Kierkegaard warns us not to fall into a trap. To understand faith, one must abandon rationality. This is not a negative, he is not asking for blind, unquestioning acceptance. Instead he is asking for a ‘leap of faith’. Doing this and having faith is the truest faith.
The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument. Actually, McCloskey’s failure to analyze the ontological argument is one of the reasons why he failed to understand the theists’ arguments. The diversity of religious beliefs scattered in the world is not aiding the theistic endeavor. It has further complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article.
In chapter three in the ‘Proslogion’, Anselm contributes his second form to the argument. This form of the argument is that of ‘necessary existence’. He says that "that than which can be thought not to exist is not as great as that which cannot be thought not to exist." Therefore, to say that God can be thought not to exist if the definition of God... ... middle of paper ... ...elm’s first form of the argument and indirectly also demolishes the argument on the ‘necessary existence’ though his criticism. He criticises and successfully attacks the Cartesian version that in order for there to be a ‘supreme being’, existence must be predicate of God (the supreme being).
Firstly, Descartes made the mistake of supporting a conclusion with premises that can only be true if the conclusion was a premise for the other premises that were supporting it. To clarify, Descartes basically stated that the clarity of his reasoning and perceptions are only possible through the existence of a non-deceiving God and that the non-deceiving God can only be proved through the clear reasoning and perceptions that the non-deceiving God bestowed upon him (51, 52). This is clearly a... ... middle of paper ... ...he Soul and the existence of God are not only unreliable but weak and inconsistent. Descartes fell victim to a circular argument concerning where the ability for humans to clearly perceive and reason, mistakenly tried to reconcile science and religion in terms of mind/body dualism, and he rejected all empirical knowledge. The philosophy of Descartes possibly had good intentions but failed time and again.
Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm would not agree that God is the unknown. They would however agree that reason couldn't comprehend God. Both would argue that we can say some things with certainty about God, using reason. On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence.
Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless. This is why I believe that if god`s existence cannot be proven there shouldn’t be any arguments stating that this spirit is the one who controls everything. Lastly, since it`s impossible to prove god`s existence, Berkeley`s response fails to skepticism even if he`s completely right when he says that everything is an idea.
The principal challenge he has in mind is the claim that Socrates' question in the Euthyphro-whether the gods love what is good because it is good, or whether what they love is good merely because they love it- cannot be answered. The main point of the chapter is not that theists are better people than atheists. It is concluded that theists do not agree to abandon their belief that theism is relevant to moral beliefs and actions. Meynell... ... middle of paper ... ...stressing is Meynell's apparently blithe ignorance of the best recent constructive work by Christian philosophers on topics of central concern to him. In addition to those I mentioned in the first paragraph of this review, Meynell should take some account of the work of such as Robert Adams, Bill Wainwright, and Bill Alston.
If Christianity and Schopenhaur are based on denying life ... ... middle of paper ... ...itique is that he views religion from the outside, so doesn't this make it a one-sided story? But obviously Nietzsche will think that his critique is one-sided. He is a perspectivist. Why is a view from outside any less valid than a view from inside? Is the ladder of religious cruelty a complete account of religious development.
Henry of Ghent attempts to persuade us that skepticism is impossible and that we can have knowledge. He states that some propositions are shown to always be true due to how humans act and as thus they defeat skepticism. The Skeptics disagree with Henry’s argument since they believe that we have no way of verifying truth. Thus the Skeptics state that we can act through beliefs alone. Henry’s argument is ultimately defeated on this point since it does not give a definitive way of truth verification, and thus allows for Skeptics to argue that they act solely on belief.
My view of these arguments and the Ontological argument as a whole is that it is a weak argument. If I had to choose sides between Anselm or Gaunilo and Kant I think I would choose Gaunilo and Kant because they do a better job of arguing their point. If I were questioning the existence of God and had Anselm’s argument to read and then Kant’s to read I would probably end up ton believing that God existed. One reason being that you cannot understand Anselm’s argument and two he does not prove anything but the fact that God is a supreme being than which no greater can be conceived. It is because of this why I believe the Ontological argument to be a bad way to prove God to anyone.