Dewey vs. Jesus Anthony Mayson EDUC 305 Dewey vs. Jesus Contrast the ideas of Dewey to the teaching of Christ. John Dewey was a great philosopher and was also a pioneer for education. He stated that value was a function neither of whim nor purely of social construction, but a quality situated in events. When it came to religious views Dewey honored the important functions that religious institutions and practices played in human life, but he rejected belief in any static ideal, such as a personal God. Dewey felt that only scientific method could reliably increase human good.
Hume used the inductive method, which goes from the particular to the universal. Hume believes that knowledge is likely. Descartes believed in the existence of innate ideas in man, undeniable truths and safe, but Hume denies, since for him the human mind at birth is like a blank book in which you type through the experience (Spicker, 2000). Rationalism is a philosophical theory which originates in the thought of Descartes (1596-1650, French philosopher). Do not forget either that rationalism did not involve the overcoming of religious thought; on the contrary, the notion of God was very important in the rationalist philosophical systems (Joachim, 2006).
This postulate of God has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason. The need of God arises because the relationship between moral law and happiness is not guaranteed in this world. So here God comes to the rescue and thus necessitates the compatibility of virtue and realization of highest good. The postulate of immortality is very much interwoven with the postulate of God. Taking into account the sensuous nature of human beings, Kant states that it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope.
In his letter, Galileo asserts the Bible as a direct authority on faith and not as of one on science when his states, “that our authors knew the truth but the Holy Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are useful to no one for salvation" The idea that the Earth moved and the sun stood still did not contradict scripture. If the scripture was interpreted correctly then the sun could only stand still if the sun normally moved around the Earth. Galileo wanted people during the 18th century to open their minds to the scientific discoveries and realize that a new idea did not have to repute scriptures. He argued against the accusations the he was condemning the Bible in a way that was, "without understanding it, weighing it, or so much as reading it". Galileo claimed to strongly believe the Bible and its message of faith.
‘’Philosophers have proved conclusively that religious language is meaningful’’. Discuss. The religious language debate is not concerned with whether or not God exists or what God is like. It’s sole concern is with working out whether religious language means anything or not. On one hand you have the philosophers who believe you can speak and write about God, because God is reality.
The school in Antioch adhered to a more literal interpretation the Bible. The teachers associated with this school stood in opposition to the philosophical allegory and mysticism that characterized the school of Alexandria. The theologians at Antioch also rejected both Docetism and Apollinarianism. In contrast to these views, they stressed the humanity of Christ and taught a distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ. They believed that Christ was perfect in humanity as well as perfect in deity.
Inverse to Puritan and Calvinist faith, deism favored science over the bible, something that would have been shunned a century before. They refused to accept Jesus’s divinity, but acknowledged a transcendent entity that created the known universe. This entity trusted the morality of man to keep the world from becoming unglued. Deism led to the creation of Unitarianism, one of the new religions during this time period. Unitarianists believed that God manifested himself in only one person instead of the orthodox Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).
The heart of Leibniz’s argument was that there must be a cause for the whole which explains the whole. Frederick Copleston would have disagreed with this statement because he believed that there has to be a necessary being which explains the contingent beings and this necessary being should contain within itself the reason for its own existence. Copleston would go on to say that this necessary being is God and God is therefore the explanation of the universe and how it came into existence. Hume would have agreed with this statement because he questioned the idea that everything has a cause. He claimed that
This divergence from Christian doctrine and thus universal truth places the effectiveness of the scientific method in doubt as it is subject to human nature and its inherent imperfection. Kim et al. (2012) acknowledge this fact stating, “Over time, human reason essentially replaced God in determining moral laws. For instance, under utilitarianism moral issues were no longer based on God’s Word, or transcendent truth but on practicality” (p. 3). This modification of truth to a form of relativism; however, is not regulated to modern times.
‘The moral argument for God is not convincing.' Discuss. (10 marks) Kant’s moral argument attempted to answer questions surrounding the idea of “right and wrong” and whether we got these ideas from a God and subsequently whether our morality depends on God. Thus his argument obtains a stronger focus on morality and duty as he felt it was not in human knowledge to prove God’s existence which is arguably why part that proves God is not necessarily as convincing and Kant merely states that we should postulate the idea of God as to explain morality it is necessary to believe that God exists. Kant believed that everybody had an innate moral awareness, “two things fill my mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”.