The lack of clarification for the term “proofs” does a disservice to McCloskey’s opening. The very things he considers “proofs” to the theist are in most studious circles actually considered “arguments” for the case of theism not “proofs”. It may appear the he is attempting to run it altogether to misdirect the reader into believing something that is not. McCloskey refers to the arguments as proofs and he often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, but the Cumulative Case using the Cosmological Argument, the creator, the Teleological Argument, the intelligent designer and the Moral Argument, that He is a personal, morally perfect being is the best explanation that God exists which is the best explanation for the universe we experience. The claims of science aren’t a hundred percent indisputable or even a hundred percent factual and yet they are still accepted as valid, rationally convincing or highly probable, thus the belief in theism doesn’t have to be irrefutable to be accepted as the same.
(D.H. Lawrence, "Morality and the Novel") Aesthetically, the fiction which reveals a truth by explicit sermonising rather than as a natural conclusion drawn from the relationships and events it presents, is displeasing, even "immoral." Indeed, Martel's statement is likely to have the opposite effect on his reader, provoking a determined counter-reaction not to succumb to a didactic religious agenda. Surely enough, Life of Pi fails to meet its ambition. As he travels through its pages, apparently on the Damascun road to enlightenment, the reader will not, atheist or already committed follower, experience some major revelation to the spirit, coming to, or restoring, a belief in God. Nor, despite Martel's explicit but deceptive statement, is he intended to.
Pi looks down upon agnostics because “[they don’t] know which way is up” (Martel, 5) However, this is ironic because Pi himself is confused about his own religion. He believes in God but he can’t choose between which religion he wants to worship: “I was practising Hindu, Christian, and Muslim.” (Martel, 71) Pi’s religion is very important to him. However, he is not against Atheists, because they have a set belief. “Whereas the agnostic[s], if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality… to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.” (Martel, 70) This shows that Pi is angered by the lack of imagine and how agnostics are content without finding answers and they look for reason. Therefore he believes that doubt should exist, but should be momentary, to be replaced by a decision.
Using these different types of language demonstrates a difficulty; assuming that when we speak of God, we are speaking cognitively- assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that it is able to describe an extinct being, God. Philosophers have always had a debate between this. Some say that a statement of God is non-cognitive, statements not subject to true of falsity. This led to a strong trial and tribulation to religious faith and its believers. Some such as Mortiz Schlick claim that religious belief is literally meaningless; religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion.
“God must be Evil” The question “is God evil?” is asked very often with both sides of the question offering different answers to this question with no definitive answer coming about but in both cases people coming out with very convincing arguments for both sides of the story. Some people argue that God is indeed evil because he is omniscient and because of his omniscience he knows that from the moment he decided to create us maybe even before then he knew which of us would reject him thus securing a place in hell for them or would sin again securing them a place in hell and yet does nothing about this. This is a major contradiction to his supposedly being omnibenevolent and some people even go so far as to use examples of murder and rape which are horrific events which they then use to say “how can a loving God allow such a thing to happen?” They then go further into it saying how as God is omnipresent and can see everything that has happened, will happen and is happening he must take some sort of sick pleasure in watching these events occur and so is evil. Or at the very least by allowing such a horrific event to happen without some form of justice or stopping them then he has to be evil as only an evil person would let evil acts go unpunished. Sam Harris uses this idea in one of his quotes saying that “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes or he doesn’t care to or he doesn’t exist.
31) as he “like[s] not the smell of this ‘authority’” (1. 31). Here, he underscores one of his biggest objections to Parris’ leadership, the reverend’s inability to rule by praise of the Lord and his tendency to rule by fear of Hell; a minister’s influence in society should be more brightening than darkening. Furthermore, in regards to Parris’ leadership, John sees him as a person less concerned about spreading the word of goodness and God and more concerned about material
Machiavelli displays his distrust of citizens in the passage, and that “because they [people] are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them”; therefore, he argues that it is unnecessary to be moralistically correct as opposed to appear so, stating that “a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him,...but it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic”. He considers having good qualities “and always to observe them is injurious”, as these traits may get in the way of the leader. It is essential for a leader to disguise his true characteristics, as to appear “merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright” is useful when such characteristics are needed, but they could be discarded when time calls. Mirandolla, in contrast, feels that
God is so beyond our ability to understand that the only way of seeing the reality of God is to continue saying what God is not, God is more than anything we can say of him. Plotinus, Moses Maimonides, Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart support this view – for these philosophers the real God is beyond whatever we speak of as God. Human language causes confusion when it is used to talk about God, as a result we must speak of God only by saying what God is not. Human language is inadequate in describing God – we cannot talk about God. Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not.
But theology is not his field of expertise and this is demonstrated a little too clearly in his severely polemical atheistic writing (it should be noted however, in his opinion, theological experts might not even exist, writing ‘the notion that religion is a proper field in which one might claim to be an expert is one that should not go unquestioned.’ ) In The God Delusion, Dawkins systematically goes through the main areas of apparent contention between science and religion, seeming to undermine nearly every aspect of religion, rejecting its claims and pre-emptively answering his critics. In this critique, I will focus particularly on his arguments
Elizabeth Perricone 397 Dan Churchwell-Introduction to Philosophy Research Paper 1 2/22/2013 Anti-Intellectualism among Evangelicals Philosophers have been opposing, contemplating, and defending the idea of God for centuries. The majority of philosophers in today’s day and age take the arrogant view of pushing the concept of “God” out of their philosophy. They do this by their prideful standing against submission or conceiving a being higher than themselves and seeing those who believe in such a being as, leaning on a mere crutch that humanity has surpassed long ago. The poor opinion America’s culture has on the Christian Church’s intelligence is not surprising. Movies and TV shows have been portraying Christians as judgmental, mindless, know-it-alls for years.