One might say that Dawkins’s view of Darwinism is a strict set of basic ideas and principles, embodying the definition of fundamentalism. While neither Graffin nor Dawkins deliver a completely consistent worldview, Graffin’s worldview seems to contain fewer fundamentalism characteristics than Dawkins’s. Dawkins’s view resembles the view of fundamentalist scientists and Darwinists. Although he claims he would change his views if evidence were to appear that God did exists, he seems set in his ways and resistant to other worldviews, which makes his claim hard to believe. Graffin does a better, though imperfect, job of embracing other
Outline two key objections to the Ontological Argument and explain the responses made to them. The ontological argument was first introduced by Anselm in the ‘Prosologian’. It is an a priori argument as it is not based on empirical evidence but id deductive and analytic in that it allows one to use logical reasoning to reach a logically necessary conclusion which, in theory, cannot be disputed. Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC) and states that everyone, theist or not, can accept this definition. He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists.
Critically assess Hume’s challenges towards miracles. David Hume (1711-1776), an empiricist, is a great criticiser of miracles. He has many different arguments against miracles and against what people think miracles are. Although Hume criticizes miracles, he never actually says that he does not believe they occur. 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.
The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was one of the early founders of existentialism. Although Kierkegaard was a devout Christian, he rejected the Christian Church due to its legalistic nature and the false relationship that people were receiving with God as a result. Kierkegaard believed that the key relationship of an individual was with God. He argued that God has given people freedom to make their own decisions and therefore our decisions are not determined. He thought that our existence is not something determined rationally or part of an on-going process but that it is something specific which is created through the choices we make.
Aquinas argued that the definition of God cannot be comprehended by humans. As humans are finite, and God is infinite, it is impossible for humans to make an accurate definition of God. Another issue with the ontological argument is its problems with proving existence just from a description. David Hume claimed that it was impossible to derive existence from a definition. Hume was an empiricist, and therefore believes that for something to exist, there must be evidence that can be accessed by the senses.
Both types of utilitarianism wanted a secular theory to which everyone could use. This is the main reason as to why utilitarianism is not compatible with religion. Another reason as to why act utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to decision making is that it has the potential to justify any act as long as it generates the most happiness for the greatest number even if the act is very wrong. It reduces morality to simple maths when using the hedonic calculus. It doesn’t value human life as highly as religions, such as Christianity does.
To what extent is the via negativa the only way to talk about God Within this essay I will be arguing that the via negativa is a very unhelpful way to talk about God as if we were to only talk about him negatively we would ultimately never know anything of God’s nature. Instead, I will argue that analogy is a better way to talk of God and I will refer to Aquinas’ ideas of analogical language. The via negativa (or apophatic way) claims that people can only talk about God in negative terms because he is transcendent and utterly different and greater than anything we can comprehend. Thus we cannot say what God is because his nature is beyond our comprehension. 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”.
“So where does this leave thee philosophers, the scholars and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-21 New living Translation). In the following verses it is stated that God saw in his wisdom that the world would never know him through human wisdom. Human wisdom is limited, because its bases off of prior knowledge and instinct, the wisdom of the world from philosophers, scholars, Greeks, Jews, and Gentiles is foolish to God.
“Logos” describes a kind of truth that strives for objectivitythrought the use of critical reason, while “mythos” describes a truth whose purpose is to overcome our subjective sense of separateness from the world and other living beings. Though past societies understood the distinction betwwn the two, Armstrong contends that in our time both skeptics and religious people treat mythos as a set of objective claims. After reading “Homo Religiosus,” the concept of keeping mythos separate from logos is impossible to
If the gods can have their disputes about piety and impiety, then how would we ever know what exactly is the right course of action? Despite the fact that Socrates did believe in some kind of religion, he was still seen as impious or