It is doubtful that Darrow was as white or Bryan as black, or even Scopes himself as absolutely ignorant and innocent in resolute belief as is depicted. Characters such as the newspaper reporter and Scopes’ love interest have been given more ‘spirit’ to help the plot through. This, however, opened up the film to possibilities of backlash. It is fairer to approach the criticism, perhaps, in the words of the critics themselves. Robert Harsh, for example, declares in ‘Exposing the Lie: Inherit the Wind’ that "Christians, particularly William Jennings Bryan, are consistently lampooned throughout, while the skeptics and agnostics are consistently portrayed as intelligent, kindly, and even heroic.
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."
If we try to mix in logic, we end up with a rhetorical disaster. American politics has a Christian bias. Remember how much crap Obama went through when people found out he was born half Muslim? He had to swear to several newspapers that he regularly attended church. To answer the second part of the question, no, religious arguments do not hold water for nonbelievers.
It has come to the attention of many Americans as of late that their right to religious freedom is supposedly being placed into jeopardy. Many people insist that the United States was established on the principles of liberty to practice religion as one pleases, and yet others protest that this nation’s critical founding documents are based on Christian beliefs. Each position has valid contentions, although there are several relatively obvious discrepancies in the argument of total religious independence. However, to accurately understand this quandary of religious dispute, one must look back to the Pilgrims that first landed on North American soil, and get into the minds of the nation’s founders. The men and women who first came to America
Religious Right author David Barton, perhaps the most outspoken of the “wall of separation” critics, devoted an entire book, The Myth of Separation, to proving his claim that church-state separation is “absurd” and was a principle completely foreign to the Founding Fathers. He states: “In Jefferson’s full letter, he said separation of church and state means the government will not run the church, but we will use Christian principles with government.” More recently, two researchers have published books that criticize the almost infamous status the metaphor has achieved, especially before the U. S. Supreme Court. Daniel Dreisbach, who wrote, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State, is critical of the courts for making the metaphor a practical rule of constitutional law. Dreisbach’s basic argument is that the metaphor fails to distinguish between the conception of “separation” and “non-establishment.” Dreisbach is correct in saying that metaphors can be overstated, misused, and made poor substitutes for legal
That being said anyone who is religious would feel uncomfortable while watching “Religulous”. The name to me was well thought out but offensive, “Religulous” a portmanteau or blend of the two words, religion and ridiculous. To me the movie should have actually been called “Christian Bashing Featuring Some Other Religions for Split Seconds” by Bill Maher. I wrote down many of his questionable quotes that are almost intelligent. Bill Maher is a smart individual but an agnostic can only promote what they know which means not very much when it comes to religion.
Response to Article: On Being an Atheist Cassandra Craig PHIL 201 Liberty University Reading the article ‘On Being an Atheist’ by H. J. McCloskey, was an invaluable experience in considering the views of an atheist concerning his beliefs about God, the universe, evil and suffering. This is the kind of article that may assist people in avoiding what Socrates spoke of in earlier lessons in philosophy as an unexamined life. Even if a person doesn’t agree with McCloskey’s views, you are prompted to think about many issues, what you are doing, what you believe and why, also investing time reflecting on what life is all about. Considering that McCloskey most likely gave a lot of thought to the above issues, he was overall very narrow minded in the way he talked about theism, he implies that proofs for theism should be abandoned, and says the evil that is in the world is one of the main reasons; “It is because evil exists that we believe God does not exist” (McCloskey, 1968, p. 52). In view of the PointeCast presentation, theistic arguments determine the best explanation for and not proof of, God’s existence, while considering the complexity and cause of the universe; and morality.
Religion at one time was very touchy subject in many cultures around the globe, as the world progressed more people became open to religion. Theses effects have lead to a society overflowing with religious moderates. Religious moderates are people who aren't fundamentalists and don't interpret their religious scripture in a literal context. They have tolerance for other religions and beliefs and believe that no faith should be forced upon you. Sam Harris discusses religious moderates and their dogmatic views in his article “The First Ten Pages.” Harris argues that they are the “instability” in our society because moderates believe in something without having factual evidence to prove it.
It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things, or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied me, still my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or, in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world” (38). The reader can infer that science to Frankenstein is religion from how he focuses on the subject and wants to know more of it in depth. Then he began to read the studies of Cornelius Agrippa but soon as his father told him not to waste his time reading that “sad trash” (40), he became furious and did not listen and read it anyway. He was so wound up in the studies of science, he did not heed his father’s advice and he did what he thought was best for
“The Enemies of Reason” “There are two ways of looking at the world, through faith and superstition, or through the rigors of logic, observation, and evidence through reason.” I believe this statement is true since there are those who believe things such as superstition and psychics can help you through life and there are those who base life off of hard evidence and facts. Richard Dawkins does not completely understand why people put faith in mediation and astrology. They are ways of having hope and a way to just relax because we are constantly stressed. People don’t have all the answers to life, so they turn to superstition and parapsychology to make decisions. We have done studies, such as the Wiseman study in Chapter 2, stating that psychics and everyday students have nearly the same results at predicting statements, yet people still pay to have their “minds read” or “predict the future.” It is fine to choose to believe in the irrational, but accepting money is another story.