Faith and Reason
1. Q. Do you think there is a danger in today’s society of persons acting in irrational and harmful ways because of the religious beliefs they hold? If so give examples. What do you think is the best solution for this problem? Then turn the question around and consider whether there is danger because of the antireligious believes some people have.
Yes, I think there is a danger in people acting in irrational and harmful behavior because of religion. The rise of religious intolerance due to scriptural misinterpretation maybe out of sheer ignorance or as a result of manipulation of the masses to serve a few individual interests. A good example is the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The sect is solely based on the irrational interpretation of the Quran. It’s led to lose of lives and a destruction of states and a total corruption of morals. The best way to control such fanatical and harmful behaviors is through encouraging compassion and religious tolerance among the religions. States should also put in place stringent measures to protect children from the depraved delusions of their parents.
1b.Is there danger because of the antireligious beliefs some individuals hold?
It’s a categorical NO. Most people who don’t hold any specific religious belief are in most cases rational and rarely subscribe to any given religious sect so their chances of being religious zealots are pretty minimal. Most anti-religious person’s belief in the innate goodness of man. I say these with authority knowing history can easily attest.
2. Which of the viewpoints of religion on faith and reason sketched in this chapter most closely matches the approach taken by the religious people you know.
The religious view point mostly taken by people I know is fideism. This is a type of religious view point where belief depends on faith and divine revelations.
3. Explain strong rationalism and discuss reasons that makes it plausible as a view of religion.
Strong rationalism. For example a rational individual can be able to understand even though himself is not religious to appreciate mans need for religion.
4. Which of the objections against strong rationalism strike you as most convincing.
One key objection against strong rationalism is that it can ultimately lead individuals to a total shunning of the existence of a higher power. This is because it remains utterly I impossible for anyone to give the penultimate proof of the higher beings existence. These set of sceptic means if we can’t believe in God then there is no need for humans to believe in their cognitive abilities.
5. Explain fideism. Then explain fideisms reasons for saying that religious believes cannot be rationally evaluated
Keller In The Reason for God , states fideism a school of thought in which religious beliefs are not subject to reason but mostly as a result of unquestionable faith. Fideisms argue that if we can’t believe in our ability to form believe in one given (religion) area their there is no need for us to trust our perception forming abilities in other areas. These renders our human cognitive abilities useless.
6. What are some of the reasons that make fideism attractive to many religious persons?
What makes fideism attractive to many religious followers is that it satisfies their innate urge ability of having a higher being without having to prove. Only through faith man is able to explain Gods existence.
7.
Yes, I have personally been in occasions in which the “Leap of faith” becomes necessary. This happened last a couple of month to work in a remote area somewhere in India.
8. Are the objections given against fideism in the text correct or not?
I find the objections given in the text convincing. What makes fideism as an attractive, however, may also be a central weakness. The sole belief in the tenet of faith then allows anyone to strongly reject that belief. A feudalist belief, and an opponent’s objection, are put forth solely on basis of faith and nothing more. A belief that can not be defended then is not worthy of being defended.
9. Is it possible to test religious beliefs by logic and evidence without ceasiong to have faith in these beliefs?
Yes, an analytical analysis doesn’t definitely bring one to the “there is no God” conclusion. Many religious persons who are critical thinkers even become more religious after taking a critical approach to religion. The inability to explain natural occurrences through logic can give room to claim that God is mysterious.
10. Explain critical rationalism and explain how it differs from strong rationalism and fideism.
Critical rationalism or critical fideism can be defined as a religious field of thought where religious belief systems can and must be rationally criticized and evaluated although conclusive proof of such a system is impossible. Critical fideism differs from Strong rationalism in that it allows critical analysis of beliefs without necessarily demanding for conclusive proof as it is in strong rationalism. Fideism on the hand is a religious view point in which on believe is anchored on faith.
11. What do you see as strong points of critical rationalism?
The key advantage of critical advantage of critical rationalism is that it allows one to make informed decision on clear observations through thorough study of believes and religion without necessarily demanding for absolute proof. One problem with critical rationalism is that it does not make it clear how we can get clear to the objective third world when our brains and senses are wired with inborn expectations, and are thus incapable of making un prejudiced observations.
12.Is it possible to be a critical rationist admitting that ones believes can not be conclusively proved, without becoming washy washy in ones faith?
Yes, critical rationality as a philosophical arm does not demand for absolute proof and being a believer the unknown or what cannot be explained can always be attributed to a higher being. Plus the pillar of believing is not prove but faith.
1. How would you argue for or against that one needs evidence either to believe or not believe in God? If one needs evidence who has the burden of proof??
