Philosophy | By Branch/Doctrine | By Historical Period | By Movement/School |

By Individual Philosopher

A huge subject broken down into manageable chunks

Random Philosophy Quote : "In everything, there is a share of everything" -
Anaxagoras

By Branch / Doctrine > Philosophy of... >

Philosophy of Religion

Introduction | Forms of Religious Belief | Arguments for the Existence of God |

The Problem of Evil | Major Doctrines

Introduction
Back to Top

Philosophy of Religion is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the

philosophical study of religion, including arguments over the nature and
existence of God, religious language, miracles, prayer, the problem of evil, and
the relationship between religion and other value-systems such as science and
ethics. It is often regarded as a part of Metaphysics , especially insofar as it is
interested in understanding what it is for something to exist, although arguably it
also touches on issues commonly dealt with in Epistemology , Ethics , Logic and
the Philosophy of Language .

It asks such questions as "Are there sound reasons to think that God does (or does
not) exist?", "If there is a God, then what is he like?", "What, if anything, would
give us good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred?", "What is the
relationship between faith and reason?", "Does petitionary prayer make sense?"
It does not ask "What is God?", as that would assume the existence of God, and
that God has a knowable nature, which is more the territory of theology (which
usually considers the existence of God as axiomatic, or self-evident, and merely
seeks to justify or support religious claims).

Forms of Religious Belief

Back to Top
The main forms of religious belief are:

Theism :
The belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities,
which exist within the universe and yet transcend it. These
gods also in some way interact with the universe (unlike
Deism ), and are often considered to be omniscient,
omnipotent and omnipresent. The word "theism" was first
coined in the 17th Century to contrast with Atheism .
Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Baha'i and
Zoroastrianism are all theistic religions.
Monotheism :
The view that only one God exists. The Abrahamic faiths
(Judaism, Christianity and Islam), as well as Plato 's concept
of God, all affirm monotheism, and this is the usual conception
debated within Western Philosophy . Jews, Christians and
Muslims would probably all agree that God is an eternally
existent being that exists apart from space and time, who is the
creator of the universe, and is omnipotent (all-powerful),
omniscient (all-knowing), omnibenevolent (all-good or all-
loving) and possibly omnipresent (all-present). The religions,
however, differ in the details: Christians, for example, would
further affirm that there are three aspects to God (the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit).
Exclusive Monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity, and
that all other claimed deities are distinct from it and false. The
Abrahamic religions, and the Hindu denomination of Vaishnavism
(which regards the worship of anyone other than Vishnu as incorrect)
are examples of Exclusive Monotheism.
Inclusive monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity, and that
all other claimed deities are just different names for it. The Hindu
denomination of Smartism is an example of Inclusive Monotheism.
Substance Monotheism: The belief (found in some indigenous African
religions) that the many gods are just different forms of a single
underlying substance.

Pantheism :
The belief that God is equivalent to Nature or the physical
universe, or that everything is of an all-encompassing
immanent abstract God. The concept has been discussed as far
back as the time of the philosophers of Ancient Greece,
including Thales , Parmenides and Heraclitus .
Baruch Spinoza also believed in a kind of naturalistic
pantheism in which the universe, although unconscious and
non-sentient as a whole, is a meaningful focus for mystical
fulfillment.
Panentheism :
The belief (also known as Monistic Monotheism), similar to
Pantheism , that the physical universe is joined to God, but
stressing that God is greater than (rather than equivalent to)
the universe. Thus, the one God interpenetrates every part of
nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. The universe is
part of God, but not all of God. The word (which can be
translated as "all in God") was coined by the German
philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832) in
1828 in an attempt to reconcile Monotheism and Pantheism .

