Religious language has until recently been taken as unequivocal, absolute truth, and to deny that its meaning is not completely true in all senses is a huge and brave step on the part of philosophy, as without language much of religion simply would not function. In the course of this essay I intend to examine and assess logical positivism, put forward by the Vienna Circle thinkers, which links in with verification. Then I will examine the criticisms and challenges to this argument, followed by its complete rejection by Wittgenstein, and then I will go on to falsification and its criticisms. The first argument for the idea that religious language is meaningless is logical positivism, a branch of philosophy that sprouted the idea of the verification principle. This idea first came about in the early work of Ludvig Wittgenstein, who put forward a picture the... ... middle of paper ... ... take part in are mutually exclusive, and finally non-believers may have a better view of religious language because they have an objective standpoint from which to view religion.
” This sums up what has been said about humans having moral objections to good and evil, evil distorting good reality and evils objective nature. This chapter urges the reader to think deeper about the creation of the universe and why there is so much evil in it, weather Christian, atheist or anything else you cannot deny the logical facts given that prove the existence of evil is just one more thing that points to the existence of God.
Descartes says, “To begin with, I acknowledge that it is impossible for God ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception are always indicative of some imperfection.”(30) Deception is seen as an imperfection. And since God is a perfect being, deception is not a part of Him. This is where I do not agree with Descartes’ knowledge and reason. I believe that God does have the power of deception and that God uses it. In this paper I will argue that God is not the perfect being that Descartes argues He is since there are instances in which God displays His deceitful tendencies.
Theism believes that God is the giver of all wisdom and knowledge, while modernism comes from a more selfish point of view that knowledge is gained by oneself, through reason and logic. Axiology has a deep way of separating theism and modernism, because it shows what the true values of the time are. C.S. Lewis speaks about the values and the misguidance of modernism by writing, “One cause of misery and vice is always present with us in the greed and pride of men, but at certain periods in history this greatly increased by the temporary prevalence of some false philosophy”(Lewis 163). Modernisms view is about raising the status of ones self and envy what others have.
The idea of holiness seems intimidating or fearful to us. We feel it as a duty rather than a privilege. Too often, if we're honest with ourselves, our emotional gut-reaction is that we want to sin, but we're prepared to do God a favour and withhold that pleasure from ourselves. Yet the bible talks as though it expects us to be holy as a matter of course. In fact, it says that we are holy - it says that's our identity, and it seems to take it for granted that it's also how we'll behave: it says we are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God.
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. According to the ontological argument, God usually represents one superior, sacred, all-powerful being, the heavenly oneness of greatest truth and spiritual benefits. St. Anselm of Canterbury designed the ontological argument by saying that, even a dupe can comprehend or appreciate the concept of an all-powerful being of which nothing superior can be created.
In some sections of Christendom, it has been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be received without any attempt at all to establish its rationality and intrinsic necessity. In this case, the tenets of eternal generation and procession have been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data, and if not positively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assist faith in three divine persons and one God. But the history of opinions shows that such sections of the church have not proved to be the strongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the most successful in keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departure from it.
Humans are capable of sensing the divine and spiritual presence through the Numinous. The Numinous is a mixed feeling of awe and dread and distinct from fear. Lewis states that there are two possible views of Numinous. The first is that it is simply in the mind and serves no biological function; yet will not disa... ... middle of paper ... ...ainst the traditional and historical interpretations of the scriptures in the Bible. In addition, in becomes apparent early on in his book that Lewis does not believe the Adam and Eve story can be taken seriously by his audience at a literal level in a Darwinian age.
Somehow, by the Grace of God, I find myself with the only, single true hope, a nonsensical faith, a belief I cannot prove with mortal things, a book that turns a hopeless, droll, frustrating world into a beautiful, hopeful, droll, frustrating world where smallest intricacies and biggest setbacks bring joy alike. Did I say my faith makes no sense? I was right. No sane person in his wrong mind would agree to a divine Creator, Revealer, Saviour, Lord, and Friend. Unfortunately, human depravity ensures sane human wrong-mindedness.
Free Will and Personal Responsibility in Faustus It can be argued that Doctor Faustus is damned from the moment of conception. His innate desire for knowledge inevitably leads to his downfall. He represents the common human dissatisfaction with being human and the struggle of accepting our lack of omnipotence and omniscience. Marlowe manipulates this struggle between the aspirations of one character of his time and the implications to Christianity in relation to its doctrine of heaven and hell. Indeed, Doctor Faustus asks for more than what was intentionally made available to him through God's plan, yet it was God's gift to him of his intellect, that tempted him to search beyond his appointed realm of knowledge.