Both of them would be right because the truth is relative to what they believe. The first major problem that is seen with this is that you can believe god exists and you can believe he does not exits but that does not change the existence or non existence of god. You can not change what actually is by what you believe, there is proof of this in our
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.
Nonoverlapping Magisteria Nonoverlapping magisteria discussed that there is no conflict within the two topics of religion and evolution. The primary element was to rationalize how the magisterias of science and religion, and also evolution and creationism do not “overlap.” As stated in the article by Gould, “The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value” (pg.1) The way nonoverlapping is used upon the text is to signify that religion and science bump up right next to each other, but don’t take account for one another. To have Creation Science taught within a science class would start conflict. Public schools took prayer out their morning announcements, so I would have a hard time thinking that institutions would consider making a science with a higher being (creator) the source of the world and creation.
It can be seen as a good approach to morality as it does not allow people from different denominations such as cultures or where you are born or in different situation they may find themselves to build their own moral rules and framework to life, it is personal but is guided by these innate rules. Religious people also share natural law ideas as they argue that there is an eternal unchanging part of morality which remains unchanged regardless of personal opinions and preferences. They believe that God created them with a purpose and that all the rules guiding them from natural law help them to fulfil this purpose. Christianity has a great deal of support for the view that there is a natural law of morality. The Christian understanding of this concept is based largely upon the work of Thomas Aquinas as he explained that faith and reason are closely related.
In todays modern day, it is very unlikely for a child to choose to be religious. This maybe because that being religious is seen as being ‘uncool’ in todays world, so a child would not want to risk being bullied and follow what his friends do. Lastly, advances in science have caused a lot of people to doubt religious organisations. For a very long time now, Scientists have been trying to find out how the universe was really created. So with the Big Bang Theory being as popular as it is, also providing a more theoretical explanation to how the universe was created compared to what religion provides, people are choosing not to believe in religious organisations.
We must never lose sight of God's perspective on man as revealed in His word. With God's view clearly and firmly before us, any of the observations gathered by secular psychology may be used to enhance what we do with people. Perspectives about unconscious motives (Freud), or encouragement to decrease inferiority feelings (Adler), or unconditional positive regard (Rogers), or irrational beliefs (Ellis) are all helpful when submitted to the purposes of
Young earth Old earth Liberty University Mr. David Gilhousen Jo Ann Head PHSC 210 Fall Introduction Knowledge of the past and present makeup of the universe solicits factorial seen evidence and faith based beliefs driven by scripture and belief systems. “Almost everyone living today takes for granted that the universe and earth are billions of years old. But that has not always been true and the number of people rejecting that idea today is increasing rapidly.” (Mortenson, 2003) Proving the existence or the non-existence of time creation is still relevant in today’s society. Scripture tells us but science shows us, accepting answers is primarily based on one’s belief system no
In particular, it discusses what constitutes good empirical science and how you should present your results. The first thing worth stressing is that there are no right or wrong empirical results. Empirical results are what they are and you should not be disappointed if they do not show what you had hoped they would. In an ideal world, a researcher comes up with a new theory then carries out empirical work that supports this new theory in a statistically significant way. The real world very rarely approaches this ideal.
We Are I… In Ayn Rand’s “I Owe Nothing To My Brothers”, Equality 7-252 has discovered individualism, being independent, a new meaning for the word “I”. Because of this, he doesn’t feel the need to owe anything to anyone. This passage tone is very declarative and enlightening. Individualism should be something we all practice as a whole. Being independent does not mean that we have to cut everybody out of our lives to accomplish what we desire.
It also allows human beings to get their minds around the fact that Gods knowledge and being is beyond anything our human minds can comprehend, let alone try to describe with ‘positive’ words. It is easy for us as human beings to believe in a God and portray God to be like us (anthropomorphism), but truthfully we do not know how he would appear, and this theory helps to convey the mysteriousness of God. Negative descriptions of God or divine Powers are literal fact and so are easily understood across cultures and time, because they never change and always remain fact, there is no confusion, however