Deism :
A form of monotheism in which it is believed that one God
exists, but that this God does not intervene in the world, or
interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. It posits
a non-interventionist creator who permits the universe to run
itself according to natural laws. Deism derives the existence
and nature of God from reason and personal experience,
rather than relying on revelation in sacred scriptures or the
testimony of others, and can maybe best be described as a
basic belief rather than as a religion in itself. The roots of
Deism lie with Heraclitus and Plato , but it was also popular
with the natural theologists of 17th Century France and,
particularly, Britain, who rejected any special or supposedly
supernatural revelation of God.
Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it,
but is now equivalent to it - a composite of Deism and Pantheism .
Panendeism is a composite of Deism and Panentheism . It holds that,
while the universe is part of God, it operates according to natural
mechanisms without the need for the intervention of a traditional God,
somewhat similar to the Native American concept of the all- pervading
Great Spirit.
Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods exist, but do not intervene
with the universe - a composite of Deism and Polytheism .

Misotheism:
The belief that a God or gods exist, but that they are actually
evil. The English word was coined by Thomas de Quincey in
1846. Strictly speaking, the term connotes an attitude of hatred
towards the god or gods, rather than making a statement about
their nature.
Dystheism:
The belief that a God or gods exist, but that they are not wholly
good, or possibly even evil (as opposed to eutheism, the belief
that God exists and is wholly good). Trickster gods found in
polytheistic belief systems often have a dystheistic nature, and
there are various examples of arguable dystheism in the Bible.
Ditheism (or Duotheism):
The belief in two equally powerful gods, often, but not always,
with complementary properties and in constant opposition,
such as God and Goddess in Wicca, or Good and Evil in
Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism. The early mystical religion
Gnosticism is another example of a ditheistic belief of sorts,
due to their claim that the thing worshipped as God in this
world is actually an evil impostor, but that a true benevolent
deity worthy of being called "God" exists beyond this world.
Polytheism :
The belief in, or worship of, multiple gods (usually assembled
in a pantheon). These gods are often seen as similar to humans
(anthropomorphic) in their personality traits, but with
additional individual powers, abilities, knowledge or
perceptions. Hard Polytheism views the gods as being distinct
and separate beings, such as in Ancient Greek Mythology. Soft
Polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater
whole, as in most forms of Hinduism.
Henotheism: The devotion to a single god while accepting the
existence of other gods, and without denying that others can with
equal truth worship different gods. It has been called "monotheism in
principle and polytheism in fact".
Monolatrism (or Monolatry): The belief in the existence of many
gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity. Unlike
Henotheism, Monolatrism asserts that there is only one god who is
worthy of worship, though other gods are known to exist.
Kathenotheism: The belief that there is more than one deity, but only
one deity at a time should be worshipped, each being supreme in turn.

Animism:
The belief that souls inhabit all or most objects (whether they be
animals, vegetables or minerals). Animistic religions generally
do not accept a sharp distinction between spirit and matter,
and assume that this unification of matter and spirit plays a
role in daily life. Early Shintoism was animistic in nature, as
are many indigenous African religions. Shamanism
(communication with the spirit world) and Ancestor Worship
(worship of deceased family members, who are believed to
have a continued existence and influence) are similar
categories.
Atheism (or Nontheism):
The belief that gods do not exist, or a complete rejection of
Theism in any form. Some atheists argue a lack of empirical
evidence for the existence of deities, while others argue for
Atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Many
atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as Humanism
and Naturalism . Atheism may be implicit (someone who has
never thought about belief in gods) or explicit (someone who
has made an assertion, either weak or strong, regarding their
lack of belief in gods). Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism and
some varieties of Buddhism, either do not include belief in a
personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach
nontheism.
Agnosticism :
The belief that the nature and existence of gods is unknown
and cannot ever be known or proven. Technically, this position
is strong agnosticism: in popular usage, an agnostic may just
be someone who takes no position, pro or con, on the existence
of gods, or who has not yet been able to decide, or who
suspends judgment due to lack of evidence one way or the
other (weak agnosticism). The earliest professed agnostic was
Protagoras , although the term itself, which literally means
"without knowledge", was not coined until the 1880s by T. H.
Huxley (1825 - 1895).
 Humanism :
Humanism is more an ethical process, not a dogma about the
existence or otherwise of gods. But in general terms, it rejects
the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a
dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or
texts of allegedly divine origin. It is therefore generally
compatible with Atheism and Agnosticism , but does not
require these, and can be compatible with some religions. To
some extent, it supplements or supplants the role of religions,
and can be considered in some ways as "equivalent" to a
religion.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Back to Top

