Truth. People use this word almost everyday. And the question “What is truth?” dates back before Galileo, Plato, and Aristotle. People have tried to unpack the meaning of this simple five letter word and yet it has grown and become more complex than ever. There are of course different opinion that people say are truths such as, “I like that color.” Other truths include facts such as, “There are 12 inches in 1 foot.” Then there are truths that people connect to their identity: race, gender, career, etc.
He gave no evidence about the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God and just basically said he proved God is real. Analogies like this do a good job at making you believe that there is a designer, but you have to do more to actually believe that the designer is God. To say right off the bat that you believed in God because of this analogy would not make much sense. If you tried to convince somebody that God was real you’re going to have to dive deeper into the conversation than this watch analogy. One of the reasons that lead me to believing in God is how complex we are.
“No claim is ever true, period. What’s true is always true for someone. It’s true relative to a particular person or culture. And what is true for one person or culture may be false for another. There’s no such thing as the absolute truth on any question.” This quote from Stephen Law really encompasses the subject matter in the chapter “Into the Lair of the Relativist” in the book Philosophy Gym.
Gladwell makes the readers believe there is something more to success than it just happening, but rather many things falling into place. The book is very deep having very valid points in some cases, but as Kakutani points out, there are also wholes in his argument. Both Gladwell and Kakutani are right and wrong in my opinion. This is true in a way that Gladwell gives evidence necessary to prove his point, but in other cases gives information that could be
Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, wrote that science is an art that “unfolds the admirable wisdom of God” (Doc 2). This shows that while the Church disapproves of science, it can still help people understand the phenomena that occur in the Bible, and consequently, strengthen people’s religious beliefs. Calvin supported both religion and science and believed they should not conflict with one another. Bacon, one of the contributors to the scientific method, wrote that the goal of science was “that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers” (Doc 4). This shows that the intention of science was to help people understand the world, not to cause harm to others.
The order in nature could equally well result from the intrinsic properties of matter itself. Since the creation of the universe was a unique event, we cannot say anything about it. The existence of pain cast serious doubt on the existence of a benevolent Intelligence. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion the three main characters Philo a skeptic who sees inconsistencies in every line of argument, Demea pose arguments for the two others to discuss and Cleanthes skeptic who is aware of the limitations of logic but do not believe in the mental picture; argue about the Argument from Design. Philo win the discussion arguing that the appearance of order in nature could simply derive from the nature of matter itself (Hume).
For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger. Belief is not decision, because people can not just decided to believe something, they believe in something for a logical and rational reasons. In other words, believe in God by making a decision that people get infinite gains in life is a bet, because this method is not useful to let
He further argues that the only time faith comes into play is when there is no evidence. Dawkins ' second point states that the scientific method is the appropriate way to decide between atheism and Christianity. He explains that religion is about science and their claims are also considered to be scientific claims. He argues that science supports atheism. He backs this up by using a hypothetical
A discourse is comparable to what sociologists would call an ‘ideology’. It is composed of statements and/or beliefs that shape knowledge in the interest of one particular group. But, according to Foucault (in: Hall, 2006) a discourse is more appro-priate because an ‘ideology’ claims ‘truth’, which in turn can be falsified. But the social, po-litical and moral world seldom allows the formulation of ‘entirely’ true or
In this paper, I am going to explore the concept of truth in the light of the Correspondence Theory by identifying its major strengths and weaknesses. The correspondence theory is the one that most people would more likely rely on or agree about, but it contains plenty of problems or non-answered questions. According to Pecorino (2000) “The theory is based on the belief that a proposition is true when it conforms to some fact or state of affairs. While this theory properly emphasizes the notion that propositions are true when they correspond to reality, its proponents often have difficulty explaining what facts are and how propositions are related to them.” What do you find appealing or discouraging about Coherence Theory? One of the main features of this theory is that "truth” consists