Nowhere in The Natural History of Religion does Hume’s explicitly speak in favor of atheism (perhaps due to the fear of persecution at the time), and yet, I would categorize this work as atheist. Hume strategically places monotheism or “theism” in contention with polytheism, leading the reader to assume that one would eventually prevail, but instead, he picks apart at both until readers are left questioning their own faith and wondering what a more rational alternative might be. In sections 1-5, Hume discusses polytheism and its origin. In sections 6-8, Hume discusses how we transition from polytheism to monotheism, and finally, in sections 9-15, he compares and contrasts the two, pointing out weaknesses and flaws in both. Throughout the book,
Rushdie states “ as a result of this faith, by the way, it has proven impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race number from swelling alarmingly”. Basically if we’d follow the spiritual rules we wouldn’t have things like sexually transmitted diseases,in Rushdie's opinion religion is a theory proven wrong. We can say the same about science and evolution and counter argue the reason of God bringing his son down for forgiving our sins. Not everything that is man made, it correct, not saying religion is
Concepts: It is the study of knowledge why did it have to be this way and who made it this way. In essence it is a search for answers. He was at that time trying to convince people that their Gods were not perfect and were not the model piety. When he says “Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious do the gods to pious action because they, too, see it as corresponding to higher standard of piety.” Plato 's cave is the idea that everything we see is just a shadow of the real thing. And we should instead be freed from our chains and go into the light of understanding this.
The Discourse on Method exhorted the reader to doubt everything. It advised him to take as false what was probable, to take as probable what was called certain, and to reject all else. The free-thinker should believe that it is was possible to know everything and should relinquish doubt only on proof. The senses were to be doubted initially, because they were also the source of hallucination; even mathematics might be doubted, since God might make a man believe that 2 and 2 made 5. With this book, Descartes revolutionized the form of scientific arguments.
Hume distinguished the general arguments saying that all miracles claim to be a subject to certain failure. According to Hume, miracle itself is a violation of the laws of nature and our knowledge of miracles is more likely based on the testimony of others. However, the secondhand testimony is considered less reliable than if it was experienced by ourselves. In his section “Of Miracles”, Hume argues that we have no convincing reason to believe in miracles, and definitely not to see them as the basis for the religion. Belief should be based on evidence, and the evidence in favor of miracles comes form testimony of witnesses.
Then when the leader of the angels Lucifer became jealous of god he was cast out of heaven along with other fallen angels, this is how evil entered this world. Saint Augustine argued that, “evil is the absence of something good and the only way for god to have created a world without evil would to be to create another god like himself” (Velasquez, 2014p.263). Other answers include god created evil so we could have free will to choose god. Richard Swinburne explains, “it is not logical that god would give us free will and yet ensure we always use it the right way” (Velasquez, 2014p.264). Lastly, John Hicks argues that we would be dissatisfied in a world without evil.
In reading the Iliad, there is a confusion about the gods and if they are omnipotent or not. The evidence in the text of the poem itself points in the direction that the gods are limited in more then one aspect. At the end of this chapter a question is posed about Zeus not disinviting Eris from the wedding of Peleus and Thetis (Harris and Platzner 321). The answer to this question is related directly to whether the gods are all powerful or not. This confusion needs to be unpacked and we need to answer a question to get a clear picture of the limitations of the gods.
Thomas responds, “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?” (Bolt, 132). Norfolk wants Thomas to join his “fellowship” for Thomas’ own sake and the sake of their friendship. To join Norfolk’s “fellowship” he must state the oath though Thomas couldn’t do so since this oath was going against what he stood for. Thomas’ morals were very different compared to everyone else and thus he refused to obey the King’s wishes. Taking this oath would mean sacrificing his morality, which was not worth Norfolk’s “fellowship.” The difference in their principles resulted in the conflict between Thomas and Norfolk, ruining their friendship and leaving no choice to Norfolk but to send his own very good friend to his
But this brought on controversy as Leibniz and Newton did not agree. In a debate with Newton’s advocate, Leibniz said that “by charging that Newton’s God was an inept watchmaker who had to reset the cosmic mechanism at intervals, while his God had already arranged for such
Throughout the history of mankind, civil disobedience hasn’t been very uncommon. A long-standing debate about civil disobedience ever since the birth of Greek philosophy is: When, if ever, is it justified to break the law? Greek Philosopher Socrates believes that breaking the law is never justified, but you can try to persuade the court to do better. Socrates argues that one must never in any way do harm to another willingly as doing harm is never moral nor admirable. Injustice and wrongdoing are harmful and shameful to those who do wrong.