Explain why atheism has become a real alternative to religion today (30 marks)
Atheism describes the position of being without a belief in God or gods. There are five major reasons as to why atheism has become a real alternative to religion today. They are developments in science, the problem of evil, empiricism, awareness of other faiths, and the rebellion against moral absolutes. The Renaissance between the 14th and 16th centuries sparked a changing attitude to religion, new discoveries were being made that contradicted what was before believed to be true.
In the words of Ray Billington, science has been “the supreme catalyst” for the rise of atheism. In the past, both science and religion were closely linked and in agreement, however the
…show more content…
Many atheists deny the existence of God based on the evil, pain, and suffering they observe in the world. Atheists claim that mere presence of evil in the world is a powerful argument against the existence of God. The fact that evil exists in this world suggests that the God of classical theism does not exist, or that He lacks some of his essential attributes and characteristics. Evil exists and therefore contradicts the idea that He is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. If God was really all-loving then He would not want evil to exist as it causes pain and suffering. If God was really all-powerful He would powerful enough to stop the suffering and pain caused by evil. If God was really all-knowing then He would know that evil does exist in the world and would stop it, however this is not the case and it still exists. D.Z. Phillips in 'The Concept of Prayer' argued that the continuation of evil and suffering is not a demonstration of love from an omni-benevolent God, and that it is not justifiable to hurt someone to help them bring about goodness, which is what is argued by Christians. God is also said to have created everything, He is the Creator, therefore He would have created evil. The problem of evil makes it impossible to believe that both God exists and that He possesses the key qualities that He is said to have as they contradict each other significantly. Therefore it is easier to simply give up in the idea of God and so atheism is becoming a real alternative to religion
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview.
Science and faith are generally viewed as two topics that do not intermingle. However, Andy Crouch’s work, Delight in Creation, suggests that there is an approach to both faith and science that allows support of scientists in the church community. There is an approach that can regard science as a career that can reflect the nature of God.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
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 ...
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society is self-sufficient; therefore God is not needed for survival. Therefore how could he exist? The position that I will argue in this paper is the pessimistic idea of protest atheism.
...ferences and similarities as its predecessor atheism. Individuals and groups continue to assert their ideologies through their writings and critics continue to rebut these claims. As discussed, new atheism has shown evident different approaches in showing how religion has detrimental effects on society using events such as the many previous wars that have been initiated due to issues concerning religion. New atheism also addresses how these views and conceptions are forced upon children which highlight the significant developments of the ideas that have emerged since traditional atheistic times. By understanding how atheism and new atheism has developed and evolved, it can also be understood that there will be an endless and continuous arrivals of more diverse interpretations, approaches and goals of new atheism and issues revolving around religion in the future.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
Religion and science are complementary elements to our society. The notion that religion and science should not be merged together, does not mean neglecting to understand the parallel relation between these two concepts and will result in a better understanding of our surroundings. This will put an end to our scientific research and advancement because we will be relying on answers provided by religious books to answer our questions. If we don’t argue whether these answers are right or wrong, we would never have studied space stars or the universe or even our environment and earthly animals. These studies have always provided us with breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries that made our lives better.
The first reason focuses on the belief of faith. The following passage is taken from the Bible. It has excellent meaning because it shows that everyone has faith. Having faith is the first sign that shows everyone believes in a religion. There are two good definitions of religion. The first is belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. The second is a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The passage shows that everyone has an institutionalized system that has belief. The passage is as follows, ?Everyone believes in something. No one can endure the stress and cares of life without faith in God. Atheists cannot prove there is no God. Pantheists cannot prove that everything is God. Pragmatists cannot prove that what will count for them in the future is what works for them now. Nor can agnostics prove that it is impossible to know one way or the other. Faith is unavoidable, even if we chose to believe only in ourselves. What is to be decided is what evidence we think is pertinent, how we are going to interpret that evidence, and who or what we are willing to believe in.? (Luke 16:16)(4) The passage is great proof that there is a God. It shows that everyone has faith. Faith is a big aspect in religion. With every religion, there is likely to be a single holy being, a god.
Barbour, Ian G. Religion in an Age of Science. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. Print. (BL 240.2 .B368 1990)
Let’s start off by explaining what atheism is, it’s when you don’t believe in any form of an “Intelligent Creator” or God, as usually referred to as. The word atheism comes from the root word “theism”, which is when you believe in a God, or numerous Gods depending on the religion, and the prefix “a”, which means “not”. There are no set practices of atheism, or a set list of beliefs. To be an atheist you must believe what you would like and simply live your life without constraints based on what you believe is good or bad, not what you are told is good or bad. There is a constant debate against atheism from the theist side, because both sides’ arguments are polar opposites and each believes their side of the argument is 100% valid. I will state my view on some arguments, and clarify some common atheist stereotypes.
6. Bohdan R. Bociurkiw and John W. Strong, Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and
Ian Barbour introduced four models to establish the relationship between religion and science in his book, “Religion In An Age of Science”. This included the Conflict, Separation, Dialogue, and Integration models. The dialogue model in particular describes the methodological parallels that exist between the two paradigms. In this model, both science and religion are areas with significant knowledge of the unive...