The Logical Fallacies Of Hick 's Position

In “An Interpretation of Religion” Hick argues how all religions are ambiguously and culturally designed to answer all of life’s questions. A renowned theologian, philosopher and religious pluralist, Hick firmly agrees world religions are diverse paths to meet the “Real” or “Truth”. David Nah’s Christian Theology and Religious Pluralism: A Critical Evaluation of John Hick criticizes Hick’s hypothesis & discusses how the Christian theology uniquely differs from world religions. The New Age generation has made religious pluralism a pivotal acknowledgement for society as it continues to omit the fundamental factors of the Christian doctrine, an evident study that already answers life’s toughest questions. The world’s most commonly followed religions & its path to truth consists:

The aforementioned parable with the fish asking “What the hell is water?” is one example, and so his another story in which an Atheist and a Christian are arguing about the existence of God. The Atheist gets caught in a blizzard and cries out “Oh, God…I’m lost in this blizzard” and the Christian uses reason to deduct that he must believe in God because he’s still alive and able to tell his story. The Atheist rolls his eyes and says “No, man, all that was was a couple of Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp”. We can conclude using logic that people have different belief systems, and that everybody has their own “belief template” that we use to get meaning from our experiences. He furthers his logos with “Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy’s interpretation is true and the other guy’s is false or bad”. He’s persuading the audience that we need to talk aboutwhereour beliefs come from. The logical approach is saying that our experiences are just “hard-wired… As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice” and that if somebody is automatically certain of what they believe without questioning whythey believe it, then they’re being arrogant and unaware. Just like the nonreligious guy’s dismissal “of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for help”. If we are automatically certain of anything, we’re going to end up closed-minded people. This is

At the conclusion of his presentation, how does Tim Goeglein discuss the Christian’s job in light of these 3 attacks?

An argument is an effective strategy used to persuade individuals or public that a general opinion or perception is either right or wrong. Although, as we try to create a reasonable argument, chances are we encounter logical fallacies. A fallacy is a faulty line in reasoning that hinder our ability to make an argument invalid, affecting our ability to argue effectively. Fallacies are more commonly used as a tool to influence opinion or actions of individuals or group of individuals to as to obtain a future goal while obscuring the truth of the matter. These are more commonly referred to as propagandas, which persuades the public to be “for” or “against” certain political ideas, religion, races and opinions as a whole. A propagandist wants invoke

He juxtaposes the high hopes he had held for the church based on its supposedly moral standing with its actual state of hypocrisy in which it worships God but turns a blind eye to racial injustice. King then emphasizes this hypocrisy using parallel structure and rhetorical questions to support his argument. By addressing the clergymen directly and using positive words like “hope”, “justice”, and “moral”, he also appeals to pathos to remind his audience of the values that the church stood for and call it to return to those values. Next, King alludes to the early church to show the church’s “powerful” beginnings. He uses a metaphor comparing the early church to a thermostat instead of a thermometer, emphasizing the active role the church must take in standing up for its beliefs and influencing society. By referring to the early Christians as “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”, King links himself to them, increasing his credibility, and rebukes the clergymen for criticizing him using similar terms. He also explains that the early Christians “pressed on” despite resistance from society because they were “called to obey God rather than men”, further connecting his work with God’s will and implying that anyone who challenged him was challenging God Himself. King then continues to describe the present state of the church. He juxtapositions the strength of the early church with the weakness of the contemporary church and uses negative words like “weak”, “ineffective”, and “uncertain” to show his audience how the church has degraded from its original status. King’s subsequent declaration that the “judgment of God is upon the church as never before” invokes the authority of God to evoke a sense of fear from his audience, thus appealing to pathos. He supports his claim with a cause-and-effect statement that appeals to logos

After reviewing Ken White's argument, I have narrowed down a lot of information. The intended audience for White's argument are people who have neutral opinions on gun control and gun laws. When he first talked about the arguments surrounding guns, ths writer states, "It pleases me, it entertains like-minded people and it affirms whatever my "term" already believes (White, p.8)." This expresses the idea that some people already have neutral opinions on gun control. Furthermore, White breaks down the different kinds of terminologies in the gun control debate mean to certain people. The audience is shown two sides of the gun control argument. In conclusion, White is taking no sides. He is simply arguing how people have arguments over gun control. White is also an attorney that specializes in the First Amendment. This means he is open minded and he most likely believes in the freedom of people having opinions

