Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms. Unless both the major and minor premises of syllogisms are sound, the logical conclusions drawn from the rational thoughts are unsound. Scientists cannot rely on rational knowledge alone because rational knowledge involved only form and not content (Jackson, 2009). Empirical knowledge is gained through objective observations and a person’s experience in relation to his or her senses (Jackson, 2009). A person who relies on empirical knowledge only believes what can be detected by his/her senses (sight, sound, taste, etc.).
Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument. He argued that the ontological argument is invalid as we cannot define God ‘for the human mind does not have an intuition of the essence of God’. Aquinas rejects that there can be
It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God.
Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening. Hume’s argument on miracles was written in his essay ‘Of Miracles’, he rated his argument very highly, claiming that it was an argument that “which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” To understand Hume’s argument against miracles we have to understand his definition as his argument is based on his understand of ‘miracles’ and his understanding of ‘the laws of nature’. He defines a miracle “as a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s argument against the likelihood of miracles rests on his use of induction. This is explained in ‘The Question of God’ by Micheal Palmer, he explains that “It is…a fundamental principle of inductive reasoning that the more I see A followed but B, the greater is my expectation that A will be followed by B in the future. That I expect a rubber ball to bounce is dependent on my having seen the rubber ball bounce not once but many times.
‘Utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making.’ How far do you agree? Despite there being some areas of compatibility; overall I think that utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making. Utilitarianism as a whole is not compatible because, utilitarianism is not particularly close to religion. Utilitarian theories do not make reference to religious rules and principles, and are more driven by pragmatism by focusing on the outcome rather than the morality of the action itself. In this sense it is a consequentialist theory.
Anthony Flew developed the falsification principle. The falsification principle states that “A statement is meaningful if the speaker is able to state (at least in theory) what would count against it”. For example the statement “all swans are pink” is only meaningful if the speaker is willing to accept the statement to be false if non pink swans are sighted. The falsification principle challenges the meaningfulness of religious language. 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.
Furthermore experience is one of, if not the, principle way of gaining knowledge and forming ideas. It helps people form concepts and especially form ideas that would not otherwise be formed. Rene Descartes argued that some ideas were innate and he attempted to prove this with a deductive argument in which if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Through this he convinced himself that God was real and seeing as only God could have implanted the idea of God into him that it must be innate. This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe.
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!
Critically asses the falsification debate The falsification debate, also known as the ‘university debate’ arises when Philosopher Antony Flew relates Karl Poppers original criticism of the verification principle to religious language. Popper proposes that the verification principle is based upon an assumption that the Vienna Circle had made, the assumption being that a statement is meaningless if it could not be verified. Yet, Popper contradicts the beliefs of the Vienna Circle as he states; what makes good science is, knowing the method of falsification, having the ability to prove it false is good science and bad science would therefore be seeking verification. This is because we may be bias and seeking verification could cause us to ignore any anomalies as we thrive for it to succeed. Flew then takes Poppers criticism and applies it to religious language during the delivery of his paper on ‘Theology and Falsification’ in the University Debate.
Sociologists fight that religion essentially is an illusion, because location and culture influence religion and the idea of religion presents an fundamental truth of existing seems unreal to sociologists. In every aspect of life, there is some type of religion and a god that people everywhere do believe in or do not, but on the contrary it’s the religious backgrounds they do not believe in. Different religions give a different view on the science and religion fight, but religions are just as confused with the scientific study. Catholicism is set on the creation story in genesis while other religions are contradicting how that can be if there are scientific studies to back up how the earth came to be, the black hole, gravitational waves and space contradict religion beliefs. In different cultures, shows different religions, many people believe there is a god but they are confused as to how the earth came about.