The Arguments for the Existence of God

Ontological

‘A priori’ and ‘A posteriori’• ‘A posteriori’ = Teleological and Cosmological.• ‘A priori’ = Ontological = reason can be expressed

using logical arguments.

• Anselm is not trying to prove God’s existence using empiricism like the Cosmological argument but is demonstrating what is true, like a scientist.

Meet Anselm (1033 –1109)in Proslogian Two

Premise one: God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined)”

Premise two: God may exists either in the mind alone (in intellectu) or in reality (in re) as well.

Premise three: Something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater than something that exists as an idea in the mind alone.

Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist in reality and in the mind.

What does this mean?

• Anselm’s argument is a reply to the fool who says there is no God.

• The ‘fool’ has to have an idea of what God is in the first place in order to dismiss it.

• The definition given would be that God is the ‘greatest possible being.’

• Something that exists in the mind and reality is greater than something that just exists in the mind e.g. A unicorn

• It is better to exist in reality than only in the mind. Therefore God must exist in both.

Benedictine Monk Gaunilo x3• “On Behalf of the Fool” (why is the title important?)• Challenged Anselm’s logic via Reductio ad absurdum • (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") following the implications of

an argument logically to an absurd consequence.1.Gossip:

The fool in Psalms may argue – all sorts of things in my mind do not exist in reality.

Example of someone hearing about a person from gossip. Gossip = unreliable, person/ event made up to trick you.

2. Defining things into existence:You cannot prove from what is said (de dicto) what exists in reality (de re.) In other words you cannot demonstrate the existence of something simply be having an idea about it.

Gaunilo’s Island:

• Just because imagine a perfect thing e.g. a lost perfect island does not mean it exists in reality.• In fact we know it does not• You would be a fool to think so.

• Gaunilo of Marmoutier; If the logic of Anselm’s argument was applied to things other than God it leas to invalid conclusions. He replaced the word God with greatest island. P1: I can conceive of an island than which no greater island can be thought P2: Such an island must possess all perfections P3: Existence is a perfection C: Therefore the island exists This is an invalid conclusion as just because you can conceive of a perfect island this does not mean it exists. Perfection does not necessarily mean existence.

Anselm’s Reply

• Gaunilo missed the point.• God isn’t a perfect thing, like an island• God is THE perfect thing.• Islands can always be improved, God cannot.

Islands have no “intrinsic maximum.” Alvin Plantinga

Anselm’s second version in Proslogian Chapter Three

Remember: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

• God is not contingent like an island• Contingent things can be thought of as not existing• God has Necessary Existence, since it is greater to be a necessary

being that a contingent one.

Therefore: it is impossible to imagine that God does not exist – as God is “that than which”

• Furthermore: to say ‘God does not exist’ you are contradicting yourself.

• This is because he believes that part of God’s nature is to exist.

Descartes’ Ontological Argument

In other words: existence is part of the perfection of God which God cannot lack.

•God is the “supremely perfect being,”•To be truly perfect something must exist •Existence is a predicate•Therefore God must exist.

For Descartes: Existence is a predicate of Perfection.

The predicate is a description that a concept has to have to be itself.

Lets practice:The person sat next to me is:5 qualities are :

Descartes and the Triangle

• A triangle has three sides • 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees• This is a truth of mathematics that cannot be

doubted• Descartes calls the triangle ‘immutable’ cannot

change or be different• It does not matter if I know what a triangle is or

not.• This will not affect the fact that a triangle has 3

sides/angles.

So...... Triangle and God• Just as a triangle is immutable so is God.• Just as three sides tells us something about the nature of a triangle• God's nature is that God exists.

• This is because Necessary Existence cannot be divorced from the concept of a supremely perfect being.

• Trying to imagine God without the predicate of existence is illogical, like trying to imagine a triangle without three sides.

• Descartes is arguing that God’s existence cannot be doubted just as the truths of maths cannot be doubted.

• Descartes gives more examples to support this including: Mountain and a Valley

• E.g. A triangle must have three sides, a hill most have slopes, a bachelor must be unmarried, a perfect God must exist.

• These ‘facts’ are self evident – they do not require empirical proofs in order for a person to accept them as truths (that's why it is an ‘a priori’ argument)

• This makes them analytic statements (meaning is within the statement)

Kant1. If you have a triangle,

you have to accept it has three sides.