The Ontological Argument:

The Ontological Argument, initially proposed by St. Anselm
and Avicenna in the 11th Century, attempts to prove the
existence of God through a priori abstract reasoning alone. It
argues that part of what we mean when we speak of “God” is
“perfect being”, or one of whom nothing greater can be
conceived, and that is essentially what the word “God” means.
A God that exists, of course, is better than a God that doesn’t, so
to speak of God as a perfect being is therefore necessary to
imply that he exists. So God’s existence is implied by the very
concept of God, and when we speak of “God” we cannot but
speak of a being that exists. By this argument, to say that God
does not exist is a contradiction in terms.
The argument is certainly ingenious, but has the appearance
of a linguistic trick. The same ontological argument could be
used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all (for
example, Anselm 's contemporary, the monk Gaunilo, used it to
show that a perfect island must exist). Immanuel Kant argued
against the ontological argument on the grounds that existence
is not a property of objects but a property of concepts, and
that, whatever ideas may participate in a given concept, it is a
further question whether that concept is instantiated.
The Cosmological Argument:
The Cosmological Argument is the argument that the existence
of the world or universe implies the existence of a being that
brought it into existence (and keeps it in existence). In
essence, the argument is that everything that moves is moved
by something else; an infinite regress (that is, going back
through a chain of movers forever) is impossible; and therefore
there must exist a first mover (i.e. God). It comes in two forms,
modal (having to do with possibility), and temporal (having to
do with time):
The Modal Cosmological Argument:
This argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency,
suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. it is
contingent, as opposed to necessary), we then need some explanation
 of why it does exist. Wherever there are two possibilities, something
must determine which of those possibilities is realized. Therefore, as
the universe is contingent, there must be some reason for its existence,
i.e. it must have a cause. In fact, the only kind of being whose existence
requires no explanation is a necessary being, a being that could not
have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore
be a necessary being, such as God.
Critics of the argument from contingency have sometimes
questioned whether the universe is in fact contingent, and why God
should be considered a necessary being (simply asking "Does God have
a cause of his existence?” raises as many problems as the cosmological
argument solves). Also, even if God is thought not to have, or not to
need, a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-
example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of
its existence).
The Temporal Cosmological Argument:
This argument, also known as the Kalam Argument for the
medieval Muslim school of philosophy of al-Kindi (801 - 873) and al-
Ghazali (1058 - 1111) which first proposed it, argues that all
indications are that there is a point in time at which the universe
began to exist, (a universe stretching back in time into infinity being
both philosophically and scientifically problematic), and that this
beginning must either have been caused or uncaused. The idea of an
uncaused event is absurd, because nothing comes from nothing. The
universe must therefore have been brought into existence by
something outside it, which can be called "God".
The argument rests on the somewhat controversial claim that the
universe has a beginning in time, but also does not explain why there
could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could
not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the
universe (potentially leading to several different Gods).

The Teleological Argument:

