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.
scared text, belief of God or supernatural person, sacred, moral codes Monotheistic Religions These religions believe in one divine power. Such as Christianity, Islam Polytheistic Religions These religions focus on a number of separate Gods. Such as Hinduism, Ancient Rome and Greece Religion and Science Science is based on evidence. Facts not opinions Scientist must ignore personal feelings and remain object al the time Scientists should be logical and rational. Science is ‘open’ –ideas are tested and proved if they are wrong – rejected – and other idea replaced Science and Religion Scientific ideas create problems for religion.
• Jung states that we can never know whether or not God exists. We can never know if a religious experience is real or whether it is created by the mind. However, Jung accepts science which bases conclusions on empirical evidence without worrying about whether the data is a figment of a person’s imagination. If there is empirical evidence for a religious experience, why can’t we accept that it is true? • The Theory of Archetypes - Geza Roheim argues that the theory of archetypes is unnecessary.
Faith and science are opposites as reason and science are not. Reason is actually based on faith. Without faith you can never come across answers that you believed are correct. A great example Albl used was for scientists to discover new answers they have to have faith in their information that it will bring them to the correct answers. If you don’t have faith in your work you can never find
When these two theologies are dissected one will realize that they have some connections. For example, they both criticize their understanding of classical theism in favor of more philosophically and religiously adequate doctrine of God (Grenz, Olson, 1992). Process theology and Tillich theology as the fundamental area of agreement that there are no static absolutes and they both cannot speak of being without talking becoming. Both of theology has
For our purposes, theism will be defined as belief in the existence of God, as defined above. Atheism, then, is the “critique and denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism” (Nagel 168). These two views provide metaphysical arguments concerning the nature of man and God. A third commonly held belief about the existence of God is known as agnosticism. Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all.
Some philosophers such as Aquinas believe that it is possible to talk meaningfully, truthfully and factually about God whereas others like Ayer believe this to be impossible. Philosophers have suggested that there are four ways that religious language might make truth claims about the reality of God and whether it can succeed in doing this – Via Negativa, Analogy, and Myth. The ‘via negativa’ or negative way is an attempt to prevent people from misrepresenting God. It claims that the only way we can talk about God is by saying what God is not. God is so beyond our ability to understand that the only way of seeing the reality of God is to continue saying what God is not, God is more than anything we can say of him.
It would seem that both Diana Eck and John Stott are correct to a point. All religions cannot be truly be equal because then there would be no point, as the authority of the religious doctrine and its rites would be lost to some neutral all-purpose pseudo faith. But, pluralism as practiced in institutions such as the U.S. military and the U.S. legal system is not some neutral all-encompassing attempt at a single faith. Nor is it the suggestion that all faith paths lead to the same source. Rather, pluralism is really the commitment to and execution of religious tolerance.
The lack of clarification for the term “proofs” does a disservice to McCloskey’s opening. The very things he considers “proofs” to the theist are in most studious circles actually considered “arguments” for the case of theism not “proofs”. It may appear the he is attempting to run it altogether to misdirect the reader into believing something that is not. McCloskey refers to the arguments as proofs and he often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, but the Cumulative Case using the Cosmological Argument, the creator, the Teleological Argument, the intelligent designer and the Moral Argument, that He is a personal, morally perfect being is the best explanation that God exists which is the best explanation for the universe we experience. The claims of science aren’t a hundred percent indisputable or even a hundred percent factual and yet they are still accepted as valid, rationally convincing or highly probable, thus the belief in theism doesn’t have to be irrefutable to be accepted as the same.
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.