What is the subject and what is the predicate?

2. However if you dismiss the triangle altogether, you don't have to accept the three sides.

Kant Continued

Analytic• Definitions are analytic.• Definitions are facts that cannot

be disputed.

Synthetic• Statements about existence are synthetic

• They need proof that they are true• This means that to say ‘God exists’ is a

synthetic statement• Therefore needs to be verified.

Therefore:3 sides of a triangle = necessary for the definition of a triangle (e.g. in a dictionary)But this says NOTHING about the existence of a triangle.

“Existence is not a predicate.” A predicate/ quality must add meaning to the subject. Existence does not add meaning.

Norman Malcolm supports Ontological

• Necessary existence cannot be affected by anything external to it.

• God’s existence is either impossible or necessary• Kant’s criticism failed in one important respect.• You either have a triangle or not• But, by Anselm’s definition, you simply cannot have no

God.• Therefore the situations are not exactly parallel.

Russell concludes • Existence is not a predicate –if it was then:E.g.

Men existSanta Claus is a manTherefore Santa Claus exists

Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Aquinas First Way – Unmoved Mover• In ‘Summa Theologica’ Aquinas has 5 ways.• Cosmological is the first three ways.First Way = • Everything in the world is in a process of motion.• Everything in motion is changing from potential to actual• This state of motion is started and caused by something else• The chain of movers cannot go on infinitely into the past• Conclusion: First Mover = God the unmoved mover

• What does Aquinas mean by ‘unmoved mover?’• What is it important that God is ‘unmoved?’

Aquinas Second Way – Uncaused Causer• Cause and effect exist in the world• “If you eliminate cause you also eliminate its effects, so that you cannot

have a last cause nor an intermediate one, unless you have a first.”

• How can you relate this example to a book?

• But there is not endless cause and effects throughout eternity = first cause created by God.

Aquinas Third Way – Contingency and Necessity

• Everything is contingent -relies upon something else for its existence• E.G we rely on our parents for existence• This pattern of contingency cannot go on infinitely• Infinite regression is impossible• There must be a necessary being that started it. (Being who has created itself )• = God

Leibniz Sufficient Reason

• The cosmological argument rests on certain principles of causation.

• In particular that any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence.

• This is what Leibniz points to in his Principle of Sufficient Reason = that there cannot be more in the effect than there is in the cause.

• Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues.

Hume’s 1st Criticism of Aquinas

• Just because things within the universe can be explained through causes (everything is causes by a proceeding cause)

• Does not mean there is a cause for the universe as a whole.• This is known as Fallacy of Composition.= We have evidence of causes within our world that we can test/ study

empirically - does not mean the universe as a whole has a cause.Hume gives the example of ‘twenty particles’ = if you find an explanation for

each particle individually it would be wrong to then seek an explanation for the whole collection.

Bertrand Russell supports this by saying that every man has a mother is not proof that the human race has a mother.

Hume’s Second Criticism• We assume there is a relationship between cause and effect. • We are in the habit of seeing effects and associating them with

causes.• As a ‘matter of logic’ not all effects have causes.• This is sometimes called the ‘Fallacy of Affirmation of the

Consequent’.• How can this be used against Aquinas’s Arguments?

Overall: We have not experienced the creation of the universe. We cannot prove empirically that there is a ‘necessary’ being or that the being is God.

J. L. Mackie: Why should people accept that God is the necessary being.? Equally argue that there is “ a permanent stock of matter whose essence did not involve existence from anything else.”

Frederick Copleston’s Argument from Contingency

• The world is a collection of objects – all objects in the world depend on something else for existence – they are contingent.

• Therefore explanation for existence of everything in the universe must be external from the universe.

• E.g. An infinite number of chocolates is still not a sheep.• What this means is that everything would be unintelligible

without a creator God.• There must be a being that is self explanatory i.e. contains

within itself the reason for its own existence “necessary being” that gives reason/ explanation for the ways things are.

= God

BBC Broadcast ‘The Existence of God’ A debate 1948 Between Fredrick Copleston and Bertrand Russell. Focused on Aquinas’

Third way on Contingency.

