• 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.
Beliefs such as mine can influence someone a lot depending on how strongly they believe in it. Many people change what they have to do for religion and beliefs such as going to church or another religious practice. This may affect work or time. Religion can make things difficult for people but hey will still believe it. However I do not believe the Genesis story 2 and 3 to be historically true because if evolution happened (in which I believe it did) then how could the humans made by God have existed in the “Garden of Eden” (which I believe is heaven)?
McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God. He is reminding atheists the reasons they believe that there is no God. He feels atheism is superior to theism; however; I find that his opinions only strengthen my belief that there is a God. Proof, as he states, carries no weight for a theist. He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect.
Religion From an Alien’s Perspective Shawntara McCaskill Instructor: Phillip Vanvleck Course: Religion 212 Date: November 4, 2012 From our perspective life form on planet earth has been involved in activities unexplainable by common laws of science. These activities have something to do with what they believe in. Common explanations by our kind include terms like culture, tradition and the most interesting of all: religion. For our report, we have set specific criteria for the determination whether the dominant species on earth are religious or not. According to our reports, religion is somewhat of a backup emotional connection that each individual has when he has lost complete hope in the world.
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.
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.
You could say it might be God but you can’t say it was for certain. To prove that the miracle was beyond reasonable doubt by God you would use a scientific method. If one miracle happens and people prayed for that exact thing to happen the sceptics could put it down to coincidence. However, if another miracle happens by the exact prayer that was prayed then this proves that God exists. If this keeps on happening these consecutive miracles can prove the existence of God.
He also has some strong opinion on the solutions that the theists have on the resolution to the problem of evil. He states that "If we use the cosmological argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all powerful, all perfect, uncaused cause." He also states that theists come up with what he believes is "unintelligent" instances of how we find reasons to believe in God and how he can exist in a world that has evil involved in people's lives. These instances of how evil can exist while GOd can to at the same time include, being punishment for people's wrongs or the consequence of having free will. But here I would like to put in my own opinion much like McCloskey has throughout his article.
Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good. Contempt for organized religion is not, however, grounds for calling oneself an atheist. An atheist is someone who has considered all sides of the argument and come to the conclusion that God does not exist, not due to opinions on organized religion, but on the actual facts and arguments of the discussion. A
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.