Philosophy of Religion

Directions: This question presents a sentence, all or part of which is underlined. Beneath the sentence you will find five ways of phrasing the underlined part. The first of these repeats the original; the other four are different. If you think the original is best, choose the first answer; otherwise choose one of the others.

If the creator of evil, call him by whatever name you like, had brought evil into this world, he must have created it simultaneously with God; otherwise it would be impossible for God to create good, which can exist only in relation to evil.

All of the following, if true, would be arrows in the bow of the faithful except

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

A simple theory in support of belief is the contention that the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God, in the absence of which, the atheist is justified in disbelieving and advocating the same. The more forceful and choleric atheists not just hold back from assenting to the presence of God, but actively refute the claims made by theists about a supreme power responsible for creating and controlling the world, as indeed the entire universe. They cite logic to support their claims for the absence of God as evinced from the state of the world around us. While a theist talks of a heavenly kingdom, hell and the yet to come resurrection of the dead, the atheist scoffs at these abstract assertions and claims that the evil that we see around us negates the possibility of the existence of a omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good God. When it is contended by the theists that God not only created the universe, but also supports life and wants only the best for his creations, the atheists take the present state of worldly affairs and hold it like a mirror in the face of theist rhetoric. Consolidating further, the atheists say that while evil is all around us, all pervasive and always in our face, the goodness of the supposedly perfect and perfectly good God is visible only in a few distant patches. Another line of reasoning for the atheist is that if God is perfect, his creations should reflect his perfection, to which the theists reply with the ‘choice of free will’ argument that even though God created humans in his own likeness, he left them with a free will to decide what they want to do and that the evil that we see is a result of our misuse of the freedom. To the charge of the presence of natural evil, the existence of natural calamities, disease et cetera, the theists counter with the explanation that evil must exist to quantify good, that the two are relative and one can’t exist without the other. A similar argument proposed by theists is that evil allows the existence of values and forces that oppose it to exist and opens up avenues for compassion, love, mutual dependence and human kindness. Without suffering and trials, the world will lack such higher planes of consciousness which would make it tawdry in comparison to the world as we know it today.

The above passage is an attempt to:

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

A simple theory in support of belief is the contention that the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God, in the absence of which, the atheist is justified in disbelieving and advocating the same. The more forceful and choleric atheists not just hold back from assenting to the presence of God, but actively refute the claims made by theists about a supreme power responsible for creating and controlling the world, as indeed the entire universe. They cite logic to support their claims for the absence of God as evinced from the state of the world around us. While a theist talks of a heavenly kingdom, hell and the yet to come resurrection of the dead, the atheist scoffs at these abstract assertions and claims that the evil that we see around us negates the possibility of the existence of a omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good God. When it is contended by the theists that God not only created the universe, but also supports life and wants only the best for his creations, the atheists take the present state of worldly affairs and hold it like a mirror in the face of theist rhetoric. Consolidating further, the atheists say that while evil is all around us, all pervasive and always in our face, the goodness of the supposedly perfect and perfectly good God is visible only in a few distant patches. Another line of reasoning for the atheist is that if God is perfect, his creations should reflect his perfection, to which the theists reply with the ‘choice of free will’ argument that even though God created humans in his own likeness, he left them with a free will to decide what they want to do and that the evil that we see is a result of our misuse of the freedom. To the charge of the presence of natural evil, the existence of natural calamities, disease et cetera, the theists counter with the explanation that evil must exist to quantify good, that the two are relative and one can’t exist without the other. A similar argument proposed by theists is that evil allows the existence of values and forces that oppose it to exist and opens up avenues for compassion, love, mutual dependence and human kindness. Without suffering and trials, the world will lack such higher planes of consciousness which would make it tawdry in comparison to the world as we know it today.

Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage. Key in the number of the option you choose as your answer.

To exist is to be something, to possess a specific identity. This is the Law of Identity: A is A. Facts are facts, independent of any consciousness. No amount of passionate wishing, desperate longing or hopeful pleading can alter the facts. Nor will ignoring or evading the facts erase them: the facts remain, immutable. Reality — that which exists — has no alternatives, no competitors, nothing “transcending” it. To embrace existence is to reject all notions of the supernatural and the mystical, including God.

Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage. Key in the number of the option you choose as your answer.

