“The test of a first rate of intelligence is to have two opposed ideas at the same time and still retain the ability to function,” as claimed by Fitzgerald, the author of The Great Gatsby. Being the opposite of each other, certainty is to be absolute in one idea or belief, while doubt is to be uncertain. As history shows, it is preferable to coexist with these two opposed ideas since certainty gives one confidence, and doubt gives the contemporary laws, structure, or society a chance to improve. Certainty produces confidence, which encourages the minority to insist its ideas under the pressure from the majority.
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 my opinion, both science and technology try to make us think that God doesn’t truth exist, just like Art was given to us to prevent us dying of truth. (Deleuze, 1983, p. 209) Nihilism spoke to an unrefined type of positivism and realism, a rebel against the set up social request; it refuted all power practiced by the state, by the congregation, or by the family. It constructs its conviction with respect to only logical truth; science would be the arrangement of every social issue. All disasters, nihilists accepted, got from a solitary source—obliviousness—which science alone would overcome. I have come to a conclusion that there is something in the technology we are using to connect to the world, which is also distancing us from the world and this is the understanding of nihilism ‘To Not Care’ for example when your phone turns off, you turn off as
Dostoevsky provides his own response to Ivan’s accusations through his character, Alyosha. Alyosha acknowledges that Ivan 's approach and defense of atheism, "lies in that he renounces God out of love for mankind, comes forward against the Creator in the role of the advocate of all suffering creation" (Kiskaddon, Elissa. “Dostoyevsky and the Problem of God”). Alyosha tells Ivan his reason for rejecting God is simply a ‘rebellion’ and says; “One cannot live by rebellion...” (The Brothers Karamazov pg 245).
Mark Jones analyzes Antinomianism with comparing to Reformed Theology. The main theological error of Antinomian’s thinking is that they put too much stress upon the doctrine of justification; furthermore, they interpret the rest of doctrines in Christianity from a biased perspective of justification. They even argue that good works are not significant for Christians because God does not see the sins of His children and does not anger to His children; therefore, the law is not important for Antinomians after the first coming of Christ. Regarding these problematic understanding, Jones suggests a solution for Antinomianism, that is concentrating on the real meaning of Christology; in other words, to rediscover and redefine the person and work
One of our first obstacles is defining exactly what assumptions are constitutive of a uniquely Christian approach to psychology. How do we identify the core convictions of Christianity, and how can we leave room for a divergence of different Christian approaches?” (Entwistle 2015). The main problem that Entwistle is addressing is integration and the boundaries in which they both inhabit together. Where do the bounds of psychology and theology begin and end?
Dostoyevsky uses two contrasting chapters to argue against atheistic existentialism. The Grand Inquisitor is a story written by Ivan Karamazov. In the story, Jesus visits the Spanish Inquisition, but the religious leaders do not want Him there. They claim that they already have freedom, and that His return will take the freedom away. The chapter reveals Ivan’s belief that the church is just a cult which thrives off of the weak, and it explains how incredibly boring a sinless world would
1. The Reformation Position In spite of the common core of Augustinian belief in salvation by grace alone, Roman Catholics and Protestants have strong disagreement over the doctrine of Justification. Catholics believe in the necessity of faith for justification, but Protestants believe in the exclusivity of faith. In fact, the heartcry of the Reformers was “justification by faith alone".
It’s a book that tells us the path God chose to redeem humanity. The Bible is not a book of rules and regulations. By viewing the Bible as a rulebook, three key issues are being overlooked. They are anthropological, Christological, and redemptive. Anthropological is at stake because we as humans cannot follow instructions.
Throughout his lecture, Bertrand Russell presents quite a few convincing arguments for the reasons he is not a Christian. Watering down of the foundations and expectations of Christianity, rejection of the advances of science, and behavior uncharacteristic of the Christ that Christians claim to emulate are all valid concerns that merit further consideration. While Russell makes many valid points throughout his account that I agree with, I would speculate that Russell based these observations on a broad response to the summary of Christianity, rather than consideration of the individuals involved and how their personally held beliefs might differ from these generalizations. To begin with, Russell’s frustration with the core definition of Christian belief is understandable; having a set of once-vital, basic beliefs viewed more as suggestions for exceptional living proves confusing and misleading. Russell’s observation that the title of Christian “does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning” (Russell, 1) as it once did is such a merited concern that, in recent years, some members of the church itself share this view; this
Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness. Here it can be appeared, not that religious convictions need discerning backing, but rather that they are emphatically unreasonable, that the few sections of the crucial philosophical convention are conflicting with each other, so that the scholar can keep up his position in general just by a significantly more amazing dismissal of reason than in the previous case.
The atheists seek to exploit the existence of human suffering in the face of an Omni-benevolent God as a contradiction, and since human suffering exists then God must not exist. Indeed, this is a challenging subject and Brother Warren devoted this book to
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil. ”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists.
Christianity has always been subjective and ambiguous, which allows for theories and speculation to develop regarding the religion’s values and characteristics. A key matter in theology seeks to understand those values and to identify a model of living that guides people away from corruption to remain in God’s image. Athanasius of Alexandria’s On the Incarnation and Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Anti-Christ address this issue with viewpoints that directly contradict each other. Athanasius examines the Incarnation to defend his position that natural human desires corrupt mankind and suggests there is nothing to prevent evil and sin other than God’s salvation while Nietzsche asserts that corruption occurs from a loss of instinctive nature and proposes
Given the strength of religious values at the time of the speech’s deliverance, the idea of an inescapable wrath brought upon by sin would undoubtedly draw the colonies away from worldly matters, and instead towards the olden values which the colonies had been founded upon. As mentioned previously, Edwards possessed a remarkable reputation as a minister and orator at the time of the deliverance of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Through the establishment of credibility through ethos, Edwards allows his reputation to support his argument and convey validity to his audience. With these