Strengths And Weaknesses Of Religion Research

Religion 120 has taught me something more than just the meaning of religion. I would argue that I will be taking away more knowledge from this class than any other class I have taken so far in my college career. The learning path Professor Robert takes has benefited me throughout the semester. The learning path I took persuaded me to open my mind and absorb and understand the ideas of other individuals. After I opened my mind up and read all of the content we were assigned in class, along with listened to my classmates and professor Robert’s take on religion, I was able to picture religion as something other than just the physical place of worship and discussions taken place there. When most individuals think of religion they think about going to church and not much else. Religion is so much more than just the physical place and the individuals leading the practice. Religion has the potential to help guide you in life, along with giving you a sense of meaning in this big world. Religion has the power to help you connect with individuals like yourself,

Michael J. Himes, in his book Doing the Truth in Love, describes theology as a way of “talking about God.” Talking about God brings many questions to mind: how do people talk about God when God is a mystery? How do people converse about what they do not know for sure? Many may think theology is inherited and even theologians talk about what they have learned from doctrines and the history they have been taught. Even though theologians know very little about God aside from what they studied, they still know it is important to talk about God. As Himes states, “God is simply too important to us not to talk about.” Although theologians are still figuring out the mysteries of God, they attempt to put forth their opinions and ideas about God in order to inspire people to find their own theology.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

Aquinas used the example of analogy to prove this. He believed any religious statements that you make are being made from a human’s perception and cannot be compared to the brilliance of God. For example, you may get a good grade in an essay and you may claim that God is also good but the two types of ‘good’ are completely different. The univocal language that we use in day to day life is not meaningless though it does help us to make connections between the world around us and God himself. Analogy of attribution highlights words that can be applied to humans as well as to God. For example, if you claim ‘Anne is good’ and then say ‘God is good’ then these are both meaningful statements. When you state that God is good you are saying that he is the source of all goodness because God is the creator and sustains all things. This is meaningful because the statement ‘God is good’ illustrates that if God created all goodness he must be good himself. According to the analogy of proportion if you say “my car is great” then you are saying it lives up to your expectation of what greatness is. If you say the religious statement ‘God is a great God’ you are agreeing that God measures up to what a great God should be. To Aquinas, this was meaningful because you were expressing through analogy the goodness of God.

The traditional God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is known to be as an “Omni-God” possessing particular divine attributes such as omniscient, which means he knows everything he is also omnipotent, or all powerful. God has also been said to be also he is omnipresence which means he exists in all places and present everywhere, however there are many philosophical arguments on whether if any of that is actually true or if there is a God at all. This paper argues that it is not possible to know whether the traditional God exists or not. While there have been philosophers such as Aquinas, Anselm, Paley and Kierkegaard who are for god and present strong argument, likewise philosopher like Nietzsche and arguments like the problem of evil both make valid point on why God isn’t real.

Scientific reasoning has brought humanity to incredibly high levels of sophistication in all realms of knowledge. For Saint Thomas Aquinas, his passion involved the scientific reasoning of God. The existence, simplicity and will of God are simply a few topics which Aquinas explores in the Summa Theologica. Through arguments entailing these particular topics, Aquinas forms an argument that God has the ability of knowing and willing this particular world of contingent beings. The contrasting nature of necessary beings and contingent beings is at the heart of this debate.

In recent discussions of racism, one issue has been racial and religious profiling. On one hand some argue that these actions are necessary to protect the American people from both foreign and domestic threats. From this perspective, people of color are un-equal to everybody else and people such as Muslims are probably connected to groups such as the Islamic State. On the other hand, racial and religious profiling is considered completely immoral and wrong because it takes away liberties. This leads to a conflict between safety and liberty. My own view is that racial and religious profiling is immoral to an extent; however, I also believe that Americans should be protected. I believe that those targeted by police should match statistics of

