PHILOSOPHY FINAL EXAM

Submitted by

Name: Tayyaba Khan

Roll Number: 1423-BH-PSY-20

Section: C2

Semester: 1

Course Code: PHIL 1101

Course Title: Introduction to Philosophy

Date: 3rd April 2021

Submitted to: Mr. Saifullah Gill

GC UNIVERSITY, LAHORE
 PHILOSOPHY FINAL EXAM
1. All three famous logical arguments for the existence of God have been denied; now
what should be done: either new logical arguments should be sought out or opt for the
other sorts of arguments such as moral, spiritual, religious and personal? Take a side,
and support your stance. Answer comprehensively.

The three famous logical arguments, namely cosmological, ontological and teleological
have been deemed fallacious. The notions of god being the Uncaused cause of effect (in
the cosmological theory), of Him being perfect just because He exists (in the ontological
theory) and Him providing purpose to the functions of the universe (as per the
teleological theory) have all been struck down and rejected as sound arguments. This
gives rise to the need for a solid argument that backs and explains if god really exists and
if so, why?

To discuss the philosophical reasoning behind the topic, we first need to discuss whether
the existence of god is necessary to us. Why is it that in Albania, a country that officially
outlawed god, that religion is back after decades of atheism? Is faith a crucial part of life
that an individual cannot live without? Or can morality and law and order not be
established without being held accountable to a superior authority? To answer questions
like these, it is first necessary to establish that god must exist and that his existence is of
importance to us. This then leads us to the essence of our debate. Should moral, religious,
spiritual and personal arguments be sought to explain his existence?

In ‘Five Ways’, Aquinas talks about how goodness has a standard and that every good or
noble thing is compared to it. When we call a person good, is that trait inherent or is it
nurtured along the course of that person’s life? When we compare two siblings and say
that one has more capacity for goodness than the other and holds greater moral values,
are we not comparing it to some standard that is highest in the traits of goodness and
morality? This moral argument states that the highest entity is the one which holds the
maximum of these traits and is the one that every moral being compares itself to, and this
highest standard is god Himself because He provides the most suitable explanation for
the existence of objective morality. This argument takes roots from Platonic and
Aristotelian views. Now this is also considered a moral cosmological argument.
However, this can be defended by drawing a distinction between inherent goodness and
nurtured goodness. If an individual is inherently good, it means he was born with that
trait. Science can only go as far to explain that it might be a product of genetic
inheritance. What before then? Where was this trait first born? It might be because there
was a standard of goodness that had to be met or compared to, thus deeming the
argument cosmological. However, if this trait was instilled in an individual, that means
the need for objective morality was accepted. If it was accepted, then that meant it came
from somewhere. The physical world itself could not explain where it was borne from, so
that gave way to implications that there was another force that set the framework for
morality. This meant that god was responsible for the need to be moral and create a
virtuous world where people were meant to be morally good.

The next argument to support the existence of god is C.S Lewis’s argument from desire
which reflects an individual’s need for spirituality and faith. He says that desires do not
exist unless their satisfaction has also been created or is present is the world. If I am
hungry, the satisfaction for it is food. For my carnal desires, sex satisfies them. So if I
want to understand the phenomena or experiences that this world or sensory experiences
cannot satisfy, there has to be some satisfaction for it somewhere. He used terms like
‘inconsolable longing’ to affiliate with his need for other worldly desires, his need to
experience something much greater, he called it an actual feeling that people have and
not an artificial one to protect his arguments from criticism like the fact people can desire
things that may not exist. This set grounds for reason to think that god did exist and He
was the one that satisfied that spiritual aspect in humans. Sufism also operates on this
theory, in essence, because it puts emphasis on the inward search for god and transcends
to mysticism.

Religious arguments are built on the principles of faith in the unseen and not in empirical
values or if they can be fact checked through numerical standards. They demand faith –
an unwavering belief that there is a god even if He cannot be seen with the naked eye or
heard with the ear. This is why the eye of the heart is stressed upon, to open it to the
natural world and to search for signs of god in it. It calls for belief in predestination and
decree, something that cannot be quantified but can only be believed in solely through the
power of the heart and for personal satisfaction. This leads me to my next point. Some
people ask questions about their purpose in life that extends beyond that of materialistic
nature. I am a doctor but why? To help people in need? Why do I want to help people in
need? Is it because it is a good thing to do? Why is it considered good and why do I want
to be good? God caters to these questions. God fills in the gaps that empirical science or
the physical world fails to do so. God is the entity that provides support for the natural
tragedies of the world. It is true that science explains why a tsunami hit a town and
uprooted millions of lives. What science does not cater to is the spiritual support in the
aftermath of the tragedy. Marx critically said that religion serves as the opium of the
masses, however, I stand in critique of that. What possible force could support, unite and
group together millions with a common purpose other than god? From as far back as
history dates, countless of battles have been fought and areas pillaged in the name of god.
Does it not amount to acceptance that somewhere, in some part of human existence and
life, god exists? Does god live in the crevices of our mind or in the cracks of our heart?
When tragedy befalls us or happiness takes seed, do we turn to some entity and show
gratitude or cry for help? Moving further, the boundaries and laws created by god and
implemented through religious and moral framework aid the stopping of chaos and
disorganization among individuals. God is the idea that can keep societies intact or fall
apart, such are the dynamics of this higher being. Something as powerful has to exist in
some form or idea and that is the essence of these arguments. Religious and personal
arguments stress on the need for unquestioned faith as compared to logical reasoning.

