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.
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.
“Religious Language is meaningless” Analyse and evaluate this claim with reference to the verification and falsification debates. (35 marks) Religious Language is language used to talk about God and other religious beliefs. Religious language is known to be cognitive as it can make a positive statement be proved true or false. However on the other hand, Religious language could be seen as non-cognitive as some statements could be misinterpreted, for example, majority rather than a minority in some cases could act out religious and cultural beliefs within society. The verification principle had originated from philosophers in a group called ‘The Vienna Circle” where they believed that dome statements were meaningful and some simply were not, they distinguished these statements by coming up with a theory called, The verification principle.
Faith is what truly kills doubt. To have faith is a great thing because it helps us believe in a religion, without it people would not have religions. The foundation for religion is faith, if everything was proven then we would not need religion, but science cannot answer everything. Anyone who is mentally stable and can think for themselves knows that science cannot answer all of life’s questions and it is based on theories that cannot be proven. Bill Maher had the audacity to say “religion is a neurological disorder”.
However, if this link between religion and morality is criticised, then there are sufficient grounds for secularist and atheistic ways of life. Why is religion needed when it is not the source of moral guidance? Two famous critiques of the link between religion and morality are the Euthyphro dilemma and the many critiques od Richard Dawkins against religion. Both essentially come to the same conclusion; that we do not need God to be good. The basic concept of religion and morality, especially divine command theory, is very simple: what God commands is good, therefore only do that.
Durkheim believed that social order and stability only existed if people were integrated into society by value consensus. He saw religion as an important part as it provided a set of beliefs and practices which connected people together to attain this. For Durkheim the main quality of religion was not a belief in gods or the supernatural but a primary difference between the sacred and the profane which originates in all religions. The sacred are things that are regarded as special, set apart and forbidden such as the holly Qur’an which holds meaning, whilst the profane are the ordinary, everyday, non-sacred things such as going to work which holds no meaning. Durkheim underlines that the sacred does not need to have a god or other supernatural things but can be anything that people regard as sacred such as an animal which was shown in his study of the Arunta tribe, where family members come together occasionally to perform rituals which involved worshiping a sacred totem (is a sacred object having symbolic importance to a group) such as an animal which signified the clans identity.
I agree with Packer’s statement: “They are as intimate as they are grand, and they offer themselves for worship by ordinary people searching for a suitable object of devotion" (474). Unfortunately, this may be true, to suggest people want or need a tangible object or person to worship is profound. Humans are made in God’s image. We are naturally religious, and being so, we need to hold on to or trust some form of “idol”-- and celebrities are it. As a result, we have to ask ourselves: “Where are we going to place our devotion (trust)... in God or men?” Buggs 2 In reality, people don’t watch television or sports or go on social media to find God.
For this instance, this is not the case, society must constantly correct immoral actions performed by certain individuals. These individuals originate from diverse backgrounds and religions, and where as there is no specific religion that can be solely liable. Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine how violence and religion can simultaneously exist because the nature of these two elements seems to be contradictory. To begin with, there are two particular explanations in which introduce some historical examples of religion and violence intertwining, and illustrate how those two entities (religion and violence) can coexist. One explanation states that certain individuals feel that violence is relatively harmless, and therefore feel no remorse in performing violent acts.
Although religious values and morals don’t guide and rule countries anymore it is not to be said that they haven’t given countries a foundation for their laws and core values. An appropriate example of this is the United States of America many of their laws are based on the Ten Commandments of the bible, thou shall not kill thou shall be nice to your neighbor, though shall treat others the way you want to be treated and thou shall not steal. These are important examples of legislation and social conduct in American society. America is also a good example of religion still being used in core values and practices. One is the pledge of allegiance which says “under god” this shows America’s devotion to god.
The directions religions points at aren’t all entirely spiritual, simply shown in equality matters of prosperity and freedoms for masses and states, the supportive state policies. Jung states that partaking in the “en masse” systems like religions or nations who worship any sort of divine powers cannot be terminated with logical dialogue, you simply cannot determine their issue. because mass-mindedness by interpretations disregards sensibility and train of thought in human beings and approves more of the emotional aspects in this