Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of science on religion
The effect of science on religion
Influence of culture on beliefs, values, and behaviors
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effect of science on religion
"Belief is the natural attitude of a thwarted mind" This quotation is from a rather outspoken mathematician named Scott Buchanan, who has studied the style of human thought right along with its mathematical accomplishments. It is meant to describe our style of thinking when approaching mathematics. Yet it seems to me that it has a larger meaning: that it applies to the human style of thought when approaching any problem. Buchanan is telling us that when we are confronted with a problem and a possible solution and we cannot find our way to the solution, we have a tendency to believe in the solution out of pure frustration, or perhaps just wishful thinking. As in: "that has to be it!" A similar thing will happen when we are confronted with multiple possible solutions and we cannot show one is true. We choose one, nearly arbitrarily, and believe in it. In a broader scope, this tendency to believe is present in people's beliefs in general.
There comes a point where the events of life force one to consider what one believes. Many people seem to simply "inherit" their beliefs and value systems, giving no more thought to it than that their parents were that way, no more explanation than "that's how I was taught". Other people seem to pick a set of beliefs, almost randomly, according to what "feels right". Still others seem to pick beliefs as if they were just a facet of their personalities, something to attract people. Finally, there are those who never really address the issue, who are standing right next to those who haven't decided.
Most people when questioned or challenged become rather fervent about their belief rather quickly if they weren't already, sometimes wandering into blatant hypocrisy. Somehow, while people talk freely and civilly about politics, when the discussion wanders into what one believes about life in general, people clam up. They become unwilling to discuss their ideas beyond giving you a general sense of what they are. Having chosen a solution to the ultimate problem, to the meaning and point of life, they bear down. Very few are willing to see the whole thing as unsolved, and some are so fervent as to die ( or kill ) for their belief.
This belief is here because it is 'natural'. It is a tendency to ignore other solutions in plain sight when the problem is too difficult, or to go with the one ( potentially inadequate ) solution seen.
The concept of belief perseverance (Myers, 82) can be found in the film, “12 Angry Men”. Throughout the film, the jury members discuss the verdict of a young, Mexican boy. It is essential to note that all twelve men serving on the jury are Caucasian. Somewhat because of the boy’s ethnicity, many of the jurors are initially in support of submitting a guilty verdict. This is made clear in the film when Juror #10 verbalizes what he ‘thinks’ is the opinion of the group; “Now, look - we're all grown-ups in here. We heard the facts, didn't we? You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I've lived among them all my life - you can't believe a word they say, you know that. I mean
So why are there times when people decide that one thing is right while not even looking at the other point of view? Personally, I believe that sometimes people aren't willing to accept a new viewpoint because it goes against everything they've learned. To a certain extent that is true, before Viney's lecture I had thought that the reason Copernicus and Galileo were challenging the church was because of their ideals. But it turns out that the reason they disagreed with the church was because of the authority and power that the church had over the people. The same can be seen in David Freedman's article "When Is a Planet Not a Planet", in which he discusses the reason why people want pluto to stay as a planet is because it has sentimental feelings for those that have learned it is a planet.
The Ontological Argument sets out to prove the existence of God, as defined by Anselm as ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’. Without this carefully phrased definition, there would be no argument, as the argument’s leap from imagination to reality occurs here, i.e. from God in the imagination to God in reality. This ‘leap’, or crossover, as presented in Anselm’s reductio ad absurdum argument, is where this essay will focus on most in raising possible objections and identifying any fallacies in the argument.
...ceived”. The idea of God not existing is not possible as mountains must have valleys. This conclusion is better explained through his line of argument that “the mind cannot conceive of perfection without also conceiving of existence”.
Existence being neither a predicate nor a perfection, it cannot be inferred from the concept of the most perfect being beyond its concept. Kant's critic...
often a moral issue and the choice to believe can be an emotional or instinctual one rather then an
The exegete of Holy Scripture in order to properly understand the full meaning of the passage must have a thorough knowledge of the background of the passage. It is important to know the author, intended readers and hearers, date, place of writing, occasion and purpose, and the literary genre of the passage. This paper will do all of these in a way that will give the reader a clear understanding of all that is necessary and important to know and understand about the background information on the epistle of James. Also, this paper will give an outline of James 4:1-10 , a paraphrase and exegetical notes on the passage.
...sented my Anslem. I believe it because o my personal beliefs and what I was taught as a child. So I do feel God exits in reality and that is one thing that makes him perfect. This is an issue that anyone can favor or against because it does deal with religion and god, and there is no way to really prove this. IT all depends on one person’s views and what they feel God is. Is he the best, that nothing can be better then him etc.? I don’t agree with the objection. I do feel that if something exist it is better then only an understating, like a painting. Before an artist draws a picture he or she has an imagine of it in his or her mind. Then he or she actually draws it so it now exists. I think that people would feel that the actually painting is better than just having the understanding of the concept of that image. So I think that existence is a perfection.
The argument to side with in this paper is that of Anselm’s “Proslogian” where he argues for the existence of God in a less complex way as compared to the Monologian. Inevitably, the Proslogian received criticism from other notable philosophers, some of which will be addressed in this paper as well. Once the fool understands that than which nothing greater can be thought, he will comprehend the existence of God. The divine attributes of God will also be discussed to aid in the fool’s understanding of God’s existence. The premises of the ontological argument are as follows:
Human beings' knowledge of goodness, reality, and truth will always be limited by our fear of new ideas and new perspectives. As long as we are afraid of questioning, we will be willing to "put to death" anyone who ascends and returns to the cave with the truth.
The factual nature of God (given that He exists as the First Cause) is at all times argued by most Christians. Moreover numerous questions arise on the nature of God. We all know that, at some point we will actually die; yet, we consistently refuse the causes operating within ourselves that looks into the real result of what comes after a person loses his or her life. It is far simpler for humankind to agree that, they will depart to a secure home in Heaven and will be pardoned all their sins by a supreme being, rather than to query on the existence of the extremely all-powerful being. Luckily, some of us usually query this existence and the development of humankind; in addition to, the spiritual lessons obtained from our mothers and fathers, community and religion. This essay investigates the two logical justifications for and against the nature of God; in accordance to opinions of some exceptional researchers and philosophers. Through two classical arguments for God; the ontological argument and the teleological argument, I will show that there is no adequate evidence or extensive justifications for the true nature of God.
For example, people think the only way out of life is through suicide and some people may think “that’s nuts dude.”
One of the decisions many high school students confront is what they want to pursue in life; some options are work, study at a university, or pursue a technical education. Some students chose to study at a university to explore different areas of studies to pursue. Every area of study has its own requirements in order to be successful in that area. In my personal career search, as many students experience, have the sometimes painful selection of what I want to do as an adult. It is that I have two professions that I would like to pursue, Architecture and Engineering. Many aspects may help select that career, including personal preferences, career path, employment rates, etc. The academic path of each one will be discussed as a reference point for a selection of a career.
Many theologies take/ give the existence of God a lot of importance due to their beliefs, and faith. However, some philosophers and theologians thought it is important that to demonstrate the existence of God to those who says that there is no God. The St. Anselm’s ontological Argument is a priori argument for the Existence of God. Anselm’s Ontological Argument had been known as the first Ontological Argument which had been proposed in 1078 by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Although Anselm didn’t gave his Ontological Argument a name immediately; however, the name Proslogium was given several centuries later by Kant. Anselm as a philosopher his aim on his ontological Argument is to refute the fools who say or who don’t believe in their heart there is a God. Anselm’s purposes on his argument are to prove that God’s exits by using philosophical logic and reason.