PH2211 In this essay, I will first break down Anselm’s ontological argument with a powerful criticism, and then defend Anselm’s position. Following that, I will analyze both positions critically and provide my own stand regarding Anselm’s argument. The problem with Anselm’s ontological argument provided by Rowe in his book is the problem of definition. Gaunilo noticed that the definition of God as “a being than which none greater is possible” is infallible, in the sense that, the definition itself would force God into existence whether or not it is true. In order to show how this works, Gaunilo proposed a perfect island where it is “an island than which no greater island is possible”.
This led to conflicts in theological teachings between Protestants and Catholics. The theological teachings of Catholics were centered around scripture and tradition, whereas Lutheranism focused solely on scripture. Luther believed the scripture revealed that a soul was justified through faith alone, because the sacrifice of Jesus atoned for all sins; one had to only believe to be saved. Yet, he also believed that the elect to be saved were chosen
In his essay "The Will to Believe" William James tells us that his purpose is to present "a justification of faith, a defense of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced." Page2. I found his arguments also persuasive because he suggests the existence of God cannot be solve by our intellectual means. James argues that intellectual activity is motivated by two goals: to shun error and believe truth. The choice to believe or not is alive, forced and momentous.
He argues that we as Christians cannot found our entire Atonement Theology on these metaphors, as their descriptive capabilities can only go so far before they break down. He then offers an alternative to the “Penal Substitution” doctrine so popularized by the literal interpretation of these aforementioned
This means this person that converted into Christianity gave up sinning of the flesh, and selfishness since he now looks up to the Lord, which can be proven when Finney added, “A change of heart, therefore, is to prefer a different end. To prefer supremely the glory of God and the public good, to the promotion of his own interest; and whenever this preference is changed, we see of course a corresponding change of
To those who are unaware of what Manifest Destiny means, Manifest Destiny was the idea that it was the U.S.’s god given right to expand across North America, ¨From sea to shining sea,¨ as the song goes. It might get hairy talking about this, due to religion being a touchy subject, so I will try my best to go about it in a way that can be respectful to all beliefs. Manifest Destiny is a self centered idea and can only lead to bad things. The idea that one type of person or one country is more superior to others, or that certain types people are less worthy of what they have is the exact idea that can lead to acts of extremism, also known as terrorism. In a magazine article from 1845 by John L. O’Sullivan he stated, ¨[O]ther nations have attempted... hostile interference against us… hampering our power, limiting our greatness and stopping the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent given to us by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.¨ You can see clearly how this blindness of believe has lead to the idea that other nations are merely obstacles getting in the way of their greatness, rather than a nation similar to their own being invaded by land-hungry
Being "concerned" can be confusing to some, but when we look at the word from Tillich's perspective, he was not talking about having momentary concern, but the concern that lasts, such as the "concern" of faith. To ensure that readers did not confuse concern as a temporary focus, he began referring to these concerns as ultimate concern. Ultimate concern, according to Paul Tillich, gives life meaning and affects the whole person, which is felt as the presence of the holy. Tillich further explained that if a concern claims ultimacy, then it demands the total surrender of him who accepts this claim, and it promises total fulfillment even if all other claims have to be subjected to it or rejected in its name (Morrison, 2011). Ultimate concern varies from person to person, and the ultimate concern may be anything that a person gives his/her attention or all to.
This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God
In Christopher Hitchens’ saying “What which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” Hitchens’ is claiming that if you do not have evidence to support your claim it should be disproved automatically. In other words, evidence to Hitchens is the necessary condition to substantiate the knowledge. To try to understand Hitchens’ intention, I make an assumption that this statement may have derived from his disbelief mostly in the area of knowledge of faith. However, at a closer inspection, one can interpret the word “what” in a saying in a much larger context than in the area of faith, and thus proving that his saying may need more thorough investigation especially in other areas of knowledge. Another key in his saying
If the verification theory of meaning is rejected, reductionism is rejected ,because one translation cannot be reduced down. Meaningful statements being able to be reduced down into statements about immediate experience cannot really be true because of the lack of ability to understand meaning. Reductionism is simply the translation between two linguistic frameworks possibly from meaningful statement to statements about immediate experience. Quine argues that reductionism is an ill-founded dogma-reductionism that each statement taken in isolation can admit confirmation or disconfirmation. Against this dogma (of reductionism) Quine suggests that “our statements about the external world face the tribunal of sense experience not individually, but only as a corporate body”.