Bertrand Russell

• Only propositions (statements of reason) are ‘necessary.’ • You cannot have a necessary being –God.• Analytical statements are ‘necessary’ E.g. all bachelors are unmarried men – it is contradictory to deny• A ‘being’ or ‘God’ is to use a name• When using names or people this is synthetic – need to prove• E.G Herbert is a bachelor need to find Herbert• God Is necessary need to find God• Cannot prove God is a necessary being = meaningless

Over view of Russell’s Argument

• Why cant the universe simply exist without need for an explanation?

• Cause and effect will stretch into infinity in the future so why cant it stretch infinitely into the past? So no use for the first cause.

• If God is the explanation of everything and everything requires an explanation, then what is the explanation of God?

• Why should God be self explanatory in the way that the universe is not.

Big Bang• Big Bang could explain the start of the

universe.• About 15 billion years ago there was

a dense concentration of matter and energy.

• This ‘mass’ of energy and matter exploded, blasting particles and energy outwards.

• The matter then concentrated into hot lumps, which we call Stars. These stars are clustered into galaxies.

• Debate rests on whether or not the cause of the BB was natural or divine.

Steady State Theory

• Bondi, Gold and Hoyle.• Energy cannot be created, energy

within the universe will simply be redistributed to cause the start of this universe.

• Undermines Cosmological arguments beginning to the universe.

Aquinas said infinity was impossible so must be a God but... God is infinite!!

OtSupport and Criticismsher explanations for start of universe.

Kalam Cosmological Argument• Muslim Scholars al Kindi and al

Ghazali.• Everything has to have a

beginning including the universe.

• The universe cannot go on infinitely.

• Then there must be a God who willed it to begin.

William Lane Craig

• No such thing as infinity• If universe is not infinite must

be a beginning.• Beginning must be caused by

something.• For Craig this is a “personal

being” who freely chooses to create the world

Supporters

The Teleological Argument

Paley: First argument= Design qua Purpose

The world shows: pattern, organisation and designEverything is designed for a reason or purpose otherwise it would not be

designedAnything that is designed must have a designer

William Paley (1743 –1805) in ‘Natural Theology’ First argument: Design qua Purpose

Paley used the analogy of the watch to demonstrate......

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possible answer, that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever.”

However, he says, if he found an old fashioned watch on the ground, this sort of explanation would not do, as the watch is clearly:

• complex• intricate piece of machinery• Shows workmanship, • All cogs are perfectly intertwined • All parts work together in order to reach its purpose = to tell time.

Conclusion: If any of the parts were shaped differently then the watch wouldn't work.

All parts assembled purposefully in this right order = by a designer. That designer is a watchmaker.

(Cannot be the product of chance)

Further details of the watch• Does not matter if the watch

sometimes goes wrong or is not perfect.

• The point is the watch's existence suggests it was designed for a purpose.

• Our admiration for the watchmaker would be increased if could produce more watches

• Conclusion: Design of the watch implies “the presence of intelligence and mind.”

Watch Eye“Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the

works of nature.”

•Paley stated the same design is found in the natural world. •Based his findings on science of the day. He looked at:•Human eye = extraordinary flexibility and ability•Wings of birds = engineered for flight•Fin of Fish = engineered to swim•Such evidence could only be the result of a ‘designing creator’ for Paley this is God•Do you think this is a fair conclusion?

Eye Universe Just as the watch showed evidence of a designer =

watchmakerThe eye shows evidence of design = ?If we look further the most complex and amazing

design of all is the universe.The whole of nature needs the grandest of all

designersConclusion = God.• The watch and the eye play as analogies.• This means that a comparison is made between

similar things.

Second part of Paley’s ArgumentPaley argues for ‘design qua regularity’Evidence from: AstronomyNewton’s laws of motion Gravity = design in the universe. Paley pointed to the rotation of planets

in the solar system and how they obey the same universal laws.

This could not have come about by chance.

Conclusion: external agent = agent is God.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74)Why do you think it is called the Teleological argument?

Answer: everything in nature has a ‘telos’ – purpose/goal to which it works.

In ‘Summa Theologica’ Aquinas has ‘Five Ways’ to prove the existence of God.Design qua Regularity is the fifth of these

There is something regulating the universe. Events that follow scientific laws are predictable, regular and unvarying e.g. gravity.

