The paper, Two Cheers for Mystery by William Alston provides an interesting read on a potentially alternate theistic view. Alston’s intentions for writing this piece was to introduce the Devine Mystery Theory and provide detailed reasons on why it should be accepted as valid. Alston provides four supporting arguments and additional evidence to back his point. After reading the piece, I think that he provides a substantial amount of evidence for Devine Mystery Theory to at least be considered to be an alternative theistic view. Divine Mystery Theory is the most significant focus of the paper. It is defined as the idea that God is a supreme mystery to us. Meaning there is nothing we can fathom about God that is absolutely true or false. He …show more content…
While this one poses a threat to theism, it strengthens the support for Divine Mystery Theory to be considered as a possibility. The third support involves the many puzzles and paradoxes that have been uncovered and serve as threats to theism. Some of these include Jesus Christ, the stone paradox, and the problem of personal and natural evil. The last argument of support breaks down the two types of theistic evidence; descriptive and experiential. Descriptive is identified by the attributes that God is made to have by theist standards. Those would include His omnipotence, goodness, formerly mentioned omniscience, and the uncaused first cause of the universe. This approach leaves room for interpretation of God’s nature while the other doesn’t. Experiential is based off of accounts of the person or people who have had personal experiences. These people usually are commonly heard of in Christian studies like Moses and other known prophets. Alston takes three experiential accounts to further back Divine Mystery Theory. The first account spawns from an influential theologian, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, which gives a vague identification of the things God isn’t, including quite a few contradictions. The next two were fellow Trappist monks, Thomas Keating and Thomas Merton. They both concluded that even experiences do not provide …show more content…
The paper was structured effectively. I think his arguments in favor for Divine Mystery Theory got stronger as the paper went on. Although, there were some criticisms I could make to his first four supporting arguments. For the first argument that claims that human cognition is too feeble to understand that of an omniscient being. One possible objection to that could be Paley’s argument, which compares the universe to human artifacts. The conclusion states that since the universe parallels to human made objects, such as machines, there must be a resemblance of human intelligence to divine intelligence. If there is any truth to Paley’s argument, then there are similarities that connects human intelligence with divine intelligence. Therefore, it is possible for humans to come to understand some aspects of God because human cognition was at least modeled after God’s intelligence. Paley’s reasoning can also be used to contradict the statement of God being simple. The universe is considered a complex creation, so it would make sense to consider the creator of the universe complex also. Alston’s third supporting argument on paradoxes and puzzles have been repeatedly addressed and serve as strong opposing arguments. The issue on God’s omnipotence has been debated a few times in the form of the stone paradox. The question that asks if God can create a stone so large that He Himself cannot lift it. A
It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence. He dismisses the idea of a creator by theory of evolution. Although he may have a valid argument for evolution he still does not account for the start of the world. Everything must come from something. The cause cannot be unlimited, there was a cause that had to be free of all other causes, and this points us to creation.
The respective areas of science and religion always seem to be overlapping, or stepping on the other area’s toes. In his book, Stephen Jay Gould addresses the topic of Non-Overlapping Magesteria, or NOMA. Gould examines the principles of NOMA as a solution to the supposed false conflict between religion and science. (Pg. 6) He starts off his argument on NOMA by telling a story of “Two Thomas’s.” The first Thomas is from the bible, of which he makes three appearances in the Gospel of John. The second Thomas, is a Reverend Thomas Burnet. Thomas the Apostle defends the magesteria of science in the wrong magesteria of faith, while the Reverend Thomas proclaims religious ideas within the magesteria of science.
... uses the lack of proof of Gods existence for God’s existence. This then essentially leads to a battle between science and religion on the idea of whether or not God can be proven to exist and whether that proof is essential to determine if science or religion has the right answer.
In the article “On Being an Atheist”, McCloskey talks about why there does not need to be a cause to the universe and how it began. But, according to the book “Philosophy of Religion”, by Evans and Manis, both authors suggest the idea of ...
