Site Loader

Reason Not Religion Essay, Research Paper

Observations and inferneces from existent life perceptual experiences: My full life

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

I have been a Catholic and have attended Church on a regular basis with my

household, ever believing in God and the narratives and narratives of the Bible

as pure fact that happened long ago, and of Jesus being the Jesus,

etc.

Merely this past month I attended a Presbyterian church service with my

elderly grandma in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The church was little to

Begin with, and merely about tierce of the seats were filled. I would

hold to state that at least 95 % of the people were all over 65, with really

few immature twosomes at all. My grandmother made a remark on the deficiency of

immature people who attend the multitudes now, and she kept mentioning to the

fact that late less and less immature twosomes and households of all time

attended church.

At first I thought that this church would so earnestly have to shut

its doors when the current bulk of the parishioners died, but so

I realized another facet of human behaviour and psychological science.

The characteristic that I see and hear so much about that many worlds

tend to possess and pattern, is the fact that they become & # 8220 ; closer to

& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; ” the older they get. Why is this? It is because of one of the

same large grounds that we even have to hold faith in the first topographic point:

fright about decease and what happens to us afterwards. These people seem

to be turning to the sort of thought that inspired the dichotic thought

of PASCAL^S WAGER. Even if these people were non really spiritual during

their younger old ages, we can now see a tendency of a big subdivision of our

country^s population get downing to go to church more and more and go

more & # 8220 ; spiritual & # 8221 ; as they grow older. What inspires this displacement? & # 8211 ; field

and simple, the fright of uncertainness.

& # 8220 ; QUESTIONING & # 8221 ; ONES BELIEFS MUST GO BEYOND JUST WONDERING

When I used to go to Church on a regular basis their was a priest who was an

highly good talker and highly

intelligent. Even though he was a Catholic priest, functioning as the curate

of an highly big church, he had the

bravery and encephalons to differ with some of the stiff tenet apparatus and

enforced by the Vatican. I remember one

discourse he gave that has greatly influenced me since, and I am really happy

I was fortunate plenty to hear it. In

this certain discourse he talked about his ideas on it being good for

adolescents and young person to oppugn the

being of a God in their universe. He talked at length about this

oppugning and finished up the address with the

summing up that even though we can oppugn, it all comes back to God.

I continued to believe in this manner for a really long clip. That there were

many inquiries refering the existent and

true being of God, nevertheless due to certain things like the design of

the universe, everything had to associate back to

an all-powerful Godhead. Just late I have started to recognize the job

with my old construct of & # 8220 ; oppugning & # 8221 ; ,

every bit good as this peculiar priest & # 8217 ; s. In the mode that he was mentioning

to this construct, he was really right in the fact

that & # 8220 ; everything has to come back to God & # 8221 ; . The ground that this is true

is due to the fact that merely inquiring is

precisely that: if all we do is state to ourselves, is & # 8220 ; Gee I wonder? & # 8221 ; , so

we of class will non be able to come up with

any alternate except to go on believing in the being of a

& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; .

Questioning one^ ? s religion must non merely embrace inquiring yourself

epistemic and metaphysical inquiries,

but we must research, larn, and above all addition cognition about the

grounds and the statements from both sides

of the argument. We must hold duologues with others who believe the same

as us, every bit good as those who portion a

wholly different, even blatantly contrary position. Merely by these agencies

can we of all time come out with a greater

apprehension of the issues environing the inquiries about the

being of a supreme being. If this process

is followed and we ever continue to larn and accept new, valid

information so we will finally happen our

ain sense of the truth, and our ain doctrine for our lives.

MY JOURNEY TO FIND THE TRUTH, AND SUBSEQUENT & # 8220 ; LEAP OF REASON & # 8221 ;

This past twelvemonth I truly started analyzing my ain beliefs and religion in

& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; . As I read Homer^ ? s Iliad, information

about Mithra ( Jesus^ ? immediate fabulous predecessor ) , and many other

beginnings that put inquiries in my head

about the cogency of my religion, I began to earnestly doubt whether & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ;

was something merely made up by worlds

since the beginning of clip to explicate their universe, or was truly the

truth.

