Flew argued that religious believers don’t allow any evidence to account against their beliefs therefore Flew comes to the conclusion that religious language is meaningless. Flew uses John Wisdom’s parable of the gardener, in which there are two explorers they come across a clearing. One believes that a gardener is responsible for the clearing and the other one doesn't. There is no evidence for the believers claim however he still believes that a gardener is responsible by changing his hypothesis, the gardener is invisible. 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”.
Popper wrote the foundation of the principle, but flew went a bit further with it. He was influenced by Popper but Flew applied the falsification principle to religious language and derived the conclusion that religious statements are no more than words with little to no significance. He then goes on to modify John Wisdom's analogy of the intangiable gardener to illustrate his point that religious believers cannot be convinced against God and their belief in him. Flew says that a religious believer is forced to say that “God's love is incomprehensible” when they are faced with the argument that God allows the death of a child due to an inoperable illness. He also goes further to say that “religious believers are allowing their definition of God to 'die a death of a thousand qualifications'” which would suggest that Flew believes that religious believers will use any 'qualification of God' to explain certain happenings in the world.
Intro: • I will evaluate that Barthes claim ‘the author is dead’ is correct, and in doing so will discuss the role of intention in responding to, and interpreting, works of art Define intention: • Intentionalism subscribes to the idea that an author creating an artwork has an intended message and intention to create a work of art. The value of this intention, and consequently the value of the author, can be evaluated through considering the intentions’ ability to construct/influence meaning for the responder when examining the artwork. Evaluation that Barthes claim ‘the author is dead’ is correct: • Intention has no role in helping us respond/interpret meaning of art. This is because intention certainly doesn’t reflect the meaning individual responders gain when responding to, and interpreting artworks. Therefore, the artist can be considered irrelevant to the meaning of the art, and the artwork itself.
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
Joseph Fletcher a theologian, who first articulated situation ethics through the bases of absolute love, agape. He believed that there are no universal moral rules because each case and situation is unique and therefore deserves a unique solution or approach. His ethical theory was based on the six fundamental principles; the first principle is that ‘love only is always good’ which is the belief that “Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all.” This belief that nothing else has intrinsic values, allows flexibility of a moral decision. For example a lie isn’t intrinsically wrong; it’s wrong if it hurts someone but it can be right if it’s for the “best interests” of that person. This explains why Fletcher strongly disagrees with Intrinsic Fallacy which asserts that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ properties are in the actions e.g.
The US and Iraq should not go to war because there’s no real justification, Iraq does not pose a clear or present threat, and the US is less safe as a result. As stated, there’s no real vindication for going to war with Iraq. There was no Iraqi connection to September 11th and Iraq has not threatened war on the US. 9/11 was connected to a private group of sick and dismal people, not Iraq. other then September 11th, there is nothing even moderately close to a considerable “attack on the US”.
So what is beauty? As far as cliches go, beauty ought to be in the eye of the beholder, right? We should recognize it when we see it. Ancient philosophers, such as Plato, examined beauty more as a moral equation, believing that what is beautiful is good. Poets equated it with something “more profound than truth itself” as stated by Anatole France.
It implies that to truly live life, one must seek simplicity, harmony with nature, and to follow one’s own path. Thoreau strongly believes and advocates that those who live lives of luxury and in mainstream culture created by the Industrial Revolution aren’t really living. He believes this illusion of progress impedes man’s spiritual transcendence, true happiness, and understanding of the essential facts of life. Thoreau’s advice encourages one to rid of superfluous possessions and social activities so as to lead as simple and "bare bones" a life as possible. The advice explains that “life near the bone is sweetest.” The simple life (i.e.
A true analogy of how people sometimes attempt to justify their denial of God's existence or an excuse for why they neither believe nor disbelieve. But the truth of the matter is that, "We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. 2. I am a man/woman of facts. I believe in science and matter not miracles and blind faith!
Secular humanist feel that religion is really a negative thing because it gives you rules to follow therefore you never really follow your deepest desires. The one thing Christians and secular humanist have in common is that they both look for the good in everyone that no one is truly bad. Atheistic Existentialism is very different from Christianity in almost every way. Christian feels that we as humans have purpose and are on this Earth to follow whatever path God has for us. However, Atheistic Existentialism sees humans and even themselves as nothing but matter and to me it is completely sad that they have no faith or feeling of value.