Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.
He states, “It is only once we have denied all falsehoods resulting from the outside world that we can begin a new structure of logic based strictly on definite truths. In order for our foundation to be firm, we must find a point which is certain and this point is within ourselves.” (Design) Descartes wants us to question everything, except God, because knowledge we gain from others is not certain since we did not acquire it firsthand. Descartes argued we can trust God, because God gives us clear and distinct ideas and since God can be trusted, then so can these thoughts. Therefore, God must exist for this to be true. Descartes believes God exists because he is perfect and if he were not perfect then he would not exist.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
With these three components, Coyne defines religion. Now with this information, he dissects religion and tries to determine if religion looks for truth, similar to the field of science. In his findings he has concluded that theologians believe that the existence of God is indeed considered factual information. When pressed on this issue for evidence, many theologians claim that God cannot be described and is
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.
This idea of Barth is more persuasive because deriving the truth of theology from ontology or anthropology would mean that our knowledge of theology comes from human experience and not from the God himself. We cannot know about the God unless the God reveals it to us through Holy Spirit. Rahner also states that grace is a “constituent part” of our existence. But then Barth correctly states that if we have grace then why do we have to look beyond ourselves to Christ to know about sin and salvation. Barth is also more persuasive about the rejection of the idea of “anonymous Christianity”.
Hume On Empiricism The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that we do. We can most certainly make inferences based on causal reasoning, but these inferences have no proofs.
Transcendental arguments are therefore all but common sense. They are in no respect "realistic" or ontologically dependent. (2) Whoever wants to get familiar with transcendentalism — perhaps just in order to criticize one or several of its representatives — must overcome the threshold of open or covert realism and ordinary experience. One also has to avoid the common misunderstanding that transcendental reconstruction represents a form of idealism. So this kind of philosophy seems to be a fortiori charged to give a good deal of pedagogical help for its own sake.
In my thesis statement I offered the premise that when given to the criteria put forth by Pascal that a sincere decision about belief in God would be impossible. By sincere decision I mean a decision that you can evaluate and reevaluate against anything that claims the opposite and still be able to hold to it. If you have a belief based on a decision that stems from no evidence then you have nothing to evaluate it by, so that belief cannot be sincere, it is merely a blind ch... ... middle of paper ... ... of someone else. If you choose to change your actions, you will only change in a way that still lets you hold to your belief, a belief that has shown to be beneficial based on evidence not on some yet to be seen reward. To close this paper and stop the what could be a continuous rant against Pascal, it is pretty obvious that the issue of God, his existence, and whether or not we should believe will forever be a perennial issue.
Popperian hypothetico deductivists would find several problems with the view of science Alan Chalmers stated in ‘What is this thing Called Science?’ From “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge” to “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven” popper would disagree to everything. With Chalmers falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism view, his statement indicates that scientific induction is completely justifiable. However as it is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to prove or justify science. One of a few problems that hypothetico-deductivists would find in Chalmers statement is contained in the phrase, “Scientific theories in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by the observation and experiment.’’ Theories are never produced strictly, Popper would say, but firstly crafted through the thought and feeling of a scientist in their given field. This then discards the idea that theories are the result of facts and it then forwards the idea that a theory will be manipulated by individual people as they are no more than a personal concept with reason.