I am certainly now in my head that the images and symbols used to stand for

& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; and ab initio & # 8220 ; Gods & # 8221 ; , were

contrived merely to explicate phenomena of the planet, enigmas of life,

and to fulfill that highly strong demand of

human existences to experience of import. This past point I feel is the most

pivotal in understanding the human race^ ? s

bulk position of the being of a supernatural power. There are so

many people today that of class we can^ ? t all

hold occupations that most would see & # 8220 ; of import & # 8221 ; and assist take the holder

of that occupation to

& # 8220 ; SELF-ACTUALIZATION & # 8221 ; , so a & # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; makes up for that. It is written and

spoken by Christians and the Bible

that all human existences are equal and that they are all loved the same by

& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , therefore everyone is highly

of import because the & # 8220 ; shaper of us all & # 8221 ; values them on par with everyone

else. A well-thought-of man of affairs who

has worked for his luck is the same as a neurotic drug nut beggary

for money ; frequently times the former is seen

even as more immorality.

THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD

In my pursuit to happen the truth about the being of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , which will

ever be traveling on and ne’er stop, I have

besides made it a point to analyze those statements which are many

philosophers^ ? and theists^ ? base for their belief in an

all-powerful Godhead. I will get down by explicating the idea that goes into

each statement, and how the people whom

are advocates of these such statements validate their claims. I will

so hence proceed to indicate out the

errors that I believe each of them makes, some more than others. These

three chief statements are as follows:

Teleological Argument for the Existence of God

The teleological statement for the being of God is one that uses the

existent existents we know in world, in this

instance the full planet and existence, and uses these in a slightly good

developed theory for the being of a

& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; .

The simplest manner to specify this statement is to utilize the simple analogy of

a clock shaper to a clock ; or intelligent

interior decorator to an intelligent design. This is the witting footing for a

theory that states that due to the fact that we

unrecorded and exist in a entirely proficient and advanced-level universe where

things such as the being of life and

worlds are really & # 8220 ; intelligent & # 8221 ; , so there must be an intelligent Godhead

that first shaped us all and everything

around us. This theory has been changed and developed even more over the

old ages into modern versions.

The chief thoughts that I find inherently incorrect with this statement semen from

the fact that first: theists believe that

God merely exists and ever has, nevertheless he excessively would be an intelligent

being, and harmonizing to the teleological

statement itself, would & # 8220 ; He & # 8221 ; so non ask an intelligent

interior decorator? And so on and so forth^ ? Therefore

theists who believe in the & # 8220 ; being exists & # 8221 ; thought in footings of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; ,

and besides tend to back the teleological

statement, are beliing themselves because of a struggle in which

the premises of their two analogues beliefs are

at odds. Those doing this contradiction must look into their premises.

Another more abstract theory T

hat can move to slightly confute the

cogency of this statement is that of the

& # 8220 ; OSCIALLATING UNIVERSE THEORY & # 8221 ; . This theory in a nutshell states that

the existence is invariably either

spread outing or distilling, every bit long as affair is present in the existence. A

corollary of this theory besides says that

there is significant grounds that the existence has expanded to its

bound and so shrivel down once more into one

point of infinite denseness, temperature, and curvature, merely to detonate

once more ( the large knock ) , a sum of 100 times!

With the potency of an wholly new existence being created each clip

this has happened, with the potency of

wholly different Torahs of natural philosophies and the behaviour of affair, so

there is decidedly the increased possibility of

our planet merely bing and being able to back up life by a opportunity

creative activity of the existence we live in, created by

the current enlargement and creative activity that has been go oning for an

estimated 10 billion old ages. The fact is, with that

many universes being created over clip, there is a certain opportunity that out of

all those planets created, at least one, ours,

could back up life.

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

The Ontological statement for the being of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; is more complex,

and more absolutely baseless so the one,

old statement that we have examined. This argument footing its full

& # 8220 ; proof & # 8221 ; on drifting abstractions made

about the encephalon of adult male, his witting, and the things it is unable to

make. This statement is normally referred to St.

Anselm, its primary Godhead. The statement goes like this: We all have

slightly of an image or thought of what & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ;

is in our heads, even atheists who don^ ? t believe in any & # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; still have

slightly of a construct of what a

& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; , if one existed, would hold to be like and capable of. Our

construct of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; is reasonably limited because to

conceive of a being so great and powerful is difficult for us to make in the

foremost topographic point. Anselm holds that because we can

hence conceive nil greater than & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , one must be.

