We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise. However, another possible strategy would be to change Gods role in Descartes philosophy. Instead of seeing God as the validation of clear and distinct perceptions, rather see him as a safeguard against doubt. This strategy, however, is a problem since it re-constructs the Meditations – Philosophical work of Descartes –.This is because it would not be God, who is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, but the clear and distinct
Similarly, William Paley, strongly believed that the observation of the intricate complexity of the universe concludes that there must be a creator. Paley believed that this creator was God. In ‘Natural Theology’, he used the analogy of the watch to his ideas. He explained that if you came across an intricately designed watch, you could conclude that watch was not made by chance and was designed with purpose and placed there. For Paley, the different parts of watch work perfectly together to fulfil a purpose.
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.
Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms. Unless both the major and minor premises of syllogisms are sound, the logical conclusions drawn from the rational thoughts are unsound. Scientists cannot rely on rational knowledge alone because rational knowledge involved only form and not content (Jackson, 2009). Empirical knowledge is gained through objective observations and a person’s experience in relation to his or her senses (Jackson, 2009). A person who relies on empirical knowledge only believes what can be detected by his/her senses (sight, sound, taste, etc.).
Natural Moral Law is a theory that is explained by Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. It states that there is a natural order to our world that should be followed. It was originated in the philosophy of Aristotle and then developed by Aquinas. Natural Law is an absolute theory of ethics but it is not rooted in duty but in our human nature and our search for genuine happiness and fulfilment. Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose.
How successful is the teleological argument in proving the existence of God? The teleological argument is an a posteriori argument: it tries to justify the existence of God by asking “Why are we here?” Is it due to design or chance? The argument goes as far back as the days of Cicero and has been objected by the likes of Charles Darwin. One of the first known teleological arguments is the argument from analogy, which is argued by William Paley and Aquinas. Paley believes that some natural objects display design like qualities- they display a fitness to purpose.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
Whether that being our parents or people that make everyday objects that we see around us. Aquinas believed that as nothing can cause itself there must have been a first cause that caused life to exist, so he then goes on to say that the first cause for everything around us, must be god. The third way that was presented by Aquinas is the difference between possibility and necessity; he believed that nothing around us we see has to
Surely, in the process of investigation people use science that is defined as knowledge gained by systematic experimentation and analysis. Well, this makes science unique because it believes in the provisional nature of all conclusions as Mr. Shermer claimed. His statement is partially correct; science does give provisional conclusions, because
Religious wisdom cannot be tested empirically, but is, rather, based upon mystic philosophies. Scientific wisdom is likewise connected to the elements of nature, but modern scientists attempt to reduce these elements into a set of mathematical postulates through mental reasoning. When comparing Mengzi’s Confucian works and Crawford’s work on manual labor, these three types of wisdom were used as a basis for evaluation. The engagement in ritual and the act of workmanship both cultivate similar, if not the same type of wisdom. Throughout Mengzi’s reasoning, he consistently refers to wisdom.