than itself, the Uncaused Cause – God.
- Argument on Necessary Being and Contingent Being16
 Thing may or may not exist in the world, contingent and unnecessary.
Contingent being cannot create another contingent because he does not
have the capacity for he is finite being. It is impossible also for everything
to be contingent in our universe. Hence, there must be a Self-Subsistent
Necessary Being - God that creates us all and everything in the universe.
- Argument on Gradation of Things17
 There is a gradation among all existent beings. To measure gradation
requires a standard which exhibits the pinnacle of perfection. This
standard is the Absolute Being – God.
B. Teleological
1. Saint Thomas of Aquinas

13
The Philosophy of Religion Reader, edited by Chad Meister (London: Routledge, 2008). Pg. 193
14
Ibid, Pg. 194
15
Ibid, Pg. 194
16
Ibid, Pg. 194
17
Ibid, Pg. 194
The Fifth argument that Thomas made in his five ways to prove God’s existence is
Teleological in Character.

 Argument on Intelligent Design/Designer18

- The governance of the world exhibit that unintelligent bodies act towards an
end. Acting to an end is a sign of intelligence. Hence, there must be an
Intelligent Designer that governs all things.
2. William Paley

He was a theologian, moral philosopher, and Christin apologist in eighteenth-century

England. He is best-known for his design argument for God’s existence which is contained in his
following selection the classical design argument.19

Accordingly, things in the world act toward an end. Example is the great disparity
between a stone and a watch. The watch exhibits orderly and intelligent design even it
has complexities but it run orderly so much like the world. 20
 Therefore, there must be a God, just as there is a watchmaker who creates the watch,
who ordered the design of the world.21
C. Ontological
1. Saint Anselm of Canterbury

The 12th century Benedictine monk, philosopher, and archbishop of Canterbury, provides the
best example of a purely a priori proof of God’s existence.


His aim was to find a single argument which would require no other proof. Fides
Quarens Intellectum, faith seeking understanding. This was his a priori argument to
proof the existence of God.
 God is Id Quo Maius Cogitari Nequit (Nothing Greater can be Conceived). – 1st
philosophical name
- If God is IQMCN, then he is the greatest of all: Summum Omnium – 2nd
philosophical name
- The believer knows that God is perfect because he exists both in mind and
reality unlike the fool who thinks about God’s perfection is mere idea (golden
mountain).
- In fact, God is even the Quiddam Maius Quam Cogitari Possit (that which is
greater can be thought). – 3rd philosophical name
2. Rene Descartes

18
Ibid, Pg. 195
19
The Philosophy of Religion Reader, edited by Chad Meister (London: Routledge, 2008). Pg. 251
20
Ibid, Pg. 253
21
Ibid, Pg. 255
The 16th Century French philosopher and the Father of Modern Philosophy, also renders his
own ontological argument. Found in the Third Meditation of his Meditations on First Philosophy
and the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul. Having discovered that consciousness
is the starting point of certitude. Descartes is confronted with a dilemma: how can he warrant the
certainty of the reality outside the res cogitans, the res extensa? Aside from this, the most
important question remains: how can one be certain of God’s existence

 There are 3 arguments on how he seeks to prove God’s existence

- Efficient Causality argument
 The idea of the infinite strikes as the most distinct and clearest idea of
all. However, this idea cannot come to me since I am finite and so it
must come from the infinite itself. This, however, demonstrates a
union of innate and adventitious ideas.
- Proofs through ontologism
 The infinity of perfect ideas in me cannot come from me who is
imperfect. More so, it cannot be that I am the one causing this idea.
However, as I, imperfect may be, still desire for the perfect—a unique
desire which is metaphysical in character—desire for being. This
desire, then, cannot be false; the perfect must exist.
- Proof through Cartesian Cogito
 God is my idea of a supreme perfect being. Existence is a perfection of
all perfections; therefore, God as the most perfect being necessarily
exists. This reality asserts itself in human thought.

D. Pragmatic Argument
1. William James

The 19th century American psychologist and philosopher who offered a rational explanation
of what God is and his existence. He is famous for his philosophy pragmatism (Benefit-
Directed arguments) and his notion on the Genuine Option.22

 Genuine Option/Will to Believe. Accordingly, we need to make choices in life that

calls for different options: living or dead, forced or avoidable, momentous or trivial.
A Genuine Option is living, forced, momentous; it is more than deciding ordinary
things, not knowing the truth but taking the risk (following our passional nature).23
 To choose and to favor for what is the good is a genuine option in life.
 There is no certainty in this decision but only a will to believe.
 Because at some point you will have to choose and if that comes, your decision to
choose the good is by believing in it.

