Introduction to Philosophy of Religion

This brief video is an introduction to the subfield of Metaphysics known as the Philosophy of Religion. It introduces four major question: What is God? Does God exist? What is the problem of Evil? What is the relationship between faith and reason. We also introduce four definitions of God: Theism, Deism, Pantheism, and Panentheism as well as the distinction between atheism and agnostsicism.

[@haisolungdisuang2069]

After scrolling your content, SUBSCRIBED!!😁 I'm a Religion and Philosophy student from India, your channel is gonna be one of my teachers. Appreciate what your doing 🙌

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for the kind comment. Please keep in mind that my videos are only basic introductions, and they are focused primarily on the Western tradition of Philosophy, so please don't assume that I'm ignoring the rich and valuable history of non-Western Philosophy; I just don't feel qualified to make significant comments on those traditions. I'm glad you've found my videos to be helpful, and I thank you for watching! I wish you all the best on your academic journey!

[@Ragnar638]

​@@ALittleBitofPhilosophyHi Sir. What is your take on the book "The Shape of Ancient Thought" by Thomas C McEvilley and his arguments.

[@KigameMedia]

Nicely compacted. You put out a lot in such a little time and with great clarity. Congratulations.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and the very kind comments.

[@innocentnyamurowa]

great clarity and nicely compacted

[@hunzokuz]

Thank you, from Hunza, for this compacted and coherent description of the basics of philosophy of religion.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

You are most welcome. Of course, this is only a basic overview, so I hope you keep exploring the subject!

[@mohdhussain4604]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy help me out how can we explore the subject...... is the only the source?

[@dynng5392]

WOW. Thank you so much for this video!

[@pauljohnson7791]

5:30 - while I agree with your working definitions of agency and power, you made a pretty big inductive leap when you said, "Generally speaking, when we think of a divine being, we're thinking of a being with agency..." and then moved syllogistically to musts...

[@gooddaysahead1]

Good point. If God has complete agency, then "he" has no limits or no specific things "he" must do.

[@captn1742]

nice introduction, thank you very much

[@drwfair3131]

Thank you, thank you so much. Now my solpist nature feels a little less lonely in this grim yet magnificent infinity of contradictions...

[@selinbayram]

I love philosophy of religion!! Love the video!!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Selin! Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

Some theists also believe that God is immanent in that He is the basis for the being of all that exists. Thus, He is omnipresent.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Winston! Thanks for the observation. Yes at the individual level, you can find almost any combination of beliefs even if they are not necessarily internally coherent (we all suffer from a degree of inconsistency). What I'm attempting in these videos is to lay out (some of) the basic positions relative to different possible definitions of God (the same goes for all of the videos on my channel). They're designed to provide an overview, or basic grasp, of the main concepts in the various fields of Philosophy, not to be exhaustive, or inclusive of each and every possible variation (of which there are an infinite variety). This is the inevitable downside of KZbin: all we can effectively accomplish is generalization.

[@gooddaysahead1]

Not a rhetorical question, but is God in it and not above it? Or is God in it and beyond it?... It = all of creation. And if God is omnipresent, would there ever be a place/time where God is not? If not, why not? Because, Omnipresence would mean that God couldn't be differentiated from anything...whatsoever

[@blakejohnson1264]

I love your videos though from the way you speak about religion I have doubts whether you've engaged with Christian philosophers works like Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig and the other big names in Christian philosophy. If you have not engage with their work, I recommend you do so, and I would love for you to make a video about them.@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy

[@AdityaRajKapoorLordFuseBox]

Very nice Thankyou

[@FROGG-C2OEmiamp.]

That's why I created my own practice Sciencentuality bridging two worlds into una science & spirituality counteracting religion.

[@Dayglodaydreams]

Would I want to live in a world with an Allmighty mother or an all-mighty father (or father-mother)?

[@suburbanhermit7]

Nice video! I do have an issue with your definition of "what is god". Applying omni-traits as a requirement of divinity disregards religious practices where those traits dont apply. Not all theists apply these traits to divine beings. I would recommend checking out Stephen Dillon's book The Case for Polytheism.

