In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins emphasizes on four theses that roughly entail his argument. Science is evidence based whilst faith is blind, If God created everything, who created Him, morality does not depend on a creator, and the Christian religion is perilous to society. His writing forces the reader to ponder the validity of religion. Dawkins adamantly states that religion can either be fully true or false. If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute.
But what exactly does it mean to have a religious belief? In my own definition, it means to have a strong belief in a higher power that controls human destiny and is directly linked to faith. The higher power in Christianity, for example, is portrayed as a God, who is mentioned in the Bible. The members of this religious knowledge system have never actually seen God, their knowledge and beliefs are singularly based on what is written in the Bible. Although there is no visual proof of a supernatural power such as God, believers are motivated by universal beliefs in things we cannot see.
Hume questions the notion of causation within his philosophical work. In “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,” assumptions and speculations of how the world was founded are classified as not true empirical evidence. Hume believed that although everything in the universe had a cause we could not explain how the universe was caused. (Hume, 1779). Likewise Immanuel Kant opposed the cosmological theory, he also believed that there were limitations to how much we
Thomas Aquinas is the second critique of Anselm’s position. Take note that Aquinas assumed that the existence of God is obvious. He supported cosmological argument to prove that God exists. The cosmological argument uses the physical things that exist in the universe to demonstrate God’s existence. In his criticism of Anselm’s argument, Aquinas disagrees with the use of the word “God” and argues only some who hear the word “God” understands what it means (Himma, 4).
By saying that if things were to go from simple to complex they would need explaining why. Lennox says that it makes a lot more sense to believe, that there is an eternal Logos and that the universe and its laws is derivative including the human mind form the Logos, it makes perfectly sense. More sense than to accept that the universe is just a simple fact. Dawkins replies that it makes a hell of a lot more sense to start with something simpler than to start with something more complex. And that it just makes a lot more sense than Lennox’s opinion.
Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different— Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational
After the Boston Tea Party, Britain passed these laws to punish Boston and reinforce British control. The laws affected the lives of the Americans and through the Boston Harbour Act, they were unable to utilize the harbour. Due to Britain taking away the people of Boston’s ability to export and import goods, Samuel Adams’ words were valued and Americans wanted Britain to be held accountable for “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world”. Adams was the founder of the Sons of Liberty, a group of merchants, politicians and lawyers, involved in the protest of the Stamp Act. The refusal of the Stamp Act inspired Americans to confront the actions of Britain.
The Enlightenment: Hobbes vs. Locke Two famous philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have contributed to modern political science by expressing their views on human nature and the general laws that man had to follow. Both of their views differed in terms of how man should live his life. These views will be shown by comparing both philosophers’ opinions on the nature of man, and the various laws that constituted. Man was naturally evil, selfish, and living in a state of war, according to Hobbes. He believed that “humans were created “bad” by their creator”, and were “condemned to live in a world where bad things happen” (The Enlightenment, 1650-1789, p. 6).
The people believed their rights were being infringed upon concerning slavery and the property within man, resulting in a desire for secession as a revolutionary attempt to save their existing property within their slaves. Lincoln’s political religion denounced their argument and justification for secession by reawakening public sentiment. The rational principles of the revolution were turned to sentiment and this sentiment is the political religion in which Lincoln grounded his beliefs. It reminds the people that the bloodshed of the revolution was connected to the bloodshed of the Civil War. Political religion reminisces on the sacred principle of equality, which linked the Revolution and the Framing, altogether reawakening the public spirit and mind through the sentiment of the
In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote in a list of ideals that he believed that the government should have. Jefferson states that every man is given certain unalienable rights, rights that cannot be denied. Jefferson argues that the purpose of the government should be to protect these rights. Jefferson believes that if the government fails to protect the rights of the people, the people have every right to abolish, overthrow, or change the government. Jefferson included many ideals in the document, and that raises a question: Which one of these ideals is the most important?
The research that does not show the impact of Christianity on the scientific Revolution mostly question if it was even necessary on the Birth of Science. Also, the
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
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause.
After reading through the book I came to the belief that Locke was more influential concerning 18th century revolts. He believed that government should protect our natural rights, such as: life and property. His opinions impacted political changes in America and France and gave people a reason to break away from the existing government. This was such a popular idea that it still lives to this day. It is now what we strive to base our government on.