22
The Philosophy of Religion Reader, edited by Chad Meister (London: Routledge, 2008). Pg. 366
23
Ibid, Pg. 367
Faith in God calls for a Genuine Option. Whether we believe or not, we choose
between options, at our own peril, for our own fate.24
 To choose to believe in God as a genuine option means to believe without evidence.
2. Blaise Pascal

He was a renowned French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher. He is famous for his
pragmatic argument in the book that he wrote The Wager. 25


Based on a type of early decision theory and probability theory, Pascal argues in the
following famous selection that believing in the Christian God is a better bet than
not believing.
 The wager can be put simply as follows. There are limited number of options
concerning belief in God:26
- Belief in God and he does exist.
- Belief in God and he does not exist.
- Disbelief in God and he does exist.
- Disbelief in God and he does not exist.
 If we choose to believe in God and he does exist; we have infinite
gain.
 If we choose to believe in God and he does not exist; we have not lost
much (if anything)
 If we choose to disbelieve in God and he does exist; we have an
infinite loss.
 If we choose to disbelieve in God and he does not exist; we neither
gain nor lose much (if anything).
 So, Pascal maintains, the best gamble is for belief in God. For those who believe in
God, there is no need for proof but only faith and trust.
 Error is not stake here the choice is on happiness. There is no greater happiness than
to believe in God.27
E. Moralistic Argument
1. Paul Copan

He is Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University.
In the following selection, he argues that objective moral values are properly basic and make
sense in a theistic, but not in a non-theistic, universe. 28

24
Ibid, Pg. 376
25
Ibid, Pg. 389
26
The Philosophy of Religion Reader, edited by Chad Meister (London: Routledge, 2008). Pg. 387
27
Ibid, Pg. 391
28
Ibid, Pg. 315
 The central argument of his essay can be put simply in the following syllogism:29
- If objective moral values exist, therefore God Exists.
- Objective moral values do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
 Man basically is morally natured. It can be seen by man’s ability to foster moral
values in life.
 But man’s moral capacity is not solely coming from him. He does not create his own
moral values in life.
 The reason why man has the capacity to foster moral values is because of God’s
existence.
 We cannot say that we do good just for goodness sake but we do good because we
know that there is God who is existing in our lives.
 God really do exist as an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent
and Supreme Being that is all good and is the source of all goodness.30
 So if man is morally natured then he is bound to actualize his nature as a moral being.
He must act morally not because of the reward but because of his duty as a moral
being.
 It is also good to postulate God so that our moral actions will become meaningful.31

Part III: Atheism

1. Karl Marx

A German revolutionary thinker, formulated the version of socialism known as communism

or Marxism. As essential ingredient in Marx’s revolutionary social program was the elimination
of religion. Marx is not offering an argument about the truth or falsify of the teachings of theism.
He starts from an unargued presupposition that theism is false and religion is harmful, he uses
rhetoric in an effort to convince people to renounce religion.32

 For Marx, he view religion as a pacifier to human, reconciles them to the

oppression they suffer under capitalist society and hinders their awareness of the
urgent need of revolution.33
 According to him, religion is the opium of the people, its abolition is necessary if
people are to achieve not a drugged, illusory happiness but a real happiness. 34

29
Ibid, Pg. 315
30
The Philosophy of Religion Reader, edited by Chad Meister (London: Routledge, 2008). Pg. 330
31
Ibid, Pg. 330
32
Yeager Hudson “the Philosophy of Religion: selected readings”. Mayfield Publishing Company,1240 Villa Street Mountain
View, California.1991. Pg. 318
33
Ibid, Pg. 318
34
Ibid, Pg. 318

He said that religion is man’s struggle to the other world. But he forgets that he
created this religion.
 Marx is more concern on material and economic life. We must live first before we
understand.
 Man also must be politically aware than resorting to religion.
 Kain muna bago lipay kasi pag wala kain, wala lipay.
2. Sigmund Freud

Freud was an Austrian neurologist and psychologist and the father of psychoanalysis. He is
often considered one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century. He offers in his
selection “Religious ideas as wish fulfillment” the argument that feeling of helplessness and
fear in childhood foster a desire for fatherly, loving protection. This desire, or wish, for a
protective figure carries on into adulthood and demands a greater, more powerful being than a
human father.35

He said that man’s wish fulfillment can be seen in the religion and it suggest two
desires:36
- The substantiation of universal justice (all are equal)
- A continuation of our own existence after death.
 According to him, these wishes are satisfied through “illusions” of divine providence.
 Other illusory answers that the religion presents to us to such as how the universe
began and how the mind and body are related.
 In religion, humans call God in times of needs to make wishes. It is because of
man’s helplessness that he calls God.
 For him, this will lead man to despair and blind obedience because eventually if his
wishes will not be granted, he will suffer despair.37
3. Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was a German philosopher, cultural critic, poet, philologist, and
Latin and Greek scholar whose work has exerted a profound influence on Western philosophy
and modern intellectual history. He is famous for his work The Madman.

