Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the customs of the amerindians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the customs of the amerindians
Evolution of Paradigm Christianity and the Discovery of the Individual
"I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this, he has no further need of God."
~ Blaise Pascal, Pensées, number 77
"Cosmology itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer . . . other teaching about the origin of and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven."
~ Pope John Paul II, Address to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.
The discovery of the New World and especially the people inhabiting it was very dangerous to the Christian Church in the sense that it pointed out falsities in a paradigm to which people held great loyalty for its antiquital and divine authority.
Humans are opposed to change, for at each moment in history, we like to think our paradigms for the universe and the heavens hold the absolute good and truth. It comes down to a question of pride. In order to change a paradigm, we have to admit that the previous paradigm was wrong; The longer it has been in place, the harder this is. Like a lie, the longer it is maintained the harder it is to tell the truth, for longevity requires investment of...
... middle of paper ...
...cartes would have said according to Pascal, all God did, was put a fillip in things to get them going. Look at all that came of it; it is amazing. Before humans had an understanding of how the universe arrived at its current state, they could see that it was divinely inspired and turned to God for explanation.
Yes, God set things in motion and has the power to pull the plug. But that is as far as God goes in that sense of things—beginning and end, and . The human spirit is defining everything in-between. God gives each one of us life of which we can see the end and gives us guidelines for the middle. Hopefully we add something to the big LIFE in which the human spirit exists during our human incarnate life. To be part of that power after life-as-we-know-it, is where religion's moral side applies. We want to live accordance with God to this end.
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
Various commentators have proposed that Descartes was really an atheist, and that he includes the arguments for the existence of God as window dressing. While this is not impossible, the frequent appeal to God in philosophical contexts, both in private letters and in published work, suggests that it is rather unlikely.
With the “Design Argument” in Meditations on First Philosophy to ignite his proclamation of the topic of free will, Descartes summons free will is given entirely through the creator, God. With his robust belief of God, Descartes concludes free will attributes to God’s creation of a person. Descartes announces, “I make mistakes because the faculty of judging the truth, which I got from God, is not, in my case infinite” (54-55, Meditations). Descartes believes errors of judgment are given to him from God, but in the end the choice is up to no one but himself. He takes full responsibility for his de...
The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages played an all encompassing role over the lives of the people and the government. As the Dark Ages came to a close the ideas of the Renaissance started to take hold, and the church's power gradually began to wain. The monarchies of Europe also began to grow, replacing the church's power. Monarchies, at the close of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, did not so much seek the guidance of the church as much as it sought their approval. However, the Church during the Age of Discovery was still a major influence. The discovery of the New World and its previously unknown inhabitants presented new problems in the Catholic Church in the late 14th and early 15th century. When Spain's rulers and emissaries decided to physically conquer and populate the New World, and not just trade with it, the transplantation of Christian institutions followed.
Next, in the fourth meditation, which leads into Descartes’ thoughts on himself in God’s view. It is important to compare to the third meditation. A second point of view of not just an idea, but now Descartes himself. He asks why a perfect being such as God does not make a perfect being like Descartes himself. He questions why he is not perfect in that sense. Then he explains, it would take much arrogance to question the motives of God. Not only that, but it just simply cannot be comprehended. He rejects the trial, and simply believes; since he himself is not perfect, the idea as a whole may be. He is just a part of the “big picture.” He then concludes he should only make judgements on what he is certain of.
Through the close study of two of the aspects shown in the diagram, their contributions allow Christianity to be considered a living religious tradition. The significant contributions of Pope John XXIII, during both his papal and Pre-papal life have had everlasting effects on not only Catholicism, but Christianity as a whole and lead to the sense of Christianity being a living religious tradition. His works include two Papal encyclicals, Mater et Magistra and Pacem in Terris, along with his work being Apostolic Delegate of Greece and Turkey. Moreover, The significant practice of Baptism has further contributed to Christian being considered a living religious tradition as it accounts for the premise of most Christian beliefs to be initiated, especially in terms of salvation and affirming the beliefs in the trinity and following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
This paper is intended to explain and evaluate Descartes' proof for the existence of god in Meditation Three. It shall show the weaknesses in the proof, but also give credit to the strengths in his proof. It will give a background of what Descartes has already accepted as what he truly knows. The paper will also state Descartes two major points for the existence of God and why the points can easily be proven false. The paper will also show that if a God does exist that God can in fact be an evil deceiver. The paper will also show that the idea of a perfect being cannot be conceived by an imperfect being.