[@maggienorris7833]

Does the term “theology” mean or imply the study of Jehova or the Abrahamic god? Does a theologist study the nature gods, or tha god(s) of all times ?

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi @maggienorris7833! The short answer is, 'no'. There are at least two uses of the term 'theology', the formal academic application, and the more common use. In the academic sense, 'theology' refers to the attempt to logically express and/or systematize the belief system within a religion. As such one could talk about Hindu theology, Islamic theology, Shinto theology, Christian theology, etc. Since conceptions of the divine vary between religious systems, there is no assumption that theology assume any particular definition of deity (e.g., theism, deism, pantheism, etc.). As Western religions tend toward theism, it is more common for theologians from those traditions to reflect theistic or deistic assumptions, but that's just an accident of history/geography. In the more common usage of the term 'theology', it can really just mean something like, talking about God, or thinking about the divine. Hope that helps. Thanks for watching and the question!

[@maggienorris7833]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Thank you for the answer. I wish to be able to discuss important matters with theists. I feel I must understand their assumptions in order to have productive conversations.

[@teresahelman1252]

Where would be the mystery and passionate curiosity if we knew all the answers ? To be all knowing is to be God. So many questions , the more I try to answer the more questions arise . I like many others would love to have the total reality answered but then what ? Wouldn't it be an oddity to have no need for questions because you already know the why's. Their must surely be an all knowing I call him father and I will be asking him why as long as he lets me ask .

[@ubaidullahpandit]

9:45 Don't we commit the fallacy of false dichotomy when we claim that immorality is the product of either lack of knowledge or lack of power or both?

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Informal fallacies are, or course, more difficult to pin down than formal fallacies, by their very nature. A formal fallacy like "denying the anteceedent" occurs under one and only one condition: when we deny the anteceedent in order to conclude the negation of the consequent of a conditional premise. Informal fallacies like "false dichotomy" require a bit of interpretation as there is no hard and fast set of conditions that always and only determine the failure of the inductive inference. In the case you mention, we are trying to establish the sufficient conditions for immorality. Plato, arguably the first systematic moral philosopher of the Western tradition, identified these two weaknesses (limitation of knowledge or power) as sufficient conditions for immoral action. But as sufficient conditions, they are not exclusive of other possibilities. A "false dichotomy" is usually thought to need exclusivity in order to occur (e.g., "either you will drink water or you will drink wine" would exclude the possibility of drinking milk, or beer, or pineapple juice!). Hope that helps!

[@studioparizah1242]

Subscribed within 10 sec ❤❤❤

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks! Hope you find these videos helpful!

[@khafreahmose8768]

Good vid! This is what brought me out of religious dogmatism and illogical beliefs; I couldn't get around the problem of evil and the omni's. How could an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god allow such atrocities to occur in the world? Either she/he (btw why are all the Abrahamic gods referred to as 'he'???) is powerless to stop evil or completely indifferent towards evil.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi, and thanks for leaving a comment. The "problem of evil" is indeed a seemingly intractable one, though many philosophers have attempted to solve it (most notably, G. Leibniz). If you've not already done so, I'd suggest reading David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" which is fun to read and a somewhat systematic investigation of classic arguments for God's existence.

[@gauravsingh-sj3eh]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy ĺĺ

[@NINJAgamerpt]

if god were to remove the atrocities all humans would perish

[@esdet105]

I would first ask the question: 'Does a particular god exist?' and then 'What is that particular god?' The way the question is asked 'What is God?' presupposes the existence of the god God. From a global perspective, this is a methodological problem.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Stephan. Thanks for watching and commenting. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you but I've been completely swamped the past couple of months. So, I'd disagree with your contention that asking a question like, "What is X?" presupposes the existence of X. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case. We think about non-existent entities all the time (assuming that the act of imagining an entity does not cause its existence) and we don't presume that our ability to imagine them is predicated on their existence. We could ask, "What is a dragon?" and go on to articulate a whole series of qualities that would be necessary in order for a thing to be a dragon, without actually asserting or assuming that such a thing exists. Hope that helps!