Upon reading the chapters written by both Kessler and Martin this week I believe that this will be an interesting course for the seven remaining weeks. Even though I identify myself as a follower of the Christian faith, I think it will be nice to have a fresh outlook on religion from the outsider's point of view. From my time as a first grader through my time as an eighth grader, I spent at least an hour or two each week learning about the Catholic faith in a religion class. Also, I would like to see how this course will possibly change my outlook or open my eyes to different aspects of religion. In addition, I expect to have discussions about several religions from the various regions of the world. I hope that these discussions will help me broaden my understanding and appreciation of other religion and cultural backgrounds

If someone understands 'that which nothing greater can be conceived', then 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' exists in someone's understanding. (from 1 and 2)

1. In a minimum of 100 words, describe the basic teachings of Zoroastrianism. What a fascinating religion, Zoroastrianism is! I never knew this religion existed. The first time I heard the word “Zoroastrianisam” it was a few months back when someone on Facebook was talking about Gal Gadot, the actress that plays wonder woman and saying that she is Zoroastrian, like it was a bad thing. Then, I found a chapter in my text book pertaining to Zoroastrianisam and I was excited to read the chapter, just to see what they are talking about. I asked myself, why would this be a bad thing if someone is Zoroastrian? I learned that this is probably the oldest monotheistic religion on the world and most importantly, the base for 3 major religions. Judaism,

Medieval philosophers developed very precise notions of God and the attributes that he has, many of which are even now well-known among believers. For example, God is all-powerful all-knowing and all-good Other commonly discussed attributes of God are that he is eternal, that he is present everywhere and that he has foreknowledge of future events. While these traditional attributes of God offer a clear picture of the kind of being that he is, many of them present special conceptual problems, particularly when we try to make them compatible them with potentially conflicting facts about the world.

Another note about the symbolic theology— it is also important to know that the statement of “who God is” is not untrue, but the truth is beyond that true statement. As a result of that recognition, we often use parables and metaphors to see if we can make it less “beyond” and more humanly understandable. I would guess it is because there is a limited number of people, or probably none, who are lucky enough to have a physical encounter with God, for we are all living in the End Time. Therefore, “see for yourself” does not work here and we have to rely on symbolic descriptions. However, the problem generated from the symbolism is “misleading” as mentioned previously. (Ware, 2002) Take myself as an example, a lot of times I can understand the

Most major arguments of God are rooted in the existence, or lack thereof. However there has been a continuous debate regarding the specific characteristics of God. In this debate, Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, and other the processed theologians oppose Anselm, Augustine, and other classic theologians. Although there are many points of disagreement, there are some characteristics for which both sides can agree upon. I will show one strong point of agreement and one strong point of opposition, and allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself how different, or similar, these two camps are.

Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) contains six Meditations. In the first two of these Descartes addresses doubt and certainty. By the end of the second Meditation Descartes establishes the possibility of certainty by concluding that he is a “thinking thing” and that this is beyond doubt. Having established the possibility of certainty, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God. The argument he presents in the Third Meditation for the existence of God has been nicknamed the ‘Trademark’ argument. This argument deals with types of ideas, of which there are three, a principle called the Causal Adequacy principle, and a sliding scale of reality. The argument concludes that the idea of a God that is a perfect being is an innate idea that is real and was caused by God and therefore God is real. This argument will be explained with the greater detail in the next paragraph. In the Fifth Meditation Descartes again addresses the existence of God with an argument for His existence. This argument is a variation of St. Anselm’s ontological argument. This argument is also framed around his theory of ideas, as well as his principle of ‘clear and distinct perception’ and is explained and discussed in paragraph three. The paragraphs following these will discuss how convincing these two arguments from Descartes are and will deal with various objections. Many of these objections are strong enough that it will be clear why Descartes’ case has failed to convince everyone.

Vast, all-knowing, creator, so much more. How do you define your God? The Father is so much more than human kind can grasp, therefor, being nearly impossible to fully define without using opinion and imagination. The knowledge of God is the largest piece of shared information among humans throughout time and space. I will explore my personal thoughts of God, humanity and Jesus, as well as reflect on Christian worldview.