More so, Swinburne feels that God has no obligation to allow all human beings to live on equal terms. Therefore, the omnipotence of God’s authority is complete, and human beings must live with the circumstances of inequality by being able to choose evil over good. In a religious context, Swinburne has gathered much of “reasoning” from the Bible and other religious texts, which assume the existence of God through the moral tenets of “good” and “evil” as a criterion for God’s omnipotence and the free will that was given to human beings. Swinburne believes that there is a reason for all human choices, which has been defined by the moral authority of God in this interpretation of
Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted. Thus, he demonstrates the presence of God through a chain of consequences ‘Causal proof’. Because of the law of conservation of matter, the cause must equal the effect, if we have an idea of God than this idea is the effect and God is the cause (Gaarder, 2003). Therefore, the idea we have of God is an innate idea that we did not produce ourselves. Accordingly, he expresses that as a result of his innate thoughts of God, it only makes sense that it be God who "is the reason for this thought".
Rudolph Otto prioritizes the non-rational as offering a truer understanding of religion because he claims the core of all religious life revolves around experiences and feeling, not simply rational thought. Overall, the rational is but an attempt to define the undefinable. To understand Otto’s rejection of the rational, the rational must be understood. “Rational,” in The Idea of the Holy, refers to the conceptualization of religion and the divine itself. Otto’s basic definition of the rational stems from the establishment and application of concepts evidenced in “they can be grasped by the intellect; they can be analyzed by thought; they even admit of definition.
Among many other kinds of religious practices, it includes both indigenous possession cults and British Spiritualist séances. It has an explicit polemical purpose: the furtherance of rationalism against the mistakes of religious belief. Tylor’s animism should not be mistaken either for a categorisation of a type of religion distinct from “monotheism” or for the name of a particular religion distinct from “Christianity”. Tylor’s animism is religion. He claims to be defining religion as distinct from science, politics, entertainment or any other human endeavour.
As the argument is inductive, Richard Swinburne argues that it is rational to presume that God is omnibenevolent and wants to be actively present in people's lives. ‘An Omnipotent and perfectly good creator will seek to interact with his creatures and, in particular, with human persons capable of knowing him'. Richard Swinburne believes that if countless people have had a so called ‘religious experience' then this is enough evidence to believe them. (Principle of credulity) Swinburne proposes that religious encounters are judged through our senses and clarified through ‘religious insight Hence, in the event that somebody has had a religious experience, then it is reliable to trust that their telling the
This argument asserts that humans follow moral laws that must have been created by a law giver. The Ontological Argument argues that because God is perfect and unlimited, he must exist, even in nonbelievers; existing is a quality of perfection. The problem of evil is significant because most people base their morality and values on whether or not they
Both King Louis XIV’s Versailles and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government are imbued with ideas that are substantiated by divine providence in one form or another. In Versailles, this idea is that of the King’s divine reign which validates Louis XIV’s kingship. Locke, on the other hand, suggests all men are born inherently equal into God’s state of nature and have a right to liberty. While both Locke and Louis XIV substantiate their arguments through divine authority, their claims as to what God ordains is markedly different; Locke is claiming that all people must adhere to the law of nature but can chose to consent to government—thus discrediting the divine right of kings which is exactly what Louis XIV tries to convince his subjects of
Christianity, however, believe in God as an eternal, enormous creator, although Buddhists believe the world has no primary basis or maker and there is not an eternal pure being such as the God of Christian ideology (Pojman, Solomom, Kierkegaard P. 662). Then again, seemingly on the side of religious pluralism, the Dalai Lama highlights how the notion of a supreme being as the creator entirely and dependence upon his will is a simple basic tenet that work for some people, while for others, dependence upon oneself and believing in the self as the creator is more beneficial for spiritual growth. In that sense, he perceives no issue nor does anything problematic among the two concepts. He then, highlight Buddhism itself as not being perfect, nonetheless it has its own issues as most religion does. Besides, he stresses that some has some philosophical doctrinal contrast existing inside Buddhism itself, especially when covering the philosophies of emptiness and selflessness.
Hinduism is more open minded as it embraces other beliefs and teaches that all religions have one goal, regardless of the path in life you may take. As for Christianity the belief is there is only one God. But what brings these two religions together is that even though they portray very different people from completely different races, in different periods and in various religions, it all comes down to the same knowledge that is based on revelation. In both Hinduism and
What if you live in a world where your life actions are created in advance by one superhuman being? Predestination is a concept viewed upon particular religious, expressed as the notion as every event in your life is ordained and predetermined by God. It is often mentioned in the Islamic and Western Religious views, where both have formed their own judgements regarding how predestination essentially works in sharing multiple similarities and differences. In brief, the Islamic conception of predestination offers two perspectives coming from the Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites, both sharing the idea of control over freedom. The Western religious view on the other hand claims that God gave human beings free will to determine their own paths in life.
The enforced observance of God in the Pledge of Allegiance is an enforcement of religion and to reenact an appeal of what is to be considered truthful. There is a tendency through some Americans stating how they have the right to freedom of religion, which is true, but they tend to forget that there are other people in this world than justness of a world of one god. The first amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. . .” Which explicitly states that Congress is not allowed to do something mandatory, that is, towards the statement of any religion or none of.
Pick one, read the Syllabus (the majority opinion summary), and take a look at the other opinions, if there are (concurring, dissenting, etc.). HOLT v. HOBBS Verdict 9-0 in favor of Holt Explain why you believe this case is so important I believe that Holt v Hobbs is an important case because it values our first amendment rights for freedom of religion. A governmental agency preventing a man from practicing his religious beliefs is unconstitutional. It sets a standard that all prisoners should be treated with the same religious laws that are provided to citizens. I believe that the expression of one’s religion is important and that no governmental agency should interfere with our first amendment right to freedom of religion.
• The laws of the land must apply to everyone because it can allow peace and have exclusive control of the territories. Religious Studies and Public Policy Questions: 1) Why does the U.S government decide not to define the word religion in the constitution? 2) How come some religious followers still continue to break certain laws? Shouldn’t they be educated about the laws of the land they live
Eboo Patel invites us to embrace religious pluralism. As defined by Patel, pluralism is to affirm all statuses as equally legitimate. In the introduction of his autobiography he expresses his understanding of pluralism and its role in society. Pluralism is an intentional commitment that is imprinted through action. It requires deliberate engagement with difference, outspoken loyalty to others, and proactive protection in the breach.