 He started his essay by saying that there is a madman who lit lamps in a bright
morning and is shouting that he seeks God.
 He said that he cannot find God for God is dead and we are the ones who killed
him.38

35
The Philosophy of Religion Reader, edited by Chad Meister (London: Routledge, 2008). Pg. 502
36
Ibid, Pg. 502
37
Ibid, Pg. 503
38
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science in the portable Nietszche, edited and translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York:
Penguin Books, 1982.) Pg. 125
 This death of God is the consequence of the man that want to stand on his own; man
forgets God as the Moral Compass – an obstruction for the realization of Ubermensch
(man becomes superman).
 Nietzsche is criticizing the modern society for being too much dependent on
theirselves.

Part IV: Other Philosophers

1. H. J. McCloskey

McCloskey is a professor of philosophy at La Trobe University in Australia, offers a

powerful statement of the problem of evil, as well as a brief critical survey of many of the most
popular attempted solutions. 39

 He said that there are obviously evil in this world. He classifies evil into two:40
- Physical Evil
 Dangerous Places
 Calamities
 Diseases
 Physical deformities
- Moral Evil
 Selfishness
 Envy
 Greed
 Deceit
 He arrives at the conclusion that an omnipotent and benevolent God should have
been able to create a world in which there is no unnecessary or avoidable evil; that
much unnecessary evil exists in the world; and thus that there cannot be an
omnipotent, benevolent God.
 There are proposed solutions to the problem of evil that he also stated.41
- Physical Evil
 Physical good is impossible without physical evil.
 Punishment for our sins; God’s warning to men.
 Result of the operations of nature
 The universe is better with evil.
- Moral Evil
 Free will provides justification for the moral evil.

39
Yeager Hudson “the Philosophy of Religion: selected readings”. Mayfield Publishing Company,1240 Villa Street Mountain
View, California.1991. Pg. 289
40
Ibid, Pg. 289
41
Ibid, Pg. 292
 The goods made possible by free will provides basis for accounting
moral evil.
2. Simeon Weil

A French social activist, philosopher and mystic. She led a life of self-sacrificing political
work and, after a conversion experience in 1938, developed a powerful mystical philosophy that
combined arguments from ancient thought and Hinduism and Christian language and imagery. 42

 Weil thought most people are defenseless before Malheur (affliction) especially in
the modern west. Unless we retrieve resources to help us find God in our own
powerfulness, Malheur will simply destroy us body and soul. 43
 She said that in the realm of suffering, affliction is something different. Affliction is
something that is a prolong physical pain. It is a physical pain that connects to the
soul. It is the uprooting of life.44
 The worst thing that comes to a man is when he loses the capacity to love. Life then
becomes hell. The affliction will easily go upon us. The afflicters have no souls
already and evil dwells in their hearts. They will inflict us with afflictions that will
make us suffer.
 For those who love, affliction is of separation. Soul must be firm in times of
affliction. But we must not condemn the separation for it also brings out good things.
It is also with separation that we can feel love or that we can say that we are loved.
 Jesus Christ, by his Crucifixion, went at this greatest possible distance with God by
experiencing affliction himself. Even in affliction, Christ continues to be himself
(united as God) and loves the Father when love seems to be most absent.
 When we love, we must not love only the good things, we must learn to love also the
bad things in life. So as the sea, we cannot fully appreciate the beauty of the sea if we
do not appreciate also the waves.45
 Affliction, then, is a “marvel of divine technique.” It pierces the soul in its center,
bringing it closer to the heart of God.

Part V: Existentialist Philosophers

1. Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, political
activist, biographer, and literary critic. Sartre focuses on responsibility, will, and freedom as
humanity’s answer to the existentialist dilemma of anguish, forlornness, and despair.
“Existentialism is a humanism,” the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre once titled his essay.

42
Mark Larrimore “The problem of evil: A reader”. Blackwell publishing, Main Street, Malden, MA02148- 5020, USA. Pg. 334
43
Mark Larrimore “The problem of evil: A reader”. Blackwell publishing, Main Street, Malden, MA02148- 5020, USA. Pg. 334
44
Ibid, Pg. 335
45
Ibid, Pg. 338
The foundation of existentialism can be put as “existence precedes essence.” Existentialism vis-
à-vis religion is a question of the primacy of human nature vs. primacy of God’s will.