Spiritual Atheists are people who do not believe in a literal "God”, but still consider themselves to be (often deeply) "Spiritual" people. There is no consensus among Spiritual Atheists regarding the literal existence of one's own "spirit" or a collective "spirit"; however, there is consensus that if any "spirit" does exist, it is not external to the universe and it is not "supernatural". Spiritual Atheists believe that nothing that exists or happens violates the nature of the universe; they believe that all such things only further define the nature of the universe. For Spiritual Atheists, being "spiritual" means (at the very least) to nurture thoughts, words, and actions that are in harmony with the idea that the entire universe is, in some way, connected; even if only by the mysterious flow of cause and effect at every scale. Therefore, Spiritual Atheists generally feel that as they go about their lives striving to be personally healthy and happy, they should also be striving to help the world around them be healthy and happy.

Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage. Key in the number of the option you choose as your answer.

Aristotle’s theology is based on his perception that there must be something above and beyond the chains of cause and effect for those chains to exist at all. Aristotle perceives change and motion as deep mysteries. Everything is subject to change and motion, but nothing changes or moves without cause.

Which of the following statements most approximates the stand taken by the Duke of Argyll?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Duke of Argyll says, “Science, in the modern doctrine of conservation of energy and the convertibility of forces, is already getting a firm hold of the idea that all kinds of force are but forms of manifestations of one central force issuing from some one fountain-head of power. Sir John Herschel has not hesitated to say, ‘that it is but reasonable to regard the force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a consciousness or will existing somewhere.’ And even if we cannot certainly identify force in all its forms with the direct energies of the one Omnipresent and All-pervading Will, it is at least in the highest degree unphilosophical to assert the contrary — to think or to speak, as if the forces of nature were either independent of, or even separate from the Creator's power.” The Duke, however, in the general tenor of his book, does not differ from the common doctrine, except in one point. He does not deny the efficiency of physical causes, or resolve them all into the efficiency of God; but he teaches that God, in this world at least, never acts except through those causes. He applies this doctrine even to miracles, which he regards as effects produced by second causes of which we are ignorant, that is, by some higher law of nature.

How does the Duke of Argyll make an exception to the percepts commonly espoused? I. By contending that all creation is not a result of a single all-pervasive entity. II. In suggesting that the force of gravity does not emanate from the supreme God. III. In stating that God controls the universe, but indirectly.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Duke of Argyll says, “Science, in the modern doctrine of conservation of energy and the convertibility of forces, is already getting a firm hold of the idea that all kinds of force are but forms of manifestations of one central force issuing from some one fountain-head of power. Sir John Herschel has not hesitated to say, ‘that it is but reasonable to regard the force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a consciousness or will existing somewhere.’ And even if we cannot certainly identify force in all its forms with the direct energies of the one Omnipresent and All-pervading Will, it is at least in the highest degree unphilosophical to assert the contrary — to think or to speak, as if the forces of nature were either independent of, or even separate from the Creator's power.” The Duke, however, in the general tenor of his book, does not differ from the common doctrine, except in one point. He does not deny the efficiency of physical causes, or resolve them all into the efficiency of God; but he teaches that God, in this world at least, never acts except through those causes. He applies this doctrine even to miracles, which he regards as effects produced by second causes of which we are ignorant, that is, by some higher law of nature.

Directions: Starter to the following paragraph has been correctly provided in statement 1. However, the other sentences in the paragraph have been jumbled up. Rearrange the sentences, such as to make coherent sense.

I. Theology does not deal with motion and is abstract and separable, for the Divine Substance is without either matter or motion. A. Likewise earth is not earth by reason of unqualified matter, [15] but by reason of dryness and weight, which are forms. B. In Physics, then, we are bound to use scientific, in Mathematics, systematical, in Theology, intellectual concepts; and in Theology we will not let ourselves be diverted to play with imaginations, but will simply apprehend that Form which is pure form and no image, which is very Being and the source of Being. C. Thus a statue is not a statue on account of the brass which is its matter, but on account of the form whereby the likeness of a living thing is impressed upon it: the brass itself is not brass because of the earth which is its matter, but because of its form. D. For everything owes its being to Form.

Directions: Starter to the following paragraph has been correctly provided in statement 1. However, the other sentences in the paragraph have been jumbled up. Rearrange the sentences, such as to make coherent sense.

I. There are many who claim as theirs the dignity of the Christian religion; but that form of faith is valid and only valid which, both on account of the universal character of the rules and doctrines affirming its authority, and because the worship in which they are expressed has spread throughout the world, is called catholic or universal. A. In fact, the difference between three or more things lies in genus or species or number. Difference is the necessary correlative of sameness. Sameness is predicated in three ways. B. Therefore Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not three Gods. The principle of this union is absence of difference: difference cannot be avoided by those who add to or take from the Unity, who break it up and convert it to Plurality. C. For the essence of plurality is otherness; apart from otherness plurality is unintelligible. D. The belief of this religion concerning the Unity of the Trinity is as follows: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.