The Teleological Argument (also known as the Argument
from Design or Intelligent Design) suggests that the order in
the world implies a being that created it with a specific
purpose (the creation of life) in mind. The universe is an
astoundingly complex but highly ordered system, and the
world is fine-tuned to provide exactly the right conditions for
the development and sustenance of life. To say that the
universe is so ordered by chance is therefore unsatisfactory as
an explanation of the appearance of design around us.
St Thomas Aquinas was the most famous subscriber to this
argument, but the most cited statement of the argument is that
of William Paley (1743 - 1805), who likened the universe to a
watch, with many ordered parts working in harmony to
further some purpose.
Evolutionary theory, however, can explain the appearance
of biological design, even if not the laws of nature.
David Hume counter-argued that we know that man-made
structures were designed because we have seen them being
built, but how can we be sure that the analogy holds? He also
pointed out that certain events in the world (e.g. natural
disasters) suggest that God didn't do a very good job of
designing the universe, which belies the concept of a perfect
being. Others, who reject the argument in its entirety, dispute
whether the order and complexity in the universe does in fact
constitute design. The mere fact that it something is
enormously improbable does not by itself give us reason to
conclude that it occurred by design. Also, the idea that our
universe is but one material universe in a "multiverse" in
which all possible material universes are ultimately realized,
suggests that there is nothing particularly suspicious about the
fact that at least one of them is a fine-tuned universe.
The Moral Argument:
The Moral Argument argues that the existence or nature of
morality implies the existence of God. Three forms of moral
argument are distinguished, formal, perfectionist and
Kantian:
The Formal Moral Argument:
This argument suggests that the form of morality implies that it has
a divine origin. If morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set
of commands, where can these commands have come from but a
commander that has ultimate authority (namely God)?
It begs the question, however, as to whether morality is in fact
ultimately authoritative, and whether morals actually exist or have
meaning independently of us or whether there are alternative
explanations for the existence of morals.
The Perfectionist Moral Argument:
This argument suggests that morality requires perfection of us, but
we are not in fact perfect. However, although we cannot achieve moral
perfection by our own strength, we can do so with God’s help, which
implies the existence of God. The gap between our moral duties and
what we are capable of doing therefore implies the existence of a God,
as the only way to resolve this paradox.
Immanuel Kant , however, argues that “ought” implies “can”, so
that if we have an obligation to do a thing then it logically follows that
we are able to do it, and morality cannot require of us more than we
are able to give. Or it can also be argued that morality is just a guide
and does not actually require perfection of us, and that it is in fact
acceptable to fall short of the moral standard.
The Kantian Moral Argument:
This argument, proposed by Immanuel Kant , presupposes that
moral behavior is rational and that we should have good reason to
behave morally. Looking around the world, though, we see that in many
cases immoral behavior does profit more than moral behavior, and
that life is not fair. Kant therefore argued that moral behavior will
only be rational is there is more than just this life, if justice is
administered in the next life.
However, this does not fully answer why should it have to be God in
particular that brings about the higher good, nor why something
should necessarily have to be, just because we decide it both ought and
can.

The Religious Experience Argument:

The Religious Experience Argument posits that one can only
perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because
there are those that have experienced him. The fact that there
are many people who testify to having had such experiences
constitutes at least indirect evidence of God’s existence, even
to those who have not had such experiences themselves.
Some, though, argue that religious experiences involve
imagination rather than perception, and there is always the
possibility of fabricating artificial experiences of God, or that
the experiences are not religious but merely interpreted that
way by religious people. Also, adherents of all religions
(mutually inconsistent and conflicting) claim to have had
experiences that validate those religions, and if not all of these
appeals are valid then none can be. In addition, why do we not
all have religious experiences? Yet another counter-argument is
the skeptical idea that all experiences (including religious
experiences) are subjective, and no matter how one person
perceives the world to be, there are any number of ways that it
could be. Barely tangible religious experiences are by their
nature even more uncertain than our familiar and lucid
experiences of the external world, which are themselves
unreliable.
The Miracles Argument:
The Argument from Miracles argues that the occurrence of
miracles (which involve the suspension of the natural
operation of the universe as some supernatural event occurs),
presupposes the existence of some supernatural being. If the
Bible is to be believed, then, such miracles demonstrate both
the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.
However, the essential implicit assumption in this argument
is "if the Bible is to be believed", which is by no means a given.
In addition, according to David Hume , no matter how strong
the evidence for a specific miracle may be, it will always be
more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it (given
that there are two factors to assess in deciding whether to
believe any given piece of testimony: the reliability of the
witness, and the probability of that to which they testify).
Pascal’s Wager:
Blaise Pascal argued for belief in God based not on an
appeal to evidence that God exists, but rather that it is in our
interests to believe in God and it is therefore rational for us to
do so: If we believe in God, then if he exists we will receive an
infinite reward in heaven, while if he does not then we have
lost little or nothing. Conversely, if we do not believe in God,
then if he exists we will receive an infinite punishment in hell,
while if he does not then we will have gained little or nothing.
"Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or
nothing" is clearly preferable to "either receiving an infinite
punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing", so it is rational
to believe in God, even if there is no evidence that he exists.
However, this only works if the only possible criterion for
entrance into heaven is belief in the Christian God and the
only possible criterion for entrance into hell is disbelief in
the Christian God. Also, if one argues that the probability that
God exists (and therefore of either receiving an infinite reward
in heaven or of receiving an infinite punishment in hell) is so
small that these possible outcomes of belief or disbelief can be
discounted, then Atheism is the rational course of action as it
is better to gain little or nothing than it is to lose little or
nothing. Thirdly, Pascal’s Wager asks us to believe without
reason, whereas in practice one requires evidence for the truth
of a belief.
The Problem of Evil
Back to Top