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
The rise of Christianity in western civilization is arguably among the most important memories in history. There is no denying what the spread of Christianity has done for the world, for better or worse. Its impact on western civilizations is unrivaled and unprecedented. Christianity slowly became something for many individuals to turn to; in times of hurt its provided comfort, in times of pleasure it has given thanks. The will and belief for salvation has driven individuals to be better, and to have a reference while in need. The rise of Christianity more than 2000 years ago provided necessary building blocks for the future. Without Christianity there would be no cathedrals, no monasteries, no music from one Johann Sebastian Bach, no paintings from Michelangelo, nor no philosophy from Saint Augustine (Backman 205). There are countless times in history, whether good or bad, that can be credited to
Descartes’ attempts to extricate himself from his sceptical doubts of the meditations had a varying degree of success, his doubt of his own existence was well surmounted with the indubitable ‘cogito’ argument. The second of his doubts, that of the existence of God was not extricated as successfully with the unconvincing trademark argument and the out of date ontological argument. Descartes then went on to tackling his doubt regarding the existence of the external world, which was done well but was based on the shady proofs for the existence of God. Descartes may not have proven the existence of God or the existence of the external world however he did produce a new style of philosophy in which he attempted to base all of his epistemological knowledge (or beliefs) on a single indubitable premise, this style of philosophy now known as foundationalism has been and is still used by philosophers today at great credit to Descartes, Rene Descartes proved himself within this book to be the father of modern philosophy.
Descartes argues that we can know the external world because of God, and God is not a deceiver. Descartes’ core foundation for understanding what is important comes from three points: our thoughts about the world and the things in it could be deceptive, our power of reasoning has found ideas that are indubitable, and certainty come by way of reasoning. Once we have a certainty of God, and ourselves then we are easily able to distinguish reality from dreams, and so on. God created us and gave us reason, which tells us that our ideas of the external world come from God. God has directly provided us with the idea of the external world. The concept of existence, the self, and doubt could not have existed on its own; therefore they had to be created by someone to have put them in our mind. That creator is God, who is omnipotent and perfect. God is not a deceiver to me; God is good, so therefore what I perceive really does exist. God without existence is like a mountain without a valley. A valley does not exist if there is no mountain, and vice versa a mountain is not a mountain with out a valley. We cannot believe or think of God without existence. We know the idea of God, and that idea inevitably contains his existence. My thought on god is clear and distinct that he is existent. Descartes’ now has ‘rebuilt’ the world, solely because of his power and reasoning. Descartes’ is only able...
Contradiction is the nature of the society. If there is a religion, there will be those who do not believe. If there is a war, there will be those that want peace. If there is a political movement, there will be those that disagree. Humans are bound to go against their own believes, their own strategies, and their own establishments. Nothing is forever. History portrays people going against the accepted ideologies. It shows the everlasting change of the society. First, they thought that God was the explanation to everything. A century later, they started doubting the Bible. The period of Enlightenment embraced rationality. People believed that they could explain anything, either through science or through religion. They believed in the capability of their own specie. In 19th and 20th century, that stable rationality of the human beings was rejected. The phrase "man is a rational animal" turned into "man is weak and inconsistent." One would agree that the abandonment of the confident human rationality in the 19th and 20th century would be best pictured through psychology and biology.
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.
Everyone in this world have their own culture and ideas of how the world should be. They have things that have been in their customs for years or even thousands of years. These things are supposed to “keep us united.”(Bansal) But what happens when our own cultures and ideas get challenged by new things that represent change. People start to get chaotic and immediately start to reject something that they do not want to give it a try or does not seem right to them. Modernism is “a rational interpretation of religious, social and economic institutions and phenomena.” (Singh) Meaning, giving it the chance to thrive in a society where the culture and in the beliefs are different. But were there’s change, people are always going to oppose it and will cause an argument, leading to disputes, debates or even wars. But can change be bad or good in the lives of people. How come change has become a symbol of chaos? Why are people scared by change?