In her book “The Case for God” she writes that religion requires leaps of faith and should accept that there is no scientific proof for the existence of God. For this reason, Karen Armstrong agrees with this claim. Some philosophers, such as Keith Ward, say that religion is non-cognitive and that religion focuses on the way the believer lives their life rather than what you believe. This view on religion does not seem compatible with Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument because Aquinas is trying to find reason behind believing in God whereas Ward would say it doesn’t matter why or how there is a God. Ward believes religion to be existential.
The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was one of the early founders of existentialism. Although Kierkegaard was a devout Christian, he rejected the Christian Church due to its legalistic nature and the false relationship that people were receiving with God as a result. Kierkegaard believed that the key relationship of an individual was with God. He argued that God has given people freedom to make their own decisions and therefore our decisions are not determined. He thought that our existence is not something determined rationally or part of an on-going process but that it is something specific which is created through the choices we make.
Russia opposed the others’ capitalism. The installment of the Soviet puppet government, Lublin Poles, brought about tension among the big three. The Truman administration’s anti-Soviet attitude deepened the tension, and Truman unofficially told Stalin about the atomic bomb in Potsdam Conference. Also, George Kennan, the US Ambassador in Moscow in 1946, warned his mother nation of USSR’s
In this sense it is a consequentialist theory. This contrasts with religion, as religion is more absolutist, meaning moral views have a complete and universal authority that derived from God. Religion focuses on the consequences in the after life for example heaven, hell and purgatory. Unlike religion, utilitarianism thinks about the consequences in the present. The first kind of utilitarianism, developed by Bentham was designed to be secular (non-religious).
Pyotr (Peter) Stolypin Peter Stolypin, a controversially well known figure throughout the History of modern Russia, was known mainly for his inhumane and cruel methods in which he dealt with opponents. His agricultural reforms and involvement with the Romanov's Party contributed to his popularity. Stolypin assumed the position of Minister of the Interior and later Prime Minister. During this time he introduced various progressive military, education and finance policies, as his beliefs made him wane from the true definition of what was good for the people and social welfare. Historians have different views on him, some referring to him as the ‘Demon of Imperial Russia’, whilst others consider him to be the ‘Driving Force of Russian History’.
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!
Preliminary Modern History Task: Decline and fall of the Romanovs Alex Lai Due: Wednesday 28 March 2012 Under the repressive and conservative rule of Nicholas II from 1894 to 1917, the Russian autocracy experienced a failure in satisfying the demands of its populace. Through the reversal of earlier policy and further imposition of repressive policy, this inability to govern fuelled the mentality of revolutionists and secured the fall of Tsardom. Nicholas’ conservative upbringing concerning the maintenance of autocracy within Russia largely influenced his policy platform and how he responded to the various situations he encountered during his reign. His mindset was heavily influenced by his personal tutor, the arch conservative Pobedonostev, who possessed a concrete belief that autocracy was the only viable
The author concludes that the person who has no faith in religion could watch religious debates go on and never be affected, either positively or negatively. The other conclusion is that a person who has even the smallest amount of faith in a religion should dive head first into that religion because of the promise of infinite reward. All other religions should be denounced because they are in conflict with his chosen religion. The author did not sufficiently support the premise of disbelief in faith and or religion. He states that if one does not believe in a religion then one can gain nothing from religious debates.
He is almost certainly sure that no God exists, but says that he would change this view if he were confronted with empirical evidence that suggested otherwise. However, Dawkins’s declaration that he is not a fundamentalist could be questioned by examining other parts of his book. Dawkins seems to focus more on the evidence that religion lacks opposed to the evidence that his evidence-based worldview contains. He also holds Darwinism in a very high esteem. One might say that Dawkins’s view of Darwinism is a strict set of basic ideas and principles, embodying the definition of fundamentalism.
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.