Throughout the years many people have put their feelings about the United States Justice system into poems or songs. We have heard various artist refer to the system as being very corrupt and about public officials abusing their power. In 2002, Lauryn Hill released the MTV Unplugged 2.0 album. On this album, there were twenty-one songs. One of the songs was called “The Mystery of Iniquity”. This song featured many verses that reflect the corruption in the American legal system. This song also reveals many significant facts about America’s justice system. Finally, in this song she instructs people to wake up and realize that everything the government tells us is not the truth. Lauryn Hill has never been shy when expressing her beliefs in her songs. Lauryn Hill was first with the Fugees when America first heard her unique voice. As a singer and rapper, she has always been very
Many readers follow Descartes with fascination and pleasure as he descends into the pit of skepticism in the first two Meditations, defeats the skeptics by finding the a version of the cogito, his nature, and that of bodies, only to find them selves baffled and repulsed when they come to his proof for the existence of God in Meditation III. In large measure this change of attitude results from a number of factors. One is that the proof is complicated in ways which the earlier discourse is not. Second is that the complications include the use of scholastic machinery for which the reader is generally quite unprepared -- including such doctrines as a Cartesian version of the Great Chain of Being, the Heirloom theory of causaltiy, and confusi ng terms such as "eminent," "objective" and "formal reality" used in technical ways which require explanation. Third, we live in an age which is largely skeptical of the whole enterprise of giving proofs for the existence of God. A puzzled student once remaked, "If it were possible to prove that God exists, what would one need faith for?" So, even those inclined to grant the truth of the conclusion of Descartes' proof are often skeptical about the process of reaching it.
St. Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. However, this paper focuses on the fifth argument. The fifth argument is regarded as the Teleological Argument and states that things that lack intelligence act for some end or purpose. While the fifth argument satisfies God’s existence for Aquinas, some contemporary readers would argue that Aquinas neglects the laws of physics. Others argue that Aquinas allows a loophole in his argument so that the Catholic conception of God is not the only intelligent designer.
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made. In this three-sided debate, Hume’s depiction of an empiricist is clearly the winner.
In the fifth discourse, the Son of God is described to further reflect himself about his unique and intimate eternal activity. First the author describes the production of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is said to be the bond between the divine persons. And the Son of God wanted his own person to be the producer. This would be the bond between the human and the divine being. The author describes the Holy Spirit as being a person that proceeds from the Holy Trinity. It is the bond that creates a sense of unity among the divine Persons and that they are perfectly united in the “unity of the Holy Spirit” yet they still are able to maintain their distinct natures (pg 134). The author also mentions two mysteries. The first mystery is described as having a divine person whom we adore, uniting two persons. And the second mystery is described as having a divine person whom we adore by uniting the two natures, one which is divine and the other being human. “He contemplates, adores and imitates the unity of the Holy Spirit, who is the third Person in the order of the Holy Trinity and who, by his nature, is the eternal bond between the two Persons from whom he proceeds.” (pg 135). All together the Son of God is our personal love and sacred unity. He is uniquely expressed and distinctly represented by “the states and qualities of this divine mystery, which is in a perfect relationship with what is ineffable in eternity, as well as being a living portrait of God” (135).
One’s worldview is usually dependant on how the particular individual interprets life and its occurrences. Additionally, if one believes something to be so, it will be so to them. It’s all a matter of perception. However, which perspective is truly accurate: Agnosticism, Theism, or Deism? These three worldviews have been the subject of countless debates throughout history and that have yet to be concluded. The purpose of this philosophical essay is to suggest that theism is likely to be considered the correct worldview.
Timpe, Kevin. “Introduction to Neo-classical Theism.” Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Ed. Jeanine Diller and Asa Kasher. New York: Springer, 2013. 197-206. Print.
For instance, his view is strong in the way that utilizes empiricism to provide a skeptical insight on causality. It is refreshing to see an alternative perspective such as empiricism after reading Descartes and Leibniz. Yet, his use of empiricism may be his downfall as well, since even he states “simple ideas are not always…derived from the correspondent impressions.” Also, his argument that thought is bounded senses and experiences do not take into account metaphysical concepts like malleability.
In the following pages I will discuss this metaphor, as well as Rudolf Otto and his theories on the creation of religion, Peter L. Berger’s theory of “the sacred canopy,” and finally the intermingling of these two theories in the evolution of religion.
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
of Gods existence. The factors that go into their views on reason will be compared and accented within this essay. The order of the universe is knowable to Descartes. He proves these by