• 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.
They treated claims made about God as cognitive, meaning that the assertions made are meant to be taken as facts or universal truth claims rather than non-cognitive meaning on a personal level for believers. They believed that language was only meaningful if it was analytically or synthetically verified. Analytic statements are a priori (based on logic) and synthetic statements are a posteriori (based on empirical evidence). They created a test called verification principle to see if religious language was meaningful; Statements can only be meaningful if it can be demonstrated. One could argue that the logical positivists were unsuccessful in arguing that religious language is meaningless because the verification principle has many weaknesses.
Critically assess the claim that conscience is the voice of reason (35) There are a number of views on whether conscience is the voice of reason and where this voice comes from; is it from God, do we acquire it or is it innate. Aquinas thought conscience was the natural ability of people to understand the difference between right and wrong. He believed that all people aim for what is good and try to avoid the bad (synderesis rule). Aquinas argued that although people should always follow their conscience he understood that people make wrong choices. He defined conscience in this way as “the mind of man making moral judgements” and defined it as having two parts- synderesis and conscientia (decision leading to a particular action).
Descartes concludes that the senses provide attributes of existence in the world that is being experienced, but he is looking for truth, one that cannot come in the physical world. The way we come to know this is not through the senses of the body, because we can misunderstand the relationship between us and the world, senses of the body gives us the qualities of finite existence but doesn’t give us existence itself, and because infinite existence is the more real, it should be sought out more, not that finite existence is not important, just not as important. The mind has finite understand but it has 1 infinite idea it can think on. Infinite will must be brought down into the finite to be properly used. Through adventuring on this journey to fid infallible truth, he runs into the problem of God’s existence, and specifically in the Third Meditation, he removes himself from the world and examines the innate idea of infinity in his contemplation of Gods existence.
According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect. Moreover, he believed that the notion of God represents something so ideal that he could not have been the cause of this idea. I believe that Descartes arguments are not really such convincing because of the following reasons which I would like to point out. We may all come to this point and consider that we all exist; however, it’s not completely true because Descartes had an idea of the perfect being in his mind, but I surely don't have such an idea. Now what am I to believe?
Kant proclaims “the belief that we have cognition of something through experience which we in fact cannot accept as happening according to objective laws of experience (faith in miracles)”(p.185). He credits faith's mass appeal and staying power as the main reason for the growth of corrupted notions of miracles and saving grace. Kant was not a believer that accepting Jesus Christ as our savior would be all that is needed in Christian grace to free oneself from sin. Kant says “It is totally inconceivable, however, how a rational human being who knows himself to deserve punishment could seriously believe that he only has to believe the news of satisfaction having been rendered Page 1 for him, and accept it utiliter, in order to regard his guilt as done away with” (p. 123). These ideas of Kant seem to imply he is not a believer of Jesus or that miracles have never happened, the idea Kant is developing that miracles are not necessary for us to develop moral
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. A good part of How God Changes Your Brain is the author’s respect for people who do not share their beliefs. The book is more an explanation for why people like religion, rather than an argument for religion’s existence. Changes Your Brain doesn’t use literary prowess to emphasize a strong tone, but rather keeps a level and clear voice throughout the book, it has the opposite the tone of a preacher. I wish that the book addressed why some people firmly reject or accept faith, on a psychological basis.
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.
Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” Clifford does not agree with holding “beliefs on the basis of insufficient evidence.” He means by “the ethics of belief” that when people blindly believe something, with no evidence for this belief, they would not become “honourable men” simply because their belief ends up being right. “They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out.” Meaning, when one acquires a belief, with no right to believing it to be true, no matter the outcome he is in the wrong. He describes his argument that however convinced you are of the truth of your convictions, you are not to make public criticisms of another man’s case, without first examining both sides of evidence, with the same “patience and care.” One example he describes is when a shipowner is about to send to sea on a ship that is apparently incapable and unseaworthy. He decides to sail the ship, despite the fact that it was in need for repairs and was very old. While the shipowner had many doubts about taking the ship, he chose to anyways, justifying himself with the thoughts that “she (the ship) had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that is was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also.” Surly he was guilty for the death of those on the ship, even though he had made himself believe that it was okay to send the ship to sail, disregarding his doubts.
If God is assumed to be good, then all of his actions are good, and this would include the creation of right and wrong. The idea of “wrong” would never exist in this case as God only does and creates things that are good. While the author never gives up the idea of God being good, as he states that all theologians also believe this and then proceeds to brainstorm potential reasoning for the creation of “wrong.” He suggests that a deity, more superior than God, gave him orders to do so. This is a plausible conclusion to the premise of God being good, but also creating right and wrong. But he seems more certain about the idea of the devil creating this