Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religious influence on society
Religion and its impacts
Religion and its impacts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
William Rowe has provided some good arguments and examples for his arguments. However, I find one example in particular to be unfitting in consideration to his argument. On page 22 of the textbook, Rowe provides an example that he thinks helps validate the view of a “friendly atheist”. He proposes that when you are lost at sea after a plane crash, your friend has a rationally justified belief that you have perished while you have a rationally justified disbelief in that statement. This example does not fit because you already know for sure that you are right in your disbelief, while you know that your friend lacks the required evidence to have a more accurate belief. In the example, you are the one who are stuck in the ocean with a life
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
“The sea's only gifts are harsh blows, and occasionally the chance to feel strong. Now I don't know much about the sea, but I do know that that's the way it is here. And I also know how important it is in life not necessarily to be strong but to feel strong. To measure yourself at least once. To find yourself at least once in the most ancient of human conditions. Facing the blind deaf stone alone, with nothing to help you but your hands and your own head.” – Christopher McCandless, Into the Wild
Then he goes on to conclude by saying that, “The lessons learned from observing people and their beliefs support the position that I have defended: rational people may rationally believe in God without evidence or argument” (Feinberg 142). In schools today, students grow up listening to lectures that are subjective and then later are tested on what the teacher thinks and believes. Whether or not the taught perspective is factual or not, it teaches students from a young age to just take what the teachers, adults, and any authority says as truth, as a way to respecting authority. In the same way that it is reasonable to believe respectable authority, it is rational to have belief in God without specific evidence because we are created with the inclination that a higher being exists and God has shown Himself to be true to every generation. Furthermore, God has placed in every human the inkling to believe what is right or wrong, so when it comes to deciding whether to act a certain way, we can rely on our gut feeling if it is a good action or not. It is a very common and suggested thing to trust one's gut feeling when making a decision, even though it does not require any evidence to see if it is actually the right decision to
The following is an adjusted version of an argument I presented in Critical Thinking last semester. My opinion has not changed, just expanded.. :)
Flew was to remain in the affirmative, thus making his case for his argument “I know that God does NOT exist”, he failed to do so. Dr. Flew continuously made arguments to attack Christianity and beliefs held there-in instead of offering the evidence he should have as to why he “knew” God does not exist. Dr. Warren pointed this out several times, and even gave Dr. Flew several points with which to use in the affirmative, but Dr. Flew simply refused to do so. In fact, at one point, Dr. Flew made a point concerning the “theist” that Dr. Warren even concurred with. The following is the conversation which occurred concerning this point: “Dr. Flew spent a great deal of his time about religious experience. Did you hear me say anything about “religious experience”? Did I make any argument thus and so that “someone has had a religious experience and therefore God exists?” I said nothing at all about that. Dr. Flew, I fight that as well as you do. There are people all over this country who claim “Oh a miracle occurred, a miracle occurred here and there.” “Well, let’s see one.” “No, it happened over yonder. Somebody else knows how and where it
I found the problem with the argument of the article was there was no set argument that was clearly stated. If there was an argument in the article it was not clearly stated and I personally did not catch onto it. Altogether this was a well written article without a clear argument.
C. Stephen Evans is stating there is a problem with the philosophy of religion having a neutral stance. Evans rejects both fideism as well as neutralism, and believes that by trying to have a, “neutral, disinterested posture,” a person could, “cut themselves off from the possibility of even understanding what religion is all about,” (Evans, 1985 p. 115). Evans notes that the view of faith and reason, by some religious believers think it is an impossibility to have “rational reflection” on religion. After his arguments that disprove many ideas in both fideism and neutralism, he proposes an alternative solution which he has named, “critical dialog”, that he hopes will, “preserve the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of the initial theories,” (p. 115). “Correct thinking about religion is rather a genuine faith, a personal commitment,” (p. 116).
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
Charles, T. (n.d.). A Response to HJ McCloskey’s “On Being An Atheist”. Retrieved from Carry your cross: http://charlestinsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/a-response-to-hj-mccloskeys-on-being-an-atheist/
...hal. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Called to Love: Christian Witness Can Be the Best Response to Atheist Polemics." America 198 (2008): 23. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.
In fact, the daily life of human beings is at the mercy of the uncontrollable waves of the sea; while, at the same time, the essential part of reality remains unknown to feeble, helpless humans. The human voyage into life is feeble, vulnerable, and uncontrollable. Since the crew on a dangerous sea without hope are depicted as "the babes of the sea", it can be inferred that we are likely to be ignorant strangers in the universe. In addition to the dangers we face, we also have to overcome the new challenges of the waves in the daily life. These waves are "most wrongfully and barbarously abrupt and tall", requiring "a new leap, and a leap."
2. Gervais, W. M., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is
In analyzing Rowe’s argument, I found that he too had strengths and weaknesses in the logic of his argument. His weakness I found in his second premise that says that “an omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or
preceding sorts of arguments do not succeed, I consider a novel attempt by Keith Lehrer
Atheism is certainly one of the adversaries of theism. However, atheism provides an important role to theism by acting as a “devil’s advocate” which, in turn, ultimately strengthens theism. In the journal article “On Being an Atheist” written by H.J. McCloskey, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God. McCloskey progresses through, in his opinion, the weakest arguments for theism, such as the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the problem of evil. In the end, McCloskey asserts that atheism is more comforting than theism. Through the course of the article, McCloskey brings up constructive points of theism, however at the same time shows his misunderstanding of theism. Therefore, McCloskey acts as a “devil’s advocate” of theism, ultimately helping to strengthen the arguments for theism.