Let^ ? s expression at that in simplistic signifier: due to the fact that I can

neither think nor conceive of anything greater than

this entity, the peculiar entity which I can non travel beyond hence

must be. How absurd of an statement is

this? Its lone foundation lies on some unconnected thought of a

philosopher, indiscriminately applied to world. The chief

job that I have with this statement is that it takes a regulation and jurisprudence

of world and ground, and applies to

something that we merely can hold no decision of all time made on while

populating on Earth. If I say that there is nil

worse and more chilling that I can gestate of beyond decease, so hence

decease must be, I am right because decease

does be. In this instance the ontological statement for the being of

decease plants. How do I cognize it

plants? & # 8211 ; because I can see and comprehend decease in world and I can cognize

it get downing with my sense perceptual experiences.

The being of, and my cognition of decease, is hierarchal. However

the construct of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; can^ ? T non be traced

back to basic sense perceptual experiences ( where all constructs must be originally

derived from ) , and is hence unable to be

grounded in world and truth. In order to derive higher cognition of

something every bit complex as a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , we fist must

perceive basic facts of world. There are no basic facts of world to

perceive when it comes to the construct of

& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; .

Think of any concrete that about all work forces believe in and their can be no

existent rational argument about without one

of the parties being wholly irrational in even challenging the fact^ ? that

concrete construct can be traced back to the

traced down on through the line straight to man^ ? s ability to comprehend.

& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; ^ ? this construct can non be broken

down into anything close to world and perceptual experience. It is because of

this fact that even if you do believe in & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; ,

in order to retain any sense of being able to believe, you must stay

agnostic. If we refuse to acknowledge the fact that

the being of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; is impossible to comprehend, so human cognition

will die into an abysm of unconnected

and unsupported beliefs in irrational and ungrounded religions, which we

will gull ourselves into believing is world.

The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

The Cosmological statement flexible joints on a belongings which is a corollary of

the maxim of being. This jurisprudence is the jurisprudence

of causality^ ? which states that all things that occur do so because they

are caused. The advocates of this

statement so take this jurisprudence, which we apply to every twenty-four hours world on

Earth, to the beginning of the existence. They

state that the existence merely couldn^ ? Ts have existed for all clip, but that

it would hold to hold been created merely like

everything else. They so take these beliefs even farther when they

assert that the procedure of creative activity and

being can non be infinite in either traveling frontward, or looking

backward.

For case, these people believe that & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; created the

universe^ ? therefore the existence has a cause. However

they do get down to acquire into contradictory Waterss every bit shortly as they are

confronted with the fact that they believe of

their God^ ? s existence^ ? was God created excessively? No^ ? they say that at that place has to

be some beginning that merely was and

ever will be^ ? there can be no eternity in either traveling frontward, and no

infinite patterned advance backwards through

ages of cause after cause. This first contradiction is apparent and obvious

to the educated translator of the statement,

the others are more profoundly involved with other jobs.

If these people believe in the phrase & # 8220 ; being exists & # 8221 ; when it comes

to their God, so why can^ ? t this merely be

applied to something such as the existence? Why do we necessitate a notional

& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; to explicate the beginning of the

existence when the cosmogonic statement already asserts that things can

non merely come on or regress

boundlessly? The ground is due to the constructs we discussed earlier of

the demand of human & # 8220 ; self-actualization & # 8221 ; and

the reassurance of an hereafter where we can eventually to the full bask our

humanity and being.

This statement is right in one regard: the really entity that ab initio

created the universe itself was non caused or

created. In this rightness nevertheless they fail by neglecting to correctly

place that thing which did make the

universe^ ? it was non & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , but something which contained the full

existence and still is a portion of that existence.

( FOR A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT I AM Mentioning TO HERE, READ THIS. )

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

My concluding decisions so far in my quest to understand the footing for

beliefs and cogent evidence for the being and

non-existence of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; are short, little, and wholly unfinished. They

are my concluding decisions for this paper,

at this point in my life. One^ ? s true concluding decisions on these affairs

will merely be able to do some twenty-four hours if there is

some topographic point, possibly non needfully a Eden, where we will hold clip to

think and reflect on what we have

learned during our lives, and possibly even after them.

For now I know that no affair what paths we follow as human existences on

journey to cognitive apprehension

about & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , we must ever stay agnostic for the complete continuance of

our mortal lives, chiefly because of

the deficiency of a hierarchy of cognition which we can see and subtract for the

construct of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; . Finally, we must all

learn every bit much as we possibly can and can willingly actuate ourselves

to in order to understand this argument

and struggle in human belief.

Question everything^ ? learn from the replies.

______________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free Email at hypertext transfer protocol: //www.hotmail.com

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Jimmy!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out