I strongly believe that in order for one to sure of a religious believe some sort of evidence ought to be availed. The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; I believe the initial burden of proof as to the existence of a higher being lies with the theists. It is the theists who asserts the further belief in the existence of a higher being. The theists claims that there is a higher being must be supported with some concrete evidence of the argument
2.
If you believe in God to what evidence do you appeal to support your belief? If you do not belief in God what argument would you give against Gods existence? Carefully evaluate the strength of the argument you give noting the possible problematic premises and critical assumption.
I do not subscribe to any religious authority. The very assertions by various religions that the scripture explains the existence of God are wrong, in fact, the scriptures have so many factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies such that they cannot be cited as proof of anything glet alone God. For example there is no historical, archaeological or scientific evidence to support many of the stories in the Bible and the Quran.
3.
Anselms ontological argument tries to state that Gods a definite truth. And we can be sure of Gods existence through various sensory experiences. Anselm in his ontological argument fails to confirm that the sensory feelings of the one so great does not vary from person to person. Because if it were to be so, then Anselm argument would prove the existence of various Gods. And these would be self-defeating for the theory because Anselm defines the one so great as one that bears the greatest of qualities. Existence of such many beings under one universe is highly unlikely.
4.
Whilst Gaunilo states that life as we live it is greater than we can we can ever imagine it. Anselm on the hand urges us to imagine of a higher inconceivable being .The main strength of Gaunillos contemporary argument is showing that the concept of God is not illogical. Its main weakness is explaining that everyone, even a non-believer must always have a concept of God in the mind and because of this God ought to exist.
5.
The main difference between the kalam and the a temporal version is that whilst the kalam is time bound, in that in its conclusion it states that in the universe had a beginning, on the other hand St. Thomas a temporal version states that the world is eternal and it never had a beginning. One key similarity is that both versions of the cosmological acknowledge the existence of God.
6. The three teleological arguments share some similarities. The various design inferences have legitimate practical uses. These uses occur in instances where there is a strong probability of existence of intelligent designs capable of bringing the relevant changes. Those uses occur only in But since it is the very question of whether a higher being exists, design arguments are not able to stand by themselves as arguments for God’s existence.
7.
Stephen Jay Gould argued that, though natural laws limit the pathways that can be taken, the particular pathway, one of the many available that is actually taken depends on numerous contingent events. Thus the world could not have been just any way, but many worlds are possible, of which we live in is just one.
8. Adams argument for God existence
Since human laws are enacted by legislatures or individuals who have the authority to make and pass such laws. How then can we explain the existence of moral laws? It becomes obvious according to Adam that they must be routed on some higher moral authority. And the best candidate for this noble authority is definitely God.
1.
According to Peterson (6) a non-realist is one who denies the existence of the absolute truth. Religion is innate in human beings and mans need for worship is a result of a need to explain the universe. Religion makes individuals to behave better in society but spiritual things and events are not beyond ordinary grasp or understanding.
2.
A non-realist may criticize can criticize the realist by attacking the realist believe in a definite existence of God without allaying in proofs to substantiate the same.
2.
Alston argues that God plays a major role to what religious beings believe in. By observing different manifestations of people among laypersons and famous mystics, thus a person can be justified in holding certain beliefs about God on the basis of mystical experiences. By believing that God is the sustainer of life for, one can justifiably believe that God is indeed sustaining one in being. Whilst Wayne Proudfoot states that humans are able to appreciate religion through past religious experiences.
3.
I don’t think religious experience can be used to justify the existence of a higher being.AS this fails to provide any tangible evidence to justify or proof the existence of God. Religious experience can only be used to justify mans need to worship as an act of past experiences. A personals perpetual sensory experience of a car for example provides a solid justification of him believing he is seeing a car.
4.
As per western religions, the essence of religious experiences is typically for God himself. God is defined as a perfectly good spirit. God for his given reasons reveals himself to certain people. Some of them without seeking while others having taken a rigorous act to get closer to him. Eastern religions on the meanwhile in Eastern religions the object of religious experiences is a basic factor feature of some reality, rather than a separate entity from the universe.
5,
Richard Swinburne suggested five religious experiences. The first religious experience is the one mediated through any common sensory object. In these type of experience one claims to see God through objects or icons. A lot of journals are full of God mediated experiences through sense. For example Nehemiah 9:6.The second religious experience is through unusual, public, objects. For example one can claim to have seen the image Jesus. Many such experience uplifting. The third religious experiences is individual may experience private sensations. For example, a person might claim to experience God in a dream or vision, as did Jacob dream of one day leading the Israelite. The fourth is mediated through private sensations that cannot be explained in normal language. The last religious experience is not mediated by any sensations. The person claims to be intuitively and immediately aware of God or the One.
Citation
Woody Allen, (Selections from Woody Allen Notebooks) New Yorker (Nov 5 ,1973)