Philosophy of Religion Trivia Quiz

Answer: Ontological argument

Both the cosmological and teleological arguments rely on some form of empirical "a posteriori" knowledge. The cosmological argument is based on the "first cause" of the universe. The teleological argument comes from an argument that the world is designed as if for a purpose by some kind of creator.
The ontological argument uses reason to prove God's existence "a priori", using his conceptual properties as a necessary and perfect being.

Answer: Saint Anselm of Canterbury

Saint Anselm offered the most famous account of the classical ontological argument in "Proslogion" which he wrote between 1077 and 1078. His argument was based around the idea that nothing greater than God can be conceived. He went on to argue that it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind and if God existed in the mind only then there would be things greater than him (i.e. things that exist in reality) and so, he must exist in reality. Definitely an interesting argument!

Answer: A Watch

Yes, this famous analogy likened the world to a watch, both so intricate in their cumulative functions that they both must have been designed by an intelligent creator (a watchmaker for the watch, God for the world). Paley put this argument forward in his "Natural Theology" book of 1802.

Answer: The Weak Anthropic Principle

This is the "weak anthropic principle". There is a strong version too but it is quite different and, as you'd guess by the name, more complex and controversial.
The weak version is widely used in philosophy as well as physics (Stephen Hawking even used it).
If you're wondering about the other three possible answers, I completely made them up! Pretty convincing, eh?

Answer: Problem of Evil

Yes, these arguments are commonly known under the term of the "Problem of Evil".
These arguments have been very popular since God is seen as both all-powerful and all-loving and many argue it is obvious that evil exists. The resulting conclusion is often that if any two of those three statements is true, the remaining statement must be false.

Answer: Theodicy

Theodicies are used to try and solve the problem of evil. These include matters of free will, evil as a test, spiritual development or even accepting and working around the idea that God does not have attributes of omnibenevolence or omnipotence.

Answer: J. L. Mackie

Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga and the famous René Descartes were/are theists.
J.L. Mackie was an Australian philosopher who defended atheism, used the problem of evil and took the position of moral nihilism (which he then referred to as moral scepticism).

Answer: Muhammad Iqbal

Jean-Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell and Robin LePoidevin were/are atheists.
Muhammad Iqbal was a Muslim philosopher as well as a politician and a poet.
On a side note, interestingly enough, Robin LePoidevin just so happens to be one of my lecturers at the University I'm studying at! His book "Arguing For Atheism" is widely available and I recommend it to anyone interested in the Philosophy of Religion, theists and atheists alike!

Answer: David Hume

Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" of 1748 included a section titled "Of Miracles" in which he criticised the use of miracles as evidence of the existence of God. Other criticisms included his argument that miracles are more likely to occur in what he called "ignorant and barbarous nations".
I love you, Dave, but I'm not sure about that last point.

Answer: True

Of course it is true. Pascal's Wager stated that if the theist is right, that theist gains eternal salvation. If the theist is wrong then that theist loses nothing. If the atheist is right, that atheist gains nothing. If the atheist is wrong then that atheist loses their soul to eternal damnation.

In short: we have nothing to lose and everything to gain so we might as well believe in God. Of course Pascal's Wager doesn't take into account the plurality of religions and the fact that we may not know which God we should choose to worship.

In addition, it assumes that belief is subject to the will and also that God will accept this "wager" as belief enough for eternal reward. Lastly, it asserts that theists lose nothing if they're wrong, when it could be argued that all of their time spent worshipping would have been wasted and all of their following of rules would have been unnecessary.