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.
I found it extremely interesting how Schumaker noted that “eastern” religions made the fear of death less than “Western” religions do. Schumaker also gives advice to the Catholic Church to try to be more positive and less restricted by dogma. The tie in he made with astrology was fascinating. Summary of Web Research Articles Executive Functions in Morality, Religion, and Paranormal Beliefs by Omar Wain and Marcello Spinella discusses how belief in the paranormal affects the religiosity and morality of people. It discusses how certain brain functions come into play with the belief in religion and the limbic system in particular.
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.
For the last century, philosophers have focused on problems concerning religious language. After understanding that language is the way that we communicate concept, trying to describe concepts that no one physically sees and hears, such as God became a massive dilemma. Religious believers have to use language to make statements about God and his being and aspects known to be able to express human understanding. How do the meanings of words change when applied to God? To use univocal or universal language for God raises the problem being that if we argue God is ‘all loving,’ we would also be able to describe a loved one as such, thus demining his almighty status as a supreme being, so how can we use words to accurately describe God?
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.
Not only are the events around humans out of their control, their very thoughts and feelings are determined separately from any free will that they might possess. The concept of determinism must be separated from pre-determinism, a religious concept that states that the entire past and future was determined during the universe’s birth. Some people believe that one cause (usually thought to be God) was the start of a chain of events, where each link is in turn the cause for the next events in said chain. Some believe that the mind and body have different circumstances when it comes to determinism of the mind and determinism of the body. This is called mind/body dualism (The History of the Free Will Problem).
But it seems as though Russell feels he can rule that Christianity is not only one of its kind and that it is not true. We will see that his epistemological basics as well as his good credentials are narrow and we are doubtful of both his arrogant rationalism and his spiritual ability to defeat the Biblical and historical testimony to Jesus Christ. In addition, we will see that most of his believed logical refutations of arguments for God do not work (Britannica). Bertrand Russell thought that religious belief came from culture and fantasy. He thought that people believe in God because they have been taught as a baby to believe.
• 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.
Although many people believe that Salvation is mostly about God’s judgement, the most important part of this belief is the possibility of being reunited with God. The Christian religious tradition basically believe the same thing regarding Salvation, however there are some differences. Catholics believe that Salvation is promised at Baptism. They also believe that the promise of Salvation may be lost through mortal sin, but that it can be redeemed through penance. Jesus was crucified; he died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected, enabling us to be saved from sin.
Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education. He says that all decisions by man are a result of the values which man has received from god and without these values we would be left to a life full of disorder. Religion indirectly affects the state through mores which are described as “the whole moral and intellectual state of a people.”(287) These mores are what prevents democracies from being engulfed by the dangers which are products of tyranny and despotism. In a state without religion “each man gets into the way of having nothing but confused and changing notions about the matters of greatest importance to himself and his fellows”(444) and when combating materialism, the presence of religion “places the