absolute threshold>>> the minimum stimulation needed to detect a particular stimulus 50 percent of the time.
accommodation>>> a process by which the eye adjusts and is able to focus, producing a sharp image at various, changing distances from the object seen.
accommodation>&g...
definition of religion>>> commonly divided into 2 types: substantive and functional
*often, religions combine the two approaches
substantive religion>>> attends to its substance, nature, essence; focus on the CONTENT or
religious belief in God or the supernatural
Problem with this ->some religions don't do this (Buddhism) and therefore wouldn't be classified
as a religion
Functional religion>>> emphasize that the religion is a constellation of social and ritual practices
that an individual or society follows (the FORM)
Problem with this -> anything could be considered a religion, for example, football
realist>>> thinker who is committed that the objects of religion are part of the world, apart from
our cognition, religions are out there for us to encounter
-Acquinas and Plato
-before 18th century, it was rare to find a thinker like this
-particularly interested in metaphysical questions (the nature of things)
-similar to substantive views
non-realist>>> not concerned with the world out there, but inside (internal) of a particular human
being
-believe many of questions of the philosophy of religion are the wrong questions; for example:
"Is religion true?" rather, the question to ask is "What does religion mean?"
-similar to functionalist views
Sigmund Freud>>> -non-realist
-talking about God helps us cope (eventually should outgrow religion -which is just an illusion)
Ludwig Wittgenstein>>> -non-realist
-wants to describe religion
-believes that the meanings of words (such as God or Brahman) have more to do with their use
than with their denotation(literal meaning)
Philosophy of religion>>> two meanings...
1. Religion is the object of our philosophy (philosophizing upon religion), an external view; Kant
is an example of this
OR
2. religion is subject and context, philosophy (or us) work within as a participant of religion
(internal view), philosophy is religion's possessive; Keith Ward is an example of this
*second meaning is dealt with more often
What is the task of Philosophy of Religion?>>> 1. Explanation: trying to explain religion, where
it comes from
-offers rational theory, what cause religion?
-epi-phenomenon: religion is a product of something (Freud and Dennett, who is more
biological)
,2. Interpretation: trying to understand religion
-Iris Murdock: think in terms of morals
-account of what religion means
3. Genealogy and Critique: aim is to not just explain religion but to explain religion away
- Neature
-religion is a problem so we need to make it go away
4. Apologetics and Rational Justification: aiming to defend religion itself
- Platinger, Sarah Copley: show how being religious is not hostile to being human
hinduism>>> the ultimate goal is moksha, release from the cycle of death and rebirth, and
absorption into Brahman
Buddhism>>> The goal is nirvana, liberation from the wheel of samsara and extinction of all
desires, cravings and suffering. This is accomplished by understanding the four noble truths and
practicing the fourth one (by practicing the noble eightfold path)
Judaism>>> the goal is blessedness with God - here and perhaps in the hereafter. Accomplished
by fulfilling the 10 commandments and engaging in the following practices: Sabbath, regular
synagogue attendance, celebrating annual festivals and obeying Jewish law
Christianity>>> the goal is spiritual transformation and spending eternity with God in heaven.
Accomplished by receiving God's grace of sin
Islam>>> the goal is blessedness in paradise through submission to the laws of Allah and by His
mercy. Accomplished through five pillars
atheism>>> all religions are false; there is no religion whose central claims are true
Agnosticism>>> there is no way to determine which, if any, of the religions is most likely to be
true, and thus the best response is to remain agnostic about the claims of any religion
Religious relativism>>> while each religion can be regarded as "true" and "effective" for its
adherents, there is no objective or tradition-transcending sense in which we can speak of
religious truth
-truth is subjective, therefore no relative truth by saying "there is no absolute truth for each
religion" is an absolute truth claim
religious pluralism>>> ultimately all world religions are correct, each offering a different path
and partial perspective to one Ultimate reality
religious inclusivism>>> only one world religion is fully correct, but other world religions
participate in or partially reveal some of the truth of the one correct religion; it is possible
however, to obtain salvation through other religions
religious exclusivism>>> one world religion is correct and all others are mistaken; salvation is
found only through one religion (faith in Christ alone - rigorist)
what is the problem with plurality of religions?>>> -competing absolute claims (ex. Jesus is the
way, the truth, and the life, no other way except through Him)
- Revelation
- Which God? (some religions don't even believe in a God)
types of pluralism>>> 1. Common Core: or "essence" to all religions
-parallels (ex. Trimurti and trinity/ one god)
-mystical elements to all faiths
-non-duality of soul and God
-esoteric (believe things are symbols - point to a deeper reality) vs exoteric(focus on materiality)
believers
2. Historical Relativity: no "superior" tradition
, -common essence and the integrity of faith tradition
- historical differences
- unity not in esoteric doctrines but from experience (of the transcendent)
- every religion emerges from some historical context
John Hick (pluralism case study)>>> -argues plurality of paths to salvation
-one's experiences do depend on the interpretive concepts through which one sees, structures and
understands them (ex some experience Ultimate Reality in personal ways, like Allah while others
impersonal, like Brahman), and some completely non-personal, like nirvana
-believes what is fundamental to religion is the personal transformation that occurs within the
religion
-stresses an all-loving God
-puts himself above (an objective point of view) but this can't be done bc we are conditioned by
our very existence
noumenal>>> realities that exist outside of human perception
phenomenal>>> how we interpret reality through our own perceptions
Karl Rahner (inclusivism case study)>>> Believes....
-argues that you have to start from where you are (within your religion/what you believe)
-people are engaged in a search in history for "hidden grace"
Jesus' total salvific work established him as the prime mediator of grace (therefore Christianity
has absolute status)
-but a non-Christian religion can mediate salvation without specific confrontation with Christ, bc
salvific grace exists in creation and conscience (this is imperfect though)
-revelation is the explicit expression of grace that people experience implicitly at the depths of
their being
-even if you hear the Gospel historically, you might not hear it existentially --> this person will
not have rejected the Gospel even if they have not responded to it
*All these ideas he refers to as...
-The Anonymous Christian: people who act like a Christian but are not actually one, implicitly
accepted God's grace
Evaluation of Rahner's theory>>> Positive: Concerned with Christian theology, concerned with
those outside of the Christian faith, finds conceptual tools within the tradition for inclusion of
other religions
Negative: Is this a new way to say nice people go to heaven? Still hierarchically order -
Christianity is superior, why not be an anonymous Christian rather than a practicing one?
Evaluation of Rigorist Exclusivism>>> Positive: true to the faith tradition it is a part of, takes
seriously particularity, values free will, understands the importance of existential and ethical
decision, demonstrates the need and place for faith
Negative: Can this view be justified in a multi-faith society? Is the plan of salvation it offers any
good? Is it really biblical or traditional? Is not God bigger than human categories? Is it elitist or
bigoted? Does it lead to crusades and lack of sensitivity?
Karl Barth Case Study - revelational exclusivism>>> Revelational exclusivism rejects notion of
religion, believes it is corrupt
He believes...
-rejected any form of natural theology
-Knowledge of God can only come through revelation of the Word of God (Jesus, church, Bible)
-outside the revelation of Jesus Christ there is NO knowledge whatsoever of God
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller johnlynn297. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.18. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
