Consider the criticism that Richard Swinburne's philosophy makes his conception of God too anthropomorphic. Richard Swinburne was born on the 26th December, 1934 in the United Kingdom. He is a British philosopher of religion who is also an Emeritus Professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford in England. Over the last 5 decades, Richard Swinburne has been an influential proponent of philosophical arguments of the existence of God. His philosophical contributions are basically in the philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. He stirred so much discussion with his early work in the philosophy of religion, a series of books comprising of ‘The Coherence of Theism’, ‘The Existence of God’, and ‘Faith and Reason’. Richard Swinburne can be said to be theist because of his works which he talked about the belief of God. Meanwhile, theism can be said to be the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (Dictionary, 1986). As a member of the Orthodox Church, he is recognised as one of the foremost Christian apologists, arguing in his various articles and books that faith in Christianity is rational and coherent in a rigorous philosophical sense While Swinburne …show more content…
By a ‘God’ he understands something like a ‘person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who is everlasting, free, able to do anything, understands everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship, the creator and sustainer of the universe’ (Swinburne, 1993). When God is presented as a character in a story, then obviously he will and must be depicted as a being, a divine self, practically equivalent to a human self. This implies that in the event that we take the Bible straight, in a manner of speaking, we will dependably consider God as an individual. All we then need to do is isolate God from exemplification and finitude, and eventually, we have Swinburne's omnipresent
He points out that the Bible cannot be taken literally because sometimes it can be interpreted in different ways. The Bible was written for the common people and illiterate to understand, and to prove his point he mentions that the Bible gives God a body like ours while theologies believe God has no such features. He moves to his main point about who has the authority to determine what is true and untrue. He argues that what is scientifically proven will to understand the Bible true meaning.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction.
Argument Against the Argument of Pascal’s Wager In Pascal’s Wager, Pascal pioneered new thoughts and opinions amongst his peers in probability theories by attempting to justify that believing in God is advantageous to one’s personal interest. In this paper, I will argue that Pascal’s argument rationalizing why one should believe in God fails and I will suggest that even if one was to accept Pascal’s wager theory, this will not be a suffice resolution to reap the rewards that God has promised to Christian believers like myself who has chosen to believe in God due to my early childhood teachings, familial and inherited beliefs. Pascal offers a logical reason for believing in God: just as the hypothesis that God's existence is improbable, the
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
Through these perspectives, Whitmarsh emphasizes the significance of atheism in classical history, with a clear intention of opposing the frequent neglect atheists and atheist history receive from influential historians and educators. To this end, Whitmarsh aims to disprove the misconception that religion is inherently natural in humans, thus recognizing and acknowledging atheist history as equally significant to religious history. Such a platform is consistent
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
While the science versus faith argument has existed for centuries, only rarely do they ever work hand in hand. Richard Selzer, author of The Surgeon as Priest, breaks the barrier and explores the contrast between the two ideas, likening them, while breaking his piece into five distinct parts to help himself and the reader analyze it. Selzer uses process analysis, transition between first, second, and third person perspective, a plethora of literary techniques, as well as evocative syntax and diction to explore the conflict between religious anomalies and scientific conviction to propose his purpose, discussing in an almost interrogative fashion - when does zeal become iniquity? To start off his essay, Selzer begins talking directly to the
In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith? , she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.
In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).
More Than a Carpenter I. Introduction More Than a Carpenter is a Christian Apologetics and Inspirational book written by Josh McDowell with later contributions by his son, Sean McDowell. First published in 1977 by Tyndale House Publishers, the work has sold more than 27 million copies worldwide, and remains to be one of the bestselling books about Christianity and Evangelism. The author, Joslin “Josh” McDowell, is an American Christian apologist and evangelist born in Union City, Michigan in 1939. He has authored or co-authored more than 100 books about Christian Apologetics since 1960, once of which being his highly influential book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
A common questioning of a higher power beyond the physical realm lingers in society: Who and what is God?. However, many of these theological questions cannot be answered until we, of course, die. Due to human’s innate curiosity to understand the forces beyond their own, especially in terms of religion, humans find their own reasons to believe in God in the process of discovery. Religion is a sense of belief and worship to praise a higher power (God), and it provides a guide for human beings to have the opportunity to come together and live as one image of God’s children. “Imagine There’s No Heaven” is an article in which Salman Rushdie, the author, presents an atheistic view where religion is pointless, and a higher being is non-existent.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
In the movie, Life of Pi, the main character Pi Patel makes convincing arguments for the existence of God through both natural religion and revealed religion. His argument is that God exists because that is the better story. The plot of the movie is Pi telling an author his life story, including his religious experiences before, and after the shipwreck. In this essay, I will argue that Pi makes a stronger argument for the existence of God through natural religion.