Christian Worldview Paper I Abstract It is true, knowledge and truth can in fact be sought out in different ways. The ways in which one may seek knowledge has a lot to do with their background or worldview. We all have opinions and biases based on what we have been taught or experienced A scientist will seek knowledge and base truth only on things that can be proven, by use of the scientific method. On the other hand Christians see truth as being what is God's word. There are people that feel the two can be integrated, but there are others that feel Christianity and science are not at all compatible.
Berry’s intention to persuade readers depends whether the reader agrees or disagrees with his reasons. In the end, Berry presents his personal reasons he has for rejecting computer, but has no scientific evidence or any other way to support his reasons. In my personal opinion, Berry fails to persuade other than himself because most people could not identify with his reasons. The fact that many of what he considered his reasons’ strong seemed illogical to computers’ users. For that any many other factors, public might not feel persuade by
For this reason, people who agree with Calvin in believing in predestination often find it difficult to understand why miracles aren’t common occurrences. However, as Swinburne suggests, if miracles were a frequent occurrence, people would live in confusion, not knowing whether to trust that laws such as gravity would remain constant. Swinburne also observes that if God were to interact frequently, humans would become expectant and perhaps take less active roles in society and would, for example, be less likely to find the cure for cancer. Another possible reason for miracles appearing to be sparse and selective is hinted at in Irenaean theodicy, which suggests that people suffer on earth and in life in
Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening. Hume’s argument on miracles was written in his essay ‘Of Miracles’, he rated his argument very highly, claiming that it was an argument that “which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” To understand Hume’s argument against miracles we have to understand his definition as his argument is based on his understand of ‘miracles’ and his understanding of ‘the laws of nature’. He defines a miracle “as a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s argument against the likelihood of miracles rests on his use of induction. This is explained in ‘The Question of God’ by Micheal Palmer, he explains that “It is…a fundamental principle of inductive reasoning that the more I see A followed but B, the greater is my expectation that A will be followed by B in the future. That I expect a rubber ball to bounce is dependent on my having seen the rubber ball bounce not once but many times.
This is probably why Christopher thinks the way he does because you can not really see god, and probably doesn’t see the logic in religion either. It’s ones faith that drives someone to believe in him, while Christopher would not be able to have faith and believe because there would be no solid evidence that God exists and he mostly only believes in what he sees, something that is concrete. To Christopher God might be just another fairytale. “People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically they would see that they can only ask this question because it had already happened and they exist.
Many scientists believe that science and religion should not entwine. Scientists often keep religion separate from their work. Humans like you and I, turn to religion for an answer, for hope. Like Goodall, I believe science and religion are not different from each other but simply the way a person’s views the world as. Whether God created this universe or if they is a scientific answer to the creation of this universe, it is not as important than our future.
The purpose of pseudoscience is to provide explanation for occurrences or behaviors that are not scientifically proven. Who is to say what is right or wrong? The average human being uses both science and pseudoscience in their everyday life and it is almost vital to produce a balanced, happy life. An example of this is a person who has a belief in a higher power that runs the universe and provides direction in life. This would be considered pseudoscience because there is no physical proof of a higher
I suppose the reason for this is that no one would willingly follow a fool because doing so would probably cause undesireable consequences. I believe, however, that something more than just human wisdom must be shown in order to succour to yourself thousands of years of lasting loyalty. Godly wisdom is that something. Godly wisdom is all knowing, no mistakes, no misunderstandings. Godly wisdom can only be held by God himself, but we can strive to educate ourselves as much as possible, thus reducing mistakes, misunderstandings, etc.
Some people think that scientific discoveries aren’t important unless they affect society. Scientific literacy is about being curious and interested in the changes of the world. By people not opening up their interests more wider, Americans have lower percentages of scientific literacy. Although some people don’t believe that this is important, others disagree; and even though we may disagree with others, we all still have our own opinions. Everyone has their own opinions in the debate on weather or not scientific literacy is important.
This means that do we do good things because God says is good or do we do good things so than God says that it is good. Another argument I am going to examine, is for the statement, and it is an argument based on a group of people called Anti-Theists. They don’t believe in God, so they agree with the statement. However, Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins say that anyone who believes in religion or in a god is an extremist and it clouds and distorts your view on morality. The next argument that I am going to examine is what some people in the world think, but it is based around Cultural Relativists, who say that if morality was decided for by God then he could say one day to murder somebody and it would be fine.