John believes that the principles of religion are studied, and faith is solely based on beliefs. John views organized religion more corrupt than beneficial. Beliefs towards religion and faith can be confused in regards to what is real or not. J. Denny Weaver states, “As the narrator then unfolds Owen’s story, what brings the narrator to faith is the series of coincidences that occur in Owen’s life, which Owen and eventually Johnny believe are the action of God, along with Owen’s premonitions of his future that eventually prove true” (Weaver 14). John portrays his confusion towards religion and faith, instead of connecting with either option.
Although some passages in the second essay may point to atheism, I believe that, overall, his critique of religion seems to primarily stem from his animosity towards the way in which religious belief has manifested itself in society, rather than belief in God or religious belief as a whole. In the first essay, Nietzsche discusses the etymology of the words “good” and “bad” and how they have evolved over time to have completely different meanings, meanings that he does not agree with, due to the priestly class. Prior to this transvaluation, good meant noble and powerful while bad meant poor or common (Nietzsche, 28). The “good” were able to exercise their will to power and
McCloskey attempted to show that atheism is quite a bit more reasonable, as well as comfortable than theism. McCloskey uses the word “proof” instead of “theory” to add fallacious power to his argument. There are many of his concepts that are accepted as a truth, but cannot be absolutely proven. Nothing can be proven one hundred percent. They are simply based on a whole bunch of concepts that we know to be true.
Professor Richard Dawkins stated that 'morality comes from evolution'. Professor John Lennox was well prepared and stated that 'The very fact that an atheist can be good is not possible without a foundation. You cannot get ethics from science.' Morality cannot be derived from matter and energy through evolution as believed by Atheist. As a result, ethics would be crumbling without foundation as good and evil is not justified and accounted for.
Marx thought people’s life will become better unless abolishing religion through revolution. Freud also thought if people have no religious belief，will have better life. They were trying hard to uncover the ignorance of religious from a scientific point of view，but there are loopholes in both their point of views. The communistic society which Marx appreciated belongs to materialism，it is opposite with the religion which belongs with idealism. But in ancient times，the structure of the society is similar with the communistic society proposed by Marx.
Breed’s idea of science and religion, from Bokononism and Cat’s Cradle, both have a view of the world that is far from the truth. Nothing is more evident in this than Bokononism. The religion itself is full of lies, as Bokonon state. These lies replace truth, as with what happened to San Lorenzo’s citizens. Instead of showing us an unbiased view, Bokononism—and in extension, religion—show the world through different lens.
Feuerbach raised a very important issue when he says that “religion is a projection of human nature into a fantastic divine being.” This singular point raised by Feuerbach marks a rigorous break-away from the idealistic Hegelian philosophy that colonized that era as mentioned earlier in chapter one; Hegel’s idealistic extremism would at least have been revolted against and corrected especially by a philosopher of Feuerbach’s calibre who had youthful experiences and influences from both the philosophical and the religious worlds. However, Feuerbach in his anthropological atheistic theory of God, lost track too, he eventually went into the extremist position of scientism. Religion does not negate or prevent civilization, development in science and technology and by implication, development of man and society; it only
In contrast, they represent societies which do not construct the Eurocentric tension between modernity and religion; and therefore do not conform to unidimensional secularization. Indeed, this fact fits well with the rational choice theorists who have used the comparative data to argue that secularization is actually a myth. Accordingly, differences in the prominence of religious influence are not the result of geographically specific secularization processes but are instead the result of each region’s “religious market”. For the rational choice theorists, the dearth of religious vitality in Europe is an effect of the insufficient supply of religious products. It is not an effect of decreased demand for religion (as secularization theorists would suggest).
Evan-pritchard defense of Lucien Levy-Bruhl explained that what Bruhl meant by “pre-logical” are the modes of thought (Magi co-Religious thoughts), which appear so true to the primitives and so absurd to the Europeans. Lucien meant something quite different from what his critics accused him of saying. Evans explained that Lucien Levy-Bruhl did not mean that primitives are incapable of thinking coherently but merely that most of their beliefs are incompatible with a critical and scientific view of the universe. He was not saying that the primitives are unintelligent