In the sixth grade, it is hard for kids to comprehend things because their mind is always somewhere else, such as impressing their peers. In Einstein’s letter he uses adult language and ideas to explain to a sixth grader, who is very impressionable and will listen and take into consideration anything anyone says, if scientists pray or not. Einstein uses too big of words and contradicts himself in his letter. He did not reach his sixth grade audience because of it. In the first part of Einstein’s letter he uses the ethos appeal by stating “Scientific research is based on…,” he uses facts from a professional (himself) that makes the sentence ethos.
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.
He also says there are a chain of causes and effects leading back to the beginning of the Universe. He did not believe in infinite regress, and so, for him, there had to be a first cause, and that first cause has to be God. Aquinas’ Cosmological argument has many positive points which could be used to prove the existence of God, and his argument is both logical and convincing. However, I believe there are some major flaws within it, and I hope to use these flaws to show that Aquinas’ Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of a God. The first point to Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument is about Motion.
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.
The deception about philosophical questions such as this one, is that there is no real scientific answer, so this makes debates on the topic very interesting. Both sides may have very good points in their arguments, but none would ever be better over the other. One would say that Darwinism is unexplainable, more so than creation. Darwinism, as it may explain what happened after all the life forms were created, it doesn’t explain how the life forms were created. Darwinism and Natural Selection, this is a more difficult topic to defend, because these people or beings have to be created in order to survive by adaptation.
Science and pseudoscience differences aren’t always clear-cut. That is why it is best to know what separates scientists from pseudoscientists. Scientists try to put aside their bias, remain disinterested, and make all their theories or ideas falsifiable to solve problems in everyday life. However, pseudoscientists are imposters. They make their living off their biases, questionable practices, and not falsifiable claims that barely have any scientific evidence behind them.
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.
This leads to a conflict between law of nature and miracle stories. Hume would question which is more likely – that the law of nature has been violated or that the eyewitness accounts are mistaken? Hume stated that miracles do not happen because there is so much testable evidence in the favour of laws of science. However, Peter Vardy in ‘Puzzle of God’ highlights that there are more miracles reported today and some are scientifically verified e.g. Lourdes.
“The movement’s leaders dress up this ideology as scientific to discredit real science.”(Hedges 5) Hedges argument against pseudoscience is that it was only created to reassure believers that evolution is not only a myth but also there is a one-hundred percent probability that it never happened backed by what they consider scientific fact. Christians need to prove the legitimacy of the bible because of the overwhelming evidence that humans were not created in God’s image, but rather one evolutionary step from primates. Pseudoscience is just another tactic used
The Uncertainty of Pseudoscience Science is an intellectual and practical activity surrounding the methodical study of the formation and activities of the natural and physical world through experiment and observation. Science does not advertise unproven facts or products. Pseudoscience can be very deceiving and confusing to the general public of what science really is. It often disguises actual logic with extraordinary claims, bias confirmation, and conspiracy theories. Pseudoscience avoids scientific methodology and is usually poorly conducted.