John Hick's Article Science/Religion

In his article Science/Religion, John Hick goes into detail to describe his viewpoints and claims against scientific naturalism. Scientific naturalism is the belief that there is only a physical existence, that there is no such reality beyond our physical realm, there is no such thing as the meta-physical, trans-physical, supra-physical or suprasensory reality that religions lead us to believe in. Hick goes on to argue that this is in no such way a scientific belief held by all scientists, and is more so a philosophical view held by a select few, similar to those who have a religious belief system. Hick clearly states his opinion, and is very concise and convincing. He provides very clear loopholes in the structure of the argument for scientific naturalism. I agree with the points that he makes, that not everything can be proven by science and that some things like for example the human mind cannot be simply explained in a scientific manner, because whatever happens to us happens when we are unconscious when there is no electro-chemical activity in the brain, and there is neutral activity in our skull. In other words we can put this as saying there is no pain in the brain, and what we see, hear and feel do not exist in our brain, but they do exist when we are in consciousness mode which we do not knowing what is really going on.

Scientific naturalism attempts to invalidate religion in a way of claiming that all reality is purely material, but that is not necessarily true because they found a place in the brain that they believe to cause religious experiences in the brain, we can try to stimulate that area and create religious experiences typically people feeling a presence, example would be when patient saw Christ in the strobe...

... middle of paper ...

... or don’t write this essay, but whoever wants to get a good grade will always do the thing that will benefit himself we have to cooperate in order to get where we want to get. It proves it that we are not free and determined.

My whole opinion on the article of Science/Religion is that I agree with everything that John Hick states and tells us that we are being controlled and we are totally determined. Comparison to Holbach and James’s view I do agree with Holbach, but disagree with James, because we as humans are not free will and we cannot do what ever we want to do. We are complicated machine, in which subject to the physical laws of nature, such being unconscious seeing physical things that aren’t necessarily are true. My whole opinion is that as humans we are determined and are not free, internal laws, which cannot be explained by science, are controlling us.