He tells how some will recognize... ... middle of paper ... ...in things, I do think it is safe to say that they are both Christians. Although, without question St. Augustine is more in touch with his faith, he seems to be less in touch with politics. Machiavelli on the other hand does not separate man from what he sees to be his natural state of morality but uses it to the advantage of politics. When discussing Moses and his helping the Israelites escape to the promise land, Machiavelli mentions the miracles of Christ and states that God has done his part and it is time for humans to do theirs. This leads me to think that he believes politics should not lack God but work in conjunction with him.
In his wager, Pascal states that a rational person would surely choose the option to believe in God. Why would someone not prefer the option that would benefit you in the end ev... ... middle of paper ... ... this religion may not be proven reasonable, but it cannot be deemed unreasonable either. Nevertheless, Pascal’s statement “The Christian God exists or else he does not exist” is in its self a tautology. As a final point, in my opinion one can distinguish what Pascal’s choice appears to be between Christian faith and atheism. I do notice that he attempts to see things from both sides.
Yes, they may not have a steady religion. Re... ... middle of paper ... ...n faith that faith is better then religion that if you have faith you will get into heaven. You dont have to claim a religion on your death bed. You dont have to fall into the flaws of religion. Works Cited Why is Faith So Important?” Nancy Missler “The differences between religion and faith” Carrie Fleharty < http://www.helium.com/items/464006-the-differences-between-religion-and-faith> What is important about religion?
Aquinas goes on to answer that challenge that, if philosophy based on Christianity is a science, it is a lesser science because it is less certain of its conclusions, having accepted them on faith. Aquinas responds to this argument in two parts. First, he argues that God’s revelation is more certain then what seems self-evident to humans because God, unlike humans, is omniscient. The only reason it seems less certain is because fully comprehending God’s level of certainty is beyond human abilities. Aquinas’s second response is that Sacred Doctrine deals with more important subject matter then other sciences and is therefore more important.
If people truly believe that God is the way to Heaven and eternal happiness then fear of rejection will be inevitable. And though the humanistic conscience may be ‘healthier’ for Fromm, it merely helps us to achieve our own aims, not those of God, and so is essentially selfish and wrong. Therefore, Fromm’s biggest strength is that he manages to describe religion through psychology without critiquing it to a major extent, almost managing to build a bridge between the two schools of though on what the conscience is, why it’s there, and how it works.
Although this inherent difference in the two systems of morality seems to oppose them to one another, the difference between them has actually helped meld them together to form our modern view of happiness. We need both views: that wicked means will corrupt even the best ends, and that good ends can justify any means. In fact, there are stories in each text that describe a man who finds happiness through God, or "the Good," ... ... middle of paper ... ...e which cannot be taken away; second, according to Genesis, because we have been given happiness by communion with a God who is ever present. Although not everyone considered to be a member of Western society holds these views on happiness, one can see these two roots in our construct of happiness. In our very American constitution, we acknowledge our inalienable right to the "pursuit of happiness."
While Voltaire respected and saw value in Christianity, in Treatise on Tolerance, he challenged Christians to embrace love and equality instead of judgment and rituals. Voltaire’s evident belief in God in Treatise on Tolerance was one way that he treated religion seriously. If Voltaire thought religion was a joke, then he would not have admitted to believing in the existence of God. In the document, he often talked about God using plural first person. He referred to God as, “our Creator and Father” (HR, p. 161).
The allies’ model tends to agree with the spies model that good psychology can be found in religion, but it also rejects that religion is only valuable as a vehicle to express psychological truth and psychological benefits (Entwistle, 2010). Entwistle ended this book by putting us on the right path to a better understanding of the integrated approaches to Psychology and
This view, again, realizes the possibility that the Church is not living or creating friendship, stewardship, or fellowship between their members, selves or others leading to a failure to live as Lewis maps out: Christ came to restore harmony that would heal disunion between self, neighbor and God. As mentioned above this was the time of modern and post-modern thinks, from Nietzsche finally to Rorty, revolutionizing the mindsets of past decades. Understood because the premises are now true therefore the argument can not only be valid but sound as described in notes.
Pascal says that the choice is between several sets of human qualities or characteristics: the true vs. the good, reason vs. will, knowledge vs. happiness, and error vs. misery. He theorizes that the believer who turns out to be correct in his belief will have true good, agreement with rea... ... middle of paper ... ... of belief that have been created around the deity by humans. Even if there is a God and belief in Him is founded, there is no way to know if He will or will not bestow rewards upon His followers. Pascal’s theory would make sense if it were based on anything other than religion. Theology depends more on personal motivations than a desire for some unknown reward that may or may not exist.