Dewey felt that only scientific method could reliably increase human good. With being said we can assume that Dewey did not believe in God or Jesus Christ. Because Dewey’s views are the way they are it would be easy to point out the differences in his Ideas and those of Jesus Christ. Dewey believed that schooling should be humanistic instead of Christian. Of the idea of God, Dewey said, "it denotes the unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desire and actions.” Jesus Christ had a different belief when it came to the existence of God and the increase of “human good”.
Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education. He says that all decisions by man are a result of the values which man has received from god and without these values we would be left to a life full of disorder. Religion indirectly affects the state through mores which are described as “the whole moral and intellectual state of a people.”(287) These mores are what prevents democracies from being engulfed by the dangers which are products of tyranny and despotism. In a state without religion “each man gets into the way of having nothing but confused and changing notions about the matters of greatest importance to himself and his fellows”(444) and when combating materialism, the presence of religion “places the
All human beings seek to be rational in what they do. Yes, science does provide a method of justifying rationality but God is the other part of the spectrum that science cannot explain. God is also another figure that provides rationality to someone who does not understand science the only path to salvation and to rationality is through religion. If this form of God takes 1000 different shapes across many religions, it does not make God untrue, it is just a manifestation. The biggest contradictory idea against the motion would be that of whether God can be proven empirically.
He also has some strong opinion on the solutions that the theists have on the resolution to the problem of evil. He states that "If we use the cosmological argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all powerful, all perfect, uncaused cause." He also states that theists come up with what he believes is "unintelligent" instances of how we find reasons to believe in God and how he can exist in a world that has evil involved in people's lives. These instances of how evil can exist while GOd can to at the same time include, being punishment for people's wrongs or the consequence of having free will. But here I would like to put in my own opinion much like McCloskey has throughout his article.
He argues that there are no real reasons to believe in God and takes the approach of dissecting several arguments used by both sides of the spectrum. Though McCloskey sees some serious issues with the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the existence of evil, and the discomfort that is experienced with theism he does not slow down long enough to consider what these arguments are actually stating. In our version we will discuss the same issues as McCloskey and offer a view of what it is to be a
Response to Being an Atheist Christina Yarbrough PHIL 210 Liberty University H.J McCloskey wrote an article entitled “On Being an Atheist” which dealt with the atheist approach to the cosmological and teleological approaches and the problem of evil. He calls his view of the arguments proofs, as he feels that the arguments offer no proof for the existence of God. He believes that atheism is a more comfortable way to believe than that of theism and that those who believe in theism should be upset just because they believe in God. I believe that McCloskey has a fallacy in his arguments and that the existence of God can not be proven through any one argument, and that all we can do is defend our beliefs within the realm of our own understanding. McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God.
He meant that humans had advanced their understanding of the natural world enough to realize that the literal teachings of the religions that espoused God were not true. Religious doctrine surrounding the existence of an omnipotent god could no longer be taken literally. This left a huge problem for mankind, in terms of the source of their values. Although he did recognise that some of the greatest cultures of the world had been based on strong religion he simply felt that these now belonged in the past. The ‘death’ of God meant that people had to find a whole new way of understanding the world and a whole new base for ethics.
The place of religion in the public square is a debatable topic. In essence, the dispute centers on the fundamental question: should religious beliefs be excluded from consideration of public policy? That is to say, if society strongly believes that the state should not adopt or implement religious positions, views or policies; to what extent should religious ideologies or concepts be used to publicly support or oppose governmental actions? I believe religion is an important necessity of our society and should be included in everything. I believe religion is a very important part of the American society but should GOD have to compete with evolution if every dollar has God on it why is evolution being taught in schools and religion being short changed most of the time now.
This divergence from Christian doctrine and thus universal truth places the effectiveness of the scientific method in doubt as it is subject to human nature and its inherent imperfection. Kim et al. (2012) acknowledge this fact stating, “Over time, human reason essentially replaced God in determining moral laws. For instance, under utilitarianism moral issues were no longer based on God’s Word, or transcendent truth but on practicality” (p. 3). This modification of truth to a form of relativism; however, is not regulated to modern times.
It’s important to address this danger, and although faith can certainly create the benefits described in How God Changes Your Brain, it’s irresponsible to ignore that faith, being a psychological tool, can be used for both positive and negative means. A good part of How God Changes Your Brain is the author’s respect for people who do not share their beliefs. The book is more an explanation for why people like religion, rather than an argument for religion’s existence. Changes Your Brain doesn’t use literary prowess to emphasize a strong tone, but rather keeps a level and clear voice throughout the book, it has the opposite the tone of a preacher. I wish that the book addressed why some people firmly reject or accept faith, on a psychological basis.