[@esdet105]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy That's okay and thank you for your reply. So, on what basis do you presuppose that the gods exist, and that the god God is real?

[@barryvaughan290]

@@esdet105 Hi Stefan! I would make no suppossition or presupposition that any divinity has positive ontological status. That's the point of Philosophy; we have to provide arguments for positions. Also, these videos are not meant to be reflections of MY views, only introductions to how philosophers in the Western tradition have thought about these questions. So, if we re-ask your question more generally it might be, "How do philosophers argue for the existence of God?" The answer to that is covered in the video with a brief introduction to the kinds of arguments for God's existence. There are, of course, thousands of individual arguments, but they can be organized into groups: logical arguments (e.g., ontological arguments), empirical arguments (e.g., argument from motion, argument from order/design), psychological arguments (e.g., argument from mystical experience), and moral arguments (e.g., Kant's interesting argument that the objective existence of morality implies the existence of God). I hope to do videos that go into the Philosophy of Religion in more detail soon. Thanks!

[@esdet105]

@@barryvaughan290 Thank you for your elaborate answer. What I miss in discussing theological arguments is a global approach of divinity and not an christocentric one. The arguments given for the existence of the god God always center around the Judeo-Christian one. Additionally, if this monotheism is true, then it should also provide arguments for the non-existence of other gods. I never see arguments against the existence of other gods in such discussions (which is not a point of critique about your great videos), just a general remark. Thank you for the time you spent in replying. Stefan, Antwerpen, Belgium.

[@barryvaughan290]

@@esdet105 I think your observation is VERY important and needs to be underscored. Philosophy, as a human endeavor always happens in the context of culture. The Classical philosophers operated in the context of 5th and 4th Century Greek poloi, the Hellenistic philosophers operated in the context of the Macedonean and Roman empires, the Medieval philosophers operated in the context of the Medieval Europe, etc. So when we look at the classic arguments for God's existence in the Western tradition, we need to acknowledge that these philosophers were operating in the general context of a Christian cultural hegemony. Hence, certain assumptions will be made given that context. But applying the principle of charity, we can examine the arguments in such a way that they are not bound to a particular religion. For example, while Anselm's argument is often read as an argument for a deity that would be consistent with the monotheistic religion of Christianity, it need not be tied specifically to that religion (or indeed ANY religion). Indeed, if you read the whole "Proslogium" he comes off more as a Deist than a traditional Theist. The same might also be said for St. Thomas. So I think it's really important to acknowledge the context in which these philosophers were working and understand that the idioms they use are culturally bound, but the arguments they make need not be "fixed" to those contexts. Of course, to cover all these important points would make my videos much longer (even though they would be greatly improved) than the half-hour I'm aiming at (and even that is too long for lots of folks who want KZbin videos to be no more than ten minutes!) Anyway, thanks for the very insightful comment, and thanks for supporting my channel by watching.

[@aawbchdefgnghijklmnopqrstt9057]

I have exams today and watching this on the way

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and commenting. I hope your exams went well, but nothing is better than giving yourself plenty of time to study! ;-)

[@liberalrationalist8905]

Might have helped to define "divine".

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching, and thanks for the feedback! Really helpful!

[@gooddaysahead1]

When I 1st fell in love with my wife I thought I had met the definition of divinity. I wasn't too far off. She has none of the omni characteristics. It's the eye of the beholder kind of thing.

[@jackojuice8691]

What is happiness?

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

THAT, is a really interesting, and perplexing question. I tend to come down somewhere between Aristotelian and Stoic eudiamonia. What do you think?

[@jackojuice8691]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy I think Aristotle’s idea of virtue (not vices) or avoiding extremes is true. One must complete actions to improve in life. Happiness is improvement in any form.

[@user-tu2xf4uf3n]

Happiness is winning a billion dollar lottery so you can get a fishing boat ?

[@FROGG-C2OEmiamp.]