The Problem of Evil has been stated in different ways:

The Logical Problem of Evil, considered by many to be one of

the most formidable objections to the existence of God, was
first identified in antiquity by Epicurus when he noted that
there were four possibilities:
1) If God wishes to take away evils and is not able to, then he is
feeble.
2) If God is able to take away evils but does not wish to, then he
is malevolent.
3) If God neither wishes to nor is able to take away evils, then
he is both malevolent and feeble and therefore not God at all.
4) If God wishes to take away evils and is able to, then why are
there evils in the world, and why does he not remove them?
In response, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it is not
necessarily clear that the world would be more perfect in the
absence of evil, and that worthy concepts such as justice,
kindness, fairness and self-sacrifice would be meaningless if
there were no evil to set against them. The so-called Unknown
Purpose Defence argues that human limitations might not
permit us to guess the motivations of God, especially if, as some
argue, He cannot be known directly.
The Empirical Problem of Evil, initially formulated by
David Hume , argues that if people did not have a prior
commitment to believe the contrary (i. e. religious
convictions), their experience of the world and its evils would
lead them to Atheism and the conclusion that a God who is
good and all-powerful cannot exist. A counter-argument to this
might be that the apparent senselessness of some evil might in
itself force a person to seek an explanation for it, which might
be God.
The Probabilistic Argument from Evil argues that the very
existence of evil is evidence that no God exists, although Alvin
Plantinga notes that the meaning of this claim depends on the
probabilistic theory we hold to.
Theodicy is the specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to
reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an
omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God. Therefore it accepts that evil
exists and that God is both good and able to remove evil, and then seeks to
explain why he does not do so. One of the most famous formulations is that of
Gottfried Leibniz in 1710, who made the optimistic claim that our world is
optimal among all possible worlds, and that it must be the best possible and
most balanced world, simply because it was created by a perfect God.
An example of this is the free-will defense, according to which it was not possible
for God to create a world with good but no evil because his purpose for the
universe required humans to have free will, and that good could not exist
without freedom to choose evil (similar to Aquinas 's argument above),
although it can also be argued that there still seems to be a disproportionate
amount of evil in the world.
Another example is the question of why He allows the suffering of animals (for
whom free will is assumed not to apply). Some defenses suggest that the purpose
of such suffering may be unknown, or that most of the suffering occurs when we
remove animals from their natural surroundings, or just that we are given the
free will to try to do something about it.
Recurring defenses in theodicy include: that what people consider evil or
suffering is an illusion or unimportant; that events thought to be evil are not
really so; that what we see as evil is really part of a divine design that is actually
good, but our limitations prevent us from seeing the big picture; that God, if he
exists, is so far superior to man that he cannot be judged by man, and that to
even try is mere arrogance; that evil is the consequence of God giving people free
will; that evil and suffering are intended as a test for humanity, to see if we are
worthy of His grace; that evil is the consequence of people not observing God's
revealed will, and not actually caused by God; that evil is propagated by the
Devil in opposition to God; that God is a righteous judge and, if someone suffers,
it is because they have committed a sin that merits such punishment; that neither
good nor evil could exist without both existing simultaneously.

Major Doctrines
Back to Top

Under the heading of Philosophy of Religion, the major doctrines or theories

include:

Agnosticism Panentheism
Atheism Pantheism
Deism Polytheism
Fideism Theism
Monotheism

Back to Top of Page

Philosophy | What is Philosophy? | By Branch/Doctrine | By Historical Period |

By Movement/School | By Individual Philosopher

Thank you for supporting philosophy!

The articles on this site are © 2008-2025.

If you quote this material please be courteous and provide a link.
Citations | FAQs | Inquiries | Privacy Policy