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...
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…
Atheist In "On Being an Atheist," H.J. McCloskey discusses what it means to him to be an atheist. In doing so, he criticizes the classical argument in favor of God's existence. This is not a new criticism, as people have been arguing about whether it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of God for years. However, McCloskey goes further in his argument against the existence of God by
162) This solution also helps us to assert a response to one that might employ the existence of evil as a rational indication that God does not exist. That is, we are not any of us in a position of such divine knowledge as to discern how or why certain apparent evils may fit into the scheme of an inherently good and intelligent design. As Evans advises, it is useful
Atheist- Review IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF Article Critique "On Being an Atheist" by H.McCloskey Belief in the spiritual or supernatural is almost always expressed by the individual within such a religious belief system. And there are huge numbers of people who feel that questions which deal with faith and religion should not be questioned, examined or challenged to determine their validity. The problem with this is that since such beliefs
This contradicts the reason provided by McCloskey theism that only makes the life of man more difficult. If not for God, as Craig states, there will be no man and, therefore, there could be no argument that man will help each other in providing solutions to their problems. God also contributes to the knowledge of man; consequently, without God there would be no innovation or invention by man, a
atheist. Objections and counter-arguments: McCloskey's "On Being an Atheist" In his essay "On Being an Atheist," the author H.J. McCloskey offers a multi-layered criticism of the belief in God and specifically Christian beliefs regarding God. McCloskey addresses several frequently-cited complementary yet distinct philosophical arguments advanced by Christian believers over the centuries. This paper will first discuss McCloskey's arguments and evidence and then cite potential objections. Arguing for God from proof (ontological) McCloskey first argues
McCloskey's refutation of the arguments of existence of God and illustration of how God (and metaphysics) can be perceived in different ways and that this precludes us from making any final judgments regarding His existence and manner of rulership. The Cosmological argument maintains that God's existence can be deduced from the fact that every act of creation needs an initiator. The world had a beginning -- after all it is