“Everything operates as to a design. This design is from God.”

Why is this argument ‘A posteriori ‘ argument?

Aquinas: Design qua Regularity1. Objects follow natural laws = have goal/ purpose2. Reason objects perform their job efficiently is that they

were designed that way3. Everything that is designed must have a designer4. Conclusion: everything in the natural world that does

not think for itself e.g. an arrow, heads towards its goal or purpose because it is directed by something which does think.

5. “This being we call God.” God makes things reach their ‘target’

Aquinas’ Example Metaphor of Archer and arrow

1. An arrow hits a target even though it does not have a mind of its own

2. The archer (someone with a mind of their own) shot the arrow3. Things in the natural world follow natural laws4. God caused the natural world to behave in this way

Aquinas’ argument supports Design qua Regularity. The archer and arrow is an example of ‘regularity of succession.’ Everything in nature follows certain laws that lead to certain results being achieved.

In what ways is Aquinas influenced by Aristotle?

David Hume’s (1711–1776)First Argument Against (5 parts)

‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’Hume was an Empiricist (what does this mean?)1.Design argument would prove the universe has a designer not prove the designer is God.2.No real knowledge or experience of the creation of the world so cant conclude just one creator God. Watches etc made by more than one watchmaker.3.No evidence that the universe needs a designer – come into existence naturally , so cant know how creation of world happened by aspects in it.4.So much evil in the world why would a Omni Benevolent and Omnipotent God design such a world? E.g. if one of Brunel’s bridges collapsed, we would argue that he was a a flawed designed. 5.Watch analogy – world is not like a machine . If one finds flaw with analogy, then the argument is weakened as well. Universe more like plant/ organic thing than machine. Organic things are not obviously designed therefore analogy is undermined.

Hume’s Second Argument: Using Epicurean Hypothesis

•Hume suggested the Epicurean Thesis as a possible explanation for the design of the universe.•At the time of creation the universe consisted of particles in random motion – chaotic but gradually they evolved into an ordered system. •Universe is eternal and inevitable but the stability and order shows evidence of design.• Thus for Hume apparent design could happen at random and thus does not infer a designer.

•David Hume’s book was published 24 years before William Paley’s book, so David Hume never directly criticised PALEY but the teleological arguments generally.•What Paley tried to do was to respond to some of the critics at the time surrounding the teleological argument.

World is not a pleasant place. Why would God design such a world? There is so much cruelty within nature this does not support a designer God.

He believed that the existence of so much suffering in the world could mean one of two things:•Either God is not goodOr•God is limited in some way

•Flawed universe = infers a flawed creator. There is real evil, not merely as a result of people’s free choices but natural evil, which seems part of the structure of the world. If these were designed, it seems a very faulty sort of design and by a designer whose motives we may doubt.

•Mill does not argue against existence of God but rather that God is not the omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of Classical Theism.

“nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing... Are natures everyday performances.”

John Stewart Mill (1806 – 1873)‘Nature and the Utility of Religion’

Supporters of Mill

• A female digger wasp not only lays her eggs in a caterpillar so that her lava can eat the insides but also stings it to paralyze but not kill so it is alive when they are eating it.

Richard Dawkins

• Anthony Kenny explains how Mill’s view of God “leads to a God which is no more the source of good than the source of evil.”

Richard Dawkins“No purpose, no evil and no

good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Blind Watchmaker

Is this worse than a belief in God as creator?Why is the title of Dawkins’ book ‘Blind Watchmaker’ significant?

Darwinism ‘Origin of Species.’Natural Selection – •Variations which promote survival will become a feature of the species•Healthiest species survive and pass on genes•The rest will die out. Conclusion: only the fittest genes survive = Survival of the fittestTherefore: not evidence of design but chance mutations over thousands of years.Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection would explain that the eye is the result of countless generations of genetic development and mutation.

Anthropic (humans) Principle

Designed so that the evolutionary process would create an environment in which intelligent life could exist. (supports both evolution and Designer God).

If minute changes occurred intelligent life probably wouldn't have developed.

E.g. the earth is roughly 91-93 million miles away from the sun, if it was any closer or further away humans could not exist on the earth.

Therefore God must exist

• Humans possess the ability to appreciate the beauty of their surroundings – to enjoy art, music and literature.

