Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Gaunilo argues that just because someone can conceive of something it does not make it a reality and that there is not one way to conceive of God - the very fact that Gaunilo was arguing with Anselm proves that everyone coneives of God differently. He used the ideo of a ‘Perfect Island’ to show his point by saying everyone can imagine a wonderful remote island but this does not mean the island exists. Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticisms. He stated that God is non-continent whereas all other things on Earth are contingent. Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument.
The word “good” in reference to God is meaningless as we cannot know what this entails; it is completely different from saying “the man is good”. According to the Via Negativa, to say “God is good” limits God’s goodness because it puts a human idea of goodness in our minds. Similarly if we talk about God being all-knowing, we can debate what this means but ultimately we cannot know for certain what it means to be all-knowing. The only things we can be certain of about God is what God is not; for example God is not evil. There are strengths to this theory, for instance it prevents us from making anthropomorphic statements about God, meaning we are not left with an inadequate image of God.
All things considered, the endeavor to question these arguments as a reason not to trust in God does not merit endeavoring. In the event that theists don't for the most part hold to these proofs as explanations behind faith, then why try attempting to question them to theists? Keeping on doing as such appears as though he is persuaded to demonstrate a point that few are not interested on questioning, and accordingly is intentionally attempting to set up theist conviction as crazy; at the end of the day, he is looking to start a fight. This is not a scholarly target article. Inclination essentially relinquishes scholarly objectivity.
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.
Not my will, but your will be done?” Sometimes, we are afraid to do this because we have false concept that God’s will for us is not good. You might be thinking, “How about his plan for Jesus? That didn’t seem very good.” No question, it was very difficult for Jesus, to say the least. He faced the full wrath of God against all
Thus, he believes there is no reason why should you live a moral life rather than for one's self. Fidley asks Seltzer one last question, “what motivation for adopting the moral point of view can you possibly offer without a belief in God and immorality?” which leads us to this quote, “When religion tells us that there is nothing more we can say about morality than that we can’t see the reasons for it, but do it if you know what’s good for you, then I do condemn it. We can do better than that. We can become moral grown-ups. And if there were a God, surely he would approve”.
To be honest, everyone has issues. I really don’t’ think it’s a necessary action to chase someone down the street with a gun because he “talked smack about you” or your mother. Make peace not war, is my motto. Violence is not the answer some might say, but without realizing it we end up in a continuous battle between one another. We campaign for peace amongst nations but that could never happen because we are too self-centered to actually agree to such a belief.
One would say that Lennie didn’t have to kill her, but then again, Lennie did not understand the situation or what was happening. One would also say that he did not have to take things that far but all he wanted to do was make her stop yelling at him. “Now don’t, I don’t want you to yell. You gonna get me in trouble,” is what he told her because all he wanted was for her to stay quiet (Steinbeck 91). He didn’t mean to kill her, but since Lennie does not understand certain things, he also does not know his own strength.