This conversation appears to be good in many ways, however, the science has simply created another belief system - one just as intolerant. To have information provided to you as the absolute truth in dangerous in any situation - now, though, there is evidence to support the facts. Whereas with religion there was no proof, science can back itself up. To not question evidence puts people at risk of being dominated and intolerant. We now believe we have the absolute truth and anyone who does not believe in it is inherently wrong; though many religions and groups have believed they were right before, being supported by science makes people feel like an exception to those who ignorantly believe in what they are told.
Ernest Nagel, however, maintains that not only are there no good reasons to believe that God exists (he criticizes all of the arguments), there is a good reason to believe that God does not exist. On p. 145, he says raises the difficulty ... " ... which arises from the simultaneous attribution of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence to the Deity. The difficulty is that of reconciling these attributes with the occurrence of evil on the world." We 're going to expand on this idea. We
In Christopher Hitchens’ saying “What which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” Hitchens’ is claiming that if you do not have evidence to support your claim it should be disproved automatically. In other words, evidence to Hitchens is the necessary condition to substantiate the knowledge. To try to understand Hitchens’ intention, I make an assumption that this statement may have derived from his disbelief mostly in the area of knowledge of faith. However, at a closer inspection, one can interpret the word “what” in a saying in a much larger context than in the area of faith, and thus proving that his saying may need more thorough investigation especially in other areas of knowledge. Another key in his saying
For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger. Belief is not decision, because people can not just decided to believe something, they believe in something for a logical and rational reasons. In other words, believe in God by making a decision that people get infinite gains in life is a bet, because this method is not useful to let
They may say that his accusations are harsh and that he is himself irrational in his beliefs. They may say that it is wrong to ignore ancient texts since they are the rational explanation behind their faith. However, once again Harris is not calling the people of faith necessarily the delusional ones, he is referring to the absence of rationality behind their beliefs. Also, Harris does not appear to be preaching his own spiritual beliefs in the first chapters of the book, his goal seem to be to open the eyes of his readers to what is not being said about religion. As to the reference of ancient texts, Harris is arguing that people choose to be blind to the flaws in these writings, some have not read them completely or blindly rely on the word of authority such as a priest.
Asking the invisible for more is rude. It might seem also wrong for many of us that are religious to call God “invisible” in this writing. Only because he is not invisible he “lives through the church and our hearts.” Even if there was a God, why do we tend to ask him for more. Have we grown lazy enough that we ask the invisible for the impossible? To change things that are ruled by nature.
I think the arguments made by McBryer are invalid because I believe that there is nothing like objective morality. However, reasonable individuals can agree on what is moral or not. The main problem with the arguments made by McBryer is they fail to take into consideration the fact that reason counts for little when morality is inspired by religion. Morality based on religion usually diverts from what most people would consider moral. For example, how can one convince a devout Muslim that it is wrong to deny girls education?
This means that I can not make a complete commitment to any of these religions and do not want to call myself something that supports a contradicting brief I cannot fully believing in. An example is that I cannot commit to some religions because they believe same sex relationships are a sin. Without my beliefs, I do not believe I would be the same person I am and that makes me value what I believe in so much more so that I can keep my
In today 's culture, many think that there is no more room for other beliefs other than secular beliefs, which then brings up the idea of resurrection and eternal life. It is believed that the explanation of resurrection is inconsistent. They believe that Jesus was not the son of God, but a normal human being with no divine right, who died for humanity 's sins (Neusner). Secularists turn to logic and rational thinking when trying to solve problems that involve society or humanity, as human beings that are capable of deciding and managing their own social, economic, and political matters. Whereas groups with a scared basis turn to a supreme being for guidance or answers.
The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God. It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that