In the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck finds himself in a myriad of dilemmas. Whether it is his own life or the life of another that is in peril, Huck makes decisions based on his moral compass. His code of ethics has been shaped by his onerous life and by the society he lives in. However, Huck sometimes strays from society’s version of what is right and what is wrong. In those situations, Huck feels that he has done wrong because he does not realize that society’s perception of ethics is very narrow minded. After Huck tells Mary Jane the truth about her “uncles” he thinks, “Pray for me! I reckoned if she [had known] me she’d take a job that was more nearer her size. … She had the grit to pray for Judas if she took the notion.” Huck

As I read Fundamentals: Enduring Convictions of the Restoration, through the lens of this assignment, I gained new insight and a different appreciation for his visionary calling to provide a theological perspective that aligns us with a larger Christian understanding.

Logical Fallacies: Carleen Turner letter In her letter, Carleen Turner is telling about her son, Brock Turner and asks the judge to be kind and merciful to her son. It is obvious that Carleen Turner was writing the letter with the strong emotions, and the emotions in the letter are much stronger than a logical constituent. The first logical fallacy, begging the claim, one can see at the beginning of the letter.

Ronald H. Nash begins his book responding the position of pluralism in regards to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ, mainly directed at John Hick, who was a leading proponent of pluralism until his death earlier this year. Nash was an evangelical Baptist theologian and apologist, who subscribed to the Calvinist tradition. Within his book, Nash tackles several of Hick’s arguments relating to the pluralism and universality of Christianity. Nash reveals in chapters 1-6, the evolution of Hick’s philosophy of pluralism and understanding of pluralism, which conflicts with the Christian’s view of the

One component of these chapters that I felt was extremely prevalent was the character development of Huck. There were multiple instances when Huck had to make certain decisions that would effect him in the long run, and with most of those decisions came a moral struggle. It seemed as if within these chapters, Huck is trying to find out who he truly is as a person. One example of these moments is in chapter 16 when he is having an internal battle, trying to convince himself that helping Jim gain his freedom is in fact the right thing to do. The quote reads, “I couldn't get that out of my conscience, no how nor no way. It got to troubling me so I couldn't rest; I couldn't stay still in one place…I tried to make out to myself that I warn't to blame, because I didn't run Jim off from his rightful owner” (Pg. 87). In the quote stated above you can clearly see the internal struggle that Huck goes through, trying to find himself along the way. He looks at the situation with 2 different perspectives, one of them being that taking Jim to gain his freedom is immoral and the wrong thing to do, the other being taking Jim to gain his freedom is the right thing to do. Although Jim knows that either way he will feel guilty but he ends up choosing to take Jim's side because of his loyalty. Jim shows his appreciation to Huck by saying things like, "Dah you goes, de ole true Huck; de on'y white genlman dat ever kep' his promise to ole Jim”(Pg. 92), causing Huck

Hick challenges theologians to transform Christian Religion to address effectively the modern world, which is now undoubtedly pluralistic. He both criticizes what he considers outmoded Christian in light of recent developments in religious epistemology, while simultaneously suggesting new possibilities for the enrichment of Christian experience as religious experience. While some of these suggestions are certainly open to debate, it is nonetheless certain that Hick, like Columbus, has discovered the "new world"—a new pluralistic world—which all future theology must take into account (although it is clear that, despite this recent discovery, the Indians—though this time the real Indians—have long since beaten us here as well). In light of his

The Institutes for the Christian Religion consists of four books. Book one is the knowledge of God, the creator; book two is the knowledge of God the redeemer, in Christ, as manifested to the fathers; book three is the the mode of obtaining the grace of Christ and book four is the external means to which God allures us into the fellowship of Christ and keeps us in it (Smith, 2003).

The next 3 chapters are similar and be put together. Chapter Four discusses the group of people who are spiritual, but not religious. The spiritual, but not religious are those who believe in a spiritual realm however do not have any kind of organized religious structure. The author addresses spiritual experiences and what they can do. Cawley considers that spiritual experience can push people away and towards Christianity. Chapter Five discourses how Christianity is able to enrich the lives of those quenching for spirituality. Believers can help non- religious spiritual people grasp the concept of Christ through personal experiences, examples, and stories. Chapter Six goes off what Chapter Five talked about, but tells the reader how to help

As I said I found it repulsive which means arousing intense distaste or disgust, which is what the cow head with flies did for me. I was not bothered by the cow and calf or the shark display. Maybe that was Hirst’s intent to cause controversy and it was just my opinion and I realize that not all art is glamorous or beautiful, I realize it is a reflection of reality but as I said that was my opinion of his work.