In my own opinion what we consider evil is actually created from the manifestation of negative energy like hate,generously acts of murder/killing even though we know death is just the person the soul/consciousness changing states from this reality to the next. Note I also created my own diagnosis called P.N.E. syndrome=Parasitic,Negative,Energy that's attached to a soul a person & how does one become effected is from them constantly manifesting negative energy to the point it becomes an actual entity that attaches itself to that particular soul/person and feeds on them until they transmutate that negative/dark energy into positive/light energy & the parasitic energy is created & fueled from that person's life force/soul using it like a battery & people who are always negative,dark and just seem so evil all the time more than likely chances are they are affected by P.N.E. Syndrome.

[@iam1me]

Not the case that Theism entails that God be Omni- anything. The Greek gods certainly weren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or Omni benevolent. Even in Monotheism it is not necessarily the case that that one holds that all these apply; this is all just Greek philosophy leaking into the thought of *some* theologians.

[@bimaldeybimaldey7288]

God, means, generate, operater, destroyer, god exist, because we come from universe, universe is big soul, so universe is knowledge,

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for your comment! All of what you've said would be consistent with Pantheism, so in Western Philosophy, that would be the name for the view you've articulated.

[@maggienorris7833]

What we call “history” goes back to the invention of writing, ie, about 5 millennia. Archaeology pushes “history” back another, maybe, 20 millennia. Home sapiens emerged through the processes of evolution to 300 millennia ago. We have very little evidence on which to base any theories or assertions about the existence of what we call “religion” beyond the limits of archaeology. That is, for the first 280 millennia of our existence as a species.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

That all seems right to me, though I'm not an Anthropologist.

[@owlnyc666]

Omnipresent?

[@owlnyc666]

Anything that God does or tells someone to do is perfectly moral!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

'Presence' or as I like to call it, 'whereness' is a necessary quality of God on the Pantheist and Panentheist definitions, but not Deism and Theism. On the former, since the universe and God are identical, it is necessary that God would be every "where" (i.e., in all spacial locations). The same follows for Panentheism since the universe is literally "in" God. But because Deism and Theism hold God to be ontological distinct from the universe (i.e., transcendent) spacial reference would only be an accidental property. For the Theist, God might enter the material realm for some specific reason, but it would not be necessary. I think the reason many people think of God as being omnipresent is due to a misunderstanding of God's omniscience. If presence were necessary for knowledge, then omnipresence would be necessary for omniscience. But, since God's knowledge is an essential quality (for Deism and Theism) such knowledge would not be limited to sensory acquisition and would therefore not be dependent on location. To put it more simply, God would not need to "see" or "hear" in order to know.

[@englishworld7792]

God is present everywhere..

[@owlnyc666]

Is God present in my feces? If God is the universe and faces is at least a part of the universe then God is at least partly feces?🤔😉😏

[@NINJAgamerpt]

@@owlnyc666 your feces are a gift of god and god is not bound by space and time so yhe he is present in your feces but not in the way you implying

[@AngusDanu]

Here are some things Jesus Christ said of Himself. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” John 14:6 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:18 Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. Matthew 16:13-17 Skeptics said for centuries, "The bible we have now has been corrupted through the years.". In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and proved otherwise. They said, "There's no way Israel can become a nation again as God promised in preparation for the end times.". Israel became a nation again in 1948. All this being said, it does require faith to believe. Hebrews 11:6 tells us, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Also John 20:27-29 states, "Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Don't be deceived, Jesus is the Son of God and the only way of being saved from God's judgement for our sin. Christ consciousness won't save you. Believing Jesus was an ascended master, a prophet or a good teacher won't save you. Romans 10:9 tells us how to be saved, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved". Trust in Him, He shed his blood and gave His perfect life for you. Call on Him, He loves you, and He hears you.

[@NINJAgamerpt]

AMEN☦

[@bimaldeybimaldey7288]

God exit because we come from universe, universe is alive, that why we alive, I think we are co related with nature, we have age, earth has its limited age,

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for your comment! So you're view would be consistent with the Pantheistic definition of 'god'!