The Elimination of Natural Theology Essay

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

Throughout the course of history there have been numerous conversations and debates addressing religion, myth, and one’s ability to reason with both of them. The notion of one’s ability to reason with religion and myth has left openings in the conversations of moderations and the various interpretations within the two mediums. Many theorists have been a part of this conversation. Among these theorists are Sam Harris, Rudolf Bultman and Karen Armstrong. Initially when one first enters these conversations about religion and reason many resort to arranging these theorists in a way that would depict that they have conflicting views. An example of this method would be Benedict Farrell in his Call for papers version one. Farrell throughout his paper

In the year 1654 at age 31, Blaise Pascal, the renowned mathematician physicist had religious experience that caused him to reorient his life towards writing a defense for the Christian faith. One of his most famous works was on the subject is “The Wager”, which argues, through cost-benefit Analysis, that individuals should take steps to believe in God. This entire argument hinges on the premise that epistemic reasoning is incapable of proving, with any real certainty, the existence of God; therefore, individuals must base their decision to believe, or not believe, on prudential reasoning. Beginning at the end of the twentieth century and continuing to the present day, scientist and

Philosophy and faith can be thought of as mirror images, that unite over a common idea, but come from different paths. Tension between faith and reason derives from the differences between them, while dialogue arises from their common ground, since both activities give access to the truth, bringing individuals who identify with that truth closer together. During this experience, the domains undergo a transformation during their encounter, intertwining their functions (Vaught 321). This mutual antagonism gives way to mutual inclusion, where faith underlies philosophical thinking by instilling a filter on the mind of individuals who believe in such a

Religious rationalist is someone who has accepted the existence of God and believes it should be consistent with reason and evidence. They are followers of God that believe that you can secure your place in heaven when God has decided for you to be in a better place. Some fundamentalist believed that science is in coordination with religion. They believed that God could be seen in the purpose of nature. Defect in science may cause a dispute between proof that God exists and the conclusions about God’s existence. Religious Rationalists believe that the universe began approximately 15 billion years ago with a huge explosion, also known as the big bang theory. The scientific evidence became questionable after a minor setback with Darwin’s theory. The religious rationalists have accepted that God does exist. In fact, they believe God caused the eruption that formed the universe. And if science was not involved in the creation of the universe then where does gravity come

In our text, we are presented with six (6) definitions, namely a friendly and unfriendly theist, atheist and agnostic. The friendly versions of these categories define those who can rationally justify

In life we are often challenged with when we should believe something. This challenge is most presented with respect to religious identity. When and why should we believe these divine credence remains the ultimate challenge for all of humanity. This challenge was famously debated between William Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief and William James’ A Will to Believe. Clifford presented the argument that it is our ethical duty to only believe that which we have evidence. James, on the other hand, argued that there are certain criteria that make it quite morally acceptable to rely on faith when evidence is insufficient. I believe as humans, we are inclined to learn by experience and experience alone. I believe that it would be an aberrant exception

Faith and reason have been a pillar of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. This is within the 2000-year-old historical conversation that has and continues to encourage the Catholic community to ask fundamental questions focused on God, society, humanity, and nature based on faith tradition.

Fideism is when religious faith is irrational or non-rational and that is still a good thing to have religious faith regardless of evidence. The problem with fideism is that it needs 100% trust in others and their decisions. For example, if one went to the doctor and was told that we must remove an organ for a small wound or sickness (such as a fever), one would like an explanation as to why. We cannot trust everyone 100% and that is the problem with fideism.

Blaise Pascal argues in his work Pensées that skepticism regarding our nature as created by God is unavoidable if reason is to be our guide. He states that we must silence reason and look to faith in order to know ourselves as we actually are. Without rational grounds for belief in Christianity, how are we to know if God even exists? Pascal answers this by saying we, ourselves, already are involved in a wager as to the existence of God. (Pascal 232) Either he exists, or he does not. But, the major focus is the reward of this wager. Pascal believes that God rewards believers and punishes disbelievers, so he thinks that it is rational to be faithful. In this paper, I will argue against Pascal when he stated that it is rational to be faithful.

True faith does not, however, cease when our ability to rationalize its continuance fails. What happens when we reach the finite limits of our ability to understand either God’s creation or the mysterious ways in which He works? Realistically, we either begin to doubt God or we choose the have blind

In the past the study of religion was used both to criticize and to defend a particular religion (usually Christianity). I do not however aim at providing arguments that a certain religion (e.g. Christianity) or religion in general is true. I hope, however, that my analysis will contribute to the solution of the problem of truth of religion in general and of religions other than Christianity and will do this from a neutral point of view, not from that of the Christian religion.

The result of this exercise is a wide variety of worldviews (or dare I say religions) that hinge on a varying degree of faith. Even those who thought that they had an incredibly naturalistic, empirical or scientific approach to life need to admit a large reliance of faith.

In this paper, I will argue against Christianity being a rational religion because it holds beliefs which are irrational and lack sufficient evidence. First, I will state this position on the premise of words from the Apostles Creed. Second, I will argue that belief in things that humankind does not understand is not a cause for disbelief, rather belief is required for the things humankind does not understand. Lastly, I will respond that belief in the things we do not understand is flawed when argued by a Christian, because the Christian view of humankind’s sinful nature does not allow for humankind to define flawlessly what is rational or irrational to believe. All of this means that Christianity is not itself a rational religion, although there may still be a rational religion.

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to