Both types of utilitarianism wanted a secular theory to which everyone could use. This is the main reason as to why utilitarianism is not compatible with religion. Another reason as to why act utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to decision making is that it has the potential to justify any act as long as it generates the most happiness for the greatest number even if the act is very wrong. It reduces morality to simple maths when using the hedonic calculus. It doesn’t value human life as highly as religions, such as Christianity does.
That being said anyone who is religious would feel uncomfortable while watching “Religulous”. The name to me was well thought out but offensive, “Religulous” a portmanteau or blend of the two words, religion and ridiculous. To me the movie should have actually been called “Christian Bashing Featuring Some Other Religions for Split Seconds” by Bill Maher. I wrote down many of his questionable quotes that are almost intelligent. Bill Maher is a smart individual but an agnostic can only promote what they know which means not very much when it comes to religion.
EVOLUTION REVEALS THE TRUTHS Evolution is a debatable issue and it will be argued for many years, because it is in contradiction with creationism. Evolution explains that all living creatures come from same ancestors and evolutionary change leads to new species. These species should be the fittest for the surroundings to survive and they continue to mutate. It is life or death struggle. However, creationism says that the world and living things was created by God.
This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds. It’s understood that the act is warranted by the divine and therefore the ethical is no longer in effect. The next term to define is the one that most of us would be familiar with and can relate to. If you’re a religious individual or have some faith in the ultimate, you might consider yourself labeled under this category. As previously stated, in order to be a KoF, you must be willing to nullify the ethical standards you are most accustomed to in order to comply to the declaration of God or any other divine or spiritual medium.
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
This is probably why Christopher thinks the way he does because you can not really see god, and probably doesn’t see the logic in religion either. It’s ones faith that drives someone to believe in him, while Christopher would not be able to have faith and believe because there would be no solid evidence that God exists and he mostly only believes in what he sees, something that is concrete. To Christopher God might be just another fairytale. “People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically they would see that they can only ask this question because it had already happened and they exist.
Why Is There Evil And Suffering In The World? The curious as well as the critics of Christianity ask this question. If God is all-powerful and all loving, then why does He permit evil and suffering in the world? Various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, our lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions.
You have your will; you know what you want. Yet you can sense that God’s will is different from our will. So friends, would you let the Lord choose for you? Would you be willing to say, “Lord, I’m submitting my will to yours. Not my will, but your will be done?” Sometimes, we are afraid to do this because we have false concept that God’s will for us is not good.
The measure passed Congress with overwhelming rural support. Another challenge to the new urban culture was rooted in the traditional religious beliefs of millions of Americans who felt alienated from city life, from science and much of what modernization entailed. When Christian fundamentalists campaign against the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Christian fundamentalists touched off a court battle in Tennessee; the Scopes trial, also called the “monkey trial.” The 1924 trial was a contest between modern liberalism and religious fundamentalism. John T Scopes was on trial for teaching Darwinian evolution, in defiance of a Tennessee state law. He was found guilty and fined $100.