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).
As opposed to the Grandmothers constant change of morals to favor certain situations, the Misfit has morals that are set in stone and adhere to his past, present and future. As the two characters converse, religion sparks an interest in the Misfit because it is something he is interested in understanding but knowing it must not be true. He believes that he must see it with his own eyes to prove the existence. His concept of reality also relates himself to Jesus, so much so as to believe he is a realistic representation of Him. He goes on to tell that the only difference is between the crimes committed and the proof held against him.
This, he says is more important than knowing the facts about God or performing rituals. This is one reason Kierkegaard supports the knight of infinite resignation over that of faith. The knight of faith is also seen as something comfortable but Kierkegaard doesn’t think we should feel so comfortable. The knight of faith seems to jump into the infinite and come back and seems to have no faith, which Kierkegaard is uneasy with. The knight of faith wants the material world to be the way he wants it and remains focused on the fact that he believes in God but is getting it all back.
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 common questioning of a higher power beyond the physical realm lingers in society: Who and what is God?. However, many of these theological questions cannot be answered until we of course, die. Due to human’s innate curiosity to understand the forces beyond their own, especially in terms of religion, humans find their own reasons to believe in a higher power in the process of discovery. Religion is a sense of belief and worship to praise a higher power (God), and it provides a guide for human beings to have the opportunity to come together and live as one image of God’s children. “Imagine There’s No Heaven” is an article in which Salman Rushdie, the author, presents an atheistic view where religion is pointless, and a higher being is non-existent.
Asking the invisible for more is rude. It might seem also wrong for many of us that are religious to call God “invisible” in this writing. Only because he is not invisible he “lives through the church and our hearts.” Even if there was a God, why do we tend to ask him for more. Have we grown lazy enough that we ask the invisible for the impossible? To change things that are ruled by nature.
This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.
Firstly, Lloyd illustrates how Descartes adapted reason into a methodical thought that he used to attempt to form a rational basis for the belief in God (Lloyd, 1993:39). Descartes mentions in the Meditations dedicatory letter that he believes that for theists it is their faith that holds the rational basis for belief in God, whereas atheists do not have this faith and so it lies in reason to prove that God exists in order to persuade them (Descartes, 1996:3). However, REFERENCE AGAINST THIS POINT Moreover, from Descartes thoughts on reasoning he stemmed his dualistic view of the body and mind being two separate entities, which Lloyd notes includes the distinction between the rational mind, which Descartes identifies with the soul, and the irrational body (Lloyd, 1993:45). As Descartes has established his dualistic view, he highlights the cogito in his third meditation,
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.