Berry’s intention to persuade readers depends whether the reader agrees or disagrees with his reasons. In the end, Berry presents his personal reasons he has for rejecting computer, but has no scientific evidence or any other way to support his reasons. In my personal opinion, Berry fails to persuade other than himself because most people could not identify with his reasons. The fact that many of what he considered his reasons’ strong seemed illogical to computers’ users. For that any many other factors, public might not feel persuade by
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.
Rauch also states that though prejudice may be misguided belief, there is no need to choose sides and that is the beauty of intellectual pluralism. Rauch’s essay states that knowledge is what leads to pluralism and more knowledge is not necessarily a good thing. By saying, “We cannot know in advance or for sure which belief is prejudice and which is truth, but to advanced knowledge we don’t need to know”, (393), he supports his idea. But in order to gain intellect on anything, you have to have knowledge. At the end of the day, we survive on basic knowledge.
Aquinas generalizes everything in the universe based on the small amount of things he has actually seen or experienced. These generalizations should not be made without strong evidence. It can also be argued that not taking your surroundings into account whilst considering the universe is a huge error of over simplification, which makes the argument of induction seem week. David Hume however had a very strong empiricist view on the universe and can say that the assumptions based on what’s around us can only be applied to the present and do not provide any information on the past or future of the universe. Bertrand Russell also put forth the argument that the universe is a brute fact and it created itself.
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.
Didion’s thoughts on how grief approaches us shows that grief just comes out of the ordinary, and when it comes it does not compliment our anticipations nor does it inform us that it is approaching. Gilbert’s supporting ideas on imagination elaborate on Didion’s perspective on expectation and reveals that we must be prepared for the worst, and since we can not predict future outcomes we should “practice” accepting and rejecting the outcomes we believe will occur. Didion states “Grief, when it comes, is nothing we expect it to be (Didion 10).” Didion explains, that what we expect is nothing compared to what actually happens. We can’t necessarily predict the Sheikh 2 outcome of a certain event, such as grief. As Didion explains, our expectations don’t always match up to what grief has to offer, Gilbert’s supporting claims relate to Didion’s feelings on expectations.
These arguments seem to create a strong case with the ability to break many forms of the cosmological argument, however issues may be found with Hume’s idea of the possibility of infinite regress which is rejected by many philosophers within their cosmological arguments such as the Kalam arguments and those of Aristotle. It is debatable here as to whether Hume was successful in his critique of the Cosmological argument. However here it is important to note that Hume is not attempting to create an unjustified view of God. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no God, he is simply proving that by using the Cosmological argument we shouldn’t be led to the sudden belief in God as the argument provides us with no reason to believe in God. With this idea in mind it is clear that Hume was successful in his critique, due to the fact that his motivation was not to justify the idea that God didn’t exist so he is arguing from an objective view, adding weight to his argument.
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
The Sense of authority implied in “The Crucible” always implies authority without inner sanction, with a persistent hint of skepticism. Note Proctor’s struggle against the theocracy’s repressive, irrational and destructive use of authority. Reverend Samuel Parris – gives the impression of having a grasping form of materialism, hypocritically concealed behind a façade of piety and religiosity, while not fulfilling the actual spiritual needs of the congregation at the present. This is evident in the way John Proctor can “see no light of God” in Parris. Danforth and Hathorne – were convinced that since their cause is right and just (the destruction of the works of Satan) – any
For his part, Zuckerberg conducted himself with weak moral standing, having stolen a valuable idea and taken steps to register and launch it without stating his position to the Winklevosses. He countersued out of jurisdiction and misled during mediation, allowing the Winklevosses to enter into a financial settlement without having full access to financial records. However, Zuckerberg remains protected in all of these actions because he did not have a formal work agreement in