He said that living your existence will lead you to find your meaning in life.
(existence-essence)46
 He said that man in his strive to live his existence and to find meaning to it, have
absolute freedom.
 In man’s life, he is the actor that has no roles to play, an engineer that has no
blueprint in planning.
 Man must plan for himself. If man can plan he can also will.
 If man then can will for himself then man must be responsible of himself and of his
actions.47
 Being free is also being alone, alone to choose and to be responsible of your life.
 As man sees himself as an absolute free man he discovers also negative things in his
freedom as being alone:48
- Anguish
 The suffering that the burden of existence bears. To be free is to be
responsible for one’s own actions – accountability for everything we
really are in behalf of the whole of mankind.
- Forlornness
 Abandonment by the God who do not exist; loss of the objective
source of moral value. Calls for will to freedom.
- Despair
 We cannot rely on to anything outside our control. Things may not
happen as we expect them to be; whatever I desire to do may be
thwarted by others. Hence, we cannot rely on to hope. Despair calls for
stoic indifference in the course of things.
 Freedom is the capacity to choose what is ought to be done. With or without God we
can make our life meaningful.
 You are the bearer of your own hope. Hope for yourself for the good choice that
you will ought to make.
2. Gabriel Marcel

Gabriel Honoré Marcel was a French philosopher, playwright, music critic and leading
Christian existentialist. He wrote metaphysics of hope that is towards the Absolute Thou. Marcel

46
Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism”’ From Existentialism, translated by Bernard Fredtman. New York: Philosophical Library,
1947. Pg. 11
47
Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism”’ From Existentialism, translated by Bernard Fredtman. New York: Philosophical Library,
1947. Pg. 19
48
Ibid, Pg. 16
hold on to hope which is not wishing or longing but patience, transcendence, vitality and trust
that is grounded on a relationship with an Other.

 Marcel said that if our body needs air, our soul needs hope. But it is not hope as to
wishing. It is not by saying “I hope that” because by saying that is by expecting
something. Therefore it is not a genuine hope. 49
 For Marcel, authentic hope has patience, transcendence and vitality that rises from
the context of a trial.50
- Hope is different from a wish or probability, it is something that beyond
object.
- In the face of despair and surrender to capitulation, hope rises up; it transcends
and being aware of possible disappointments and reclaim the meaning and
value of life.
- It is a creative process, allowing time to take its proper place.
- Hope aims for reunion and reconciliation with the self and with others.
 Hoping is always external to man because you cannot hope for yourself because you
can determine your own actions.
 We place our hope to an Absolute Other. Hope has great relationship with faith.
 Dependency is good because you are surrendering yourself to humility that you know
that you cannot do everything on your own and that you need the Other in your life.
 The apex of hope is communion with others: “I hope in you… for us...” Hope is an
ontologically intersubjective, grounding in a relationship, transcendent act for it
draws together, at its very heart, all of humanity.

Reflection:

On my process of studying the Philosophy of Religion, I was very happy and felt
privilege that I had a chance to meet new ideas concerning God. Before, I have less relationship
with God for I do not really understand Him as He is. My concern before was practical and
beneficial. But then when I grew up, I started to change my lifestyle for I saw that I was not
improving and I feel like I am starting to become unreasonable and immature.

As I gradually experience my life as a seminarian, slowly I tried to build a relationship

with God. I started praying, hoping, and sharing with him. As time goes by, I got used to it and
somehow started believing in it. My relationship with God grew even more at times when I
experience crisis and unusual experiences. I gradually prayed to him and I feel comfort in it. I
feel satisfied and I feel that I am not abandoned despite of my being smallness.

Through studying Philosophy of Religion, I have met many ideas that helped me gave a
better understanding on who God is. Through the ideas of the different philosophers, it helped
49
Homo Viator: Introduction to a Metaphysics of Hope, trans. Emma Craufurd. New York: Harper and Roww,1962. Pg. 29
50
Homo Viator: Introduction to a Metaphysics of Hope, trans. Emma Craufurd. New York: Harper and Row,1962. Pg. 41
me articulate my feelings towards God. It may be cheesy to say this but as I took the subject as
serious as I can, it made my relationship with God stronger.

Aside from the philosophy of religion, I am also grateful to the seminary that it helped
me think this way. I am thankful because the philosophies that I studied helped me become a
better man. I am grateful because the seminary introduced me into a better understanding of who
God is.

Now with this new knowledge and relationship with God, I am determined to pursue and
continue what I have learned. I love God and I still want to know more about him. Whatever
trials may come to me, with this newly founded knowledge of God I know and I believe that I
can do all things in Him.