There are strengths and weaknesses in both models. I felt both had a weakness in that they assume there is a basic assumption that is wrong in order to create a problem and did not leave room for biological factors. In Crabb’s model it all starts with a “need” that has to be filled. To me, this is a weakness because it does not allow for medical disorders. In making sure that the secular psychology principles align with biblical thinking the biological issues seem to be forgotten.
Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false. In this essay I will be discussing the multiple branches of cognitive theories and non cognitive theories in order to answer the Janus-like question whether or not moral statements truly hold objective meaning. Ethical naturalism is just one branch of a cognitive theory in which naturalists believe that ethical statements are the same as non-ethical ones, meaning they are all factual and can
There are some that criticize the Biblical Christian worldview because they see Christianity as being mythical. As a Christian I was taught to walk by faith and not by sight. That concept is very difficult for some to grasp because if they cannot see, touch, or taste it then it doesn't exist. I feel having science along with the God's grace leading the way you have the best case
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
Teleological Suspension of the Ethical When a man (religious or not) is faced with a critical situation where he must decide whether the consequences of his actions are ethical or unethical. If they are ethical and he is religious, he must then go to the next step and determine if his actions will be held accountable in a negative or positive manner based upon the beliefs of his religion. If he is not religious and the action is ethical, he gains the satisfaction in knowing that he will serve no punishment or be dealt any sort of penance if his actions turn out to be right or wrong because he is not being judged by an anomaly with power to do so. When a man who is not religious performs an unethical deed, he faces the worst judgment. He will be judged by those who know him in the real world, and if a higher power exists, will also be judged in the spiritual world as well.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so are meaningless, as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are not meaningless as they are about facts, and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of meta ethics which holds the belief that
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether. Is something moral because God commands it? Does morality depend on religious belief? A common view among religious, and even some secular, philosophers is that just as conventional laws require lawmakers, morals also require some ultimate source. The Divine Command Theory is the view that moral actions are those that conform to God's will.
I believe that if there is a God and He is great and loves us, then He would want us to think of others and volunteer and those type of things more than worshipping how amazing He is. That sounds very selfish to me. So this is why you should do what you think is right and not because someone tells you its right. Because if someone tells you something is right, they can still be wrong. No one can decide what is right or wrong except yourself.
“The direction which I am motivated to follow in an effort to meet my needs depends neither on the needs nor on the motivational energy but rather on what I think will meet those needs” (Crabb, 1977). Because men fall short of the glory of God, their drive may be aimed in the wrong direction. Crabb states that the only true satisfying goal is God. No matter what the drive behind the goal, without God, there is no true achievement. Different psychological problems can arise if a client is reaching for a goal that does not involve God.