The Loss of Human Dignity with a Naturalistic World

Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society is

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property (P) that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

Being that it is such a controversial topic it would be foolish to believe that religion, in this case, Christianity, would not be subject to criticism. Of course, there are many who accept Christianity, just as there are many who reject the religion. Among those who have famously rejected the faith is the Enlightenment philosopher, Thomas Paine—the man who, has been credited with writing “the most influential” (Introduction, pg. 10) of the deistic books published during the later portion of the eighteenth century; said book being, The Age of Reason. Through this publication, Thomas Paine, makes compelling arguments against Christianity, as well as other revealed religions, in attempt to prove that the key to a good life is to find meaning through science and reason.

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

Every culture ever known has operated under a system of values. Many varied on exact principles, but most applied the idea of Natural Law. Or, as C.S. Lewis would refer to it in his Abolition of Man, the Tao. In this particular book Lewis discusses the implications that would follow could man overcome this basic value system that has been in place since the development of rational thought. However, paradoxical as his opinion may seem, he holds that to step beyond the Tao is to plunge into nothingness. Simply put, it is his claim that to destroy, or even fundamentally change, man’s basic value system is to destroy man himself.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

On the contrary, opponents of NASA may speculate that overpopulation or ruining our planet will not occur, therefore the time, effort, and money spent on exploring Earth-like planets is useless. In actuality, overpopulation and the diminishing of Earth’s resources and health are working hand in

In what he called the ‘survival of the fittest’, Darwin suggested that through the process of natural selection animals with particular characteristics, as a result of possessing advantageous alleles, will survive. However, those with maladaptive genes cannot adapt to changes in environmental conditions, so will die or become extinct. Dowling (1994) stated that this process depends on three principles: species diversity, interaction and the spread of a species as a result of differential amplification. Sexual selection is another component of Darwin’s research, which explains the best strategies adopted for passing on genes to offspring. Moreover, there are problems with Darwin’s theory such as his attempts to generalise animal behaviour to the way in which humans interact in their environment. However, he has presented compelling evidence which is very scientific in its approach and methodology. Furthermore, contrary to Darwin’s evolutionary idea of survival of an individual, Dawkins (1976) suggested that the survival of the genes is more important.

Dignity, it’s what makes a human humane. It’s what powers, us, our fire, our spirit. Once removed, it kills a man, before he dies. Being raised in Torrance, and as a young boy, Louie Zamperini acted pridefully in his rebellious and risky work, He was often known for stealing, drinking liquor, and also smoking cigarettes as a young boy. He later grew to be an incredible athlete, an Olympic runner, where again his passion was impeccably strong. These actions, show Louie’s future and help him simply due to his beliefs of individual pride through his World War II experience as an Air Force Bombardier. Louie Zamperini, through the process of the P.O.W. camp-powered World War II , fought against the driving force of removing dignity, by acting

“A man who dares to waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life”, (Charles Darwin). Darwin meant that our lives are meant to be spent doing the things we want to do and what would better ourselves. Darwin spent his life doing what he wanted to do rather than what others would have approved of. Charles Darwin was an important and influential figure in history that had a positive impact on the world because he had introduced many important ideas of evolution to the world that challenged its current rules of life.

another flaw in the belief of naturalism is that there is no real thought or soul. Because of this there would be no need for ethics or morals because if we have no control over our own thought because they are not real than we cant be responsible for our own actions. If this is true than we should not be sending criminals to prisons because they did not truly commit the crimes themselves.

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

In “Human Dignity” Francis Fukuyama discusses the depth of Factor X and how it is defined in humans. He provides his explanation of the human essence, recognition, and the significance of human dignity. He then proceeds to questions as to how equality and politics will come about if there are engineering advancements that can manipulate DNA to improve the human species. Fukuyama focuses his essay on Factor X because there are several variables that equate us to being a part of the human species. His thesis asserts that beneath our physical attributes, there is a certain “human quality” that yearns for a mutual “level of respect” (Fukuyama 144).

Christianity, however, introduced a dilemma into Greek and Roman philosophies that were primarily based on skeptical principles. In many ways, the philosophy of Christianity, which insisted on an absolute knowledge of the divine and of ethics, did not fit the Greek and Roman skeptical emphasis on probable knowledge. Paul of Tarsus, one of the original founders of Christianity, answered this question simply: the knowledge of the Romans and Greeks, that is, human knowledge, is the knowledge of fools. Knowledge that rejects human reasoning, which, after all, leads to skepticism, is the knowledge of the wise. Christianity at its inception, then, had a strong anti-rational perspective. This did not, however, make the skeptical problem go away. Much of the history of early Christian philosophy is an attempt to paste Greek and Roman philosophical methods and questions onto