• Yet this is not necessary for survival (e.g. not important in evolution)

• Therefore evidence of a Divine Creator not natural selection.

Aesthetic Argument

Supporters of the Teleological ArgumentRecent Developments: F. R. Tennant

This is supported by Arthur Brown who argued that the ozone layer’s purpose, to filter ultraviolet rays in order to protect life, could not have happened by chance.

Richard Dawkins and Memes against the Aesthetic Argument

•‘The Selfish Gene’•Dawkins considers the family, or the social group, to be no more than the environment that animals create to ensure survival of their genes.•Dawkins takes a Darwinian view of culture, and refers to the memes, (a term he has invented to refer to the unit of cultural inheritance;) memes are essentially ideas that are operated by natural selection.•It is for this reason Dawkins argues that humans appear to have an appreciation of beauty but it is no more than part of the survival mechanism

Strengths of the Teleological Argument• It is supported by both natural and revealed theology• It is an a posteriori and inductive argument, so it is a scientific theory that

can actually be assessed• Paley’s analogy is an easily understandable and logically sound type of

argument• Paley’s observations of regularity are supported by science• Paley’s claims qua purpose seem logical (the eye sees, the ear hears, etc.)• he Strong Anthropic Principle argues that the universe contends that the

universe was just made for us, this is explained using Tennant’s RUM:• Rational – the universe can be rationally understood, it is not chaotic. This

suggests design.• Unlikely – the universe existing and supporting human life is hugely unlikely,

we should not lose sight of that (Swinburne)

Weaknesses of the Teleological Argument• The design argument is a posteriori and inductive. As Kant says, this

method can never lead to absolute certainty.• There are flaws with inductive reasoning (Russell’s chicken). New

data or interpretations can destroy the theory. Arguably this has been done with Darwin’s theory of evolution.

• Paley’s watch analogy is hugely flawed, there are many more areas of disanalogy than analogy between watch and universe. For example, a watch is held on a chain or wound around the wrist, therefore the universe is?

• Evolution suggests that complex systems can be achieved through the slow process of random genetic mutations, supported by natural selection. There is no need for a designer. As Dawkins puts it, evolution is ‘a blind watchmaker’.

Weaknesses of the Teleological Argument• We have never seen a universe be created so we can’t know anything about how

they are created. ‘..from observing the growth of a hair can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?’

• It is not at all clear that even if we accept the design argument, we arrive at monotheism. For example, many people contribute to making a modern car. Wouldn’t it make sense to imagine that a universe is also designed by some sort of committee?

• There appear to be many faults in our current universe, for example the problem of evil. Is it not possible that our God was somehow imperfect? “This world, for all he know, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it.”

• J.S. Mill certainly thought so, declaring that if like effects have like causes, then the misery and pain in the world can only lead one to the conclusion that God is not good.

• Kant argues that all design arguments presuppose the idea of regularity in the world. However, this can not be taken for granted. We are pattern seeking creatures, and may simply be imposing pattern on a random and chaotic system. For example, the gambler’s fallacy.

The Moral argument from Kant

Kant’s Argument• ‘A posteriori’ argument• Kant criticised Teleological, Cosmological, Ontological

arguments because these cannot be proofs of God’s existence because we don't understand God.

• = Human reason is limited – God is unlimited. God is beyond our understanding

• It is however possible to ‘infer’ him through ‘practical reason’

Kant proposes 3 postulates of practical reason: we are immortal, God exists and we are free beings.ay of solving a problem)

Key Ideas

1. Kant emphasizes the autonomy of moralityAll moral actions must be freely chosen. This means that Kant rejects the idea of God as Divine Lawgiver who orders to follow his rules out of fear of punishment.

2. If we are autonomous what is morally right?• Do your duty

Universal basis for morality which are the self imposed moral duties.

3. How do you work out what you duty is?Worked out through reason. It is the truly right thing to do. This can be done by thinking if it can be applied universally. The only intrinsically good reason for moral action = goodwill

Continued

• Act according to good willAn action is good to do not because of the consequences. An action in accordance with ‘good will’ will achieve the summon bonum.This can be seen in the ‘categorical imperative.’Categorical = something that you have to doImperative = command

= It is your duty to follow the categorical imperative in line with good will to achieve the summon bonum.

