Professor Barbara C. Sproul REL 205 Section 001 5 February 2013 Being or Not-Being Paul Tillich’s “Religion as a Dimension in Man’s Spiritual Life” is his argument against two groups of people, the Literal Theologians and Social Scientist. The Literal Theologians believe that Religion is given by God and he does exist as a being. While the Social Scientist argues that Religion is a man made and God is a being who does not exist. Tillich in the middle of this has a side that he supports and that side is neither. Paul Tillich argues against the literal theologians and the social scientists as well.
We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations. Aristotle and Aquinas both conclude that humans aim for some goal or purpose in life-but does not see this as eudemonia. Aquinas believes that humans are the ‘image of god’ therefore the supreme good must be the development of this image which is perfection. They did not believe that you could reach this perfection in this life but the afterlife. There are the three laws in Aquinas’ book which are eternal, natural and divine.
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
To what extent can God reveal himself through sacred writings? God reveals himself through many mediums including through sacred writings, personal revelations and general revelations, like the general beauty and order in the world. In sacred writings God always either reveals rules and orders, propositional revelation or he reveals himself through, non-propositional e.g God is all loving as he created earth and sent Jesus to earth to die for our sins ; this is where sacred writings are up for debate as it is unclear and open to interpretation as to whether god wishes to reveal himself or propositions by which we should live our life; this straight away limits the extent to which God can reveal himself as people always believe there is a general message behind a sacred writing which is propositional. As well as revealed theology e.g. sacred writings, according to Thomas Aquinas we as humans can use reason to determine god’s attributes without divine intervention, this is called natural theology “The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature and perfection the perfectible.” So according to Thomas Aquinas natural theology consists of attributes and natures of god that we can understand e.g.
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”.
The relationship between a theistic God (considering there is one) and morality cannot be explained in simply a few sentences. One may immediately come to the conclusion that God decides what is moral and immoral. This is known as Divine Command Theory which says that morality is dependent on God’s commands. However, this gives rise to the other side that says an action is moral because God approves of it. This is known as the Autonomy thesis which says that morality is not dependent on God’s commands.
Calvin’s idea of predestination suggests that some people are God’s ‘elect’ and that, after death, these ‘elect’ will join God in heaven. Believers in predestination claim that our actions, whether ‘elect’ or ‘damned’, are predestined or decided by God; meaning that we have very little, if any at all, free will in our decision making or actions. This theory of predestination often leads people to believe in a God ‘who favours some but not all of his creation’, which would be intrinsically linked to miracles in the sense that, regardless of what we do, God has already decided whether he will interact with the world or perform a miracle. Miracles, in this sense, are seen not as unsystematic breaches of natural law but rather as the eternal intention of God for the world. For this reason, people who agree with Calvin in believing in predestination often find it difficult to understand why miracles aren’t common occurrences.
The morals of an individual leads him/her on the path of good or evil. God has given us future and hope. In 2 Corinthians 5:17, tells how one should feel if born again in his name. The old will be gone and a new will wash over you. Glory to God!
However, creationism says that the world and living things was created by God. Creationism refuses the idea of evolution and it causes some arguments about whether evolution should be taught in schools or not. Evolution should be taught in schools so that students can gain different points of view about human nature. Creationists believe that creationism explains the existence of God. They do not believe that species change into totally different and separate animals through evolution, as sacred books mention about existence of God and they contains strict rules.
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light