The main reason Lawrence Cunningham and John Kelsay use a phenomenological view point towards religion is for a better understanding. A better understand on a number of aspects for multiple different religions. The phenomenological approach helps them accomplish this by letting them look at religion in an un-bias way and be totally accepting of that religion’s traditions and ideas of sacred. They state in the text, “At its simplest, a phenomenological approach leads to an effort to understand religious thought and behavior from the point of view of the religious person.”, (Cunningham and Kelsay 4) this means that if that person says that a certain book or object is sacred we take them at their word that that book or object is sacred. Phenomenology is also geared towards creating a framework for understanding religious traditions.
When Biblical scholars debate this they lose the true meaning of the text. They become more focused on proving it to be factual rather than looking at the scripture for what it is. The scientific theory is backed by better evidence and is more likely to be true, there is too much evidence to ignore it, and therefore it should be accepted for the most part. Then Genesis can be used as a metaphorical story that allows us to understand more fully who God really is. Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving.
“The Irenaean theodicy solves the problem of evil for religious believers” assess this view. The main points of the Irenaean theodicy (also known as the vale of soul making) are that humans were created at an epistemic distance from God. Irenaean believed we had to grow to become like God. For humanity to achieve this, we must live in a world which would enable us to grow and mature into spiritual beings. This would enable mankind to be tempted by danger.
Critically evaluate Wittgenstein’s language games theory as an approach to religious language. God’s transcendence means there is widespread discussion as to how any statements in regards to his existence or nature can be deemed as ‘meaningful’. Influential philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889 - 1951 was heavily involved in studies of Language and developed the idea that the purpose of philosophy was to clear up the conceptual confusions that arose through our unexamined use of language (including statements of religious significance and any religious language) and that words are a function of language, not just simply a signifying of an object. 'Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.' Wittgenstein believed, in opposition to Rene Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) that language was a social product, and that statements made about the world were basic and 'groundless' and believed that judgement through opposing 'language games' was not possible, as they are parts of different discourse.
Just like a religious believer who states “god loves us” but can’t explain the contradiction of evil in the world, believers qualify their statements by explaining god’s love is not like humans love he calls this “death by a thousand qualifications”. Therefore religious language is meaningless. However religion has responded to the falsification principle. R.B Braithwaite argued that the falsification principle explains religious language as cognitive when it if in fact non cognitive and therefore cannot be falsified, religious language is therefore still meaningful. Hare also responds to the falsification principle, showing that religious statements are meaningful even though they cannot be falsified because they have a significant impact for the people using the statement.
Swinburne would argue that St. Theresa’s character would not lie about a supposed religious experience due to her deep faith in God and morals suggesting that her visions must have been from an external agent. On the other hand, it could be heavily argued that scientific advances could prove otherwise and expose the visions of Christ as an act of the mind ‘playing tricks’. Science has shown that the temporal lobe when stimulated through seizures can produce an altered perception such as religious experiences of this variety. St. Theresa had these visions in the 1500’s when science was in its earliest stages and religion was an answer for everything; these factors appear to support Richard Swinburne’s defence of certain types of characters not lying in support of
It is not a reliable way. This includes reasoning and making predictions without further testing. Faith is another way that a lot of Christian believers us to seek the truth. The faith based way of seeking the truth is different from the scientific method in that it can answer a lot of questions about the most important truths. (Religious-Science.com 2008) The truths about the purpose of life and that our creator, God wants us to be happy and that he has a plan for each one of us.
The Nature of Religion Kathy Legare rel/134 May 10 2012 University of Phoenix The Nature of Religion Describe the common elements of religion. An important element in a religion is to have a Supreme Being or person to worship. Where this supreme being(s) guides and teach people how to live. That does not help or hinder the control of the nature of mankind. (Johnson, 2009) There is an unwritten code that religions have that tells the believer how to live, how to bring more in to the religion and what do if the person does not want to believe.
← Can religious experiences be “explained away” by science? Definitions: ← An experience with religious significance, e.g. the act of worship in a religious setting ← A person’s experience of something or a presence beyond themselves Arguments for religious experience as evidence for God’s existence There are two different variants on the basic valid argument: The argument from 1st person experience:
Ethics Essay Ethics Essay 3a) i) examine the arguments for and against the view that morality is independent of religion? ii) To what extent are these arguments convincing I am going to examine the arguments for and against the view that morality is independent on religion, by examining the argument from both sides, then looking at their strengths and weaknesses and then I will conclude with my line of argument. The first argument I am going to examine is for the statement, which is Plato’s Euthyphro. Plato stated that “is something good because God says its good or does God say it is good because it is good”. This means that do we do good things because God says is good or do we do good things so than God says that it is good.