4. What is meant by summon bonum?Achievement of moral goodness and happiness together.

“I perceive God in the starry heavens above or the moral law within.”

“Two things fill the mind with ever new increasing admiration and awe… the

starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”

CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON 1791.

“ Therefore it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.”

IMMANUEL KANT

His argument for the existence of God follows:We all have a sense of innate moral awareness – from this we are under obligation to be virtuous

An ‘average’ level of virtue is not enough, we are obliged to aim for the highest standard possible True virtue should be rewarded with happiness There is an ideal state where human virtue and happiness are united – this Kant called the ‘Summum Bonum’

Moral statements are prescriptive – ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ Humans can achieve virtue in a lifetime but it is beyond us to ensure we are rewarded with happiness. Therefore there must be a God who has power to ensure that virtue and happiness coincide in an afterlife.

Kant

Moral qualities exist as separate entities.

We are contingent and flawed beings and cannot achieve summum bonum (HIGHEST MORAL GOOD)

Summum bonum must be achievable

Morally necessary to postulate Gods existence.

God is required for morality to reach its end.

Kant

Moral Argument• Moral action is about doing one’s duty• The reason to do one’s duty is to

achieve the Summon Bonum (highest good)

• However sometimes in this world you can follow duty and not achieve the summon bonum because of the wickedness in world.

• The highest good must be achievable• Therefore we can postulate God's

existence

Everyone seeks the Summon Bonum

Summon Bonum cannot be achieved in this life

Whatever can be sought must be achievable because universe is fair

Must postulate (assume) an afterlife where the summon bonum can be achieved

Therefore necessary to postulate that God exists in order to guarantee that the universe if fair so that

the summon bonum is achieved

In other words:

Be aware that....

• Kant is not trying to prove God’s existence but is merely arguing that morality is ordered in a moral way.

• That IF the universe is fair• And IF the summon bonum can be

achieved• Then God and after life are

necessary postulates.

Criticisms

Impossible to proveEvolution: behave morally because want others to behave morally towards us.Peter Cole: Why should virtue be rewarded with happiness? Assumes that the universe is fair but is it? Why should virtue be rewarded at all, not a means to an end.If you don't believe in God this argument will not help someone be moral, only helps the believersKant argues that only God can bring about the Summon Bonum. But why God?Brian Davies: “why not a pantheon of angels?”

Deep deep down at the bottom of unconscious mind – son’s love of mother.

Conscience: based upon guilt of disappointing parents. Must conform

to societies behavioural expectations.

Morality comes from human conscience not GOD.

Freud• Famous Psychologist• Founder of psychoanalysis• Religion is an ‘obsessional neurosis’• A neuroses describes problems

experienced in life e.g. traumas that are repressed in the mind and develop into obsessive neurosis in adulthood e.g. repetitive behaviour

• Thus, belief in God, an afterlife or happiness are just obsessional neurosis that religion satisfies.

• Therefore, against Kant, disproves the need for summon bonum, afterlife or postulate of God.

Freud: The MindThe mind has three parts:1.The Id: human instincts, desires and

appetites2.The ego: shaped by external

influences – traumas, education, upbringing

3.The superego: part of ego, human reason, make decisions. Parenting values and influence mould superego. Superego is where the conscience is found.

So where do our morals come from?

• Moral values are the result of our experiences through upbringing and interaction with the subconscious mind.

• Parents = influence through education, values, morals

• Therefore morals are not objective, universal, rational or absolute as Kant implied but society and upbringingQuickly research:

Primal Horde and Totem/ Taboo

Evaluation of Freud

Strengths• Founder of psychoanalysis• Fundamental in the development of

dreams, mind (Id, Ego, and superego) and conscious, sub conscious, unconscious (iceberg) ideas

• Clear that parents/ environment affect our morals and ethical ideas

• Explains why all our morals are so different: over time/ culture/s society because of the influence of parents on the individual.

Weakness• Unethical/ unscientific case studies

done: Little Hans• What about children from single

parent families or modern families - Freud implies they are immoral = illogical

• What happens if parents are immoral? – implies little freewill over morals if inbuilt by parents

• Does this mean parents can be held responsible if their children are immoral/ break the law?