Editing Religious philosophy (section)

== God ==
Religious philosophy is predominantly concerned with the conceptions of god, gods, and/or the divine.<ref name=":0" />

=== Ontological arguments ===
{{Main|Ontological argument}}
Ontological arguments are arguments based on reason with the conclusion that God exists.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=Oppy|first=Graham|date=1996-02-08|title=Ontological Arguments|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ontological-arguments/|website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2020-08-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200824203105/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ontological-arguments/|url-status=live}}</ref> There are many notable contributors to the development of various ontological arguments.

In the 11th century C.E., [[Anselm of Canterbury|Saint Anselm of Canterbury]] (1033–1109) reasoned in his work ''[[Proslogion]]'' about the existence of God in an ontological argument based on the idea that there is a 'being than which no greater can be conceived'.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web|last=Williams|first=Thomas|date=2000-05-18|title=Saint Anselm|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/anselm/|website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2020-10-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201008025051/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/anselm/|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Thomas Aquinas]] ({{Circa|1225}}–1274) extracted components of philosophical teaching relevant to Christianity, using philosophy as a means to demonstrate God's existence.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Aquinas' Philosophical Theology {{!}} Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/|access-date=2020-11-20|language=en-US|archive-date=2020-11-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120071723/https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/|url-status=live}}</ref> In his work ''[[Summa Theologica]]'', Aquinas presents five arguments for the existence of God, known as '[[Five Ways (Aquinas)|quinque viae]]' or 'five ways'.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=McInerny|first1=Ralph|last2=O'Callaghan|first2=John|date=1999-07-12|title=Saint Thomas Aquinas|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aquinas/|website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2019-05-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190527180840/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aquinas/|url-status=live}}</ref>
[[File:Frans Hals - Portret van René Descartes.jpg|thumb|Portrait of René Descartes]]
In the 17th century, [[René Descartes]] (1596–1650) proposed similar arguments to those of Saint Anselm of Canterbury. For example, in his work ''[[Meditations on First Philosophy|Fifth Meditation]]'', he provides an ontological argument based on the reasoning that if we are able to conceive the idea of a supremely perfect being (i.e., that we have an idea of a supremely perfect being), then, he claims, we are able to reach the conclusion that there exists a supremely perfect being.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":9">{{Cite web|last=Nolan|first=Lawrence|date=2001-06-18|title=Descartes' Ontological Argument|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/descartes-ontological/|website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2021-07-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210711134317/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/descartes-ontological/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|last=Abbruzzese|first=John Edward|date=2007|title=The structure of Descartes's ontological proof|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608780701255394|journal=British Journal for the History of Philosophy|language=en|volume=15|issue=2|pages=253–282|doi=10.1080/09608780701255394|s2cid=145725622|issn=0960-8788|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2023-02-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210022731/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608780701255394|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Wee|first=Cecilia|date=2012|title=Descartes's Ontological Proof of God's Existence|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608788.2011.650973|journal=British Journal for the History of Philosophy|language=en|volume=20|issue=1|pages=23–40|doi=10.1080/09608788.2011.650973|s2cid=170398478|issn=0960-8788|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2023-07-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230717160835/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608788.2011.650973|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Two versions of Descartes' ontological argument exist:<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" /><ref name=":11" />
* Version A:
# Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
# I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
# Therefore, God exists.

* Version B:
# I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
# Necessary existence is perfection.
# Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.

In the 18th century, [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Leibniz]] (1646–1716) further developed Descartes ontological argument by attempting to satisfy a shortcoming in Descartes' proposal, which did not address the coherence of a supremely perfect being. Leibniz reasoned that perfections are compatible as they are unable to be analysed, and therefore are able to exist in a single entity, thereby validating Descartes argument.<ref name=":8" />

More recently, individuals such as [[Kurt Gödel]], [[Charles Hartshorne]], [[Norman Malcolm]], and [[Alvin Plantinga]] have proposed ontological arguments, many of which elaborate on or are connected to older ontological arguments presented by individuals such as St. Anselm, Descartes, and Leibniz.<ref name=":8" /> For example, Kurt Godel (1905–1978) used modal logic to elaborate and clarify Leibniz's version of Saint Anselm of Canterbury's ontological proof of the existence of God, known as [[Gödel's ontological proof|Godel's Ontological Proof]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kennedy|first=Juliette|title=Kurt Gödel|date=2020|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/goedel/|website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Winter 2020|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2021-12-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230162936/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/goedel/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Concept of God ===
{{Main|Conceptions of God}}
An individual's perception of the concept of God influences their [[coping]] style.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last1=Maynard|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Gorsuch|first2=Richard|last3=Bjorck|first3=Jeff|date=2001|title=Religious Coping Style, Concept of God, and Personal Religious Variables in Threat, Loss, and Challenge Situations|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0021-8294.00038|journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion|language=en|volume=40|issue=1|pages=65–74|doi=10.1111/0021-8294.00038|issn=0021-8294|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2020-11-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127174345/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0021-8294.00038|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref> There are four main religiously affiliated coping mechanisms, as follows:
# Self-directing style: the individual does not involve God directly and instead individually adopts a problem-solving method.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last1=Pargament|first1=Kenneth I.|last2=Kennell|first2=Joseph|last3=Hathaway|first3=William|last4=Grevengoed|first4=Nancy|last5=Newman|first5=Jon|last6=Jones|first6=Wendy|date=1988|title=Religion and the Problem-Solving Process: Three Styles of Coping|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387404|journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion|volume=27|issue=1|pages=90|doi=10.2307/1387404|jstor=1387404|access-date=2021-05-22|archive-date=2016-10-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161007233703/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387404|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
# Deferring style: the individual submits their issue and the required problem-solving to God.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" />
# Collaborative style: both the individual and God are involved in the problem-solving process.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" />
# Surrender style: the individual works collaboratively with God in the problem-solving process but values God's direction above their own.<ref name=":12" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wong-Mcdonald|first1=Ana|last2=Gorsuch|first2=Richard L.|date=2000|title=Surrender to God: An Additional Coping Style?|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009164710002800207|journal=Journal of Psychology and Theology|language=en|volume=28|issue=2|pages=149–161|doi=10.1177/009164710002800207|s2cid=149374402|issn=0091-6471|access-date=2020-11-20|archive-date=2020-12-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201205184238/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009164710002800207|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>