The terms religion and spirituality have held separate definitions only since the early to mid-nineteenth century, so advancements in hypotheses, theories and solid scientific answers or laws have been developing at quite an unprecedented rate. Within these ten years alone, scientists have been more closely following recurrent answers within outer space, within the universe, way out from our reaches of the galaxy in which we live.
On the Cosmological argument, H.J. McCloskey claims that the "mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being (i.e. A necessarily existing being)." This statement came from his article entitled "On Being an Atheist" (1968). Strongly claiming the title of an atheist, as opposed to agnostic or rationalist, typecasts McCloskey as a disbeliever as opposed to a doubtful unbeliever; faultily narrow-minded as opposed to completely objective; one who believes it impossible to know whether a God or gods exist as opposed to one on a quest to disallow this belief in the minds of others; a nullifidian as opposed to being hesitantly noncommittal or irresolute; a cynic as opposed to an uncertain nonbeliever; or an irrationalist as opposed to a rationalist. Sadly, this factor to many reader curtails his ultimate logic. Thus, McCloskey seems to have set the stage for his demise; or as Socrates' would reason, as noted in both the Apology and the Crito, as a good man he is constrained to accept the outcome of his trial which leads to his execution.
Regardless, upon analyzing his undoubtedly reliable claims, what comes to mind with this quote are these rhetorical questions: What proofs are available if choosing to believe in God? Does evolution answer our need for the evidence of design? For what reason has this "uncaused cause" come about? Moral evil: is freewill necessary? Can freewill be absolute? What can be considered risky if not faith? Rather, can anything be considered more risky than absolute faith? If not, then will evolution answer our need for the evidence of design? Does evil come from anything more than a black-or-white perception? And so on.
Humanity has been evolving at an unprecedented rate. At an incredibly growing rate, within merely the past couple centuries due to technological developments, medical advancements, and much else, distinguished scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have become able to amicably and constructively refine theories collectively rather than destructively quarrel and eventually disagree simply for the sake of upholding an opposing standpoint.
Accordingly, distinguished scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions accept that arguments and assertions concerning the paranormal are intrinsically beyond the reach of scientific research or examination. In lie of that, many constructively contend that science ultimately fails and will fail to test any supernatural worldly outlook. For example, science can only assume and then, based purely on these presumptive grounds, accept these premises based on nothing more than that based in human ecology. In other words, as with any considerably encountered sophisticated maturity, these distinguished scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions advocate that humanity is limited by what we have left to learn and gain by learning rather than uncritically forging ahead with the belief that every naturalistic or sociological belief as we understand it is all there is to know.
Despite that scientific evidence may eventually embrace a clearly representational conception of the world, science in itself fails to embrace and accept any philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, in this case especially the supernatural or spiritual, as a determining factor in anything theoretically conclusive. Moreover, supernatural claims purely comply with scientific evaluation. Evans discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument (pp 52-58)
Explain why the cause of the universe must be necessary (and therefore uncaused)
Next, to provide a comparison with McCloskey's representational points, Neitszche contrasts completely in approach, though his points hold rather eminent similarities. Science vs. Christianity, in this view, demonstrates a comprehensive difference between the segmented decision between these statements:
"I do not believe in God."
"God is dead."
"I am an atheist."
And "I am not a Christian," or "I will not regard these overbearing Christian beliefs as my own."
On the Teleological argument, McCloskey claims that to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.
Discuss the standards of indisputability which he calls a very conclusive objection.
Is it reasonable?
For another example, consider the confusion between moral and immoral inherent in Christianity: For any belief which is instinctual, it is sinful and wrong; for any curiosity or human interest, the Christian is defiant and unfaithful; when any temptation is sexual in nature, it is sinful -- Christianity disparages human sexuality right alongside desire or seduction; instinctual uncertainty and cynicism equates to an evil and immoral act. What's more, the hypocrisy between the "forgive and forget" sense instilled within the abhorrence of a Christian's sense of self, as also witnessed in the eye for and eye standard matched alongside the overwhelmingly sermonized concepts of compassion and pity, even the ideally cast "theoretical" Christian can never escape a state of exile throughout any empirical experience.
Thus, Christians are set up to feel shame for instinctual urges and sexual motivations; this concept concerning faith discourages Christians' sense of curiosity and natural skepticism; and the concept of pity encourages Christians to value and cherish weakness. All these faults, yet still to this day Christianity reigns supreme in an overwhelmingly larger part of the world. This would seem to take away from the has become a work of art part of the equation, but just the opposite. This again goes back to the human need to socialize, that humans are social mammals.
Mahner, M. & Bunge, M., Is religious education compatible with science education? Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Science and Education, printed in the Netherlands; 1996). 189-199.
Mahner, M. & Bunge, M., the incompatibility of science and religion sustained: A reply to our critics. Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Science and Education, printed in the Netherlands; 1996) 101-123.
Nietzsche, Friedrich, the Birth of Tragedy. Trans. Douglas Smith. Oxford University Press, 2008: pgs. xxxii, 28, 109, 140.
"Theatre of Dionysus." Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Web. 08 May. 2010
Brockett, Oscar G. And Franklin J. Hildy. 2003. History of the Theatre. Ninth edition, International…