My purpose in this essay is to explain and analyze the Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory states that morality is ultimately based on the commands of God. I disagree with this theory because how do we know what concepts of God are true and what other concepts are false? There are so many religions making their own claims and interpretations that they believe are true. Therefore, how do we know then what God approves or disapproves of?
In religion, faith plays a major role in the belief in a deity or God. Such believers may have never had a physical connection to the deity, but they believe that there is a God. Suspension of disbelief requires knowers to use imagination as a source of knowledge as religion can be viewed as imagination that guides the understanding of possibilities that God or certain deities exist, but faith (as a way of knowing) creates a sense of strong belief in a deity or God; on the other hand, science mainly uses logical information to gain knowledge, but through an imaginative
Buttrick states: The idea of intention, not authorial, but in and of the language resentful the suspicion that sermonic speech should be designed to do in congregational consciousness. Language is per formative. It does something in human consciousness. In preaching, preachers re plot plots and re intend intentions for a new world in consciousness. The moves and plots, which produce different fields of understanding, should arise from the nature of scripture.
The teachings in both the Toa Te Ching and the Sermon on the Mount exist as result of our sinful nature, and it is suggested in both texts that this nature is the cause for strife among human beings. But the reason for why we should follow these moral teachings put in place differs between the two. The Toa Te Ching tells us to adopt these instructions because it is necessary in order to follow the Tao, but is unclear about an afterlife. On the other hand, the Sermon on the Mount, in the book of Matthew in the Bible, says that obedience is required to follow Jesus and to have an eternity in heaven. The moral instruction to live simple lives is present in both the Toa Te
Though they were seen as “anti-religious” or “anti-Christian” they just believed in variations of what at that time the Christians believed. These variations like a true God, and the divine were more focused on nature than a single being. At that time, they would characterize these beliefs as deism.
The philosopher William Paley discussed the existence of God in the so called the teleological argument. The teleological argument is also known as Intelligent Design, or the argument from design. In order to explain the existence of God, William Paley gave us what is known as an argument by analogy. This form of inductive argument invites us to consider a particular state of affairs. For instance, let us set two situations; situation A for which we are already likely to have certain beliefs, and then likens it to situation B, with which we are less familiar.
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
As opposed to the Grandmothers constant change of morals to favor certain situations, the Misfit has morals that are set in stone and adhere to his past, present and future. As the two characters converse, religion sparks an interest in the Misfit because it is something he is interested in understanding but knowing it must not be true. He believes that he must see it with his own eyes to prove the existence. His concept of reality also relates himself to Jesus, so much so as to believe he is a realistic representation of Him. He goes on to tell that the only difference is between the crimes committed and the proof held against him.
Firstly, Lloyd illustrates how Descartes adapted reason into a methodical thought that he used to attempt to form a rational basis for the belief in God (Lloyd, 1993:39). Descartes mentions in the Meditations dedicatory letter that he believes that for theists it is their faith that holds the rational basis for belief in God, whereas atheists do not have this faith and so it lies in reason to prove that God exists in order to persuade them (Descartes, 1996:3). However, REFERENCE AGAINST THIS POINT Moreover, from Descartes thoughts on reasoning he stemmed his dualistic view of the body and mind being two separate entities, which Lloyd notes includes the distinction between the rational mind, which Descartes identifies with the soul, and the irrational body (Lloyd, 1993:45). As Descartes has established his dualistic view, he highlights the cogito in his third meditation,
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.
Behavioral science focuses on the why in human behavior and sometimes the answers could be hard to believe. Human relations and behavioral science are not two in the same. As for Professor Zimbardo, he would say, “The Lucifer effect, rather providing a religious analysis,
Thusly, the principle of middle knowledge permits one to attest an extremely solid perspective of divine sovereignty in which nothing happens separated from God 's will or consent, and a libertarian perspective of human freedom in which individuals can do other than what they really do. To clarify on these statements I will be using a hypothetical situation to further my beliefs and standings. If God were to place John in Pilates position he (John) would choose to release Jesus by his own free actions, but God knows that this would go against his preordained plan. He chose to have made Pilate so his plans would go accordingly. Had God known that Pilate would choose to release Jesus He could have chosen not to create him.
Henry F. Lazenby’s, “The Mythical Use of the Bible by Evangelicals,” examines both mythology and de-mythology as used by evangelicals and nonevangelicals in their interpretation of the bible. He discusses how the use of myth provides empirical and non-empirical validity of the Bible. Significant is how God’s actions in the empirical are juxtaposed against man’s non-empirical reality. He reflects on the differing perceptions and points of view with regards to the human reality in the physical world and the elements in God’s sacred world. He suggests these differences call for a demythologizing within some stories found in the Bible.