In the first part of Einstein’s letter he uses the ethos appeal by stating “Scientific research is based on…,” he uses facts from a professional (himself) that makes the sentence ethos. Einstein also uses logos in the beginning. Einstein says “…scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer...,” This is an evaluation from somebody who knows scientists and how they think, therefore it is logos. I could not find a source with the pathos appeal. Pathos is the first appeal used in the second part of the letter.
Although, these three arguments all agree in the way that they use unfound assumptions to prove what has yet to be proven; they do disagree on the studies of how to prove what really is God. The ontological argument believes that God is a “being”. The cosmological argument believes that God is “the universe”. Then there is the design argument which needs evidence to prove that there is a God. The Ontological argument seeks to prove that God does exist by proving, that He cannot not exist.
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.
Generally as long as we have reason behind something we believe it. “Faith is defined, at best, as unprovable opinions about highly speculative subjects. It is narrow minded, judgmental, resistant to scientific truth, and insists on blind obedience to its authority”(25). Unlike reason faith requires no justification and has no argument. Faith and science are opposites as reason and science are not.
Most biologists support the idea of evolution, by means of natural selection. Thus meaning scientists therefore therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Of course, even if there is such a divine designer, this argument does not strictly prove that the designer has all the attributes
It is snowballing; it builds on achievements of previous scientists. This explanation shows that science can be a belief system as nothing can ever be proven 100% as there will always be something or someone that will disprove a theory with other evidence and therefore people belief what they have been told. This is much like religions in a way by the fact that religion cannot be proven it is something that people believe in. If Popper is right then it doesn’t why science has grown over the last few centuries. Merton argues that science can only succeed as a major social institution if it receives support from other institutions and values.
Darwins dangerous idea was that he asked the question who created life, and his response was that no one did which in it's nature denies the supernatural explanation of the universe. Darwin focused on the idea of natural selection which presents the theory of evolution. the danger of his ideas were that they defied common sense, previously held religious beliefs and contradicted the bible.
McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God. He is reminding atheists the reasons they believe that there is no God. He feels atheism is superior to theism; however; I find that his opinions only strengthen my belief that there is a God. Proof, as he states, carries no weight for a theist. He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect.
However, there are so many mysteries in the world that science cannot explain that many people believe something, a much larger force, must be behind it. As a result, many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of God. One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Ontological position. Ontological arguments are “derived from some source, other than observation of the world, so from reason alone.” The first and best-known Ontological argument for the existence of God was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century. Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that anyone who hears about God or thinks about God, has an idea of who God is.
Charles Darwin and Francis Galton are the major psychologists that defend this theory. B.F Skinner and John Watson strongly oppose their theories and say that it is the exact opposite. Charles Darwin uses his theory of natural selection, which proposed that heritable characteristics that provide a survival or reproductive advantage are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations and thus come to be selected over time, to prove that genetics control how a person behaves. Furthermore, Francis Galton, a relative of Darwin, stated that the class that you were born into was a genetic predisposition, and that you would not be able to rise from this standard. For example, if a lower class man and woman have a child then their child would not be able to rise form the lower class.