Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of religion in the development of society
Effect of religion in society
The role of religion in the development of society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of religion in the development of society
C.S. Lewis once said that “Atheists express their rage against God although in their view he does not exist.” What do you think this means? Is it an argument from the side of religion stating how atheists are angry at God but believe in him deep down, or is it from the side of atheism telling how they have problems with the practices that those who believe in God follow?
According to Merriam-Webster atheism is defined as “A philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods” Micah Issitt, author of Point: Atheism is a Philosophy of Social Development, shows that as many as 20 percent of people surveyed in the world identify themselves as “nonreligious”and describe themselves as agnostic (a belief
…show more content…
Some haven’t had any religion in their household growing up. Others believe that science explains everything they need to know about life and that they don’t feel like they need to believe in a creator. Some have grown up with a religion and lost faith, or have negative feeling about the impact of religions on society.
Lynn-nore Chittom, author of Counterpoint: Atheism is a Pointless Faith, tells how atheists suggest that they do not believe in a god because they have no evidence to prove their existence, and that it's the responsibility of religion to prove that a god exists. Religious believers say that the proof of God’s existence is in all of the things that aren't addressed by science. They believe that God has a plan that is beyond the capability of human understanding.
Atheism believes that religion holds back society from its true potential. Issitt tells how religious devotion can have a detrimental effect on intellectual development. Many religions reject the theory of Darwinian evolution because it conflicts with the stories of creation that their religions are largely based on. In contrast, those who don’t affiliate themselves with a religion are able to consider any question on it's merits without going through the process of justifying the question with their ancient traditions and
The analogy breaks down messages that are revealed in the Bible in order for the average person to understand what it being said, similar to how Jesus used parables to explain his teachings to mass audiences. The people listening to Jesus’ sermons weren’t very educated and had little prior knowledge about who Jesus was. He had to make his sermons relatable to the audience, just as C.S. Lewis does with his readers. Within the novel, Lewis also only covers what he considered the “basic teaching of orthodox Christianity.” Many theologists either focused on details that were unimportant to a new believer, or they wrote in ways that were difficult for the average person to understand. Lewis did not see himself as educated enough to provide a detailed theological and historical explanation of the doctrines that he discusses, but because of the lack of simplicity in religious works of literature, he strove to educate people on the basic outline of Christian beliefs (Mueller). Lewis explained his purpose for writing Mere Christianity in an interesting way,
C.S. Lewis begins his book, “Mere Christianity”, by introducing the Law of Right and Wrong or the Laws of Nature. This, however, arises a question. What is the Law of Nature? The Law of Nature is the known difference between right and wrong. That is, mans distinction between what is right and what is wrong. “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it and did not need to be taught it”(18). Lewis relates the law to how we treat others. We treat others the way we want to be treated and if they treat us poorly in return we become agitated and annoyed with them. He states that we become a society of excuses when something goes wrong. He goes on to say that we want to behave in a certain way when in reality we do the opposite of what is right or what is wrong. We are humans and humans have primal instincts. We are all capable of using our instincts to do right or wrong. Lewis uses an example of a drowning man to prove this point. When one sees a man in trouble two desires or instincts kick into play, to save the man or ignore him because the situation at hand could endanger you. However, there in another impulse that says help the man. With this comes a conflict of instincts. Do you run and forget about it or do you jump in and help. Most people will help even if the situation is going to endanger their life. This is just one way of seeing moral law. The right in a situation will mostly always prevail over the wrong. “Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are selfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but they ought to be”(30). We are creatures of habit and logic. Lewis believes that the moral law is not taught to us rather known by us instinctively. He also believes that the law is real. The law is our behaviors in life via good or bad. Lewis states, “there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior”(30). This opens Lewis to believe that the natural law is both alive and active in mans life today. Lewis goes on to say that the law must be something above mans behavior. He begins to relate this to the creation of the world.
I believe that in Lewis’s view people reject God because of the choices that they make, for some it is by their actions, others it is self-fulfillment, but for all it is their choice of how they interact with God. People reject God when they choose to remain separate from God instead of fully embracing a life with God. Lewis introduces us to many ghosts who make decisions resisting heaven and returning to hell. They get stuck in their decisions because they are lost, for one reason or another; they are unable to completely and fully accept God in their lives. They believe it is easier, “better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” (71 ) Lewis explains “There is always something they prefer to joy” (71). We are introduced
These days, most of the textbook only presents evolution theory as a fact to interpret the origin of life and the earth. More and more people get to reject creation unconsciously because they had no opportunity to compare and evaluate both worldview in same degree. I interviewed my three close acquaintances and heard a various responses from many people including my interviewees. Some of them had same belief with me, but some people had significantly different opinion with me. As a consequence of evolution theory’s monopoly in education, non-believers and Christians are unconsciously influenced by this secular worldview.
H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview.
Penn Jillette is a very well-known atheist and a research fellow at Cato Institute and has lectured at Oxford and MIT. He also authored an article entitled, “There is no God.” In this article, Jillette declares himself to be “beyond atheism.” He argues that everyone needs to take a step back and start with no belief in God. Then, we can all start to look for evidence of God. Even Jillette believes that whatever conclusion we end up with, it has to be “some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by.” Jillette's conclusion is simply “This I believe: I believe there is no God.” The rest of the article he goes on to explain that this decision has informed every moment of his life. He concludes his article by stating that believing there is no God gives him more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, and beauty.
Have you ever wanted to free yourself from the terrors and troublesome times of modern society and escape to a magical place? Clive Staples Lewis, or C.S. Lewis as he is better known, created such a place, in his extremely popular children’s series The Chronicles of Narnia. In these books, Lewis has an underlying message about Christianity. He represents four key aspects of Christianity in this series: Christ and God, evil in the world, and faith.
“Science proves religious people are stupid and atheists are smart.” This is a somewhat provocative title pulled from an article on a small blog called “The Moral Minefield,” run by a group of Graduate Theological Union students and graduates (Green). This statement is exactly the kind of thing, however, that one would expect Richard Dawkins to wholeheartedly agree with. In fact, he seems to imply this sentiment throughout the entirety of his speech titled, “Militant Atheism.”
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 self-sufficient; therefore God is not needed for survival. Therefore how could he exist? The position that I will argue in this paper is the pessimistic idea of protest atheism.
Since the time that teaching evolution in public schools was banned as heresy and taboo for contradicting the Bible, most public school systems today take an opposite approach in which creationism is seldom ta...
Atheist! Is the first pejorative directed at someone with a differing faith or ideology by zealots of any religion. (Shermer 40). Even in our modern, educated and by all accounts progressive society, it still happens and if history is correct it will continue long after we have all died and discovered the truth of the greatest mystery for ourselves. One of the greatest popularizers of science, Carl Sagan, is a victim of this indignity. So much so, Some religious scholars label him as an “enemy of the faith.” (Bohlin para 32). In reality, he was a very spiritual person with a deep feeling of connection to universe. His major heresy was his view of God was not of a sapient old man sitting on a throne wearing robes monitoring every thought
The topic of atheism has become an increasingly investigated topic in the United States. With the slow, but steady, rise of the atheist population in the United States, the inquiry is becoming more relevant in modern research. The atheist population in America are considered to be cognitively deviant because they reject a theist view which are the majority. They are also one of the most discriminated groups and hold a very large and pervasive stigma.. There are a multitude of recent studies that address the topic of atheism in the United States in varying ways.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...