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.