Conclusively, evidence exists that suggests that god does exist or more so, suggests the
notion that god needs to exist.
2. Sometimes, there is a clash between religion and science. Can philosophy come into
play to reduce the distance between them? Would it be a worthwhile activity or not?
Answer in detail.

To answer the question, we must begin by analyzing what religion and science stand for.
Both religion and science view the human life and physical world through different lens.

Religion is constituted of a system of beliefs and concerns the origin and purpose of the
universe and human life. It demands unwavering faith in the unseen and intangible and
highlights issues like morality, predestination and decree, resurrection and a hereafter,
religious laws and framework, and the reason for our existence. Science, on the other
hand, is a systematic, empirical and organized activity that quantifies facts and figures,
provides analyses and generates more information and knowledge based on observable
and natural phenomena of the world. While religion relies on faith and statements of
revelation, science depends on scientific experiments of elaborate nature. Because they
both are of such distinct natures, they often clash with each other. This is where
philosophy steps in. Philosophy studies reality and demands reasoning for all the
questions that arise from it, as well as human and godly existence and the relationship
between an individual and the world. Philosophy’s versatility allows it to work with both
science and religion.

In science, you produce and negate hypotheses and philosophy studies how rational this
activity really is. Alongside, it gives meaning to the scientific discoveries made. While
religion provides meaning and wisdom of life, philosophy further expands on it by diving
into intellectual comprehension and reasoning for it. Philosophy and religion share a
mutual interest in the pursuit of the meaning of life. Their journey, although different,
leads them to the same destination. Religion provides fodder and direction for philosophy
to lead its search on and in turn, philosophy protects it against atheistic views by giving
arguments and proposing rationale in favor of the existence of god and its proofs. Science
and philosophy both produce ideas and then quantify them by logic and reasoning. They
both go from less solid to more concrete and finally the abstract. Sciences have been
borne from philosophical questions and both have evolved from mythology.

Most people believe that science and religion are two entirely separate institutions.
However, the study of philosophy and the philosophers of this field have helped bridge
this gap slightly, if not entirely. Ian Barbour lays out a four- fold scheme to establish this
notion. Firstly, science and religion are supposed to oppose each other entirely. Then they
are to be considered completely independent of each other. Then they are to debate on the
areas of interest that overlap between them and then finally to integrate. Science cannot
address qualms the way religion does but it incites questions about the universe in a
moral and spiritual way that religion can answer. Philosophy links the two by moving
both science and religion into submission and admiration of the world and encouraging
both to present their views on the natural phenomena of the world. It aids them in
pointing out the incomplete subjects of objective and subjective reality and makes both of
them open and accepting of the questions and queries about the world to be solved.
Philosophy has raised a great deal of questions even regarding the overlapping of religion
and science. Hindus, in an interview concerning this very subject, were asked if they
believed religion and science were two different fields entirely. They said that Hinduism
had identified concepts that science later researched .e.g. antimicrobial properties of
copper or the theory of evolution. Similarly, some Muslim writers believe that the Quran
had already pointed out concepts that science discovered gradually such as relativity,
quantum mechanics, embryology, modern geology, thermodynamics etc. Far back in
history, sir Syed Ahmed Khan raised philosophical questions as to the existence and
survival of Muslims in the subcontinent and then stressed on scientific advancement to
strengthen their faith and religion. He believed that technological assistance to religious
belief would only make the Muslims stronger and better equipped to deal with everyday
life.

This leads us to the final aspect of the question. Is bridging this gap between religion and
science by philosophy worthwhile? I believe yes. Why? The ongoing debate between
religious and scientific people and which side better explains natural phenomenon would
be put to rest. Philosophy highlights the fact that while science can efficiently explain the
physical traits of the world, religion caters to those of the moral and spiritual. Thus, to
fully explain the world in maximum capacity and to explain its potential and
characteristics completely, a compound of religion and science has to be used. It is not a
matter of black and white rather it needs both sides of the spectrum working in
harmonious synchronization to uncover the mysteries and realities of the world and the
individuals living in it. And this bridge can only be made by philosophy with its ever
complex questions about all sorts of subject matter regarding humans and the universe.