• The Theory of Archetypes - Geza Roheim argues that the theory of archetypes is unnecessary. As humans share the same experiences, such as dependence on parents, it is not surprising that they construct similar myths. Also, some religious myths come from the experiences of a particular community and so it seems unlikely that they are born out of an idea which is present in all humans. Therefore, it is argued that Jung is not justified in stating that there is an ‘instinct for God’ just because people believe in God. Also, many people do not believe in God.
Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good. Contempt for organized religion is not, however, grounds for calling oneself an atheist. An atheist is someone who has considered all sides of the argument and come to the conclusion that God does not exist, not due to opinions on organized religion, but on the actual facts and arguments of the discussion. A
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.
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.
The deception about philosophical questions such as this one, is that there is no real scientific answer, so this makes debates on the topic very interesting. Both sides may have very good points in their arguments, but none would ever be better over the other. One would say that Darwinism is unexplainable, more so than creation. Darwinism, as it may explain what happened after all the life forms were created, it doesn’t explain how the life forms were created. Darwinism and Natural Selection, this is a more difficult topic to defend, because these people or beings have to be created in order to survive by adaptation.
Response to an Atheist In the article “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey tells his readers that his intent is to remind his fellow atheist of the inadequacies of which theist base their beliefs in God upon, why atheist don’t believe there’s a God, why atheism is a much more comfortable belief than theism, and why theist should be miserable just because they’re theist. McCloskey opens his discourse directing our attention at the so-called “proofs” a theist has for their theism. The problem with this is that he doesn’t clarify what he means by “proofs”. The lack of clarification for the term “proofs” does a disservice to McCloskey’s opening.
This leads to a conflict between law of nature and miracle stories. Hume would question which is more likely – that the law of nature has been violated or that the eyewitness accounts are mistaken? Hume stated that miracles do not happen because there is so much testable evidence in the favour of laws of science. However, Peter Vardy in ‘Puzzle of God’ highlights that there are more miracles reported today and some are scientifically verified e.g. Lourdes.
It cites many peer-reviewed experiments, in which people are subjected to certain mental tests and questions. The book concludes that overall, faith can positively influence one’s subconscious mental activities if they truly believe that God can help them. One of the problems with the book is a lack of acknowledgement that strong, passionate belief can cause harmful actions. The Crusades and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were both initiated by people who interpreted their faith as a means to take harmful action against a group of people who do not share their faith. 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.
E) It is important for Christians to believe in miracles discuss this statement. I believe it is important for Christians to believe in miracles because in the Bible many miracles are mentioned and by a Christian disagreeing with this they’re denying a part of their faith and so if a Christian did not agree that miracles exist how is it that they can claim they are a Christian? Christians most of the time would never disagree with the existence of miracles because for example, many people claimed that Jesus was not the Messiah or Son of God and therefore the only real proof Jesus had was that he performed miracles and by denying that miracles actually happened then you are in theory denying that Jesus was the Messiah. That is why, in my opinion it is essential for Christians to believe in Miracles otherwise they are practically denying half of there faith and the thing that separates Christianity from Judaism. Christians could argue that they believe Jesus was still the Messiah and everything he stood for is what they believe in but maybe the authenticity of miracles today can be questioned as there is no Jesus around to prove them being performed by a Deity just as the definition says there should be.
On one hand you have the philosophers who believe you can speak and write about God, because God is reality. On the other hand, are the Logical Positivists who claim that statements about God have no meaning because they don’t relate to anything that is real. There are a number of philosophers who claimed to have proven conclusively that religious language is meaningful, for example Aquinas’ theory of analogy. An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand and forming relations through attributes or relations that are similar. Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language when talking about God.