Polytheistic people, however, believe that they should have more freedom in how they worship. They believe they can worship who they want how they want. Unlike monotheistic people, polytheists believe they have no accountability on this Earth. They don't believe they were put here for a specific purpose. They also do not believe in any possibility of having eternal
That is not to say that places of worship shouldn’t exist, people just shouldn’t force their religion on others or believe their god to be superior. As someone said, “Religion is different lamps that all give the same light”. I conclude that though religion has good intentions people use it for their own benefit. Religion may have been a point of unity in the past and it may be so today too but religion is a contentious issue now and seems to be creating a wedge among
Nathan also uses the Ring Parable to explain that only God can distinguish the true religion. The believer of a faith is incapable of knowing whether their religion is best. He cannot exclude his own religion, but he also cannot be sure that it is his. Just like the parable, the father is not accessible to consult on which ring is true. God is not accessible to man to ask which religion is the truth.
Critic Mark Van Doren adds that Hawthorne did not believe there is no such thing as sin, but he did believe that to sin is a violation more against oneself than against God. Hester’s punishment is not the business of the townspeople because it is impossible for them to determine how she should make her soul right with
Following that, it would be a mistake to presume that religion and God to be the origin of moral ideas, because humans themselves invented an image of God and the rules that people should obey. Thus, it means that morality does not come from religion but comes from human nature; and people do not have to be religious to develop morality inside them, but definitely religions play a significant role in building a moral basis of the
Rationales for not believing in any supernatural deity include the lack of empirical evidence, the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, rejection of concepts which cannot be falsified, and the argument from non-belief. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviours to which all atheists adhere. Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for
Thus, I believe we are not under the Law because it draws away Gentiles form the truth. In conclusion, in my opinion the Law is not to be followed because we are no longer under its regimen. We not under the Law anymore because it is not possible for us to complete all that the Law states us to do with human effort. Also because, we are not required to follow it because Jesus came and died for our salvation. And, we are not under the Law because the Law draws non Jews away with many rules that are totally based on Jews.
Ethics and Religion The human views on ethics are greatly influenced by certain beliefs, such as religion or philosophical ideas. Philosophy and religion are similar in this sense; they both are morally influential. However, if a person did not have such views, he/she is still capable of having good morals. Though religion is very impacting in many people’s ethical standings, and a majority of human morality is derived from some belief in religion or supported by philosophical reasoning, it is not the only way a person can be moral. Good morality is achievable without an outside influence, and religion may, in fact, take away from human morality by influencing a person into doing what is considered to be right as a way of earning a reward in the afterlife rather than just doing what is right for the sake of doing what is good in the world.
We must be able to use knowledge to question judgement. A question many people would ask that does not have empirical evidence to prove tends to be if God exists? There is no empirical evidence whether god exists, inductive reasoning and intuition strongly oppose each other at this point because deductive reasoning would ask for evidence to suggest that God exists however my intuition would say that God does exist through personal experiences. CREATIONISM: However the big bang could be argued because monotheists believe that a higher being is only possible to create such an event. By using inductive reasoning, solid evidence can eliminate any sense of doubts.
Thomists were the most influential in outlining the universal declaration of human rights in the United Nations and therefore this theory is pretty invasive in moral thoughts. The most interesting aspect of this theory is the notion that ethical judgment about issues are made at the class level. This theory fails since it relies on questionable notions that derive these moral details from natural details through the exercise of our reasons. This implies that religious people have got no special access to the truth. The society feels obliged to maintain good morals in the society.
But I believe religion is different from other disciplines and should not be compared in terms of providing the same amount of evidence. Maybe there is some sort of incommunicable truth that comes from insight and public evidence will never be able to justify it. But religious and nonreligious evidence has to be different. For example, if science can not agree on some sort of theory there will most likely be a point in which enough public evidence will be gathered so that it would be obvious that this particular theory is true. One example might be the theory that the earth is round.
What Happened To Gnosticism? When speaking of Gnosticism, many people today do not know what it is. Their best guess may be “The opposite of Agnosticism”. They may be right in a way because the word “gnosis” translates to “knowledge” and Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of whether or not there is a deity. Although those two words are opposites of one another, the two religions are unrelated completely.
I do believe everyone has different moral views and their bases are religion. However I do not believe we eliminate the problem by looking at the human community as our first obligation. Yes justice depends on moral worth but that stems from your religion and the environment around you. The same sex marriage controversy is a good example of this. In the Christian religion you are told that same sex marriage is a sin; therefore many Christians do not support the state accepting same sex marriages.
Part B To the best of my understanding there could be more than one explanations for Satre’s assertion that “everything is permissible if God does not exist?" Firstly, it could be read to mean that without God we would have no inspiration to be moral. Unless we had the incentive of heavenly verdict or heavenly approval, then we would not actually care about being moral since we would not face any final accountability for our deeds, either in heaven or on earth. Thus, do we need God for moral incentive since without it we would not be moral? I would say yes and no.