My purpose in this essay is to explain and analyze the Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory states that morality is ultimately based on the commands of God. I disagree with this theory because how do we know what concepts of God are true and what other concepts are false? There are so many religions making their own claims and interpretations that they believe are true. Therefore, how do we know then what God approves or disapproves of?
This contradicts the assumption that God is the creator of all norms. (Based on Darwall 's Philosphical Ethics p. 42-44). 2) God created us, therefore we must follow his commands out of gratitude. Again, we face the problem that there appears to be a norm that exists independently from his command: that you should show gratitude, which seems inconsistent. (Darwall 's Philosophical Ethics p. 44).
Many people question how God exists in a world full of so much evil, while other people have no problem accepting the reality of an omniscient (all knowing), omnibenevolent (all good), and omnipotent (all powerful) God. According to John Hick, God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Hick’s version of God allows the existence of evil for a specific purpose. Process- Relational theologist believe in a God of love, power, and relatedness (Mesle, 25). While I agree with certain aspects of both theories, I have to dispute both outlooks on the ultimate power of God.
The Second Way is similar to the First as Aquinas constantly reiterates the importance of ‘a first cause’ therefore he ultimately dispels the idea of infinite regress. He speaks of ‘efficient cause’ and how every event or thing needs an efficient cause and nothing can efficiently cause itself. A critical view of this could be to ask if nothing can efficiently cause itself how is there a first mover and how is it caused? For Aquinas, however, it is necessary to have a first mover or else cause and effect cannot exist. Some of the greatest opponents to the cosmological argument include Hume, Kant and Russell.
There are two other areas of knowledge that, I would say, minimally employs the idea of “suspension of disbelief.” One of them is natural science. For the most part, natural science uses the logical information to gain knowledge. This sentence may be contradicted because natural science uses imagination sometimes as a way of gaining knowledge. Furthermore, the other area of knowledge is religion. In religion, faith plays a major role in the belief in a deity or God.
Warren seeks confirmation that his God exists so anything he sees to be true, he assumes to be true. These false assumptions are dangerous but are also merely human nature. Therefore, I think it’s necessary for everyone—even the most brilliant people—to challenge their own beliefs every once in a while. We might change our beliefs about God and maybe learn something about the fundamental nature
In his criticism of Anselm’s argument, Aquinas disagrees with the use of the word “God” and argues only some who hear the word “God” understands what it means (Himma, 4). For example, there are religions which view God as a physical object or as one that has a body. Therefore, Aquinas observes that Anselm’s definition can only work with those who define God in one way. Secondly, he observes that even if all people were to understand the meaning of the word “God”, it would then only subsist in people’s imagination and not physically. However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God.
A monk by the name of Gaunilo attacked Anselm’s ontological argument. He is responsible for one of the most important criticisms of Anselm 's argument. Gaunilo claims that if Anselm’s argument is good, it can be used to prove all kinds of things which are too good to be true. For instance, that there exists a perfect island that which nothing greater can be conceived. Gaunilo argued that it is possible to construct an argument with exactly the same form as the ontological argument that can be used to prove the existence of the perfect island: the perfect island must exist, for if it did not then it would be possible to conceive of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be conceived, which is absurd.
Mindell tells us that “proponents of intelligent design claim that some features of life are too complicated to have evolved naturally. Although they emphasize that the designer is not necessarily God, proponents uniformly believe that God is the designer…” Mindell quotes law professor, Phillip Johnson, a proponent of intelligent design and author of Darwin on Trial: “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” “Intelligent design proponents clearly believe that God is an active participant in creation, though they are divided as to whether this activity takes the form of front-loading all outcomes at the Big Bang, episodic intervention of the progressive creationism form, or other, less well-articulated possibilities. Theistic evolution, however, is ruled out or at best viewed as an ill-advised accommodation.” Intelligent design can be seen as “faith” taking “fact” seriously by arguing that the complexity of origins cannot be adequately explained by evolutionists. Scott, however, says that “even if natural selection were unable to explain the construction of irreducibly complex structures, does this mean that we must now infer that intelligence is required to produce such structures? And David Sloan Wilson argues: “Nature has always and correctly been regarded as a cornucopia of function.
Faith and reason are thought to be foundations of defense for religious beliefs, having the same purpose many theologians and philosophers argue their relationship. Many believing that reason relies on faith while others think that just because you do not believe in one you are going to believe in the other, Karen Armstrong would agree since she suggests that they are not like political parties. Many theorists believe that reason is more on the logical side of the spectrum while faith is directed towards your beliefs and understandings of religious and theological claims. While scientists have argued they are not compatible because reason by itself gives us the answers to human life and faith is not a reliable source to provide us with those answers. Terry Eagleton suggests that they are one in the same and rely on each other.
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
Immanuel Kant and Blaise Pascal offer contrasting opinions concerning reason, or man’s ability to come to conclusions on his own. In Metaphysics of Morals, Kant provides an optimistic view of reason, depicting that reason can attain certain conclusions. Pascal argues in Pensees that man is inherently flawed and can’t be certain from reasoning while faith, or belief in the supernatural, is the only thing that can create certainty. Kant’s positive outlook on human reason is a sound assertion, although it doesn’t necessarily create a rupture between faith and reason because despite reason’s capabilities of reaching universal truths, faith compensates for potential mishaps made by reason and provides a more in depth knowledge when combined with reason. Reason is satisfactory in reaching conclusions because reason can identify universal truths.
This false information can be difficult to discard because it can be used to explain so much about the natural world and our purpose in it. It is important that we accept that religion is Man’s attempt to answer these questions and because it is an institution reliant upon faith, it is acceptable for one to accept Religion as a precursor for complex ideas, and interpret its fallacies as misunderstandings, however, it is unreasonable for one to justify the rejection of science to prevent controversy with the beliefs of religion. Furthermore, it is unreasonable for one to ever justify the rejection of science for any reason, as this praxis clouds the mind and decreases one’s capacity to comprehend the true nature of the universe and the governing laws to which it