The Argument And The Responses Made By Philo

In examining the relationship between religion and morality, there are many equally important topics that should be considered. One topic, nonetheless, that I think is essential in beginning to discuss the philosophy of morality in the context of religion is that which is concerned with whether religion has a significant role in the definition of morality. Religion does have a significant role in the defining and understanding of morality, and this is important for ethics. The aim of this paper is not to argue whether it is possible for one to be moral without being religious, for this I assume is more or less evidently possible, but rather whether a general concept of religion and God is needed in the proper interpretation of morality. I will refer to Plato’s Euthyphro and its focus on piety and the dilemma it generates, in guiding this discussion.

Martin uses a functionalistic approach to understand the role religion plays in society, exploring each object with hermeneutical suspicion, believing, for the sake of this study, that any supernatural claims are false. By exploring such concepts as classification, structured society, and habitus, Martin explains how “we, as humans, are a product of society”. He focuses on answering questions such as “what’s going on” and “whose interests are served” by skeptically looking at the way in which people use legitimation, authority, and authenticity to push their own agendas.

Karen Armstrong, author of “Homo Religiosus,” claimed that without the physical rituals and traditions, religion morphed into a belief. Simply put, Armstrong argued that religion requires not only blind faith but also customs and practices that affect one’s physical and mental behaviors. It is through these rituals and taboos that the religions grows and forms, and yet also changes when deemed necessary. Additionally, Armstrong constantly compares religion to different art forms. She does this to convey the message that much like art, one must focus and study religion for lengthy periods of time to be properly understood. However, this connection also suggests that art and religion can perform an analogous role to humankind when required, as they both evolve and change when a society 's infrastructure does. Throughout her essay “Homo Religiosus,” Armstrong focuses on the similar role that both art and religion play in society to discuss her claim that religion is not just a belief, but rather has to do with changes in physical and mental behaviors that in return create change in society and the religion one needs.

The theist, therefore, appears to be faced with a choice between a view which implies a kind of moral chaos and a life of moral immaturity, and one which belittles an Almighty God. One attempt to resolve this dilemma turns on the distinction

At the beginning of the semester, I wrote: “Religion is the institutional manifestation of feeling and believing in something beyond yourself” (Kelley 2016). Twelve weeks later, I consider this definition incomplete and problematic; nevertheless, it reveals how religious thinkers such as James Frazer, Emile Durkheim, William James, Mircea Eliade, Jeffrey Kripal, and Bruce Lincoln infiltrate our quotidian definitions of religion. In this paper, I hope to develop a new conception of religion, recognizing the impact of such historical thinkers on personal conclusions. In other words, I hope to show that we are

This will be based on the chapter 4 Religion as "Truth-Claims", posted on Blackboard. First of all, Dianne L. Oliver makes a preface about her writings saying that religions claim to get the truth, and followers of diverse religions say that their truth is the only one true, and cannot be compare with any other. Also, she remarks that many of those religion followers use violence to uphold their own version of truth. Moreover, she let us know that she is going to consider the "True-Claims" of different religions, and show how those claims can influence the practices, behaviors, and ideas of religion followers. Next to the introduction, she considers that religion is very essential for understanding the fundamental questions in our daily lives.

For purpose of this essay, religion will be defined as a collection of institutional beliefs and customs concerning humanity and the purpose of the universe [1]. Key beliefs within religion that will be explored, as well as there relation to reason, are:

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

Religion is constructed on faith and belief of an individual even though it is the individual choice to follow it or not. It has stirred a lot of debates for years; those who are trying to prove that God exists throughout history and follow to modern day. While, those who are atheist are trying to prove their point of God does not exist. There are still more and more theories and debate over the subject of religious view. It is a matter of theism versus atheism; new and old philosophers have joined the debate and all with different sides to another philosopher’s theory or view on the matter. In this paper, I will attempt to illustrate the reasons given by Louis Pojman of why religion is good or bad, as well as evaluating Bertrand Russell argument about religion. This can define the meaning of life and the creation of life as we know it. It can change views or switch sides for there is always another explanation to exactly what religion is all about and having a superior ruler that created all.

Finally, the third section will dwell on the controversial topic of faith, and human’s need for belief. Religion has done an excellent job in manipulating human’s need for trust. Therefore, the combination of these three sections should compel the reader to better understand why such a false belief, such as religion has had such success throughout history.

In the article, The Meaning and End of Religion, by Wilfred Cantwell Smith writes about his idea of the concept of religion explaining it to be a universally valid category as it is theorized but is truly a European creation. Throughout the article Smith conveys his ideas of religion. In his piece, there are several interesting ideas and most important thoughts that he tries to communicate to the reader. In response, the reader can respond to some of the important questions posited by Smith.

Religion emerges from the human susceptibility for protection and use it as a tool for liberation from the bitter realities and perplexities of the world. “Religious ideas are teachings and pronouncements about facts and states of external (or internal) reality that convey something one has not discovered for oneself and which assert the right to be believed” (Freud 88). We must object to religious claims because there is no proof to substantiate them and merely ideas we follow for generations. Religious ideas are beyond the control of reasoning, as if we don’t validate our beliefs and behave that our beliefs have a substantial basis of support. Religious ideas are teachings, not the thought that

In this essay I will be looking at the theories of Edward Burnett Tylor and Émile Durkheim, and comparing them to see which theory I think gives a better explanation about what religion is, or whether religion is actually definable. On the one hand we have Tylor’s theory that tells us that religion is belief in spiritual beings and that religion is just a step on the way to reaching full evolutionary potential. Durkheim’s theory, however, says that religion is very much a social aspect of life, and something can only be religious or “sacred” if it is something public (Durkheim 1965:52). Ultimately these theories do not give us an outright explanation about what ‘religion’ is, but there are aspects of the theory that can be used to gain an understanding or idea.

Although Freud argues that these religious values should not be accepted due to the absence of proof; people find interest in the information, connection to ones beliefs and answers to otherwise indefinable questions through religion. The three claims made to support religious foundation are: beliefs practiced and shared by ancestors, possession of proofs and it is socially forbidden to raise questions regarding evidence supporting religious ideas (p. 33). Freud is quick to rebut these claims with three reasons to be suspicious. He begins by denouncing the ancestors who passed down these religious doctrines as being too ignorant to trust. He then condemns the proofs as impossible to judge for any truth as a result of being “full of contradictions, revisions and falsifications” (p. 33). He finally stated that the third claim was the most suspicious of all, pronouncing that openly reproaching the question of authenticity was a clear declaration of society’s insecurity with the religious doctrines. Freud fails to understand how religion has the ability to assume such great influence over civilization without any unequivocal evidence supporting its ideas. His rebuttal successfully casts a sense of foolishness and absurdity on the inadequate and irrational claims. The claims themselves seem to be grasping for any semi-valid idea or at least an idea which proves difficult to question. Although society thinks they are showing respect and good

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data