The Duke’s character in the play is often understood to represent an oblique comment on the new, unknown King. Richard Levin’s complaint, first lodged over twenty years ago, that such a critical approach (what he mockingly referred to as the "King James Version" of Measure for Measure) failed to produce compelling evidence of the play 's actual connection to James. However, there are some clear connections that are difficult to dismiss. Therefore, the first political aspect worth exploring is how Shakespeare’s character parallels the King at the time. From scholarly accounts of James’ courts it can be said that he used sermons and religious hierarchy to promote political ends.
However, if one accepts the second argument, that God commanding something makes it good, then it implies that there is a form of arbitrariness around what really makes an action morally good because it means that whatever God commands is good even if we find it completely absurd – for example, if God were to command that torturing someone is good and something we ought to do, then if we accept the second argument, we would have no choice to do it, even if we know that it is morally wrong. This concludes that either God is not really, morally, good, or He's not almighty. Both conclusions lead to a scenario where it does not matter which statement theists choose to be right as it will ultimately be the lesser of two evils and will still question either God’s morality or His
The Evil Demon can alter thoughts to the point where even they cannot be relied upon (Cahn 535). To Descartes, this is the strongest argument for skepticism. For this reason, from now on, I will focus on how the Cogito relates to this skeptical argument. Descartes needs a foundation to progress his argument in the rest of the Meditations in order to prove the existence of God, and of Body. From now on, we will assume that Descartes successful proved that our senses, our body, and anything that we believe to be true is not reliable.
If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute. Dawkins does not hesitate to put forth his roaring arguments. He has set his mind on prying open the arguments of the existence of a God, sarcastically dismissing them as “quite funny”. He blatantly disagrees that sucking up to God is a very odd rationale for doing good things. He is also, unsurprisingly stunned by the inconsistent description of the “All loving, yet rage-filled God”.
could also be morally right if He commands it (Wainright, 2005). That is, how do we govern the interpretation of sacred text and which sacred text is the correct one. When He states that an action is immoral is it always as such or is there any specific context that make it immoral, it is in this method of interpretation that we begin to exercise our own intuition of morality (Wierenga, 2009). This part of divine command theory goes beyond the intuition of what may or may not be morally right. In terms of the second part God commands these actions because they are right, this statement places morality separate from God, there is an independent standard of moral right and wrong that undermine the omnipotence and Omni benevolence of God (Leibniz, 1951).
What if nothing is real and it is all an illusion? And we are just connected by an experience machine that creates this images and send signs to our brains that makes us think we are seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, and or tasting. If you think about it even though it sounds crazy it makes sense if you believe in God. But what if you do not, or do not believe that we do live in a matrix? Then you would have to answer to the questions that the humanity has make for centuries.
Therefore she has immense credibility in literature. Lainie Pomerleau’s article, A Necessary Evil: The Inverted Hagiography of Shakespeare’s Richard III, suggests why Shakespear’s play, Richard III, is more of a reverse Hagiography rather than an actual history or even political propaganda on the life of King Richard III. A hagiography is a biography that idealizes its subject, which is the opposite of what William Shakespeare did for Richard. Pomerleau makes it his mission to explain why Shakespeare did this and why it resonated with the audience. Pomerleau says of Shakespeare’s play, “Richard III is hagiographic in nature and operates as an adaptation of, not a break with, medieval hagiographic traditions established in works…” (Pomerleau 69).
These are open to all, whatever their level of intelligence. These religious view foster the idea of a moral self: Each of is capable of great good, but also great evil. Refusing to serve and love god is the greatest evil. We do good when we make God the centre of our lives; we do wrong when we retreat from this commitment. Plato strongly influenced Christian thought and Christians like Augustine adopted Plato’s view that the self or soul is rational, immaterial, and immortal and not basically self-interested.
In a similar fashion, what is emphasized here as Greene’s existential bias, may be regarded by some as religious bias. Religion is not simply a detached observation of rituals for its own sake. Rather it is a way of life. It always stands in need of existential verification in the lived life of man. On the other hand, through the dual need of handing it down, religion produces schools of thoughts and bodies of beliefs which lead in different directions from man’s concrete existence.
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.