Tübingen theology was extremely skeptical about Christianity, yet also promoted mysticism. Further, the school disregarded church history.1 Thus Ritschl’s theology would take a less extreme approach. He would reject mysticism on the grounds that theology must be firmly rooted in reality, particularly moral and ethical realities. On this basis he also rejected natural theology.2 Ritschl’s theology agreed with Kant’s philosophy to some extent. He agreed that the mind was limited to its experiences, but believed it could understand moral issues as they affected the individual.3 Thus everything was reduced to judgements of fact or value.
The Elimination of Natural Theology ABSTRACT: The dispute between fideists and rationalists seems intractable since those who argue for faith alone claim that they are offended by the use of reason in religion. The advocates of reason claim that they are equally offended by the appeal to faith. This dispute may be resolved by showing that those who rely on faith may be seen as engaging in an experiment of living, so they can become part of a rational experiment without having to alter their practice; in contrast, those who use reason to justify religion can be seen as addressing a spiritual need. From an evangelical point of view, it would be wrong to disparage the mathematician’s use of the mathematical proof of God’s existence (such as Gödel’s). Wittgensteinian objections to natural theology can be met by showing that the use of reason in religion is distinct from the general kind of philosophical speculation to which Wittgenstein rightly objected.
Religion is an explanation that comforts them. Other people find religion as a paralyzing element in the world, which holds back the cognitive development of people and the development of society. There are no certainties, except that there are no right or wrong views in terms of religious opinions, because every person has his or her own opinion. Works Cited Burke, T. Patrick. The Major Religions.
Evil and the God of Love, Revised Edition by John Hick, Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1978 p. 275. The Power of God, Readings on Omnipotence and Evil, Edited by Linwood Urban and Douglas N. Walton, New York, Oxford University Press, 1978 A Natural Theology for Our Time, Charles Hartshorne, La Salle, Ill. Open Court, 1967, pp. 116-20 God, Freedom, and Evil, Alvin Plantinga, New York, Harper and Row, 1974, pp. 39-57
Ed. George A. Panichas. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc. Publishers, 1967. 313-324. Hanna, Thomas L. “Albert Camus and the Christian Faith.” In Camus: A Collection of Critical Essays.
The considerations show that there is no simple answer to the question of the truth of religion in general or in particular. As it turns out the answer requires some relativizations, among others to the notion of truth and of religion. The notions of true religion and credibility of religion, though at first sight distinct, seem to condition each other. The notion of the truth of religion can be a valuable instrument of interpretation of religious phenomena not only in philosophy and theology of religion, but in the social sciences of religion too. Introductory remarks Justification of a religious point of view usually consists in attempts to prove that some particular religion is true.
von Balthasar, Hans Urs. The Theology of Karl Barth, Drury, John, trans., (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962). Weber, Otto. Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, Cochrane, Arthur C., trans., (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950).
Livingston, James C. Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1989. Print. Stankiewicz, Damien. "Anthropology And Fiction: An Interview With Amitav Ghosh."