When considering a reasonable response to a viewpoint such as Draper 's, the theist must come to a point of declaring one of two positions: 1) God is hidden and we must trust that we have guessed right, or 2) God has revealed Himself to us to the extent that we can know Him. The second statement seems to more closely align with Christianity and the idea that it includes an integration of faith and reason.
Consider, now, the agnostic position, such as Draper holds. What would it take for Draper to believe in God? As he addresses arguments from apologetics and finds them inconclusive, perhaps he would be convinced if the arguments for theism were stronger and the arguments for naturalism weaker. The arguments are strong and weak enough to …show more content…
He also desires that we love us. According to Drange, God revealing His existence would not be enough to make the world love Him. We would come to belief and worship for the wrong reasons.
If God did write in the sky announcing His presence, or if someone was able to come with an absolutely perfect argument for God 's existence, Draper says that he would reconsider his position.2 Others say the same thing. But they wouldn 't love God. Imagine the scene, an article is published in a philosophy of religion journal declaring that the truth has come out, a watertight proof for the existence of God has been discovered, and it is the Christian God. (To begin with I cannot even imagine such an undeniable proof would be possible.) The next Sunday pastors and priests expect the pews to be filled with new Christians. It 's a miracle, they think, the whole world can now be saved. Instead of debates questioning God 's existence now we can have more theological discussions about complicated doctrine, perhaps we 'll be able to get a clear idea on things such as the nature of the Trinity, the debate on free will, etc.
But Sunday morning comes and all the people expected to be found in church, worshiping their creator, are at home. Perhaps some are angry, they were already angry
This is an illegitimate appeal to save his philosophy. By saving his theory in this manner he “shoots himself in the foot.'; If God cannot be perceived, and if to be is to be perceived, then God cannot possibly exist. Although the existence of God can be inferred through the classical ontological argument, doing so scuttles his immaterial world. If one can have knowledge through inference, then one can infer the existence of a material world.
James Fowler’s theory of faith development includes six stages: primal faith, intuitive-projective faith, mythic-literal faith, synthetic-conventional faith, individuative-reflective faith, conjunctive faith, and universalizing faith (Hutchison,
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.
In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is
Haught in chapter 5 finds fault by the new atheists to describe their belief in an evolutionary way. Also, he disagrees that an evolutionary statement does not rule out a accessorial religious or religious clarification. He continuously points out the perspective that the new atheists us the term “faith” in an incorrect way. “The state of being drawn toward or being grasped by something of utmost importance,” Haught states. When the term “faith” is applied the correct way a spiritual reason furthermore to an evolutionary one is not difficult.
It is not the case that God is impossible for us to know, since book 8 shows that we do descry the unchanging good, the trinity of love, and book 14 proves us that God shares his wisdom with the rational and intellectual mind in us (BXIV, para. 26). Therefore, since we observe a trinity of wisdom, wisdom and its knowledge of itself and its love of itself, we also find a trinity of mind in us, the mind and the knowledge it knows itself with, and the love it loves itself
The documentary Religulous by Bill Maher, appeals the audience asking if they can believe in something like religion or God on blind faith without proof that he even existed. Maher preaches the gospel of “I don’t know’’ but in his way of searching for the truth he comes off as contradictory, and he criticizes confident people about their beliefs while declaring that religious faith is not legitimate.
Since the 19th century, William Clifford and William James have been the foremost religious theorist and have attempted to answer significant creation and theological mysteries. However, Clifford and James have varying views on the belief debate, each formulating a rational argument of what the basis for belief should be. Clifford’s, Ethics of Belief and James’ The Will to Believe outline their respective arguments which are vastly similar and but have marked differences. Both articles will be examined for these similarities and difference and stated within this paper.
Assessment of the View that it is Rational to Believe that there is a God
An intellectual gospel is always in danger of creating a God that looks a lot like us—one that is our size. The quest for answers sometimes leads to a rejection of mystery. As a result mystery is often treated as something intolerable, instead of a real treasure. Living with mystery is the privilege of our walk with Christ. Its importance cannot be overrated. If I understand all that is going on in my Christian life, I have an inferior Christian life. The walk of faith is to live according to the revelation we have received, in the midst of the mysteries we can’t explain. That’s why Christianity is called “the faith.”
In this essay, I will criticize W.K. Clifford’s main claim that it is always wrong, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. I will prove it is not wrong to form a belief without sufficient evidence, by engaging with ineffability. In the first section, I will begin by presenting Clifford’s main argument for why it is always wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. In the second section, I will define and explain The Representation Principle. Since Clifford does not clearly define what constitutes “sufficient evidence,” I will employ The Representation Principle as one requirement for sufficient evidence. The Representation Principle states: it is impossible to acquire sufficient evidence if someone is unable to fully represent all of the relevant information. In the third section, I will present my argument for refraining from forming beliefs, also referenced as The “RFB” Argument. I conclude that in some cases it is wrong for human beings
I do not find the three arguments I analyzed satisfactory for the existence of God. The existence of God simply cannot be proven. Regardless of how strong a person’s faith is, or how many miracles they claim to have witnessed, God can only ever be a possibility.
The topic that concerns me in religious philosophy is, can the existence of God be revealed or can He be proved by other people's arguments. The arguments for the existence of God divide into two main groups, a priori and posteriori arguments. A priori argument depends on no premises and a posteriori argument is based on premises that can know by experiences of life and the universe. Philosophers for centuries have questioned and have tried to prove the existence of a God. The two philosophers that come to my mind are Saint Thomas Aquinas and William Paley. Both of these philosophers are alike in the fact that they both argued a posteriori arguments. Out of both of their arguments, Thomas Aquinas's argument was categorized as cosmological. This type of argument begins with a posteriori assumptions that a great, spirtitual being exists and something other than the plain existence of the being is supposed to explain it. The second philosopher, William Paley's argument was theological. A theological argument for the existence of God begins with a premise that the world demonstrates intelligent purpose and goes forward to the conclusion that there must be or there may be a supreme being with a divine intelligence. Even though, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley both agree that God exists, and while their
Consider this, if a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be explained. Such as if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon. Therefore please have an open mind.