Also he believes that if you asked someone who doesn’t believe in God what their definition of God was, then it would also be something along the lines of this. He then later goes on to say that even if you don’t believe God to exist, then he must exist through this definition. This is because if God is the greatest being, and an atheist also defines him like this, then in order to be the greatest being he must also exist in reality, as it is greater to exist in reality than just the mind. Anselm then uses an analogy of a painter and a painting to help people understand this concept further. He says that when a painter plans his work before he starts it, then he has an idea in his head of what it will end up looking like, however because he hasn’t painted it yet it doesn’t exist.
Critically evaluate Wittgenstein’s language games theory as an approach to religious language. God’s transcendence means there is widespread discussion as to how any statements in regards to his existence or nature can be deemed as ‘meaningful’. Influential philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889 - 1951 was heavily involved in studies of Language and developed the idea that the purpose of philosophy was to clear up the conceptual confusions that arose through our unexamined use of language (including statements of religious significance and any religious language) and that words are a function of language, not just simply a signifying of an object. 'Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.' Wittgenstein believed, in opposition to Rene Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) that language was a social product, and that statements made about the world were basic and 'groundless' and believed that judgement through opposing 'language games' was not possible, as they are parts of different discourse.
The argument from religious experience states that if we can experience God, then surely God must exist because what we experience must be real. There are many philosophers that try to explain this but the one I am going to focus on in this essay is William James. James defines religious experience as though it should be the primary topic in the study if religion rather than religious institutions, since institutions are merely the social descendent of genius. He also defines a religious experience as, 'The feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatsoever they may consider divine.’ To James a prominent feature of religious experience is mysticism. He says, '...propose to you four marks which, when an experience has them, may justify us in calling it mystical...' The marks to which he is referring to are inefficiently, notices quality, transiency and passivity.
Just like a religious believer who states “god loves us” but can’t explain the contradiction of evil in the world, believers qualify their statements by explaining god’s love is not like humans love he calls this “death by a thousand qualifications”. Therefore religious language is meaningless. However religion has responded to the falsification principle. R.B Braithwaite argued that the falsification principle explains religious language as cognitive when it if in fact non cognitive and therefore cannot be falsified, religious language is therefore still meaningful. Hare also responds to the falsification principle, showing that religious statements are meaningful even though they cannot be falsified because they have a significant impact for the people using the statement.
An ineffable experience is one that cannot easily be articulated. It is too big a thing for words and therefore not necessarily understood by those who have not experienced it. Noetic means intellect. It is an experience that is not purely based on emotion, but one that provides an insight into religious truths which have universal or eternal significance. For example, on Damascus Road, Saint Paul’s religious experience transformed his moral outlook.
Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving. As far as Genesis 1-2 goes, it is more important to understand the scripture, rather than prove it to be factual. “Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization” (Ferngren, 2). Genesis 1-2 is the cause of much unnecessary tension between the religious and scientific communities. The writers of Genesis 1-2 wrote it in a way that presents the Earth’s creation as a factual account of God creating the heavens and the Earth.
While none of these issues have precise answers, but there is a scientific methodology, which is the best of what people can approach to them. Science includes the selection and analysis of the facts with highly sophisticated methods. Currently, this topic is very relevant, and about science and religion there are enough different debates, disputes. It is preferred not to separate them, because science and religion do
Let knowledge be a cosmic and complex structure, faith is the base for this structure for it provides fundamental assumptions and without these assumptions, the structure of knowledge will disintegrate. In the first Area of Knowledge religion, faith does play a pivotal role. Faith is an essential element that is mostly inseparable from the religion. An organized religion usually consists of a person’s relationship to that which they regard as holy, sacred,
Of the many objections to his Mediations on Philosophy, Descartes believed only two to be valid. One of these objections was based on Descartes’ claim that he proved the existence of an infinite being. Descartes believed that he proved the existence of a perfect being through the processes he laid down in his Discourse on Method. His theories provided many interesting new ideas. Like any new ideas, his ideas faced objection.
Reader-response theory is downplayed by the belief that if everyone is able to determine his own meaning, then no piece of art can ever be misunderstood. Formalism cannot stand alone, for it is faulty in that there are times when the artwork presented cannot be taken literally. Much of the art in this world is abstract and represents a greater idea that cannot be established by observing only what the piece is without regard to the artist’s meaning. By combining the theories of intentionalism, reader-response, and formalism, a better theory is created in which the meaning of