Calvin combats the idea that the church gives Scripture its authority because he believes that the Bible offers “as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things of their taste” (31). He was constantly searching for ways to prove the consistency of the Bible, so he could further establish how authoritative it was. Calvin and Luther did not agree on the sacraments or the use of the law, but both were very influential theological figures of the Protestant Reformation and they both claimed that Scripture, not the church, was the true
As stated previously, Inherit the Wind focuses primarily on the merits and justifications of censoring the theory of evolution, due to the religiously strict climate of the town, Hillsboro. For instance, Reverend Jeremiah Brown, an important and significant preacher in the town, with his own skewed interpretation of Christianity, firmly believes in Biblical literalism. Every other Christian in the town, influenced by Brown, also shares his “tunnel vision”, and displays an inability to acknowledge science, understanding Christianity and the Bible as the only truths. In a public prayer meeting, Brown proclaims, with his followers in
Johnson explains in his book that psychology and Christianity went hand-in-hand as a coalition. This is seemingly due to the church’s assumed responsibility of soul-care, and the belief that all problems were caused by sin, not necessarily mental illness (2010). However, there are currently several views of conflict between psychology and Christianity, similar to the conflict recurrently found between science and faith. There is importance in the correlation of psychology and Christianity for both scientists and Christians. When not examined and pondered on, the relationship between psychology and Christianity today can cause much confusion in an individual, potentially leading to atheism and evolutionism.
13. What is your interpretation of the relationship between science and religion? Personally, I believe science (or Creation) proves the existence of God, but modern science, such as evolution and humanism, serves the purpose to discredit religion and disprove God’s
Before I start my points in this argument, let me introduce myself to you. I am neither an atheist nor a Catholic, but a Born Again Christian. I have a religion, but at the same time doubt the existence of God. I do not totally refute the idea of God in our lives, but I really wonder if He exists and by the use of reasoning and evidences, I will present to you my stand about His existence. I will start my points in this argument by, first, opposing the evidences and reasons why we should believe that God exists and second, by pointing one of many reasons why we should believe that God does not exist.
Rick Warren and Sam Harris are undoubtedly leaders in different spheres of thought. Warren, a big-name evangelist and founder of one of the largest churches in the United States, debated Harris, a soft-spoken neuroscientist and key player in the proliferation of New Atheism, under the supervision of Jon Meacham for a Newsweek special. In the conflict of theism versus atheism—God or no God—Warren makes a case for the former, explaining that because of our limited knowledge of the universe and our inherent feeling of spirituality, we must have faith in the traditional Christian God. I agree with Warren in that the human scope of knowledge is extremely limited, but I staunchly disagree that this assumes the existence of God. Not only are Warren’s claims about miracles, atheists and his rationale regarding morality factually unfounded, they are primarily the result of some characteristic psychological fallacies.
When it comes to knowing and learning the religions of the world one must approach them with a critical mind. One cannot simply just believe every religion and know have their own view points. David Van Biema presents his ideas about Christianity and Jesus in “The Gospel Truth?”. Van Biema’s main point is about how “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John… is notoriously unreliable,” . Van Biema writes about how one cannot be completely sure about whether to believe if Jesus actually said what is written in the bible, he continues to say that Jesus may even be an “imaginative theological construct” .
Faith is the root of many actions and thereby reactions in our society, and world today. These religious practices must go through many trials and questionings from the always cynical, ever searching individuals. Due to the questioning of God’s existence, St. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm devised three arguments as was of explanation for His existence. Ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments are put forth to hopefully one day prove God’s existence. We are a people who crave for simplicity, there is nothing simple about the devout in their faith, we will look to find simpler explanations, or Ockham’s razor, for the three arguments put forth by Aquinas and Anselm.
Through “Utopia” he carefully crafts an argument for this reform by creating the Utopian’s belief system in a way that is is similar enough to Christianity to be relatable for his readers, but also different enough so that readers are forced to challenge their own ingrained beliefs and ideals. In this fictional society More upholds fundamental elements of Christianity, like the existence of a singular, almighty God as, like Christians, the majority of Utopians believe in a “single power, unknown, eternal, infinite…and diffused throughout the universe, not physically, but in influence”(More 634). Qualities that are associated with classical doctrine and depictions of God like sovereignty, etherealness, and omniscience are retained in the Utopian’s beliefs. However, while these ideas are associated with the divine, they are not limited to the Christian interpretation of God and are instead attributed to an entity called “Mithra”, a divine being that’s meaning is interpreted by each individual(More 635). Such an idea would directly correlate with humanist principles, as it suggests that each person has their own valuable interpretations to make about the divine, without straying from the fundamental principles of faith.
The institutions were responsible for the maintenance of traditional faith that made them defensive because of all the various scientific and philosophical challenges. Protestants were also compelled to respond to a modernizing world because they were taught to understand God. They had little in the way of doctrine to help them defend their faith. 12. What criteria do you think should be considered when deciding whether or not museums should return artifacts to their native countries/peoples?